AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF 
Raedawn C. Ruffner for the Master of Science 
in Psychology presented on June 20,2003 
Title: An Examination of Job Stressors and Gender in the Workplace 
_ 91 -" '7j 
Abstract approved: 
The present study investigated th~fer;nces~eVelSO~b stress between men and women 
in regards to six sources ofjob stress: factors intrinsic to the job, role stress, relationships and 
work, career development, organizational structure/climate, and home-work interface. 
Participants were full-time regular employees at Johnson County Government. Participants 
were given an Occupational Stress Questionnaire to complete, which examined the six 
sources ofjob stress. The results showed no difference in overall stress level between men 
and women. However, when examining specific factors there was a significant difference 
between men and women, especially in regards to factors intrinsic to the job, role stress, and 
stress due to managing home-work interface. 
1 
AN EXAMINATION OF JOB STRESSORS AND GENDER
 
IN THE WORKPLACE
 
A Thesis
 
Presented to
 
the Department of Psychology and Special Education
 
EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY
 
In Partial Fulfillment 
of the Requirements for the Degree 
Master of Science 
by
 
Raedawn C. Ruffner
 
August 2003
 
lhe,si ~ 
~O()3 
1\
 
t:JiJ!. tL~.
 
Approved for the Department of
 
Psychology and Special Education
 
~~ 
Approved for the Graduate Council 
11 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
I want to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Schrader, Dr. Yancey, and Dr. Slocombe, for all 
of their help in writing this thesis. A special thanks to Dr. Yancey, your time and 
commitment are truly appreciated. I would like to thank Johnson County Government for 
their resources and participation. I also want to thank my family, friends, and fiance for 
their encouragement, love, and support. 
111 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 .iii
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 .iv
 
LIST OF TABLES vii
 
CHAPTER
 
1 INTRODUCTION 1
 
Defining Occupational Stress 2
 
Influences Gender and Occupational Stress 2
 
Hypotheses 14
 
2 METHOD 16
 
Participants 16
 
Design 16
 
Instrumentation 16
 
Survey 16
 
Cover Letter 19
 
Procedures 19
 
3 RESULTS 21
 
Hypotheses 21
 
Exploratory Findings
 22 
IV 
4 DISCUSSION
 26
 
Hypothesis 1
 26
 
Hypothesis 2
 26
 
Hypothesis 3
 27
 
Hypothesis 4 28
 
Appendix H: The Sources of Job Stress by Job Classification (Means).57
 
Appendix K: The Sources of Job Stress by Hours Worked per Week
 
Hypothesis 5 29
 
Hypothesis 6 30
 
Implications 30
 
Conclusions and Future Research 33
 
REFERENCES 35
 
APPENDICES 40
 
Appendix A: Survey 40
 
Appendix B: Breakdown of Survey Questions .42
 
Appendix C: Breakdown of Survey Questions by Subfactor 43
 
Appendix D: Cover Letter. 48
 
Appendix E: Descriptive Statistics (Before Reverse Scoring) 50
 
Appendix F: The Sources of Job Stress by Age (Means) 55
 
Appendix G: The Sources of Job Stress by Marital Status (Means) 56
 
Appendix I: The Sources of Job Stress by Length of Service (Means).. 58
 
Appendix J: The Sources of Job Stress by Annual Income (Means) ..... 59
 
(Means) 60
 
v 
Ii\ 
19 '" '(SU~::lW) 
U::lJPHlDjO J::lqwnN Aq SS::lllS qOf jO s::l:JlnoS::llU :1 x!pu::lddV 
LIST OF TABLES
 
TABLE PAGE 
1 Mean Differences for the Major Hypotheses 24 
2 Correlations between the Sources of Job Stress, 
Overall Job Stress, and Intent to Stay with the Organization .25 
Vll 
1
 
CHAPTER 1 
INTRODUCTION 
Occupational stress is a growing concern because of its effects on individuals and 
organizations. Even though occupational stress is important, only in the past 25 years has 
it been studied in the field of Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Beehr and Newman 
(1978) established that employee health is important and that job stress contributes to 
employee health. Therefore, occupational stress should be researched more extensively. 
Since this pioneering article, occupational stress has been recognized as influential to 
employees and organizations. 
According to Cooper and Marshall (1976), six sources of occupational stress are: 
(a) job conditions, (b) role stress, (c) relationships at work, (d) career development, 
(e) organizational structure/climate, and (f) home-work interface. Although these sources 
have been identified, it is unclear how gender is related to each of these sources. The 
present study examined these six sources of occupational stress in relation to gender. 
Literature Review 
Americans spend much of their lives engaging in work-related activities, so 
conditions at work contribute to employees' lifestyle and health. Employee health is of 
importance to individual employees, consumers, and organizations. Not only does 
employee health affect the employees themselves, but it affects the organization's 
bottom-line, as well as society. Because the importance of employee health has been 
recognized, occupational stress has been researched in relation to health. 
2
 
Defining Occupational Stress 
Occupational stress or job stress is a difficult concept to define and, therefore, has 
varying definitions by various researchers. The term "stress" refers to physiological and 
psychological reactions of individuals, as well as to the environmental conditions that 
elicit these responses. Researchers usually refer to situational demands that provoke 
these responses as "stressors" and the responses themselves as "strains." In the work 
situation, examples of stressors may be high workloads, conflicting demands, 
interruptions, and demands from supervisors, co-workers, and customers. Strains are the 
effects of stress. These include adverse or negative physical, psychological, and 
behavioral consequences (Beehr & Newman, 1978; Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 
2000). 
Beehr and Newman (1978) define job stress as the interaction ofjob-related 
factors and worker traits that changes normal psychological and! or physiological 
functions. This definition has been accepted and used throughout occupational stress 
research (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Danna & Griffin, 1999). 
Consequences ofOccupational Stress 
Researchers have identified several negative effects ofjob stress. These 
consequences not only include harm to the individual employee but costs to employers as 
well. Some of the costs to the employer include low productivity, absenteeism, health 
insurance payouts, worker turnover, workers' compensation claims, and theft and 
sabotage (Schafer, 1992). Manning, Jackson, and Fusilier (1996) found a connection 
between occupational stress and health care costs. Stressful work events lead to 
economic costs of health care claims. While examining the effects on the individual 
3 
employee, Beehr and Newman (1978) divided the negative outcomes ofjob stress into 
three categories: physical consequences, psychological consequences, and behavioral 
consequences. 
Physical consequences. Much of the research investigating physical consequences 
of occupational stress has focused on cardiovascular and gastrointestinal systems, but 
stress has also been shown in relation to general health. Physical fatigue, bodily injuries, 
and sleep disturbances have also been studied. Other physical consequences to job stress 
include increased heart rate and blood pressure, respiratory problems, increased sweating, 
skin disorders, headaches, and muscular tension. 
Psychological consequences. The most obvious psychological consequence of 
occupational stress is job dissatisfaction. Commonly reported psychological symptoms of 
job stress are anxiety, tension, anger, and resentment. Research has also found that there 
are other psychological consequences to occupational stress, such as withdrawal and 
depression, boredom, mental fatigue, loss of concentration, and lowered self-esteem. 
Behavioral consequences. Behavioral consequences are to be looked at as 
potential consequences ofjob stress, and not as confirmed consequences. These 
consequences tend to be the earliest and most overt signs of stress. Greater alcohol and 
drug abuse, increased cigarette smoking, accident proneness, and violence are behavioral 
effects ofjob stress (Danna & Griffin, 1999). Other behaviors, such as poor job 
performance, absenteeism, and tardiness are also behavioral consequences, as well as 
organizational consequences (Beehr & Newman, 1978). 
4
 
