CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Literature review on emotional intelligence in teaching industry

2. Literature review on emotional intelligence and demographic variables

3. Literature review on emotional intelligence and occupational stress

4. Literature review on emotional intelligence and job satisfaction

5. Literature review on emotional intelligence and performance

6. Literature review on occupational stress in teaching industry

7. Literature review on occupational stress and demographic variables

8. Literature review on factors relating to occupational stress

9. Literature review on consequences of occupational stress

10. Literature review on occupational stress, job satisfaction and performance

11
 CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter reviews the literature with respect to emotional Intelligence, occupational stress,
and different factors taken by the researcher with the end goal of undertaken study. Literature
review gives the hypothetical structure inside which the information has been assembled and
results are supported. With the end goal of the examination researcher has review different
books, articles, e-newspaper and journals and so forth. Very few studies have been carried out
in India on emotional intelligence and occupational stress of business schools teachers. Here
the researcher has endeavored to audit the wide assortment of writing on emotional
intelligence and its impact on occupational stress in business institutes.

Literature review exhibits that the researchers know the field legitimizes the purpose behind
the research and enables
the researchers to set up her/his hypothetical structure and
methodological core interest. The literature review is commonly seen as the spring board to
the thesis.

This section covers the writing from contemplates done by various researchers, which were
evaluated by the analyst in connection to the subject of study. This segment is imperative
since it has helped the specialist to better comprehend the profundity of the subject under
investigation through the review of officially related research work.

In a workplace like the educational organization,

where achievement is subject to
cooperation, joint effort and great relational connections, the significance of emotional
intelligence, which mirrors one's capacity to communicate with others in a compelling way,
can't be over underlined. A man talented in dealing with other's feelings, help individuals to
manage states of mind in a positive direction and endeavor to build up closeness with them.

Literature review on emotional intelligence in teaching industry

Mortiboys (2005) found that “Teachers with high emotional intelligence competencies are
optimistic, adaptable, collaborative, confident, authoritative, open, approachable and
enthusiastic. They have better communication skills, better abilities for conflict resolution
(Ming 2003) and problem solving, better impulse and self-control and higher self-esteem.
With higher level of motivation they are more assertive and more responsible and cope better
with stress” (Salami 2010).

12
Spergel (2008) in her study on "The impact of teacher’s behaviors, personality characteristics
and skills on students’ motivation to learn" found that “participants clearly voiced the
necessity for a combination of positive behaviors, personality characteristics as well as skills
on the teacher’s part”.

Penrose et al. (2007) had revealed that “emotional intelligence was positively associated with
teacher self-efficacy. Based upon this finding, Penrose et al. contend that enhancing teacher’s
emotional intelligence may increase efficacy and subsequently lead to improved student
achievement”.

Literature review on emotional intelligence and demographic variables

Amirtha et al. (2006) found that “gender, age and qualification influenced the emotional
intelligence of school teachers. Emotionally intelligent teachers help students with improved
motivation, enhanced innovation, increased performance, effective use of time and resources,
improved leadership qualities and improved team work. Hence, it is essential to develop the
emotional intelligence of student teachers during pre-service. The present study aims at
studying the level of emotional intelligence of the B. Ed student teachers”.

In their study, Yılmaz et al. (2004) concluded that “there is a significant difference from the
point of emotional intelligence levels according to the city they live in, class level,
educational background of mothers and fathers but there is not any significant difference in
terms of emotional intelligence according to the socio-economic level”.

In his study, Vakili (2006) investigates that “education has had significant influences on
promoting employees’ productivity and its components as well as improving the assessment
of employees from the point of managers and its components except the work quantity and
risk appetite in long-term”.

Carmeli (2003) states that “employees high in emotional intelligence are more able to
balance work family conflict as they recognize and manage feelings of conflict as they
occur”.

Sing and Sing (2008) study reveals that “significantly negative relationship exist between
emotional intelligence and stress for both the genders of medical professionals”.

