See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330933631

A Study on Stress Management among Employees in Nationalized Bank, Trichy

City

Article · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 5,337

2 authors:

K. Saravanan K. Muthu Lakshmi

Bishop Heber College 23 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   
24 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MIMO OFDM View project

A study on stress management among employees in nationallised bank, Trichy Dt View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K. Saravanan on 26 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

A Study on Stress Management among Employees in Nationalized Bank,

Nagapattinam District

K. Saravanan1 and K. MuthuLakshmi2

1
Research Scholar, 2Associate Professor, Commerce, Bishop Heber College (Autonomous),
Affiliated to Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli-620 017, Tamil Nadu, India
Email Id: [email protected]

Abstract
This paper examines the level of stress management among nationalized bank employees,
Nagapattinam District. Further, this study explores the level of effect personal factors on stress
management. The stress management is measured by using the different dimension of respectful
and responsible behavior, managing and communicating work, managing individual in a team
and managing difficult situations. Stress can be defined as a reaction to a stimulus that disturbs
our mental balance. It has its existence in everybody’s life nowadays. Stress refers to the strain
from the conflict between our external environment, leading to emotional and physical pressure.
Stress can’t be avoidable, but one can learn how to manage it. Stress management scale was
developed by Dr.Vandana Kaushik and Dr.Namrata Arora Charpe. Sample bank employees
were selected by using simple random sampling method because of easy accessibility and
affordability analysed by using statistical package of social sciences(SPSS).

Keywords: Stress, stress management, workplace stress, bank employees, stress management
level

1. INTRODUCTION
The word, ―stress‖ has been derived from the Latin Word, ―Stringere‖ which means to
draw tight. The term is used to refer to hardship, strain, adversity or affliction. Various terms
have been synonymously used with stress such as anxiety, frustration, conflict, pressure, and so
on. Every human being has his/her own understanding of stress. Because all demand of
adaptability do evoke the stress phenomenon.
Stress is simply the body‘s non – specific response to any demand made on it. Stress is not
by definition synonymous with nervous tension or anxiety. Stress provides the means to express
talents and pursue happiness. It can also cause exhaustion and illness, either physical or
psychological, heart attack or accidents. The important thing to remember about stress it that
certain forms are normal and essential. The result of continuing stress may because disruption is
one or more of the following areas of health, physical, emotional, spiritual and social.
Working in organisations not only provides individuals with life-sustaining income but
also exerts its own pressures on them. This can ultimately have negative consequences both for
achieving the goals of the organisational and meeting the needs of the individuals working in
them. Thus, the work environment is a source of social and psychological stress, which has
harmful effects on the well-being of the employees. Stress in general and occupational stress in

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 383

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

particular is universal and frequently disabling human phenomenon. Stress arising at work has
detrimental effect on the behaviour of people, which ultimately results in personal and
organisational inefficiency. Occupational stress can be described as a condition where
occupation-related factors interact with the worker to change (disrupt enhance) his or her
psychological or physiological condition, so that the person‘s mind and/or body is forced to
deviate from its normal way of functioning.
Indian banking industry, the backbone of the country‘s economy, has always played a key
role in prevention the economic cataclysm. The nature of job of banking employees is very
tiresome as it involves long working hours, inappropriate reward system, and lack of job
autonomy and role conflict. Stress Management is getting more and more consideration now a-
days, particularly in the financial sectors. There is no such thing like stress- free job. Everyone in
their work is exposed to tension and anxiety as they gets through the duties assigned to them.
Banking industry is not an exceptional one.

Causes of Stress
The major sources of employees stress are evenly divided between organizational factors and
the non-work environment. These dual cause are noted that individual differences among
employees may cause some to respond to these stressors with positive stress (which stimulates
them) while others experience negative stress (which distracts from their efforts). As a results,
there may be either constructive or destructive consequences for both the organization and the
employee. These efforts may be short-term and diminish quickly or they may last a long time.
Stress should be accepted as an inevitable part of life. Different situations and circumstances in
our lives and our job produce stress. Work-related stressors include occupational demands, role
conflict, role ambiguity, work overload, work underload, responsibility for others, and change,
lack of social support, lack of involvement in decisions, other sources like working conditions,
relationship with co-workers, pay system, repetitive work, extreme temperature, swing shifts,
flexible working hours, changes in working policy, reorganization of internal structure and
mergers.

