SSRN Id4561268

EFFECT OF JOB STRESS ON EMPLOYEES’ PERFORMANCE:
A CASE STUDY OF PENCOM
Francis U. Opene
Central Bank of Nigeria
fuopene@cbn.gov.ng
ABSTRACT
The aim of the study was to evaluate job stress and its effect on employee’s performance. The
study was conducted at Nigeria Pension Commission (PENCOM), Abuja. Descriptive survey
was adopted as the research design. Questionnaires and interview were used as data collection
instrument. From the results obtained, it was evident that there were many stress factors that the
respondents endured, and the enquiry proved that work stress had significant effect on
performance. Majority of the respondents reported to work under pressure and that they feel
uncared for by the organization. The fact that majority of respondents thought of leaving their
job and felt that the organization, they had no option than to remain as a result of the economic
situation of the country. It did show that PENCOM not caring about them was a reflection of
huge dissatisfaction that undoubtedly lowered performance when stress is induced.
Keyword: job stress, employee, performance
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

1. Introduction
The objective of this topic is to study the effects of job stress on employee’s performance in
National Pension Commission.
In today’s world, stress has become a worldwide phenomenon, which occurs in various forms in
every workplace (Omolara, 2008). Stress is a psychological and physical state that results when
the resources of the individual are not sufficient to cope with the demands and pressures of the
situation. Thus, stress is more likely in some situations than others and in some individuals than
others (Michi, 2002).
Most organizations attain high performance by saddling employees with work overload in order
to meet deadlines. This development has brought a lot of psychological and physical effects on
the employees which sometimes results to something contrary to what these organizations want
to achieve (Henry and Evans 2008). Even though organizations are now paying more attention to
employees compared to the past, the consequences of the trauma these employees go through
cannot be over emphasized because of the extra-ordinary demands they place on them to deliver.
Pension employees among others in the public and private sectors have the objectives of
ensuring that employees receive their retirement benefits as and when due. They also assist
imprudent individuals to save for old age by establishing a contributory scheme with a uniform
set of rules, regulations and standards for the administration and payment of retirement pension
benefits. To meet these objectives and to generate enough revenue to be self-sustaining and fund
the acquisition of modern equipment to meet today’s efficient service provision and optimal
employment of resources, there has been the need for a continuous change in management
strategies and administration, and the demands on employees to perform have been increasing.
In the Pension Commission of Nigeria (PENCOM), there is lot of pressure for employees to
deliver a world class service without providing them with the corresponding world-class
resources and training. Consequently, employees that fail to deliver are met with serious
disciplinary measures including dismissal and termination of appointment. With jobs very
difficult to come by these days in Nigeria, many employees are crumbling under this pressure.
Cases of employee stress are therefore on the ascendancy.
It is with the view of finding a lasting solution for this problem, that this study is being
conducted to examine the effects job stress has on the performance of employees of National
Pension Commission.
This study will benefit various identified stakeholders in the following ways. First, it will enable
the government to formulate policies that will deepen the adoption of stress management

strategies in organizations. Two, it will enable the employees take appropriate steps to reduce
their own stress by saving themselves from variety of health issues and also help management to
implement the stress management strategies. Three, it will reach out to those in the public sector
and provide new insights about the latest issues and updates of national pension. Four, it will
enable employers who after knowing the occupational stress inducers (OSI), can adopt
appropriate strategies to reduce the occupational stress thereby enhancing the employees job
performance.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Symptoms and Effects of Job Stress on Employees Performance
Blackwell (1998) stated that stress shows itself in a number of ways. For instance, an individual
who is experiencing a high level of stress may develop high blood pressure, ulcers and the like.
These can be grouped under three general categories: Physiological, Psychological and
Bahavioural symptoms.
2.1.1. Psychological Effects

These are the major consequences of stress. Then mental health of employees is threatened by
high levels of stress and poor mental health. Unlike the Physical symptoms, psychological
symptoms could also cause employees work performance to deteriorate. Anger, anxiety,
depression, nervousness, irritability, aggressiveness, and boredom results in low employee
performance, declines in self-esteem, resentment of supervision, inability to concentrate, trouble
in making decision and job dissatisfaction. Also, the psychological symptoms of stress can lead
to burnout. Job burnout is a prolonged withdrawal from work which makes the sufferer devalue
his work and sees it as a source of dissatisfaction.
2.1.2. Behavioural Effects

The behavioural signs of stress include eating, cigarette smoking, used of alcohol and drugs,
rapid speech pattern nervous fidgeting which leads to absenteeism from work, happing from job
to job and causes performance to deteriorate.
2.1.3. Physiological Effects

These are changes in the metabolism that accompany stressors. The symptoms include increased
heart rate, blood pressure etc. With this, the wear and tear on the body becomes noticeable and
problematic. The effects of this are back pains, migraine headaches, insomnia, heart disease,
hypertension, diabetes and even cancer which affect employee’s performance.

2.2. The Impact of Job Stress on the Organization
Starting a new job would likely to be very stressful if the person felt inexperienced, unable to
cope with workload, uncomfortable around their bosses or colleagues and unstimulated by their
work. On the other hand, a person entering an area of work where they felt competent, supported
by their colleagues and stimulated, would be more likely to experience the change as challenging
than stressful.
According to Luthans (2002) besides the potential stressors that occurred outside the
organization, there were also those that were associated with the organization. Although an
organization is made up of groups of individuals, there are also more macro level dimensions,
unique to an organization that contains potential stressors.
Gaumail (2003) asserted that at the organizational level, research has found that work-related
stresses may be responsible for organizational outcomes such as decline in performance,
dissatisfaction, lack of motivation and commitment, and an increase in absenteeism and turnover.
Desseler (2000) alluded that there were two main sources of job stress: environmental and
personal. According to this author a variety of external environmental factors could lead to job
stress. These included work schedules, place of work, job security, route to and from work and
the number and nature of clients. Even noise, including people talking and telephones ringing,
contributed to stress. This author, however, noted that individuals reacted differently even if they
were at the same job, because personal factors also influenced stress.
Desseler (2000) was of the opinion that for organizations job stress consequences included
reductions in the quantity and quality of job performance, increased absenteeism and turnover,
increased grievances and health care costs. A study of 46,000 employees concluded that stress
and depression may cause employees to seek medical care for vague physical and psychological
problems and can in fact lead to more serious health conditions. The health care costs of the
high-stress workers were 46% higher than those of their less stressed co-workers.
Stress on the job took its toll on nonprofits: lost time from work, deflated performance, low staff
morale, turnover and higher health care costs (Levin, 2002). In the United States of America,
Britain and many other European countries, about half the deaths each year for both men and
women, were due to cardiovascular diseases. The factors associated with high risk of heart
diseases included cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and blood sugar levels
and excess body weight. These authors further stated that a number of studies have indicated that
social and psychological factors may account for much of the risk, and this has promoted
research into factors in the work situation that may increase susceptibility to heart disease.

