stress level of coal mine workers of dhanbad

STRESS LEVEL OF COAL MINE WORKER
OF DHANBAD
Project report submitted
In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
By
Pallavi Kumari
14MBA015
Under the esteemed guidance of
Dr.Pradip Kumar Das
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Management
Sikkim University
6th mile, Tadong, Gangtok, Sikkim – 737102
April 2016

DECLARATION
I, PALLAVI KUMARI student of Sikkim University Id. No: 14MBA015 hereby declare that the
Project Report titled “STRESS LEVEL OF COAL MINE WORKERS “is submitted by me in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Business
Administration under the guidance of Dr. Pradip Kumar Das Assistant Professor
I confirm that this Report has not been submitted to any other University or Institution in full or
in part for the award of any Degree or Diploma.
Place: DHANBAD
Date: Signature

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that PALLAVI KUMARI, university Id.No.14MBA015 worked under my
supervision for the Project Report titled “ STRESS LEVEL OF COAL MINE WORKERS“ during
the academic year 2015-2016 in partial fulfillment of the M.B.A Program requirements.
Signature of the Student Signature of Faculty Supervisor
Signature of the HOD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
There is a matter of great pleasure as well as great privilege and pride for me to present this project
report. This project became possible only due to full cooperation and sincerity provided by the
company and institute as well. I am indebted and thankful to the management of CIMFR and
BCCL for allowing me to do the survey.
Research report is combined effort including this one also, so I would like to thank to all who have
helped me completion of this report purposeful.
Further I would like to thanks to my faculty my guide for their valuable support and advices which
helps me a lot to completing this project purposeful

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Content Page Number
1 1 Introduction 9
1.1 Conceptual frame work 10-21
1.2 Research problems 21
1.3 Company Overview 22-25
2 2 Review of literature 26-28
3 3.1 Objective of the study 29
3.2 Hypothesis of the study 29
3.3 Research design 29-30
3.4 Scope of the study 30-31
3.5 Limitation of the study 31
3.6 Demographic of the Respondent 32-36
4 Data Analysis and Interpretation 37-61
5 5.1 Findings 62-63
5.2 Conclusion 64
5.3 Recommendation 64-65
References 66
Appendices 68-70

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Figure Name Page Number
Figure 1.1 Stress level and Consequences 12
Figure 2.1 Age of the Respondents working in select coal mine
worker in Dhanbad
32
Figure 2.2 Gender wise distribution of the respondent 33
Figure 2.3 Qualification wise distribution of the respondent 34
Figure 2.4 Experience wise distribution of the respondent 34
Figure 2.5 No. of dependent in family 35
Figure 2.5 Marital status 36
Figure 4.1 Valued in the organization 54
Figure 4.2 Work stress 55
Figure 4.3 Effort of work stress on personal life 56
Figure 4.5 Impact of work stress on health 57
Figure 4.6 Work life balance 58
Figure 4.7 Intention to quit work 59
Figure 4.8 Job security 60
Figure 4.9 Shift problem 61

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Table Name Page
Number
Table 1.1 Coal mine being survey 31
Table 1.2 Age of the Respondents working in select coal mine worker
in Dhanbad
32
Table 2.1 Gender wise distribution of the respondent 33
Table 3.1 Qualification wise distribution of the respondent 33
Table 3.2 Experience wise distribution of the respondent 34
Table 3.3 No. of dependent in family 35
Table 3.4 Marital status 36
Table 4.1 KMO and Bartlett’s test 37
Table 4.2 Total variance explained 38-39
Table 4.3 Rotated component matrix 39-41
Table 4.4 Factor identified based on factor loading 41-42
Table 4.5 Age factor causing stress 43
Table 4.6 Gender and factor causing stress 44
Table 4.7 Marital status and factor causing stress 44
Table 4.8 Qualification and factors 45
Table 4.9 Experience and factors 45
Table 4.10 Number of dependent and factors causing stress 46
Table 4.11 Work stress and its outcomes 46
Table 4.12 Dimension of time management 47-48

Table 4.13 Dimension of compensation system 48
Table 4.14 Dimension of intrinsic factors 49-50
Table 4.15 Dimension of empowerment 50
Table 4.16 Dimension of development 51
Table 4.17 Dimension of role overloaded 52
Table 4.18 Dimension of quality time for himself and for his family 52-53
Table 4.19 Valued in the organization 54
Table 4.20 Work stress 55
Table 4.21 Effort of work stress on personal life 56
Table 4.22 Impact of work stress on health 57
Table 4.23 Work life balance 58
Table 4.24 Intention to quit work 59
Table 4.25 Job security 60
Table 4.26 Shift problem 61

