Employee Engagement and Job Stress- an Overview

Home , Employee engagement

ISSN No: 2348-4845 International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and Research A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

Employee Engagement and Job Stress- An Overview

N. Venkateswara Sharma MBA, LL.B., Ph.D (Commerce & Management) Professor & HOD, Dept of Business Administration, Tirumala Engineering College, Bogram (V) Keesara ( M ), Medchal Dist.Telangana.

ABSTRACT: In other words, engaged employees are highly energetic The current study assessed the effects of work role stress (vigor), feel great pride and enthusiasm (dedication), and on burnout, engagement and turnover intention. In ad- are willing to completely focus on the task at hand (ab- dition, the mediating effects of satisfaction with one’s sorption). Harter et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis of 7,939 supervisor were assessed. The Job Demands Resources business units in 36 companies identified significant re- theory was used as a basis for the construction of the cur- lationships between employee engagement and improve- rent theoretical model. The study utilized a population of ments in customer satisfaction, productivity, profits, turn- nonexempt employees from a large land grant university over, and safety records. More recently, Saks (2006) found who worked at Research and Education Centers perform- that engagement significantly predicted job satisfaction ing manual agricultural labor. This non-exempt popula- and employee commitment to the organization. But the tion is a population that is largely overlooked in literature. main acknowledged hindrance of employee engagement Findings confirmed that work role stress does have an ef- is stress. Stress has been defined in different ways over fect on burnout and engagement, but no effect on turnover the years. Originally it was conceived as pressure from intention was supported. In addition, satisfaction with my the environment, then as tension within the person. It may supervisor was found to partially mediate the effects of be defined as interactions between the situation and the work stress on burnout and fully mediate the effects of individual. (Michie S 2002). work stress on engagement. Implications of these findings are included with ideas to implement directives that can It may be defined as individual’s reactions to the character- reduce stress and burnout and increase engagement and istics of the work environment that appear threatening to satisfaction with one’s supervisor. them and thus creating hindrance to being fully involved in work. Stress is not always negative or harmful; it is Introduction; just the non-specific response of the body to any demand, With change and restructuring predictions in many orga- positive or negative, made upon it. In practical life exces- nizations, one of the biggest challenges currently faced sive stress is so dangerous to employees that they try to by the companies is employee engagement. Smart or- avoid it by quitting either psychologically (disinterest or ganizations understand that engaged personnel result in lack of involvement in the job etc.), physically (frequent improved and healthy business performance. So many of lame excuses, late coming, absenteeism, laziness etc.) or them are placing greater importance on measuring em- by leaving the job entirely (Beehr and Newman, 1978). ployee engagement and implementing strategies to keep This article introduces and connects the factors impacting the staff engaged. The word ‘‘engagement’’ has become a person’s decision (whether conscious or unconscious) to the focus of considerable interest in the present field of re- engage or disengage. Specifically, this paper focus on the search days. According to Welbourne (2007), engagement connections between engagement and burnout (stress), is one of the ‘‘hottest topics in management’’ and Frank and the environmental factors related to engagement. et al. (2004) recommended that getting the employees is ‘‘one of the greatest challenges being faced by the organi- Literature Review: zations in this decade and beyond’’. According to one of Employee Engagement is not a new term but it has re- the most frequently cited engagement models (Schaufeli ceived a significant attention since last seven years. In- et al., 2002) engagement is a combination of vigor, dedi- deed in present age it has been considered as the key con- cation, and absorption. tributor in gaining competitive edge. (Gruman & Saks, 2011).

