This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland] On: 25 January 2015, At: 12:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Occupational Stresses and Job Satisfaction Ronald J. Burke
a
a
York University , Canada Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Ronald J. Burke (1976) Occupational Stresses and Job Satisfaction, The Journal of Social Psychology, 100:2, 235-244, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1976.9711934 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1976.9711934
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 100, 235-244.
OCCUPATIONAL STRESSES AND JOB SATISFACTION** Fork University, Canada -
_
_
~
RONALDJ. BURKE
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
SUMMARY In a test of the hypothesis that some occupational stresses are desirable and some are not, the relationship between 14 sources of occupational stress and 12 aspects of job satisfaction was studied in 228 males, employed full-time and members of one of three professional associations: professional engineers, industrial accountants, or chartered accountants. The occupational stress index was significantly related to the job satisfaction index-the greater the stresses, the lower the satisfaction. But, when the specific item intercorrelations were examined, a more complicated picture emerged. For instance, about 30 percent of the correlations were in the opposite direction. And, four of the occupational stress items correlated in the opposite direction with all or nearly all of the job satisfaction items. Thus, certain types of occupational stresses, primarily associated with enlarged or demanding jobs, were positively related to employee job satisfaction.
A.
INTRODUCTION
The literature (8, 9) indicates that dysfunctional individual consequences can result from occupational role stress (e.g., role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload). Role theory states that when the behaviors expected of an individual are inconsistent-one kind of role conflict-he will experience stress, become dissatisfied, and perform less effectively than if the expectations imposed on him did not conflict. Role theory likewise states that role ambiguity-lack of the necessary information available to an organizational position-also increases the probability that the person will be dis-
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on March 31, 1975. Copyright, 1976, by The Journal Press. I This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the Ford Foundation to the Faculty of Administrative Studies, York University. I am indebted to the three associations and the respondents for providing the data and making the study possible. Patricia Burke and Tamara Weir made helpful comments on the manuscript. 235
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
236
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
satisfied with his role, will experience anxiety, and will, thus, perform less effectively. Beginning with the work of Kahn and his associates ( 5 ) and, as recently as the current work of House and his colleagues (3, 8), the accumulated data support the hypothesis that occupational role stresses are negatively correlated with job satisfaction. Thus, the general conclusion that emerges in the popular literature is that all stresses are bad. I t is difficult to pick up a professional magazine that does not contain some sort of article on job stress or pressure. Titles such as “The Executive Crack-up,” “Job Stress and the Employee,” and “Dealing with Job Tensions” abound. One article (2) that takes issue with this negative view of job pressure reports that certain pressures seem to enhance researchers’ job attitudes and performance. The authors conducted their study in 2 2 moderate-sized research-and-development organizations. Data on laboratory job pressures were obtained near the end of group interviews with the question, “What sorts of pressures do people feel around here the most?” There was considerable agreement from one laboratory to another on the three main types of pressure that were experienced by research personnel: time, quality, and financial responsibility. The three types of occupational pressures were found to have different impacts on ( a ) individual satisfaction and involvement and ( b ) organizational performance. In marked contrast to the dark view of job pressure, presented in many writings, Hall and Lawler found that certain pressures could, in fact, be functional. In their sample of research laboratories, quality pressure was particularly useful in that it related positively to both the job involvement of individual scientists and the technical effectiveness of their laboratories. Financial responsibility pressure was also a useful kind of pressure for both the individual scientist and his organization. This pressure was significantly correlated with laboratory effectiveness and the satisfaction of the scientist’s need for autonomy, suggesting that sharing in the financial responsibilities of the organization increases the individual’s sense of freedom from the control of the organization. The present investigation follows up this line of reasoning by examining the relationship between 14 measures of occupational stress and 12 aspects of job satisfaction. The general hypothesis would be that certain occupational stresses would be negatively related to certain aspects of job satisfaction and to total job satisfaction, while other occupational stresses would be positively related to certain aspects of job satisfaction and to total job satisfaction.