Among the factors that have been shown to influence such susceptibility are dissatisfaction at
work and occupational stress (Anderson, 1994).
According to Frost (2003) the frequency with which hardworking, valuable employees have
negative experiences in the workplace or hear bad news that leaves their hopes dashed, their
goals derailed, or their confidence undermined. The sources of the pain vary, but much of it
comes from abusive managers, unreasonable company policies, disruptive coworkers or clients,
or from poorly managed change. It is a by-product of organizational life that can have serious
negative effects on individuals and their organizations, unless it is identified and handled in
healthy and constructive ways.
Frost (2003) is of the opinion that this kind of pain shows up in people’s diminished sense of self
worth and lost confidence and hope. It is destructive to performance and morale. The tangible
consequences include lost profits resulting from things like diminished performance or worse
mass exodus.
In conclusion, Frost (2003) believed that when organizational leaders recognize emotional pain
when it occurs and act to intervene, potentially lethal situations in the workplace could be
reversed.
2.3. The Impact of Job Stress on Employee Performance

Sengupta (2007) stated that stress may cause physiological, behavioral or even psychological
effects: Physiological – hormone release triggers fight or flight response of humans. These
hormones help them to either fight harder or run faster. They increase heart rate, blood
pressure, and sweating. Stress has been tied to heart disease. Because of the increase in heart rate
and blood pressure, prolonged stress increases the tension that is put on the arteries. It also
affects the immune system which is why cold and flu illness usually show up during exams.
Behavioral – it may cause people to be jumpy, excitable, or even irritable. The effects of stress
may cause some people to drink or smoke heavily, neglect exercise or proper nutrition, or
overuse either the television or the computer. Psychological – the response to stress may
decrease the ability to work or interact effectively with other people and be less able to make
good decisions. Stress has also been known to play a part in anxiety and depression (Sengupat,
2007). The structure of the Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) demonstrates that stressful
transactions are seen as a product of two intervening systems: people both exert an influence on
and respond to their environments (Cooper, Sloan, & Williams, 1988). In other words, the
process of stress depends on a person’s appraisal of a situation. Stress occurs when the
magnitude of the stressor exceeds the individual’s capacity to cope. As advocated by Lazarus
(1991), a transactional, process, and appraisal approach is needed to study work stress.
Scullen (2000) described work performance comprising of four aspects: general performance,
human performance, technical performance and administrative performance. Rubina et al. (2008)
4

viewed job performance as the result of three factors working together: skill, effort and the
nature of work conditions. Skills include knowledge, abilities and competencies of the
employees; effort is the degree of motivation the employee puts forth towards completing the
job; and the nature of work conditions is the degree of accommodation of these conditions in
facilitating employee performance.
The whole concern for the organizations is performance of their employees irrespective of
factors and conditions. Good performance of employees leads to good organizational
performance which is an indicator of their success (Armstrong & Baron, 1998). Ultimate success
or failure of an organization is determined majorly by the performance of their employees
(Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1995 in Ahmed and Ramzan, 2013). Stress has significant impact on
company and people performance, and it terribly affects health of employees (Mimura and
Griffiths, 2003 in Shah et al, 2012).
Mathis and Jackson (2000) suggested that to measure organizational human resource
performance one has to consider unit labour cost, or the total labour cost per unit of output.
The authors further stated that an individual performance depends on three factors which are:
ability to do the work, level of effort and support given to that person. The relationship of these
factors, widely acknowledged in management literature, is that Performance (P) is the result of
Ability (A) times Effort (E) times Support (S), that is: (P=AxExS). Performance is diminished if
any of these factors are reduced or absent. They further emphasize that quality of production
must also be considered as part of performance because one alternative might be to produce
more but a lower quality.
Simply put by Chase and Aquilano (1995), performance is measured in terms of outputs per
labour hour. However, this measurement does not ensure that the firm will make money (for
example when extra output is not sold but accumulates as inventory). To test whether
performance has increased, the following questions should be asked: ‘has the action taken
increased output or has it decreased inventory?’ ‘Has the action taken decreased operational
expense?’ This would then lead to a new definition which is: Performance is all the actions that
bring a company closer to its goals.
Mathis and Jackson (2000) defined performance as a measure of the quantity and quality of work
done considering the cost of the resource it took to do the work. Steers (1991) is of the opinion
that it is useful from a managerial standpoint to consider several forms of counter-productive
behaviour that are known to result from prolonged stress.
Thompson and Hugh (1995) are of the opinion that when specifically, regarding stress in the
workplace, contemporary accounts of the stress ‘process’ often follow the notion of stress as
resulting from a misfit between an individual and their particular environment, where internal or
external factors push the individuals adaptive capacities beyond his or her limit. However, no
5