Volume No: 4 (2017), Issue No: 1 (January) January 2017 www.ijmetmr.com Page 183 ISSN No: 2348-4845 International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and Research A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

Many researchers argued that Employee Engagement is It is considered to be the emotional aspect of employee the main reason of directing individual’s attitudes, be- engagement and it includes the time and effort which is haviors and performance towards organizational goals exerted by employee in doing some meaningful work and objectives and organizational performance in terms (Coetzee & Villiers, 2010). Absorption refers to profound of productivity, financial growth and employee retention concentration while working, it is sense of fully absorbing can be enhanced through employee engagement. (Harter, in one’s work that one’s does not bother about the time Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Bates 2004; Richman, 2006). and one’s wish he has more time to spend on work (Burke Macey et al. (2009) studied the sample of 65 different in- & El-Kot, 2010; Coetzee & Rothmann, 2007). Employ- dustries and among them the top 25% on engagement in- ees’ focus on their work makes absorption a cognitive as- dex showed more Return on assets and high profitability. pect of employee engagement (Coetzee & Villiers, 2010). And these firms offer their shareholders double value as Kahn (1990) suggested that engagement involved “har- compared to those 25% who are at the bottom of engage- nessing of organizational members’ selves to their work ment index. Different researchers define employee en- roles; in engagement people employ and express them- gagement in different ways. Kahn (1990) define personal selves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role engagement on three psychological conditions – psycho- performances” (p.694). Employee’s physical involvement, logical meaningfulness, psychological safety and psy- emotional attachment and cognitive concentration makes chological availability. Leiter and Maslach (1998) view him engaged employee, while disengaged employee disengagement as opposite of burnout. According to them connect themselves from their work physically, mentally it is energetic involvement of employees in their work and emotionally (Olivier & Rothmann, 2007).Engaged with personal sense of responsibility. Schmidt and Hayes employees love their work and they maintain an energetic (2002) define employee engagement as “the individual’s and enthusiastic connection with their work (Schaufeli & involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm Salanova, 2007). Gruman and Saks (2011) are of the view for work” (p.269). Wellins and Concelman (2004) define that this connection can be made and maintain by “invest- employee engagement as the force that motivates and ing one’s self in work activities”. make the employees to put their best effort to achieve higher performance. Job Stress: Every employee in the world has to face stress at some Mone & London (2010) define and measure employee time during their work. This phenomenon makes stress a engagement by considering six different constructs. Em- universal aspect faced by employees around the sphere. ployee engagement has also been measured as satisfaction, (Imtiaz & Ahmad, 2009). In developing countries em- commitment and discretionary effort (Fine, Horowitz, ployees face more stress and employers do not real- Weigler, & Basis, 2010). Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonza- ize the impact of job stress on employee’s involvement lez- Roma and Bakker (2002) define employee engage- and commitment. One study found that about 100 mil- ment as “a positive fulfilling, work related state of mind lion workdays do not remain workdays because of stress that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption” and approximately 50% to 75% diseases are because of (p.74). This definition and measure received assertive- stress (Bashir, 2007). The word stress is derived from ness from different researchers and different researches Latin word “Stingere” meaning to draw tight. Job stress showed that these three aspect measurement of employee has been defined in different ways. Selye (1936) was the engagement is stable, reliable and valid (Schaufeli et al., researcher who first time gave the idea of stress in life sci- 2006; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007,2008; Burke & El-Kot, ences. According to him stress is pressure and force that 2010). Vigor is characterized by exerting high level of en- resist employees to perform at their maximum. Kahn & ergy and willingness to exert it in performing the work. Quinn (1970) defined stress as an outcome of designat- (Burke & El-Kot, 2010). It is mental presence and atten- ed work that cause harm for the individual. Job stress is tion of employee while working and the ability and will- considered to be detrimental factor for employees (Kahn ingness to face challenges and hindrances with full devo- & Quinn, 1970; Khattak et al, 2011). National Institute tion. (Coetzee & Villiers, 2010). Dedication is all about of Occupational Safety and Health (1999) defined stress being fully involved in one’s work and taking pride from as injurious physical and emotional response that arises one’s work. (Burke & El-Kot, 2010). when workers’ abilities and resources do not match the job demands and requirements. Jamal (1984, 1999) also