Sources ofOccupational Stress 
Researchers have attempted to identify specific job stressors. Cooper and 
Marshall (1976) developed a model ofthe sources of occupational stress with six broad 
categories. These categories include factors intrinsic to the job, role stress, relationships 
at work, career development, organizational structure, and home-work interface. These 
are still recognized today in research as being sources ofjob stress (Cleveland et aI., 
2000; Danna & Griffin, 1999; Leong, Furnham, & Cooper, 1996; Rice, 1992). 
Factors intrinsic to the job. These sources of occupational stress deal with the 
actual job conditions. Examples of intrinsic job factors include work overload or 
underload, shift work, long hours, travel, risk and danger, and the quality of the physical 
working environment (Danna & Griffin, 1999). New technology is another job 
characteristic that contributes to stress when workers perceive this new technology as a 
threat to their job security (Cleveland et aI., 2000; Danna & Griffin, 1999). Some 
possible consequences of occupational stress from job conditions are physical and/or 
mental fatigue, job burnout, and increased irritability and tension (Rice, 1992). 
Researchers have become more specific when defining work overload by 
differentiating between quantitative and qualitative work overload. Quantitative refers to 
having too much to do in too short a time. This is when the physical demands of the job 
exceed the employee's capacity. Qualitative work overload, on the other hand, refers to 
work that is too difficult or complex. This is when the job taxes either the technical or 
mental skills of the worker (Rice, 1992). 
Role stress. Another major source ofjob stress is associated with the person's role 
in the organization. These include role ambiguity, role conflict, and the degree of 
5 
~~, responsibility for others. Role stress in the organization has consequences such as 
increased anxiety and tension, lowered job perfonnance, and job dissatisfaction (Rice, 
1992). 
Research has been conducted regarding role ambiguity and role conflict in the 
workplace. Role ambiguity exists when an individual has inadequate infonnation about 
his or her work role. This refers to a lack of clarity about the work objectives, about 
colleagues' expectations, and about the responsibilities of the job. Role conflict exists 
when an individual in a particular work role is tom by conflicting job demands. An 
example of role conflict is when an employee is caught between two groups of people 
who demand different behaviors at the job. Role conflict can also be caused by 
conflicting expectations from two separate roles. Role ambiguity and/or conflict may 
also result from mixed feedback regarding job perfonnance (Holder, 1996). 
Lower job satisfaction, high job-related tension, and lower self-esteem are 
possible results of role ambiguity and/or role conflict (Cooper & Marshall, 1976). In 
addition, Jamal (1990) found that work overload, role ambiguity, conflict, and resource 
inadequacy were significantly related to job dissatisfaction, lack of organizational 
commitment, psychosomatic health problems, and turnover. 
Responsibility of others is also associated with an employee's organizational role. 
Responsibility for people can be distinguished from responsibility for things. More time 
interacting with others, attending meetings, and more time trying to meet deadline 
pressures and schedules result in an increased responsibility for others. This increased 
responsibility for others can result in coronary heart disease (Cooper & Marshall, 1976). 
6 
Relationships at work. These include relationships with superiors, colleagues, and 
subordinates. Contributing factors to poor relationships at work include poor work and 
social support systems, political rivalry, jealousy, anger, lack of management concern for 
employees, low trust, low supportiveness, and low interest in listening (Cooper & 
Marshall, 1976). These relationship stressors may result in increased tension, elevated 
blood pressure, and job dissatisfaction (Rice, 1992). Mistrust of co-workers is related to 
high role ambiguity, poor communication, low job satisfaction, and poor psychological 
well-being (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994). 
Research has suggested that employee relationships offering support and 
attachment have positive effects and are a central factor in individual and organizational 
health (Cooper, 1973; Harris, Heller, & Braddock, 1988). In addition, relationships at 
work can provide social support, which is an important buffer from stress (Cleveland et 
aI., 2000). Manning et ai. (1996) found that those with low social support appeared to 
have greater doctor's office costs when exposed to stressful work events than those with 
high social support. Friendly relationships at work can also bolster work attitudes and 
performance. 
Career development. Career development as a job stressor refers to 
underpromotion, overpromotion, lack ofjob security, and frustrated ambitions. Many 
employees bring specific hopes and expectations to the job. These may include 
advancement, some freedom in the job and increased earning power. In addition, they 
may also hope to learn new things and find solutions to certain job-related problems. 
When these hopes and expectations are not met, this results in stress (Rice, 1992). 
7 
Cartwright and Cooper (1993) found that job insecurity and career development 
have increasingly become sources ofoccupational stress associated with negative 
outcomes. These negative outcomes include job dissatisfaction and poor work 
performance (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980). Other potential consequences of career 
development stressors consist of loss of self-esteem and increased irritability and anger. 
Organizational structure and climate. Another source of occupational stress 
relates to the organizational culture and management style (Cooper & Marshall, 1976). 
These stressors involve those aspects of the structure of an organization that can make 
working life either satisfactory or stressful. Aspects such as not involving employees in 
the decision-making process, lack of effective consultation, rigid and impersonal 
structure, office politics, and inadequate supervision or training contribute to job stress. 
In addition, discrimination and harassment, sexual or nonsexual, are aspects of 
organizational culture. 
Consequences ofdownsizing, such as major restructuring, ambiguous work 
environments, and individual cultural incongruence are also included in this category 
(Cooper & Marshall, 1976). Organizational climate can enhance or inhibit stress. Some 
organizations have a ruthlessly aggressive or competitive climate, whereas others nurture 
employees and their families (Cleveland et aI., 2000). 
Lowered motivation and productivity and job satisfaction are possible 
consequences to organizational structure and climate stressors (Rice, 1992). Researchers 
have studied participative management used in the decision-making process. Including 
employees in the decision-making process has been related to increase in employee job 
involvement, organizational commitment, creativity, and perceptions of procedural 
8 
justice and personal control (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2001). In addition, centralization and 
lack of participation can result in decreased morale and increased stress-related 
symptoms (Schafer, 1992). 
Home-work interface. Managing the link between work and home has become an 
increasing source of stress. This is especially true for dual career couples and those 
experiencing financial difficulties or life crises (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994). 
Contributing factors to these home-work interface job stressors are lack of support from 
spouse, marital conflict, and dual-career stress. 
Various models have attempted to describe the home and work interaction. The 
compensation model suggests that job and life satisfaction are negatively related. This 
model implies that one compensates for low job satisfaction or life satisfaction by 
seeking satisfying activities in the other domain. Another model is the segmentation 
model, which suggests that job satisfaction and life satisfaction are independent. In other 
words, one does not influence the other. 
Recent research has shown support for the spillover model to describe the 
interaction between the work and the family relationship. This model states that events 
from work spillover into one's personal life and vice versa. The quality of work might 
affect the quality of nonwork. This reciprocal model suggests that individuals experience 
both conflict and support as they manage the interplay between responsibilities at work 
and home (Cleveland et aI., 2000; Kreitner & Kinicki, 2001). 
Managing the interplay between work and home is a potential stressor. Possible 
consequences of this job stress include increased mental conflict and fatigue, lowered 
motivation and productivity, and increased marital conflict (Rice, 1992). Home-work 
9 
interface stress is also related to negative mental health, especially depression (Baruch, 
Biener, & Barnett, 1987). 
Personality as a Moderator 
After reviewing these sources of occupational stress, one must keep in mind that 
there are individual differences among employees. Personality has been found to be an 
important moderating variable in occupational stress research. Personality variables, such 
as negative affectivity, locus of control, and Type A personality, have been suggested as 
playing a role in occupational stress (Spector & O'Connell, 1994). Individual coping 
styles must also be taken into account when considering job stressors. Sources of pressure 
evoke different reactions from different individual employees. Some are able to cope 
with job stressors better than others (Cooper & Marshall, 1976). 
Influences ofGender and Occupational Stress 
The continued increase of women into the workforce has created the need to study 
occupational stress in terms of gender differences. Much of the research in regards to 
gender differences in work stress has found that women and men report the same overall 
level of stress (Loscocco & Spitze, 1990; Rydstedt, Johansson, & Evans, 1998; 
Spielberger & Reheiser, 1994). Although the relationship between occupational stress 
levels and gender has been studied, these studies have not examined differences in gender 
in regards to these six specific job stressors. The present study examined these six 
components ofjob stress in relation to gender. 
Factors intrinsic to thejob and gender. As mentioned earlier, factors intrinsic to 
the job include long work hours, risky and dangerous jobs, shift work, travel, and work 
10 
overload or underload. Shift work mainly occurs in occupations such as industry work 
and some human service areas, such as law enforcement and fire fighting (Schafer, 1992). 
Many individuals work injobs where dangerous physical conditions cause them 
considerable stress. These jobs include construction workers, road maintenance workers, 
and auto mechanics. Police officers, fire fighters, and other public safety personnel face 
the threat of violence, accidents, and bodily harm (Cleveland et aI., 2000). Because there 
are a greater number ofmen than women in these jobs, it was hypothesized that men 
would experience more job stress due to factors intrinsic to the job than women. 
Role stress and gender. Role stress includes both role conflict and role 
ambiguity. Nichols (1996) discusses the role conflict that occurs when women attempt to 
fit themselves in a managerial role by acting more masculine. This forces women to 
behave in a sexually dissonant way. Ifwomen behave in a masculine way they are seen 
as being aggressive, but if they behave in a feminine way they are seen as being 
ineffective. This creates role conflict for women in the workplace. 
Women can also experience role conflict when there are conflicting expectations 
from two different roles. For example, being an employee and being a mother are two 
separate roles that may cause role conflict for women. In addition, women are more 
likely than men to juggle multiple roles. Such roles include employee, spouse, 
housekeeper, and primary caregiver for children (Women, work, 2000). Women in the 
workforce face role conflict and have to deal with multiple roles. It was found that 
working mothers reported greater negative affect and less enjoyment oftasks when they 
had to juggle the demands of work and household roles than when no role juggling was 
necessary (Williams, Suls, Allinger, Learner, & Wan, 1991 as cited in Lawson & Shen, 
11 
1998). Therefore, it was hypothesized that women would experience more job stress due 
to role stress (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) than men. 
Relationships at work and gender. Men and women differ in their relationships. 
Women tend to have "face-to-face" relationships, whereas men tend to have "side-by­
 side" relationships. Women converse more frequently and in greater depth about issues 
involving themselves and their close relationships, whereas men talk more about activity­
 oriented topics (Johnson & Aries, 1983). Mutual helping and support are central factors 
in female friendships, whereas males emphasize similar interests and shared experiences. 
In general, women appear to have more in-depth friendships whereas men have 
friendships that reflect less intimacy and more activities (Hill & Stull, 1981). In addition, 
a survey conducted by Aon Consulting firm reported that women are more likely than 
men to say their close relationships with co-workers contribute to their professional 
success (Allerton, 2000). Furthermore, research suggests that employee relationships 
offering support and attachments have positive affects (Cooper, 1973; Harris, Heller, & 
Braddock, 1988). Therefore, it was hypothesized that men would have greater job stress 
because of less supportive relationships than women. 
Career development and gender. Since the beginning of the 20th century, women 
have been entering the workforce in increasing numbers. Although women are well 
presented in lower and midleve1 management positions, women are underrepresented in 
the top management positions (Blau & Feber, 1987, as cited in Cleveland et aI., 2000). 
Women generally make up 45% of the nation's workforce, although only 2 to 5% of top 
executive positions are held by women (Nichols, 1996). This finding has been termed as 
the glass ceiling. The glass ceiling has been described as "a barrier so subtle that it is 
12 
transparent, yet so strong that it prevents women and minorities from moving up the 
management hierarchy" (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990, p. 200). 
Women have been turned down for promotions for being ambitious and 
argumentative. On the other hand, women have also been turned down for promotions 
for being old-fashioned and reserved. Women risk being characterized as too aggressive, 
but they also risk being characterized as being too ineffective. Women seem to be caught 
in a "Catch 22" that there is often no way to break the bind that keeps women out oftop 
positions in organizations (Nichols, 1996). 
Another aspect of career development that can result in job stress for women is 
mentoring. Mentoring is a relationship in which an experienced, productive manager or 
employee assists less-experienced employees with their personal development for the 
benefit of the individual and the organization (Noe, 1988). Mentors provide career and 
social support. Mentors can serve as role models, friends, and counselors and can 
provide proteges entry into the organization's informal social networks and help them 
establish alliances (Dreher & Ash, 1990). 
Although mentors can be instrumental in career development, finding a mentor is 
difficult for women because so few women hold high-level positions in organizations 
(Noe, 1988). In addition, men usually hold the centralized positions. The centralized 
positions and informal power of men give male mentors a wider power base than female 
mentors (Noe, 1988). Fernadez (1993) reported that 72% of women feel they have a 
harder time finding a mentor or sponsor. Without mentors, women may find it difficult 
to enter an occupation, especially male dominated occupations such as management. The 
"glass ceiling" and the lack of mentoring that women experience in the workplace can 
13 
lead to a stressful situation. Therefore, it was hypothesized that women would 
experience greater work stress due to lack of career development than men. 
Organizational structure/climate and gender. Organizational culture is one 
outcome of organizational structure/climate. Organizational culture can make working 
life either satisfactory or stressful. In some organizations the "good ole boy" mentality 
still remains strong. This can create a stressful working environment for women. Office 
politics, discrimination, and harassment are prevalent in some organizations and 
contribute to occupational stress. 
Politics appear to be a pervasive and important part of what goes on in 
organizations (Ferris, Frink, Bhawuk, Zhou, & Gilmore, 1996). Women, though, may 
not be involved in office politics, or left "out of the loop". Women may not develop 
political savvy and skills that "insiders" develop. Through informal socialization and 
more formal mentoring, "insiders" pass on the critical set of skills they will acquire for 
career success. In this aspect, women are the "outsiders" without the formal mentoring 
relationships or not included in informal networks. As mentioned previously, women 
feel they have difficultly finding a mentor, and the majority of women believe they are 
excluded by men from informal networks (Fernandez, 1993). 
In addition, gender discrimination can create a stressful organizational culture. 
Men are more likely to be hired for professional and managerial positions than similarly 
qualified women (Cohen & Bunker, 1975). Also, in a study by U.S. Merit Systems 
Protection Board, 42% of women respondents and 15% of the male respondents had 
experienced some form of sexual harassment within a 2-year period (USMSPB, 1981, as 
cited in Cleveland et aI., 2000). Organizations that tolerate discrimination and 
14 
harassment promote a stressful environment for women. It was hypothesized that women 
would experience greater job stress due to organizational structure/climate than men. 
Home-work interface and gender. One major difference between male and 
female employees is that for most women the working day does not end at 5:00. Work­
 family conflict creates a stressful situation. Work-family conflict has been defined as "a 
form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domain 
are mutually incompatible in some respect" (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77). 
Participation in the work role makes it difficult to participate in the family role, and vice 
versa. 
Though both men and women have work-family conflict to various degrees, men 
in general have not assumed traditional female household roles as more women have 
joined the workforce. There appears to be greater interdependence between work and 
family among women, and women are more likely than men to experience stress as a 
result ofwork-family conflict. The work-family conflict produces unique stress on 
working women in managing dual demands of employment and household 
responsibilities. Working women have to cope with simultaneous demands from their 
work and family domains (Yang, 1998). Therefore, it was hypothesized that women 
would experience more occupational stress due to home-work interface than men. 
Hypotheses 
Based on the literature, the following hypotheses were investigated: 
Hypothesis 1: Men will experience more job stress due to factors intrinsic to the 
job than women. 
15 
Hypothesis 2: Women will experience more job stress due to role stress (i.e., role 
ambiguity and role conflict) than men. 
Hypothesis 3: Men will experience more job stress due to less supportive 
relationships than women. 
Hypothesis 4: Women will experience greater job stress due to lack of career 
development than men. 
Hypothesis 5: Women will experience greater job stress due to stressful 
organizational structure and climate than men. 
Hypothesis 6: Women will experience greater job stress due to managing home­
 work interface than men. 
16
 
