OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND WORK MOTIVATION AMONG NURSES
*Dr.Chandrakant Jamadar ** Radha.S ***Dr.Somesha C
Abstract
The term stress as it used today was coined by Hans Selye in 1936, who defined it as the non-specific response of the body to any demand for change. The objective of the study is to know the occupational stress, motivation among men and women nurses. In this study sample consists of sixty from government and private hospitals from Mysore. Keeping the objectives of the study in view, the following statistical techniques were applied. Mean, SD were calculated the t-test was used to assess the significant differences between men and women nurses and their occupational stress and work motivation. Results of this study is There is no significant differences between men and women nurses in there occupational stress and work motivation in men and women nurses.
Key words: Work motivation, Occupational stress, Gender differences and work situation
*Asst.Professor, Post Graduate Studies in Psychology, Maharani Arts & Commerce College for women, Mysore.
**M.Sc,student , Post Graduate Studies in Psychology, Maharani Arts & Commerce College for women, Mysore.
***Guest Faculty, Post Graduate Studies in Psychology, Maharani Arts & Commerce College for women, Mysore.
Introduction
In recent years, occupational stress has become one of the most popular topics for applied research in cytology, and in the broader areas of social and medical sciences. The concept of stress, introduced by Hans Selye has many connotations, and occupational stress research can be seen as a natural extension of this classical concept to a specific form of human activity, namely work. Problems implied by the stress concept are highly relevant to problems arising in individuals' professional lives. For instance, the types and stages of an individual’s adaptation to a demanding environment or the deterioration in health are seen as 'the price" for the extraordinary mobilization of psycho physiological resources. On the other hand, the great variety and complexity of real work situations has reaffixed any direct transfer of the original stress concept to occupational stress, and stimulated an intensive, independent development of occupational stress research.
Work-related stress was once thought of as occurring only in those who work in senior positions; it is now acknowledged that occupational stress can be experienced by employees at every level (Williams, 2003) in healthcare sector.
Researchers cannot agree on a single definition for stress due to its complex nature (Salami, et al. 2010). The concept of stress, introduced by Hans Selye (1976), has had many connotations, and occupational stress research can be seen as a natural extension of this classical concept to a specific form of human activity, namely work (Appley & Trumbull, 1986). According to American Institute Stress, the term stress as it used today was coined by Hans Selye in 1936, who defined it as the non-specific response of the body to any demand for change. His theories garnered considerable attention and stress became a buzzword that evolved to ignore his original definition (Yahaya, 2010). Cooper and Marshall's five sources of stress, with examples of the components of these sources given for each, are:
1. Intrinsic to the job, including factors such as poor physical working conditions, work overload or time pressures;
2. Role in the organization, including role ambiguity and role conflict;
3. Career development, including lack of job security and under/over promotion;
4. Relationships at work, including poor relationships with your boss or colleagues, an extreme component of which is bullying in the workplace; and
5. Organizational structure and climate, including little involvement in decision- making and office politics (Beheshtifar, et al. 2011).
Numerous studies have explored stress, primarily from the psychological, sociological, and medical perspective. From the business perspective, researchers dealt with the issue of occupational stress, as job/work causes a great deal of stress to contemporary employees. As well, there is a vast amount of research on individual differences involved in the work-stress process. Researchers have studied individual differences in the belief that they influence reactions to objectively stressful events or appraisals of events as being stressful, or they simply add to the variance explained in the stress outcomes (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). Mark and Smith(2011) they conducted study on Occupational stress, job characteristics, coping, and the mental health of nurses. For this study Participants were 870 nurses, who responded to a bulk mail sent randomly to 4,000 nurses from the south of England. This study demonstrated the importance of coping factors in work-stress research, in accordance with the multi-factorial premise of transactional stress models. It is argued that multi-factor research is needed to help develop effective organizational interventions.
Statement of problem
To study the occupational stress and work motivation among nurses.
Objective of the study
1. To know the occupational stress among men and women nurses.
2. To study the work motivation among men and women nurses.
3. To identify the occupational stress between married and single nurses.
4. To understand and identify the work motivation between married and single nurses.
5. To assess the level of occupational stress between newly joined and experienced nurses.
6. To measure the work motivation between newly joined and experienced nurses.
7. To identify the level of occupational stress between day duty and night duty nurses.
8. To know the work motivation between day duty and night duty nurses.
Hypotheses of the study
H1- There is no significant differences between men and women nurses in there occupational stress.
H2- There is significant differences between men and women nurses in there work motivation.
H3- There is no significant differences between married and single nurses in there occupational stress.
H4- There is no significant differences between married and single nurses in there work motivation.
H5- There is no significant differences between newly joined and experienced nurses in there occupational stress.
H6- There is no significant differences between newly joined and experienced nurses in there work motivation.
H7- There is no significant differences between day duty and night duty nurses in there occupational stress.
