Creative Education 2012. Vol.3, No.1, 134-144 Published Online February 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.31022 Copyright © 2012 SciR e s . 134 Factors Associated with Occupational Stress and Their Effects on Organizational Performance in a Sudanese University Ahlam B. El Shikieri1, Hassan A. Musa2 1Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Taibah University, Medina, Saudi Arabia 2The National Ribat University, Khartoum, Sudan Email: dn7shiki@hotmail.c om Received October 31st, 2011; revised Novem ber 21st, 2011; accepted December 8th, 2011 Occupational stress has a significant impact on student learning and thereby on the contribution that such institutions can make to society. This affects organizational performance by reducing productivity and ef- ficiency which affect the organization negatively. The aim of the current study was to determine the fac- tors associated with occupational stress and their relationship with organizational performance at one of the private universities in Sudan. A total of 150 male and female employees from different departments and with various educational levels in the main building of the university were randomly selected. Data was collected using a questionnaire with background questions, job stressors such as role conflict and ambiguity, lack of participation in decision making, lack of authority, workload, unsatisfactory working conditions and interpersonal relationships, and statements about the effect on organisational performance. Questions were based on three- and four-point scale. Responses were grouped in terms of scores to show the level of job stress. Descriptive statistics was carried out using SPSS programme. Results indicated that on average the employees experienced high degree of job stress. Job stressors affected the general physi- cal health of employees, their job satisfaction and performance as well as their commitment negatively. Similar findings were reported in other studies. The study recommended that the university needs to ele- vate the situation and resolve all the factors affecting the employees by for example increasing the num- ber of staff needed to perform the tasks and/or decreasing the number of students enrolled. Keywords: Higher Education; Occupational Stress; Organizational Performance; Sudan Introduction Stress is a prevalent problem in modern life (Smith, 2000; Chang & Lu, 2007). In 1964, Selye was the first to use the term “stress” to describe a set of physical and psychological re- sponses to adverse conditions or influences (cited from Fevre et al., 2003). Occupational stress can be defined as a disruption of the emotional stability of the individual that induces a state of disorganization in personality and behaviour (Nwadiani, 2006). A stressor may be define d as any “demand made by the internal or external environment that upsets a person’s balance and for which restoration is needed” (Herbert, 1997; Larson, 2004). Job stressors may refer to any characteristic of the workplace that poses a threat to the individual (Bridger et al., 2007). They affect organizational performance by reducing productivity and efficiency which affect the organization negatively (Dua, 1994; Brown & Uehara, 2008; Reskin, 2008). Theories of Occupational Stress There are several theories of occupation stress, in this section, the “person-environment fit theory, the “demand-control” the- ory and the “cybernetic and systems” theory will be the selected theories since they are prevalent and central to the literature on occupational stress (Fevre et al., 2003). Moreover, they are representative of the range of theories in that they tend to em- phasise various sources and interactional models for the induc- tion of stress as well as different outcome measures for the management of stressors (Fevre et al., 2003). Person-Environment (PE) F it Theory According to the PE fit theory, stress and stressors are not defined in terms of either the individual or the environment, but rather in terms of the degree to which there is “misfit” between the two (Kenny, 1999; Fevre et al., 2003). The outcome set of PE fit theory consists of the individual's potential reactions to misfit, which can be characterised as ei- ther coping or defense (Kenny, 1999; Rees & Redfern, 2000). Coping and defense are both potentially adaptive, neither being necessarily better or more effective than the other. Demand-Control Theory The demand-control theory concerns the joint effects of job demands and job control on the employee well being (Kenny, 1999). According to Karasek’s job demand—control model, strain occurs when high job demands combine with low oppor- tunity to influence tasks and procedures, resulting in poor em- ployee health and low job satisfaction (Bridger et al., 2007). Heavy workload (McKenna et al., 2002; Nwadiani, 2006), in- frequent rest breaks, long working hours and shift work; hectic and routine tasks that have little inherent meaning, do not util- ize workers’ skills, and provide little sense of control (Fair- brother & Warn, 2003). Locus of control and self-efficacy may have a major impact on perceived stressors and resultant stress (Kenny, 1999; Fevre et al., 2003; Love et al., 2007). Thus, an increase in control is positively correlated with job satisfaction (Kenny, 1999).
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. According to the demand theory, demand is subdivided into workload, work hazards, physical and emotional demands and role conflict (Kenny, 1999; Love et al., 2007). For stress to exist , the demand from the environment (the job) versus the capabil- ity of the individual (the employee) will typically be considera- bly out of balance (Larson, 2004). Cybernetic and Systems Theory Cybernetics has been defined as a science of communication and control in man and machine; an epistemological foundation for personal and social change, which focuses on mental proc- ess, whereby individuals monitor their psychological and phy- siological reactions to various stressors (Kenny, 1999; Fevre et al., 2003). Cybernetic theory deals with the response of systems to information using feedback. The theory emphasises whole- ness and the interaction of component parts. It incorporates or- ganisation as unifying principles as well as incorporates non- linear theories of causation and is based upon a circular episte- mology (Kenny, 1999). Possible Causes of Stress in Higher Education Academic staff has a major role to play in achieving the ob- jectives of the institution (Rowley, 1996). The performance of the staff, both as teachers and researchers and also as managers, determines to a large extent, the quality of the student experi- ence of higher education and has a significant impact on student learning and thereby on the contribution that such institutions can make to society (Rowley, 1996). Responsibility for others is often associated with significant job stress. This happens because the individual is spending significant amounts of time interacting with others, attending meetings, and trying to work with and motivate others to meet deadlines and schedules. Re- sponsibility for others can be particularly stressful for manage- rial and professional workers such as teachers (Gmelch & Burns, 1994; Larson, 2004). The stress experienced by different occupation types and job roles has been discussed in many studies with a number of dif- ferent occupations being described as experiencing above av- erage levels of stress, such as teachers (McCormick, 1997; Johnson et al., 2005; Brown & Uehara, 2008). In a study by Baker (2004), it was reported that teachers had higher levels of stress at work, almost double the rate (40%) when compared with other professions. A recent survey carried out by the As- sociation of University Teachers found that 69% of academic and related staff found their job stressful and 50% reported psychological distress (cited from Venables & Allender, 2006). Similar findings were reported elsewhere (e.g. Gmelch & Burns, 1994). Stress is however not experienced uniformly by teachers, but varies from one individual to another (McCormick, 1997). This depends among other things, on the individual characteristics such as social support, coping strategies and individuals with Type A personality (Dua, 1994; Herbert, 1997). The latter indi- viduals underestimate the time required to accomplish tasks