Research Article
Occupational Stress and Job Performance Among
University Library Professionals of North-East India
Pallabi
Devi
Research Scholar
Dept. of Library &
Information Science
Gauhati
University
Guwahati, Assam, India
Email: devipallabi.pd@gmail.com
Prof. Narendra Lahkar
Former Professor & Head
Dept. of Library and
Information Science
Gauhati
University
Guwahati, Assam, India
Email: nlahkar@gmail.com
Received: 17 Aug. 2020 Accepted: 9 Mar. 2021
2021 Devi and Lahkar. This is an Open
Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29821
Abstract
Objective – The
present study intends to investigate the occupational stress and job
performance of university library professionals in North-East India. The main
objective of the study is to assess the perceived level of occupational stress
among library professionals and to identify any relationship between
occupational stress and library professionals’ job performance. The study also
aims to study gender differences regarding perceived occupational stress and
job performance among library professionals as well as examine the influence of
occupational stress on perceived job performance.
Methods
– Descriptive survey method was used for
the study. The sample population consisted of 123 library professionals from
different parts of North-East India selected through convenience sampling
technique. The survey consisted of a structured questionnaire divided into
three sections: demographic information, self-perceived occupational stress,
and self-rated job performance. Descriptive and inferential statistical
techniques including frequency, mean, standard deviation, t test,
correlation co-efficient, and simple linear regression analysis were used to
analyze data and interpret results with the help of the statistical package
SPSS version 20.
Results
– The findings of the study established
that a majority of library professionals working in university libraries of
North-East India perceived a moderate level of occupational stress. It was also
determined that male and female library professionals do not differ in their
perception of occupational stress (p > 0.05), while a significant
mean difference was found between male and female library professionals’
perceptions towards their job performance (p < 0.05). Males scored themselves higher than
females in terms of eight indicators of job performance: quality of work
performance, ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills, decision
making, problem solving, technical skills, ability to perform competently under
pressure, and contribution to the overall development of the library. Regarding
the relationship between occupational stress and job performance, the data
indicated a significant negative relationship between occupational stress and
job performance (r = -0.296, p
< 0.01). In addition to this,
intrinsic impoverishment, under participation, low status, and poor peer
relationships were some of the factors negatively affecting the job performance
of library professionals.
Conclusion
–
The present study provides an insight about how occupational stress affects job
performance of library professionals working in academic libraries. The findings revealed that there
exists a modest but statistically significant negative relationship between
occupational stress and job performance, which implies that an increment in the
level of perceived occupational stress tends to influence library
professionals’ self-perception of job performance negatively.
Introduction
Stress
is a “perceived phenomenon associated with tension and anxiety. One is
considered as being under stress when a situation is perceived as presenting an
extra demand on the individual’s capabilities and resources” (Nawe, 1995, p. 30). Most often, stress can be defined:
As
a way a human body reacts to stimuli from the environment; it can influence
one’s psychological and physical condition. Experiencing lower levels of stress
can be stimulating, but being exposed to higher levels of stress for long
periods of time may affect one’s health and cause negative emotions, feelings
of pressure, anxiety, irritability, loss of appetite, and others, and finally
bad performance at work. (Petek, 2018, p. 129)
Research
has shown that stress in general exists in different forms; it may be
psychological, emotional, social, occupational, or job related. Over the past
few decades, occupational stress, or job stress, has been emerging as a growing
concern because we spend a lot of time at the workplace. Blix et al. (1994)
stated that “occupational stress is considered to be one of the ten leading
work-related health problems” (p. 157). According to Kaur and Kathuria (2018):
Occupational
stress is a mental or physical tension or both, created and related to
occupation and its environment which comprise of persons and objects from
within and outside the work place resulting into absenteeism, lack of
motivation and initiative, low productivity and service efficiency, job
dissatisfaction and disruption of the smooth functioning of the organization.
(p. 13)
Employees’
efficiency in the organization is evidenced in terms of their performance at
the workplace. Job performance is an important criterion for organizational outcomes
and success. Ojo (2009) defined job performance as an
extent to which the day-to-day work is being carried out. Job performance can
be defined as individual productivity in terms of both quantitative and
qualitative aspects of the job. It indicates how well a person is performing
their job and to what extent, the employee is able to meet their job duties as
well as policies and standards of the organization.
Several
studies have pointed out that there are emerging issues in the library and
information science profession that poses a threat or stress factor to library
professionals, especially the academic librarians. These include “new
expectations and the constantly changing role of librarians due to the dynamic
nature of information and its delivery in the university system, triggered by
the emergence of ICT in the library and information practice” (Ajala, 2011, para. 2). Reena (2009) further supported this
by averring that one of the
realities of 21st century is that the library professionals are faced with
constant challenges in their working environments. This is not only because of
the role they have to play inside the libraries but also due to the increasing
demands and expectations of the users within the libraries.
Moreover, as said by Saqib Saddiq, librarians were mostly unhappy with their workplace,
often finding their job repetitive and unchallenging. They complained about
their physical environment, saying that they were sick of being stuck between
bookshelves all day as well as claiming that their skills were not used and
that they felt they had very little control over their career (“Librarians ‘suffer most stress’,” 2006).
According to Topper (2007), after years of doing the same tasks can be
stressful and many librarians may feel that they are not being challenged in
their work.
Statement of the Problem
The university library constitutes a vital element in
any academic institution, and hence library professionals play a significant
role in promoting teaching, learning, and research by providing information
sources and services to students, researchers, and faculty. Library staff
should be concerned about the needs of the library users so that optimum
utilization of the resources available can be achieved. The library staffs are
the facilitators for the contact between users and resources. The work of the
library professionals in service delivery is a key element that contributes to
overall effectiveness of the organization. In extending their services as much
as possible, stress should not be a hurdle in enacting efforts to serve the
user community. Research has already established that a high level of
occupational stress may lead to a high level of dissatisfaction among the
employees, a lack of job mobility, burnout, poor work performance, and less
effective interpersonal relations at work (Manshor et
al., 2003).