RONALD J. BURKE
237
B . METHOD 1. Subjects
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
The sample consisted of 228 males. They were employed full-time and were members of one of three professional associations: 61 professional engineers, 9 1 industrial accountants, 76 chartered accountants. Threehundred names of male members were randomly selected from the membership roster of each of these associations. 2. Measures
a Job stress. This area was measured by a series of 14 items of Likert scale format (1, 4, 5). The respondent was asked to indicate the extent to which he was bothered by a number of potentially stressful occupation situations (work overload, too much responsibility, too little authority, lack of performance evaluation feedback, etc.). Index scores could range from 14 (low strain), to 46 (high strain), with this sample having a mean score of 26.2. b Job Satisfaction. This area was measured by a series of 12 items of Likert scale format. The respondent was asked to indicate the extent his present job provided opportunities for making full use of present knowledge and skills, growing and learning new knowledge and skills, earning a good salary, advancing in administrative authority and status (promotions), advancing in professional respect of colleagues and chiefs, having congenial co-workers as colleagues, working on difficult and challenging problems, having freedom to carry out own ideas, being evaluated fairly in proportion to contributions, work that is felt to be important, variety of tasks and activity, and job security. Index scores could range from 12 to 60 and this sample had a mean score of 33.8. Overall or global satisfaction was measured by the following question, “Considering your job as a whole, how well do you like it?” The alternatives were five in number and ranged from 1, “I don’t like my job at all” to 5 , “I like my job very much.” This sample had a mean score of 4.1 on this item, indicating a high degree of job satisfaction. C. 1.
RESULTS
Occupational Stress
The left half of Table 1 presents the means and rank order for each of the 14 occupational stress items. This sample reported the most occupational stress from (a) not being able to get needed information, (b) too slow
238
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY TABLE 1 MEANSA N D
RANK ORDEROF AND JOB
Occupational stress Item Mean
THE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS SATISFACTION ITEMS
rob satisfaction Mean
Ranka
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
~
Too little authority Unclear job responsibilities Too much responsibility Unclear promoQonal opportunities Too heavy a workload Can’t satlsfy conflicting demands Not fully qualified lor job Someone else may get job I want Not knowing boss’s evaluation Can’t influence my boss Can’t get information I need Too slow job progress Making decisions that affect others Unreasonable pressures for performance a b
1.91
Rankb ___
8.5
Using present skills
2.76
8.5
8.5
Learning new skills Good salary Advancement to greater administrative status Increased professional respect of colleagues Congenial co-workers Challenging job problems Freedom to use own ideas Evaluated fairly Feeling my work is important Variety of tasks and activities Job security
2.87 2.85
5
3.17
1
2.99 2.74 2.65 2.76 2.85
2 10 11 8.5 5
2.82
7
2.51 2.85
12
1.91 1.28
14
1.94 2.14
7 3
1.83 1.70
10 12
1.48
13
1.98 1.99
6 5
2.18 2.16
1 2
2.06
4
1.75
11
3
5
The lower the rank, the higher the occupational stress T h e lower the rank, the lower the job satisfaction.
job progress, and (c) too heavy a workload. They reported least occupational stress from (a) not feeling qualified to handle their jobs, (b) concern that someone else might get the higher position they sought, and (c) too much responsibility. The differences in means ranged over almost a full scale point on a four point scale.
Job Satisfaction The right half of Table 1 presents the means and rank order for each of the job satisfaction items. This sample reported least opportunities in their jobs for ( a ) advancing in administrative authority and status (promotion), (b) advancing in professional respect of colleagues and chiefs, and (c) growing and learning new knowledge and skills. They reported most opportunities for ( a ) having congenial co-workers as colleagues, ( b ) working on difficult and challenging problems, and (c) doing a variety of tasks and activities. I n general, the differences in satisfaction among these 12 items were small; all means fell within approximately half a scale point on a five point scale. 2.
RONALD J. BURKE
239
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
3. Relationship of Occupational Stresses to Job Satisfaction The occupational stress index was significantly and positively related to the job satisfaction index (.26, p < .01, two-tailed test). Thus, the greater the extent to which the respondents reported the presence of the occupational stresses, the lower was their job satisfaction. The occupational stress index was also significantly and positively related to the global job satisfaction measure (.40, p < ,001, two-tailed test). The item intercorrelations, however, suggested a somewhat more complicated pattern. One-hundred and sixty-eight correlations were computed between the 14 occupational stress items and the 12 job satisfaction items. One-hundred and seventeen were positive (705%)and 76 of these (65%) were significantly different from zero at the .05 level of confidence (two-tailed test). Fifty-one were negative (30%) and nine of these (18%) were significantly different from zero at the .05 level of confidence (two-tailed test). The largest positive correlations between the occupational stress items and the job satisfaction items were (a) “too little job authority and responsibility” and “little freedom to use own ideas” (.49); (b) “unclear about job duties” and “little freedom to use own ideas” (.36); (c) “unclear about promotional opportunities” and “fair evaluation of what I accomplish” (.34); ( d ) “too little job authority and responsibility” and “job security” (. 