13
Goleman (2004) have examined the relationship between emotional intelligence and
effective performance especially in terms of leadership. Goleman claimed that “emotional
intelligence improves with aging, in other words, that “maturity” is an important concept
here; however some people still need to gain emotional intelligence although they are at the
level of maturity”.

Devi and Uma (2005) found that “the parental education, occupation had significant and
positive relationship with dimensions of emotional intelligence like social regard, social
responsibility, impulse control and optimism”.

Annaraja et al. (2005) found that “rural and urban B. Ed. trainees did not differ in their self-
awareness, self-control, social skills and emotional intelligence”. Harrod
that “emotional intelligence levels were positively related to females, parents’ education and
household income”. Tapia
et al. (2001) in their study found “an overall significant main
effect of gender and two-way interaction of gender - GPA on emotional intelligence”.

Literature review on emotional intelligence and occupational stress

Ismail et al.
(2009) conducted the study which revealed “the relationship between
occupational stress and emotional intelligence significantly correlated with job performance”.

Naidoo et al. (2008) study indicates that “emotional intelligence is relatively the most
important predictor of PS. The finding revealed that low emotional intelligence is associated
with the stress”.

Saddam Hussain Rahim (2008) found that “emotional intelligence competencies have the
profound impact on stress. The application of emotional intelligence theories at the work
place stress shows that the ability of employees to properly manage their interpersonal and
intrapersonal skills will increase their abilities to cope with physiological and psychological
stresses in implementing job”.

Mohammad Ali Mohammady far (2009) found that “The emotional intelligence is very
important factor for prediction of teachers’ health and also the correlation of emotional
intelligence and occupational stress is significant”. Similarly, Duran et al. (2004) in their
study revealed that “a significant relationship exist between emotional intelligence and
burnout syndrome, and personal accomplishment”.

14
Slaski et al. (2002) in their study found that “the emotional intelligence competencies play a
role to create the abilities in an individual to better handle the stress in the workplace. The
emotional intelligence competencies generate the skill in individual to choose various courses
of action to deal with stress without collapsing, to develop a positive attitude to solve a
problem, and feel that one is in control of the situation”.

Darolia and Darolia (2005) found that “emotionally intelligent people, who are able to
understand and recognize their emotions, manage themselves to keep under control in
stressful situation”.

Such findings are consistent with the theory of emotional intelligence, which states that
“individuals with sufficient interpersonal and intrapersonal competencies can better manage
their emotions and also cope with environmental stressors (Goleman 1998). It means that
these individuals will also be in better position to manage their performance more
effectively”.

Lorenzo et al. (2008) found that “EQ helps improve performance by mitigating the
fariselli effect of stress. The intertwined relationship between occupational stress and
negative
emotion has also been proposed to play a role in stress-out comes relationship. The utilizing
emotional intelligence was related to the experience of occupational stress and to outcomes of
occupational stress such that employees who reported using emotional intelligence were less
likely to report feelings of stress”. (Lisa Gardner 2005).

Spector et al. (2001) found that “the job stress was negatively related with job performance
and emotional intelligence in such a way that the capabilities of employees to appropriately
manage their emotions will boost up the ability of employees to deal with physical and
psychological stressors at workplace and resultantly they will be in better position to perform
well”.

Montes-Berges et al. (2007) found that “emotional intelligence is a skill that minimizes the
negative stress consequences”.

Matthews et al. in his study (2006) confirmed that “low emotional intelligence was related
to worry states and avoidance coping, even with the FFM statistically controlled. Results also
confirmed that neuroticism related to distress, worry, and emotion-focused coping, and
conscientiousness predicted use of task-focused coping”.

15
Nina Ogniska (2005) found that “an essential, but not very strong, the role of emotional
intelligence in perceiving occupational stress and preventing employees of human services
from negative health outcomes”.

Dulewicz et al. (2003) also found that “strong negative correlation of managers’ emotional
intelligence with stress and distress at work exist”. Gardner et al. (2003) revealed that
“negative relationship exists between emotional intelligence and occupational stress”.