Volume No: 4 (2017), Issue No: 1 (January) January 2017 www.ijmetmr.com Page 184 ISSN No: 2348-4845 International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and Research A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

found that job stress is imbalance between job demands Many researchers studied the effect of job stress on above and employee’s abilities to fulfill these demands. The em- mentioned related constructs. (Jamal, 1984, 1999; Rose, ployee’s stress level increases with increase of imbalance 2003; Coetzee & De Villiers, 2010; Khattak et al., 2011). between job demands and individual’s ability to meet In every organization every employee experiences job demands. Jamal (1984) defined job stress as individual’s stress which affects on his job satisfaction (Rose, 2003). response to his work environment that threats employee’s Employee engagement is highly affected by job resources physically and emotionally. Stress is a mental strain that (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Job resources provide em- is caused by internal or external stimulus that creates ployees with psychological autonomy and more con- hindrance for employees in performing their duties up to centration. Inadequacies of these resources cause stress mark (Khuwaja, Ali Khan et al., 2002). Rollinson (2005) which affect employee’s work in terms of satisfaction defines workplace stress as conditions which inhibit em- and involvement (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).Coetzer & ployees to perform normally in workplace. The condi- Rothmann (2007) found that job demands that failed to tions are termed as stressors – the potential sources that be fulfilled by employee cause stress and these job de- cause stress (Rollinson, 2005). Researchers has indicated mands like work load are negatively related to work en- various job stressors which include – role ambiguity, gagement. work relationship, physical environment, role conflict etc (Cartwright & Cooper 2002; Ganster & Loghan, 2005; De Employee’s level of energy decreases and his mental at- Bruin & Taylor, 2006; Martin 2005; Rollinson, 2005). tention also diverts because of job demands such as work load (Maslach, 1993). When employees cannot concen- Job Stress and Employee Engagement: trate fully, their engagement level decreases (Coetzee & Macey & Schneider (2008) suggested that employee en- De Villiers, 2010). Job stress and stressors result in burn gagement is relatively new concept. But the factors that out that ultimately affect the employee’s level of engage- lead to employee engagement may be different from those ment (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).Coetzee & De Villiers of that leads to traditional outcomes like job satisfaction (2010) found that job stressors such as role ambiguity and and organizational commitment (Macey et al., 2009). Em- lack of job autonomy relate significantly negatively to all ployee Engagement is holistic concept that includes old the work engagement variables – vigor, dedication and related constructs like job satisfaction, employee com- absorption. This study further reveals that higher the level mitment, job involvement and organizational citizenship of job stressors, lower the level of employee engagement behavior (Little & Little, 2006). (Coetzee & De Villiers, 2010). Theoretical Framework:

Volume No: 4 (2017), Issue No: 1 (January) January 2017 www.ijmetmr.com Page 185 ISSN No: 2348-4845 ISSN No: 2348-4845 International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and Research Technology, Management and Research A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

Dependent Variable: Telangana are chosen. A total of 200 structured question- Employee Engagement – Vigor, Dedication & Absorp- naires are randomly distributed among the above men- tion tioned randomly selected organizations. Out of 200 ques- Independent Variable tionnaires 137 are returned. The response rate is 68.5%. Job Stress Sample Characteristics: Hypothsis: The sample consists of 56 % male and 44 % female. 21% H1: Overall job stress is significantly related to employee of the employees are in the age category of 21-25 years. engagement. 50% are in the age category of 26-30 years. 18% are in H1a: Overall job stress is significantly related to vigor. the age bracket of 31-35 years. 6.6% of the respondents H1b: Overall job stress is significantly related to dedica- belong to the age category of 36-40 years. While 9.5% tion. are in the bracket of 41-45 years. 57.7% have the work H1c: Overall job stress is significantly related to absorp- experience of 5 years or less. 26.3% fall in the category tion. of 6-10 years. 6.6% have the work experience of 11-15 years. While remaining 9.5% have work experience ap- Study Design and Methodlogy proaching 16-20 years. Only 3.6% have the 18 Years of Sample & Procedure education and remaining 96.4 have completed 16 years of education. The following table shows the detailed charac- The population of the present study is the employees of teristics of population studied. different organization, considering the element of gener- alizability of research the different organization – oil and gas sector, telecommunication sector, educational sector and banks, from Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Table 1: Sample Characteristics

