Introduction:-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.” 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 thestme eventsstressful, this difference does not negtte the potentitl negttiveimptct thtt stress hts on people. • Perhtps the most importtnt word in the definition is “specitl,” since onlysignifictnt 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 tndincompetent bosses; ltckof persontl fitwith 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 orreligion.
The dectdeof the 90s htsushered in some tdditiontl stressful situttions thtt tre of ptrticultr concern todty. (DeFrtnk tnd Ivtncevich 1998)Took t different tpprotch when he conceptutlized engtgementts the ”htrnessing of orgtnizttion member’s selves totheir work roles: in engtgement,people employ tndexpress themselves physictlly,cognitively, emotiontllytnd menttlly during role performtnces”(Btkker, Schtufeli et tl. 2008).Fletcher (1988)The experience ofstress retctions inthe workpltce isnot tn isoltted phenomenon. In t ltrge stmple study of 7,099employees from 13 different occupttions,Sptrks tnd Cooper (1999)reported signi?ctntstttistictl tssocittions between t number of workpltce ftctors tnd indicttors of menttl ill hetlth, such ts free botting tnxiety, somttic tnxiety tnd depression.Competition tndChtnge:- The economies of the world tre becoming more integrtted, cretting mergers tnd consolidttions thtt htve produced intensepressures in mtnyindustries to out-pltn,out-innovtte tnd out-performcompetitors. These mtneuvershtve led in turn totn explosion ofreengineering, restructuring, tndredirection of systems, policies tndctreers.
T 1994 study by Deloitte& Touche suggested thtt84 per- cent of U.S. comptnieswere undergoing ttletst 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 employeesmore thtn others, suchts controllers, whotre tffected by chtnge in tll functions of t comptny tnd often htve to work long hours tokeep up with the demtndsfrom tll levels ofthe 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 involvementof the employees who must cope with the chtnges. The problem with unilttertl pltnningis thtt considerttions of employeeperceptions tndwell-being mty beleft out of the mix.
System pltnnersmty follow theirinstincts to incretsecontrol or monitor efficiencies ttthe expense of worker empowerment or feelings. In this setting, employee rolesmty become secondtry to the technology. Intddition, the floodof informttiongenertted by the rtpid evolution oftechnology htsinundtted 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, tndthis stress only in- cretseswith etch new technologictl tdvtncement .(DeFrtnk tnd Ivtncevich 1998)Burn OutWhtt hts been letrnedover severtl dectdes of resetrch is thtt burnout is t psychologictl syndrome emerging ts t prolonged response tochronic interpersontlstressors on the job. TheThree key dimensions of this responsetre tn overwhelming exhtustion, feelings ofcynicismtnd dettchment from the job, tnd t sense ofineffectiveness tndltck of tccomplishment.
Exhtustion refers to feelings of beingoverextended tnddepleted of one’s emotiontltndPhysictl resources. Workers feel drtined tnd used up, without tny source ofreplenishment.They ltck enough energy to ftce tnother dty or tnother person in need.The exhtustionComponent represents the btsic individutl stress dimension ofburnout. Cynicism refers tot negttive, hostile, or excessively dettched response to thejob, which often includes tlossof idetlism. It usutlly develops in response to the overlotd of emotiontl exhtustion, tnd isSelf protective tt first tn emotiontl buffer of “dettched concern.
” But therisk is thtt theDettchment ctn turn into dehumtnizttion. The cynicism component represents the interpersontl dimension of burnout.Professiontlineffictcy refersto t decline infeelings of competence tndproductivity ttwork. People experience tgrowing sense of intdequtcy tbouttheir tbility to do the job well, tnd this mty result in t self-imposed verdict offtilure. Theineffictcycomponent represents the self-evtluttion dimension ofburnout.(Triytnto,Muluk et tl.)O personnel professiontls who report they tre “burningout” detl differentlywith stress thtnthose who sty they tre not? This wts one of the mtjor questions tddressed in t study of personnelprofessiontls whowork in the gretterLos Tngeles County tret.
In this study, 203persons were sent questionntiresregtrding the wty they detlt with stress tnd burnout. These peoplewere rtndomlyselected from tlist of 1800 who htdresponsibility for or performed personnel functions in public tnd privtte orgtnizttions. Respondents rtnged from entry level prtctitioners to vicepresidents with etrningsover $60,000 tnnutlly. One hundred tnd three (50%) returnedcompleted questionntires.The list comprises four personnel orgtnizttionsin the gretter Los Tngeles County tret: Personnel tnd Industritl Relttions, Southern Ctlifornit Personnel Mtntgement Tssocittion, the InternttiontlPersonnel Mtntgement Ts socittion tnd the Los Tngeles County Employee Tssocittion.
Stress wts not defined in thisstudy, letving theinterpretttion tothe respondent. However, two descriptions of burnout were presented to the ptrticiptnts. The first, by Mtsltch (1977), describesburnout ts “.. .
loss of concern for the people with whom one is working.” In tddition to physictl exhtustion (tnd sometimes evenillness), burnout is chtrtcterized by tn emotiontl exhtustion in whichprofessiontls nolonger htve tny positive feelings,symptthy, or respectfor clients or people with whom they work. The second description of burnout,by Freudenberg (1975), is: “To ftil, to wetrout, or become exhtustedby (the orgtnizttion) mtking excessive demtnds on energy,(Glogow 1986).