Lazarus’s (1994) transactional stress model explains that “inability of individuals’ cognitive
processes and emotional reactions to manage strain environments may lead to increased
occupational tensions”. Aitken et al. (1994) found that “staff working in community based
residential placements with individuals with intellectual disabilities, had lower levels of stress
and burnout than staff working in large institutions”. On the other hand, Reilly (1994) also
found that “negative correlation exists between emotional intelligence
and burnout
syndrome”.

Sabapthy T. (1986) found that “emotional maturity was positively and significantly related
to achievement in individual subjects and academic achievement in particular”.

Literature review on emotional intelligence and job satisfaction

Hasankhoyi (2006) concluded that “there is a significant relationship between emotional

intelligence and job satisfaction. Moreover, he points out that emotional intelligence skills
can be used in order to increase job satisfaction in educational environments”.

Kafetsios et al. (2007) concluded that “emotional intelligence is an important predictor of job
satisfaction. Moreover, only the component of recognizing other’s emotions had a significant
relationship with job satisfaction”.

Hosseinian et al. (2008) concluded that “there is no significant difference between any of
Bar-On’s components of emotional intelligence and job satisfaction which was measured
using the job description index”.

Millet (2007) came to the conclusion that “the relationship between emotional intelligence
and job satisfaction is not significant in police officers. There exists a weak negative
relationship between stress management component of emotional intelligence and a weak

16
positive relationship between adjustment and general mood components of emotional
intelligence and job satisfaction; yet, these relationships are not significant”.

Literature review on emotional intelligence and performance

Zcelik et al. (2005) indicated that “when staff has positive emotional states in their work
place, they will create positive effects in their general performances”. Deshpande et al.
(2005) research suggesting that “high emotionally intelligent people tend to be better
corporate citizens and hold better ethical attitudes toward their firm and work”.

Suliman et al. (2007) revealed that “employees with higher levels of emotional intelligence
were found to report higher levels of readiness to create and innovate. Employees with higher
levels of emotional intelligence tended to report lower levels of intra-individual conflict
(Suliman and Al-Shaikh). So, employees’ emotional intelligence affects the behavior and
attitude they usually hold within their organizations”.

Rosete et al. (2005) study found that “emotional intelligence was related to a leader’s
effectiveness in being able to achieve organizational goals. Additionally, it was revealed that
emotional intelligence may be useful in identifying who is and is not likely to deal effectively
with colleagues and staff”.

A meta-analytic study Rooy et al. (2004) shows that “emotional intelligence measures have
an operational validity of 0.24, 0.10 and 0.24, for predicting performance in employment,
academic and life settings, respectively”.

Cherniss (2000) suggested that “a person’s ability to perceive, identify and manage emotions
provides the basis for the kinds of social and emotional competencies that are important for
success in almost any job. It implies that job performance is determined largely by the
competencies pertaining to emotional intelligence”.

Dulewicz et al. (2000) indicated that “16% variance in individual success in organizational
setting is explained through managerial intelligence, 27% by IQ, and an even higher 36% by
emotional intelligence. The relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance
also seems logical, because, increasingly the employers are considering the emotional
intelligence of the applicants during the recruitment and selection process (Cadman
2001) and employee development programs”.

17
Weisinger (1998) suggested that “emotional intelligence is related to success at work and
plays a significant role in a certain aspects of effective team leadership and team
performance”. McDowelle et al. (1997) found that “lack of emotional intelligence skills
lowered team effectiveness and created dysfunctional team interactions and most effective
performers lost the best networking skills”.

Lam et al. ( 2002) research has indicated that, “overall emotional intelligence and its sub
components namely perceiving emotions and regulating emotions all contributed positively to
individual cognitive-based performance”.

Gardber (2003) results indicated that “emotional intelligence has a significant correlation
with all parts of evolutionary leadership including emotional consciousness and emotional
management. In addition, it is the best predicative of successfulness in this method of
leadership”.