Measures Employee Engagement Job Stress Employee engagement with its three facets is measured Job stress is measured by the 13 item scale (α = .882) de- using scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) and veloped by Parker and DeCotiis (1983). The respondents Schaufeli & Bakker (2004). The three facets are vigor, are asked to answer on a 5 point likert scale from strongly dedication and absorption. Vigor was measured by six disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). This measure is widely items (α = .907). “At my job I feel strong and vigorous”, used in research to measure the overall job stress (Baba dedication with five items (α = .938) “I find the work that et al., 1998). I do full of meaning and purpose”, and absorption is measured by six items (α = .901 ). “When I am working, I Findings and Conclusion forget everything else around me”. Respondents used 5 Descriptive Statistics point likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) to answer the questions.

Volume No: 4 (2017), Issue No: 1 (January) January 2017 Volume No: 4 (2017), Issue No: 1 (January) January 2017 www.ijmetmr.com Page 186 www.ijmetmr.com Page 187 ISSN No: 2348-4845 ISSN No: 2348-4845 International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and Research Technology, Management and Research A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

Dependent Variable: Telangana are chosen. A total of 200 structured question- Employee Engagement – Vigor, Dedication & Absorp- naires are randomly distributed among the above men- tion tioned randomly selected organizations. Out of 200 ques- Independent Variable tionnaires 137 are returned. The response rate is 68.5%. Job Stress Sample Characteristics: Hypothsis: The sample consists of 56 % male and 44 % female. 21% H1: Overall job stress is significantly related to employee of the employees are in the age category of 21-25 years. engagement. 50% are in the age category of 26-30 years. 18% are in Reliability Analysis H1a: Overall job stress is significantly related to vigor. the age bracket of 31-35 years. 6.6% of the respondents Table – 2 shows the cronbach’s Alpha of the variables which depicts the reliability of the data. The values show that H1b: Overall job stress is significantly related to dedica- belong to the age category of 36-40 years. While 9.5% the data is highly reliable. tion. are in the bracket of 41-45 years. 57.7% have the work H1c: Overall job stress is significantly related to absorp- experience of 5 years or less. 26.3% fall in the category tion. of 6-10 years. 6.6% have the work experience of 11-15 Table 2: Reliability Analysis years. While remaining 9.5% have work experience ap- Study Design and Methodlogy proaching 16-20 years. Only 3.6% have the 18 Years of Sample & Procedure education and remaining 96.4 have completed 16 years of education. The following table shows the detailed charac- The population of the present study is the employees of teristics of population studied. different organization, considering the element of gener- alizability of research the different organization – oil and Correlation Analysis gas sector, telecommunication sector, educational sector Table -3 shows that a strong negative correlation exists between two constructs i.e. employee engagement and job and banks, from Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and stress as evidenced through table where r = - 0.794. Correlation values between job stress and vigor, dedication and absorption are -0.758, -0.785 and -0.738 respectively.

Table 3: Correlation Analysis

Regression Analysis: Measures The regression analysis shows the cause and effect relationship between two variables. In Table – 4 value of R square is 0.630 depicting that the variation in employee engagement is explained up to 63% through variation in job stress Employee Engagement Job Stress which shows that job stress is strong predictor of employee engagement. Employee engagement with its three facets is measured Job stress is measured by the 13 item scale (α = .882) de- using scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002) and veloped by Parker and DeCotiis (1983). The respondents Table 4: Regression Analysis Schaufeli & Bakker (2004). The three facets are vigor, are asked to answer on a 5 point likert scale from strongly dedication and absorption. Vigor was measured by six disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). This measure is widely items (α = .907). “At my job I feel strong and vigorous”, used in research to measure the overall job stress (Baba dedication with five items (α = .938) “I find the work that et al., 1998). I do full of meaning and purpose”, and absorption is measured by six items (α = .901 ). “When I am working, I Findings and Conclusion Table - 4.1 shows the model of fitness (ANOVA) value of F 230.146 at a significance level of 0.000 is giving model a forget everything else around me”. Respondents used 5 Descriptive Statistics point likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly good fit. It means that there is model fit between independent and dependent variable. agree (5) to answer the questions.