Gender is another variable that can potentially affect
the attitudes and perceptions of employees at the workplace. A few studies have
already asserted that though the library profession is open for all genders, it
is mostly female (Carmichael, 1992; Wiebe, 2004). “Although librarianship is a
female-dominated profession, both males and females within the profession
suffer from work-related pressures based on the practices of gender bias”
(Greer et al., 2001, p. 127). Several studies have shown that some
differences exist in the level of dissatisfaction between male and female
library staff. Graddick and Farr (1983), for example,
pointed out that females often view themselves as being treated worse than
males in the workplace. Kirkland (1997) argued that most of the women in
libraries suffer from a deprivation of inside information, challenging
assignments, and recognition in their organizations. Thus, several studies have
discussed the gender-related issues of different aspects of work, but very few
empirical studies directly examine gender-based differences among library
employees’ perceptions regarding occupational stress and job performance at the
university level.
It is in the light of these problems that the present
study seeks to gain an insight on how occupational stress affects job
performance of library professionals working in university libraries of
North-East India. The study also attempts to explore gender differences among
library professionals in their perceptions of occupational stress and their own
job performance.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
The study limits itself to measuring the perceived
level of occupational stress and examining the relationship between perceived
occupational stress and self-rated job performance of university library
professionals in North-East India. The libraries attached to eight central
universities, four state universities, and one Institution of National
Importance located in various states of North-East India were picked up for the
study. It should be noted that, North-East India is made up of total eight
states: Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Manipur, Mizoram,
Nagaland, and Tripura. The geographical coverage of the study includes only
Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Manipur, and Tripura. The newly
established universities including private universities are excluded from the
study because these institutions are still in their infancy.
Literature Review
Numerous bodies of literature have explored stress
from different perspectives in different organizational settings and
highlighted various stressors related to those situations. Stress can be caused
by many problems, such as problems at the workplace, financial problems, family
problems, and problems in employees’ surroundings.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE, 2001) defined
stress as an adverse reaction to excessive or extreme pressures or demands that
may be placed upon individuals. The pressure and demands that causes stress are
known as stressors. According to Hinkle (1974), the term stress denoted “force,
pressure, strain or strong effort” exerted upon a material object or a person
or upon a person’s “organs or mental powers” (p. 337). In this definition,
individuals were acted upon by external forces.
Occupational stress or work-related stress arises when
work demands of various types and combinations exceed the person’s capacity and
capability to cope with it. Somvir and Kaushik (2013)
investigated occupational stress among library professionals in Haryana state
and reported that most of the librarians were frustrated because they were
compared with clerical staff and had to work under the in-charge of a
non-professional, who did not know about the duties and responsibilities of
being a librarian. Low salary, less freedom to make decisions related to
budget, responsibility for loss of books, technological changes, and a lack of
interaction among library professionals were some of the factors discouraging
librarians to provide better library services. Ratha
et al. (2012) highlighted that workload,
technology, shift work, user satisfaction, job insecurity, lack of
administrative support, low status, inadequate salary, changing library
environment, and reduced staff strength were some of the leading causes of
occupational stress among library professionals in private engineering colleges
in Indore City. Mahanta (2015) carried out a study to determine the sources of
stress and magnitude of stress among the library professionals of Central
Library, Tezpur University, Assam. The researcher found that the library
employees in the study experienced organizational role stress to a moderate
extent. The study identified that role ambiguity, inter-role distance, role
stagnation, and role erosion were the powerful sources of stress among the
library staff. In fact, role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload have
also been studied as antecedents of occupational stress (Brief & Aldag, 1976; Ivanceyich et al.,
1982).
Gender seems to play a significant role in employees’
perception of work-related stress and job performance. Jick
and Mitz (1985) stated that workplace stress is a
major problem and suggested that gender may be considered an important demographic
characteristic in the experience of stress. Mosadeghrad
(2014) revealed in his study that there was a strong correlation between the
occupational stress of hospital employees and their gender. Female employees
reported higher occupational stress than their male colleagues. Dina (2016)
found that women suffered from stress more frequently than men owing to their
dual responsibilities including work in the library and taking care of children
or parents at home. Oloruntoba and Ajayi (2006) found
that most male academic librarians have higher job performance than their
female colleagues. Oyeniran and Akphorhonor (2019) stated that male librarians
working in the university libraries in Nigeria contributed more than their
female counterpart in terms of performance. The gender difference had a
positive influence on the job performance of librarians in the university
libraries in Nigeria.
Much of the earlier literature on occupational stress
emphasizes its effects on job performance. Ali et al. (2011) found that there exists a highly
significant positive relationship between job stress and job performance among
banking employees (i.e., job performance was found to be better under stressful
situations at workplace). In addition, all the three indicators of job performance—skills,
efforts, and working conditions—had a positive direct relationship with job
stress. Conversely, Ahmed and Ramzan (2013) reported the existence of a
significant negative relationship between job stress and job performance in the
banking sector, which implied that both variables were inversely proportional
to each other. When job stress was low, job performance increased, and when job
stress was high, job performance decreased.
Dina (2016) carried out a study to investigate the
impact of stress on professional librarian’s job performance in Nigerian
University libraries. The findings showed that high amounts of stress can
affect a professional librarians’ quality in terms of job performance in
relation to their job demands and expectations. Those professional librarians
engaged in other activities besides their primary assignments for which they
are employed were found more likely to be stressed than the others thereby
affecting their job performance negatively. Occupational stress was identified
as one of the major problems impacting professional librarians’ wellbeing,
commitment, and job performance.
Kaur and Kathuria (2018) conducted a study among 301 library
professionals working in central libraries of 24 universities in Punjab and Chandigarh.