Job Related Causes of Stress

Almost any job condition can cause stress, depending on an employee‘s reaction to it.
Foregone employee will accept a network procedure and feel little or no stress, while another
experiences overwhelming pressure from the same task. Part of the difference lies each
employee's experiences, general outlooks and expectations. There are, however, a number of job
conditions that frequently cause stress for employees namely work overload, time pressure, poor
quality of supervision, insecure job element, inadequate authority to match responsibilities, role
conflict and ambiguity, differences between company and employees values, change of any type,
especially when it is major or unusual and frustration.

Symptoms of Stress
People who are under stress may become nervous and chronically worried. They are easily
provoked to anger and are unable to relax. Stress also leads to physical disorders, because the
internal body system changes to cope with stress. The following are indicators that everyone
experience at the time of stressful situations namely general irritability, elevated heart rate,
increased blood pressure, increase accident proneness floating anxiety- anxious feeling for no

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 384

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

specific reason trembling insomnia headaches indigestion pain in neck and lower back, changes
in appetite or sleep pattern.

Stress Management
Stress management is dealing with stress in a positive way to ensure good health and general
well being. Although stress in a changing world is inevitable executives have options on how to
manage it. Stress management includes regular relaxation, physical exercise, talking with others,
making time for social activities and reasonable self-statement. To master change, workers need
to assess the need for stress management and develop strategies for reducing the impact of
stressful changes at work. Learning changes at work. Learning to lower the stress load will
enable staff to function and adapt more effectively.
Stress management helps executives to cope when change threatens to become overwhelming.
Ideally one would like to see change unfold in a systematic way that allows one to remain calm,
confident and optimistic. Stress can cause unpredictable and immeasurable problems to an
individual and also to the organization. It can cause job-related problems like negating safety
norms, indifferent job performance, quality compromises, not caring for others and surroundings,
forgetfulness, uncharacteristic clumsiness, defying authority, defensiveness and violent behavior.
Stress in an inevitable outcome of modern day complex life, in organizations after the arrival of
banking companies in India.

Statement of The Problem

Stress is a dynamic condition in which a person faces with constraint and strains. Stress is the
discomfort of an individual. Stress is a pressure condition causing hardship. It is an internal
phenomenon of mental attitude. Stress is generally believed to have deleterious effect on health
and performance. But a minimum level of stress is necessary for effective functioning and peak
performance. It is the individuals reaction to stress which makes all the difference. Stress is a
mental, emotional or physical reaction resulting from an individual‘s response to environmental
pressure. It refers to pressure people feel in life. Different persons respond to stressful situation
in different ways. It is important to distinguish between pressure and stress. Pressure is
motivating, stimulating and energizing. But when pressure exceeds the ability to cope, stress is
produced. Stress is an external force or pressure on the human mind. One should try to transform
stress into vitality, energy into power and knowledge into wisdom. Stress can have serious
consequences on both health and work performance.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Mathew (1993): Stress has a variety of meaning to people in the workplace. To the production
manager in a chemical plant, it may be the tension of missing the shipping date of a large order
for a major customer. To the business executive, it may be frustration associated with the
inability to acquire sufficient short-term loans from banks to cover the operating needs, and so
on.
D‘Souza (1993): Today‘s leaders not only live and work at a faster pace but also must also
deal with uncertainty and change. They need effective methods for coping with the kind of stress
that affects anyone in leadership positions. People popularly identify managing directors or chief
executive officers as those most susceptible to stress and disease. However, people at all levels
of management find themselves exposed to comparable pressures.
Jha (1988) in his study on ‗Jobs Stress and Employee Strain in India Executives‘ explains the