CHAPTER 2
 
METHOD
 
Participants 
The participants in this study were employees of Johnson County. There are 
approximately 3400 employees of the county. Johnson County employees were chosen 
because of the researcher's employment with the county, which provided a practical 
advantage. Also, the distribution of male and female workers within the county is 
conducive to the present study. Approximately 55% of the employees are men and 
approximately 45% are women, according to the Johnson County Annual Workforce 
Planning Report FY 2003. In addition, there are a wide variety ofjobs that County 
employees perform, such as clerical, maintenance, technical and 
professional/administrative. The Information Technology Services (ITS) Department at 
Johnson County provided a random sample of 1,000 regular, full-time employees. 
Design 
Surveys were used to gather information regarding the six sources of occupational 
stress. The surveys were sent to the sample of Johnson County employees via interoffice 
mail. A self-addressed stamped envelope was provided for the respondents to return the 
survey to the researcher. This precaution was taken to ensure confidentiality of the 
responses. 
Instrumentation 
Survey. A questionnaire was constructed to assess the six sources ofoccupational 
stress (Appendix A). On the questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate their 
degree of agreement with various statements regarding their job, their work environment, 
17 
and their relationships at work and at home. The scale ranged from 1, strongly agree to 5, 
strongly disagree. There were three to five questions pertaining to each of the six sources 
ofjob stress, for a total of28 questions included in the survey. In addition, demographic 
questions were also asked, such as gender, age, length of service, and job category in 
which the employee works. 
The researcher drew upon the occupational stress literature to develop the survey. 
For each of the six sources ofjob stress, the researcher developed questions based on the 
literature. For example, the literature states that working over 40 hours a week regularly 
is a source of stress due to intrinsic factors of the job. The survey then asks the 
participants to respond to the statement, "I regularly work more than 40 hours a week." 
The breakdown of the survey statements into the six sources ofjob stress is included in 
Appendix B. 
An issue that came up in scoring the six sources ofjob stress was the need to 
reverse score some ofthe items. For example, statement 12, "There is a feeling of trust, 
respect, and friendliness between my supervisor and me," was stated in a positive, 
unstressful manner. To indicate stress due to mistrust and a lack of respect and 
friendliness, this item was reverse scored. The other items in the survey that required 
reverse scoring were numbers 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19,21,22,23, and 25. 
Pilot Study 
The researcher conducted a pilot study to check the validity ofthe instrument. 
The researcher asked two classes of Emporia State University students complete the 
survey and provide feedback about the wording of the items. Seventy-nine students 
completed and returned the occupational stress survey. 
18 
The researcher then examined the reliability of the instrument by computing the 
internal consistency of each source ofjob stress. The internal consistencies are as 
follows: (a) factors intrinsic to the job, .39, (b) role stress, .40, (c) relationships at work, 
.65, (d) career development, .63, (e) organizational structure and climate, .47, (f) home­
 work interface, .35. 
In addition, a factor analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure of 
each scale. The factors of each source ofjob stress can be seen in Appendix C. Because 
some of the six major sources ofjob stress were made up subfactors, some of the original 
hypotheses were revised. For example, the first source ofjob stress was factors intrinsic 
to the job. The pilot study revealed that this factor was made up of two subfactors. One 
ofthe subfactors focused on aspects of the job that overwhelmed employees such as long 
hours, dangerous work, frequent travel, and duties too difficult to perform. The other 
subfactor focused on aspects ofthe job that lead to boredom. Thus, the first hypothesis, 
men will experience more job stress due to factors intrinsic to the job than women, was 
revised into two new hypotheses. One, men will experience more job stress due to 
factors that overwhelmed employees than women. Two, men will experience more job 
stress due to factors that lead to boredom than women. The revised hypotheses appear in 
the Results section. 
The internal consistency of the subscales of the six sources ofjob stress were 
assessed by coefficient alpha using the 574 Johnson County employees who responded to 
the survey. A higher coefficient alpha score means that the items are measuring the same 
construct. The internal consistencies are as follows: factors intrinsic to the job that 
overwhelm employees- .42, role stress due to unclear objectives and expectations- .79, 
19
 
roles stress due to unpleasant deadlines- .69, issues ofmistrust, lack of support, and 
unfaimess- .78,jealousy and political rivalry in the organization- .72, lack of career 
development- .72, inadequate training and poor supervision- .44, lack ofparticipation and 
lack of autonomy- .61, and stress due to managing home-work interface- .44. 
Cover letter. A cover letter was mailed to the participants along with the survey. 
(Appendix D). The Director of Human Resources for Johnson County Government 
composed the letter stating the purpose of the study. The letter was to infonn the 
participants that the Department of Human Resources is aware and supports the study. In 
addition, the letter was to ensure the participants of the confidentiality of their responses. 
Directions for answering and mailing the questionnaire were also included. The 
researcher conducted a pilot test of the cover letter by giving it to a sample of Johnson 
County Human Resources employees and asking them for any suggestions for 
improvements. The participants did not have any suggestions for improvements for the 
cover letter. 
Procedures 
After securing the thesis committee's pennission to proceed with the study, the 
researcher submitted the proposal to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Emporia 
State University to obtain the pennission to begin the study. After the IRB's pennission 
to proceed with the study, data collection began. 
The cover letter and surveys were mailed to participants via interoffice mail. 
Also, a self-addressed stamped envelope was provided for the participants to mail their 
responses back to the researcher. The completed surveys were mailed to a Post Office 
20 
box to ensure confidentiality. Returned questionnaires were coded and data was entered 
into the statistical software program, SPSS. 
21
 