The study revealed that occupational stress and job performance shared a
negative but significant co-efficient of correlation with each other, which
implies that as the level of occupational stress increased, the level of job
performance decreased. Ilo et al. (2019) investigated
the relationship between job stress and job performance in university libraries
in Nigeria. The study identified low productivity, increased absenteeism,
hypertension, job dissatisfaction, frustration, depression, and negative job
attitude as negative effects of stress on the job performance of librarians. Amusa et al. (2013) revealed
in their study that a significant correlation exists between the work
environment and job performance of librarians. Moreover, the study highlighted
that the librarians’ job performance was considered fair with regard to
variables such as professional practice, contribution to the overall
development of the library, ability to attend promptly to client’s request, and
meeting minimum requirements for job promotion.
In summary, after reviewing all the relevant studies,
occupational stress clearly exists in academic library environments and some of
the common stressors affecting maximum the number of library employees include
role overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, low status, lack of
administrative support, and changing library environment. Both occupational
stress and job performance were found to be interrelated with each other, which
imply that higher levels of occupational stress are related to lower levels of
job performance and vice-versa. Gender proved to be one of the significant
factors influencing both occupational stress and job performance.
Aims
The aims of the present study are presented here:
- To assess
the perceived level of occupational stress among library professionals
working in university libraries of North-East India.
- To study
the gender differences regarding perceived occupational stress and job
performance among the library professionals.
- To identify
the relationship between occupational stress and job performance.
- To examine
the impact of occupational stress on job performance.
Hypotheses of the Study
Based on the aims of the study, the following null
hypotheses were formulated:
- H0 –
There is no significant difference between male and female library
professionals regarding perceived level of occupational stress.
- H01 –
Male and female library professionals do not differ in their perception of
job performance.
- H02 –No significant relationship exists between occupational stress and
job performance.
- H03 – There is no significant impact of occupational stress on job
performance.
Methods
The Population
A descriptive survey method was employed to collect
primary data from library professionals who work full time and who have a
minimum qualification of a Diploma in Library & Information Science in
different universities of North-East India that were recognized by the
University Grants Commission (UGC) of India. Convenience sampling technique was
used to gather data from a sample population of 123 library professionals who
were easily available as well as willing to participate in the study from
various states of North-East India. The breakdown of the sample population is
given in Table 1.
Research Instrument
A structured questionnaire was constructed in print
and distributed personally to the participants, making quantitative data
relatively easy to collect. The questionnaire was divided into three sections:
demographic information, self-perceived occupational stress, and self-rated job
performance. To measure the level of perceived occupational stress, we designed
an Occupational Stress Scale that was adapted from the Occupational Stress Index (OSI) of Srivastava and Singh (1984) and
the Organisational Role Stress (ORS)
Scale of Pareek (1983). The OSI scale, a widely used scale in
India was adopted by Ratha et al. (2012) and Chandraiah
et al. (2003) in their studies. Similarly, the ORS scale, which is
more specifically used in Indian socio-cultural settings, was used by Mahanta
(2015) and Jena and Pradhan (2011) in their research studies. Reena (2009) used
both the OSI and ORS scales in order to construct an instrument especially
useful for the library and information science profession. The scale used in the study consists of a
total of 23 items on 11 dimensions of occupational stress: role overload, role
conflict, role ambiguity, under participation, low status, poor peer
relationship, personal inadequacy, strenuous working conditions, career
stagnation, intrinsic impoverishment, and unreasonable groups & political
pressures. Brief descriptions of the dimensions of occupational stress
used in the context of present study are stated here:
- Role overload arises when employees feel pressured because of added duties and
responsibilities and lack the resources to perform them.
- Role conflict refers to situations with conflict of role expectations.
- Role ambiguity refers to a situation caused
by lack of clarity or understanding about job expectations and
responsibilities in the performance of a particular role.
- Under participation is when there is a lack
of one’s influence on the decision-making process of the organization.
- Low status refers to a state of
insignificance in the organizational as well as in the social system.
- Poor peer relationship occurs when there is lack of mutual co-operation
between coworkers in solving organizational
problems.
- Personal inadequacy refers to employees lacking the required skills to perform tasks
expected to function within their roles.
- Strenuous working conditions refers to a lack of comfort and safety in the
work environment.
- Career stagnation occurs when a employees feel a lack of
engagement with their work or career.
- Intrinsic impoverishment refers to monotonous nature of assignments, lack
of ample opportunity to utilize one’s abilities and develop one’s
aptitude, etc.
- Unreasonable group and political pressure evolve from a
situation where one is required to take a lot of decisions against his
will or against formal rules and procedures under pressure.
Table
1
Breakdown
of the Sample Population
|
Type
of University |
No.
of Universities Surveyed |
No.
of Respondents |
|
State Universities |
4 |
33 |
|
Central Universities |
8 |
79 |
|
Institution of National Importance |
1 |
11 |
|
Total |
13 |
123 |
Table
2
Descriptive Statistics of Occupational Stress and Job
Performance
|
Variable |
N |
Minimum Score |
Maximum Score |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
|
Occupational
Stress |
123 |
40 |
85 |
60.91 |
9.069 |
|
Job
Performance |
123 |
40 |
70 |
59.02 |
6.968 |
Responses on all items were
gathered through a five-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4,
Disagree = 3, Strongly Disagree = 2, and Undecided = 1). The Cronbach’s Alpha
Coefficient of Reliability was computed to verify the internal consistency of
items used to measure a variable which was found to be .744. Nunnally (1978) recommended at least .70 alpha
coefficients for social sciences as acceptable.