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Stress is a universal element and an individual from every walks of life face stress. Employee stress
is a burning problem in organizations .Stress differs as per occupation. Some occupations are, of
course, inherently more stressful than others. There is increasing competition accompanied by
unprecedented technological change, rapid industrialization and commercialization which has led
the corporate world to face new challenges and made them realize that their own employees can
provide them a sustainable competitive advantage. This realization has come up with an improved
focus on management of human resources which constitute the backbone of an organization and
considered as the driving force behind the survival and success of any organization. However, in
this era of uncertainty, complexity and change, an important issue worth attention for such
organizations has been the workplace stress which is increasingly becoming a critical problem for
employees, employers and the society at large. According to a recent survey, it is the biggest threat
to the health of a nation’s workforce.
Employees experience increasing pressure form a wide variety of sources .These job demands
result in negative physical, psychological and behavioral responses especially when employees are
unable to match their job demands with their existing capabilities and resources. Prolonged stress
or the constant triggering of the stress response prevents the mood, emotions and body to return to
balance and normalize, leading to illness , which is debilitating for the individual , resulting in
absenteeism ,turnover, work ineffectiveness, sickness, injury and burnout and together all these
factors seriously impede organizational productivity.
Occupational stress is becoming increasingly globalized and affects all countries, all professions
and all categories of workers, as well as families and society in general (Ahmad and Ahmad, 1992).
Banking, an important economic sector is not an exception. Work stress has become a major
challenge for banks whether they are public or private. Due to work stress, employees in the
banking sector not only become unproductive and unmotivated but it is also a reason for other
mental and physical diseases. So the impact of stress on cost and productivity is extensive to the
organization, yet it is not given much importance.

1.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.1.1. CONCEPT OF STRESS
Stress has been defined in different ways over the years. Robbins(2009) define stress as a dynamic
condition in which an individual is confronted with an opportunity , demand, or resources related
to what the individual desires and for which the outcome is perceived to be both uncertain and
important. Demands are responsibilities, pressures, obligations, and even uncertainties that
individual face in the workplace. Resources are things within an individual‘s control that can be
used to resolve the demands. The concept of stress has variously been defined as both an
independent (Stimulus based model) and a dependent variable (response- based model) and a
process.
The term stress is derived from the Latin term ‘Stringere’, which means to clutch, compress or
bind. In the 15th century, the term was used to describe troubles or pain. A century later, the term
was used to describe burden, force or pressure, especially on a person’s body or soul. Stress
denoted ‘hardship’, adversity in the 17th century. During 18th and 19th centuries, it meant ‘force’,
pressure, strain or strong effort’. Selye (1976) holds that complete freedom from stress is death.
Wolff and Goodell considered stress as an inherent characteristic of life. They indicated that living
creatures are constantly in a state of more or less stress- a dynamic state within an organism
stemming in response to a demand for constant adaptation.
European Foundation describes stress as a process. Stressors are present both at work and home.
According to Kahn and Quinn (1970) “stress is the outcome of facet of the assigned work role that
caused harmful effect for individual.”
Stress is an ancient survival mechanism. It is the body’s normal response in the face of danger or
perceived threats that allow us to ‘fight or flight’ in these situations. Stress obviously involves
interaction of the person and the environment. Stress is an individual‘s response to a disturbing
factor in the environment and the consequences of such reaction. To quote a definition: stress is
an adaptive response to an external situation that results in physical, psychological and/ or
behavioral deviations for organizational participants. Stress is a condition of strain on one’s
emotions, thought process, and /or physical conditions that seem to threaten one’s ability to cope

