Work Stress and Performance of Um Tagum Colege Faculty

International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 2, February-2017 13 ISSN 2278-7763 WORK STRESS AND PERFORMANCE OF UM TAGUM COLEGE FACULTY

RAIZA MAE CALBONERO-NARCISO

University of Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between work stress and performance of UM Tagum College Faculty. The respondents in this study are the faculty members of UM Tagum College, Tagum City. The sampling method used was the universal sampling wherein 130 faculty of Um Tagum College during school year 2013-2014 served as respondents. Through non-experimental quantitative research using correlational technique, validated questionnaire, Mean & Standard Devi- ation and Pearson r, results revealed that no significant relationship existed between work stress and performance of UM Tagum College Faculty.

Keywords : Work Stress, Performance

INTRODUCTION (Kelley et. al., 2000) stressed that today’s increasing and these rates vary between educators are under pressure to dramati- schools in England and Wales. In Eng- cally improve student learning. Empirical land, 57% of the teaching workforce took research shows big quality teachers are sickness absence in 2003, in Wales the the most critical factor in accomplishing percentage was 66%. In England, an av- this goal. Consequently,IJOART this has some- erage of 9.6 days sickness absence are lost thing to do in giving quality instruction per teacher, in Wales 13 days are lost. to students by improving one’s perfor- Additionally, it is apparent that the dura- mance because teacher’s work perfor- tion of sickness absence varies; for in- mance is one of the factors on realizing stance in 2003 in England absences of such goal. Furthermore, (Wook Cho and more than 20 days constituted 42% of the Kang, 2008) stated that due to global eco- total number of sickness days lost, in nomic slowdown, many employers are Wales the percentage figure was 66%*. now faced with a greater need to enhance (Jenkins and Conley, 2005). They also workforce efficiency and productivity. concluded that the above data indicates Therefore, management of poorly per- that as well as many newly qualified forming employees has become even teachers not entering the profession, le- more important than before. It is very vels of resignations and the duration of clear that employers are particular in sickness absences are increasing. employee’s performance since it affects Past studies have identified educa- the productivity of their company. tion as a strong, if not the strongest corre- It was estimated that 60,800 teach- late of poverty. Thus, the overarching ers resigned in 2002. Just over half of concern to eradicate poverty can be suc- these teachers are lost from teaching en- cessfully addressed only if the problems tirely. Sickness and absence rates are also besetting the education sector are given Copyright © 2017 SciResPub. IJOART International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 2, February-2017 14 ISSN 2278-7763

priority attention. Hence, in considering STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM teachers as the prime responsible on giv- The main focus of the study was to ing quality education, school administra- determine the significance of the relation must continuously monitor and tionship between work stress and per- check their teaching performance to fulfil formance of faculty members of UM Ta- the Millennium Development Goal of gum College. Specifically, it aimed to an- eradicating poverty through a Universal swer the following questions: Primary Education (Virola, et.al 2010). 1. What is the level of work stress among In UM Tagum College, one of the the faculty members of UM Tagum Col- major issues that the academe is facing is lege in terms of: the work performance of the professors. 1.1 Environmental factors Some if not all of the faculty seemed to be 1.2 Organizational Factors too stressed in the performance of their 1.3 Personal Factors? task. It is also undeniable that they are 2. What is the level of performance of dealing with all sorts of people. Some UMTC faculty members in terms of: may be approachable; others may be too 2.1 Evaluation of Teachers by conservative making them difficult to the Student (ETS) draw into teamwork, still others seem to 2.2 Evaluation of Teachers by be too professional that they don’t have the Dean (ETD) any time for fellowship which may cause 2.3 Classroom Evaluation of a decline in performance. Various situa- Teachers by Administrators tions and issues are vividly seen in this (CETA) institution but oIJOARTnly a few are acted upon 2.4 Evaluation of Teachers by (Barcelona 2003). Self (ETSe) Therefore, in this milieu, the re- 2.5 Evaluation of Teachers by searcher feels the need to measure the Peers (ETP)? level of work stress of UM Tagum Col- 3. Is there a significant relationship be- lege faculty, identify the causes, and pro- tween the work stress and performance pose appropriate mechanism to address of UM Tagum College faculty? the problems. Needless to say, teacher turnover is a costly phenomenon and HYPOTHESIS poorly performing teachers are even The null hypothesis that there is no sig- more costly because of their impact on nificant relationship between the level of stress and the work performance of UM students. Work is always associated with Tagum College faculty was tested at α stress but it is crucial that something 0.05 level of significance. must be done to know what caused the

stress and how to manage it appropriate-

ly so not to affect the teaching and learn- THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL ing process. FRAMEWORK