and, therefore, experience time pressures. They work quickly and show impatience and decreased work performance if forced to work slowly (Sadri, 1997). Type As ignore, suppress or deny physical or psychological symptoms while working under pres- sure, and report such symptoms only when the work is finished (Daft, 2006). In addition, they works harder and experience physiological arousal when a task is perceived as challenging; express hostility and irritation in response to a threat; and need to be in control of the immediate environment to such an extent that a lack of control may elicit a hostile competitive response (Sadri, 1997). Stress is not value-free, and for some teachers, coping with occupational stress may be associated with success, and “failing to cope” associated with failure (McCormick, 1997). McDonald and Korabik found that male managers reported coping strate- gies which can be categorized as “avoidance/withdrawal”, while female managers reported that they were more likely to talk to others and seek social support than male managers (cited from Lim & Teo, 1996). Teaching is an occupation that demands many roles (Mc- Cormick, 1997). Role demands can become stressful for a teacher for many reasons; for instance when organisational members’ expectations about a teacher’s behaviour are unclear (role ambiguity) (Koustelios et al., 2004; Nwadiani, 2006). Role ambiguity refers to the uncertainty, on the part of employees, about key requirements of their jobs, and about how they are expected to behave in those jobs (Nhundu, 1999; Koustelios et al., 2004). Role ambiguity can result from deficient information available (Conley & Woosley, 2000). The former could lead to lower performance in some jobs, simply because workers do not know how to direct their efforts most effectively (Conley & Woosley, 2000) and is associated with job dissatisfaction (Fair- brother & Warn, 2003; Bridger et al., 2007). In addition, role demands are stressful when meeting one set of expectations makes it more difficult to meet other expecta- tions (role conflict) (Koustelios et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2005). Role conflict occurs when different groups or persons with whom an individua l must i nteract (e. g. fa mily , me mbers of that person’s group) hold conflicting expectations about that individual's behaviour (Nwadiani, 2006; Chang & Lu, 2007). Role conflict can result from inconsistent information (Conley & Woosley, 2000). It is important to note that several studies have revealed that both role conflict and role ambiguity are associated with low satisfaction, absenteeism, low involvement, low expectancies and task characteristics with a low motivating potential and tension, which all affect the productivity and effi- ciency at the organisation (Conley & Woosley, 2000; Manshor et al., 2003; Koustelios et al., 2004; Nwadiani, 2006; Chang & Lu, 2007). Furthermore, role demands could be stressful when they are excessive (role overload) (Johnson et al, 2005). For instance, academic overload comes when teachers experience increased responsibilities (Stress, 2008). The daily interactions with stu- dents and co-workers and the incessant and fragmented de- mands of teaching often lead to overwhelming pressures and challenges, which may lead to stress (Brown & Uehara, 2008). Universities are particularly vulnerable to these adverse effects of stress on staff, largely because of the recent dramatic in- crease in workloads, plus the past decade of rapid change and consequent reformulations of goals and activities which have accompanied these changes in several communities (e.g. Shar- pley et al., 1996). There are many examples of intensified teaching workload. These included the expansion of student teacher ratios due to understaffing and different tasks being added to the teacher’s workday, many of which were administrative in nature (Gmelc h & Burns, 1994; Nwadiani, 2006; Timms et al., 2007). A study indicated that males scored significantly higher than females on a number of scales related to occupational stress, namely work Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 135
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. relationships, overload, and the overall job stress index (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). In another study, class numbers which had multiplied fivefold in some cases and tenfold or more in others, had led teachers to be over-stressed (Farrugia, 1996). Some members experienced “increased content of jobs (often through understaffing), less time for rest breaks, balancing more simul- taneous demands, deadline tightening and the concept of work- ing until the job is done” (Noblet, 2003; Johnson et al., 2005; Timms et al., 2007). In many cases employee found themselves in a position where work had to be taken home in order to fulfil and sustain a professional standard; this reduces the possible opportunity for restorative psychological detachment from the job (Timms et al., 2007). Education administrators for instance, hold leader- ship positions with significant responsibility. Most of them found working with students extremely rewarding, but as the responsibilities of administrators have increased in recent years, so has the stress (Department of Labour, 2008). Research stud- ies have also identified several sources of stress for educational administrators in Zimbabwe, chief among them are role over- load, lack of autonomy, responsibility for others, interpersonal relationships, lack of recognition, staff evaluation, and inade- quate resources (Nhundu, 1999). Whereas the stress of overload is unhealthy for the individual, heavy employee workloads may be beneficial for the organisa- tion. Qualitative overload does not appear to be a major prob- lem among the respondents to the study. This situation often results in conflicts between employees and employers over workloads. Variety in the work environment enhances interest and challenge and has been reported as a key factor in em- ployee job satisfaction (Larson, 2004). This situation is not just reported in developed countries. For instance, the significant factors influencing academic stress among lecturers in Nigerian universities included: workload, strike and school interruption, delay and irregular payment of salary and lack of instructional facilities, unmanageable classroom student population, unsteady school calendar, preparation of examination results, invigilation of examinations, state of lecturers office accommodation and lack of facilities for research (Nwadiani, 2006). Similar find- ings were reported in other countries such as China (e.g. Liu & Oppenheim, 2006). Furthermore, studies have indicated that “continuous deple- tion of resources would lead to negative load effects (e.g. fa- tigue) and, ultimately in the absence of recovery, to exhaustion, losses of function, and physical and mental impairment” (Dua, 1994; Nwadiani, 2006; Timms et al., 2007; Brown & Uehara, 2008). Exhaustion is an emotional, cognitive and physical ex- perience of being over extended and overwhelmed and is the basic stress experience for mo st individuals (Timms et al., 2007). Following the experience of extreme exhaustion, individuals will be disengaged. Disengagement is a feeling of distancing from and devaluing of the work experience. Workers suffering from disengagement will become negative about their work and the people associated with it (Timms et al., 2007). Research has shown that organisational change, such as downsizing, implementation of new equipment or plant and restructuring, can and often does lead to stress and increases in injury/illness (Rees & Redfern, 2000; Savery & Luks, 2001; Morris et al., 2006). In a study conducted by Sharpley and co- workers (1996) on university staff in Monash University, Aus- tralia, the most commonly reported sources of job stress were (in order of frequency): “lack of regular feedback about how well I am doing my job”; “lack of promotion opportunities”; “uncertainty about how amalgamations will influence me”; “overwork”; “being expected to do too much in too little time”; “lack of necessary equipment and/or infrastructure support”. Overall the university employees were suffering from moderate job stress level in that study (Sharpley et al., 1996). Similar findings were reported elsewhere e.g. Rees & Redfern (2000) and Reskin (2008). Increases in class