Table 4.1: Regression Analysis (ANOVA) [9]Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). [17]M. Coetzee & M. de Villiers. (2010). Sources of job Business-unit-level relationship between employee satis- stress, work engagement and career orientations of em- faction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: ployees in a South African financial institution. Southern A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, African Business Review , Volume 14; Number 1, 2010. 268−279. [18]Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning [10]Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Table 4.2 shows T-statistics that explains that the value of the constant is 6.666 with t=32.370(>1.96) while coefficient Business-unit-level relationship between employee satis- Psychology, 1, 3−30. of stress (beta) is -0.70 with t= -15.171(>1.96) at a statistically significant level of 0.000 supporting our H1 that job faction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: stress is negatively related with employee job satisfaction. A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, [19]Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & 268−279. Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for Table 4.2: Regression Analysis (Coefficients) analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, [11]Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). WA: Wiley-Blackwell. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes:A [20]Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for 268−279. analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell. Conclusion: [12]Jamal M. (1984). Job Stress and job Performance con- The research findings show that there is significant and [3]Beehr TA, Newman J. Job stress, employee health and troversy: an empirical assessment in two countries. Orga- [21]Martin, J. 2005. Organisational Behaviour and Man- negative relationship between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33:1–21. agement. London: Thomson. job stress and keeping the employees engaged is becom- literature review. Personal Psychology 1978;31:665–9. ing a major challenge for the contemporary organizations [13]Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of per- [22]Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: a multidimensional now a days. Engaged employees are the real asset of the [4]Coetzee, M. & Bergh, Z.C. 2009. Psychological career sonal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek companies. They are always there to create an impact resources and subjective work experiences of working of Management Journal, 33, 692−724. (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in upon the performance of an organization. So they must adults: an exploratory study, Southern African Business theory and research (pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: Taylor be preserved and taken care of. Job stress is a threat to Review, 13 (2): 1–31. [14]Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of per- & Francis. the engagement of the employees. Because of the intense sonal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy competition in the environment organizations are putting [5]Coetzer, C.F. & Rothmann, S. 2007. ‘Job demands, of Management Journal, 33, 692−724. [23]Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2010). Employee en- more and more pressure on the employees to work and job resources and work engagement of employees in a gagement through effective performance management: A having higher expectations to perform. The fact combined manufacturing organisation’, Southern African Business [15]Khuwaja , Ali Khan e.t. al 2002, Comparison of Job practical guide for managers. New York: Routledge. with many other factors causing stress levels to increase. Review, 11(1): 17–32. Satisfaction and Stress Among Male and Female Doctors Stress has been associated positively to the unfavorable in Teaching Hospitals of Karachi, Department of Com- [24]National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health outcomes of an organization and negatively to the favor- [6]De Bruin, G.P. & Taylor, N. 2006. Sources of Work munity Health Sciences, The Aga Khan University. (NIOSH). 1999. Stress…at Work. Centers for Disease able ones evidenced through earlier studies (Burke & El Stress Inventory: Technical Manual. Johannesburg: Jopie Control and Prevention, U. S. Department of Health and -Kot, 2010; Coetzee & Rothmann, 2007; Coetzee & De van Rooyen & Partners. [16]Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1998). Burnout. In H. Human Services. Publication no. 99-101, 26 p. Villiers, 2010). This study also confirms the damaging S. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health, Vol. 1, nature of the stress towards employee engagement. So or- [7]Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H., & Basis, L. (2010). New York: Academic Press. ganizations must have a deeper look on the stress levels of Is good character good enough? The effects of situational their employee so as to keep their employees engaged. variables on the relationship between integrity and coun- terproductive work behaviors. Human Resources Man- References: agement Review, 20, 73−84. [1]Bates, S. (2004, February). Getting engaged. HR Mag- azine, 49(2), 44−51. [8]Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), ‘‘The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in [2]Baumeister, R., & Leary M. R. (1995). The need to the 21st century’’, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a funda- 3, pp. 12-25. mental human motivation, Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Volume No: 4 (2017), Issue No: 1 (January) January 2017 Volume No: 4 (2017), Issue No: 1 (January) January 2017 www.ijmetmr.com Page 188 www.ijmetmr.com Page 189 ISSN No: 2348-4845 ISSN No: 2348-4845 International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, International Journal & Magazine of Engineering, Technology, Management and Research Technology, Management and Research A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal A Peer Reviewed Open Access International Journal