This research was anchored on the pendent variable is Work Performance concept of Robbins (1998) that the exis- with its indicators namely; Evaluation of tence of work stress in and of itself needs Teachers by the Student (ETS) – this re- not imply lower performance. However, fers to a structured set of questionnaire high level of stress or even a moderate used as a tool on evaluating the perfor- amount sustained over a long period mance of the faculty by the students, eventually takes its toll, and performance Evaluation of Teachers by Dean - refers to declines. a structured set of questionnaire used as Moreover, Jehangir et. al. (2011) a tool on evaluating the perfor- stated on their study that job stress has mance/faculty’s participation on any negative correlation with job perfor- official activity of the school by the Dean, mance. It is proved that increased level of Classroom Evaluation of Teachers by job stress can lead to higher decline in job Administrators (CETA) – is a structured performance and job satisfaction. They set of questionnaire used in evaluating also found that with the increase in job the performance of the faculty by the stress, job performance falls. Also, they administrators/program head/immediate have proved that job stress negatively af- supervisor, Evaluation of Teachers by Self fects job performance of their respon- (ETSe) – refers to a structured set of ques- dents. tionnaire used on evaluating owns per- Furthermore, Robbins (1998) formance, Evaluation of Teachers by Peer stated that Stress is a dynamic state whe- (ETP) – refers to a structured set of ques- reby the masses are faced with an oppor- tionnaire used in evaluating the interper- tunity, obstacle,IJOART constraints or demand sonal relationship with its co-faculty. regarding what one desires and the im- plication of which is considered to be un- Figure 1 certain, negative, terrifying and impor- Conceptual Framework tant. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of the study. In this study, the independent variable is Stress with its in- Work Stress Work dicators, namely: Environmental factors - Performance in which in this study, refer to economic uncertainties, Political Uncertainties and METHODOLOGY Technological Change, Organizational The research design of the study factors, which refers to the Task De- utilized the Non-experimental quantita- mands, Role Demands and Interpersonal tive research using correlational tech- Demands; Personal factors – this refers to nique in investigating the research prob- Family Problems, Economic Problems & lem. The purpose of correlational re- Personality as categorized by Robbins search is to determine the relations (1998) in his book Organizational Behavior among two or more variables (Bursal & as Potential Sources of Stress. The de- Paznokas, 2006).

This method determines the rela- For the level of stress, the follow- tionship among two or more vaiables and ing Five Point Likert Scale was used. sought to investigate the extent to which one or more relationship of some type Verbal Range of exist (Fraenkel 2003). It is descriptive be- Descrip- Interpretation Means cause the study focused at the present tion condition which purpose is to find new 4.50 – 5.00 Very This means truth that may have different form in a High that the stress new generation. among the The method determines the pre- faculty is vailing conditions, personal, situational, very much environmental and intellectual factors experienced and practices which will enable the re- all the time. searcher to seek accurate descriptions of 3.50 – 4.49 High This means the relationship between Stress and Work that the stress Performance of the UMTC academic fa- among the culty. faculty is ex- The respondents in this study perienced of- were the faculty of UM Tagum College, tentimes. Tagum City. The universal sampling me- 2.50 – 3.49 Mod- This means thod was used wherein 130 faculty of UM erate that the stress Tagum College during school year 2013- among the fa- 2014 participatedIJOART as respondents. culty is some- The major tool in the data gather- times expe- ing process was the survey question- rienced. naires designed by the researcher to ob- 1.50 – 2.49 Low This means tain information in such a way that the that the stress level of stress of faculty can be measured. among the The said questionnaire dealt with faculty is the causes of stress with its indicators: rarely expe- Environmental factor, Organizational fac- rienced. tor, Personal factor and Work Perfor- 1.00 – 1.49 Very This means mance with its indicators: Evaluation of Low that the stress Teachers by the Students (ETS), Class- among the room Evaluation of Teachers by the Ad- faculty is not ministrators (CETA), Evaluation of experienced Teachers by Dean (ETD), Evaluation of at all. Teachers by Self (ETSe) and Evaluation of Teachers by Peers(ETP). There are five The same Five Point Likert Scale questions for each indicator.