34); and (e) “don’t know where I stand with my boss” and “fair evaluation of what I accomplish on the job” (.34). The more the individual experienced each of these occupational stresses (first one mentioned in each pair), the lower was his satisfaction with the second item mentioned. The nine significant negative correlations involved ( a ) “too heavy a workload” and 1) “challenging job problems” (-. 18); 2) “use present knowledge and skill” (-.15); 3) “a wide variety of tasks and activities” (-. 13); 4) “work that is important” ( - .13); and 5) “good salary” (- .13) and ( b ) “feeling not fully qualified to handle my job” and 1) “congenial coworkers” (-. 16); 2 ) “growing and learning new knowledge and skills” (-. 15); 3) “using present knowledge and skills’’ (-. 15); and 4) “challenging job problems” (-. 15). Thus, the more the individual experienced each of these two occupational strains, the greater was his satisfaction with the corresponding job aspects. The number of positive and negative correlations (and the number of each of these significantly different from zero) between each of the 14 occupational stress items and the 12 job satisfaction items is shown in Table 2 . Nine of the 14 occupational stress items had only positive correlations with the job satisfaction items; one occupational stress item had six
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
RELATIONSHIP OF
OCCUPATIONAL STRESS
TABLE 2 MEASCRESTO
Number of positive correlahons
I tern
JOB SATISFA
Number negativ correlatio
~
Too little job authorit5
12
(12)a
Unclear about job duties Too much responsibilitj Unclear about promotional opportunities Too heav> a workload Can't aatisf? conflichng demands Feeling not full5 qualified Someone else ma? get the jo b I want Don't know where I stand with m> boss Can't influence decisions that affect me Can't get information that I need Slow job progress Making decisiona that affect the lives of others Unreasonable pressure for performance ~-~
12
(111
12 0
(121
a
1
6 1
(
12
(
12 I?
11
8) (101
12
( 81 ( 51
I2
(
6)
(
31
1 12
0 0
11 0 12 ( 5 6 11 0
(4
0 0 0 0
11 0
Numbers in parentheses represent correlations significantlq cldferent from zero at th Correlation is significantl) different trom zero at the 05 level of confidence, two-ta
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
RONALD J. BURKE
24 1
positive and six negative correlations; and four occupational stress items had mainly negative correlations (three had 11 and one had all 12). Occupational stress items having only positive correlations were (a) too little job authority, ( b ) unclear job duties and responsibilities, (c) unclear about promotional opportunities, ( d ) concern that someone else may get the higher job they want, ( e ) not knowing where they stand with their bosses, V) being unable to influence decisions that affect them, (g) unable to get information they need to get the job done, ( h )job progress slower than they think i t should be and (i) feeling unreasonable pressure for improved job perf or mance. The occupational stress item, “can’t satisfy conflicting demands of others,” had six positive and six negative correlations. Occupational stress items having only negative correlations were (a) too much responsibility, ( b ) too heavy a workload, (c) feeling not fully qualified for the job, and (d) having to make decisions that affect the lives of others. The relationship of each of the 14 occupational stress items to the job satisfaction index and to the global measure of job satisfaction is shown in the two right-hand columns of Table 2 . With reference, first, to the job satisfaction index, nine of the correlations were significantly different from zero at the .05 level of confidence (eight positive, one negative) and four of the nonsignificant ones were negative. With reference to the correlations between each of the occupational stress items and the global measure of satisfaction, 10 correlations were significantly different from zero-and all were positive. Two of the four nonsignificant correlations were negative.
D.
CONCLUSIONS
The data obtained in the present investigation indicated that the presence of specific occupational stresses, as well as the total amount of occupational stress, was significantly related to selected aspects of job satisfaction and to total job satisfaction. The correlation between the occupational stress index and the job satisfaction index was statistically significant. This conclusion is consistent with commonsense statements that occupational stresses of pressures are dysfunctional and undesirable. When the relationships between specific occupational stress items and job satisfaction items were examined more closely, a somewhat more complicated situation emerged. First, there were a number of occupational stress items that related positively to each (or most) of the job satisfaction items and there was also a smaller number of occupational stress items that related negatively to each (or most) of the job satisfaction items (see right half of Table 2).