CHAPTER 3 
RESULTS 
574 Johnson County employees completed and returned the occupational stress 
survey, which resulted in a 57% return rate. Six respondents did not complete the 
demographic questions and thus were excluded from the analyses because gender was 
unknown. Thus, 568 employees were used to test the research hypotheses. 257 
participants were men (45%), and 311 participants were women (55%). 
All hypotheses were examined simultaneously using a Multivariate Analysis of 
Variance (MANGVA). Gender was the independent variable and the sources ofjob 
stress were the dependent variables. The MANGVA was statistically significant, 
F(11, 320) == 843.98,p < .001, thus t-tests were used to investigate the significance of 
each individual hypothesis. 
Hypothesis 1a - Men will experience more job stress due to factors that 
overwhelmed employees than women. This hypothesis was supported, t(508) == 6.38, p < 
.001. 
Hypothesis 1b - Men will experience more job stress due to factors that lead to 
boredom than women. This hypothesis was not supported, t(557) == 1.50, n.s. 
Hypothesis 2a - Women will experience more role stress due to unclear objectives 
and expectations than men. This hypothesis was not supported, t(560) == 1.00, n.s. 
Hypothesis 2b - Women will experience more role stress due to unpleasant 
deadlines than men. This hypothesis was supported, t(538) == -2.50, p < .05. 
Hypothesis 2c - Women will experience more role stress due to unpleasant duties 
than men. This hypothesis was not supported, t(561) == .99, n.s. 
22 
Hypothesis 3a - Men will experience more job stress due to less supportive 
relationships because ofissues ofmistrust, lack ofsupport, and unfairness than women. 
This hypothesis was not supported, t(557) = -.95, n.s. 
Hypothesis 3b - Men will experience more job stress due to less supportive 
relationships because ofjealousy and political rivalry in the organization than women. 
This hypothesis was not supported, t(536) = .96, n.s. 
Hypothesis 4 - Women will experience greaterjob stress due to lack ofcareer 
development than men. This hypothesis was not supported, t(534) = -.04, n.s. 
Hypothesis 5a - Women will experience greaterjob stress due to stressful 
organizational structure and climate such as inadequate training and poor supervision 
than men. This hypothesis was not supported, t(542) = .24, n.s. 
Hypothesis 5b - Women will experience greaterjob stress due to stressful 
organizational structure and climate such as lack ofparticipation and lack ofautonomy 
than men. This hypothesis was not supported, t(559) = .30, n.s. 
Hypothesis 6 - Women will experience greater job stress due to managing home­
 work interface than men. This hypothesis was supported, t(417) = -5.20,p < .001. 
The results of the major hypotheses are summarized in Table 1 on the next page. 
As can be seen in Table 1, there was at least partial support for three of the six major 
hypotheses. 
Exploratory Findings 
The major hypotheses of this study dealt with the relationship between gender and 
the six sources ofjob stress. Previous research had failed to uncover any significant 
differences between the genders in overall job stress. Item 29 on the survey examined 
23 
overall job stress. There was no statistically significant difference between the genders 
on item 29, t(559) = -.94, n.s. 
The relationships between overall job stress (Item 29 on the survey) and the 
different sources ofjob stress are positively related. Unpleasant deadlines and duties are 
the most strongly related to overall stress. The results are depicted in Table 2. 
The relationships between intention to stay with the organization (Item 30 on the 
survey) and the different sources of stress are negatively related (see Table 2). Lack of 
career development was the most strongly related with intent to leave the organization, 
r = -.40. 
Demographic variables other than sex were explored. For example, age, marital 
status, job classification, length of service, annual income, hours worked per week, and 
number of children were also measured. These results can be found in Appendices F-L. 
24 
Table 1 
Mean Differences for the Major Hypotheses 
Men Women 
Hypotheses N Mean SD N Mean SD 
* 1a. Job stress due to factors 243 11.99 3.52 267 9.93 3.76 
that overwhelmed employees 
1b. Job stress due to factors 253 2.35 1.45 306 2.17 1.39 
that lead to boredom 
2a. Role Stress Due to Unclear 254 5.18 2.35 308 4.98 2.38 
Objectives and Expectations 
* 2b. Role Stress Due to 246 9.54 3.55 294 10.32 3.66 
Unpleasant Deadlines 
2c. Role Stress Due to 256 3.91 1.44 307 3.79 1.45 
Unpleasant Duties 
3a. Issues of Mistrust, Lack of 251 7.26 3.33 308 7.54 3.61 
Support, and Unfairness 
3b. Jealousy and Political 245 7.18 2.74 293 6.96 2.76 
Rivalry in the Organization 
4. Lack of Career Development 246 11.91 4.15 290 11.93 4.35 
5a. Inadequate Training and 246 5.35 2.07 298 5.31 2.20 
Poor Supervision 
5b. Lack of Participation and 252 5.72 2.23 309 5.66 2.37 
Lack of Autonomy 
* 6. Stress Due to Managing 205 10.27 3.20 214 12.03 3.71 
Home-Work Interface 
* = Mean difference statistically significant at the .05 level in the expected direction. 
25 
Table 2 
Correlations between the Sources ofJob Stress, Overall Job Stress, and Intent to Stay 
with the Organization 
Overall Stress Intent to Stay 
Overall Stress 
Intent to Stay 
1a. Job stress due to factors that overwhelmed 
employees 
lb. Job stress due to factors that lead to boredom 
2a. Role Stress Due to Unclear Objectives and 
Expectations 
2b. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant Deadlines 
2c. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant Duties 
3a. Issues of Mistrust, Lack of Support, and 
Unfairness 
3b. Jealousy and Political Rivalry in the 
Organization 
4. Lack of Career Development 
5a. Inadequate Training and Poor Supervision 
5b. Lack of Participation and Lack of Autonomy 
6. Stress Due to Managing Home-Work Interface 
*p < .05 
1.00 
-.10* 
.32* 
.01 
.24* 
.47* 
.46* 
.27* 
.22* 
.20* 
.31 * 
.31 * 
.16* 
-.10* 
1.00 
-.03 
-.28* 
-.23* 
-.15* 
-.21 * 
-.32* 
-.11 * 
-.40* 
-.26* 
-.35* 
-.18* 
26
 
CHAPTER 4
 
DISCUSSION 
Previous research found no difference in overall job stress between men and 
women (Loscocco & Spitze, 1990; Rydstedt, Johansson, & Evans, 1998; Spielberger & 
Reheiser, 1994), and the present study did not either. However, breaking down job stress 
into factors, revealed a significant differences between men and women, especially in 
regards to factors intrinsic to the job, role stress, and stress due to managing home-work 
interface. 
Hypothesis 1 was supported. The present study showed a significant difference in 
job stress due to factors intrinsic to the job between men and women. These factors 
include such things as working over 40 hours a week, traveling, and dangerous and risky 
jobs. Because men are more likely to be in positions that involve long work hours, 
traveling, and risky and dangerous work, this leads to greater job stress. 
At Johnson County Government, more men than women work in maintenance and 
service jobs. Departments such as Infrastructure and Transportation, Facilities, and 
Wastewater make up maintenance and service positions. These positions can involve 
danger and risk, such as road construction workers. At Johnson County Government, 
81 % of the workers in these departments are made up of men. In addition,jobs that 
involve shift work lead to job stress. Departments, such as the Sheriffs Department and 
Med-Act operate on shift hours, and 76% of the Sheriffs Department and 69% of the 
Med-Act department are men. 
Hypothesis 2 was supported. This study found that women have more job stress 
due to role stress than men, mainly stress due to unpleasant deadlines. Contributing 
27 
factors to this type ofjob stress include conflicting job demands, deadline pressures, and 
too many meetings. 
There are more men in maintenance jobs at Johnson County, and maintenance 
jobs usually do not involve high deadline pressures. This may lead to the conclusion that 
the type ofjob accounts for the difference in job stress levels rather than gender, but an 
examination of differences in deadline pressures for men and women in only 
professional/administrative jobs revealed that women still experience greater deadline 
pressure, F= 3.69,p < .001. 
Hypothesis 3 was not supported. This study found no difference in job stress 
between men and women in regards to relationships at work. As previously mentioned, 
research has been found that supportive relationships are a buffer against job stress. It 
was hypothesized that men would have greater job stress due to relationships at work 
because women are more likely to have supportive relationships at work. This hypothesis 
was not supported. 
Researchers have found both rewards and risks of friendships at work. Besides 
being a buffer against stress, friendships can bolster work attitudes and performances 
(Fisher, 1994). In addition, friendships can develop into valuable mentoring 
relationships, and vice versa (Kram & Isabella, 1985). Finally, formal or informal 
relationships can be positive for the organization by creating a more open and positive 
organizational culture with managers and employees who are helpful and supportive 
(Lobel, Quinn, St. Clair, & Warfield, 1994, as cited in Cleveland et aI., 2000). 
On the other hand, there are also drawbacks to friendships at work for the 
participants, coworkers, and the organization. These negative consequences may include 
28 
gossip and jealousy among coworkers. Especially with manager-employee friendships, 
there are perceptions that formal performance evaluations will be biased (Lobel et aI., 
1994, as cited in Cleveland et aI., 2000). 
The present study found no difference in job stress due to relationships at work 
between men and women. Therefore, it is assumed that there are benefits and drawbacks 
to friendships at work for both men and women. 
The present study did not support Hypothesis 4. There was no difference in job 
stress due to career development between men and women. It was hypothesized that 
women would experience greater job stress due to career development because women 
are underrepresented in upper management. Although the glass ceiling does exist, 
Affirmative Action plans are in place. Federal law requires companies with government 
contracts over $50,000 and more than 50 employees to comply with nondiscrimination 
requirements and establish affirmative action plans. These programs emphasize action to 
increase opportunities for women and minorities. The key idea of affirmative action is 
outreach, that is, specific efforts to ensure that qualified members of underrepresented 
groups are considered when hiring and promotion decisions are made (Cleveland et aI., 
2000). 
Also, referring to Appendix H, more men are in maintenance jobs, which has low 
career advancement. Because so many men are in jobs with low career advancement, 
Hypothesis 4 was not supported. An examination of career development stress for men 
and women in only professional/administrative jobs revealed that the women in the 
sample experienced more career development stress, but the difference was not 
statistically significant. 
29 
The present study found no differences in career development stress between men 
and women, though it was predicted that women would experience greater stress. This 
may be due to affirmative action programs at Johnson County Government, which 
encourages the hiring and promotion of women. 
The present study did not support Hypothesis 5. There was no significant 
difference in job stress due to organizational structure and climate between men and 
women. It was predicted that women would experience more job stress due to 
organizational structure/climate because of issues such as women's lack of involvement 
in office politics. The greater involvement of men in office politics may lead to higher 
job stress, rather than the lack of involvement of women 
Again, maintenance workers had the most organizational structure and climate 
stress of the five job classifications, and maintenance workers are mostly made up of 
men. However, an investigation of organizational structure and climate stress between 
men and women in only professional/administrative jobs showed that the 
professional/administrative women in the sample experienced more organizational 
structure and climate stress than the professional/administrative men, but the difference 
was not statistically significant. 
When examining only professional/administrative jobs, which have an equal 
number ofmen and women in the sample, the results are in the predicted direction with 
women experiencing greater job stress due to organizational structure/climate stress. The 
maintenance workers with less participation in decision-making may have affected the 
results. 
30 
Hypothesis 6 was supported by the present data. It was predicted that women 
experience more job stress due to managing home-work interface. This hypothesis was 
supported. As previously discussed, women experience the unique stress of managing 
duel demands of both employment and household responsibilities. Women in the 
workforce have to juggle multiple roles. Women are more likely to experience 
conflicting expectations from multiples roles, such as employee, parent, and caregiver 
As women have entered the workforce they still have the responsibilities of 
mother, wife, and caretaker at home. Men, on the other hand, traditionally have not taken 
on as many of the household responsibilities as women. 
Implications 
The results of this study have research implications. While previous studies have 
shown no gender differences in organizational stress, a limitation of those studies was the 
failure to analyze specific factors. This study also found no significant difference 
between men and women in regards to overall job stress level, but differences were found 
when examining specific stress factors. 
The results of the present study are also of importance to organizations. There are 
many negative consequences ofjob stress, and the more organizations know about job 
stress, the more they can try to eliminate these consequences. 
The present study also reinforced the negative consequences ofjob stress. There 
was a negative relationship between overall job stress and the intent to stay with the 
organization. Hiring employees has a high price, including recruitment costs and 
training. This is a huge loss to organizations if employees leave the organization due to 
31 
job stress. Absenteeism, low job satisfaction, tardiness are also costs to the organization 
(Beehr & Newman, 1978). 
In addition to organizations tiling into consideration the importance ofjob stress, 
organizations should also consider the present results in regards to differences between 
men and women. This study found that there are differences in regards to factors 
intrinsic to the job, role stress, and managing home-work interface. Managers should 
understand these differences so that they can understand how job stress may be affecting 
their employees in different ways. 
Management should take a proactive approach in preventing job stress. For 
example, safety training for maintenance and service workers may be helpful in reducing 
job stress due to intrinsic factors of the job. Safety programs may teach employees how 
to deal with dangerous or risky situations that may occur in work situations. Such 
programs may not only be beneficial to the individual employee, but also beneficial to 
organizations by decreasing worker's compensation claims. 
Also, offering employees options to telecommute or implementing flex-time 
policies may help eliminate stress due to managing the link between home and work. 
Organizations may also offer on-site daycare or even provide services such as dry 
cleaning services for employees. 
Management should also examine stress management programs for their 
employees. Organizations are increasingly implementing stress-reduction programs to 
help employees deal with modem-day stress (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2001). Stress 
management programs are used by organizations to teach employees how to deal with 
stress. Most stress management programs teach individual responsibility and personal 
32 
coping skills. The interventions are usually individual-oriented, relaxation-based 
techniques, such as progressive muscle relaxation and cognitive-behavioral skills 
training. Other methods include biofeedback, meditation, and holistic wellness (Kreitner 
& Kinicki, 2001). These stress management programs are more likely to affect 
physiological outcomes rather than organization-relevant outcomes. 
Most organizations focus intervention on changing the employee without trying to 
change the work environment or the job. It is far easier to install a stress management 
program and demonstrate small but significant reductions in stress symptoms, rather than 
design and implement job/organizational change strategies (Murphy, 1996 as cited in 
Cooper & Locke, 2000). 
Although stress management programs are increasing in organizations, some 
researchers question the efficacy of such programs. A limitation of stress management 
programs is that they essentially address the consequences rather than taking a proactive 
approach (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994). It is suggested that while stress management and 
employee assistance programs are useful in relieving stress, they should be combined 
with programs designed to eliminate stress more effectively. Possible organization­
 directed strategies to reduce stress include: redesign the task, establish flexible work 
schedules, encourage participative management, establish fair employment policies, and 
include employees in career development (Elkin & Rosch, 1990). 
Limitations 
One limitation of the present study is in regards to the generalization of the 
results. The study surveyed one organization, but it is unknown if these results apply to 
other organizations. 
33 
In addition, some of the scales, for example, factors intrinsic to the job that 
overwhelm employees, inadequate training and poor supervision, and stress due to home­
 work interface had internal consistencies that ranged from .42 to .44. Future studies 
would need to improve scale development. 
There are other limitations in regards to the survey used in the present study. For 
example, several of the questions were not specific enough to make any general 
conclusions. Question 28 was not specific in asking the participants the number of 
children. This question did not clarify children living at home versus children living 
independently. A pilot study was conducted, but those questions were not brought to the 
researchers attention. If this study were to be conducted again, the survey instructions 
could be improved. 
Future Research 
The present study found that there are differences between men and women in 
regards to job stress factors. Future research should examine these differences more 
closely. More importantly, future research should examine how these difference affect 
organizations. 
Future research should also examine stress management programs. The results of 
this study show that there are differences between men and women in regards to some job 
stress factors, so stress management programs may also differ for men and women. In 
addition, proactive approaches to eliminating job stress may also differ for men and 
women. 
Because stress has such an impact on both the individual and the organization, 
future research should take these results into account. Further research should investigate 
34 
how organizations can use these results to make a positive impact to reduce job stress in 
both men and women. 
35 
REFERENCES
 