two people react to the same job in the very same way, because personal factors also influence
stress. For example, type A personalities; people who are workaholics and who feel driven to be
always on time and meet deadlines, normally place themselves under greater stress than do
others (Desseler 2000). This is further reiterated by Bowin and Harvey (2001) who emphasized
that people cannot completely separate their work and personal lives, the way people react and
handle stress at work is a complex issue.
According to Blumenthal (2003) an inverted U-type curve has been used to depict the effect
stress has on performance. It can be shown that, as stress increases, so does the performance.
However, if stress continues to increase beyond an optimal point, performance will peak and
start to decline. This shows that stress is necessary to enhance performance but once it reaches a
level of acute discomfort, it is harmful and counterproductive. He also went on to argue that
excess stress is harmful, destructive and detrimental to human well-being and performance.
Stress can have an impact on an individual’s well-being by causing dysfunction or disruption in
multiple areas. This dysfunction extends into the organizational world and leads to decreased
performance.
Viswesvaran et al (2010), job performance is work behaviors relevant to organizational goals,

within the individual’s control, and measurable, observable, scorable, etc. Besides, the total
output that employees recognized contribute to the organization is another definition of job
performance. It is the sum of opportunities, abilities, and motivation. Hunter (2004) said that
organizations pay a lot of attention on job performance due to the importance of high
productivity. Campbell (2012), job performance is something an individual does, and it has its
own level variable. Hence, it can be separated from other terms such as national performance or
organizational performance which are higher level variables. They mentioned about job
performance that it includes the observable actions that people do in their works which related to
the objectives of the company. Campbell et al (1993) explain job performance is the behaviors
themselves not the consequence of behaviors. As the same meaning, job performance including
behaviors that employees truly involve and can be observed. Motowidlo et al. (1993) emphasized
that job performance is about behaviors not results, and behaviors must be relevant to the
objectives of organization is one further element of job performance, Campbell et al (1993). In
addition, Motowidlo et al. (1993) also classified performance into two different types that were
task performance and contextual performance. The effectiveness in job performance that
contribute to the organization’s technical core is the definition of task performance. Contextual
performance is performance that is not formally required as part of job but joining hand in
shaping the psychological and social context of the organization. There is the fact that, the lower
the employee’s performance, the lower the productivity of the whole company. It is important for
managers to understand employee performance and must be put in right direction. The
organizational management timely steps in that direction will be develop and motivate its

employee. Finally, the organization can take the lead the market and catch the available
opportunities.
Deshinger (2003) suggested that different aspects of employee job performance that are likely to
be affected by stress include Productivity, Job Satisfaction / Morale, Absenteeism, Decision
Making Abilities, Accuracy, Creativity, Attention to Personal Appearance, Organizational Skills,
Courtesy Cooperation , Initiative , Reliability, Alertness , Perseverance and Tardiness.
The above-described effects of stress (distress) affect the performance of humans and therefore it
is important to understand how it can be managed well so as not only keep oneself happy and
healthy but perform to best of the ability.
Following figure 2 (Sengupta, 2007) depicts the effect of stress on performance at National
Pension Commission
Performance
Optimal Workload
Seldom High Energy

Apathy High Motivation
Low WORKLOAD – INDUCED STRESS High
Figure 2: Work related stress and performance.
2.3.1. Working Factors
There are numerous factors that can have effects on Job Stress and Job Performance. There are
many antecedents of stress that is mostly used by researchers, but the field of this study is
industrial sector, after the definitions of job stress and how important it is in company, this
research will focus on factors that are Work Overload, Role Ambiguity & Role Conflicts,
Working Relationship, Career Development, and Working Environment. Work overload
Workload, main cause of stress in employees refers to the focusing on assignments at work [19].
French and Caplan (1972); Margolis et al. (1974) and Russek & Zohman (1958) said that work
overload happens when assigned work exceed one's capability. It is a case when people feel
pressure on themselves, or when the demands of a situation are larger than they can handle; and
if it continues for a long time without any pauses or breaks, then different physical, behavioral
7

and mental problems may occur and can lead to death. Work overload was significant affect job
stress (Wilkes et al. 1998). Division of Human Resource (2000) defined workload stress as
feeling of constant pressure and not willing to come to work accompanied by the general
physiological and behavioral stress foretoken. Al-Aameri (2003) has mentioned in his studies
that work overload is one of six factors affect job stress. Besides, a study in UK showed that the
large number of workers were dissatisfy when they were required to work overtimes and deal
with big workloads while meeting production targets and deadlines (Townley, 2000). Role
ambiguity & role conflicts Role ambiguity is another factor that has influences on job stress.
When employee lacks information about the requirements of their role, how to meet those role
requirements, and the evaluating process to ensure the role performed successfully, role
ambiguity will happen (Cords & Dougherty (1993), Cooper (1994), Dyer & Quine (1998) and
Ursprung (1986). Based on Jackson & Schuler (1985) and Muchinsky (1997) studies, role
ambiguity led to negative results as “reduces confidence, a sense of hopelessness, anxiety, and
depression”. When there are arguments in role requirements of employee, it increases role
conflict. Because follow the requirement of one’s role makes it difficult to follow the
requirements of others, role conflict is an important situation. Therefore, employee will feel
stress when they contact the contradictory demands by their supervisor or subordinate.
2.3.2. Working relationship
The relationship between employee and their supervisor is a main aspect of employees’ link to
the company, and employee behaviors affected by the way their supervisors managed them.
Effective communication is one of the components of a good relationship, and it can provide
employees with direction. Supervisors can treat more effectively to the needs and problems of
their employees when there are open lines of communication such as an open-door policy.
Support from supervisors and co-workers can reduce job stress. With less support from
supervisors or peers, employee feel alone, then lead to decrease pace of work and performance.
Employees relationships with colleagues are essential to their success and help employees
complete not only their work goals but also organization’s goals. The more positive relationships
at work employee have, the more enjoyable the workplace is, and better job satisfaction and
engagement. According to Internet, working relationship was very important to employee job
satisfaction based on 40% of employees, and 79% of employees showed satisfaction on their
working relationships.
2.3.3. Career development
Career development is defined as opportunities for employees to join in more advanced activities
such as training and networking that help employee improve skills, gain new skills, take greater
responsibility at work, improving their social status and earn higher income. SHRM (2012), there
is only one factors in career development factor was rated by employee, they are opportunities to
use skills and abilities at work. Besides, career development is one of five very important factors
affect job satisfaction in 2012.
8

