Impact Job Stress On Performance Among Administration Employee At Bina Darma University Palembang
Dina Mellita
Abstrak
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan pengaruh stress kerja terhadap Prestasi Kerja pegawai administrasi Universitas Bina Darma Palembang. Indikator variabel stress kerja pada penelitian ini adalah beban kerja (workload), konflik peran (role conflict), ambiguitas peran(role ambiguity) dan tekanan prestasi (pressure performance). Dengan menggunakan metode statistik deskriptif melalui mean, standar deviasi dan uji t, pegawai administrasi Universitas Bina Darma memiliki masalah pada role conflict (konflik peran) yaitu adanya ketidaksesuaian antar pegawai administrasi dalam memahami tugas dan wewenangnya. Dari hari regresi, terlihat stress kerja memiliki pengaruh negatif terhadap prestasi kerja karyawan. Untuk itu peran pihak manajemen sangat diperlukan untuk mengadakan program-progam untuk mengelola stress kerja yang dihadapi pekerjanya.
Kata kunci: stress kerja, role conflict, role overload, lack of supervisory
A. Introduction
The higher education in Palembang has increase tremendously for the past few years. Almost higher education are now setting new goal to compete with other universities as well as their academic are involving with the organization goal. Due to competitive pressure from other higher education, Bina Darma University (BDU) force the management, academic staff especially administrtion employee to enhance their service quality. In this department, the staff facing competitive pressure to handle the customer (student) needs to meet the university goal. This may causes the university administration staffs to face plenty of stress and therefore affect their satisfaction and even their physical or mental health.
From the perspective of jobplace, the job-related stress can be defined as the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them at work (HSE, 2008). According to NIOSH (1999), the job stress can be defined as the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker.
Jobplace, Workplace stress or stress is not necessarily a negative phenomenon and it would therefore be a mistake to concentrate only on its pathological effects (ILO, 2001). In fact, the stress is a normal affair in life (Ahmad Shukri, 2007). Therefore, a moderate level of stress is necessary to be an important motivated factor for individuals, and without some pressures, life would become boring and without purpose (Ornelas, 2003). Besides, a moderate level of stress can be instrumental in achieving a dynamic adaptation to new situations (ILO, 2001). However, stress has a very high cost for individuals, companies and organizations if the stress is gradually increased (ILO, 2001).
Several authors attributes the lack of progress in the ares of stress research in organizations to the fact that stress seemed to be related to such a large number of conditions which prevented a systemic focus. (5). Beehr used a very general definitions in which anthing about an organizational role that produces adverses consequences for individual’s was called role stress. They proceeded to the conclusion that a condition termed role overload was viable and this correlated positively with job stress.(6) Stress indicator related to role ambiguity in the study indicated low motivation to work.(7).
Job Performance is defined as the outcomes and accomplishments valued by the organization or system that one works in. Each individual is exposed to a range of stressors both at work and in their personal lives which ultimately affect his or her performance. Pressure at work can be positive leading to increased productivity. However, when this pressure becomes excessive it has a negative impact. The individual perceive themselves as being unable to cope and not to possess the necessary skills to combat their stress. Stress is acknowledged to be one of the main causes of absence from work (Mead, 2000). The occupational stressors can be categorized into four major groups. Firstly, the working conditions, including shift and week-end work, inadequate remuneration, hours of work, discrimination and safety at the work environment. Secondly, relationships at work including quality of relationships with peers, subordinates and supervisors. Thirdly, role conflict and ambiguity including ill-defined role, functions, expectations, and duties. Fourthly, organization structure and climate which includes communication policy and practice, major changes in the workplace, culture of the organization, and lack of participation in decision-making. Another cause is career development including under utilization of skills or failing to reach full potential. Another contributing factor is the nature of the job which might amount to an immense amount of physical and emotional exhaustion (Parikh & Taukari, 2004).
The main objective of this research is to identify role of different contributing factors of job stress and to investigate level of stress on those factors among administration employee at Bina Darma University Palembang. And also to find the effect of job stress to job performance. There are different factors of job stress i.e. workload, role conflict, role ambiguity and performance pressure.
B. Literature Review
Definition of Job Stress
Stress has been defined in different ways over years. Originally, it was conceived as pressure from the environment, then as strain within the person. The generally accepted definition today is one of the interactions between the sistuation and the individual. It is the psychological and physical state that result when the resources of the individual are not sufficient to cope with the demands and pressures of the situation. Thus, stress is more likely in some situation than others in some individual than others (Michie, 2002).