Allterton, H. E. (2000). Happy campers. Training and Development, 54, 80. 
Baruch, G. K., Biener, L., & Barnett, R. C. (1987). Women and gender in research on 
work and family stress. American Psychologist, 42, 130-146. 
Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational 
effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel 
Psychology, 31,665-699. 
Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and men in 
organizations: Sex and gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 
Associates, Inc. 
Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind; health organization: A proactive 
approach to occupational stress. Human Relations, 47, 455-472. 
Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1993). The psychological impact of merger and 
acquisition on the individual: A study of building society managers. Human 
Relations, 46, 327-348. 
Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: A review of the 
literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of 
Occupational Psychology, 49, 11-28. 
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review 
and synthesis ofthe literature. Journal ofManagement, 25,357-402. 
Dreher, G .F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study ofmentoring among men and 
women in managerial, professional and technological positions. Journal of 
Applied Psychology, 75,539-546. 
36 
Elkin, A. J., & Rosch, P. J. (1990). Promoting mental health at the workplace: The 
prevention side of stress management. Occupational Medicine: State ofthe Art 
Review, 5(4), 739-754. 
Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., Bhawuk, D. P .S., Zhou, J., & Gilmore, D. C. (1996). 
Reactions of diverse groups to politics in the workplace. Journal ofManagement, 
22,23-45. 
Fernandez, J. P. (1993). The diversity advantage: How American business can 
outperform Japanese and European companies in the global marketplace. New 
York: Lexington Books. 
Fisher, A. B. (1994). Getting comfortable with couples in the workplace. Fortune, 130, 
138-144. 
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family 
roles. Academy ofManagement Review, 10, 76-88. 
Hill, C. T., & Stull, D. E. (1981). Sex differences in effects of social and value similarity 
in same-sex friendship. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 41, 488­
 502. 
Holder, T. (1996). Women in nontraditional occupations: Information-seeking during 
organizational entry. The Journal ofBusiness Communication, 33, 9-28. 
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Stress and work. Glenview, IL: Scott 
Foresman & Co. 
Johnson County Annual Workforce Planning Report FY 2003. Retrieved July 15,2002, 
from http://hr.jocoks.com/Strategic%20HR/AnnualWorkforcePlanningReport­
 FY2003.doc 
37 
Johnson, F. L. (1983). Political and pedagogical implications of attitudes towards 
women's language. Communication Quarterly, 31, 133-138. 
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2001). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York: Irwin 
McGraw-Hill. 
Kram, K., & Isabella, L. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role ofpeer relationships 
in career development. Academy 0/Management Journal, 28, 110 - 132. 
Lawson, R. B., & Shen, Z. (1998). Organizational psychology: Foundations and 
applications. New York: Oxford University Press. 
Leong, C. S., Fumham, A., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). The moderating effect of 
organizational commitment on the occupational stress outcome relationship. 
Human Relations, 49, 1345-1364. 
Loscocco, K. A., & Spitze, G. (1990). Working conditions, social support, and the well­
 being of female and factory workers. The Journal 0/Health and Social Behavior, 
31, 313-328. 
Manning, M. R., Jackson, C. N., & Fusilier, M. R. (1996). Occupational stress, social 
support, and the costs of health care. Academy o/Management Journal, 39, 738­
 751. 
Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and minorities in management. 
American Psychologist 45, 200-208. 
Nichols, N. A.
 (1996). Whatever happened to Rosie the Riveter? In Nichols, N.A. 
(Ed.), Reach/or the top: Women and the changing/acts o/work life (pp. 3-12). 
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. 
38 
Noe, R. A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of 
Management Review, 13, 65-78. 
Rice, P. L. (1992). Stress and health. (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole 
Publishing Company. 
Rydstedt, L. W., Johansson, G., & Evans, G. W. (1998). A longitudinal study of 
workload, health, and well-being among male and female urban bus drivers. 
Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 35-47. 
Schafer, W. (1992). Stress managementfor wellness (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt 
Brace & Company. 
Spector, P. E., & O'Connell, B. 1. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, negative 
affectivity, locus of control, and Type A to the subsequent reports ofjob stressors 
and job strains. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 1­
 12. 
Spielberger, C. D., & Reheiser, E. C. (1994). The job stress survey: Measuring gender 
differences in occupational stress. Journal ofSocial Behavior and Personality, 9, 
199-218. 
Women, work, and stress. (2000). Harvard Women's Health Watch, 8,45-46. 
Yang, N. (1998).
 An international perspective on socioeconomic changes and their 
effects on the life stress and career success ofworking women. SAM Advanced 
Management Journal, 63, 15-21. 
~"
 ..
 ~~
 ,,
 ".
 ~ 
'i"
 ",,
 :, 
''
 ''
 ''
 A:
 '·'''
 ¥N
  ,
 ;.-;
 ;-,<
 ".:1
 \,,,,.
 :<--
 ," 
'-
 "
 'y'.
 " 
0
 ·,
  
\Ii
 ." 
!, 
-
 ,
 F
 "
 .
 $
 .
 _
 _
 ,
 .
 \",
 Jl
 ,!!
  
l
 i
 ·
 ,
 A
 A
 ,
 ,
 .
 $ 
,·
 "
 ,,
 ,,
 ,'
 ;k·
  "~;
 ~rit;
 -'·,,
 ,$~, 
C
 \),
  4
 ;;
  
(A
 ' 
is 
j 
J
 n
 S
 ;
 jn"~
 J_(.
 \lti
 ._il
 ,,K&
 ;l,'
 K
  
I 
(lIJ
 -;A
 J;U
  JJ
  i 
itt
 tt!
  
'Jt 
'jgt
 ,~il
 #li 
!!f
 ) '!
 lWt
 #if
 l"_
 ~"J
  
•
 •
 "
 ltll
  
A
 pp
 en
 di
 x 
A

  
E
 m
 po
 ri
 a 
St
 at
 e 
U
 ni
 ve
 rs
 ity
 
 
O
 cc
 up
 at
 io
 na
 l S
 tre
 ss
  Q
 ue
 sti
 on
 na
 ire
 
 
Th
 is
  s
 u
 rv
 ey
  e
 x
 am
 in
 es
  th
 e 
le
 ve
 l o
 fo
 cc
 u
 pa
 tio
 na
 l s
 tr
 es
 s 
yo
 u 
ex
 pe
 rie
 nc
 e 
in
  y
 ou
 r jo
 b a
 t J
 oh
 ns
 on
  C
 ou
 nt
 y 
G
 ov
 er
 nm
 en
 t. 
Pl
 ea
 se
  m
 ai
 l t
 he
  c
 o
 m
 pl
 et
 ed
  su
 rv
 ey
  in
  th
 e 
se
 lf­
 ad
 dr
 es
 se
 d 
st
 am
 pe
 d 
en
 v
 el
 op
 e 
by
  M
 on
 da
 y,
  D
 ec
 em
 be
 r 9
 . 
In
 di
 ca
 te
  o
 n
  a
  s
 ca
 le
  o
 f 1
  (s
 tro
 ng
 ly 
di
 sa
 gr
 ee
 ) t
 o 
6 
(st
 ron
 gly
  ag
 re
 e) 
w
 he
 th
 er
  y
 ou
  a
 gr
 ee
  o
 r 
di
 sa
 gr
 ee
  w
 ith
  th
 e 
fo
 llo
 w
 in
 g 
st
 at
 em
 en
 ts
 . 
Pl
 ea
 se
  c
 irc
 le
  y
 ou
 r r
 e
 sp
 on
 se
 . 
St
 ro
 ng
 ly
  
D
 isa
 gr
 ee
  
D
 is
 ag
 re
 e 
Sl
 ig
 ht
 ly
  
D
 is
 ag
 re
 e 
Sl
 ig
 ht
 ly
  
A
 gr
 ee
  
A
 gr
 ee
  
St
 ro
 ng
 ly
  
A
 gr
 ee
  
N
 ot
  
A
 pp
 lic
 ab
 le
  
1. 
I r
 eg
 ul
 ar
 ly
  w
 o
 rk
  m
 o
 re
  th
 an
  4
 0 
ho
 ur
 s a
  w
 ee
 k.
  
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
2. 
M
 y 
job
  in
 vo
 lv
 es
  h
 ig
 h 
ph
 ys
 ic
 al
  ri
 sk
 . 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
3.
  M
 y 
io
 b 
re
 qu
 ire
 s t
 ha
 t I
  tr
 av
 el
  f
 re
 qu
 en
 tly
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
4. 
M
 y 
job
  is 
bo
 rin
 g.
  