with the environment. Stress is a threat to the quality of life, and to the physical and psychological
wellbeing. Stress is the condition of strain on one’s emotions, thought process and/ or physical
condition that seem to threaten one’s ability to cope with the environment.
According to the current World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition, occupation or work
related stress is “the response people may have when presented with work demands and pressures
that are not matched to their knowledge and abilities and which challenge their ability to cope.”
1.1.2 NATURE OF STRESS
Stress, at work, is one of the threats in providing a healthy platform of work to employees. The
stress induced due to roles performed by individuals as employees at workplace, has been one of
the most persuasive organizational stressors, the outcomes of which have been found to be costly
to the organization. Though stress is usually thought of in negative terms, it also has a positive
value. Some stress can be good and some can be bad.
Eustress is the term used to describe positive stress. It is an opportunity when it offers potential
gain. Some individuals often use stress positively to rise to the occasion and perform at or near
their maximum. Similarly, many professionals see the pressures of heavy work-loads and
deadlines as positive challenges that enhance the quality of their work and the satisfaction they get
from their job. Under certain conditions, it can be stimulating, helping people mobilize their
resources and to meet challenges. For every individual, there is an optimum level of stress under
which he or she will perform to full capacity.
Stress in negative when stress is associated with heart disease, alcoholism, drug- abuse, marital
breakdown, absenteeism, child abuse and a host of other social, physical, organizational and
emotional problems. Unpleasant stress is called distress. Explicitly, stress forms a perquisite to the
success of individuals in organization but if the stress experienced by them exceeds a specific
level, it may exert an adverse impact on their performance and psychological and physical health.
Thus, stress is a neutral word and not simply anxiety. Anxiety operates solely in the emotional and
psychological sphere, whereas stress operates there and also in the physiological sphere. Stress is
not simply nervous tension. Unconscious people have exhibited stress and some people stress is
not necessarily something damaging, bad, or to be avoided. The term ‘burnout’ is also closely
associated with stress. It can be explained with the following figure:

High
Performance
Low
Low Stress Optimum stress High stress
Fig 1.1 stress level and Consequences
The theoretical orientations to explaining stress have been categorized into three types: response
based, stimulus based, and transactional based.
1.1.2.1. STRESS AS A RESPONSE
The response-based orientation was initially developed and examined by Hans Selve and
summarized in The Stress of Life (1956). He was a pioneer in the development and testing of
theory pertinent to stress from a physiological and medical perspective. Selye viewed stress as a
response to noxious stimuli or environmental stressors and defined it as the “nonspecific response
of the body to noxious stimuli” (Selye, 1956, p. 12). Thus, he defined stress as a response, and it
became the dependent variable in stress research. His work focused on describing and explaining
a physiological response pattern known as the general adaptation syndrome (GAS) that was
focused on retaining or attaining homeostasis, which refers to the stability of physiological
systems that maintain life (e.g., body temperature, heart rate, glucose levels). The following are
the basic premises of his theory: (a) The stress response (GAS) is a defensive response that does
not depend upon the nature of the stressor; (b) the GAS, as a defense reaction, progressed in three
well-defined stages (alarm, resistance, and exhaustion); and (c) if the GAS is severe enough and/or
prolonged, disease states could result in death or the so- called diseases of adaptation.. Although
Selye did not specifically address the concept of coping in his work, his notions of defense and
adaptation are conceptually similar to that of coping.
The stages of ‘general adaption syndrome’ are described below:

(i) Alarm reaction: The alarm reaction phase of the GAS is triggered when there is a
noxious stimulus. This reaction is characterized by sym- pathetic nervous system
stimulation.
(ii) Resistance: In the second phase, or stage of resistance, physiologic forces are mobilized
to resist damage from the noxious stimulus. Often, the stage of resistance leads to
adaptation or homeostasis or the disappearance of symptoms and does not progress to
the third stage of exhaustion. The stage of resistance can also lead to diseases of
adaptation, such as hypertension, arthritis, and cancer.
(iii) Exhaustion: Exhaustion can occur when the stressor is prolonged or sufficiently severe
to use up all of the adaptive energy. If the stress continues or the defense mechanism
falters, the individual moves to this stage.
1.1.2.2. STRESS AS A STIMULUS
In the 1960s, psychologists became interested in applying the concept of stress to psychology- cal
experiences. Masuda and Holmes (1967) and Holmes and Rahe (1967), stimulated by their interest
in what happens when a person experiences changes in life circumstances, proposed a stimulus-
based theory of stress. This approach treated life changes or life events as the stressor to which a
person responds. Identification of potential sources of stress is the central theme of the stimulus –
based model of stress. Therefore, unlike the response-based model, stress is the independent
variable in this formulation. The central proposition of this model is that too many life changes in
a relatively short period of time increase one’s vulnerability to illness. The stimulus-based model
was built on assumptions that are inherently problematic in explaining human phenomena. The
primary theoretical proposition was based on the premise that (a) life changes are normative and
that each life change results in the same readjustment demands for all persons, (b) change is
stressful regardless of the desirability of the event to the person, and (c) there is a common
threshold of readjustment or adaptation demands beyond which illness will result. During their
early work, Holmes and Rahe viewed the person as a passive recipient of stress. Furthermore,
stress was conceptualized as an additive phenomenon that was measurable by researcher-selected
life events that had pre-assigned normative weights. Later in their work, however, the researcher’s
incorporated consideration of a person’s interpretation of the life event as a negative or positive
experience (Rahe, 1978). During the 1970s, hundreds of studies were conducted on the ability of