Job (Occupational, work or workplace) stress has become one of the most serious health issues in the modern world (Lu et al., 2003, 479), as it occurs in any job and is even more present than decades ago. Namely, the world of work differs considerably from the working environment of 30 years ago: longer hours at work are not unusual, frequent changes in culture and structure are often cited, as well as the loss of lifetime career paths (Cooper & Locke, 2000 in Fotinatos-Ventouratos & Cooper 2005), which all leads to greater presence and levels of stress.
Job stress, in particular, is the inability to cope with the pressures in a job (Rees, 1997), because of a poor fit between someone’s abilities and his/her work requirements and conditions (Holmlund-Rytkönen & Strandvik, 2005). It is a mental and physical condition which affects an individual’s productivity, effectiveness, personal health and quality of work (Comish & Swindle, 1994, 26).
Main components of the work-stress process are potential sources of stress (stressors), factors of individual differences (moderators/mediators), and consequences of stress (strain) (Lu et al., 2003, 481), as figure 1 reveals. Stressors (job-related and extra-organizational) are objective events, stress is the subjective experience of the event, and strain is the poor response to stress. Accordingly, the nature and effects of stress might be best understood by saying that some environmental variables (stressors), when interpreted by the individual (cognitive interpretation), may lead to stress (Dua, 1994, 59).
Figure 1
A Model of Stress At Work
|
|
|
The Individual Level of anxiety Level of neuroticism Tolerance for ambiguity Type A A behavioral pattern |
|
Diastolic Blood Pressure Cholesterole Level Heart rate Smoking Depresive mood Escapist drinking Job satisfaction Reduced aspiration,etc |
|
Individual Chracteristic |
|
Symptoms of occupational ill health |
|
Disease |
|
Extra-Organizational Source of Stress Family Problem Life Crises Financial Difficulties,etc |
|
Coronary heart disease |
|
Mental ill health |
Source: Cooper, C.L., Marshall, J (1976) Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health, Journal of Occupational psychology, vol. 49, No. 1, pp.12
Sources of Job Stress
Among life situations, the workplace stands out as a potentially important source of stress purely because of the amount of time that is spent in this setting (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2006, 287). Over the years, a large number of workplace stressors of varying degrees of gravity have been identified.
Table 1
Previous Studies on Sources of Job Stress
|
Hurrel et.al (1988 in Murphy, 1995) |
Burke (1988 in Lu et. al 2003) |
Copper et.al (1988 in Lu et.al 2003) |
Antoniou et al. (2006) |
|
1) Organizational practices (performance reward systems, supervisory practices, promotion opportunities) 2) Job/task features (workload, workpace, autonomy) 3) Organizational culture/climate (employee value, personal growth, integrity) 4) Interpersonal relationships (supervisors, coworkers, customers), and 5) Employee personal characteristics (personality traits, family relationships, coping skills).
|
1) Physical environment 2) Role stressors, 3) Organizational structure and job characteristics, 4) Relationships with others, 5) Career development, and 6) Work-family conflict,
|
1) Factors intrinsic to the job, 2) Management role, 3) Relationship with others, 4) Career and achievement, 5) Organizational structure and climate, and 6) Home/work interface. More simply,
|
1) Exogenous (i.e. unfavorable occupational conditions, excessive workload, lack of collaboration, etc.) 2) Endogenous pressures (i.e. individual personality characteristics, etc.).
|
Compiled using: Cooper & Marshall (1976); Burke (1988) in Lu et al. (2003); Chusmir & Franks (1988); Hurrell et al. (1988) in Murphy (1995); Jamal (1990) in Montgomery et al. (1996); McHugh (1993); Dua (1994); Fulcheri et al. (1995); Murphy (1995); Blake et al. (1996); Montgomery et al. (1996); Rees (1997); Schabracq & Cooper (2000); Antoniou et al. (2006)
When we add the complexity and turbulence of contemporary business environment and organizational life, altogether, causes of occupational stress can be grouped into two main groups: (1) jobrelated stressors, with three major subgroups – environment specific, organization specific, and job specific stressors, and (2) individual-related stressors, which can be either a consequence of individual characteristics or a consequence of individual life circumstances.