Similarly, to measure job performance, a
self-assessment “Job Performance Scale” was constructed that consists of a
total of 14 job performance indicators (including completion of tasks on a
given time, quality of work performance, ability to handle multiple jobs,
communication skills, decision making, problem solving, technical skills,
managerial skills, ability to perform competently under pressure, punctuality
and regularity at work, meeting minimum requirements for promotion,
interpersonal relationship with co-workers, contribution to the overall
development of the library, and overall capacity to work) rated on a five-point Likert scale (Very Good
= 5, Good = 4, Average = 3, Poor = 2, and Very Poor = 1). The purpose of
designing the scale was to gather input from the library professionals about
their self-perception of how well they are performing their job. The
reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be .905 using Cronbach’s
alpha method. Statistical techniques like frequency, mean, standard deviation, t
test, correlation co-efficient, and simple linear regression analysis were used
to analyze the data and interpret the results with the help of the statistical
package SPSS version 20. The descriptive statistics of the two variables
selected for the study, i.e., occupational stress and job performance, are
presented in Table 2.
Table 2 reflects that the mean and standard deviation
of the total scores of perceived occupational stress is 60.91 and 9.069
respectively, whereas the mean and standard deviation of the total scores of
self-rated job performance is calculated to be 59.02 and 6.968 respectively.
The overall score ranges from a minimum of 40 to a maximum of 85 in the case of
perceived occupational stress while the job performance scores ranges from a minimum
of 40 to a maximum of 70. The table shows that the mean of both variables
(i.e., occupational stress and job performance) seems to be identical; however,
the range of scores was found to be greater in the case of occupational stress.
Results
The results and their analysis are presented here and
keeping in mind the aims of the study.
Demographic Information
The demographic data collected are presented in Table
3 and describe the demographic
characteristics of the sample population.
The demographic profile of the respondents in the
present study demonstrated that with respect to responses on gender, 77
(62.60%) respondents were males while 46 (37.39%) were females. In response to
age distribution, the highest number of respondents (35.77%) belongs to the age
group of 31 to 40 years, which indicates a youthful working class. Table 3 also
shows that a majority of the respondents (55.28%) hold master’s degrees as
their highest professional qualification and a plurality (45.52%) had work
experience of above 15 years.
Perceived Levels of Occupational Stress
In order to assess the
perceived levels of occupational stress, the Mean (x) and Standard Deviation (SD)
of the total scores of occupational stress obtained
from the sum of the responses of all respondents were considered.
Therefore, the total scores of occupational stress
were divided into three categories on the basis of their x and SD.
Following the principles of normal distribution, the scores falling above or
equal to x
+ SD, between x + SD and x – SD, and below
or equal to x – SD were categorized as high level, moderate
level, and low level, respectively.
Level of Occupational
Stress
·
High level = Above or equal to 70
·
Moderate level = Between 52 and 70
·
Low level = Below or equal to 52
Table
3
Demographic
Profile of the Respondents
|
Demographic Variables |
Frequency (n =
123) |
Percentage (%) |
|
|
Gender |
Male |
77 |
62.60 |
|
Female |
46 |
37.39 |
|
|
Age Group (in years) |
21–30 |
12 |
9.75 |
|
31–40 |
44 |
35.77 |
|
|
41–50 |
34 |
27.64 |
|
|
51–60 |
33 |
26.82 |
|
|
Highest Professional Qualification |
Ph.D. |
23 |
18.69 |
|
M.Phil. |
8 |
6.50 |
|
|
Master’s
Degree |
68 |
55.28 |
|
|
Bachelor’s
Degree |
16 |
13.00 |
|
|
Certificate/Diploma |
8 |
6.50 |
|
|
Years of Work Experience |
0–5 |
19 |
15.44 |
|
6–10 |
36 |
29.26 |
|
|
11–15 |
12 |
9.75 |
|
|
Above
15 |
56 |
45.52 |
|
Both Table 4 and Figure 1 depict that a majority of
library professionals surveyed perceived a moderate level of occupational
stress (i.e., 63.41%), which consists of 47 males and 31 females. Of the
remaining library professionals, 18.69% perceived a low level of stress and 17.88%
experienced a high level of occupational stress.
Gender Differences with Regard to
Perceived Occupational Stress
The results in Table 5 clearly depict that t value for mean difference in
occupational stress between male and female library professionals is -0.741,
which is not significant (p
> 0.05). The overall mean and standard deviation of male and female library
professionals are found to be 60.44 (SD
= 9.372) and 61.70 (SD = 8.581)
respectively regarding their perceived level of occupational stress. This
implies that the male and female library professionals working in university
libraries do not differ in their perception of occupational stress. Thus, the
null hypothesis (H0)
is accepted. The dimension-wise comparative analysis between male and female
library professionals in terms of perceived occupational stress is presented in
Table 6.
Table
4
Perceived
Levels of Occupational Stress Among Library Professionals
|
Levels |
Levels |
N |
(%) |
Gender |
N |
(%) |
|
Occupational Stress |
High Level |
22 |
17.88 |
Male |
14 |
63.63 |
|
Female |
8 |
30.43 |
||||
|
Moderate Level |
78 |
63.41 |
Male |
47 |
60.25 |
|
|
Female |
31 |
39.74 |
||||
|
Low Level |
23 |
18.69 |
Male |
16 |
69.56 |
|
|
Female |
7 |
30.43 |
Figure
1
Perceived
levels of occupational stress.