H8- There is no significant differences between day duty and night duty nurses in there work motivation.
Variable of the study
Independent variable: gender, duty, experience, and marital status.
Depended variable: occupational stress and work motivation.
Sample of the study
This sample consist 60, in 60 , 30 men and 30 women from Mysore private hospitals. This sample selected in randomly.
Tools:A.K. Shrivathsa and Dr A.P. sinngh (1989). Occupational stress index (OSI).And K.G.Agarwal (2006).work motivation.
Statistical analysis:Keeping the objectives of the study in view, the following statistical techniques were applied. Mean, SD were calculated the t-test was used to assess the significant differences between men and women nurses and their occupational stress and work motivation.
Results and Discussion
Table No. 1. shows mean, SD, and t-value of occupational stress of men and women nurses (n=60).
| Occupational stress | Gender | Mean | SD | t-value |
| Men | 132.77 | 13.74 | *1.6205 | |
| Women | 138.63 | 4.29 |
*not statistically significant
Table 1 shows the mean and SD of occupational stress in men 132.77and 13.74 is lesser than the occupational stress than the women is 138.63 and 14.29 is respectively. The calculated‘t’- value is 1.6205 it is not statistically significant.
Therefore, the formulated hypotheses are “there is no significant deference between men and women nurses in their occupational stress”. Therefore, the formulated hypothesis is accepted.
Table no 2 shows mean, SD, and t-value of work motivation of men and women nurses (n=60).
| Work motivation | Gender | Mean | SD | t-value |
| Men | 123 | 19.02 | *2.1632 | |
| Women | 114.07 | 13.11 |
* Significant at 0.05 level.
Table 2 shows the mean and SD of work motivation in men 123 and 19.02 is greater than the women is 114.07 and 13.11 is respectively. The calculated‘t’- value is 2.1632 it is significant at 0.05 level.
Therefore, the formulated hypotheses are “there is significant deference between men and women nurses in their work motivation”. Hence, the formulated hypothesis is accepted.
Table no 3 shows mean, SD, and t-value of occupational stress of single and married nurses (n=60).
| Group | Occupational stress | |||||
| Single | Married | |||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||
| Mean | 129.27 | 139.21 | 138.73 | 140.21 | ||
| SD | 13.43 | 12.47 | 13.45 | 15.99 | ||
| t-value | *2.0632 | *0.2706 | ||||
* It is not statistically significant **it is not statistically significant
Table 3 shows the mean and SD of occupational stress in single, men 129.27 and 13.43 is lesser than the than the women 139.21 and 12.47. Similarly in married men 138.73 and 13.45 lesser than the women, 140.21 and 15.99 respectively.The calculated‘t’- value of single (men and women) 2.0632 married (men and women) 0.2706 it is not statistically significant.
Therefore, the formulated hypotheses are “there is no significant deference between single and married nurses in their occupational stress”. Therefore, the formulated hypothesis is accepted
Table no 4 shows mean, SD, and t-value of work motivation of single and married nurses (n=60)
| Group | Work motivation | |||||
| Single | Married | |||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||
| Mean | 123.20 | 117.43 | 118.20 | 110.79 | ||
| SD | 15.04 | 13.00 | 18.64 | 13.66 | ||
| t-value | *1.1021 | *1.2419 | ||||
* It is not statistically significant **it is not statistically significant
Table 4 shows the mean and SD of work motivation in single, men 123.20 and 15.04 is lesser than the than the women 117.43 and 13.00. Similarly in married, men 118.20 18.64 greater than the women, 110.79 and 13.66.Respectively.The calculated‘t’- value of single (men and women) 1.1021 and married (men and women) 0.2706 it is not statistically significant.
Therefore, the formulated hypotheses are there is no significant deference single and a married nurse in their work motivation. Therefore, the formulated hypothesis is accepted.
Table no 5 shows mean, SD, and t-value of occupational stress of newly joined and experienced nurses (n=60).
| Group | Occupational stress | |||||
| newly joined | experienced | |||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||
| Mean | 132.47 | 136.14 | 131.47 | 142.43 | ||
| SD | 13.93 | 10.57 | 15.51 | 16.88 | ||
| t-value | *0.7961 | *1.8228 | ||||
* It is not statistically significant
*it is not statistically significant
Table 5 shows the mean and SD of occupational stress in newly joined, men 132.47 and 13.93 is lesser than the than the women 136.14 and 10.57. Similarly in experienced men 131.47 and 15.51 lesser than the women, 142.43 and 16.88 respectively. The calculated’- value of newly joined (men and women) 0.7961 it is not statistically significant and experienced (men and women) 1.8228 it is not statistically significant.
Therefore, the formulated hypotheses are there is no significant deference, newly joined and experienced nurses in their occupational stress. Therefore, the formulated hypothesis is accepted.