Link Between Job Stress and Job Perfomance
Job performance is the result of three factors working together: skill, effort and the nature of work conditions (Levey, 2001). Skill include knowledge, abilities and competencies the employee brings to the job: effort is the degree of motivation the employee put forth toward getting the job done; and the nature of work conditions is the degree of accommodation of these conditions in facilitating the employee’s productivity.
Several studies have tried to determine the link between stress and job performance. Job satisfaction and job performance are the two main focuses in human resource management researches. Jamal examined a relationship between job stress and job performance among managers and blue-colla workers. Job stress is defined as individual’s reactions to th characteristics of the work environment that appear threatening to them. Four types of relationship are proposed between job stress and performance:
1. Curvilinear/U-shaped
2. Negative linear,
3. Positive linear, and
4. No relationship between the stess and performance.
A random sample of 283 blue-collar and 227 managerial workers in a large eastern Canadian firm are surveyed in questionnaires. Measurement is made of variables relating to job stress, job performance, and organizational commitment. Result show a primarily negative linear relationship between job stress and measures of job performance.Limited support is seen for curvilinear or no relationship. No support is found fo positive.(16).
Meanwhile, Kazmi Rubina (2007) investigate the effect of job stress on job performance among medical house officers of district abbottabad. The data obtained through questionnaire was analyzed using the statistical methods including descriptive statistics, Spearman’s correlation and multiple regression. The result showed strong support for the hypothesis that there is an inverse relationship between job stress and job performance indicating that there is high job stress in the house officers, resulting in low job performance.
Their study also conclude that correct stress management should start from improved health and good intrapersonal relationships. The prevention and management of workplace stress requires organizational level interventions, because it is the organization that creates the stress. Success in managing and preventing stress will depend on the culture in the organization. A culture of openness and understanding, rather than of criticism, is essential. Those house officers who had high level of job stress had low job performance. All the factors affected male house officers more than the female house officers.
Chen et.al (2006) summarize consequences of job stress on the organizational level grouped into two major subgroups:
1) Organizational symptoms – such as discontent and poor morale among the workforce, performance/productivity losses, low quality products and services, poorer relationships with clients, suppliers, partners and regulatory authorities, losing customers, bad publicity, damage to the corporate image and reputation, missed opportunities, disruption to production, high accident and mistakes rates,high labor turnover, loss of valuable staff, increased sick-leave, permanent vacancies, premature retirement, diminished cooperation, poor internal communications, more internal conflicts, and dysfunctional workplace climate.
2) Organizational costs – such as costs of reduced performance/productivity (lack of added value to product and/or service), high replacement costs in connection with labor turnover (increase in recruitment, training and retraining costs), increased sick pay, increased health-care costs and disability payments, higher grievance and litigation/compensation costs, and costs of equipment damage.
As evident from the above, consequences of occupational stress, both on individual and organizational level, are a real cost to organizations. Because of its significant economic implications, stress is not only a huge burden (Ben-Bakr et al., 1995), but one of the fastest growing concerns to contemporary organizations, especially given the high levels of competition and environmental turbulence, which do not allow organizations to bear costs such as those caused by stress (McHugh, 1993).
However, costs which are a consequence of stress are hardly ever assessed or calculated either in human or financial terms. Despite the apparent need for measuring costs of stress, it seems that to date relatively limited number of organizations estimated those enormous indirect costs.
Finally, it is important to stress that contrary to popular belief, stress can be associated with both pleasant and unpleasant events, and only becomes problematic when it remains unresolved (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2006, 287). In other words, one could argue that not all stress is dysfunctional and that, in fact, stress is not inherently bad, while a limited amount of stress combined with appropriate responses actually can benefit both the individual and the organization (Chusmir & Franks, 1988, 70). Namely, as low and high stress predict poor performance, and moderate stress predicts maximum performance (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908 in Sharpley et al., 1996), the total elimination of stress should not be aimed at.
C. Method Of Study
Sample
A survey instrument in the form of close-ended questionnaire was developed for the purpose of collecting the main data for the study. This study was conducted in a Bina Darma University Palembang. Using the non-probability sampling technique, a total of 42 respondents were selected as a sample of the study from that university. The respondents is administration employee BDU. The actual field survey was conducted over a period one month whereby personal interviews were employed to obtain the required information from the respondents. The reasons of using the personal interview are threefold. Firstly, it allows the interviewer to screen the eligibility of the respondents. Secondly, it also allows a closer supervision and better interaction between the interviewer and respondents in answering the questionnaire. Lastly, the interviewer was able to assist the respondents when they found difficulty in understanding any of the questions in the questionnaire.