size, static budgets, searching for alternative sources of finance for funding research, imposed forms of review and accountability, lack of tenure all contribute to the potential for an increase in conflict and nega- tive stress outcomes among members of the profession (Gmelch & Burns, 1994; Sotirakou, 2004). Furthermore, several studies had revealed that poor social environment and lack of support or help from co-workers and supervisors are considered job stressors (Dua, 1994; Johnson et al., 2005; Stress, 2008). Selye (1974) suggested that learning to live with other people is one of the most stressful aspects of life (cited from Manshor et al., 2003). Conflicting or uncertain job expectations, too much responsibility (Rees & Redfern, 2000), too many “hats to wear”, being undervalued and the threat of redundancy are all some of the sources of occupation stress (Fairbrother & Warn, 2003; Manshor et al., 2003). Job insecu- rity and lack of opportunity for growth, advancement, or pro- motion; rapid changes for which workers are unprepared are other aspects of occupation stress. Unpleasant or dangerous physical conditions such as crowding, noise, air pollution, or ergonomic problems (Smith, 2000; Fairbrother & Warn, 2003; Manshor et al., 2003; Reskin, 2008) as well as unrealistic dead- lines are known to cause occupation stress (Rees & Redfern, 2000; Johnson et al., 2005; LeGrande, 2008). Recent studies of organisational management have addressed the significance of organisational culture on stress formation, since sources of stress can depend on the characteristics of the culture existed in organisations (Chang & Lu, 2007). Negative culture based on blame for and denial of problems, or mis- guided practical jokes or initiation ceremonies are shown to be associated with stress resulting from work relationships (Rees & Redfern, 2000). For instance, teachers who moved into un- familiar cultures, acculturative stress could cause lowered men- tal health (e.g., confusion, anxiety, depression) and feelings of alienation; those who feel marginalized can become highly stressed (Brown & Uehara, 2008). Teachers from very different cultures might neither understand nor appreciate the cultural differences of the communities in which they are placed. This could then lead to additional stress, which eventually leads to high attrition (Brown & Uehara, 2008). Job stress also occurs when conditions on a job inhibit, stifle, or thwart the attainment of expectations and goals. It is important to note that not all job stressors are bad be- cause a certain amount of job stress has been shown to improve both effectiveness and performance (Larson, 2004). For exam- ple, a promotion is an opportunity and can be a challenging and exciting experience. However, mismanaged organisational stress can produce individual stresses and strains that are detrimental both to the individual and to the organisation. Because stress is additive, the more stressors in the work environment, the higher the individual’s overall job stress level (e.g. Chevaillier, 2000; Larson, 2004). In an Australian study conducted by Savery and Luks (2000), the males in the sample generally attributed significantly more stress than the females and were more likely to work excessive Copyright © 2012 SciR es . 136
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. hours than women whereas women are more focused on intrin- sic rewards and rely less on promotion and salary than men and, therefore, they spend less time at the office. In another study by Gmelch & Burns (1994) in the United States, women academ- ics were found to experience significantly more stress than their male counterparts in the areas of task-based and professional identity. Similar findings were reported by the Singaporean study of human resource professionals, it was reported that fe- males experienced significantly more stress as a result of or- ganisational politics than their male counterparts (Lim & Teo, 1996). Similar findings were reported in the United Kingdom by Fotinatos-Ventouratos & Cooper (2005) who found that in terms of “relationships with other people” females reported a higher mean score, indicating this to be a source of job pressure. de Smet and co-workers (2005) showed that, adjusting for age, education and occupational groups, men perceived less psycho- logical job demand than women did (although marginal). Gen- der-based differences appeared to be larger for job control, with men perceiving higher control at work than women. The deficit of job control in females, however, increased towards less qualified occupations. Job strain was less prevalent in men than in women, without apparent regional heterogeneity (de Smet et al., 2005). Age has been shown in some studies to have a curvilinear relationship; the older employees being more satisfied than the younger ones (Punnett et al., 2007). In a study conducted in Australia by Dua (1994), younger staff reported more job stress than older staff. That was attributed to the idea that as people get older they become more experienced and more worldly- wise. The study conducted in Malaysia by Manshor and co- workers (2003) also indicated that age was significantly corre- lated with sources of stress, in particular with workloads. Workloads become intolerable to a certain range of ages. Stress in the Higher Education System and Its Effects on Organizational Performance The stress experienced by different occupation types and job roles has been discussed in many papers with a number of dif- ferent occupations being described as experiencing above av- erage levels of stress, such as teachers (McCormick, 1997; Johnson et al., 2005; Brown & Uehara, 2008). Furthermore, role demands could be stressful when they are excessive (role over- load) (Johnson et al, 2005). For instance, academic overload comes when teachers experience increased responsibilities (Stress, 2008). The daily interactions with students and co-workers and the incessant and fragmented demands of teaching often lead to overwhelming pressures and challenges, which may lead to stress (Brown & Uehara, 2008). Several studies have revealed that both role conflict and role ambiguity are associated with low satisfaction, absenteeism, low involvement, low expectancies and task character istics with a low motivating potential and tension, which all affect the pro- ductivity and efficiency at the organisation (Conley & Woosley, 2000; Koustelios et al., 2004; Nwadiani, 2006; Chang and Lu, 2007). Role ambiguity refers to the uncertainty, on the part of employees, about key requirements of their jobs, and about how they are expected to behave in those jobs (Nhundu, 1999; Conley & Woosley, 2000; Koustelios et al., 2004). Role conflict occurs when different groups or persons with whom an indi- vidual must interact hold conflicting expectations about that individual’s behaviour and can result from inconsistent infor- mation (Koustelios et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2005; Nwadiani, 2006; Chang & Lu, 2007). Research has shown that organizational change, such as downsizing, implementation of new equipment or plant and restructuring, can and often does lead to stress and increases in injury/illness (Savery & Luks, 2001; Morris et al., 2006). In a study conducted by Sharpley and co-workers (1997) on univer- sity staff, the most commonly reported sources of job stress were (in order of frequency): “lack of regular feedback about how well I am doing my job”; “lack of promotion opportuni- ties”; “uncertainty about how amalgamations will influence me”; “overwork”; “being expected to do too much in too little time”; “lack of necessary equipment and/or infrastructure sup- port”. Lack of participation by workers in decision making, poor communication in the organization (Work Safe, 2006; Reskin, 2008), lack of family friendly policies, poor social en- vironment and lack of support or help from co-workers and supervisors as well as at home as considered job stressors (Dua, 1994; Johnson et al., 2005; Stress, 2008). Unpleasant or dangerous physical conditions such as crowd- ing, noise, air pollution, or ergonomic problems (Smith, 2000; Fairbrother & Warn, 2003; Manshor et al., 2003; Reskin, 2008) as well as unrealistic deadlines, low levels of support from supervisors are known to cause occupation stress (Johnson et al., 2005; Work Safe, 2006). Selye (1974) suggested