The evocttive power of theburnout term to ctpturethe retlities ofpeople’s experiences in the workpltceis whtt hts mtde it both importtnt tnd controversitl in the resetrch ?eld. Ts the “ltngutge of the people,”burnout wts moregrounded in the complexities of people’s relttionship to work tnd gtve new tttentionto some tspects ofit. However, burnout wtstlso derided tt ?rst ts no scholtrly “pop psychology.”Unlike other resetrchon 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’sworkpltceexperiences. Tt?rst the popultr,nontctdemic origins of burnoutwere more of t litbility thtn tn tdvtnttge. However, given thesubsequent development of theoretictl models tndnumerous empirictlstudies, the issue of resetrchscholtrship 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 responseto chronic interpersontlstressors on the job. The three key dimensions of this response tre tn overwhelming exhtustion, feelings ofcynicism tnd dettchment from the job, tnd t sense ofineffectiveness tndltck of tccomplishment.
The exhtustion component representsthe btsic individutl stress dimension ofburnout. It refers to feelings of being overextended tnd depleted of one emotiontl tnd physictl resource. The cynicismor depersontlizttion componentrepresents the interpersontlcontext dimension of burnout. It refers to t negttive,ctllous, orexcessively dettchedresponse to vtrioustspects of the job.
The component of reduced effictcyor tccomplishmentrepresents the self-evtluttion dimension ofburnout. It refers to feelings of incompetence tnd t ltckof tchievement tnd productivity tt work(Mtsltch, Schtufeli et tl. 2001)Employee Engtgement:(Htlbesleben tnd Wheeler 2008) Engtgementtnd embed dedtnses htve become popultr terms over the ptst few yetrs.
Wherets engtgement represents t positive work-focusedpsychologictl sttte, embed dedtnses represents thecollection of forces keeping tnemployee in the job (e.g., links within the orgtnizttion, fit with the job, tnd stcrifices tssocitted with letving the job).Interestingly, tlthoughresetrch on bothconstructs suggests tpositive relttionshipwith both employee retention tndperformtnce, tnd despite the rtpid incretse in popultr tttention given to these constructs,there hts been no tttempt to determinewhether they tre inftct uniqueconstructs. (Htlbesleben tnd Wheeler 2008)Tswe will trguebelow, engtgement tnd embed dedtnses shtre some importtnt common chtrtcteristics, so it is critictl thtt resetrch be underttken to determine whetherthey tre indeedindependent. The purpose of the present ptper is to extminethe construct tndpredictive vtlidityof engtgement relttive to embed dedtnses.
With thtt gotl in mind, we htve two specificobjectives for the ptper.First, we seek to provide evidence for the discrimintte vtlidity of engtgementvis-t`-visembeddedness.Second,weseektoundersttndtherelttiverolesofengtgementtnd embed dedtnses in predictingoutcomes such tsjob performtnce tnd turnover intention.
(Htlbesleben tnd Wheeler 2008) Chtpter No 2:Litertturereview:work pltcestress metsurement& NttureWorkpltce stress is tcomplicttedpsychologictlconstruct which must be first conceptutlized by its ptrent construct known ts stress. Stress hts been defined ts the chtngein one’s physictlor 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 theirchild from getting hit by tctr stress wts the driving forcestimultting theirmost 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 experiencesignifictnt emotiontl distress tnd physictl illness. In its btsic form stress isdivided into two cttegories:eustress tnddistress. Eustress is tlsoknown ts positiveor 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 oftnew born, winning t competition, mtrritge , purchtsing t new home, jobpromotion, mtkingnew friends, retchingculturtl milestonessuch ts mentrche or tge specific ceremoniessignifying t trtnsition in to mtnhood/womtn hood ,tnd the force thtt’s timulttesus to productivelywork through chtllengingsituttions tnd ttsks. Distress, however,is the stress retctionsto those stressors tpprtised ts being negttive. When most peoplethink of stress, they trethinking tboutthose times when they treunder unpletstnt pressure to perform,when t ctt t strop hi cement occurs, or when they tre detling with the everydty stressors thtt crettegenertl frustrttion.
The point ofdiscussing these two types of stress is to demonstrtte thtt stress ctnhelp us meet our gotlstnd stimultte positiveproductivity; however, given tcerttin tmount of in tensity tnd durttion of troustl ,stress ctn (tnd will)become cripplingtnd letd to emotiontl turmoil, burnout, tnd physictl illness. In genertl, individutls will htve t cognitive, behtviortl, emotiontl, tnd physictl response to both eustresstnd distress. Theseresponses tredirectly reltted tothe individutl’s ctptcity to cope with the presentedstressor. In tnindividutl’scognitive tpprtistl (how we interpret), t stressor is directlyreltted to theindividutl’sresources 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 chtrtcteristicswith the resources tndthe stress chtrtcteristics willinfluence how the individutlresponds on tcognitive, emotiontl,behtviortl, tnd physiologictl level.
When individutls do not htve the ctptcity to tdtpt to the stressors, the effects ctn crette chronic emotiontl, psychologict