The participants were 73.81% female and 26.11% male with mean age of 26 years. Most of them were married ( 35 respondent or 83.33%) and only 7 are single. The average experience of the participants in their present profession was 4.3 years.
Instrument Development
This instrument used in this study is composed of 3 parts. The first part deals with number of demographic questions such as gender, age, marital status, race, and education.
Part 2 includes job stress. Job stress is measured by “Job Stress Questionnaire, JSQ” proposed by Caplan et al. (1975) and Sahu and Gole (2008). This scale included four dimensions from Caplan et al (1975), which are workload, role conflict, role ambiguity and performance pressure which comprised thirteen items. Each of job stressors was measured on a six-point Likert Scale.
Consequently, part 3 conducted job performance which is measured Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith et al., 1969), a reliable facet measure over time (Kinicki et al., 2002), applicable across a variety of demographic groups (Golembiewski and Yeager, 1978; Jung et al., 1986) and measured on a six point scale wit least satisfied (1) to very satisfied (6).
Prosedur and Statistical Methods
The obtained data is analyzed through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15. The statistical methods involved those of descriptive statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation) for the predictors of Independent Variables of Stress and & inferential statistics (Pearson Correlation & Simple Regression) for the predictors of Dependent Variables of Stress.
D. Result
This section examines result of the study, which are analyses using dscriptive and inferential statistics. Table 2 below shows the mean values of factors that contributed to stress among administration employee. Role conflict was identified as the major factors causing stress having mean values 18.27 respectively..
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Employee on Job Stress Scale
|
Factors |
N |
Mean |
SD |
|
Workload |
42 |
7.43 |
2.93 |
|
Role Conflict |
42 |
18.27 |
3.06 |
|
Role Ambiguity |
42 |
11.06 |
4.95 |
|
Performance Pressure |
42 |
9.85 |
3.10 |
Source: data processed by researcher
** Indicates significance at 0,01 level
According to matrix in table 3 below, The columns of Role Conflict, Role ambiguity, Performance pressure presented strongly negative connections with all dimensions of job performance. From the table it is clear that there is strog negative correlation between role conflict with all the dimensions of job performance. It is have been found that role conflict has strong negative correlation with knowledge, skill, attitude and overall job performance and this correlation is significant at the significant level of 0.05 respectively using two tailed test.
Table 3
The Correlation between Job Stress on Job Performance (Spearman’s Correlation)
|
|
Workload |
Role Conflict |
Role Ambiguity |
Performance Pressure |
Overall Job Stress |
|
Knowledge |
0.063 |
-0.392 |
-0.283 |
-0.541 |
-0.639 |
|
Skills |
-0.326 |
-0.328 |
-0.370 |
-0.485 |
-0.781 |
|
Attitude/Job Enthusiasm |
-0.125 |
-0,581 |
-0.460 |
-0,511 |
-0.511
|
|
Effectiveness/Job Quality |
-0.418 |
-0.616 |
-0.434 |
-0.637 |
-0.554 |
|
Overall Job Performance |
-0.022 |
-0.637 |
-0.331 |
-0.631 |
-0.631 |
Source: data processed by researcher
Table 4 below shows model summary. The co-efficient of correlation is R= 0.783. The Co-efficient of determination R Square = 0.562 that gives the ratio of explained variation converting the value to a percentage. It is conclude that more than 50% of the variability of performance is accounted for by the variables in this model.
Tabel 4
Model Summary
|
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of The Estimate |
|
0.783 |
0.562 |
0.521 |
6.6347 |
Table 5 present result of regression analysis. The regression result show that we could expect a decrease 0.347 in the performance score for every unit increase in workload, assumming that all other variable in the model are held constant. Similarly, decrease of 0.432 in the performance score for every unit increase in role conflict, assumming that all other variable in the model are held constant. In these study, relation were found to exist between job stress and job performance. These included knowledge, skill, job enthusiasm and job quality, which all has negative relations.