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
242
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
The nine items relating positively to job dissatisfaction had some common features. Some represented a lack of organizational support to an individual on a job (e.g., lack of information about job duties, promotional opportunities, standing with one's boss, lack of information needed to do the job properly). Others conveyed a sense of powerlessness or lack of control over the work situation (e.g., too little job authority, little influence with one's boss on his decisions that affect you). Another way to interpret these pressures is as factors that interfere with, or prevent, a person's doing his best job. Seashore (10) presented data from a national sample of wage-earners, which rather convincingly shows that the major complaints of these individuals involved obstacles in their work situations, which preventzd them from doing an effective job. When only these nine occupational stress items were formed into an index, it correlated .40 with the job satisfaction index and .SO with the global measure of job satisfaction, increases of .14 and .lo, respectively. Let us now consider the four occupational stresses that were positively related to job satisfaction. Three of these are associated with a demanding, challenging job andlor high organizational expectations of the employee. These three are too much responsibility, too heavy a workload, and feeling not fully qualified. The first two relate closely to perceived task demands, the third relates more closely to a personal assessment of one's ability to meet these challenging task demands. An earlier study found these three items to load on a role overload factor (1). These three occupational stresses were particularly related in the present study to job situations, which provided opportunities for working on challenging problems, using present knowledge and skills (utilization), and growing and learning new knowledge and skills (development). The implication is that jobs that are enlarged or enriched may lead to increased satisfaction, but also to an increase in certain job pressures. Other data (6, 7 , 8, 9) are consistent with this conclusion. The fourth occupational stress that was positively related to job satisfaction involved making decisions that affect the lives of others. This is an actual characteristic of the jobs of some (or most) of the respondents, i t is also related, in the present study, to having too heavy a workload. When only these four occupational stress items were formed into an index, it correlated - . 2 1 with the job satisfaction index and -.03 with the global measure of satisfaction. Thus, some occupational stresses are, indeed, functional for the individual employee. T h e remainder of the paper considers some uses stress serves and the kinds of occupational stress likely to be helpful.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
RONALD J. BURKE
243
There are individual, task, and organizational factors which are clearly related to the effects of job pressures on individual satisfaction and wellbeing. Let us consider each of these, in turn. (a) Zndividualfuctors. If the individual feels he can control the occupational pressures because he has successfully done so in the past, he is much more likely to commit himself to and work harder toward higher goals to deal effectively with the pressures than in the individual accustomed to failure. He is also more likely to cope with the pressure if it is of his own making or results from his voluntarily taking it on. This stems from the fact that what he wants to do (internal commitment) and what he is being pressured to do (external forces) are congruent. The individual also will more likely experience satisfaction with the pressure if he has personal control over its reduction. If the individual feels he has no power to meet successfully the job pressures he is experiencing, he will feel hopelessly trapped. ( b ) Task factors. The more the individual experiences pressures intrinsic to the task requirements of his job, the better he will understand the reasons for and the nature of these pressures. Receiving pressures directly from the work provides him with first-hand information. In addition, some of these pressures from the task itself operate to enrich and enlarge the job, thereby providing greater intrinsic motivation. (c) Organizational factors. The amount and type of organizational support provided to the individual under pressure is important and mutual coping is functional. It can make a tremendous differences in the quality of a man’s coping efforts if he feels that the organization is in there pitching with him, supporting him closely, and working just as hard as he is in solving the problem. Job pressures are not all bad. Certain job pressures may be useful under most conditions (e.g., high but realistic performance goals, a heavy workload, quality workmanship). Other job pressures may be dysfunctional under most conditions (e.g., too little job authority, lack of information, conflicting job expectations). I t is in the latter situation that the organization and one’s colleagues can play a major supporting role. It would be in everyone’s best interest to decrease those pressures that interfere with individual satisfaction and organizational performance and increase those pressures that facilitate individual satisfaction and growth and organization effectiveness.
REFERENCES 1.
BURKE,R. J , & BELCOURT,M. Managerial role stress and copying responses J . Bus. Admi%., 1974, 5, 55-68
244
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
2.
HALL,D. T . . & LAWLER,E. E. Job pressures and research performance. Amer. Sci.,
3.
HOUSE,R. J . , & RIZZO, J. R. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organis. Behav. & H u m . Perform.. 1972, 7, 467-505. INDIK. V . , SEASHORE,S. E.. & SLESINGER,J. Demographic correlates of psychological strain. J . Abn. & Soc. PsycizoL., 1964, 69, 26-3X. KAHN,R. L., et a!. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964. LAWLER,E. E. Motivation in Work Organizations. Belmont, Calif.: BrookdCole, 1973. MANN, F. C., & WILLIAMS,L. K. Some effects of the changing work environment in the office. J . Soc. fss., 1962, 18. 90-101. RIZZO, J. R.. HOUSE,R. J., & LIRTZMAN,S. I . Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Admin. S r i . Quarf.. 1970, 15, 150-163. SALES.S. M. Some effects of role overload and role underload. Organis. Behav. G. Hum. Perform., 1970. 5 , 592-608. SEASHORE.S. E. A survey of working conditions in the C'nited States. Stud. in Person. Psychol., 19i2. 4, 7-20.
1971, 59, 64-73.
