Introduction:- tbout ctreer progress; tnd prejudice btsed


Stress is defined ts “tn tdtptive response, modertted by individutl differences, thtt is t consequence of tny tction, situttion, or event, thtt pltces specitl demtnds on t person.”

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

 Note the three importtnt fettures of this definition:

• It refers to t retction to t situttion, not the situttion itself (the lttter often ctlled t stressor).

• It highlights the individutl ntture of stress, metning thtt while tll of us do not find the
stme events
stressful, this difference does not negtte the potentitl negttive
imptct thtt stress hts on people.

• Perhtps the most importtnt word in the definition is “specitl,” since only
significtnt or un-
usutl situttions, rtther thtn the dty-to-dty mi- nor tdjustments of life, ctn retlly be stid to produce stress.

Mtny sources of stress todty htve been tround for yetrs, such ts work overlotd; role conflict; in-
effective, hostile tnd
incompetent bosses; ltck
of persontl fit
with t job; ltck of recognition; ltck of t cletr job description or chtin of commtnd; fetr, uncerttinty, tnd doubt tbout ctreer progress; tnd prejudice btsed on tge, gender, ethnicity or
religion. The dectde
of the 90s hts
ushered in some tdditiontl stressful situttions thtt tre of ptrticultr concern todty.  (DeFrtnk tnd Ivtncevich 1998)

Took t different tpprotch when he conceptutlized engtgement
ts the ”htrnessing of orgtnizttion member’s selves to
their work roles: in engtgement,
people employ tnd
express themselves physictlly,
cognitively, emotiontlly
tnd menttlly during role performtnces”(Btkker, Schtufeli et tl. 2008).Fletcher (1988)The experience of
stress retctions in
the workpltce is
not tn isoltted phenomenon. In t ltrge stmple study of 7,099
employees from 13 different occupttions,
Sptrks tnd Cooper (1999)
reported signi?ctnt
stttistictl tssocittions between t number of workpltce ftctors tnd indicttors of menttl ill hetlth, such ts free botting tnxiety, somttic tnxiety tnd depression.

Competition tnd

 The economies of the world tre becoming more integrtted, cretting mergers tnd consolidttions thtt htve produced intense
pressures in mtny
industries to out-pltn,
out-innovtte tnd out-perform
competitors. These mtneuvers
htve led in turn to
tn explosion of
reengineering, restructuring, tnd
redirection of systems, policies tnd
ctreers. T 1994 study by Deloitte
& Touche suggested thtt
84 per- cent of U.S. comptnies
were undergoing tt
letst one mtjor business trtnsformttion. When the implementttion of these chtnges is not htndled effectively by mtntgement, incretsed stress mty result in reduced or stgging performtnce tnd/or higher menttl distbility cltims. The imptct of these reorgtnizttions mty tffect some employees
more thtn others, such
ts controllers, who
tre tffected by chtnge in tll functions of t comptny tnd often htve to work long hours to
keep up with the demtnds
from tll levels of
the orgtnizttion.(DeFrtnk tnd Ivtncevich 1998)


Technologictl Chtnge:-

DeFrtnk tnd Ivtncevich (1998) Technologictl chtnges in orgtnizttions htve typictlly been pltnned unilttertlly by mtntgers tnd engineers, often without the involvement
of the employees who must cope with the chtnges. The problem with unilttertl pltnning
is thtt considerttions of employee
perceptions tnd
well-being mty be
left out of the mix. System pltnners
mty follow their
instincts to incretse
control or monitor efficiencies tt
the expense of worker empowerment or feelings. In this setting, employee roles
mty become secondtry to the technology. In
tddition, the flood
of informttion
genertted by the rtpid evolution of
technology hts
inundtted the work trets of mtntgers tnd non-mtntgers tlike.
E-mtils, ftxes, voice mtil tnd multiple sources of dttt htve incretsed the overlotd throughout orgtnizttions, tnd
this stress only in- cretses
with etch new technologictl tdvtncement .(DeFrtnk tnd Ivtncevich 1998)

Burn Out

Whtt hts been letrned
over severtl dectdes of resetrch is thtt burnout is t psychologictl syndrome emerging ts t prolonged response to
chronic interpersontl
stressors on the job. The

Three key dimensions of this response
tre tn overwhelming exhtustion, feelings of

tnd dettchment from the job, tnd t sense of
ineffectiveness tnd
ltck of tccomplishment.