Table
5
Significance
of Mean Difference in Perceived Occupational Stress of Library Professionals
Between Male and Female
|
Variable |
Gender |
N |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
t value |
p value |
|
Occupational Stress |
Male |
77 |
60.44 |
9.372 |
-0.741 |
0.460 |
|
Female |
46 |
61.70 |
8.581 |
Table
6
Comparative
Analysis Between Male and Female Library Professionals in Terms of Occupational
Stress Dimensions
|
Dimensions of
Occupational Stress |
Gender |
N |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
t value |
p value |
|
Role Overload |
Male |
77 |
9.60 |
1.982 |
0.743 |
0.459 |
|
Female |
46 |
9.33 |
1.921 |
|||
|
Role Conflict |
Male |
77 |
2.99 |
0.939 |
-0.184 |
0.854 |
|
Female |
46 |
3.02 |
1.125 |
|||
|
Role Ambiguity |
Male |
77 |
4.75 |
1.425 |
-0.455 |
0.650 |
|
Female |
46 |
4.87 |
1.276 |
|||
|
Low Status |
Male |
77 |
4.47 |
1.586 |
-0.377 |
0.707 |
|
Female |
46 |
4.59 |
1.881 |
|||
|
Under Participation |
Male |
77 |
5.10 |
2.043 |
-0.754 |
0.452 |
|
Female |
46 |
5.39 |
2.049 |
|||
|
Poor Peer
Relationship |
Male |
77 |
7.71 |
1.891 |
0.053 |
0.958 |
|
Female |
46 |
7.70 |
1.860 |
|||
|
Personal
Inadequacy |
Male |
77 |
5.86 |
1.457 |
0.120 |
0.905 |
|
Female |
46 |
5.83 |
1.270 |
|||
|
Career
Stagnation |
Male |
77 |
3.01 |
1.082 |
-0.257 |
0.798 |
|
Female |
46 |
3.07 |
1.104 |
|||
|
Strenuous
Working Conditions |
Male |
77 |
10.13 |
2.232 |
-0.882 |
0.380 |
|
Female |
46 |
10.50 |
2.288 |
|||
|
Intrinsic
Impoverishment |
Male |
77 |
4.45 |
1.667 |
-1.717 |
0.088 |
|
Female |
46 |
5.02 |
1.938 |
|||
|
Unreasonable
Groups & Political Pressures |
Male |
77 |
2.36 |
0.872 |
-0.180 |
0.858 |
|
Female |
46 |
2.39 |
0.745 |
Gender Differences with Regard to
Perceived Job Performance
Table 7 reveals that the t value for the mean difference in terms of job performance
between male and female library professionals is 3.163 (p < 0.05). There exists a significant mean difference in
library professionals’ perception of job performance based on their gender. The
overall mean and standard deviation of male and female library professionals
are found to be 60.51 (SD =
6.522) and 56.54 (SD = 7.051)
respectively. Since the mean score of male library professionals is greater
than their female counterpart, we can derive that the male library
professionals perceived their level of job performance as better compared to
the female library professionals. Thus, the null hypothesis (H01) is rejected. Table 8
shows the comparative analysis between male and female library professionals in
terms of their self-perception towards job performance indicators.
From Table 8, we can observe a statistically
significant difference between the mean scores of male and female library
professionals with regard to eight indicators of job performance: quality of
work performance, ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills,
decision making, problem solving, technical skills, ability to perform
competently under pressure, and contribution to the overall development of the
library. The mean score of male library professionals is greater than their
female counterpart in terms of these eight indicators of job performance.
Hence, it indicates that the male library professionals had a better
self-perception than the female library professionals in the case of quality of
work performance, ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills,
decision making, problem solving, technical skills, ability to perform competently
under pressure, and contribution to the overall development of the library.
Table
7
Significance
of Mean Difference in Perceived Job Performance of Library Professionals
Between Male and Female
|
Variable |
Gender |
N |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
t value |
p value |
|
Job Performance |
Male |
77 |
60.51 |
6.522 |
3.163 |
0.002* |
|
Female |
46 |
56.54 |
7.051 |
*Significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table
8
Comparative
Analysis Between Male and Female Library Professionals in Terms of Job
Performance Indicators
|
Indicators of Job Performance |
Gender |
N |
Mean |
Standard Deviation |
t value |
p value |
|
Completion
of Tasks on a Given Time |
Male |
77 |
4.49 |
0.620 |
1.035 |
0.303 |
|
Female |
46 |
4.37 |
0.679 |
|||
|
Quality
of Work Performance |
Male |
77 |
4.47 |
0.575 |
2.306 |
0.023** |
|
Female |
46 |
4.22 |
0.593 |
|||
|
Ability
to Handle Multiple Jobs |
Male |
77 |
4.40 |
0.712 |
2.326 |
0.022** |
|
Female |
46 |
4.09 |
0.755 |
|||
|
Communication
Skills |
Male |
77 |
4.26 |
0.715 |
2.333 |
0.021** |
|
Female |
46 |
3.93 |
0.800 |
|||
|
Decision
Making |
Male |
77 |
4.09 |
0.747 |
2.501 |
0.014** |
|
Female |
46 |
3.72 |
0.886 |
|||
|
Problem
Solving |
Male |
77 |
4.26 |
0.637 |
3.348 |
0.001* |
|
Female |
46 |
3.85 |
0.698 |
|||
|
Technical
Skills |
Male |
77 |
4.27 |
0.719 |
3.816 |
0.000* |
|
Female |
46 |
3.74 |
0.801 |
|||
|
Managerial
Skills |
Male |
77 |
3.92 |
0.900 |
1.100 |
0.274 |
|
Female |
46 |
3.74 |
0.880 |
|||
|
Ability
to Perform Competently Under Pressure |
Male |
77 |
4.10 |
0.836 |
3.307 |
0.001* |
|
Female |
46 |
3.57 |
0.935 |
|||
|
Punctuality
and Regularity at Work |
Male |
77 |
4.64 |
0.605 |
1.615 |
0.109 |
|
Female |
46 |
4.46 |
0.585 |
|||
|
Meeting
Minimum Requirements for Promotion |
Male |
77 |
4.06 |
0.978 |
1.053 |
0.294 |
|
Female |
46 |
3.87 |
1.024 |
|||
|
Interpersonal
Relationship With Coworkers |
Male |
77 |
4.52 |
0.641 |
0.749 |
0.455 |
|
Female |
46 |
4.43 |
0.544 |
|||
|
Contribution
to the Overall Development of the Library |
Male |
77 |
4.56 |
0.573 |
2.243 |
0.027** |
|
Female |
46 |
4.30 |
0.662 |
|||
|
Overall
Capacity to Work |
Male |
77 |
4.45 |
0.527 |
1.765 |
0.080 |
|
Female |
46 |
4.26 |
0.681 |
*Significant at 0.01 (2-tailed) level; **Significant
at 0.05 (2-tailed) level
Table
9
Correlation
Between Occupational Stress and Job Performance
|
Variables |
Occupational Stress |
Job Performance |
|
|
Occupational
Stress |
Pearson
Correlation Sig.