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 385

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

pattern of stress and strain in three work groups, namely production, personnel and data-
processing divisions in an organisation. Results indicated that job future ambiguity had negative
effect on job satisfaction in all the three groups. The patter of stress in the three groups was
different among different levels of management. Among different levels of managers, the diddle
level managers had more role ambiguity than others did.
Reddy and Ramamurthi (1991) in their study on ‗The Relation between Stress Experience on
the Job-Age, Personality and General ability‘ analysed the influence of age, personality and
general ability of the individual in the perception of stress. It was found that only age influenced
the perception of stress. There was only very limited contribution of personality and general
ability of the individual to the intensity of stress experience of the individual.
Singh and Sehgal (1995) in their study on ‗Men and Women in Transition: Patterns of Stress,
Strain and Social Relations‘ highlight the patterns of stress and strain among men and women as
well as single- and dual-career couples. They found that male and female managers did not differ
significantly on various stress dimensions. Difference in gender was however found in strains.
Shah (2003) in his study on ‗Role Stress in the Indian Industry: A Study of Banking
Organisations‘ describes adequate explanation of stress, and its nature, dimensions, causes,
manifestations and coping up strategies. It was observed that most of the employees experience
medium to high level of stress at work. Role stagnation, inadequacy of role authority and role
erosion is comparatively high-rated dimensions of job stress.
Berhem et al (2004) in their study on ‗A New Model for Work Stress Patterns‘ describe that
the role of ambiguity is the main source of work stress and self-knowledge as the main coping
strategy to overcome work stress. Work stress is believed to be one of the most important factors
affecting productivity.
Kang (2005) in his study on ‗Stressors among Medical Representatives: An Empirical
investigations‘ tries to investigate the various stressors related with the job of a medical
representative. The results showed interference of job in personal life, unsupportive colleagues,
work load and continuous pressure for improved performance have been found to be causing
stress among the medical representatives.
Anitha Devi (2006-2007) in her study on ‗Occupational Stress: A comparative Study of
Worker in different Occupations‖ describes identifying the degree of life stress and role stress
experienced by professional women. It was found that science and technology professionals and
doctors experienced significantly greater life stress and role stress.
Dhanalakhsmi (2008) in her study on ‗Actors Predicting Stress of Employees in a Public
Transport Corporation‘ measures the level of stress of the transport corporation employees and
also studies the factors that could predict stress. It is found that the employees experience
moderate level of stress. Further, stress is predicted by working environment and safety and
security.

3. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
1. To describe the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent‘
2. To identify measures to stress management level of the bank employees.

4. HYPOTHESES
1. There is a significant difference between type of family of the respondents and stress
management.
2. There is a significant difference between nativity of the respondents and stress management.

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 386

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

3. There is a significant difference between designation of the respondents and stress

management.
4. There is a significant relationship between the age of the respondents and stress management.
5. There is a significant relationship between years of work experience of the respondents and
stress management.
6. There is a significant relationship between monthly income of the respondents and stress
management.
7. There is a significant association between sex of the respondents and stress management.
8. There is a significant association between marital status of the respondents and stress
management.

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present study is based on both primary and secondary data. Primary data have been
collected by conducting a descriptively among 100 sample employees of nationalized bank in
nagapattinam district in the state of Tamil Nadu. Secondary data have been collected from books,
journals, newspapers, periodicals, reports and internet. Administering Stress management scale
was constructed and standardized by Dr.Vandana Kaushik and Dr.Namrata Arora Charpe. The
first part of the questionnaire was related to personal details of bank employees, second part
relates with measuring of stress management among the bank employees with the help of
Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS). Stress management scale was developed on the
lines of the Likert summated rating scale in order to recognize the common strategies used to
overcome stress. The item responses are to be elicited on a Likert scale that range from zero
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

6. SAMPLING DESIGN
A sample of 100 bank employees was taken to meet the sample adequacy, for conducting
factor analysis number of sample nationalized bank employees for the study were selected by
using simple random sampling method because of easy accessibility and affordability.

7. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Figure 1: Sex of the respondents
Sex
No. of Respondents

60
60
40
40 Series1

20

0
Male Female

The total numbers of respondents are 100 in which there are 60 male & 40 female respondents.
The percentage of male & female respondents is 60 % & 40 % respectively.