life event scores to predict illness. Illness was typically assessed as morbidity or disease states.
Collectively, these studies have consistently accounted for not more than 4% to 6% of the
incidence of illness with low correlations of .20 to .30
1.1.2.3. STRESS AS AN INTERACTION AND AS A TRANSACTION
The interactional approach to defining stress focuses on the statistical interaction between the
stimulus and the response. While Interactional definition of stress focuses on the structural
features of the person’s interaction with his or her environment , transactional definitions are more
concerned with the dynamics of the psychological mechanisms of cognitive appraisal and coping
that underpin a stressful encounter. There are two types of appraisal. From a transactional
perspective (Lazarus, 1966), the experience of stress is defined by the person’s realization that
something is at stake (Primary appraisal). In the primary appraisal process, the individual gives
meaning to an encounter. The meanings that best express this appraisal process are those involving
harm, the threat of harm or challenge. Once an encounter is appraised as being in some way a
threat to the person’s wellbeing, the secondary appraisal process begins. This process is concerned
with the identification and availability of coping resources to deal with the threat, harm or
challenge. These two appraisals are the key to the stress – coping process.
1.1.3. TYPES OF STRESS
A) PHYSICAL STRESS:
It is the stress that occurs due to the ergonomics in any organization. The physical conditions i.e.
the space given to an employee to sit, the equipment provided to him and the space requirement
for its handling, the comfort level of the furniture at his disposal, the placement of telephones, the
system of cross ventilation in the room/ work station, the placements of lights etc come in this
head and play a vital role in providing ease to the employee. If employees do not have comfort
while working, they would be stress and these strains would result in extremely terrible results.
Employees would either fall ill or would be so disturbed that they could go to the limit of quitting
their job. Physical stress results in diseases like ulcer, blood pressure or even heart attack.

B) EMOTIONAL/MENTAL STRESS:
Emotional/mental stress has become a very vast study as every individual has his own distinct
personality , attitude, likings, disliking, perceptions, opinions and mind-set and therefore all this
makes the study of emotional/mental stress a very diverse, dynamic, complicated and even
confusing at times. Every individual at the work place has to keep on playing with his own attitudes
and styles of dealing with his sub- ordinates, peers and boss. One attitude which might be the most
appropriate to deal with a peer might create problems when used with a sub-ordinate or boss or
even the same attitude used within a similar category ,say peers, sub-ordinates or bosses might
raise eye-brows of many. This situation gives rise to mental stress. Emotional stress raises its head
as a result of insults, jealousy which results from attention given to one peer by the boss and
neglecting the other. Emotional/ mental stress also gives rise to consequences which have
disastrous results for the organization. Emotional stressors result in apathy, boredom,
inattentiveness, loss of ability to concentrate, irritability and negativism.
C) BEHAVIORAL STRESS:
Behavioral stress is the stress that results due to the behavior of self or others. Any employee
entering the organization in an un-usual state of mind would definitely be unexpected to others and
when they would greet that employee in the same old manner, the reaction would not be the same
as it used to be. This situation might cause behavioral stress. Behavioral stressors bring change in
behaviors like a sudden change in smoking habits, sudden noticeable weight loss or gain or even
difficult breathing.
D) OCCUPATIONAL STRESS
Occupational stress relates to the experience of stress in one’s place of work, occupation or
employment. Occupational stress is a state of tension that is generated from self-imposed demands,
obligations and self-criticism. The terms work stress, job stress, or occupational stress is used
interchangeably. A model of Occupational stress has been given by Robert Krietner. As depicted in the
figure in previous page, the model contains several variables that moderate the stressor- stress-
outcome relationship.