Copyright © 2017 SciResPub. IJOART International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 2, February-2017 17 ISSN 2278-7763 was used in the Evaluation of Teachers by mediate the Students (ETS), Evaluation of Teach- improve- ers by Dean (ETD), Classroom Evaluation ment. of Teachers by Administrrators (CETA), 1.00 – 1.89 Very This means Evaluation of Teachers by Peers and Low that the Evaluation of Teachers by Self (ETSe). performance of the teacher Verbal is unsatis- Range of Interpreta- Descrip- factory. Means tion tion 4.30 – 5.00 Very This means The statistical tools that were used High that the in the study are the following: perfor- Mean and Standard Deviation. mance of This was utilized to determine the level the teacher of stress as well as the work performance is excellent. among the academic faculty. 3.50 – 4.29 High This means Pearson r. This was used to de- that the termine the significance of the relation- perfor- ship between stress and work performance of mance of faculty. the teacher The following terms were defined IJOARTexceeds the operationally for easy understanding of expecta- the words: Work Stress. In this study, this tions. term refers to the level of identifying the 2.70 – 3.49 Mod- This means normal physical response to events that erate that the make someone feel threatened or upset perfor- one’s balance in some way. Performance. mance of In this study, this refers to the teaching the teacher competence and the faculty’s interper- meets the sonal relationship with their colleagues. expectations. 1.90 – 2.69 Low This means that the performance of the teacher RESULTS AND DISCUSSION needs im-

Level of Stress among Faculty Members (Villarmia, 2013). (Brat & Jimenez, 2012) of UM Tagum College mentioned that numerous studies indi- Shown in Table 1 are the data on cate that people who have many social the level of Work Stress of UM Tagum ties (spouse, friends, relatives, and group College faculty. Data show the weighted memberships) live longer and are less means of the three stress indicators and likely to succumb to stress- related illness their respective equivalents. than people who have few supportive Work Stress is of moderate level as social contacts. Also, (Caro, 2005) found indicated by the overall standard devia- out that diversion of focus such as leisure tion of 0.65 and a mean of 3.43. These activities, exercises, sound trips and particular indicators of the stress have the prayers was practised by teachers when following means and standard deviation: they were overload with work just to les- 3.73 and 0.65 for environmental factors or sen the pressures they encountered. high level; 3.32 and 0.89 for Personal fac- Table 1 tors or moderate level; and 3.23 and 0.83 Level of Stress among the Faculty for Organizational factors or moderate Members of UM Tagum College level. Descriptive Item SD Mean Environmental factors obtain the Level Environmental highest mean of 3.73 with a descriptive 0.65 3.73 High equivalent of high level. This means that Factor Organizational the stress among the faculty is expe- 0.83 3.23 Moderate Factor rienced oftentimes. Personal factors ob- Personal tain an average mean of 3.32 with corres- 0.89 3.32 Moderate IJOARTFactor ponding descriptive equivalent of mod- Overall 0.65 3.43 Moderate erate. This means that the stress among

the faculty is sometimes experienced. Or- Level of Work Performance of UM Ta- ganizational factors attain the lowest gum College Faculty Members mean of 3.23 with a descriptive equiva- Data presented in Table 2 contains lent of moderate level. This means that the the work performance of UM Tagum Col- stress among the faculty is sometimes lege Faculty. The lowest possible rate that experienced. a faculty can earn is very low and the Data reveal that the three indica- highest rate is very high. Moreover, UM tors garner a moderate level of stress. Tagum College got the work performance This means that the stress of the faculty is of the faculty by weighting the 5 indica- sometimes experienced with their Envi- tors accordingly: 50% for Evaluation of ronmental, Organizational and Personal Teachers by Students (ETS), 20% for factors. Faculty has shown themselves Evaluation of Teachers by Dean (ETD), good in overcoming and managing their 20% for Classroom Evaluation of Teach- stress. This is maybe due to the profes- ers by Administrators, 5% for Evaluation sionalism of the teachers as stated by