Tabel 5
Coefficients
|
Coefficients |
|||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardize Coefficients |
T |
Sig. |
|
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
|||
|
Constant |
33.264 |
15.534 |
|
1.764 |
.000 |
|
Workload |
-0.347 |
0.064- |
-0.312 |
-2.833 |
.001 |
|
Role Conflict |
-0.423 |
0.083 |
-0.396 |
-3.701 |
.001 |
|
Role Ambiguity |
0.313 |
0.046 |
-0.401 |
-3.432 |
.001 |
Dependent Variable: Job Performance
E. Conclusion
The principle purpose of this study was t investigate relationship between job stress and job performance. Base on finding of the study, there are key points that can be used to conclude this research paper. It is very important that the university understand the needs of its employee and provide what is best for the employee.
Over all, the result of the study indicate that there is negative relationship between job stress and job performance. On the basis of the survey result it is seen that lack of role conflict are causes of rising stress levels in BDU administration employee.
To alleviate the negative consequences of job stress administration employee at Bina darma University, policy maker, practicioner and organisational management must concern to the area that have lowest value, which are role overload, role conflict and lack of supervisory support. This can be reach by several program such as stress management program, organise stress management training program and stress management strategies.
References
Antoniou, A.-S., Polychroni, F., Vlachakis, A.-N. (2006), Gender and age differences in occupational stress and professional burnout between primary and high-school teachers in Greece, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7): 682-690
Ben-Bakr, K. A., Al-Shammari, I. S., Jefri, O. A. (1995), Occupational stress in different organizations: a Saudi Arabian survey, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(5): 24-28
Blake, C. G., Saleh, S. D., Whorms, H. H. (1996), Stress and satisfaction as a function of technology and supervision type, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(5): 64-73
Chen, J.-C., Silverthorne, C., Hung, J.-Y. (2006), Organization communication, job stress, organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and America, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(4): 242-249
Chusmir, L. H., Franks, V. (1988), Stress and the Woman Manager, Training & Development Journal, 42(10): 66-70
Comish, R., Swindle, B. (1994), Managing stress in the workplace, National Public Accountant, 39(9): 24-28
Cooper, C. L., Marshall, J. (1976), Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health, Journal of occupational psychology, 49(1): 11-28
Dua, J. K. (1994), Job stressors and their effects on physical health, emotional health, and job satisfaction in a university, Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1): 59-78
Erkutlu, H. V., Chafra, J. (2006), Relationship between leadership power base and job stress of subordinates: example from boutique hotels, Management Research News, 29(5): 285-297
Fulcheri, M., Barzega, G., Maina, G., Novara, F., Ravizza, L. (1995), Stress and managerial work: organizational culture and technological changes: a clinical study, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(4): 3-8
Fotinatos-Ventouratos, R., Cooper, C. (2005), The role of gender and social class in work stress, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(1): 14-23
Holmlund-Rytkönen, M., Strandvik, T. (2005), Stress in business relationships, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(1): 12-22
Lu., L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S. –F., Zhou, Y. (2003), Work stress, control beliefs and and well being in Greater China – An exploration of sub culturaldifferences between the PRC and Taiwan, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6): 479-510
McHugh, M. (1993), Stress at work: Do managers really count the costs?, Employee Relations, 15(1): 18-32
Michie S, Williams S. Reducing psychological ill health and associated sickness absence: A systematic literature review. Occupation Environment Medicine, 2003;60:3–9.
Montgomery, D. C., Blodgett, J. G., Barnes, J. H. (1996), A model of financial securities salespersons’ job stress, The Journal of Services Marketing, 10(3): 21-38
Murphy, L. R. (1995), Managing job stress – An employee assistance/human resource management partnership, Personnel Review, 24(1): 41-50
Rees, W. D. (1997), Managerial stress – dealing with the causes, not the symptoms, Industrial and Commercial Training, 29(2): 35-40
Ross, G. F. (2005), Tourism Industry Employee Workstress – A Present and Future Crisis, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(2/3): 133-147
Schabracq, M. J., Cooper, C. L. (2000), The changing nature of work and stress, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(3): 227-241
Sharpley, C. F., Reynolds, R., Acosta, A., Dua, J. K. (1996), The presence, nature and effects of job stress on physical and psychological health at a large Australian university, Journal of Educational Administration, 34(4): 73-86
Shuttleworth, A., (2004), “Managing workplace stress: how training can help, Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(2): 61-65