2.3.4. Working environment
The definition of working environment is “the physical geographical location as well as the
surroundings of the workplace, such as a factory site or office building”. Other factors relating to
the workplace, such as the quality of the air, noise level and working relationship can lead to the
quality of working environment. It has proven that when employee feels comfortable with their
working environment, they will perform more effectively and enjoy the working process better
than those who are feel uncomfortable. Therefore, it is necessary for manager consider their
employees workplace factor carefully. Organizations understand that their employees spend
almost day at work, that is the reason why companies need to action to make sure working
environment is conducive for employees to be productive, satisfied and engaged in the
workplace.
According to Garrison and Bly (1997) corporations have become acutely aware of the problems
caused by stress. The illnesses associated with stress are costly, and they can debilitate a valuable
worker. When stress is not handled well, absenteeism, turnover, and medical compensation
increase and performance decreases. Garrison and Bly (1997) further stated that the workplace is
special only because so much of our time is spent at work. To achieve a peak of performance,
stress should be managed effectively, with the negative effects of stress minimized.
Garrison and Bly (1997) viewed more prominent cases of stress in the workplace being the
following:
2.3.4. Overload
Overload has two forms; an excessive amount of work and work for which and individual is ill
prepared. One way of interpreting the challenge of increasing performance is to understand that
it means each individual will accomplish more than before. On an assembly line, the goal of
increased performance means that the total time to complete a product is reduced and overload is
experienced in the form of the endless flow of work. French and Caplan in Anderson and
Kyprianou (1994) differentiated between quantitative (too much) and qualitative (too difficult)
overload. They suggested that both qualitative and quantitative overload may produce at least
nine different symptoms of psychological and physical strain.
2.3.5. Time Pressure

Garrison and Bly (1997) suggested that, with the performance demand comes the time pressure
of getting the product completed or the service delivered in an ever-shorter time frame. These
authors also stated that customers demand speed and quality, and competitive organizations must
deliver on both. As employees become more involved, they too will recognize the priority that
time has in the workplace.

2.4. Managing Job Stress
According to Robbins (2004), stress can be managed in two approaches: the individual and
organizational approaches.
He said the individual approach include exercise. That is the employees can manage stress by
walking, riding bicycles, attending aerobic classes, practicing yoga, jogging, swimming, playing
tennis and swatting squash balls. Most runners and fitness addicts admit that it is very hard to
focus on job stress when one is trying to complete vigorous workout. Again, he said individuals
can manage stress through relaxation. This is because, when employees relax the response for
stress will be reserved in the human mind-body system. Individuals can reduce tension through
relaxation techniques such as meditation, hypnosis and biofeedback. The objective is to reach a
state of deep relaxation in which the employee feels physically relaxed, somewhat detached from
the immediate environment and detached from body sensations. Relaxation exercises reduce
employees heart rates, blood pressure and other physiological indicators of stress.
Another way to reduce stress individually is opening up. A healthy response to these moments or
periods of personal crisis is to confide in others. Employees may not find it easy to discuss
difficult personal traumas with others, but self disclosure can reduce the level of stress and give
them more positive outlook on life. Also, honest entries on a regular basis in a diary may
accomplish the same thing.
2.5 Theoretical Framework
In this section a theoretical framework for the job stress behaviour is developed based on the
objectives and previous literature survey in this area was Psychological and Sociological.
Psychological theories:
The predominant paradigm for understanding the causes of occupational injury and illness is the
medical model (Quinlan & Bohle, 1991; Quinlan & Johnston, 1993). With its emphasis on
individuals rather than groups, on treatment rather than prevention, and on technological
intervention rather than environmental change, the medical model has been very influential in
controlling both the way in which occupational injuries and illnesses have been defined and the
means by which they are managed. The major criticism of the medical model has been its focus
on treating sick or injured workers rather than on producing healthy working environments
(Biggins, 1986). The outcome of this approach was to perpetuate the notion that workplace
injuries are' accidents' which were not preventable and to locate the blame for the injury in the
individual worker or in the hazardous nature of the work (Davis &George, 1993; Ferguson,
10

1988; James, 1989). The disciplines of industrial, occupational and health psychology have not
lived up to their early
Sociological theories:
The most radical departure from the medical model has been the approach of industrial
sociologists who have brought the social organization of work as the primary determinant of
occupational jury, illness, and stress into sharp focus (Berger, 1993; James, 1989; Williams &
Thorpe, 1992). The medical model's notion of health and illness is rejected as reductionist,
individualistic and interventionist, in which subjects are considered as unique cases, independent
of cultural, social, political, and economic structures and processes. Industrial sociologists argue
that power structures, the institutionalized conflicts of interest between safety and performance,
the social division of labor, the lab our process, industrial relations and politics are the root
causes of occupational illness and stress (McIntyre,1998; Peterson, 1994).
2.6. Empirical Review

In a study carried out by Warraich Usman Ali et al (2014), on “Impact of Stress on Job
Performance: An Empirical study of the Employees of Private Sector Universities of Karachi,
Pakistan”, the study was designed to determining the effect of stress on job performance of
employees. It was based on empirical research conducted on 133 employees of private sector’s
Universities in Karachi that are providing education in the disciplines of Business
Administration, Engineering, Medicine, Textile and Fashion. Pertinent data was collected
through questionnaires based on close-ended questions. Multiple Linear Regression technique
was used to test the hypothesis.
However, the results obtained from the data revealed that workload and role conflict, and
inadequate monitory reward are the prime reasons of causing stress in employees, and this stress
reduces their efficiency. Thus, it was recommended that employer should minimize stress by
lowering the workload, abate the role conflict, pay adequate salary and provide training and
counseling to employees in order to improve their job performance and job satisfaction.
In another related studies, numerous individual level variables have been examined as potential
moderators of the relationship between organizational (employee) stress and job satisfaction. For
example, Bhagat and Allie (1989) examined the moderating effect of sense of competence on the
stress-satisfaction relationship of 276 elementary school teachers. They found that when
organizational stress was high, individuals with a high sense of competence reported greater
satisfaction with work and co-workers and reduced feelings of depersonalization, compared to
those with lower sense of competence. When experienced stress was low, highly competent
individuals were less satisfied with co-workers than were individuals with a low sense of
11