that learning to live with other people is one of the most stressful aspects of life (cited from Manshor et al., 2003). For teachers who move into unfamiliar cultures, acculturative stress can cause lowered mental health (e.g., confusion, anxiety, depression) and feelings of alienation; those who feel marginalized can become highly stressed. In addition, stress is created when politics rather than performance affect organizational decisions. Office politics can be profoundly stressful for professional and white-collar workers (Larson, 2004; Chang & Lu, 2007). Working in a large, hierarchical, bureaucratic organization where employees have little control over their jobs can be very stressful. A supervisor’s autocratic management style often results in high turnover, high absenteeism, and low morale among their subordinates. A lack of effective communication within an organization, excessive red tape, and seemingly end- less paperwork was very stressful for internal auditors (Gmelch & Burns, 1994; Larson, 2004; Vakola & Nik olaou, 2005; Chang & Lu, 2007; Brown & Uehara, 2008). Stress is associated with impaired individual functioning in the workplace (Smith, 2000) and a major impediment to organ- izational success (Noblet, 2003). More recent estimates sugge st that some 91.5 million working days are lost each year through stress-related illness (Smith, 2000). Negative effects include reduced efficiency, decreased capacity to perform, dampened initiative and reduced interest in working, increased rigidity of thought, a lack of concern for the organisation and colleagues, and a loss of responsibility (Dua, 1994; Fairbrother & Warn, 2003). Moreover, stress is associated with reduction in output, product quality, service or morale (Ben-Bakr et al., 1995; Brown & Ue- hara, 2008), increased wages/overtime payments, organisational sabotage (Work Safe, 2006), all which add costs to the organi- sation (Lim & Teo, 1996; Brown & Uehara, 2008). Teachers in particular represent a large proportion of work-related stress claims. These claims cost school systems billions of dollars in medical costs, substitute teachers, and disability payments Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 137
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. (Brown & Uehara, 2008). All these will affect the application of TQM in the higher education. Literature search revealed no previous studies conducted at any governmental or private universities in the Sudan aiming at assessing the factors contributing to occupational stress at the university. Thus the aim of the current study was to determine the factors associated with occupational stress and their rela- tionship with organizational performance at one of the private Sudanese universities. Research Methodology Study Area A private university, where students pay an annual fee for their studies, was selected as the study area. In answering the research questions, a cross-sectional, descriptive facility-based study design was chosen. Due to limited resources in terms of time, costs, and access, this study design was selected. Ethical permission to carry out the current study was obtained from the Academic Affairs’ Officer at the university. The study was conducted between February and April 2009. Study Sample Staff working at the central building of the university was randomly selected. Employees from various departments, spe- cializations and with different duties were selected. Both males and female employees from different age groups i.e. less than 20 years to above 50 years were eligible for inclusion in the study. Employees were then randomly selected and were as- sured that the data collected would be confidential and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time they wished without any forces placed on them. Data Collection Method Data was obtained from structured well designed previously pre-tested questionnaire. It took approximately three months to design the English version of the questionnaire which was then translated into the local Arabic Language before distribution. Employees who were illiterate or have low education levels (i.e. primary and senior schooling) did not fill the questionnaires. In such cases, the researcher asked the questions verbally and the respondents’ answers were written. All the questionnaires were then checked by the researcher in the presence of the employee and those missed or double-checked responses were correctly completed. The questions included were collated mostly from previous studies about occupational stress and impact of stress on organ- isational performance, where both the reliability and validity of the data collection tool were tested (e.g. Dua, 1994; Manshor et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2006; Venables & Allender, 2006). Back- ground information about the employees was assessed by ask- ing questions such as the gender, marital status, education level and type of contract. About 9 questions were used to determine the general characteristics of the employees. Primary education whether complete and/or incomplete were grouped as primary education; senior complete and incomplete were group as sen- ior education; any higher education was termed as postgraduate education. The number of years working in the university were summarised as either between 1 - 4 or 5 - 9. In terms of the number of staff supervised, results were either none (zero), 1 - 20, and >20 employees. These variables would appear in such format in the data analysis section. Questions were grouped into sections according to the job stressor they assess. There was a section about role ambiguity and role conflict; promotion, development, training opportuni- ties and feedback; participation in decision making and author- ity; workload; working condition and interpersonal relations. All the questions were close ended except the two last questions which left scope for the participants to add any other comments about the factors associated with occupational stress. The ques- tions about job stressors were based on three-point Likert scale such that the employee would chose between “not at all true”, “somewhat true” and “completely true”. Similar methods were reported previously (e.g. Dua, 1994; Sharpley et al., 1996). In terms of the effects on organisational performance such as the number of days absent from work, the four-point Likert scale was either “never (or zero)”, “1 - 2”, “3 - 4” and “> 4 times” during the last month or six month. Statement that assess both role ambiguity and conflict include “I work with groups of people who expect many different related things from me”, “I work with groups of people who expect many different unre- lated things from me”, “I often perform tasks that are too bor- ing, I have to do things that should be done differently”. Overall, the questionnaire included about 30 statements about role am- biguity and conflict. Workload as a job stressor was assessed in terms of number of lectures per week, supervision of students, administrative work and number of hours working per day. The presence of career development opportunities was determined by formalis- ing questions about promotion opportunities and the presence or lack of offers of training and development opportunities. The questionnaire included about 20 statements assessing workload. Reward, recognition, training opportunities and feedback were assessed by the adequacy of rewards, clarity of expectations, sufficiency of recognition and how supervisors evaluate the performance. The questionnaire included about 8 statements to assess this job stressor. The study also included questions about the organisational culture such politics in organisations, participation in decision- making and communication styles similar methods were under- taken previously e.g. Manshor et al. (2003) and Chang & Lu (2007). The questionnaire included about 7 statements assess- ing participation in decision making and authority. In addition, questions about the working conditions such as surroundings such as technology, resources, air quality, lighting, decoration, tidiness, noise, furniture and personal space (e.g. Manshor et al., 2003; Venables & Allender, 2006). The questionnaire included 15 statements to assess working conditions. Perceptions of how staff is treated and supervisor’s attitude included statements such as “I think the university looks after its employees in every aspect”. The questionnaire included about 4 statements assess- ing the interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, physical health, job performance and satisfac- tion, job commitment were used to assess the impact of occupa- tional stress on organisational performance. In terms of physic- cal health, statements such as the number of days absent from work due to medical problem and number of times had pro- longed sleepless nights. Assessment of statements related to physical health was designed so as to include the effect within the last month or within the previous six months. This way was chosen since there might not be any effects on health during the last month. In terms of job performance and satisfaction, state- ment such as “working with little efficiency compared to my Copyright © 2012 SciR es . 138