Study by Cote et al. (2006) asserted that “employees having a low cognitive intelligence
score perform tasks correctly and engage in organizational citizenship behavior directed at
the organization repeatedly if they are emotionally intelligent”. Carmeli et al.
(2003)
research revealed that “organizational citizenship behavior was positively correlated with
emotional intelligence”.

Salovey et al. (2002) reported in their study that “students with high emotional intelligence
level, report fewer physical symptoms, less social anxieties and depression. They have self-
esteem and interpersonal satisfaction and use active coping strategies to deal their
psychological problems”. Hall et al. (2011) in their study demonstrated that “the important
connection exist between understanding emotions, communication knowledge, dispositions,
and performances”.

Literature review on occupational stress in teaching industry

Taris et al. (2001) reported that “Such like stressors create both physical and psychological
symptoms among teachers which ultimately affect their teaching performance. Apart from
such individual symptoms among teachers the job stress has devastating outcomes for the
educational institutions in terms of absenteeism, low performance, lower organizational
commitment and turnover intentions”.

18
Pestonjee et al. (2001) study indicates that “organizational role stress is highly correlated
with job burnout among all the three groups of teachers (lecturers, readers and professors).
Lecturers have higher level of role stress as compared to other two counterparts. Professors
are found to have least amount of the level of stress and burnout as compared to readers and
lecturers. Thus a deep analysis helped the researchers conclude that different set of teachers
have different predictors of job burnout and stress levels vary with experience and
demographics”.

Dunham et. al. ( 1992) study indicates that “the great part of teacher stress can be explained
with the rapid pace of changes in the education system in the 1980s and 1990s, life cycle
transitions and conflicts with either your belief system or your surroundings throughout a
time period”. Borg (1990) reported that “up to one third of the teachers perceive their
occupation as highly stressful. It is clear that teachers can be exposed to a number of sources
of stress”.

Kyriacou (2001) reported that “two out of every five teachers were highly stressed as against
one in every five in the other occupation such as nursing, security, management etc”.

Kyriacou et al. (1978) found that “there is a pervasive perception among teachers surveyed
who have reported their jobs as highly or extremely stressful”. Capel et al. ( 1987) reported
that “there is research evidence that indicates that work related stress among teachers has
serious implications for their work performance, health and psychological status”.

Kyriacou (2001) defined stress as “the experience by a teacher of unpleasant, negative

emotions, such as anger, anxiety, tension, frustration or depression, resulting from some
aspect of his/her work as a teacher”. Kyriacou suggested that “understanding teacher stress
offers the possibility for prevention and remedial interventions, as stress is a less advanced
condition compared to burnout”.

Romano et al. (2000) found that “stress levels significantly correlated with the majority of
the sources of stress indicated by the teachers. This suggests that several identifiable sources
of stress greatly contribute to teachers’ overall stress level”.

Young husband (2000) study found that “the greatest stressor was found to be role overload;
74 percent of teachers reported this as a stressor and endorsed that it occurred most of the
time. Overload referred to having too many tasks with insufficient time to complete them,

19
increased job responsibilities, performing tasks without training, taking work home, not
having sufficient resources, and doing more work than is reasonable”.

Literature review on occupational stress and demographic variables

Berry (1990) study found that “teachers who move into unfamiliar cultures, acculturative
stress can cause lowered mental health (e.g., confusion, anxiety, depression) and feelings of
alienation; those who feel marginalized can become highly stressed. Teachers from very
different cultures might neither understand nor appreciate the cultural differences of the
communities in which they are placed. Since novice teachers are often reluctant to ask for
help, they may be afraid to let anyone know that they are having problems in the classroom.
This could then lead to additional stress, which eventually leads to high absenteeism and
attrition. Those who are recruited thousands of miles away from family and friends may have
inadequate social networks to provide the social support that is critical for workers health”.

Chaplain (1995) found that “different sources of stress amongst teachers in their studies;
both studies found that female teachers experienced more stress than male teachers”.