(two-tailed) N |
1 123 |
-0.296** 0.001 123 |
|
Job
Performance |
Pearson
Correlation Sig.
(two-tailed) N |
-0.296** 0.001 123 |
1 123 |
**Correlation
is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
Relationship
Between Occupational Stress and Job Performance
Karl Pearson’s coefficient
of correlation was used to investigate the relationship between occupational
stress and job performance in totality as well as through eleven dimensions of
occupational stress. The level of significance of coefficient of correlation
was calculated through two-tailed significant value.
A highly significant
relationship was found from the above analysis between occupational stress and
job performance through Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation, which means
that the correlation is significant at 0.01 level. The results from Table 9
reveals that there is a negative relationship that proves to be significant (p
< 0.01) between occupational stress and job performance of library
professionals (r = -0.296). Hence the null hypothesis (H03)
is rejected.
The objective of identifying
the relationship between occupational stress and job performance of library
professionals was further studied by focusing on the relationship of each
dimension of occupational stress with job performance. Table 10 demonstrates
dimension-wise values of coefficient of correlation. It is evident from the
table that intrinsic impoverishment has the strongest value of coefficient of
correlation (r = -0.352) followed by under participation (r =
-0.331), low status (r = -0.242), and poor peer relationship (r =
-0.188). The remaining seven dimensions of occupational stress (role overload,
role conflict, role ambiguity, personal inadequacy, career stagnation,
strenuous working conditions, and unreasonable groups & political
pressures) have shown no correlation with job performance. This means that the
library professionals working in university libraries moderately experiencing
these seven dimensions of occupational stress are not likely to bear a definite
effect of it on their job performance.
Table 10
Relationship Between Dimensions of Occupational
Stress and Job Performance
|
Dimensions
of Occupational Stress |
Coefficient
of Correlation (r) |
|
Role Overload |
-0.005 |
|
Role Conflict |
-0.051 |
|
Role Ambiguity |
-0.133 |
|
Low Status |
-0.242** |
|
Under Participation |
-0.331** |
|
Poor Peer Relationship |
-0.188* |
|
Personal Inadequacy |
-0.096 |
|
Career Stagnation |
-0.087 |
|
Strenuous Working Conditions |
-0.054 |
|
Intrinsic Impoverishment |
-0.352** |
|
Unreasonable Groups &
Political Pressures |
-0.036 |
*Correlation is significant at
the 0.05 level (two-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at
the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
Impact of Occupational Stress on Job Performance
Simple linear regression analysis was chosen to
determine whether there is significant impact of occupational stress on job
performance of library professionals working in university libraries. The
present study was conducted to find out any association between the two
variables selected (i.e., occupational stress and job performance). In this
case, occupational stress was used to predict the dependent variable job
performance. No doubt, there may be other parameters or factors affecting job
performance that are not presented in the study because of its limitations. The
value of R2 is found to be 0.088, which means that 8.8% of
the variance in job performance can be explained by occupational stress.
Furthermore, the value of F = 11.629 (1,121) with significance level of p
= 0.001 determined the linear regression model as statistically significant.
The criterion to assess the contribution of the
predictor variable given by Cohen (1988) was used in this study. According to
this source, for linear regression models in behavioural sciences, the
proportion of variance explained by the predictor variable an R2
value between 2% and 12.99% suggests a small effect size, a value between 13%
and 25.99% indicates a medium effect size, and a value of 26% and greater
suggests a large effect size. Since the correlation coefficient in the present
study is -0.296 and the R2 value is equal to 8.8% variance,
the independent variable—occupational stress—is having a small but
significant impact on the dependent variable job performance in a negative
manner. From Table 11, we can observe that occupational stress is able to explain
the variance in job performance by the B value of -0.227. Since the sign of
regression coefficient value is negative, it indicates that as occupational
stress increases by one unit, job performance decreases by 0.227 units.
Therefore, the null hypothesis (H04) is rejected.
Table 11
Simple Linear Regression Analysis Between
Occupational Stress and Job Performance
|
Dependent Variable |
Independent Variable |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
Job
Performance |
(Constant) Occupational
Stress |
72.882 -0.227 |
4.108 0.067 |
-0.296 |
17.741 -3.410 |
0.000 0.001 |
|
R = -0.296 R2 = 0.088 Adjusted R2 =
0.080 F = 11.629 Sig. = 0.001 |
||||||
Discussion
The main purpose of the present study was to
investigate the occupational stress and job performance of university library
professionals in North-East India. The results obtained from the current study
revealed that a majority of the university library professionals perceived
occupational stress to a moderate extent. This finding obtained from Table 4 is
in agreement with the result obtained from the study carried out by Mahanta
(2015) and Wijetunge (2012), where the existence of a
moderate level of work-related stress was reported among university library
professionals. However, a few studies carried out by Ogunlana
et al. (2013), Saddiq (2015), and Agyei et al. (2019)
were not in agreement with the prior result and reported a higher level of
work-related stress. The variation in stress levels recorded in the previous
studies may be a result of different organizational factors like conditions of
service, size of the user community served by the library, status of library
staff, financial availability, job security, career growth, and other reasons
that might have brought about different perceptions about work-related stress
among library professionals.