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 387

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

Figure 2: Age of the Respondents

Age
35
No. of Respondents

40 31
30 25
Series1
20
9
10

0
upto 25 25-35 35-45 45 above

The age of the respondents are classified in to four groups, in which 9 respondents (9%) are from
the age group of up to 25, 25 respondents (25%) are from the age group of 25-35, 35 respondents
(35%) are from the age group of 35-45, 31 respondents (31%) are from the age group of 45
above.
Figure 3: Marital Status of the Respondents
Marital Status
No. of Respondent

82
100
Series1
50 18

0
Single Married

The total numbers of respondents are 100 in which there are 18 single & 82 married respondents.
The percentage of single & married respondents is 18 % & 82 % respectively.
Figure 4: Type of Family of the Respondents
Type of Family
No. of Respontdents

56
100
44
Series1
50

0
Joint Family Nuclear Family

The total numbers of respondents are 100 in which there are 44 Joint Family & 56 Nuclear
Family respondents. The percentage of joint family & nuclear family respondents is 44 % & 56
% respectively.

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 388

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

Figure 5: Nativity of the Respondents

Nativity
20%
6%
Rural

74% Urban
Semi-Urban

The above figure explain that the respondents their nativity background like, majority of the
respondent 74 (74%) from rural, 20 (20%) from semi-urban and 6 (6%) urban.
Figure 6: Designation of the Respondents

Designation
59
No. of Respondents

60

40 30
Series1
20 6 5

0
Clerk Probationary Assistant Manager
Officer Manager

The above table that more than half 59(59%) of the respondents are clerk, 30 (30%) of the
respondents are probationary officer, 6 (6%) of the respondents are assistant manager and 5 (5%)
of the respondents are manager.

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 389

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

Figure 7: Monthly Salary of the Respondents

Monthly Income
55
60
No. of Respondents

30
40

20 4 6 5 Series1

0
Below 25,000 25,000-35,000 35,000-45,000 45,000-55,000 Above 55,000

The above figure explains that the respondents below the monthly income 25,000 are 4 (4%),
between the monthly incomes of 25,000—35,000 are 55 (55%), between the monthly incomes
of 35,000—45,000 are 30 (30%), between the incomes of 45,000—55,000 are 6 (6%) and above
the monthly income 55,000 are 5 (5%).
Figure 8: Experience of the Respondents

Experience
No. ofRespondents

35
40
30 22 24
19
Series1
20
10
0
Below 5 5 to 10 10 to 15 Above 15

The above figure explains that the respondents below the experience 5 years are 19 (19%),
between the experience of 5—10 years are 22 (22%), between the experience of 10—15years
are 24 (24%) and above the experience of 15 years are 35 (35%).
Table: 1 Level of Stress Management

Sl. Level of Stress Management Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative

No. Percent Percent
1. Very good management 26 26.0 26.0 26.0
2. Good management 29 29.0 29.0 55.0
3. Moderate management 11 11.0 11.0 66.0
4. Poor management 23 23.0 23.0 89.0
5. Very poor management 9 9.0 9.0 98.0
6. Extremely poor management 2 2.0 2.0 100.0

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 390

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

Total 100 100.0 100.0

From Table 1, it is observed that less than half of the bank employees 29(29%) had a good
management level of stress, 26 (26%) had a very good management level of stress, 23 (23%) had
a poor management level of stress, 11 (11%) had a moderate management level of stress, 9 (9%)
had a very poor management level of stress and remaining 2 (2%) had a extremely poor
management level of stress.
H1: There is a significant difference between type of family of the respondents and stress
management.
Table: 2 Z Test between Types of Family of the Respondents and Stress Management

Sl. Stress management N Mean Std. Statistical

No. level Deviation Inference
1. Joint Family 44 113.909 19.454 z=-1.581
2. Nuclear Family 56 119.911 18.029 P>0.05
Not significant
From the above table it is evident that there is no significant difference between type of family of
the respondents and Stress management. Hence, null hypothesis is accepted. Value p>0.05,
Which means that there is no statistically significant difference between the respondents who
live in nuclear type of family and those who live in joint family with regard to stress
management. It explains that the type of the family has no influence on the stress management
among the bank employees.
H2: There is a significant difference between nativity of the respondents and stress
management.
Table: 3 ‘F’ Test: One Way Analysis of Variance among the Respondents with different
nativity of Stress Management