Kantas (2001) research in Greece indicated that “female teachers experience higher levels of
stress and greater job dissatisfaction that usually comes from negative classroom conditions,
pupils’ behavior and the work and family interaction”.

Hamaideh (2011) study indicated that “the highest group of stressors experienced by
students was self imposed stressors followed by pressure. Cognitive responses were found to
be the highest responses to stressors experienced by students”. Mohan et al. (2011) found
that “over all stress is high among the women employees with more than five years and low
among the employees less than three years”.

Tajularipin et. al. (2009) found that “ (29%) of the students experienced medium stress, and
there is a significant difference in the level of stress attributed to gender, and between
students in rural and urban secondary schools, the results also indicated that there are many
factors influence students' stress such as parenting style, and parents education background”.

Ryan (1996) found that “male LPCs had significantly higher stress scores than females, with
males scoring higher on role ambiguity and responsibility”.

20
Lawless (1992) reported that “women suffered fifteen percent more stress related illnesses
than men. They also thought about quitting their jobs more often, and reported a higher
incidence of burnout. Lawless proposed that this is the result of unequal pay scales and a
failure of organizations to adopt policies sensitive to family issues. He also found similar
results except that there was no significant difference between married and unmarried
workers. However single women with children were more likely to burn out than married
women with children”.

Richard et al. (1989) also found that “women in higher occupational ranks experience more
strain than men when they controlled for age, stress, and coping”.

Billings et al. (1984) in their study on “Coping stress and social resources among adults with
unpopular depression” explains “the roles of stress, social resources, and coping among men
and women entering treatment for depression. They found that work stressors had greater
impact on women than men”.

Genmill et al. (1972) reported that “internals had more job satisfaction and perceived their
jobs as less stressful than externals. They also found that a manager’s perceived stress was
unrelated to education, length of time in their career, or their level in the hierarchy”.

Singh et al. (1995) in their study on “Men and Women in Transition: Patterns of Stress, Strain
and Social Relations found that male and female managers did not differ significantly on
various stress dimensions”.

Balasubramanian et al. (2009) conducted analysis of the overall stress level which found
that “overall stress is high among employees with more than six years of experience with a
mean value of 89.60 and low among employees with less than three years of experience with
a mean value of 81.34”.

Mohsin Aziz (2004) has investigated “the ORS on a sample of 264 women IT professionals
in India to explore the level of role stress. Resource inadequacy has emerged as the most
potent role stressor, followed by role overload and personal inadequacy. The study also brings
out differences in the level of stress between married and unmarried respondents on
inter role distance. However, level of education does not emerge as a significant
differentiator on stressors”.

21
Anitha Devi (2006-7) in her study on “occupational stress: A comparative Study of Worker
in different Occupations describes identifying the degree of life stress and role stress (LS &
RS) experienced by professional women. It also studies the effect of life stress and role
stress on various demographic variables like age, experience and income. For the
purpose of study, 180 women professionals (six different occupations) were chose. It was
found that science and technology professionals and doctors experienced significantly greater
life stress and role stress”.

Literature review on factors relating to occupational stress

Tytherleigh (2005) examined that “these major change initiatives; excessive work hours,
heavy workloads, poor management, diminishing resources, unfavorable student: staff ratios,
pressure to attract external funds, job insecurity, lack of recognition and reward, and role
ambiguity, have frequently been reported by academic staff in the universities”.

Lewis R. (1999) in his study on “teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline”
examined that “the teachers estimations of stress arising from being unable to discipline
pupils in the way. They would prepare overall maintaining discipline emerged as a stressor,
with those worst affected being teachers who placed particular emphasis on pupil
empowerment. The researcher has concluded that the class room discipline is also a
significant source of stress”.

Pitchers R.T. et al. (1998) in their study on “Scottish and Australian teacher’s stress and
strain” concluded that “strain was found to be average in both national groups, but there were
high levels of stress, with role overload emerging as the major cause”.