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 139 first months of appointment in this university” and “being proud to tell others that I am part of this university” were included. Job commitment was assessed by including statements such as “If had a chance to advance professionally by going to another university, would go” and “I feel very little loyalty to my disci- pline”. The questionnaire included about 43 statements assess- ing the impact of job stressors on organisational performance. Statistical Procedures Inferential statistical analysis was carried out by using SPSS for WINDOWS (version 13; SPSS Inc, Chicago). Descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean and standard devia- tion. Frequencies were used to determine the number and per- cent of participants suffering from job stressors and for back- ground information about the employees. Spearman R correla- tion coefficient was used to determine the extent to which val- ues of two variables are proportional to each other. In such case, it was used to assess the association between job stressors and organisational performance. Significant differences were ac- cepted at P-value of 0.05. Job stressors reported by more than 40% of the employees were only presented on the result tables. In scoring, the average score was calculated for each subject job stress and then this score was re-coded as low job stress (indicated by the average score of 1.00 to 1.50), medium job stress (1.51 to 2.00), or high job stress (2.01 to 3.00). The overall mean score for the sub- categori es of job stressor wa s then calculated. Previous studies fol- lowed similar way of scoring (e.g. Dua, 1994 ; Sharpley et al., 1996). Results Background Information The total number of approached participants was 160 of whom 150 were selected. Thus the response rate was 93.8%. A large number of participants was aged above 30 years and most of them were men (P < 0.001, Table 1). Employees from dif- ferent types of work were included (Table 2). A large number of them were either administrators or lecturers comprising 72% of the whole population studied. On average, the participants worked 4.5 ± 2 years. Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the staff at the private Sudanese university. Number and percent of males and females inc l u d e d are shown. Variable Males (n = 8 7) Females (n = 63) Total (n = 150) Age group - 21-30 9 (10.3%) 24 (38.1%) 33 (22%) - 31-40 74 (85.1%) 38 (60.3%) 112 (74.7%) - >41 4 (4.6%) 1 (1.6%) 5 (3.3%)*** Education Level - Primary education 6 (6.8%) 13 (20.7% ) 19 (12.7%) - Senior education 16 (18.4%) 3 (4.8%) 19 (12.7%) - Diploma certificate 12 (13.8%) 3 (4.8%) 15 (10%) - Bachelor certificate 25 (28.7%) 28 (44%) 53 (35.3%) - Postgraduate education 28 (32.2%) 16 (25.4%) 44 (29%) Marital status - Single 34 (39.1%) 37 (58.7%) 71 (47.3%) - Married 52 (59.8%) 26 (41.3%) 78 (52%) - Divorced 1 (1.1%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%)* *P = .05; ***P < .001. Table 2. The type of work, contract type, number of years and number of staff supervised by participants at the private Sudanese u n iversity. Variable Males (n = 8 7) Females (n = 63) Total (n = 150) Type of work - Administrators 25 (29%) 24 (38%) 49 (36.7%) - Lecturers 31 (36%) 22 (35%) 53 (35.3%) - Technic ians 9 (10%) 3 (4.8%) 12 (8%) - Workers§ 22 (25%) 14 (22.2%) 36 (24%) Contract Type - Full Time 31 (35.6%) 16 ( 25.4%) 47 (31.3%) - Part Time 3 (3. 4%) 0 (0%) 3 (2%) - Permanent 48 (55.2%) 37 (58.7%) 8 5 (56.7%) - Temporary 5 (5.7%) 10 (15.8%) 15 (10%)* Number of years working - 1-4 32 (37.7%) 34 (54%) 66 (44%) - 5-9 55 (63.1%) 29 (46%) 84 (56%) *** Number of staff supervised - None 54 (62%) 50 (79.4%) 104 (69.3%) - 1-20 25 (29%) 13 (20.6%) 38 (25. 4 %) - >20 8 (9%) 0 (0%) 8 (5.3%)** *P = .02; **P = .003; ***P = .002; §Workers include drivers, gat ekeepers and cleaners.
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. Job Stressors Affecting All the Employees Included (n = 150) “Lack of participation in decision making and lack of au- thority” were considered high degree job stress affecting most of the employees at the private university with a mean score of 2.32 (Table 3). This job stressor was on average reported by 81.8% of the employees. Moreover, within this job stressor, 92.7% of the employees reported that they had either “little chance/scope in contributing to decision making at institutional level in terms of academic policies” or “little chance/scope in contributing to decision making at faculty level in terms of academic policies” (Table 3). Moreover, lack of promotion, development and training opportunities and lack of job feed- back were also considered high degree job stress with an over- all mean score of 2.11 (Table 3). Employees (71.7%) suffered from this stressor with 94% stating that “policies rather than performance determine who should be promoted in my depart- ment” followed by 90.7% “not knowing how my supervisor evaluates my performance” (Table 3). Table 3. Job stressors and their sub-categories affecting employees at the private Sudanese university (n = 150): % of employees and Mean ± sd are shown. Job stressors and their sub-categories % of employees Mean ± sd Role conflict and Role am b i g u ity - I work with group of people who expect many different related things f r om me 90.0 2.07 ± 0.51 - I work with group of people who expect many different unrelated things from me 73.3 1.79 ± 0.53 - I often perform tasks that are too boring 62.7 1.67 ± 0.55 - I often receive assignments without the resources to complete them (e.g. staff, money etc.) 52.0 1.60 ± 0.64 - I sometimes have to break a university rule or po licy in ord er to carry o ut an assignment 68.0 1.99 ± 0.80 - I have to do things that sh ould be don e differently 94.7 2.31 ± 0.57 - In general I perform work that does not suit my values 52.0 1.63 ± 0.67 - Receiving too much pressure from too many people 92.0 2.25 ± 0.59 - Feeling to have to do things which you think are unethical 60.7 1.75 ± 0.70 - There was more than one time sudden unplanned change 61.4 1.80 ± 0.79 - I have incompatible requests from different people 48.7 1.53 ± 0.59 - I do not have a detailed writte n description of my job 46.0 1.97 ± 0.95 - Percent within all categories 66.8 1.86 ± 0.66* Promotion, development, training opportunities and fe edback - There is an unfa ir promotion sy stem in the university 68.7 2.09 ± 0.84 - There is an inadequate reward/recognition system 62.7 1.97 ± 0.85 - The university lacks offers of training and development op po rtunities 65.4 1.88 ± 0.75 - The univers i ty lack fac i l it i es for undertaking research 72.0 2.00 ± 0.75 - Policie s r ather than performance determine who should be promoted in my depa rt ment 94.0 2.52 ± 0.61 - There is not a well-defi n ed performance eval uation procedur e which is implemented 48.7 1.65 ± 0.71 - Not knowin g how my supervisor evaluates my pe r fo rmance 90.7 2.63 ± 0.65 - Percent within all categories 71.7 2.11 ± 0.74* Participat ion in decisi on making and authority - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision making at faculty level in terms o f academic policies 92.0 2.45 ± 0.64 - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision makin g at institutional level i n t erms of ac ademic policie s 92.7 2.65 ± 0.61 - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision makin g in my own department in te r ms of academic policies 88.7 2.39 ± 0.68 - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision making at faculty level in terms o f academic policies 92.0 2.45 ± 0.64 - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision makin g at institutional level i n t erms of ac ademic policie s 92.7 2.65 ± 0.61 Participat ion in decisi on making and authority - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision makin g in my own department in te r ms of academic policies 88.7 2.39 ± 0.68 - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision makin g at faculty level in terms o f f i nancial policies 78.0 2.29 ± 0.81 - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision makin g at institutional level i n t erms of financial policie s 73.3 2.31 ± 0.87 - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision makin g in my own department in te r ms of financial policies 81.4 2.38 ± 0.64 - Overall I hav e too little authority in my work 82.7 2.37 ± 0.76 - Most people h ere make up th eir own rules 65.3 1.73 ± 0.60 - Percent within all categories 81.8 2.32 ± 0.70* Copyright © 2012 SciR es . 140