competence. One's sense of competence also moderated the effects of personal life stress on
organizational outcomes. Under conditions of high life stress, highly competent individuals
reported greater satisfaction with work, co-workers and supervision, less emotional exhaustion,
and less feelings of depersonalization than did individuals who perceived themselves to be less
competent.
In addition to sense of competence, the moderating effect of perceived control on the stress-
satisfaction relationship has been examined in the following studies. For example, Tetrick and
LaRocco (1987) employed a sample of 206 physicians, dentists, and nurses from a naval hospital
to investigate this issue. They examined the role of the ability to understand why and how
organizational events happen, to predict the frequency, timing and duration of such events, and
to control important outcomes by influencing events and significant others in the work
environment. They found that such perceived control could indeed moderate the stress-
satisfaction relationship. However, the ability to predict events did not moderate the stress-
satisfaction relationship. Conflicting results have been reported on the moderating effects of
locus of control (Batlis, 1980; Cummins, 1989). For example, Organ and Greene (1974) studied
94 senior scientists and engineers in a large electronic equipment firm. They found that the
negative correlation between role ambiguity and work satisfaction was significant for individuals
with a high internal locus of control but was not significant for individuals with a high external
locus of control. Their findings suggest that role ambiguity is aversive primarily to internals
because it frustrates their attempts to secure job-related information. In contrast, Keenan and
McBain (1979), using a sample of 90 middle managers, reported that both internal and externals
found high levels of ambiguity dissatisfying.
The studies conducted in western countries have shown that the sources of stress that we name as
Occupational Stress Inducers (OSI) in this study are negatively related to well-being and job
satisfaction of employees. (Robertson, Cooper, & Williams,1990). Shah et al. (2012) in their
study on impact of stress on employee performance among teaching faculty, found a negative
relationship between organizational structure and employee efficiency while rewards were found
to be positively correlated to employee efficiency as expected. Rubina et al. (2008) too found a
negative relationship between job stress and job performance. However, the male employees
were found to be affected more than their female counter parts. Munir and Islam (2011) tested
relationship between work stressors like role ambiguity, workload pressure, home-work
interface, performance pressure, relationship with others and role conflicts on one side and job
performance on the other with motivation as mediator and found that role conflict and role
ambiguity has a positive relation with stressors against the common notion while the relationship
is found to be negative between other stressors and job performance. Imrab et al. (2013) found
that stress is responsible for decreasing the performance of bank employees. Ahmed & Ramzan
(2013) too found a negative correlation between stress and job performance i.e as the stress
increases the job performance goes down and vice-a-versa. Usman Ali et al. (2014) found that
12

workload, role conflict, and inadequate monitory reward are the prime reasons of causing stress
in employees that leads to reduced employee efficiency.
3. Methodology
A case study approach was used to assess the effect of job stress on employee performance in
National Pension Commission (PENCOM). The study uses a single case study in order to
understand or explain the phenomena, that is, the effects of job stress on employee performance
in PENCOM. The reason for this choice was based on the knowledge that case studies are more
appropriate for examining the processes by which events unfold, as well as exploring causal
relations (Yin, 1994) and also, they provide a holistic understanding of the phenomena (Kitay &
Callus, 1998). PENCOM was also used as a matter of convenience. However, we used
Descriptive survey as the research design. The targeted population of this study consists of all
staff of PENCOM. The employees comprise Clerks, Junior Staff, Middle Management Staff and
Senior Staff and Top Management Staff that are saddled with the responsibilities of executing
the Organization’s mandate. Top Management Staff will be excluded in this study. The
population of the study consists of all staff in different departments and offices in PENCOM
(National Pension Commission). This makes it difficult to reach everyone; hence a representative
sample of 100 will be used through purposive sampling techniques. A stratified random sampling
was used to ensure adequate or proportional representation of the different categories or types of
elements that make up the population in the selected sample. For example, staffs are organized
into department, ensuring that every department/office within the organization is fully
represented. The sample size chosen is presumed to be fairly large enough for meaningful
analysis. The major method of data collection of this study is through Likert-type questionnaires;
the structured questionnaire will be distributed to the selected respondents. Questionnaires permit
the sampling of a large population (Rao, 2010); allows for anonymity and can persuade
respondents to give as much information as possible (Chang, 2010). Buchanan and Bryman
(2009) added that questionnaires are the most common approach for studies that pertain to
rewards and job satisfaction. The collected data will be coded and entered using the Microsoft
Excel. Since the study is quantitative in nature, the findings were presented in simple descriptive
statistics involving some tables and bar charts. These were chosen because it made it possible to
investigate the relationships of interest.
13

4. Analysis and Discussion of Results
From Table 4.3 above, it can be seen that out of the 80 respondents, 70% were males and 30%
were females. The data suggests that there was a vast difference between the number of males
and females used for this research. This means male employees of the five departments of
PENCOM dominate females.
4.1. Determining whether employees think that PENCOM cares about its employees.
From 4.1, The majority of respondents 55% reported that they do not think that PENCOM cares
about them. If 55% of the respondents think that PENCOM does not care for their employees
that calls for reason for concern, as dissatisfaction with management leads to reduced loyalty that
could lead to acts of sabotage (Frost 2003).
Table 4.1: Determining whether PENCOM cares.

Responses Frequency Percentage (%)
Yes 20 25
No 44 55
No response 16 20
Total 80 100
Source: Field Survey, 2017
4.2. Determining whether employees like working for PENCOM

From Table 4.2 it is evident that 63% of the respondents reflect doubts on whether they like
working for PENCOM as they indicated that they “sometimes” like working for this
organization. There could be a correlation between the response above on Table 4.1 and 4.2.
However, 23% is confident about its need to work for PENCOM as only 7% of respondents are
totally unhappy.
Table 4.2: Exploration of whether respondents like working for PENCOM.