Borg (1991) identified “four factors that contributed to teachers' level of occupational stress
in his study of occupational stress and teaching. These are described in terms of 'pupil
misbehavior', 'time/resource difficulties',' professional recognition needs' and 'poor
relationships'”.

Manthei et al. (1988) in their study on “comparative teachers stress and negative outcomes in
Canterbury state schools focuses the study on New Zealand and N.S.M. teachers, identified
seven structural factors which lead to teachers stress like, pupil recalcitrance, poor
remuneration, curriculum demands, low professional recognition, poor working environment,

22
community antagonism and time demand and lack of time for adequate, preparation of
assistance with individual pupil difficulties”.

Weiskopf P. (1980) in his study on “Burnout Among teachers of Exceptional children reveals
the high correlation between burnout scores and degree of job satisfaction and performance,
and also found significant relationship between such scores and negative perceptions by
teachers of their own power to influence work situations”.

Austin et al. (2005) found that “the main sources of stress for teachers from the UK are
work-related stressors, such as time management, student discipline, and student motivation”.

Morton et al. (1997) in their study on “Student teacher anxieties related to class
management, pedagogy, evaluation and staff relations” found that “among the sources of
stress for student teachers, evaluation apprehension was the greatest, although it declined
following teaching practice, suggesting that it is reduced by exposure and positive
experiences of observation feedback”.

Kyriacou (2001) also reported that “the main sources of teacher stress are teaching students
who lack motivation, maintaining discipline in the classroom, confronting general time
pressures and workload demands, being exposed to a large amount of change, being
evaluated by others, having challenging relationships with colleagues, administration, and
management, and being exposed to generally poor working conditions prospects,
unsatisfactory working conditions, ambiguity of the teacher’s role, poor relationships with
colleagues, pupils, and administrators, and job insecurity”.

Robbins et al. (2007) found that “In the case of personal factors there is evidence that
showed that employees’ characteristics influence their sensitivity against stress”.

Berhem et al. (2004) in their study on “A New Model for Work Stress Patterns” describe that
“the role of ambiguity as the main source of work stress and self-knowledge as the main
coping strategy to overcome work stress. Work stress is believed to be one of the most
important factors affecting productivity”.

Farooq A. Shah (2003) observed that “most of the employees experience medium to high
level of stress at work. Role stagnation, inadequacy of role authority and role erosion is

23
comparatively high rated dimensions of job stress. The study further reveals that employees
belonging to the clerical cadre relatively experience more stress on most of the dimensions”.

Roberts et al. (1997) found that “Role conflict have a positive relationship with job stress.
When individuals are required to play two or more role requirements that work against each
other, they are likely to experience job stress. This is because role conflicts create
expectations that may be hard to reconcile”. Thoits (1995) in his study discovered that
“alienation has a positive effect on job stress. Feelings of alienation are likely to result when
employees are required to work alone”.

Kaldenberg et al. (1992) in their study on “Workload and Physiological Strain” examined
that “the extent to which psychological strain was related to in congruence between workload
preference and work load experience. They found a curvilinear relationship between person-
environment fit and psychological strain. Both self-esteem and job satisfaction were higher
for those with congruent fit between typical and preferred workload. Lower for those with
incongruent fit. The study also found that people who work in a setting that provides
autonomy and the opportunity to control the flow of work tended to have the most congruent
fit between preferred and typical hours of workload”.

Foot et al. (1990) discovered that “a positive relationship exist between barriers to career
advancement and job stress. When employees perceived a lack of career opportunities, they
are likely to feel uncertain about their future in the organization, which in turn, are likely to
induce stress. Alienation at the work place can also lead to stress”.

Lakhwinder Sing Kang (2005) in his study on “Stressors among Medical Representatives:
An Empirical investigations” tries to investigate the various stressors related with the job of a
medical representative. The results showed interference of job in personal life, unsupportive
colleagues, work load and continuous pressure for improved performance have been found to
be causing stress among the medical representatives’.