The result obtained from both Tables 5 and 6 reveal
that male and female library professionals do not differ in terms of perceived
occupational stress, which is in line with the studies carried out by Kaur and Kathuria (2018) and Somvir and
Kaushik (2013), wherein there was no significant difference found between male
and female library professionals in terms of occupational stress. In spite of
dual responsibilities at both home and workplace, women library professionals
did not differ from their male counterpart in terms of their perception of
occupational stress. This is contrary to the findings of Ogunlana
et al. (2013), who exposed that male librarians were more susceptible to job
stress than female librarians despite the fact that both were working in the
same environment. The data acquired from Table 7 indicates that significant
mean difference exists between male and female library professionals’
perception of their job performance. Males scored themselves better than
females in the areas of quality of work performance, ability to handle multiple
jobs, communication skills, decision making, problem solving, technical skills,
ability to perform competently under pressure, and contribution to the overall
development of the library (Table 8).
The result presented in Table 9 show a significant
negative relationship between perceived levels of occupational stress and job
performance of library professionals. This finding gives further support to the
literature that demonstrates a significant negative relationship between
occupational stress and job performance, including those studies conducted by
Smith (2000), Kaur and Kathuria (2018), and Nwadiani (2006). This is also in agreement with the claims
of Palmer et al. (2004), which stated that stress beyond an optimal point can
lead to low productivity. Similarly, Hansen (2008) also claimed that stress is
critical to maximizing one’s job performance. Furthermore, McGrath (1976) emphasized that job stress is
considered a factor that may affect organizational effectiveness through lowering employee’s performance. The
stressor intrinsic impoverishment has proved to be the most negative
predictor influencing job performance (Table 10). It implies that the
monotonous nature of library jobs and the lack of ample opportunities to
utilize the abilities and experience of library professionals independently can
also yield negative outcomes on their self-perception of job performance. Other
stressors like under participation, low status, and poor peer relationship were
some of the factors found to negatively affect the job performance of library
professionals in university libraries of North-East India. Furthermore, based
on the findings of Table 11, it was established that occupational stress has a
statistically significant impact on job performance.
Conclusion
Based on the findings from the investigation, it can
be concluded that occupational stress exists among university library
professionals in North-East India, and majority of the professionals
experienced stress up to moderate extent. Though the level of occupational
stress is moderate among library professionals, the study reveals significant
negative relationship between perceived occupational stress and job
performance. It implies that an incremental increase in the level of perceived
occupational stress tends to influence library professionals self-perception of
job performance negatively. Stressors like intrinsic impoverishment, under
participation, low status, and poor peer relationship were some of the factors
negatively influencing their perception of job performance. Male and female
library professionals did not differ with regard to their perceived
occupational stress. On the other hand, males scored themselves better than
females on of eight indicators of job performance: quality of work performance,
ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills, decision making, problem
solving, technical skills, ability to perform competently under pressure, and
contribution to the overall development of the library. The results reveal a
negative relationship between the two variables of occupational stress and job
performance, but the current study cannot be generalized due to a limited
sample size. Further studies can be conducted with a larger sample size in
order to realize the other organizational or socio-cultural factors that may
have an effect on job performance.
Author
Contributions
Pallabi Devi:
Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology,
Resources, Validation (lead), Visualization, Writing – original draft Prof. Narendra Lahkar:
Conceptualization (lead), Methodology (lead), Project administration,
Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing
References
Agyei, D. D., Aryeetey, F., Obuezie, A. C., & Nkonyeni, S. (2015). The experience
of occupational psychosocial stress among librarians in three African
countries. Library Management, 40(6/7), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-11-2017-0122
Ahmed, A., & Ramzan, M.
(2013). Effects of job stress on employees job performance: A study on banking
sector of Pakistan. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 11(6),
61–68. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-1166168
Ajala, E. B. (2011). Work-related
stress among librarians and information professionals in a Nigerian University.
Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 450. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/450
Ali, F., Farooqui, A., Amin,
F., Yahya, K., Idrees, N., Amjad, M., Ikhlaq, M.,
Noreen, S., & Irfan, A. (2011). Effects of stress on job performance. International
Journal of Business & Management Tomorrow, 1(2), 1–7.
Amusa, O. I., Iyoro,
A. O., & Olabisi, A. F. (2013). Work environments and job performance of
librarians in the public universities in South–West Nigeria. International
Journal of Library and Information Science, 5(11), 457–461. https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJLIS/article-abstract/07A6FF242586
Blix, A. G., Cruise, R. J.,
Mitchell, B. M., & Blix, G. G. (1994). Occupational stress among university
teachers. Educational Research, 36(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188940360205
Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1976). Correlates of role indices. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 61, 468–472.
Carmichael, J.V. (1992). The
male librarian and the feminine image: A survey of stereotype, status, and
gender perceptions. Library and
Information Science Research, 14(4), 411–446.
Chandraiah, K., Agrawal,
S. C., Marimuthu, P., & Manoharan, N. (2003).
Occupational stress and job satisfaction among managers. https://www.ijoem.com/temp/IndianJOccupEnvironMed726-8600177_235321.pdf
Coetzer, W., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Occupational stress of employees in an
insurance company. South African Journal
of Business Management, 37(3),
29–39.
Dina, T. (2016). The effect
of stress on professional librarians’ job performance in Nigerian university
libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1431
Graddick, M. M., &
Farr, J. L. (1983). Professionals in scientific disciplines: Sex-related
differences in working life commitments. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 68(4),
641–645.
Greer, B., Stephens, D.,
& Coleman, V. (2001). Cultural diversity and gender role spillover: A working perspective. Journal of Library Administration,
33(1/2), 125–140. https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J111v33n01_09
Hansen, R.S. (2008).
Managing Job Stress: Ten Strategies for Coping and Thriving. https://www.quint-careers.com
Hinkle, L. E. (1974). The concept of “stress” in the biological
and social sciences. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine,
5(4), 335–357. https://doi.org/10.2190/91DK-NKAD-1XP0-Y4RG
HSE. (2001). Tackling Work Related Stress:
A Managers’ Guide to Improving and Maintaining Employee Health and
Well-being. Health & Safety Executive.