Always 18 22.5
Sometimes 50 62.5
Seldom 6 7.5
Not at all 6 7.5
14

Total 80 100.0
4.3. Determining satisfaction with the working environment
From Table 4.3, respondents that confidently reported satisfaction with the working environment
are relatively low (16%), and it was compared to those who reported not to like working for
PENCOM (7%), in Table 4.2 on the previous page. These two responses may be correlated; it
could be the same respondents who reported not to like working for PENCOM that are not
satisfied with their working environment. However, negative emphasis on “sometimes not
satisfied with the work environment” seems to be stronger (49%) as reflected by Table 4.4.
Table 4.3: Satisfaction with the work environment

Satisfaction with the work Frequency Percentage (%)
environment
Always 13 16
Sometimes 39 49
Seldom 8 10
Not at all 20 25
Total 80 100
4.4. Exploring work pressure

The response rate of 75% of the respondents reporting to work under pressure may be a
reflection on the organizational mood; that expectations on delivery are high. However, 23% of
the respondents reported not to be working under pressure.
Blumenthal (2003) is of the opinion that events that are appraised as overwhelming, threatening,
unsatisfying, or conflicting are more likely to be experienced as stressful. Thus, the organization
has a challenge of helping the employees manage their work pressure better.
In Table 4.4, only 6% of respondents reported not having adequate information about their roles
and the majority of the respondents (45%) report that they sometimes have adequate information
about their jobs while 25% of the respondents are always clear about their roles. The
interpretation can be made that if 25% of the respondents are always clear about their role at, it
means that they won’t be subjected to role ambiguity as a cause for their stress at work. At the
same time if 45% of the respondents sometimes don’t “have adequate information about their
role at work” they may be inclined to experience stress due to role ambiguity. However, the 21%
that is seldom clear about their role is in a more threatening position that could cause them to
15

have role ambiguity and stress subsequently. About 70% of the respondents can conclusively be
seen as being threatened by role ambiguity as a cause for stress.
Table 4.4: Exploring work pressure.

Yes 60 75
No 18 22.5
No response 2 2.5
Total 80 100
4.5. Determining whether employees have adequate information about their role at work.
In Table 4.5, 25% of the respondents reported that their roles are always in conflict with each
other and 45% reported that sometimes their roles are in contradiction with each other. The
interpretation can be made that if 25% of the respondents report that their “job expectations are
always in contradiction with each other”, it could be concluded that they are more prone to job
stress. The 45% whose job expectation is sometimes in contradiction with each other may also be
prone to stress due to pressure of delivery regardless of the contradiction in their work. However,
21% reported to seldom have job expectations which are in contradiction with each other, and
that is a good indication that they are most of the time comfortable about what is expected of
them at work thus minimizing the possibility of stress that is caused by job expectations that are
in contradiction with each other. Nevertheless, the majority of the respondents (70%) who
reported to “always” and “sometimes” have job expectations that are in contradiction with each
other are more likely to experience job stress.
Table 4.5: Exploring role clarity.

Always 20 25
Sometimes 36 45
Seldom 17 21.25
Not at all 5 6.25
No response 2 2.5
Total 80 100.0
4.6. Determine whether job expectations are in contradiction with each other.
16

In Table 4.6, the majority of the respondents (65%) report that they are not being asked to do
more that their ability permits. It is comforting to note that most respondents accept this
responsibility regardless of the work pressure they have reported in Table 4.4. However, 28% of
the respondents think that they are being given more than their ability permits.
Table 4. 6 Contradiction in job expectations

Always 20 25
Sometimes 36 45
Seldom 17 21.25
Not at all 5 6.25
No response 2 2.5
Total 80 100.0
4.7. Determine whether employee skills are utilized to their satisfaction.
In Table 4.7, 61% of the respondents reported that their skills are not utilized to their satisfaction.
The interpretation can be made that this may be due to a combination of factors, when it is
considered that this organization has a young male dominated workforce, the majority (55% in
Table 4.3) of who have tertiary qualification; may have ambitions of gaining work experience
and climbing the corporate ladder.
This variable becomes extremely important for a growing organization like PENCOM if the
majority reports that their skills are not fully utilized as it may lead to lowered performance.
Table 4.7: Skill utilization to employees’ satisfaction

Yes 23 28.75
No 49 61.25
No response 8 10
Total 80 100.0
4.8. Determine whether employees get into conflict with each other.
Table 4.8. gives a clear indication that the majority (67%) of respondents do not get into conflict
with each other. However, 29% confirm getting into conflict but their open-ended responses
reflect employees positive regard for good collegial relations.
17

Table 4.8: An enquiry into whether employees get into conflict with each other.
Yes 23 28.75
No 54 67.5
No response 3 3.75
Total 80 100.0
4.9. What employees do when they feel tense at work.
Table 4.9 reflects that respondents that take a smoke break when they are tense at work are in the
minority, only 11%. That may be an indication that the majority of the employees are non-
smokers and thus a good investment for the company. Only 3% of the total respondents work out
with exercise when they feel tense at work. This is not an indication of a healthy lifestyle which
one associates with less stress.
The majority of the respondents in the multiple-choice questions did not choose the option of
alcohol utilization as a way of minimizing tension after work, thus it can be interpreted that 75%
of the respondents do not use alcohol to release stress. That also adds good value to the
organization. However, 25% of the respondents use alcohol. The majority of the employees, 58%
reported to confront the problem, and that is also good for problem resolution. Only 16% of the
respondents take time out when they feel tense at work. This may be an indication that there is
minimal absenteeism on the job.
Table 4.9 above reflects that the majority of the respondents do not take out their tension on
someone when they feel tense at work. However, that is not the case at PENCOM. This table
reflects that the majority of the respondents did not choose this multiple question. Only a few
respondents 6% reported to do none of the above.
Table 4.9: What employees do when they feel tense at work