Literature review on consequences of occupational stress

Ho and Au (2006) found that “teacher satisfaction was negatively correlated with work
stress”. Additionally, Romano et al. (2000) found that “negative correlations exist between
the level of teachers’ stress and their well-being. That is, the greater the stress the more
negative the impact on the teacher’s personal well-being”.

24
Chan (1998) found that “the type of coping strategies affects teachers’ emotional health.
Similar results were reported in Sweden, where the use of active coping strategies seemed to
mitigate the negative effects of teacher work stress” (Brenner et al. 1985).

Antoniou et al. (2003) found that “Type a women suffered from cardiovascular diseases and
heart attacks as often as their male counterparts”.

Williams et al. (1986) provides “a comprehensive list of the symptoms of stress. These are:
constant fatigue, low energy level, recurring headaches, gastrointestinal disorders, chronically
bad breath, sweaty hands or feet, dizziness, high blood pressure, pounding heart, constant
inner tension, inability to sleep, temper outbursts, hyperventilation, moodiness, irritability
and restlessness, inability to concentrate, increased aggression, compulsive eating, chronic
worrying, anxiety or apprehensiveness, inability to relax, growing feelings of inadequacy,
increase in defensiveness, dependence on tranquilizers, excessive use of alcohol, and
excessive smoking."

DeRobbio et al. (1996) examined that “where work stress is unrelenting, some negative
physiological, psychological, and behavioral consequences may result”. Oginska - Bulik
(2006) several studies have shown that “occupational stress can lead to various negative
consequences for the individual and the workplace. The results of the study confirm a
significant role of Type D personality in perceiving job stress and the development of its
adverse effects reflected especially in the worsening health condition. Type D subjects
perceive their workplace as more stressful than non-type Ds and manifest more symptoms of
mental health disorders and a higher level of burnout, expressed mainly in the form of
emotional exhaustion and lower personal accomplishment”.

Kanungo (1981) found that “when workers believe there is a separation between their own
job and other work related contexts, a sense of frustration that finally manifested in a
behavioral state of apathy is likely to occur. This is particularly intense for employees with
high social needs”.

Ursin et al. (2002) states in their cognitive arousal theory of stress that “a person’s feelings
of hopelessness, helplessness and inability to cope in stressful situations can trigger lower
emotional health, which can potentially lead to higher negative attitudinal and behavioral
outcomes, such as feelings of frustration, deprivation or discontentment and lower
performance” (Leka et al. 2003).

25
Spector et al. (2001) emotion-centered model of occupational stress posits that “individuals
who feel stressful when exposing with an event in particular environments may experience
occupational strains”. French et al. (1973) believe that “the less the coordination with their
occupation, the more their stress will be”.

Literature review on occupational stress, job satisfaction and performance

Eckles et al. ( 1987) reported that “health and psychological outcomes can in turn lead to
poorer teaching performance, poor job satisfaction, increased absenteeism, poor decision
making and bad judgment”.

Chaplain et al. (1995) reported that “teachers find helping students and working with
colleagues to be the most satisfying aspect of their job. Dissatisfaction can result from
external aspects of the job, such as government actions, media coverage and society’s view of
teachers”.

Lipman et al. (1999) indicated that “teachers’ satisfaction is related specifically to school and
teaching facilities, such as classroom size, inadequate recreation/art/music facilities, and poor
air quality”. Specifically, Ho and Au (2006) suggested that “teachers with higher levels of
stress exhibited lower levels of job satisfaction”.

Brewer et al. (2003) found that “stress is a major factor that affects not only job satisfaction
level, but also job performance. These results have implications for addressing job stress and
job satisfaction in higher education”. Noor et al. (2008) was also found that “a positive
relationship exist between work life conflict, stress and turnover intentions by when they
conducted a research on marketing executives of Pakistan”.

Iglesias et al. (2008) suggested that “SMPP has a promising applicability to deal with high
levels of stress, improving the student academic performance and health”. Kahn et al. (1964)
examined that “Job stress has been also viewed as dysfunctional for organizations and their
members”.

26