Sl. Stress management Sum of Mean Mean Statistical Inference

No. level Squares Square
1. Between Groups 991.538 G1= 117.76 495.769 F=1.412
2. Within Groups 34046.176 G2=105.00 350.991 P>0.05
Total 35037.710 G3=119.15 Not Significant
G1=Rural G2=Urban G3=Semi Urban
From the above table it inferred that there is no significant difference among the various areas of
living of the respondents with regard to the level of stress management. Hence, null hypothesis is
accepted. It explains that the various areas of living of the respondents has no influence on the
stress management among the bank employees.
H3: There is a significant difference between designation of the respondents and stress
management.
Table: 4 ‘F’ Test: One Way Analysis of Variance among the Respondents with different
designation of Stress Management

Sl. Stress management Sum of Mean Mean Statistical Inference

No. level Squares Square
1. Between Groups 1181.641 G1= 118.88 393.880 F=1.117
2. Within Groups 33856.069 G2=115.43 352.667 P>0.05

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 391

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

G3=121.33 Not Significant

Total 35037.710
G4= 104.40
G1=Clerk G2=Probationary Officer G3=Assistant Manager G4=Manager
From the above table it inferred that there is no significant difference among the various
designations of the respondents with regard to the level of stress management. Hence, null
hypothesis is accepted. It explains that the various designations of the respondents have no
influence on the stress management among the bank employees.

H4: There is a significant relationship between the age of the respondents and stress
management.
Table: 5 Karl Pearson’ Co-Efficient of Correlation between Age of the Respondents and
Stress management.

Sl. Stress management Level Correlation Value Statistical Inference

No
1. Age 0.075 P>0.05
Not Significant
From above table it was found that there is no significant relationship between the age of the
respondents and stress management. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. It explains that age of the
respondents has no influence on the stress management level among the bank employees. The
correlation value shows that there is positive relationship between the age of the respondent and
the stress management level among the bank employees.

H5: There is a significant relationship between years of work experience of the respondents
and stress management.
Table: 6 Karl Pearson’s Co-Efficient of Correction between Years of work Experience of
the Respondents and Stress management

Sl. Stress management Level Correlation Value Statistical Inference

No
1. Experience 0.008 P>0.05
Not Significant
The above table shows that there is no significant relationship between Years of Work
Experience of the respondents with regard to overall level of stress management. Hence null
hypothesis is accepted. It explains that working experience of the respondents has no influence
on the stress management level among the bank employees. The correlation value shows that
there is positive relationship between the work experience of the respondent and the stress
management level among the bank employees.
H6: There is a significant relationship between monthly income of the respondents and
stress management.
Table: 7 Karl Pearson’s co-efficient of correction between monthly income of the
respondents and stress management

Sl. Stress management Level Correlation Value Statistical Inference

No
1. Monthly Income -0.101 P>0.05

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 392

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

Not Significant
The above table interprets that there is no significant relationship between monthly income of the
respondent and level of stress management. Hence null hypothesis accepted. It explains that the
monthly income of the respondents has no influence on the stress management level among the
bank employees. The correlation value shows that there is negative relationship between the
monthly income of the respondent and the stress management level among the bank employees.

H7: There is a significant association between sex of the respondents and stress
management.
Table: 8 Association between sex of the respondents and stress management

Sl. Stress management Level Sex Statistical Inference

Male Female
No. n=60 n=40
1. Low 33 17 χ2 = 1.50
dt = 1
2. High 27 23 P>0.05
Not Significant

The above table construes that there is no significant association between sex of the respondents
and level of stress management. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. It explains that the gender of
the respondents has no influence on the stress management level among the bank employees.