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
5. 
M
 y 
job
  in
 vo
 lv
 es
  d
 ut
 ie
 s t
 ha
 t a
 re
  to
 o 
di
 ffi
 cu
 lt 
fo
 r m
 e 
to
  
pe
 rfo
 rm
 . 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
6. 
M
 y 
w
 o
 rk
  o
 bje
 cti
 ve
 s a
 re
  c
 le
 ar
 ly
  d
 ef
 in
 ed
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
7.
  M
 y 
co
 lle
 ag
 ue
 s' 
ex
 pe
 ct
 at
 io
 ns
  o
 fm
 e 
ar
 e 
m
 ad
 e 
cl
 ea
 r. 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
8. 
I a
 m
  t
 or
 n 
be
 tw
 ee
 n 
co
 n
 fli
 ct
 in
 g 
job
  de
 m
 an
 ds
 . 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
9. 
I h
 av
 e 
io
 b 
du
 tie
 s 
th
 at
  I 
do
  n
 o
 t e
 n
 io
 y 
pe
 rfo
 rm
 in
 g.
  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
10
 . 
I s
 pe
 nd
  a
  lo
 t o
 f t
 im
 e 
tr
 yi
 ng
  to
  m
 ee
 t d
 ea
 dl
 in
 es
 . 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
II
 . 
I s
 pe
 nd
  a
  lo
 t o
 f t
 im
 e 
at
  w
 o
 rk
  a
 tte
 nd
 in
 g 
m
 ee
 tin
 gs
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
12
 . 
Th
 er
 e 
is 
a 
fe
 el
 in
 g 
o
 ft
 ru
 st
 , r
 es
 pe
 ct
 , a
 n
 d 
fri
 en
 dl
 in
 es
 s 
be
 tw
 ee
 n 
m
 y 
su
 pe
 rv
 is
 or
  a
 n
 d 
m
 e.
  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
13
 . 
M
 y 
re
 la
 tio
 ns
 hi
 ps
  a
 t w
 o
 rk
  a
 re
  s
 u
 pp
 or
 tiv
 e.
  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
14
 . 
M
 y 
su
 pe
 rv
 is
 or
  d
 oe
 s n
 o
 t p
 la
 y 
fa
 vo
 rit
 es
 . 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
15
 . 
Je
 al
 ou
 sy
  is
  c
 o
 m
 m
 o
 n
  in
  th
 e 
o
 rg
 an
 iz
 at
 io
 n.
  
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
16
 . 
Po
 lit
 ic
 al
  ri
 va
 lry
  is
  h
 ig
 h 
in
  th
 e 
o
 rg
 an
 iz
 at
 io
 n.
  
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
17
 . 
M
 y 
ad
 va
 nc
 em
 en
 t i
 n 
th
 e 
o
 rg
 an
 iz
 at
 io
 n 
m
 at
 ch
 es
  m
 y 
ab
 ili
 tie
 s 
an
 d/
 or
  e
 x
 pe
 rie
 nc
 e.
  
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
18
 . 
M
 y 
ho
 pe
 s a
 n
 d/
 or
  e
 x
 pe
 ct
 at
 io
 ns
  re
 ga
 rd
 in
 g 
m
 y 
io
 b 
ar
 e 
m
 et
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
19
 . 
I f
 ee
 l s
 ec
 u
 re
  in
  m
 y 
job
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
20
 . 
Th
 er
 e 
is 
lit
 tle
  p
 ro
 sp
 ec
 t f
 or
  p
 er
 so
 na
 l o
 r 
pr
 of
 es
 sio
 na
 l g
 ro
 w
 th
  
in
  th
 is 
job
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
C
 on
 tin
 ue
 d 
St
 ro
 ng
 ly
  
D
 isa
 gr
 ee
  
D
 isa
 gr
 ee
  
Sl
 ig
 ht
 ly
  
D
 is
 ag
 re
 e 
Sl
 ig
 ht
 ly
  
A
 gr
 ee
  
A
 gr
 ee
  
St
 ro
 ng
 ly
  
A
 gr
 ee
  
N
 ot
  
A
 pp
 lic
 ab
 le
  
21
 . T
 he
  le
 ve
 l o
 fp
 ar
 tic
 ip
 at
 io
 n 
in
  p
 la
 nn
 in
 g 
an
 d 
de
 ci
 sio
 n-
 m
 ak
 in
 g 
a
 t m
 y 
pl
 ac
 e 
o
 f w
 o
 rk
  is
  s
 at
 isf
 ac
 to
 ry
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
22
 . 
I r
 ec
 ei
 ve
  a
 de
 qu
 at
 e 
tr
 ai
 ni
 ng
  fo
 r m
 y 
po
 sit
 io
 n.
  
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
23
 . 
I h
 av
 e 
th
 e 
fre
 ed
 om
  to
  d
 o 
th
 e 
w
 o
 rk
  in
  m
 y 
o
 w
 n
  w
 ay
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
24
 . 
I h
 av
 e 
to
 o 
m
 u
 ch
  o
 r 
to
 o 
lit
 tle
  su
 pe
 rv
 isi
 on
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
25
 . 
I h
 av
 e 
su
 pp
 or
 t w
 he
 n 
m
 an
 ag
 in
 g 
re
 sp
 on
 sib
 ili
 tie
 s b
 et
 w
 ee
 n 
w
 o
 rk
  a
 n
 d 
ho
 m
 e.
  
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
26
 . 
I a
 ss
 u
 m
 e 
m
 o
 re
  o
 f t
 he
  h
 ou
 se
 ho
 ld
  d
 ut
 ie
 s 
th
 an
  m
 y 
sp
 ou
 se
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
27
 . 
I a
 m
  e
 x
 pe
 rie
 nc
 in
 g 
fin
 an
 ci
 al
  d
 iff
 ic
 ul
 tie
 s. 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
28
 . 
In
  m
 y 
fa
 m
 ily
 , I
  a
 m
  e
 x
 pe
 rie
 nc
 in
 g 
m
 ar
 ita
 l c
 o
 n
 fli
 ct
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
29
 . 
M
 y 
job
  is 
st
 re
 ss
 fu
 l. 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
30
 . 
I i
 nt
 en
 d 
to
  s
 ta
 y 
w
 ith
  th
 is 
o
 rg
 an
 iz
 at
 io
 n 
tw
 o 
(2)
  ye
 ar
 s 
fro
 m
  
n
 o
 w
 . 
I 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
N
 /A
  
Co
 nt
 in
 ue
 d 
D
 em
 og
 ra
 ph
 ic
 s:
  P
 le
 as
 e 
ch
 ec
 k 
th
 e 
bo
 x 
th
 at
  a
 pp
 lie
 s 
o
 r 
fil
 l i
 n 
th
 e 
bl
 an
 k.
  
31
 . 
G
 en
 de
 r: 
I 
M
 al
 e 
I 
Fe
 m
 al
 e 
32
 . A
 ge
 : 
I 
U
 nd
 er
  2
 0 
1
 2
 0
 -2
 9
  
1
 3
 0
  -
 39
  
1
 4
 0
 -4
 9
  
1
 5
 0
 -
 65
  
lO
 v
 e
 r 
65
  
33
 . 
M
 ar
 ita
 l S
 ta
 tu
 s: 
1 
M
 ar
 rie
 d 
I 
N
 ot
  M
 ar
 rie
 d 
34
 . 
Jo
 b 
Cl
 as
 sif
 ic
 at
 io
 n:
  
I 
Cl
 er
 ic
 al
  
1 
M
 ai
 nt
 en
 an
 ce
  &
  S
 er
 vi
 ce
  W
 or
 ke
 r 
1 
H
 um
 an
  S
 er
 vi
 ce
  &
  H
 ea
 lth
 ca
 re
  
I 
Te
 ch
 ni
 ca
 l &
 Pa
 ra
 pr
 of
 es
 sio
 na
 l 
I 
Pr
 of
 es
 sio
 na
 l &
  A
 dm
 in
 ist
 ra
 tiv
 e 
35
 . 
Le
 ng
 th
  o
 f S
 er
 vi
 ce
  w
 ith
  th
 e 
O
 rg
 an
 iz
 at
 io
 n:
  
1
 0
 -
 1 
ye
 ar
  
1
 1
 -
 5 
ye
 ar
 s 
1
 5
 -
 10
  y
 ea
 rs
  
1
 1
 0
  -
 20
  y
 ea
 rs
  
lO
 v
 e
 r 
20
  y
 ea
 rs
  
36
 . 
A
 nn
 ua
 l I
 nc
 om
 e:
  
IU
 n
 d
 e
 r 
$2
 0,0
 00
  
1
 $2
 0,
 00
 0 
-
 $2
 9,9
 99
  
I 
$3
 0,0
 00
  -
 $3
 9,9
 99
  
1
 $4
 0,
 00
 0 
-
 $4
 9,9
 99
  
I 
$5
 0,0
 00
  -
 $5
 9,9
 99
  
I 
$6
 0,0
 00
  -
 $6
 9,9
 99
  
lO
 v
 e
 r 
$7
 0,0
 00
  
37
 . 
O
 n 
th
 e 
av
 er
 ag
 e,
  I 
w
 o
 rk
  _
 _
 ho
 ur
 s p
 er
  w
 ee
 k.
  