Table no 6 shows mean, SD, and t-value of work motivation of newly joined and experienced nurses (n=60).
| Group | Work motivation | |||||
| newly joined | experienced | |||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||
| Mean | 132.47 | 136.14 | 131.47 | 142.43 | ||
| SD | 13.93 | 10.57 | 15.51 | 16.88 | ||
| t-value | *0.7961 | *1.8228 | ||||
* It is not statistically significant **it is not statistically significant
Table 6 shows the mean and SD of work motivation in newly joined, men 125.67 and 21.64 is greater than the than the women 118.21 and 14.41. Similarly in experienced men 119.27 greater than the women, 112.64 and 12.56 Respectively. The calculated‘t’- value of newly joined is (men and women) 1.0833 it is not statistically significant and experienced (men and women) 1.1806 it is also not statistically significant.
Therefore, the formulated hypotheses are “there is no significant deference in newly joined and experienced nurses in their work motivation”. Therefore, the formulated hypothesis is accepted.
Table no 7 shows mean, SD, and t-value of occupational stress of day duty and night duty nurses (n=60).
| Group | Occupational stress | |||||
| Day duty | Night duty | |||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||
| Mean | 134.40 | 142.00 | 132.20 | 135.21 | ||
| SD | 13.32 | 16.09 | 14.13 | 12.64 | ||
| t-value | *1.3895 | *06039 | ||||
* It is not statistically significant **it is not statistically significant
Table 7 shows the mean and SD of occupational stress in day duty, men 134.40 and 13.32 is lesser than the than the women 142.00 and 16.09. Similarly in night duty men 132.20 and 14.13 lesser than the women, 135.21 and 12.64.Respectively.The calculated ‘t’- value of day duty nurses is(men and women) 1.3895 it is not statistically significant and night duty nurses is (men and women) 0.6039 it is not statistically significant.
Therefore, the formulated hypotheses are that “there is no significant deference in day duty and night duty nurses in their occupational stress”. Hence, the formulated hypothesis is accepted.
Table no 8 shows mean, SD, and t-value of work motivation of day duty and night duty nurses (n=60).
| Group | Work motivation | |||||
| Day duty | Night duty | |||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||
| Mean | 118.47 | 105.87 | 126.47 | 118.71 | ||
| SD | 17.52 | 29.32 | 21.02 | 12.87 | ||
| t-value | *1.4286 | 1.1869 | ||||
* It is not statistically significant **it is not statistically significant
Table 8 shows the mean and SD of work motivation in day duty, men 118.47and 17.52 is greater than the than the women105.87 and 29.32. similarly in night duty men 126.47 and 21.02 greater than the women, 118.71 and 12.87 respectively calculated the ‘t’- value of day duty (men and women )1.4286 it is not statistically significant and night duty (men and women)1.1869 it is not statistically significant.
Therefore, the formulated hypotheses are there is no significant deference, day duty and night duty nurses in their work motivation. Therefore, the formulated hypothesis is accepted.
Conclusion
· There is no significant differences between men and women nurses in there occupational stress.
· There is significant differences between men and women nurses in there work motivation.
· There is no significant differences between married and single nurses in there occupational stress.
· There is no significant differences between married and single nurses in there work motivation.
· There is no significant differences between newly joined and experienced nurses in there occupational stress.
· There is no significant differences between newly joined and experienced nurses in there work motivation.
· There is no significant differences between day duty and night duty nurses in there occupational stress.
· There is no significant differences between day duty and night duty nurses in there work motivation.
References
1. Aldwin, C. M. (2000). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York: The Guilford Press.
2. Appley, M. H., &Trumbull, R. (1986). Development of the stress concept. In M. H. Appley & R. Trumbull (Eds.), Dynamics of stress (pp. 3–18). New York: Plenum Press.
3. Beehr, T. A., Glaser, K. M., Canali, K. G., & Wallwey, D. A. (2001). Back to basics: Re-examination of the demand- control theory of occupational stress. Work and Stress, 15(115–130).
4. Cable, DA. (1999). Plateau and Transition: Career Dynamics in a Changing World of Work, Massey University.
5. Cannon, W.B. (1929). Bodily Changes in pain, Hunger, Fear and Range: an Account of Recent Research into the function of Emotional Excitement, 2nd ed. New York: Appleton.
6. Davies, C. (1995). Gender and the professional predicament in nursing. Buckingham, UK: Open University.
7. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
8. James, S.V., (2002). The relationship experience of Professional nurses with managers. University of Port Elizabeth
9. Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D. L. (2007). Eustress at work: Extending the holistic stress model. In D. L. Nelson & C. L.
10. Smythe, E.M. (1984). Surviving nursing. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
11. Somer fi eld, M., & McCrae, R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, theoretical advances. American Psychologist, 55, 620 625.
No comments:
Post a Comment