H8: There is a significant association between marital status of the respondents and stress
management.
Table: 9 Association between the respondents by marital status of stress management

Sl. Stress management Level Marital Status Statistical Inference

Single Married
No. N=16 64
1. Low 10 40 χ2 = 0.271
dt = 1
2. High 8 42 P>0.05
Not Significant
The above table indicates that there is no significant association between marital status of the
respondents and level of stress management. Hence null hypothesis is accepted. This given an
explanation that marital status of the respondents does not contribute to the stress management in
this study.
8. CONCLUSION
This study was conducted at Nationalized bank employees in nagapattinam district. The Main
aim of the study is to find out various reasons for the stress management level of bank
employees. This study analysed that the bank employees faced stress in their working area due to
their work pressure and inter personal conflicts. The results of the study it is clear that the
nationalized bank employees as a whole are found to be more than half good management level
of stress and less than half of the bank employees the poor management level of stress. The next

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 393

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

finding of this study revealed that there is no significant difference among the various areas of
living of the bank employees with regard to the level of stress management. Further, from the
result it is clear that there is no significant relationship between the age of the respondents and
stress management. Further, from the result it is clear that there is no significant relationship
between Years of Work Experience of the respondents with regard to overall level of stress
management. Further, from the result it is clear that there is no significant relationship between
monthly income of the respondent and level of stress management. It explains that the monthly
income of the respondents has no influence on the stress management level among the bank
employees. Stress can be managed by yoga and meditation, relaxation, physical exercise,
massage therapy, hydro therapy, laughter therapy, music therapy, behavior self-control, cognitive
therapy, networking, enriching of task given and involving in other interested hobbies or sports,
etc.
9. REFERENCES
[1] Beehr, t., & newman, j. (1978). Job Stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness: a facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31(4),
665-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb02118.x
[2] Borg, M., Riding, R., & Falzon, J. (1991). Stress in Teaching: a study of occupational
stress and its determinants, job satisfaction and career commitment among primary
schoolteachers. Educational Psychology, 11(1), 59-75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110104
[3] D‘Souza, A. (1993). Leadership Book. Mumbai City: J.N.Jarakkatt.
[4] Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. (1985). Human behavior at work: organizational behavior.
New Delhi: McGraw-Hill.
[5] Devi,A. (2007). Occupational stress: a comparative study of women in different
occupations. Trajan, 35(1), 61-73.
[6] Dhanalakhsmi, R. (2008). Factors predicting stress of employees in a public transport
corporation. SMART Journal Of Business Management Studies, 4(1), 59—62.
[7] Jha, S. (1988). Job stress and employee strain in Indian executives. Work & Stress, 2(3),
233-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678378808259171.
[8] Kang, L. (2005). Stressors among medical representatives: an empirical
investigation. Indian Journal Of Industrial Relations, 40(3), 336—356.
[9] Mathew, M. (1993). Organization theory and behavior book. Jaipur City: S.K. Parnami.
[10] Reddy, V. S., & Ramamurti, P. V. (1991). The relation between stress experience
on the job-age, personality and general ability. Psychological Studies, 36(2), 87-95.
[11] Robbins, S. (2005). Organizational behavior. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India.
[12] Sargent, T., & Hannum, E. (2005). Keeping Teachers Happy: Job Satisfaction
among Primary School Teachers in Rural Northwest China. Comparative Education
Review, 49(2), 173-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/428100
[13] Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. New York: McGraw-Hill
[14] Selye, H. (1984). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[15] Shah, A. (2003). Role stress in the Indian industry: A study of banking
organizations. Indian Journal Of Industrial Relations, 38(3), 381—396.
[16] Sidin, M., & S, K. (2004). A new model for work stress patterns. Asian Academy
Of Management Journal,9(1), 53—77.

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 394

Universal Review ISSN NO : 2277-2723

[17] Singh, A., & Sahgal, P. (1995). Men and Women in Transition : Patterns of
Stress, Strain, and Social Relations. Vikalpa, 20(1), 13-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0256090919950102
[18] Sorenson, H. (1964). Psychology in education. New York [u.a.]: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.

Volume VIII, Issue IV, APRIL/2019 Page No: 395

View publication stats