38
 . 
I h
 av
 e 
_
 _
 (n
 um
 be
 r o
 f) 
ch
 ild
 re
 n.
  
Pl
 ea
 se
  re
 tu
 rn
  th
 is
  s
 u
 rv
 ey
  in
  th
 e 
se
 lf­

 ad
 dr
 es
 se
 d 
st
 am
 pe
 d 
en
 v
 el
 op
 e 
by
 
 
M
 on
 da
 y,
  D
 ec
 em
 be
 r 
9.

  
R
 ae
 da
 w
 n 
R
 uf
 fn
 er
 
 
P.
 O
 . B
 ox
  2
 25
 2 
O
 la
 th
 e,
  K
 S 
66
 05
 1-
 22
 52
  
Th
 an
 k y
 ou
 ! 
42 
Appendix B 
Breakdown of Survey Questions 
Job Stress Factor Questions 
Stressful Factors Intrinsic to the Job 
Role Stress 
Stressful Relationships at Work 
Lack of Career Development 
Stressful Organizational Structure and Climate 
Stress Due to Managing Home-Work Interface 
Overall Stress 
Demographic Questions 
#1-5 
# 6 -11 
#12 - 16 
# 17 - 20 
# 21 - 24 
# 25 - 28 
#29 
#31 - 37 
43
 
Appendix C
 
Breakdown of Survey Questions by Subfactors
 
Job Stress Factor Questions 
Stressful Factors Intrinsic to the Job #1-5 
Factors Intrinsic to the Job that Overwhelm Employees #1,2,3,5 
Factors Intrinsic to the Job that Cause Boredom #4 
Role Stress # 6 -11 
Role Stress Due to Unclear Objectives and Expectations #6& 7 
Role Stress Due to Unpleasant Deadlines # 8, 10, 11 
Role Stress Due to Unpleasant Duties #9 
Stressful Relationships at Work # 12 - 16 
Issues of Mistrust, Lack of Support, and Unfairness # 12, 13, 14 
Jealousy and Political Rivalry in the Organization # 15 & 16 
Lack of Career Development # 17 ­ 20 
Stressful Organizational Structure and Climate # 21- 24 
Inadequate Training and Poor Supervision # 22 & 24 
Lack of Participation and Lack ofAutonomy # 21 & 23 
Stress Due to Managing Home-Work Interface # 25 ­ 28 
*Questions 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19,21,22,23, and 25 were reversed scored. 
44 
Factor Analysis Results 
Stressful Factors Intrinsic to the Job 
Factors Intrinsic to the Job that Overwhelm Employees 
Factors Intrinsic to the Job that Cause Boredom 
#1-5 
#1,2,3,5 
#4 
Component Eigenvalues 
1 2.386 
2 .912 
3 .757 
4 .605 
5 .341 
Only one factor, cannot rotate.
 
Thus, the Component Matrix appears below.
 
Component 
01 .765 
02 .569 
03 .846 
04 -.544 
05 .681 
45 
Role Stress 
Role Stress Due to Unclear Objectives and Expectations 
Role Stress Due to Unpleasant Deadlines 
Role Stress Due to Unpleasant Duties 
# 6 -11 
#6& 7 
# 8, 10, 11 
#9 
Component Eigenvalues 
1 1.932 
2 1.617 
3 1.021 
4 .705 
5 .486 
6 .240 
Rotated Varimax Solution 
Component 
1 2 3 
Q6 .923 -.113 -1.377E-02 
Q7 .921 -4.638E-02 4.602E-02 
Q8 .270 .700 .415 
Q9 -1.405E-02 -4. 170E-03 .954 
Q10 -.198 .734 6.771E-02 
Q11 -.106 .756 -.198 
46 
Stressful Relationships at Work # 12 - 16 
Issues ofMistrust, Lack of Support, and Unfairness 
Jealousy and Political Rivalry in the Organization 
# 12, 13, 14 
# 15 & 16 
Component Eigenvalues 
1 2.248 
2 1.650 
3 .574 
4 .286 
5 .242 
Rotated Varimax Solution 
Component 
1 2 
Q12 .906 -9.300E-02 
Q13 .841 -4.233E-02 
Q14 .831 .218 
Q15 9.l48E-02 .911 
Q16 -5.054E-02 .883 
Lack of Career Development # 17 - 20 
Component Eigenvalues 
1 2.080 
2 .940 
3 .678 
4 .303 
Only one factor, cannot rotate.
 
Thus, the Component Matrix appears below.
 
Component 
Q17 .772 
Q18 .848 
Q19 .708 
Q20 .513 
47 
Stressful Organizational Structure and Climate 
Inadequate Training and Poor Supervision 
Lack of Participation and Lack of Autonomy 
# 21- 24 
# 22 & 24 
# 21 & 23 
Component Eigenvalues 
1 1.585 
2 1.153 
3 .759 
4 .503 
Rotated Varimax Solution 
ComJ:onent 
1 2 
021 .491 .693 
Q22 .770 .289 
023 -.159 .823 
024 .741 -.297 
Stress Due to Managing Home-Work Interface # 25 - 28 
Component Eigenvalues 
1 1.370 
2 1.052 
3 .893 
4 .685 
Only one factor, cannot rotate.
 
Thus, the Component Matrix appears below.
 
Component 
Q25 .785 5.070E-02 
026 .307 -.693 
027 .764 -5.702E-02 
Q28 .277 .753 
This source of stress yielded a two factor solution. However, instead of creating two 
subscales, Question 26 was reworded so that all of the questions were measuring a related 
concept. 
1~n~11~AOJ 
a x!pu~ddV 
8v 
November 18,2002 
Dear Johnson County Government Employee: 
Enclosed is a survey that examines the level of occupational stress you experience in your 
job at Johnson County Government. The survey was designed by Raedawn Ruffner, an 
intern in the Department of Human Resources. This survey is part of her thesis research 
to satisfy graduation requirements for a Master's degree in Industrial/Organizational 
Psychology. I have discussed this project with both Ms. Ruffner and her advising 
professor, Dr. George Yancey at Emporia State University, and feel that the information 
you provide will help Johnson County Government identify areas of occupational stress, 
and develop training programs addressing those areas. 
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and anonymous. By completing 
and returning the enclosed questionnaire, you agree to participate in this study. 
Surveys will be kept anonymous; do not put your name on the survey. No one at 
Johnson County Government will see your completed survey. Only summarized data 
will be shared with Johnson County Government. 
Please return the completed survey by Monday, December 9. It will take approximately 
10 minutes to complete. The survey should be mailed to Ms. Ruffner in the enclosed 
self-addressed stamped envelope. 
If you have any questions please feel free to contact Ms. Ruffner at (913) 469-0913 or 
ruffnecraedawn@emporia.edu. You may also contact Dr. George Yancey, Associate 
Professor, at (620) 341-5806. 
Thank you for your assistance in completing this survey. 
Sincerely, 
'­vr~c~~ 
Nicole A. Norian, SPHR 
Director of Human Resources 
Johnson County Government 
50 
Appendix E 
Descriptive Statistics (Before Reverse Scoring) 
Survey Item N Mean SD 
-
 1. I regularly work more than 40 hours a week. 553 3.87 1.88 
2. My job involves high physical risk.
 551 3.18 1.74 
3.
 My job requires that I travel frequently. 520 2.37 1.57 
4.
 My job is boring. 559 2.25 1.42 
5.
 My job involves duties that are too difficult for me 563 1.53 .86 
to perform. 
6.
 My work objectives are clearly defined. 567 4.45 1.36 
7.
 My colleagues' expectations of me are made clear. 562 4.48 1.24 
8.
 I am tom between conflicting job demands. 560 3.20 1.55 
9.
 I have job duties that I do not enjoy performing. 563 3.84 1.45 
10.
 I spend a lot of time trying to meet deadlines. 560 3.68 1.53 
11. I spend a lot of time at work attending meetings. 550 3.06 1.53 
12. There is a feeling of trust, respect, and 566 4.81 1.43 
friendliness between my supervisor and me. 
13. My relationships at work are supportive. 565 4.73 1.12 
14. My supervisor does not play favorites.
 563 4.07 1.59 
15. Jealousy is common in the organization. 556 3.44 1.5 
51
 
Survey Item	 N Mean SD 
16.	 Political rivalry is high in the organization. 545 3.62 1.60 
17. My advancement in the organization matches my	 549 3.82 1.61 
abilities and/or experience. 
18. My hopes and/or expectations regarding my job 562 3.97 1.38 
are met. 
19. I feel secure in my job.	 561 4.70 1.11 
20. There is little prospect for personal or	 565 3.43 1.60 
professional growth in this job. 
21. The level ofparticipation in planning and 562 3.80 1.45 
decision-making at my place ofwork is 
satisfactory. 
22. I receive adequate training for my position. 567 4.49 1.24 
23. I have the freedom to do the work in my own	 567 4.51 1.26 
way. 
24. I have too much or too little supervision. 545 2.82 1.43 
25. I have support when managing responsibilities	 544 4.54 1.26 
between work and home. 
26. In my family, both my spouse and I work outside	 458 3.78 1.67 
the home. 
27. I am experiencing financial difficulties. 548 3.13 1.58 
28. In my family, I am experiencing marital conflict. 437 2.09 1.36 
29. My job is stressful.	 561 4.10 1.46 
30. I intend to stay with this organization two (2)	 562 5.01 1.29 
years from now. 
52 
Demographic Breakdowns 
Gender 
Frequency Percent 
Men 257 45.2%
 
Women 311 54.8%
 
Age 
Frequency Percent 
20 -29 years 77 13.6% 
30 - 39 years 179 31.5% 
40- 49 years 162 28.5% 
50 - 65 years 148 26.1% 
Over 65 years 2 .40% 
Martial Status 
Frequency Percent 
Married 363 69.2% 
Not Married 168 29.6% 
53
 
Job Classification 
Frequency Percent 
Clerical 85 15.0% 
Maintenance & Service 57 10.0% 
Human Service & 110 19.4% 
Healthcare 
Technical & 68 12.0% 
Parprofessional 
Professional & 240 42.3% 
Administrative 
Length of Service with Organization 
Frequency Percent 
0-1 year 50 8.8% 
1 - 5 years 203 35.7% 
5 -10 years 126 22.2% 
10 - 20 years 150 26.4 
Over 20 years 38 6.7 
54
 