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. Continued Workload - I have to submit my work in a tightenin g deadline 76.0 1.90 ± 0.61 - The overall c o ncept in the university is to wo rk until the job is done 92.7 2.37 ± 0.62 - I feel stressed because of the unrealistic deadlines 86.0 2.06 ± 0.58 - More than thr ee times you are asked to carry admi ni st rative work 48.6 2.55 ± 1.28 - More than f our working hours per day 88.7 3.75 ± 0.75 - There is less time for rest breaks at work 41.4 1.46 ± 0.59 - Job demands interfe r e with personal time 73.3 1.87 ± 0.63 - This university really inspires the very best in me in the way of job perfor mance 96.0 2.35 ± 0.56 - Percent within all categories 75.3 2.29 ± 0.70* Working condition - I do not have an office 48.7 1.99 ± 0.98 - There is not good air quality in the office 46.0 1.99 ± 0.96 - There is not enough light in the office 46.7 2.0 ± 0.97 - The office is not rea s onably decorated 46.0 1.93 ± 0.92 - The office i s not tidy and cleaned regularly 46.0 1.89 ± 0.90 - The office is not reason ably furnis h ed 46.0 1.97 ± 0 .95 - There is not enough space in the office 46.7 1.96 ± 0.95 - There is not a little noise w h i ch distract the work in the office 46.3 1.83 ± 0.87 - The office is overcrowded 45.3 1.93 ± 0.91 - Often, I find it difficult to agree with this university’s policies on important matters relating to its academic policies 82.0 1.97 ± 0.58 - There is a lack of instructional facilities in our depart ment 78.0 2.01 ± 0.67 - There is a pro bl em of understaffing in my depa rtment 88.7 1.35 ± 0.58 - Percent within all categories 55.5 1.90 ± 0.85* *Overall mean score. Furthermore, results revealed that role conflict and role am- biguity were a medium degree stress with an overall mean of 1.86 and affecting 66.8% of the employees. In this job stressor, 94.7% reported that “they have to do things that should be done differently” followed by 92% “receiving too much pressure from too many people” (Table 3). Finally, working conditions were medium degree stress with a mean score of 1.9 and 55.5% were suffering from this stressor. “The problem of understaffing in my department” affected 88.7% of the employees in this job stressor category followed by 82% finding it “difficult to agree with this university’s policies on important matters relating to its academic policies” (Table 3). Furthermore, 75.3% of the employees complained from workload with an overall mean score of 2.29; thus making workload a high degree job stress (Table 3). Large percent of employees (96%) within this stressor stated that “the university really inspires the very best in me in the way of job perform- ance” followed by 92.7% of them reporting that “the overall concept in the university is to work until the job is done” (Ta- ble 3). The Impact of Job Stressors on Organisational Performance Job stress affected employees’ physical health and that was shown by the large percent of employees (86%) reporting that they “suffered more than two times from illness during last six months (e.g. muscle tension, nausea, vomiting, increased heart rate etc.)” and were “absent more than two days from work due to medical problem in the last six month”. There was an overall negative association between role conflict and ambiguity and the employees’ physical health (Table 4). The influence of job stress on job performance and satisfaction was reported by most of the employees (91.1%). Although, these employees were “proud to tell others that they are part of the university”, most of them (90%) were “working with little efficiency compared to their first month”. Results indicated that as most of the people at the university make up their own rules and there was a lack of instructional facilities in their departments, the employees work with little efficiency compared to their first month of appointment in the university. On average, 81.7% of the em- ployees reported that job stress affected their overall commit- ment to their job. Although, nearly all the employees (97.3%) stated that they “cared about the future of the university” and were “willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that nor- mally expected in order to help the university to be successful”, they showed little job commitment by reporting that there “is not too much to be gained by sticking with this university” and “if they had a chance to advance professionally by going to another university, they would go”. There was an overall negative association between role con- flict and ambiguity and the employees’ physical health. More- over, a negative relationship was also found between the work- ing conditions and physical health In terms of the promotion opportunities and feedback and interpersonal relationship, they affected the physical health of employees both negatively and positively. Furthermore, workload affected physical health both Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 141
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. negatively and positively. Participation in decision making and authority correlated positively with employees’ physical health (Table 4). Role conflict and ambiguity, participation in decision making and authority as well as working conditions correlated posi- tively with job performance and satisfaction. For example, re- sults indicated that as most of the people at the university make up their own rules and there was a lack of instructional facilities in their departments, the employees work with little efficiency compared to their first month of appointment in the university (Table 4). Promotion opportunities and feedback correlated both posi- tively and negatively with job performance and satisfaction. For instance, as the university lacks offers of training and develop- ment opportunities, employees did not feel proud to tell others that they were part of the university. The same relationship was found between interpersonal relationships and job performance and satisfaction. As employees often perform tasks that were too boring, they felt very little loyalty to their discipline. Moreover, there were both negative and positive correlations between participation in decision making and authority and interperson a l relationships and job commitment (Table 4). Discussion Findings in a study conducted by others (e.g. Sharply et al, 1997; Noblet, 2003; Johnson et al., 2005; Timms et al., 2007) on university staff were similar to those shown in the current study. Unlike the study by Sharpley and others (1997) in which university employees suffered moderate job stress, the employ- ees in the current study suffered high job stress level. Similar effects on the organisational performance were reported previ- ously (e.g. Dua, 1994; Fairbrother & Warn, 2003). Similar ef- fects on the organisational performance were reported previ- ously (Dua, 1994; Fairbrother & Warn, 2003). Role conflict and ambiguity had been shown to lead to lower performance in some jobs, simply because workers do not know how to direct their efforts most effectively (Nwadiani, 2006). Absenteeism would also affect the productivity and efficiency at the organi- sation negatively in several studies (Dua, 1994; Koustelios et al., 2004; Chang & Lu, 2007). Employees are valuable assets of the organisation and they are responsible for the attraction of the external customers and increase the profitability of the