4. 5.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
York University Faculty of Administrative Studies 1700 Keele Street Downsview, Ontario M3J 2R6, Canuda
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Occupational Stresses and Job Satisfaction Ronald J. Burke
a
a
York University , Canada Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Ronald J. Burke (1976) Occupational Stresses and Job Satisfaction, The Journal of Social Psychology, 100:2, 235-244, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1976.9711934 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1976.9711934
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 100, 235-244.
OCCUPATIONAL STRESSES AND JOB SATISFACTION** Fork University, Canada -
_
_
~
RONALDJ. BURKE
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
SUMMARY In a test of the hypothesis that some occupational stresses are desirable and some are not, the relationship between 14 sources of occupational stress and 12 aspects of job satisfaction was studied in 228 males, employed full-time and members of one of three professional associations: professional engineers, industrial accountants, or chartered accountants. The occupational stress index was significantly related to the job satisfaction index-the greater the stresses, the lower the satisfaction. But, when the specific item intercorrelations were examined, a more complicated picture emerged. For instance, about 30 percent of the correlations were in the opposite direction. And, four of the occupational stress items correlated in the opposite direction with all or nearly all of the job satisfaction items. Thus, certain types of occupational stresses, primarily associated with enlarged or demanding jobs, were positively related to employee job satisfaction.
A.
INTRODUCTION
The literature (8, 9) indicates that dysfunctional individual consequences can result from occupational role stress (e.g., role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload). Role theory states that when the behaviors expected of an individual are inconsistent-one kind of role conflict-he will experience stress, become dissatisfied, and perform less effectively than if the expectations imposed on him did not conflict. Role theory likewise states that role ambiguity-lack of the necessary information available to an organizational position-also increases the probability that the person will be dis-
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on March 31, 1975. Copyright, 1976, by The Journal Press. I This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the Ford Foundation to the Faculty of Administrative Studies, York University. I am indebted to the three associations and the respondents for providing the data and making the study possible. Patricia Burke and Tamara Weir made helpful comments on the manuscript. 235
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
236
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
satisfied with his role, will experience anxiety, and will, thus, perform less effectively. Beginning with the work of Kahn and his associates ( 5 ) and, as recently as the current work of House and his colleagues (3, 8), the accumulated data support the hypothesis that occupational role stresses are negatively correlated with job satisfaction. Thus, the general conclusion that emerges in the popular literature is that all stresses are bad. I t is difficult to pick up a professional magazine that does not contain some sort of article on job stress or pressure. Titles such as “The Executive Crack-up,” “Job Stress and the Employee,” and “Dealing with Job Tensions” abound. One article (2) that takes issue with this negative view of job pressure reports that certain pressures seem to enhance researchers’ job attitudes and performance. The authors conducted their study in 2 2 moderate-sized research-and-development organizations. Data on laboratory job pressures were obtained near the end of group interviews with the question, “What sorts of pressures do people feel around here the most?” There was considerable agreement from one laboratory to another on the three main types of pressure that were experienced by research personnel: time, quality, and financial responsibility. The three types of occupational pressures were found to have different impacts on ( a ) individual satisfaction and involvement and ( b ) organizational performance. In marked contrast to the dark view of job pressure, presented in many writings, Hall and Lawler found that certain pressures could, in fact, be functional. In their sample of research laboratories, quality pressure was particularly useful in that it related positively to both the job involvement of individual scientists and the technical effectiveness of their laboratories. Financial responsibility pressure was also a useful kind of pressure for both the individual scientist and his organization. This pressure was significantly correlated with laboratory effectiveness and the satisfaction of the scientist’s need for autonomy, suggesting that sharing in the financial responsibilities of the organization increases the individual’s sense of freedom from the control of the organization. The present investigation follows up this line of reasoning by examining the relationship between 14 measures of occupational stress and 12 aspects of job satisfaction. The general hypothesis would be that certain occupational stresses would be negatively related to certain aspects of job satisfaction and to total job satisfaction, while other occupational stresses would be positively related to certain aspects of job satisfaction and to total job satisfaction.