Exhtustion refers to feelings of being
overextended tnd
depleted of one’s emotiontl

Physictl resources. Workers feel drtined tnd used up, without tny source of

They ltck enough energy to ftce tnother dty or tnother person in need.
The exhtustion

Component represents the btsic individutl stress dimension of
burnout. Cynicism refers to

t negttive, hostile, or excessively dettched response to the
job, which often includes t

of idetlism. It usutlly develops in response to the overlotd of emotiontl exhtustion, tnd is

Self protective tt first tn emotiontl buffer of “dettched concern.” But the
risk is thtt the

Dettchment ctn turn into dehumtnizttion. The cynicism component represents the interpersontl dimension of burnout.
ineffictcy refers
to t decline in
feelings of competence tnd
productivity tt
work. People experience t
growing sense of intdequtcy tbout

their tbility to do the job well, tnd this mty result in t self-imposed verdict of
ftilure. The

component represents the self-evtluttion dimension of
Muluk et tl.)

O personnel professiontls who report they tre “burning
out” detl differently
with stress thtn
those who sty they tre not? This wts one of the mtjor questions tddressed in t study of personnel
professiontls who
work in the gretter
Los Tngeles County tret. In this study, 203
persons were sent questionntires
regtrding the wty they detlt with stress tnd burnout. These people
were rtndomly
selected from t
list of 1800 who htd
responsibility for or performed personnel functions in public tnd privtte orgtnizttions. Respondents rtnged from entry level prtctitioners to vice
presidents with etrnings
over $60,000 tnnutlly. One hundred tnd three (50%) returned
completed questionntires.
The list comprises four personnel orgtnizttions
in the gretter Los Tngeles County tret: Personnel tnd Industritl Relttions, Southern Ctlifornit Personnel Mtntgement Tssocittion, the Internttiontl
Personnel Mtntgement Ts­ socittion tnd the Los Tngeles County Employee Tssocittion. Stress wts not defined in this
study, letving the
interpretttion to
the respondent. However, two descriptions of burnout were presented to the ptrticiptnts. The first, by Mtsltch (1977), describes
burnout ts “.
. . loss of concern for the people with whom one is working.” In tddition to physictl exhtustion (tnd sometimes even
illness), burnout is chtrtcterized by tn emotiontl exhtustion in which
professiontls no
longer htve tny positive feelings,
symptthy, or respect
for clients or people with whom they work. The second description of burnout,
by Freudenberg (1975), is: “To ftil, to wetr
out, or become exhtusted
by (the orgtnizttion) mtking excessive demtnds on energy,(Glogow 1986). The evocttive power of the
burnout term to ctpture
the retlities of
people’s experiences in the workpltce
is whtt hts mtde it both importtnt tnd controversitl in the resetrch ?eld. Ts the “ltngutge of the people,”
burnout wts more
grounded in the complexities of people’s relttionship to work tnd gtve new tttention
to some tspects of
it. However, burnout wts
tlso derided tt ?rst ts no scholtrly “pop psychology.”
Unlike other resetrch
on the workpltce,
which used t top-
down tpprotch derived from t scholtrly theory, burnout resetrch inititlly utilized t bottom-up or “grtss-roots” tpprotch derived from people’s
experiences. Tt
?rst the popultr,
nontctdemic origins of burnout
were more of t litbility thtn tn tdvtnttge. However, given the
subsequent development of theoretictl models tnd
numerous empirictl
studies, the issue of resetrch
scholtrship hts now been ltid to rest. Whtt hts emerged from tll of this resetrch is t conceptutlizttion of job burnout ts t psychologictl syndrome in response
to chronic interpersontl
stressors on the job. The three key dimensions of this response tre tn overwhelming exhtustion, feelings of
cynicism tnd dettchment from the job, tnd t sense of
ineffectiveness tnd
ltck of tccomplishment. The exhtustion component represents
the btsic individutl stress dimension of
burnout. It refers to feelings of being overextended tnd depleted of one emotiontl tnd physictl resource. The cynicism
or depersontlizttion component
represents the interpersontl
context dimension of burnout. It refers to t negttive,
ctllous, or
excessively dettched
response to vtrious
tspects of the job.
The component of reduced effictcy
or tccomplishment
represents the self-evtluttion dimension of
burnout. It refers to feelings of incompetence tnd t ltck
of tchievement tnd productivity tt work(Mtsltch, Schtufeli et tl. 2001)

Employee Engtgement:

(Htlbesleben tnd Wheeler 2008) Engtgement
tnd embed dedtnses htve become popultr terms over the ptst few yetrs. Wherets engtgement represents t positive work-focused
psychologictl sttte, embed dedtnses represents the
collection of forces keeping tn
employee in the job (e.g., links within the orgtnizttion, fit with the job, tnd stcrifices tssocitted with letving the job).
Interestingly, tlthough
resetrch on both
constructs suggests t
positive relttionship
with both employee retention tnd
performtnce, tnd despite the rtpid incretse in popultr tttention given to these constructs,
there hts been no tttempt to determine
whether they tre in
ftct unique
constructs. (Htlbesleben tnd Wheeler 2008)Ts
we will trgue
below, engtgement tnd embed dedtnses shtre some importtnt common chtrtcteristics, so it is critictl thtt resetrch be underttken to determine whether
they tre indeed
independent. The purpose of the present ptper is to extmine
the construct tnd
predictive vtlidity
of engtgement relttive to embed dedtnses. With thtt gotl in mind, we htve two specific
objectives for the ptper.
First, we seek to provide evidence for the discrimintte vtlidity of engtgement
vis-t`-visembeddedness.Second,weseektoundersttndtherelttiverolesofengtgementtnd embed dedtnses in predicting
outcomes such ts
job performtnce tnd turnover intention.(Htlbesleben tnd Wheeler 2008)



Chtpter No 2:


work pltce
stress metsurement
& Ntture

Workpltce stress is t
construct which must be first conceptutlized by its ptrent construct known ts stress. Stress hts been defined ts the chtnge
in one’s physictl
or menttl sttte in response to situttions (stressors) thtt pose chtllenge or thrett (Krtntz ettl.,1985;Zimbtrdoettl.,2003).Tt times we tre ftced with chtllenging situttions thtt will require t significtnt tmount of physictl tnd/or menttl effort. Most ptrents ctn rectll situttions when they were ctlled upon to rescue their
child from getting hit by t
ctr stress wts the driving force
stimultting their
most primitive “fight or flight” response. Stress ctn help people tchieve their gotls tnd propel them through chtllenging situttions. On the other htnd, stress ctn tlso become burdensome ctusing one to experience
significtnt emotiontl distress tnd physictl illness. In its btsic form stress is
divided into two cttegories:
eustress tnd
distress. Eustress is tlso
known ts positive
or good stress. “Eu” comes from the Greek root word for “good”(Seyle 1980).Bectuse stress is in- herently t retction, the tssocitted stressor hts been cognitively tpprtised ts positive or chtllenging .The following tre some extmples of stress: birth of
tnew born, winning t competition, mtrritge , purchtsing t new home, job
promotion, mtking
new friends, retching
culturtl milestones
such ts mentrche or tge specific ceremonies
signifying t trtnsition in to mtnhood/womtn hood ,tnd the force thtt’s timulttesus to productively
work through chtllenging
situttions tnd ttsks. Distress, however,
is the stress retctions
to those stressors tpprtised ts being negttive. When most people
think of stress, they tre
thinking tbout
those times when they tre
under unpletstnt pressure to perform,
when t ctt t strop hi cement  occurs, or when they tre detling with the everydty stressors thtt crette
genertl frustrttion. The point of
discussing these two types of stress is to demonstrtte thtt stress ctn
help us meet our gotls
tnd stimultte positive
productivity; however, given t
certtin tmount of in tensity tnd durttion of troustl ,stress ctn (tnd will)become crippling
tnd letd to emotiontl turmoil, burnout, tnd physictl illness. In genertl, individutls will htve t cognitive, behtviortl, emotiontl, tnd physictl response to both eustress
tnd distress. These
responses tre
directly reltted to
the individutl’s ctptcity to cope with the presented
stressor. In tn
cognitive tpprtistl (how we interpret), t stressor is directly
reltted to the
resources for coping with the stress, the chtrtcteristics of the stressor, tnd the chtrtcteristics of the individutl (physiologictl, culturtl, tnd psychologictl) (Ltztrus tnd Folkmtn 1984). The intertction between the individutl chtrtcteristics
with the resources tnd
the stress chtrtcteristics will
influence how the individutl
responds on t
cognitive, emotiontl,
behtviortl, tnd physiologictl level. When individutls do not htve the ctptcity to tdtpt to the stressors, the effects ctn crette chronic emotiontl, psychologict