in- stitute. Focusing on employees, their needs and wants, would definitely increase their job satisfaction, performance and com- mitment and hence increase their output. The university needs to elevate the situation and resolve all the factors affecting the employees. This could be achieved by constructing clear formal rules, policies and guidelines so that all the employees have to fulfil. In addition, the employees should have their detailed job descriptions so that they know their limits and be involved in decision making and have feed- back about their performances. The university could either increase the number of staff needed to perform the tasks, de- crease the number of students enrolled or increase the overall paid salaries to compensate for this stressor. These recommend- dations might help in reducing the costs incurred when the trained, well experienced employee and/or the student leave the organisation. It is always more expensive to recruit new cus- tomers than keep the old ones (Daft, 2006). They could also serve as a base for achieving total quality management in the university. This is considered the first well planned and designed study of its type to be conducted in Sudanese universities aiming at assessing the factors associated with occupational stress and their impact on organisational performance. The questionnaire was very detailed and comprehensive to the extent that 99% of Table 4. The impact of selected job s tressors on organisational performance. Correlation coefficient and P-values (<0.05) are shown. Job stressors and their sub-categories r-value P-value Physical health: Number of times you suffered from illness during the last month Role conflict - I work under incompatible policies and gu id elines 0.2 0.02 - I have incom patible reques ts from different people –0.2 0.02 - I get regular feedba ck on how I am doing the job –0.2 0.01 - I have little chance/scope in contributing to decision making at university level in terms of financial policies –0.2 0.003 Workload - I feel stressed because of the high cost of living which could not be met by my salary and expenses 0.2 0.04 - The discipline really inspires the very best in me in the w ay of job performance –0.3 0.001 - The office is not reasonably decorated –0.2 0.03 Job performance and satisfaction: Less responsible for things happening in the university and I work with little efficiency compared to my first month of appointment in this university - I work with groups of people who expect many different related things from me 0.3 0.002 - In general I perform work that does not suit my val u es 0.2 0.03 - Number of s tudents you supervise d i n the last six months –0.2 0.04 Job commitment: I feel very little loyalty to my discipline - I often perform tasks that are too boring 0.3 <0.001 - The university lack facilit ies for undertaking rese arch –0.2 0.01 - Overall I have too little authority in my work 0.3 0.002 - There is no payment for the excess lecturing hours 0.5 <0.001 - I think the university looks after its employees in every aspect –0.2 0.02 Copyright © 2012 SciR es . 142
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. the employees did not add any stressors that affected their work in the university. All these add strength to the findings of the current study. Findings suc h as working conditio ns and w o rkl o ad were expected to be chosen amongst the job stressors. That was mainly due to nature of the job and to the fact that the univer- sity is newly established. However, what was not expected was the lack of participation in decision making and authority as well as the lack of promotion and feedback. Newly established institutions usually give the opportunity to their members to give their ideas and suggestions openly which help the overall improvements. In addition, the lack of promotion will definitely affect the success of the organisation. Of the important weak points was the fact that the study in- cluded only employees working in the main building of the university. In order to be generalised, other campuses should be included. In addition, a larger sample size would increase the power of the study. It would be interesting if the study included public and private universities both in Khartoum (the capital of Sudan) and in other cities so as to assess whether the factors were similar or different amongst the Sudanese higher educa- tion institutes. The current study could act as a pilot study which provided an idea for the concepts and techniques needed to carry out a larger better-controlled longitudinal study. Conclusion Findings indicated that the employees su ffered hi gh level s of job stress. The job stressors affecting the employees included role conflict and ambiguity, lack of promotion opportunities and feedback, lack of participation in decision making, exces- sive workload, unsatisfactory working conditions and interper- sonal relations. The reported stressors were found to have posi- tive and/or negative association with the physical health of the employees, their performance and overall satisfaction about their jobs as well as their commitment. Although the current study did not assess the effect of the stressors on the students themselves, such job stressors and their impact on the organisa- tional performance of employees would eventually affect the students at the university. The university needs to elevate the situation and resolve all the factors affecting the employees which might help in reducing the costs incurred when the trained, well experienced employee and/or the student leave the organisation. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Mrs Mwahib Wedaat Allah and Ms Najat Hassan for their valuable help in photocopying and data collec- tion. We are grateful to the staff of the private university for agreeing to take part in this study; without their help and ap- proval none of this work would have been carried out. REFERENCES Badri, M. A., Selim, H., Alshare, K., Grandon, E. E., Younis, H., & Abdulla, M. (2006). The baldrige education criteria for performance excellence framework: Empirical test and validation. International Journal of Quality & Reliability M anagement, 23, 1118-1157 Ben-Bakr, K. A., Al-Shammari, I. S., & Jefri, O. A. (1995). Occupatio- nal stress in different organizations: A Saudi Arabian survey. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10, 24-28. doi:10.1108/02683949510085956 Bridger, R. S., Kilminster, S., & Slaven, G. (2007). Occupational stress and strain in the naval service: 1999 and 2004. Occupational Medi- cine, 57, 92-97. doi:10.1093/occmed/kql124 Brown, Z. A., & Uehara, D. L. (2008). Coping with teacher stress: A research synthesis for Pacific education. URL (last checked 2 June 2008). http:www.prel.org Carmeli, A., & Gefen, D. (2005). The relationship between work com- mitment models and employee withdrawal intentions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 63-86. doi:10.1108/02683940510579731 Chang, K., & Lu, L. (2007). Characteristics of organizational culture, stressors and wellbeing: The case of Taiwanese organizations. Jour- nal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 549-568. doi:10.1108/02683940710778431 Chen, J. C., Silverthorne, C., & Hung, J. Y. (2006). Organization com- munication, job stress, organizational commitment, and job perfor- mance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and America. Leader- ship & Organization Development Journal, 27, 242-249. Chevaillier, T. (2000). The changing conditions of higher education teaching personnel. Geneva: Working Paper at the Sectorial Acti- vities Programme International Labour Office. Conley, S., & Woosley, S. A. (2000). Teacher role stress, higher order needs and work outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 179-201. Cooke, D., Craven, A. H., & Clarke, G. M. (1982). Basic statistical computing. London: Edward Arnold. Daft, R. L. (2006). The new era of management: International Edition. Mason: South-Western Thomson. Department of Labor. (2008). Occupational outlook handbook: Edu- cation administrators. URL (last check 2 August 2008). http://wwww.bls.gov/home.htm de Smet, P., Sans, S., & Dramaix, M. (2005). Gender and regional dif- ferences in perceived job stress across Europe. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 536-545. doi:10.1093/eurpub/cki028 Dua, J. K. (1994). Job stressors and their effects on physical health, emotional health and job satisfaction in a university. Journal of Edu- cational Adminstration, 32, 59-78. Fairbrother, K., & Warn, J. (2003). Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction. J ournal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 8-21. doi:10.1108/02683940310459565 Farrugia, C. (1996). A continuing professional development model for quality assurance in higher education. Quality Assurance in Educatin, 4, 28-34. doi:10.1108/09684889610116030 Fevre, M. L., Matheny, J., & Kolt, G. S. (2003). Eustress, distress, and interpretation in occupational stress. Journal of Managerial Psy- chology, 18, 726-7 44. doi:10.1108/02683940310502412 Fotinatos-Ventouratos, R., & Cooper, C. (2005). The role of gender and social class in work stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 14-23. doi:10.1108/02683940510571612 Gmelch, W. H., & Burns, J. S. (1994). Sources of stress for academic department chairpersons. Journal of Educational Adminstration, 32, 79-94. Herbert, J. (1997). Fortnightly review: Stress, the brain, and mental illness. BMJ, 315, 530-535. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7107.530 Johnes, J. (1996). Theory and methodology: Performance assessment in higher education in Britain. European Journal of Operational Re- search, 89, 18-33. Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 178-187. doi:10.1108/02683940510579803 Kenny, D. T. (1999). Occupational stress: Reflections on theory and practice. In D. T. Kenny, J. G. Carlson, F. J. McGuigan, & J. L. Sheppard (Eds.), Stress and health: Research and clinical applica- tions (pp. 16-30). The Netherlands: Gordon Breach/Harwood Aca- demic Publishers. Kivimäki, M., Leino-Arjas, P., Luukkonen, R., Riihimäki, H., Vahtera, J., & Kirjonen, J. (2002). Work stress and risk of cardiovascular mortality: Prospective cohort study of industrial employees. BMJ, 325, 857-863. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7369.857 Koustelios, A., Theodorakis, N., & Goulimaris, D. (2004). Role am- biguity, role conflict and job satisfaction among physical education Copyright © 2012 SciRe s . 143
A. B. EL SHIKIERI ET AL. teachers in Greece. International Journal of Educational Management, 18, 87-92. Larson, L. L. (2004). Internal auditors and job stress. Managerial Au- diting Journal, 19, 1119-1130. LeGrande, D. (2008). Long work hours, safety and health. URL (last checked 29 April 2008). http://www.cdc.gov/niosh Lewis, D., Brazil, K., Krueger, P., Lohfeld, L., & Tjam, E. (2001). Ex- trinsic and intrinsic determinants of quality of work life. Leadership in Health Services, 14, 9-15. Liu, C. & Oppenheim, C. (2006). Competitive intelligence and the de- velopment strategy of higher education in Tianjin, China. Informa- tion Developmet, 22, 58-63. doi:10.1177/0266666906060091 Lim, V. K. G., & Teo, T. S. H. (1996). Gender differences in occu- pational stress and coping strategies among IT personnel. Women in Management Review, 1 1, 20-28. doi:10.1108/09649429610109299 Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., Standing, C., & Themistocleous, M. (2007). Influence of job demands, job control and social support on infor- mation systems professionals’ psychological well-being. Internatio- nal Journal of Manpower, 28, 513-528. Manshor, A. T. (2003). Occupational stress among managers: A Ma- laysian survey. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 622-628. McCormick, J. (1997). Occupational stress of teachers: Biographical differences in a large school system. Journal of Educational Ad- minstration, 35, 18 -38. McKenna, M. K., Shelton, C. D., & Darling, J. R. (2002). The impact of behavioral style assessment on organizational effectiveness: A call for action. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 314-322. Melchior, M., Krieger, N., Kawachi, I., Berkman, L. F., Niedhammer, I., & Goldberg, M. (2005). Work factors and occupational class dispari- ties in sickness absence: Findings from the GAZEL cohort study. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1206-1212. Morris, J., Hassard, J., & McCann, L. (2006). New organizational forms, human resource management and structural convergence? A study of Japanese organizations. Organization Studies, 27, 1485-1511. Mutula, S. M. (2001) Financing public universities in eastern and southern Africa: Implications for information services. The Bottom Line: Managing Librar y Finances, 14, 116-131. Nhundu, T. J. (1999). Determinants and prevalence of occupational stress among Zimbabwean school administrators. Journal of Edu- cational Adminstra tion, 37, 256-272. Noblet, A. (2003). Building health promoting work settings: Identifying the relationship between work characteristics and occupational stress in Australia. Health Promotion International, 18, 351-3 59. Nwadiani, M. (2006). Level of perceived stress among lectures in Ni- gerian universities. Journal of Instructional Psychology. URL (last che c k e d 2 Ju n e 2 0 08 ) . http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ Nyssen, A. S., Hansez, I., Baele, P., La my, M., & De Keyser, V. (2003). Occupational stress and burnout in anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 90, 333- 337. doi:10.1093/bja/aeg058 Punnett, B. J., Duffy, J. A., Fox, S. et al. (2007). Career success and satisfaction: A comparative study in nine countries. Women in Ma- nagement Review, 22, 371-390. doi:10.1108/09649420710761446 Rees, C. J., & Redfern, D. (2000). Recognising the perceived causes of stress—A training and development perspective. Industrial and Com- mercial Training, 32, 120-127. Reskin, A. (2008). Podcast transcript for working with stress. URL (last checked 29 April 2008). http://online.sagepub.com/ Rowley, J. (1996). Motivation and academic staff in higher education. Quality Assurance in Educatin, 4, 11- 16. doi:10.1108/09684889610125814 Sadri, G. (1997). An examination of academic and occupational stress in the USA. International Journal of Educational Management, 11, 32-43. doi:10.1108/09513549710155438 Savery, L. K., & Luks, J. A. (2001). The relationship between em- powerment, job satisfaction and reported stress levels: Some Austra- lian evidence. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22, 97-104. doi:10.1108/01437730110389247 Sharpley, C. F., Reynolds, R., & Acosta, A. (1996). The presence, nature and effects of job stress on physical and psychological health at a large Australian university. Journal of Educational Adminstra- tion, 34, 73-86. Smith, A. (2000). The scale of perceived occupational stress. Occu- pational Medicine, 5 0, 294-298. Sotirakou, T. (2004). Coping with conflict within the entrepreneurial university: Threat or challenge for heads of departments in the UK higher education context. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70, 345- 372. Stress, (2008). More information: Stress at work. URL (last checked 2 August 2008). http://www.safetyline.wa.gov.au/newsite/worksafe/default.html Tennant, J. (2007). Work-related stress: The experiences of polytechnic teachers: Literature review. URL (last checked 19 June 2008). http://www.coda.ac.nz/whitireia studsupdi/2 Timms, C., Graham, D., & Cottrell, D. (2007). “I just want to teach”: Queensland independent school teachers and their workload. Journal of Educational Adminst ra t i on , 45, 569-586. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1993). Women in higher education management. Paris: UNESCO. Tytherleigh, M. Y., Webb, C., Cooper, C. L., & Ricketts, C. (2005). Occupational stress in UK higher education institutions: A com- parative study of all staff categories. Higher Education Research & Development, 24, 41-61. doi:10.1080/0729436052000318569 Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. (2005). Attitudes towards organizational change: What is the role of employees’ stress and co mmitment? Em- ployee Relations, 27, 160-174. doi:10.1108/01425450510572685 van der Hek, H. & Plomp, H. N. (1997). Occupational stress mana- gement programmes: A practical overview of published effect stud- ies. Occupational Medicine, 47, 133-141. doi:10.1093/occmed/47.3.133 Venables, K. M., & Allender, S. (2006). Occupational health needs of universities: a review with an emphasis on the United Kingdom. Oc- cupational & Envir o nmental Medicine, 63, 159-156. Abbreviations Person-environment fit theory = PE. Copyright © 2012 SciR es . 144
|