Managerial stress, job satisfaction and health in Taiwan

More documents

Recommendations

Info

58 L. LU, H-J. TSENG AND C. L. COOPERTable 2 Ð Reliability of all scalesScales Mean SD Item no. AlphaJob satisfaction 47.42 9.24 12 0.92Job itself 24.68 4.94 6 0.88Organization 22.77 5.10 6 0.88Mental health 47.62 8.47 12 0.81Contentment 19.41 4.63 5 0.74Resilience 17.61 3.04 4 0.64Peace of mind 10.55 2.94 3 0.57Physical health 25.14 5.49 6 0.82Calmness 13.38 3.04 3 0.77Energy 11.77 3.10 3 0.71Type A behaviour 20.94 3.05 6 0.46Impatience 10.79 5.11 3 0.62Drive 10.13 2.26 3 0.69OSI Ð control 8.95 2.10 3 0.72WLCS (Work Locus of Control) 62.33 5.78 16 0.73Coping 43.56 5.15 10 0.76Control 26.86 3.52 6 0.79Seeking support 16.68 2.61 4 0.51Stressors 159.00 24.69 40 0.94Workload 24.30 4.77 6 0.78Relationships 32.29 6.10 8 0.86Home/work balance 23.35 4.69 6 0.74Managerial role 14.72 3.04 4 0.54Personal responsibility 17.30 3.40 4 0.74Hassles 15.29 2.95 4 0.61Recognition 15.78 3.18 4 0.75Organizational climate 15.83 3.10 4 0.69Stress±moderators±strain relationshipsTable 3 presents the relationships amongdemographics, work experiences, stress, Type A,internal control, coping, job satisfaction, mentaland physical health, smoking, drinking, exercise,absenteeism and turnover intentions. Regardingstress±strain relationships, work stress positivelycorrelated with turnover intentions and negativelycorrelated with job satisfaction, mental healthand physical health. Regarding stress±moderatorsrelationships, control was the only and negativecorrelate of work stress. Regarding moderators±strain relationships, control positively correlatedwith job satisfaction and mental and physicalhealth, and negatively correlated with turnoverintentions, absenteeism and smoking. Coping, onthe other hand, positively correlated with jobsatisfaction and mental health.A series of further correlation analyses wascarried out to examine intercorrelations amongall the OSI scales, their subscales and the WLCS.Results are summarized below, while more detailsare available from the authors. First, signi®cantintercorrelations within a particular constructranged from 0.17 (OSI Ð control/WLCS) to 0.72(`relationship stress'/`workload stress'). The onlynon-signi®cant correlation was between the twoType A subscales (`patience'/`drive'). Secondly,`resilience' was the worst mental health indicator,which produced the fewest signi®cant correlationswith the stress measures. Similarly, `calmness' wasthe worst physical health indicator, which producedthe fewest signi®cant correlations with thestress measures. Thirdly, `drive' as a Type Acharacteristic was not associated with any of thestrain measures. Fourthly, OSI Ð control and theWLCS produced comparable results pertaining tothe strain measures. Finally, `seeking support' as acoping strategy did not correlate with the strainmeasures.Predicting job strainIn order to test statistically the proposedrelationships among demographics, work experiences,work stress, moderators and job strain, asCopyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress med. 15, 53±64 (1999)
MANAGERIAL STRESS IN TAIWAN 59Table 3 Ð Correlations among demographics, work experiences, health habits, absenteeism, turnover intentions and other aggregated scales1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181. Sex 12. Age 0.24*** 13. Edu. 0.02 0.10 14. Mar. 0.21*** 0.42*** 0.01 15. Tenure 0.01 0.70*** 0.07 0.28*** 16. Rank 0.17*** 0.37*** 0.05 0.25*** 0.20*** 17. Smoking 0.38*** 0.10 0.16** 0.08 0.11 0.06 18. Drinking 0.44*** 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.19*** 0.44*** 19. Exercise 0.19*** 0.16** 0.04 0.03 0.16** 0.11* 0.06 0.07 110. Leave 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.03 111. Quit 0.06 0.18** 0.06 0.24*** 0.18*** 0.29*** 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.09 112. JS 0.00 0.12* 0.10 0.17** 0.05 0.17** 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.34*** 113. MH 0.04 0.24*** 0.02 0.18*** 0.19*** 0.13* 