of Teachers by Peers, and 5% for Evalua- tionship with Peers and Commitment & tion of Teachers by Self (ETSe). Dedication to serve. It was evident that UM Tagum College faculty has an UM Tagum College has a supportive cul- overall mean of 4.20 which has a descrip- ture & climate thaAfterwardst creates a tion of high level. This means that the per- strong bond and good interpersonal rela- formance exceeds the expectations. The tionship with its colleague and the ad- specific level of work performance of UM ministration (Zaremba, 2006). Tagum College Faculty members are as Following is the Evaluation of follows: Evaluation of Teachers by Self Teachers by Student. This means that fa- (ETSe) has a standard deviation of 0.40 culty members are dedicated, committed and a mean rating of 4.41 or high; Evalua- and efficient in their task on rendering tion of Teachers by Peers (ETP) has a quality education to students as stated by standard deviation of 0.37 and a mean Villarmia (2013) in his study. This struc- rating of 4.37 or high; Evaluation of tured set of questionnaire has five indica- Teachers by Students (ETS) has a stan- tors: Knowledge of the subject matter, dard deviation of 0.37 and a mean rating Teaching strategies & methodologies, of 4.15 or high; Evaluation of Teachers by Classroom Management and Professional Dean (ETD) has a standard deviation of Characteristics/Traits. 0.45 and a mean rating of 4.06 or high; Afterwards, Evaluation of Teach- and last is Classroom Evaluation of ers by Dean (ETD) was ranked near to Teachers by Administrators (CETA) has a last maybe because of the lack of talents standard deviation of 0.24 and a mean or ability in doing task beyond teaching rating of 4.03 orIJOART high. or maybe the faculty are just much fo- Based on the result of the level of cused on their work and studies (Master work performance, Evaluation of Teach- or Doctorate Program) which hinder ers by Self (ETSe) has the highest mean them to participate in a meeting, Univer- and this is maybe due to high self- sity functions, research etc. (American efficacy (individual’s belief on his ability Association of American Professor. . ., to accomplish specific tasks) as men- 2006).This structured set of questionnaire tioned by (Zarate, 2006) or the contami- has three indicators: Instructional Com- nation like personal bias on evaluating petency & Efficiency, Institutional Service owns self as stated by (Critchfield, 1994). and Professional Involvement and Work This structured set of questionnaires has Attitude and Values. three indicators; instructional services, Finally, Classroom Evaluation of institutional services and Work, Attitudes Teachers by Administrators (CETA) was and Values. ranked as last its maybe due to the sub- Next is the Evaluation of Teachers jectivity on rating a faculty or the admin- by Peers (ETP), this structured set of istrator has just very high standard with questionnaire also has three indicators; regards to classroom management or ef- Instructional and scholarly efforts, Rela- fectiveness in teaching (Corpuz, 2012).

This structured set of questionnaire has The overall r-value is .107 with a three indicators: Communications Com- probability value of more than .05. petence, Management of Lessons Deli- Hence, not significant and the null hypo- very and Assessment of Student Learn- thesis is not rejected. It could be stated ing. therefore that there is no significant rela- Table 2 tionship between Work stress & perfor- Work Performance Results of UM Ta- mance of UM Tagum College faculty. gum College Faculty Members Examining the relationship of the Descrip- indicators of the independent variable, it Item SD Mean tive can be seen that no pairing is significant Level considering that all probability values are Evaluation of more than .05. Teachers by The result of the study does not 0.37 4.15 High Student support or contradict the framework of (ETS) (Robbins, 1998) stating that a high level of Classroom stress or even a moderate amount sus- Evaluation tained over a long period eventually of Teachers 0.24 4.03 High takes its toll, and performance declines as by Adminis- well as the findings of (Hanif et. al., 2011) trators (CE- TA) showing that teacher stress has negative Evaluation of significant correlation with job perfor- Teachers by 0.45 4.06 High mance. Also, the statement of (Jehangir, Dean (ETD) IJOARTet. al., 2011) stating that stress is a factor Evaluation of that may contribute to job dissatisfaction, Teachers by 0.40 4.41 High lower job performance and absenteeism. Self (ETSe) However, this finding affirms the Evaluation of study of Caro (2005) that teachers tend to Teachers by 0.37 4.37 High perform better in teaching jobs under Peer (ETP) stress. Moreover, according to (Castil & Overall 0.23 4.20 High Galleto, 2010), the teacher’s level of stress did not affect the efficient productivity of Significance of the Relationship be- teachers. Also, according to (Xing & Shao, tween the Level of Stress and Work Per- 2009), appropriate stress usually is a formance power that will enhance work efficiency Table 3 shows the data on the sig- and improve job satisfaction. nificance of the relationship between Work Stress and performance of UM Ta- gum College Faculty. Pearson r was used to determine the significance of the relationship. Table 3

Significance on the Relationship be- and Performance of UM Tagum College tween Work Stress and Perfomance of Faculty. UM Tagum College Faculty The results of the study will pro- vide relevant information to the people Work Stress concerned especially: Envi- Orga- Person Perfor- School Administrators. The result ron niza- son- Overall mance me tional of this study will guide administrators in ntal al implementing appropriate programs that Evaluation will encourage the academic faculty to be of Teachers more effective in their jobs and improve 0.72 .060 .046 0.23 by Stu- their work performance to contribute to dent the realization of the institution’s Vision (ETS) Classroom Mission and Goal. Evalua- Faculty. The results will give a bet- tion of ter understanding of their individual, Teachers .115 .037 .065 .007 by Ad- personal, environmental, organizational mini- and other related problems which cause strators stress in their lives. This will also serve as (CETA) Evaluation a basis for possible interventions to of change their behavior or even attitudes Teachers .152 .124 .111 .154 so that they can adopt/adjust positively to by Dean (ETD) the demands of the society and chal- Evaluation IJOARTlenges that they may encounter. of Students. This will help students Teachers .065 .095 .005 .060 by Self understand the value of study and work (ETSe) as demonstrated by their teachers so that Evaluation they (students) will in turn become more of Stu- dedicated in their studies and become dent by .95 .115 .053 .105 Peer decent and useful citizen in their respec- (ETP) tive community. Overall .110 .106 .057 .107 *significant at .05 significance level REFERENCES Decision on Ho = Not rejected