[9]Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). [17]M. Coetzee & M. de Villiers. (2010). Sources of job Business-unit-level relationship between employee satis- stress, work engagement and career orientations of em- faction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: ployees in a South African financial institution. Southern A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, African Business Review , Volume 14; Number 1, 2010. 268−279. [18]Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning [10]Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Business-unit-level relationship between employee satis- Psychology, 1, 3−30. faction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, [19]Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & 268−279. Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, [11]Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). WA: Wiley-Blackwell. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes:A [20]Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for 268−279. analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell. Conclusion: [12]Jamal M. (1984). Job Stress and job Performance con- The research findings show that there is significant and [3]Beehr TA, Newman J. Job stress, employee health and troversy: an empirical assessment in two countries. Orga- [21]Martin, J. 2005. Organisational Behaviour and Man- negative relationship between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33:1–21. agement. London: Thomson. job stress and keeping the employees engaged is becom- literature review. Personal Psychology 1978;31:665–9. ing a major challenge for the contemporary organizations [13]Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of per- [22]Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: a multidimensional now a days. Engaged employees are the real asset of the [4]Coetzee, M. & Bergh, Z.C. 2009. Psychological career sonal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek companies. They are always there to create an impact resources and subjective work experiences of working of Management Journal, 33, 692−724. (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in upon the performance of an organization. So they must adults: an exploratory study, Southern African Business theory and research (pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: Taylor be preserved and taken care of. Job stress is a threat to Review, 13 (2): 1–31. [14]Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of per- & Francis. the engagement of the employees. Because of the intense sonal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy competition in the environment organizations are putting [5]Coetzer, C.F. & Rothmann, S. 2007. ‘Job demands, of Management Journal, 33, 692−724. [23]Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2010). Employee en- more and more pressure on the employees to work and job resources and work engagement of employees in a gagement through effective performance management: A having higher expectations to perform. The fact combined manufacturing organisation’, Southern African Business [15]Khuwaja , Ali Khan e.t. al 2002, Comparison of Job practical guide for managers. New York: Routledge. with many other factors causing stress levels to increase. Review, 11(1): 17–32. Satisfaction and Stress Among Male and Female Doctors Stress has been associated positively to the unfavorable in Teaching Hospitals of Karachi, Department of Com- [24]National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health outcomes of an organization and negatively to the favor- [6]De Bruin, G.P. & Taylor, N. 2006. Sources of Work munity Health Sciences, The Aga Khan University. (NIOSH). 1999. Stress…at Work. Centers for Disease able ones evidenced through earlier studies (Burke & El Stress Inventory: Technical Manual. Johannesburg: Jopie Control and Prevention, U. S. Department of Health and -Kot, 2010; Coetzee & Rothmann, 2007; Coetzee & De van Rooyen & Partners. [16]Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1998). Burnout. In H. Human Services. Publication no. 99-101, 26 p. Villiers, 2010). This study also confirms the damaging S. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health, Vol. 1, nature of the stress towards employee engagement. So or- [7]Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H., & Basis, L. (2010). New York: Academic Press. ganizations must have a deeper look on the stress levels of Is good character good enough? The effects of situational their employee so as to keep their employees engaged. variables on the relationship between integrity and coun- terproductive work behaviors. Human Resources Man- References: agement Review, 20, 73−84. [1]Bates, S. (2004, February). Getting engaged. HR Mag- azine, 49(2), 44−51. [8]Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), ‘‘The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in [2]Baumeister, R., & Leary M. R. (1995). The need to the 21st century’’, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a funda- 3, pp. 12-25. mental human motivation, Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Volume No: 4 (2017), Issue No: 1 (January) January 2017 Volume No: 4 (2017), Issue No: 1 (January) January 2017 www.ijmetmr.com Page 188 www.ijmetmr.com Page 189