1.1. 4. STRESSORS-SOURCE OF STRESS
Stressors originate at the individual, group, organizational and extrorganisational Levels
1.1.4.1. Individual- level stressor
They are related to a person’s personality and job responsibilities. They are discussed below:
a) Personality type: Type A personality is stress- prone and is associated with the following
behavioral patterns: Always moves, walks, and eats rapidly, does several things at a time,
feels guilty when relaxing, tries to solve more and more in less and less time, uses nervous
gestures such as clenched fist, banging the hand on the table, does not have time to enjoy
life.
b) Role Overload: Too much work causes stress to an employee. Today more and more
organizations have reduced their workforce and restructured work, leaving the remaining
employees with more tasks and fewer resources of time to complete them.
c) Role Conflict: It occurs when people faces competing demands. It can be two types: Inter
-role conflict occurs when an employee has two roles that are in conflict with each other.
Personal Conflict occurs when personal values clash with organizational goals.
d) Role Ambiguity: Role ambiguity occurs when individuals are uncertain about their
responsibilities, functions, performance expectations and levels of authority. This tends to
occur when people enter new situations, such as joining the organizations or taking foreign
assignment, because they are uncertain about tasks and social expectations.
e) Task characteristics: Task is more stressful when they involve decision – making,
monitoring equipment or exchanging information with others.
1.1.4.2. Group-level Stressors
They are caused by group dynamics and managerial behavior. Group has a lot of influence on the
employees’ behavior, performance and job satisfaction. Group can also be a potential source of
stress.
a) Managerial Behavior: Manager may show inconsistent behavior, fail to provide support,
inadequate direction, create a high pressure for employees who cause distress to
employees.

b) Group Cohesiveness: Group Cohesiveness is very important to the employees,
particularly at the lower levels of the organization. Lack of cohesiveness can be very stress
producing, especially for those persons who cannot thrive in isolation.
c) Conflicts: People who are working in the organizations are prone to interpersonal and
intergroup conflicts. Conflict has both functional and dysfunctional aspects. Whenever
conflict has dysfunctional consequences, it will lead to stress in all the concerned parties.
d) Organizational Climate: Much of the group or interpersonal relationships depend upon
the organizational climate. An overall organizational climate may have a relaxed style of
working or it may be intense and crisis oriented. All the employees of such organization
will be continuously tense, if the climate in general is unfriendly, hostile or totally task
oriented.
Organizational stressor is workplace violence like assaults, rape and threats of using a
weapon. When an individual faces problems with any one of co-workers, bosses,
colleagues, it induces job stress. Whereas good social interactions, support from bosses and
colleagues act as buffers from job stress.
1.1.4.3. Organizational stressors
There is no shortage of factors that can cause stress. A high pressure environment that places
chronic work demands on employees fuels the stress response. In contrast, participative
management can reduce organizational level stressors. Poor lighting, loud noise, improper
placement of furniture and a dirty and smelly environment cause stress.
a) Organizational structure defines the level of differentiation, the degree of rules and
regulations and where decisions are made. Excessive rules and lack of participation in
decisions that affect an employee are examples of structural variables that might be
potential stressors.
b) Organizational leadership represents the managerial style of the organization’s senior
executives. Some chief executives create unrealistic pressures to perform in the short
run, impose excessively tight controls and routinely fire employees who fail to measure
up to expectations.

c) Organizational life cycle: Organization passes through a life cycle. They are
established; they grow, become mature and eventually decline. An organization’s life
cycle creates different problems and pressures for the employees. The first and the last
stage are stressful. The establishment involves a lot of excitement and uncertainty,
while the decline typically requires cutback, layoffs and a different set of uncertainties.
When the organization is in maturity stage, stress tends to be the least because
uncertainties are low at this point of time.
Thus, Organizational policies, procedures, schedules, deadlines, repetitive work, unreasonable
workloads, inadequate pay and benefits and so on are the organizational factors that cause stress.
1.1.5. OUTCOMES/ EFFECT OF STRESS
Behavioral scientists are of the opinion that stress has behavioral, cognitive and physiological
consequences.
1.1.5.1Behavioral effect
Any behavior which indicates that you are not acting your usual self may be a sign of adverse
reaction to stress. Direct behaviors that may accompany high levels of stress include:
i. Under eating or overeating
ii. Sleepless
iii. Increased smoking and drinking
iv. Drug abuse
v. Nodding off during meetings or social gatherings
vi. Losing your sense of humor
vii. Moving in a tense and jerky way
viii. Reacting nervously or irritably to everyday sounds
ix. Absenteeism and Turnover
x. Reduction in Productivity
xi. Rapid speech
Stress is negatively related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment and performance.