Annual Income 
Frequency Percent 
Under $20,000 17 3.1% 
$20,000 - 29,999 141 25.3% 
$30,000 - 39,999 133 23.4% 
$40,000 - 49,999 106 18.7% 
$50,000 - 59,999 65 11.4 
$60,000 - 69,999 56 9.9 
Over $70,000 39 6.9% 
Average Number of Bours Worked per Week 
Frequency Percent 
Less than 40 hours 290 51.1% 
40 to 50 hours 225 39.6% 
50 to 60 hours 38 6.7% 
Over 60 hours 9 1.6% 
55 
Appendix F 
The Sources of Job Stress by Age (Means) 
Sources of Job Stress 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-65 Over 65 
1a. Job stress due to factors 
that overwhelmed employees 
11.19 11.75 10.74 9.80 8.50 
1b. Job stress due to factors 
that lead to boredom 
2.51 2.37 2.08 2.16 2.00 
2a. Role Stress Due to Unclear 
Objectives and Expectations 
4.83 4.91 5.28 5.09 9.00 
2b. Role Stress Due to 
Unpleasant Deadlines 
9.19 9.66 10.48 10.21 7.50 
2c. Role Stress Due to 
Unpleasant Duties 
3.92 3.98 3.86 3.61 3.50 
3a. Issues of Mistrust, Lack of 
Support, and Unfairness 
7.24 7.65 7.49 7.10 9.50 
3b. Jealousy and Political 
Rivalry in the Organization 
7.03 7.44 7.02 6.65 7.00 
4. Lack of Career Development 11.43 12.01 11.95 12.04 12.00 
5a. Inadequate Training and 
Poor Supervision 
5.19 5.30 5.41 5.33 7.00 
5b. Lack of Participation and 
Lack ofAutonomy 
5.51 6.03 5.58 5.48 7.00 
6. Stress Due to Managing 
Home-Work Interface 
12.00 11.60 11.05 10.42 8.50 
56 
Appendix G 
The Sources ofJob Stress by Marital Status (Means) 
Sources of Job Stress Married Not Married 
1a. Job stress due to factors that 
overwhelmed employees 
lb. Job stress due to factors that lead to 
boredom 
2a. Role Stress Due to Unclear Objectives 
and Expectations 
2b. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant 
Deadlines 
2c. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant Duties 
3a. Issues of Mistrust, Lack of Support, and 
Unfairness 
3b. Jealousy and Political Rivalry in the 
Organization 
4. Lack of Career Development 
5a. Inadequate Training and Poor 
Supervision 
5b. Lack ofParticipation and Lack of 
Autonomy 
6. Stress Due to Managing Home-Work 
Interface 
10.97 
2.24 
5.17 
9.94 
3.92 
7.40 
7.19 
11.89 
5.38 
5.74 
10.97 
10.76 
2.31 
4.78 
9.89 
3.67 
7.41 
6.70 
11.90 
5.19 
5.56 
12.55 
57 
Appendix H 
The Sources of Job Stress by Job Classification (Means) 
Sources of Job Stress Clerical Maint. / Service 
Human 
Service 
Tech. / 
Para-pro 
Prof. / 
Admin. 
1a. Job stress due to factors 
that overwhelmed employees 
7.09 12.04 11.90 9.95 11.63 
1b. Job stress due to factors 
that lead to boredom 
2.50 2.45 2.24 2.25 2.09 
2a. Role Stress Due to Unclear 
Objectives and Expectations 
4.74 5.36 4.65 5.36 5.20 
2b. Role Stress Due to 
Unpleasant Deadlines 
9.06 8.12 9.77 9.59 10.91 
2c. Role Stress Due to 
Unpleasant Duties 
3.39 3.66 4.12 3.69 3.95 
3a. Issues ofMistrust, Lack of 
Support, and Unfairness 
6.96 8.30 8.06 7.50 7.03 
3b. Jealousy and Political 
Rivalry in the Organization 
6.91 7.04 7.05 6.65 7.21 
4. Lack of Career Development 12.33 13.11 12.35 11.92 11.29 
5a. Inadequate Training and 
Poor Supervision 
5.32 5.87 5.07 5.76 5.17 
5b. Lack of Participation and 
Lack of Autonomy 
5.65 6.02 5.99 5.62 5.50 
6. Stress Due to Managing 
Home-Work Interface 
12.47 10.80 11.78 11.25 10.63 
58 
Appendix I 
The Sources of Job Stress by Length of Service (Means) 
Sources of Job Stress 0-1 
year 
1-5 
years 
5-10 
years 
10-20 
years 
20+ 
years 
1a. Job stress due to factors that 
overwhelmed employees 
9.98 10.31 11.12 11.69 11.54 
1b. Job stress due to factors that lead to 
boredom 
2.38 2.32 2.29 2.14 2.00 
2a. Role Stress Due to Unclear 
Objectives and Expectations 
4.42 4.92 5.29 5.26 5.30 
2b. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant 
Deadlines 
8.41 9.89 9.79 10.49 10.97 
2c. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant 
Duties 
3.59 3.62 4.04 4.07 3.81 
3a. Issues of Mistrust, Lack of Support, 
and Unfairness 
6.06 7.32 8.03 7.32 8.16 
3b. Jealousy and Political Rivalry in the 
Organization 
6.89 6.93 7.25 7.05 7.47 
4. Lack of Career Development 10.67 11.82 12.54 11.97 11.74 
5a. Inadequate Training and Poor 
Supervision 
4.94 5.35 5.31 5.44 5.42 
5b. Lack of Participation and Lack of 
Autonomy 
5.23 5.60 6.27 5.49 5.65 
6. Stress Due to Managing Home-Work 
Interface 
11.83 11.56 11.57 10.40 10.26 
59
 
Appendix J
 
The Sources of Job Stress by Annual Income (Means)
 
Sources ofJob Stress Under $20K 
$20­
 $30K 
$30­
 $40K 
$40­
 $50K 
$50­
 $60K 
$60­
 $70K 
Over 
$70K 
1a. Job stress due to factors 
that overwhelmed employees 
9.00 8.80 11.22 11.78 11.82 12.76 11.55 
1b. Job stress due to factors 
that lead to boredom 
2.12 2.44 2.53 2.03 2.09 1.87 2.13 
2a. Role Stress Due to 
Unclear Objectives and 
Expectations 
3.88 4.86 4.96 4.97 5.53 5.50 5.90 
2b. Role Stress Due to 
Unpleasant Deadlines 
7.82 8.79 10.07 10.13 11.52 10.39 11.38 
2c. Role Stress Due to 
Unpleasant Duties 
3.71 3.45 4.00 3.76 4.12 4.20 4.21 
3a. Issues of Mistrust, Lack of 
Support, and Unfairness 
7.56 7.29 7.37 7.89 7.95 6.84 7.03 
3b. Jealousy and Political 
Rivalry in the Organization 
7.27 6.54 7.32 7.14 7.08 7.51 7.16 
4. Lack of Career 
Development 
13.25 12.47 11.93 11.86 12.21 10.83 11.11 
5a. Inadequate Training and 
Poor Supervision 
4.40 5.53 5.28 5.19 5.58 5.36 5.32 
5b. Lack of Participation and 
Lack of Autonomy 
5.81 5.76 5.74 5.60 5.88 5.41 5.51 
6. Stress Due to Managing 
Home-Work Interface 
13.33 12.40 11.21 11.34 11.17 9.19 9.69 
60 
Appendix K 
The Sources of Job Stress by Hours Worked per Week (Means) 
Sources of Job Stress 40 or less 
>40 
to 50 
> 50 
to 60 
Over 
60 
1a. Job stress due to factors that overwhelmed 8.96 12.49 14.71 15.11 
employees 
1b. Job stress due to factors that lead to 2.43 2.06 2.08 1.89 
boredom 
2a. Role Stress Due to Unclear Objectives and 4.93 5.20 5.50 4.67 
Expectations 
2b. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant Deadlines 9.13 10.91 10.44 11.78 
2c. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant Duties 3.70 4.03 3.87 4.11 
3a. Issues ofMistrust, Lack of Support, and 7.33 7.29 8.57 9.00 
Unfairness 
3b. Jealousy and Political Rivalry in the 6.68 7.30 7.95 8.67 
Organization 
4. Lack of Career Development 12.19 11.68 11.56 10.89 
5a. Inadequate Training and Poor Supervision 5.27 5.28 5.86 6.22 
5b. Lack of Participation and Lack of 5.58 5.79 5.79 6.00 
Autonomy 
6. Stress Due to Managing Home-Work 10.94 11.54 10.52 11.88 
Interface 
61 
Appendix L 
The Sources of Job Stress by Number of Children (Means) 
Sources of Job Stress 0 1 2 3 4 or 
more 
1a. Job stress due to factors that 
overwhelmed employees 
11.15 10.65 10.72 10.73 11.77 
lb. Job stress due to factors that lead to 
boredom 
2.32 2.35 2.18 2.15 2.06 
2a. Role Stress Due to Unclear 
Objectives and Expectations 
4.95 5.35 5.12 5.17 4.55 
2b. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant 
Deadlines 
10.03 10.14 10.15 9.44 9.26 
2c. Role Stress Due to Unpleasant 
Duties 
3.95 3.94 3.80 3.76 3.30 
3a. Issues of Mistrust, Lack of Support, 
and Unfaimess 
7.09 8.36 7.41 7.51 6.79 
3b. Jealousy and Political Rivalry in the 
Organization 
6.76 7.80 7.10 7.45 5.81 
4. Lack of Career Development 11.66 12.92 11.94 11.74 10.87 
5a. Inadequate Training and Poor 
Supervision 
5.17 5.84 5.32 5.43 4.81 
5b. Lack of Participation and Lack of 
Autonomy 
5.60 6.18 5.57 5.64 5.45 
6. Stress Due to Managing Home-Work 
Interface 
11.30 11.52 10.99 10.67 11.46 
I, Raedawn Ruffner , hereby submit this thesis to Emporia State University 
as partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree. I agree that the Library 
ofthe University may make it available for use in accordance with its regulations 
governing materials of this type. I further agree that quoting, photocopying, or other 
reproduction ofthis document is allowed for private study, scholarship (including 
teaching) and research purposes ofa nonprofit nature. No copying which involves 
potential financial gain will be allowed without written permission of the author. 
~~w~6'iliu 
Signature ofAuthor 
__-.>o..b"--'oLl .D3 
Date 
f\D v-wni 0[l1l ()ll of J0tJ S1-P!sfu1Zf 
and btl1deR \f\ m WOill£f2l[ALe4:.Title ofThesis 
/ ~ 
Signature ofGraduate Office Staff Member