Research Methodology Research Objective To study the association among OccupationalStress factors and Performance at workplace among Agricultural Research SectorEmployees at Hyderabad, India. The exploratory anddescriptive research method was followed, with agricultural research sectoremployees being the universe of population. The sample size was determinedusing Cochran (1977) formula assuming p=0.05 maximum variability and 95% CIlevel with 3.5% precision being set (Malhotra and Dash, 2010).
The simplerandom sampling without replacement being followed where all samples have equalchance of being selected. Cochran (1977)developed a formula to calculate a representative sample for proportions as Where no is sample size, z is theselected critical value of desired confidence level, p is the estimatedproportion of an attribute that is present in the population, q =1 – p and e is the desired level ofprecision. Assuming the maximumvariability, which is equal to 50% ( p =0.5) and taking 95% confidence levelwith ±5% precision, the calculation for required sample size will be as follows: p= 0.5 and hence q=1-0.
5 = 0.5; e=0.035; z =1.
96 = 786 Subjects: During June 2016-March 2017 the structured questionnaire wascirculated through google form link and hard copy wherever required to over 900employees of agricultural research sector and received 826 responses and 756 responseswas selected and 70 responses were not considered because the response were notcomplete. Generalcharacteristics: The general characteristics examined are respondents age,gender, marital status and level of education. Age was stratified into fourgroups: 20-29 years, 30-35 years, 36-40 years and >40 years.
Health behaviours and work-related factors: The participants wereasked to fill about smoking habits, whether diabetic or not, suffer fromhypertension, employment tenure, working hours per week, depressive symptomsfor examining the psychological factors, work-related factors that cause stress– physiological factors, job insecurity, lack of control, lack of rewards,excessive job demand and social support. The statements of like “Over the pastsix months have you experienced any stress? Did stress effect your jobperformance?” used and measured using dichotomous variables Yes/No formeasuring the general characteristics smoking, diabetic, hypertension, etc. Assessment ofoccupational stress and its effect on performance: The occupational stressscale based on occupational stress index constructed and standardized bySrivastava and Singh (1984); the modified version of the performance scale(Campbell 1990) and coping strategies scale constructed and standardized bySrivastava (2001) was used for assessing the occupational stress and its effecton employee performance.
Demography of the sample Gender Frequency Percent Women 381 50.40 Men 375 49.60 Total 756 100 Sample description Age group (Years) No of respondents Percentage 20-29 226 29.9 30-35 265 35.0 36-40 173 22.9 >40 92 12.
2 Research instrument usedfor the survey is a standardized, structured undisguised questionnaire, themain source of primary data collection. Secondary data was collected fromarchives of websites, journals, and conference papers. The questionnaire wasdivided into two sections and in the Section I the information related to thegeneral characteristics was gathered.
The occupational stress levels and theirimpact on employee performance was measured using the Section II of thequestionnaire. To measure the each factor a range of 5-8 statements related tothe occupational stress factors and employee performance were used to gatherdata using a 5-point likert type scale. The questions were systematically mixedto avoid the bias. The factor analysiswas used to reduce the factors to 7 with the help of SAS 9.4 ver (Table 1) Table 1.
Occupational stress factors causing effect on employee performance Factor Description Factors 1 Work in shifts 6 factors –Shift work, reliever issues, transport issues during late shifts 2 Job demand 6 factors- Seasonal job demand, several job assignment, job place, excessive work pressure, time management, etc. 3 Working Hours 5 factors – late hours, transport issues, continue to work more than 8 hours/day, issues of late hours, food 4 Lack of Control 8 factors – Job independency, decision making issues, sub-ordinate control etc. 5 Social Support 8 factors – social support issues like instrumental support, emotional support, support from family, tangible support, informational support etc., 6 Job Insecurity 6 factors- termination, pink slip, place insecurity, transfer, job stability etc. 7 Lack of reward 6 factors – appreciation, cash rewards, promotions, involving in decisions, etc., 8 Performance 5 Factors – Experience Stress, effect on output, absenteeism, poor work relations Reliability of the research instrument: TheLikert-type scale with items 1-5 was used (where 1=Strongly disagree,2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree and 5=Strongly agree) in this study. The reliability statistic C-alpha coefficientvalue was calculated to test the internal consistency of the instrument, bydetermining how all items in the instrument related to the total instrument (Cronbach,1951; Gay, Mills, and Airasian, 2006).
This instrument was tested on a pilotgroup of 100 employees each among both men and Women. They were asked to fillout the 55-questions, and requested to select the appropriate answer on 5-pointLikert Scale. After analysing their responses from the pilot study with SASprogram, the C-alpha statistic was found to be 0.62 and 0.75 respectively forMen and Women with overall C-alpha 0.
73, suggesting a strong internalconsistency. Three months later, the same instrument was used with 756employees, 375 Men and 391Women to collect the responses. Five questions weredropped out from a set of 50 questions because of unsatisfactory C-Alphacoefficient values. The C-Alpha values for the seven independent and onedependent factor ranged from 0.
67 to 0.83 for Men and from 0.64 to 0.86 for Women,whereas the overall C-alpha values are, 0.87 and 0.79 for respectively for Menand Women.
The increase in C-alpha values is an effect of dropping the fivequestions with low C-Alpha values (Table 2).