[1] C. Kelley, A. Odden, A. Milanowski, H. CONCLUSION Heneman III, “Motivational Effects of The result of the study implied schoolBased Performance Awards”. Consor- that the level of Work stress is moderate. tium of Policy Research and Education, Phil- Furthermore, the level of work perfor- adelphia, Pennsylvania, available at mance is high. Moreover, there is no sig- http://www.cpre.org/motivational-effects- nificant relationship between Work Stress school-based-performance-awards, Feb.2000 [2] J. Wook Cho & R.K. Kang. “Delivering ex-

pert knowledge to global counsel: Interna- http://search.proquest.com/docview/1037867 tional Law Office”. 2008, unpublished. 479?accountid=31259, 2012 [3] S. Jenkins & H. Conley “Emotional labour in [12] N.G. Caro. “Stress coping mechanism and the teaching profession”. Management Re- teaching performance of University of Min- search News, 28(9), 67-68. Retrieved from danao”, Davao City, pp. 22, 34-35, unpub- http:// lished, 2005 search.proquest.com/docview/223530348?acc [13] C.A. Zarate “Organizational Behavior and ountid=31259, 2005 Management”. Manila, Philippines. pp. 33, [4] R.A. Virola, M.A. Martillan, G.J.L. Clariño, 64, 2006 & A.A. Garcia. “The Best and Worst Perform- [14] T.S. Critchfield. “Bias in Self-Evaluation: ing School in the Philippine Licensure Ex- Signal Probability Effects”. Journal of the Ex- aminations at the start of the third Mille- perimental Analysis of Behavior. Retrieved nium”, EDSA, Manila, personal communica- from tion, 2010 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P [5] R. Barcelona “Stress and student evaluation MC1334460/, 1994 for teachers (SET) results of the faculty mem- [15] A.J. Zaremba. “Organizational Communi- bers of UM Tagum College”. UM Tagum City. cation”. Manila, Philippines, 2nd Edition. p. unpublished, 2003 117, 2006 [6] S. Robbins. “Organizational Behavior in the [16] American Association of American Profes- Organization”. 2nd Edition. New Delhi: sors. “Statement on teaching evaluation”. McGraw Hill. pp. 256-258, 1998 Washington D.C., 2006 [7] M. Jehangir, N. Kareem, A. Khan, M. T. Jan [17] C. Corpuz. “Introduction to Human Re- & S. Soherwardi. “Effects of job stress on job source Management”. Manila. Third Edition. performance & job satisfaction”. Interdiscipli- Rex Printing Company, Inc. p. 34, 2012 nary Journal of Contemporary Research in Busi- [18] R. Hanif, S. Tariq & M. Nadeem. “Personal ness, 3(7), IJOART453-465. Retrieved on and job related predictors of teacher stress fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/ and job performance among school teachers”. 923787215?accountid=31259, 2011 Retrieved from [8] M. Bursal & L. Paznokas. “Mathematics an- http://www.jespk.net/publications/64.pdf, xiety and preservice teachers’ confidence to 2011 teach mathematics and science”. School [19] M.L. Castil & M.A. Galleto. “Teachers' science & Mathematics, pp. 106, 173-180, un- Stress Level and Their Teaching Perfor- published, 2006 mance” Research and Educational Develop- [9] E. Fraenkel. “Multimedia & Proficiency in ment Training Institute, Quezon City, 2010 English”. University of Mindanao, Davao [20] L. Xing & L. Shao. “A probe into the psy- City, unpublished dissertation 2007 chological stress of college teachers” Re- [10] J.C. Villarmia.“School Stressors and Teach- trieved from http://www.seiofbluemountain. ing Perfomance of Criminilogy Teachers”, com/uplaod/product/200909/2009jyhy04a12p University of Mindanao, Davao City. pp. 28, df, 2009 30, 2013 [11] I. Brat & C. Jimenez. “World news: Spain’s new math: More students, fewer teachers”. Wall street Journal, pp. 11-A.11-B. Retrieved on September 12, 2012 from