1.1.6. CONSEQUENCES OF WORK STRESS ON ORGANISATION
Stress can affect the organizations as a whole. Workplace stress also affects the work performance
memory, concentration, and learning of the workforce. In addition it has been found that because
of work stress organizations also stand to lose from increased compensation claims, health
insurance and medical expenses and diverted administrative and management time. Stress adds to
the cost of doing business in number of ways.
Some of the most serious consequences of employee stress are:
i. Absenteeism: Stresses out employees are most likely to miss work because of the health
– related problems that are a result of prolonged stress or simply as a coping mechanism
to deal with mounting stress. Whatever the reason for absenteeism it results in lost
productivity, or additional expenditure because of replacement costs. Researchers found
that workers experiencing high stress were more likely to be absent themselves from work
for more than five times per year.
ii. Withdrawal: When under stress an employee tends to withdraw by way of either
absenting him or herself from the job as mentioned above or they may simply quit work.
Withdrawal behavior also manifest in the subtle forms such as missing deadlines , taking
longer lunch breaks , or simply doing the job for survival without actually caring or taking
interest in the job and the organization.
iii. Workers compensation claims: Stress –related illnesses place a considerable burden on
the organizations in the form of compensation claims. Official reports on compensations
show that the number of workers compensation claims for mental stress has increased
considerably in recent years. Further courts are beginning to recognize post-traumatic
stress disorder as a condition that may justify a damage claim against an employer. The
connection between stress, employee satisfaction, and claim filing cannot be ignores.
People who don’t experience job satisfaction is constantly under stress and they are more
likely to file compensation claims than those people who enjoy their jobs.
iv. Errors of judgment and action: When under stress, employee tends to become
preoccupied with the issues troubling them. Their attention is diverted, and thus misses
out on vital environmental cues and information required for making effective and safe
decision on their jobs. Further when people are under extreme stress the body releases

endorphins- the nature’s painkillers. These natural chemicals not only dull the sensation
of pain, but they also make the person intellectually, emotionally and interpersonally dull.
This can result in costly and sometimes life-threatening mistakes or accidents.
v. Accidents: Stress narrows down the attention, preoccupation and fatigue, which
invariably lead to workplace injuries, especially if the stressed out employee is working
with machinery. In addition to this, the increasing work demands and time pressures make
people less likely to take safety precautions, follow proper procedures or use proper
equipment. Under such conditions the stressed –out employees try to do more in less time
by taking shortcuts, leading to accidents. Harvard Business Review reports that stress-
related accidents claims are, on average, two times more costly than non –stress – related
cases.
vi. Conflict and Interpersonal Problems: Recent trends in organizations require employees
to work with a more diverse work force, and to be a productive member of a team. This
places increasing interpersonal demands on the individual, which in itself creates
tremendous stress on employees. Thus, in today’s workplace, we have people who are
already under stress from a variety of causes put into an interpersonal context, which by
nature is very stressful.
vii. Violence: Violence has been found to both a cause and a consequence of employee stress.
With employees who are already under stress brought on by interpersonal challenges and
conflicts, a potentially volatile situation is created. Such a working condition creates
tension among the employees and they feel threatened. The more powerless people feel,
the more likely they resort to violence. Various studies have shown that workers who feel
unsafe in their work environments suffer the same level of stress as the actual victims.
Increased perception of threat of violence or an actual violent episode reflects adversely
on the organizations image and market value.
viii. Customer service problems: When organization have stressed- out and depleted
employees serving its customers it almost always results in customer dissatisfaction. This
results in alienated customers and ultimately customer defection leading to huge losses in
profitability.
ix. Resistance to change: As a person’s stress level increases anything that is new and/ or
different triggers fear. This makes the individual sabotage the organizations well-