RONALD J. BURKE
237
B . METHOD 1. Subjects
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
The sample consisted of 228 males. They were employed full-time and were members of one of three professional associations: 61 professional engineers, 9 1 industrial accountants, 76 chartered accountants. Threehundred names of male members were randomly selected from the membership roster of each of these associations. 2. Measures
a Job stress. This area was measured by a series of 14 items of Likert scale format (1, 4, 5). The respondent was asked to indicate the extent to which he was bothered by a number of potentially stressful occupation situations (work overload, too much responsibility, too little authority, lack of performance evaluation feedback, etc.). Index scores could range from 14 (low strain), to 46 (high strain), with this sample having a mean score of 26.2. b Job Satisfaction. This area was measured by a series of 12 items of Likert scale format. The respondent was asked to indicate the extent his present job provided opportunities for making full use of present knowledge and skills, growing and learning new knowledge and skills, earning a good salary, advancing in administrative authority and status (promotions), advancing in professional respect of colleagues and chiefs, having congenial co-workers as colleagues, working on difficult and challenging problems, having freedom to carry out own ideas, being evaluated fairly in proportion to contributions, work that is felt to be important, variety of tasks and activity, and job security. Index scores could range from 12 to 60 and this sample had a mean score of 33.8. Overall or global satisfaction was measured by the following question, “Considering your job as a whole, how well do you like it?” The alternatives were five in number and ranged from 1, “I don’t like my job at all” to 5 , “I like my job very much.” This sample had a mean score of 4.1 on this item, indicating a high degree of job satisfaction. C. 1.
RESULTS
Occupational Stress
The left half of Table 1 presents the means and rank order for each of the 14 occupational stress items. This sample reported the most occupational stress from (a) not being able to get needed information, (b) too slow
238
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY TABLE 1 MEANSA N D
RANK ORDEROF AND JOB
Occupational stress Item Mean
THE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS SATISFACTION ITEMS
rob satisfaction Mean
Ranka
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
~
Too little authority Unclear job responsibilities Too much responsibility Unclear promoQonal opportunities Too heavy a workload Can’t satlsfy conflicting demands Not fully qualified lor job Someone else may get job I want Not knowing boss’s evaluation Can’t influence my boss Can’t get information I need Too slow job progress Making decisions that affect others Unreasonable pressures for performance a b
1.91
Rankb ___
8.5
Using present skills
2.76
8.5
8.5
Learning new skills Good salary Advancement to greater administrative status Increased professional respect of colleagues Congenial co-workers Challenging job problems Freedom to use own ideas Evaluated fairly Feeling my work is important Variety of tasks and activities Job security
2.87 2.85
5
3.17
1
2.99 2.74 2.65 2.76 2.85
2 10 11 8.5 5
2.82
7
2.51 2.85
12
1.91 1.28
14
1.94 2.14
7 3
1.83 1.70
10 12
1.48
13
1.98 1.99
6 5
2.18 2.16
1 2
2.06
4
1.75
11
3
5
The lower the rank, the higher the occupational stress T h e lower the rank, the lower the job satisfaction.
job progress, and (c) too heavy a workload. They reported least occupational stress from (a) not feeling qualified to handle their jobs, (b) concern that someone else might get the higher position they sought, and (c) too much responsibility. The differences in means ranged over almost a full scale point on a four point scale.
Job Satisfaction The right half of Table 1 presents the means and rank order for each of the job satisfaction items. This sample reported least opportunities in their jobs for ( a ) advancing in administrative authority and status (promotion), (b) advancing in professional respect of colleagues and chiefs, and (c) growing and learning new knowledge and skills. They reported most opportunities for ( a ) having congenial co-workers as colleagues, ( b ) working on difficult and challenging problems, and (c) doing a variety of tasks and activities. I n general, the differences in satisfaction among these 12 items were small; all means fell within approximately half a scale point on a five point scale. 2.
RONALD J. BURKE
239
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
3. Relationship of Occupational Stresses to Job Satisfaction The occupational stress index was significantly and positively related to the job satisfaction index (.26, p < .01, two-tailed test). Thus, the greater the extent to which the respondents reported the presence of the occupational stresses, the lower was their job satisfaction. The occupational stress index was also significantly and positively related to the global job satisfaction measure (.40, p < ,001, two-tailed test). The item intercorrelations, however, suggested a somewhat more complicated pattern. One-hundred and sixty-eight correlations were computed between the 14 occupational stress items and the 12 job satisfaction items. One-hundred and seventeen were positive (705%)and 76 of these (65%) were significantly different from zero at the .05 level of confidence (two-tailed test). Fifty-one were negative (30%) and nine of these (18%) were significantly different from zero at the .05 level of confidence (two-tailed test). The largest positive correlations between the occupational stress items and the job satisfaction items were (a) “too little job authority and responsibility” and “little freedom to use own ideas” (.49); (b) “unclear about job duties” and “little freedom to use own ideas” (.36); (c) “unclear about promotional opportunities” and “fair evaluation of what I accomplish” (.34); ( d ) “too little job authority and responsibility” and “job security” (. 