Response Frequency Percentage (%)
Take a smoke break 9 11.25
Workout with exercise 2 2.5
Take alcohol after work 20 25
Confront the problem 46 57.5
Take time out 13 16.25
Take it out on someone 3 3.75
Do none of the above 5 6.25
18

5. Hypotheses Testing
The First Hypothesis
H1: There is a significant relationship between timely delivery and employee performance
at National Pension Commission.
H0: There is no significant relationship between timely delivery and employee performance
at National Pension Commission.
Criterion variable Forecast variable Correlation Significance

coefficient (R) level (P)
Performance efficiency Stress of individual level 0.149 0.036
According to the test results, we observe that the significance level is equal to 0.036 that is less
than test level value (0.05). Therefore, we conclude that this test is significant.
The Second Hypothesis

H1: Quality of work facilitates employee performance at National Pension Commission.
H0: Quality of work does not facilitate employee performance at National Pension
Commission.
According to the test results, we observe that quality of work significance level is equal to 0.041
that is less than test level value (0.05). Therefore, we conclude that this test is significant. Then
the alternate hypothesis test is confirmed.
The Third Hypothesis
H1: There is a significant relationship between attitude of employees and employee

performance at National Pension Commission.
H0: There is no significant relationship between attitude of employees and employee
performance at National Pension Commission.

According to the test results, we observe that the significance level is equal to 0.052 that it is less
than of test level value (0.05). Therefore, we conclude that this test is highly significant. So the
19

alternative hypothesis test is accepted and can be concluded that there is a significant relationship
between attitude of employees and employee performance at National Pension Commission.
6. Conclusion
The aim of the study was to examine the effect of job stress on performance of the employees at
PENCOM. The results from this study showed that the negative factors that distressed employees
had a negative effect on performance. The causes that were identified and analyzed included the
ages of the respondents cross tabulated with gender, determining the stress levels of the
respondents, and the effect of job stress on performance.
It is clear from the vast number of factors identified, reported and quantified and through the
literature review that the goal of the study was achieved. This also served to prove that stress had
a negative effect on performance of employees at PENCOM.
There had been many stress factors that the employees of PENCOM endured, and the enquiry
proved that the effect of stress affected performance negatively. The fact that the majority of the
employees thought of leaving their job at PENCOM and felt that the organization did not care
about them was a reflection of huge dissatisfaction that undoubtedly lowered performance.
Based on the findings of the research, it is recommended that the following measures be put in
place to help employees of PENCOM manage and reduce stress on their work:
1. The organization must conduct a needs assessment for an Employee Assistance
Programme.
2. Management must conduct an analysis of the organizational mood and climate by
assessing the reasons why the employees think PENCOM does not care about its
employees and what can they do to change it to explore the causes of the dissatisfaction
of employees within the working environment.
3. Supervisors must assess the level of their subordinate’s knowledge and skills and whether
they will be able to meet their deadlines. They must agree on a performance contract, so
that they can give employees with job maturity and control over their jobs.
4. PENCOM must invest in a stress management strategy that will help increase
performance.
5. Time management training should be given to employees on a continuous basis.
6. Managers should invite employees, who think that they are being given jobs that are in
contradiction with each other and clarify their roles.
7. Managers should facilitate an employee skill audit that will help to place employees that
feel underutilized.
8. Managers should revise their decision-making strategy and introduce stress management
techniques at PENCOM.
20

9. An Employee Assistance Programme has to be introduced for early identification and
intervention on problems so that performance levels do not increase.
The following suggestions are made.

1. Further researcher who are interested in this research topic to carry out an in-depth study
on how government will formulate policies that will deepen the adoption of stress
management strategies in organizations thereby listing different approach, methodologies
and procedure as well as related literature review.
2. Study should be carried out in other organizations where problems exist for the purpose
of comparison and conclusion.
3. Effort should be made to find out the possible means of minimizing the existing problems
so far identified by this research.
21

REFERENCES
Anderson, A.H. & Kyprianou, A. (1994). Effective Organizational Behaviour: a skills and
activity-based approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Blackwell, S. (1998). Organisational Theory. New York: Dorchester Publishing Co., Inc. lxxv
Blumenthal, I. (2003). Services SETA. Employee Assistance Conference Programme. 2 (2).
p521.
Bowin, R.B. & Harvey D. (2001). Human Resource Management an Experiential Approach. 2nd
Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
DCS gaumail (2003). Work Stress Management and Prevention. [Online]. Available from:
http://dcsgaumail02.dcs.gov.za/exchange. [Accessed: 12th January 2012]
Desseler, G. (2000). Human Resource Management. 8th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Frost, P.J. (2003). Toxic emotions at work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Garrison, M. & Bly, M.E. (1997). Human Relations; Productive Approaches for the Work Place.
Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Henry, O. & Evans, A.J. (2008). Occupational Stress in Organisations. Journal of Management
Research. 8. (3). p123-135
John, G. (1996). Organisational Behaviour, Understanding and Managing Life at Work. New
York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Levin-Epstein, M. (2002). Tackle Work Place Stress to Improve Performance, Reduce
Absenteeism. Staff Leader. 15 (2).
Luthans, F. (2002). Organisational Behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Mark, R. (1996). Research Made Simple. New Delhi: International Educational and Professional
Publisher.
Mathis, R.L. & Jackson, J.H. (2000). Human Resource Management. Ohio: South Western
Collage Publishing.
22

Mcgronogle, P. & Kessler, A. (1980). Effective Management. 2nd Ed. London: Lender Education
Ltd.
Omolara, B E. (2008) Influence of work related stress on organizational commitment at
Olabisionabanjo University Ago Iwoye Ogun State Nigeria. EABR & TLC Conferences
Proceedings. Rothenberg, Germany.
Robbins, S.P. (2004). Organisation Behaviour. 11th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Thompson, P. & McHugh, D. (1995). Work organisations; A Critical introduction. 2nd Ed.
Hampshire: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Wikipedia (2012). Occupational Stress. [Online] Available from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/occupational_stress. [Accessed: 14th June 2017]
23

APPENDIX 'A'
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STAFF

This research is for academic purposes only. It is to evaluate stress and its effect on employees
performance. Respondents are assured that any information given out will be accorded the
necessary confidentiality. Thank you.
SECTION A
PERSONAL DATA
Instruction: Please tick in the box or column ( ) as appropriate.
1. Name of Organization: ……………………………………………………………….