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.15** 0.29*** 0.30*** 114. PH 0.04 0.26*** 0.01 0.19*** 0.17** 0.10 0.19*** 0.06 0.07 0.21*** 0.18*** 0.24*** 0.59*** 115. Stress 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.05 0 0.01 0.12* 0.23*** 0.33*** 0.18*** 116. Type A 0.15** 0.01 0.06 0.12* 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.06 0 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.03 117. Control 0.03 0.09 0.13* 0.08 0.14* 0.15** 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.17*** 0.30*** 0.25*** 0.17*** 0.25*** 0.04 118. WLCS 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.18*** 0.11* 0.07 0.01 0.19*** 0.16** 0.26*** 0.24*** 0.17** 0.02 0.03 0.17** 119. Coping 0.04 0.11 0.15** 0.06 0.08 0.14* 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.15** 0.13* 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.14*Sex, 1 ˆ M, 2 ˆ F; Edu., years of education; Mar., 1 ˆ single, 2 ˆ married; Rank, 1 ˆ high-level, 2 ˆ low-level; Smoking, 1 ˆ smokers, 2 ˆ non-smokers; Drinking,1 ˆ drinkers, 2 ˆ non-drinkers; Leave, days of sick leave; JS, job satisfaction; MH, mental health; PH, physical health.*p 4 0.05; **p 4 0.01; ***p 4 0.001.depicted in Fig. 1, a series of hierarchicalregression analyses was conducted to predictjob satisfaction, mental health and physicalhealth separately. Signi®cant zero-order Pearson'scorrelation coecients between pairs of independentand dependent variables, as presented inTable 3, formed the initial criterion for theinclusion of potential predictors. In each case,demographics were entered ®rst into the equation,followed by work-related experiences at the secondstep, to statistically control their in¯uences. At thethird step, work stress was entered into theequation, followed by moderators at the fourthstep. Finally, the interactions between work stressand moderators were included in the regression.In predicting physical health, as smoking wassigni®cantly correlated with global physical health,it was also included in the equation to partial outits potential e€ects on the dependent variable. Inan attempt to achieve model parsimony, thoseinitially included independent variables whichmade no signi®cant contribution to the R-squarewere deleted and the analysis repeated. Table 4presents the ®nal results of the three regressionanalyses.When predicting job satisfaction, four out of®ve layers of independent variables were presentedin the ®nal equation, and a total of 19 per cent ofthe variance in the dependent variables wasaccounted for by the ®ve predictors. Amongthem, internal control demonstrated the strongest(positive) in¯uence on job satisfaction, whereaswork stress demonstrated the strongest (negative)in¯uence. None of the interaction terms reachedstatistical signi®cance. In other words, there wasno evidence of the bu€ering e€ects of internalcontrol as a moderator of the stress±strainrelationship.When predicting mental health, four predictorsremained signi®cant in the ®nal equation, accountingfor a total of 23 percent of the variance inmental health. Age and internal control werepositively related to mental health, whereas workstress was negatively related to it. Interestingly, theinteraction term between work stress and internalcontrol retained its statistical signi®cance, indicatinga vulnerability e€ect of internal control on thestress±strain relationship.When predicting physical health, four predictorsremained signi®cant in the ®nal equation,accounting for a total of 14 percent of the variancein physical health. Age and being marriedwere positively related to mental health, whereasCopyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress med. 15, 53±64 (1999)
Page 1 and 2: STRESS MEDICINEStress med. 15, 53±
Page 3 and 4: MANAGERIAL STRESS IN TAIWAN 55(c) C
Page 5: MANAGERIAL STRESS IN TAIWAN 57Table
Page 9 and 10: MANAGERIAL STRESS IN TAIWAN 61DISCU
Page 11 and 12: MANAGERIAL STRESS IN TAIWAN 63Cross

Managerial stress, job satisfaction and health in Taiwan

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?