34); and (e) “don’t know where I stand with my boss” and “fair evaluation of what I accomplish on the job” (.34). The more the individual experienced each of these occupational stresses (first one mentioned in each pair), the lower was his satisfaction with the second item mentioned. The nine significant negative correlations involved ( a ) “too heavy a workload” and 1) “challenging job problems” (-. 18); 2) “use present knowledge and skill” (-.15); 3) “a wide variety of tasks and activities” (-. 13); 4) “work that is important” ( - .13); and 5) “good salary” (- .13) and ( b ) “feeling not fully qualified to handle my job” and 1) “congenial coworkers” (-. 16); 2 ) “growing and learning new knowledge and skills” (-. 15); 3) “using present knowledge and skills’’ (-. 15); and 4) “challenging job problems” (-. 15). Thus, the more the individual experienced each of these two occupational strains, the greater was his satisfaction with the corresponding job aspects. The number of positive and negative correlations (and the number of each of these significantly different from zero) between each of the 14 occupational stress items and the 12 job satisfaction items is shown in Table 2 . Nine of the 14 occupational stress items had only positive correlations with the job satisfaction items; one occupational stress item had six
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
RELATIONSHIP OF
OCCUPATIONAL STRESS
TABLE 2 MEASCRESTO
Number of positive correlahons
I tern
JOB SATISFA
Number negativ correlatio
~
Too little job authorit5
12
(12)a
Unclear about job duties Too much responsibilitj Unclear about promotional opportunities Too heav> a workload Can't aatisf? conflichng demands Feeling not full5 qualified Someone else ma? get the jo b I want Don't know where I stand with m> boss Can't influence decisions that affect me Can't get information that I need Slow job progress Making decisiona that affect the lives of others Unreasonable pressure for performance ~-~
12
(111
12 0
(121
a
1
6 1
(
12
(
12 I?
11
8) (101
12
( 81 ( 51
I2
(
6)
(
31
1 12
0 0
11 0 12 ( 5 6 11 0
(4
0 0 0 0
11 0
Numbers in parentheses represent correlations significantlq cldferent from zero at th Correlation is significantl) different trom zero at the 05 level of confidence, two-ta
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
RONALD J. BURKE
24 1
positive and six negative correlations; and four occupational stress items had mainly negative correlations (three had 11 and one had all 12). Occupational stress items having only positive correlations were (a) too little job authority, ( b ) unclear job duties and responsibilities, (c) unclear about promotional opportunities, ( d ) concern that someone else may get the higher job they want, ( e ) not knowing where they stand with their bosses, V) being unable to influence decisions that affect them, (g) unable to get information they need to get the job done, ( h )job progress slower than they think i t should be and (i) feeling unreasonable pressure for improved job perf or mance. The occupational stress item, “can’t satisfy conflicting demands of others,” had six positive and six negative correlations. Occupational stress items having only negative correlations were (a) too much responsibility, ( b ) too heavy a workload, (c) feeling not fully qualified for the job, and (d) having to make decisions that affect the lives of others. The relationship of each of the 14 occupational stress items to the job satisfaction index and to the global measure of job satisfaction is shown in the two right-hand columns of Table 2 . With reference, first, to the job satisfaction index, nine of the correlations were significantly different from zero at the .05 level of confidence (eight positive, one negative) and four of the nonsignificant ones were negative. With reference to the correlations between each of the occupational stress items and the global measure of satisfaction, 10 correlations were significantly different from zero-and all were positive. Two of the four nonsignificant correlations were negative.
D.
CONCLUSIONS
The data obtained in the present investigation indicated that the presence of specific occupational stresses, as well as the total amount of occupational stress, was significantly related to selected aspects of job satisfaction and to total job satisfaction. The correlation between the occupational stress index and the job satisfaction index was statistically significant. This conclusion is consistent with commonsense statements that occupational stresses of pressures are dysfunctional and undesirable. When the relationships between specific occupational stress items and job satisfaction items were examined more closely, a somewhat more complicated situation emerged. First, there were a number of occupational stress items that related positively to each (or most) of the job satisfaction items and there was also a smaller number of occupational stress items that related negatively to each (or most) of the job satisfaction items (see right half of Table 2).