Ilo, P. I., Amusa,
O. I., Chinwendu, N. A., & Esse,
U. C. (2019). Job-related stress and job performance among librarians in
university libraries in Nigeria. Library
Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3650
Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson,
M. T, & Preston, C. (1982). Occupational stress, Type A behavior,
and physical well-being. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 373–391.
Jena, P. and Pradhan, S.
(2011). Impact of organisational role stress among library professionals of
Odisha: A study. PEARL - A Journal of Library and Information Science, 5(3), 1–8.
Jick T. D. & Mitz L. F. (1985). Sex differences in work stress. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4278947
Kaur, H., & Kathuria, K. (2018). Occupational stress among library
professionals working in universities of Punjab and Chandigarh. International
Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 8(1), 22–24. https://www.ijidt.com/index.php/ijidt/article/view/8.1.5/399
Kaur, H., & Kathuria, K. (2018). Occupational stress and job
performance among university library professionals. Educational Quest: An
International Journal of Education and Applied Social Science, 9(1),
13–17. https://doi.org/10.30954/2230-7311.2018.04.02
Kirkland, J. J. (1997). The
missing women library directors: Deprivation versus mentoring. College and
Research Libraries, 58, 376–84. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/viewFile/15144/16590
BBC News. (2006, January
12). Librarians ‘suffer most stress’. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4605476.stm
Mahanta, K. (2015).
Assessment of stress in university library: A case study. In M. Saikia, M. Eqbal & D. Pratap
(Eds.), Library management: New trends and
challenges (1st ed., pp. 33–41). Academic Publication.
Manshor, A. T.,
Rodrigue, F., & Chong, S. C. (2003). Occupational stress among managers:
Malaysian survey. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 18(6): 622–628
McGrath, J. E. (1976).
Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 1351-1395). Rand McNally.
Mosadeghrad, A. M. (2014).
Occupational stress and its consequences. Leadership
in Health Services, 27(3), 224–239. http://tums.ac.ir/1395/02/22/Occupational%20stress%20and%20its%20consequences.pdf-mosadeghrad-2016-05-11-10-24.pdf
Nawe, J. (1995). Work-related
stress among the library and information workforce. Library Review, 44(6),
30–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242539510093674
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric
theory. McGraw-Hill.
Ofoegbu, F., & Nwadiani, M. (2006). Level of perceived stress among
lectures in Nigerian universities. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 33(1), 66–74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292796793_Level_of_perceived_stress_among_lecturers_in_Nigerian_Universities/citations
Ogunlana, E. K., Okunlaya, R. O. A., Ajani, F. O., Okunoye,
T., & Oshinaike, A. O. (2013). Indices of job
stress and job satisfaction among academic librarians in selected federal
universities in South West Nigeria. Annals of Library and Information
Studies (ALIS), 60(3), 212–218. http://op.niscair.res.in/index.php/ALIS/article/view/2204
Ojo, O. (2009). Impact
assessment of corporate culture on employee job performance. Business
Intelligence Journal, 2(2), 389–412. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26844798_Impact_Assessment_Of_Corporate_Culture_On_Employee_Job_Performance
Oyeniran, K., & Akphorhonor,
B.A. (2019). Assessment of the influence of demographic factors on job
performance of librarians in university libraries in South West, Nigeria. Research Journal of Library and Information
Science, 3(2), 13–19. https://www.sryahwapublications.com/research-journal-of-library-and-information-science/volume-3-issue-2/3.php
Palmer, S., Cooper, C.,
& Thomas, K. (2004). A model of work stress to underpin the Health &
Safety Executive advice for tackling work-related stress and stress risk
assessments. Counselling at Work, Winter, 2-5. https://www.academia.edu/3814856/Palmer_S_Cooper_C_and_Thomas_K_2004_A_model_of_work_stress_to_underpin_the_Health_and_Safety_Executive_advice_for_tackling_work_related_stress_and_stress_risk_assessments_Counselling_at_Work_Winter_2_5)
Pareek, U. (1983). Role stress scales manual. Navin
Publications.
Petek, M. (2018). Stress among
reference library staff in academic and public libraries. Reference Services
Review, 46(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-01-2017-0002
Ratha, B., Hardia,
M., & Naidu, G.H.S. (2012). Occupational stress among library
professionals: A study at Indore City. PEARL - A Journal of Library and
Information Science, 6(1), 1–7. https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:pjolis&volume=6&issue=1&article=001
Reena, K.K. (2009). Quality of work life and occupational stress
among the library professionals in Kerala [Doctoral dissertation.
University of Calicut]. Shodhganga. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/1415
Saddiq, S., & Iqbal, Z.
(2019). Environmental stressors and their impact at work: The role of job
stress upon general mental health and key organisational outcomes across five
occupational groups. Psychology & Behavioral
Science International Journal, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.19080/PBSIJ.2019.11.555809
Smith, A. (2000). The scale
of perceived occupational stress. Journal
of Occupational Medicine, 50(5),
294–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/50.5.294
Somvir, S. K. (2013). Occupational
stress among library professionals in Haryana. International Journal of
Knowledge Management & Practices, 1(1), 19–24. http://www.publishingindia.com/ijkmp/57/occupational-stress-among-library-professionals-in-haryana/210/1588/
Srivastava, A. K., &
Singh, A. P. (1984). Manual of
Occupational Stress Index. Manovaigyanik Parikchhan Sansthan.
Wiebe, T.J. (2004). Issues
faced by male librarians: Stereotypes, perceptions, and career ramifications. Colorado Libraries, 31(1), 11–13.
Wijetunge, P. (2012).
Work-related stress among the university librarians of Sri Lanka. Journal of the University Librarians Association,
Sri Lanka, 16(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.4038/jula.v16i2.5204