2. Gender (a) Male [ ] (b) Female [ ]
2. Age a) 20-29 yrs [ ] b) 30-39 yrs [ ] c) 40-49 yrs [ ] d) 50 yrs and above [ ]
3. Academic Qualification. a) Basic [ ] b) Secondary [ ] c) Tertiary [ ] d) Other specify………
4. Status/Grade: a) Clerks [ ] b) Junior Staff [ ] c) Middle Management Staff [ ] d) Senior Staff [ ]
e) Top Management Staff [ ]
SECTION B
HOW WILL QUALITY OF WORK FACILITATE EMPLOYEES’ PERFORMANCE AT
NATIONAL PENSION COMMISSION?
1. Do you think National Pension Commission cares for its employees?
Yes [ ] No [ ]
2. Do you like working National Pension Commission?
a) Always [ ] b) Sometimes [ ] c) Seldom [ ] d) Not at all [ ]
3. Are you happy with your working environment?
4. Do you have adequate information on your role at work?
5. Do you think your job has expectations that are in contradiction with each other?
6. Are your skills utilized to your satisfaction?
...................................................................................................................................
7. Are you allowed to participate in decision making?
24

...................................................................................................................................
8. Do you get into conflict with other people at work?
a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ]
9. What does success on your job depend on?
a) Hard work and focus [ ] b) Supportive supervisor [ ] c) Supportive subordinates [ ] d)
Fate/ Luck [ ] e) The Creator [ ] f) None of the above [ ] g) All of the above [ ]
SECTION C
HOW DOES ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYEES HELPS IN EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE
AT NATIONAL PENSION COMMISSION?
1. How often do you stay away from work?

................................................................................................................................................
2. Does having the right attitude of your job help you perform well at your job?
a. Yes [ ] b) No [ ]
3. Does your supervisor attend to your work problems?
a. Always [ ] b) Sometimes [ ] c) Seldom [ ] d) Not at all [ ]
4. Do you have concentration problems when performing your duties?
5. How has your performance feedback helped the quality of work?
a. Excellent [ ] b) Good [ ] c) Average [ ] d) Poor [ ]
6. Do you think you have control over your job?
7. Do you work under pressure?
a. Yes [ ] b) No [ ]
8. Do you think that you are being asked to do more that your ability permits?
...................................................................................................................................
9. When you have a problem at work, do you:
a. Consult your supervisor [ ] b) Seek professional help [ ] c) Stay away from work [
] d) Discuss it informally with a colleague [ ] e) All of the above [ ] f) None of the
above [ ]
SECTION D
HOW DOES TIME DELIVERY HELPS IN EMPLOYEES’ PERFORMANCE AT
NATIONAL PENSION COMMISSION?
1. What do you do when you feel tense at work?
a) Take a smoke break [ ] b) Take alcohol after work [ ] c) Work out with exercise [ ]
d) Confront the problem [ ] e) Take time out [ ] f) Take it out on someone [ ]
g) None of the above [ ]
25

2. Do you experience a feeling of helplessness at work?
3. Does timely delivery of your job affect your performance at work?
4. Are you highly competitive at work (workaholic, always have an intense sense of
urgency, highly driven to achieve goals)?
Yes [ ] b) No [ ]
5. Are you most of the time relaxed person at work?
Yes [ ] b) No [ ]
26

APPENDIX 'B'
Validity of Questionnaire
Validity
This was established through a Content Validity Index (CVI) computed as
Sum of agreement on every relevant judgement

CVI =  100 basing on the suggestions of
Total number of items in instrument
experts— who reviewed and judged the questionnaire items as either relevant or
irrelevant to the study— that were cross tabulated as shown below.
EXPERT ONE
Relevant Not relevant Total
EXPERT TWO Relevant 6 2 8
Not relevant 0 1 1
Total 6 3 9
6
CVI =  100 = 66%
9 . It was therefore concluded that the instrument was highly valid for the
study.
27

SSRN Id4561268

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id4561268

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF JOB STRESS ON EMPLOYEES’ PERFORMANCE:

A CASE STUDY OF PENCOM

Keyword: job stress, employee, performance

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

2.1.1. Psychological Effects

2.1.2. Behavioural Effects

2.1.3. Physiological Effects

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

2.3. The Impact of Job Stress on Employee Performance

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Viswesvaran et al (2010), job performance is work behaviors relevant to organizational goals,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Seldom High Energy

Low WORKLOAD – INDUCED STRESS High

Figure 2: Work related stress and performance.

2.3.1. Working Factors

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

2.3.2. Working relationship

2.3.3. Career development

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

2.3.5. Time Pressure

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

2.5 Theoretical Framework

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

2.6. Empirical Review

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Table 4.1: Determining whether PENCOM cares.

4.2. Determining whether employees like working for PENCOM

Table 4.2: Exploration of whether respondents like working for PENCOM.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

4.3. Determining satisfaction with the working environment

Table 4.3: Satisfaction with the work environment

4.4. Exploring work pressure

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Table 4.4: Exploring work pressure.

Table 4.5: Exploring role clarity.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Table 4. 6 Contradiction in job expectations

4.7. Determine whether employee skills are utilized to their satisfaction.

Table 4.7: Skill utilization to employees’ satisfaction

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

4.9. What employees do when they feel tense at work.

Table 4.9: What employees do when they feel tense at work

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Criterion variable Forecast variable Correlation Significance

The Second Hypothesis

The Third Hypothesis

H1: There is a significant relationship between attitude of employees and employee

Criterion variable Forecast variable Correlation Significance

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

The following suggestions are made.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268

Blumenthal, I. (2003). Services SETA. Employee Assistance Conference Programme. 2 (2).

Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

Research. 8. (3). p123-135

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4561268