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
242
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
The nine items relating positively to job dissatisfaction had some common features. Some represented a lack of organizational support to an individual on a job (e.g., lack of information about job duties, promotional opportunities, standing with one's boss, lack of information needed to do the job properly). Others conveyed a sense of powerlessness or lack of control over the work situation (e.g., too little job authority, little influence with one's boss on his decisions that affect you). Another way to interpret these pressures is as factors that interfere with, or prevent, a person's doing his best job. Seashore (10) presented data from a national sample of wage-earners, which rather convincingly shows that the major complaints of these individuals involved obstacles in their work situations, which preventzd them from doing an effective job. When only these nine occupational stress items were formed into an index, it correlated .40 with the job satisfaction index and .SO with the global measure of job satisfaction, increases of .14 and .lo, respectively. Let us now consider the four occupational stresses that were positively related to job satisfaction. Three of these are associated with a demanding, challenging job andlor high organizational expectations of the employee. These three are too much responsibility, too heavy a workload, and feeling not fully qualified. The first two relate closely to perceived task demands, the third relates more closely to a personal assessment of one's ability to meet these challenging task demands. An earlier study found these three items to load on a role overload factor (1). These three occupational stresses were particularly related in the present study to job situations, which provided opportunities for working on challenging problems, using present knowledge and skills (utilization), and growing and learning new knowledge and skills (development). The implication is that jobs that are enlarged or enriched may lead to increased satisfaction, but also to an increase in certain job pressures. Other data (6, 7 , 8, 9) are consistent with this conclusion. The fourth occupational stress that was positively related to job satisfaction involved making decisions that affect the lives of others. This is an actual characteristic of the jobs of some (or most) of the respondents, i t is also related, in the present study, to having too heavy a workload. When only these four occupational stress items were formed into an index, it correlated - . 2 1 with the job satisfaction index and -.03 with the global measure of satisfaction. Thus, some occupational stresses are, indeed, functional for the individual employee. T h e remainder of the paper considers some uses stress serves and the kinds of occupational stress likely to be helpful.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
RONALD J. BURKE
243
There are individual, task, and organizational factors which are clearly related to the effects of job pressures on individual satisfaction and wellbeing. Let us consider each of these, in turn. (a) Zndividualfuctors. If the individual feels he can control the occupational pressures because he has successfully done so in the past, he is much more likely to commit himself to and work harder toward higher goals to deal effectively with the pressures than in the individual accustomed to failure. He is also more likely to cope with the pressure if it is of his own making or results from his voluntarily taking it on. This stems from the fact that what he wants to do (internal commitment) and what he is being pressured to do (external forces) are congruent. The individual also will more likely experience satisfaction with the pressure if he has personal control over its reduction. If the individual feels he has no power to meet successfully the job pressures he is experiencing, he will feel hopelessly trapped. ( b ) Task factors. The more the individual experiences pressures intrinsic to the task requirements of his job, the better he will understand the reasons for and the nature of these pressures. Receiving pressures directly from the work provides him with first-hand information. In addition, some of these pressures from the task itself operate to enrich and enlarge the job, thereby providing greater intrinsic motivation. (c) Organizational factors. The amount and type of organizational support provided to the individual under pressure is important and mutual coping is functional. It can make a tremendous differences in the quality of a man’s coping efforts if he feels that the organization is in there pitching with him, supporting him closely, and working just as hard as he is in solving the problem. Job pressures are not all bad. Certain job pressures may be useful under most conditions (e.g., high but realistic performance goals, a heavy workload, quality workmanship). Other job pressures may be dysfunctional under most conditions (e.g., too little job authority, lack of information, conflicting job expectations). I t is in the latter situation that the organization and one’s colleagues can play a major supporting role. It would be in everyone’s best interest to decrease those pressures that interfere with individual satisfaction and organizational performance and increase those pressures that facilitate individual satisfaction and growth and organization effectiveness.
REFERENCES 1.
BURKE,R. J , & BELCOURT,M. Managerial role stress and copying responses J . Bus. Admi%., 1974, 5, 55-68
244
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
2.
HALL,D. T . . & LAWLER,E. E. Job pressures and research performance. Amer. Sci.,
3.
HOUSE,R. J . , & RIZZO, J. R. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organis. Behav. & H u m . Perform.. 1972, 7, 467-505. INDIK. V . , SEASHORE,S. E.. & SLESINGER,J. Demographic correlates of psychological strain. J . Abn. & Soc. PsycizoL., 1964, 69, 26-3X. KAHN,R. L., et a!. Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964. LAWLER,E. E. Motivation in Work Organizations. Belmont, Calif.: BrookdCole, 1973. MANN, F. C., & WILLIAMS,L. K. Some effects of the changing work environment in the office. J . Soc. fss., 1962, 18. 90-101. RIZZO, J. R.. HOUSE,R. J., & LIRTZMAN,S. I . Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Admin. S r i . Quarf.. 1970, 15, 150-163. SALES.S. M. Some effects of role overload and role underload. Organis. Behav. G. Hum. Perform., 1970. 5 , 592-608. SEASHORE.S. E. A survey of working conditions in the C'nited States. Stud. in Person. Psychol., 19i2. 4, 7-20.
1971, 59, 64-73.
4. 5.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 12:22 25 January 2015
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
York University Faculty of Administrative Studies 1700 Keele Street Downsview, Ontario M3J 2R6, Canuda