intentioned attempts at organizational change and improvement. Organizations thus lose
millions of dollars on these efforts due to program implementation delays and non-
implementation caused by this innate resistance to change and novelty triggered by stress.
x. No time to do it right: The biggest and most unrecognized loss caused by stress is in
terms of lost opportunity and unrealized potential, as people do not have the time to do
things the right way. Employees just strain themselves harder and harder to achieve the
increased output targets, but are unable devote any time to make the process more
effective and efficient. This costs the organization dearly in terms of decreased quality. In
addition, as employees become focused on survival and not on improvement, they end up
burned out, ultimately quitting the organization because of stress-induced health problems
or simply finding another job to get out of the stress situation.
xi. The loss of intellectual capital: When people are in high- stress situations over which
they have no control, their thought process becomes more rigid, simplistic and superficial.
Studies have shown that in high stress situations in which people have no control, their
ability to perform mental tasks and solve problems is diminished. This often results in
organizational conflict and morale problems. These negative consequences put together
create more stress ultimately resulting in a gradual erosion of an organization’s
intellectual and interpersonal capacity.
xii. Changed attitudes: Stressed employees experience no job satisfaction, morale or
organizational commitment. They tend to keep complaining about even minor and
unimportant things, and only do enough work to get by.
Job stress is also sometimes the underlying cause of drug abuse and alcoholism, reduced immune
functioning and in extreme case even leads to suicide. These factors again have a direct effect on
productivity and effectiveness of the employee and the thus the organization.
1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM
Stress is a real phenomenon and it is associated with job satisfaction level of employees in any
place. In this case the workers of coal mine in Dhanbad are taken as samples and there are many
factors taken into consideration leading them to stressful situations. Some important factors
associated with their stress are over work load, working condition, role conflict, and role
ambiguity, relationship between superiors and coworker relationship with family members, lack

of experience in understanding and executing procedures, lack of sense of belonging in the coal
mine
1.3 INDUSTRIAL OVERVIEW
Industries mining is only one of several important industries currently operating in the Hunter
Region. A major issue in the current mining debate centers on contention over what is the most
appropriate use of available natural resources (land and water) and the impact of mining activity
on other local industries such as grazing, farming, race horse breeding, wine growing, and tourism.
COAL MINING IN INDIA
In 2009, India (526 million tonnes) was the third biggest hard coal producer after China (2,971
Mt) and the USA (919Mt). 85 per cent of coal is produced by Coal India Limited (CIL), the world
largest coal mining company, currently employing around 380,000 permanent workers and
running around 500 mines in India.
Around 55 per cent of energy production in India stems from coal, compared to around 3 per cent
from nuclear energy. Around 75 per cent of total coal stock is consumed by the energy sector.
Global market prices for coking coal increased by 70 per cent during 2010 – the regime in India is
forced to import coal for energy production and at the same time put more pressure on production
costs ‘at home’.
Production costs in India are 35 per cent higher compared to Australia, Indonesia or South Africa,
which is not due to higher wages, but lower out-put productivity. The Coal India Ltd. subsidiary
SCCL claimed in 2010 that wage costs account for 44 per cent of total production costs. The
average mechanized mine in India had an out-put of 3.8 tons per man-shift in 2008, while manual

mines operate on levels of 0.4 tonnes. In comparison, the United Colliery in Australia reports to
achieve an output per man shift of 65 tonnes. In order to increase productivity there is a shift
towards large scale open pit mining. In 2005 around 80 per cent of coal production in India came
from open-cast mining, this compares to 20 per cent in 1971. The underground production declined
from 50.56 to 43.54 million tonnes during the period 2001 to 2008.
The imports of coal increased rapidly over the last three years, from 59 million tonnes in 2008-9
to 73 million tonnes in 2009-10 to 84 million tonnes in 2010-11.There is also a significant increase
in direct investment of steel manufacturing companies from India in coal mining companies in the
US, Africa and Australia, while CIL in turn outsources whole open-cast mines to international
companies and companies previously only engaged in transport and logistics.
Total coal production in India
1945 30 Mt
1972 72 Mt
1979 89 Mt
1992 200 Mt (by Coal India Limited alone)
2001 345 Mt (by Coal India Limited alone)
2011 526 Mt (out of which 430 Mt by Coal India Limited)
Estimated official work-force before nationalization
1951 350,000
1972 1,100,000
Permanent workers at CIL
1981 700,000
2003 650,000
2008 450,000
2011 380,000
THE DHANBAD-JHARIA COAL-MINING AREA
Dhanbad is a city in the state of Jharkhand, and is also known as the 'Coal Capital of India' it is the
second most populated city in Jharkhand. Dhanbad is among the top 100 fastest growing cities of
world. According to 2001 census, Dhanbad is among 35 cities of India. Among the Rail Divisions
of Indian Railway, Dhanbad Rail Division is in second position in terms of revenue generation.

Dhanbad is famous for coal mining. Tata Steel, BCCL, ECL and IISCO are some of the companies
having coal mines in the district. Coal-mining, Coal washing and coke making are the main coal
related industries in the city. IISCO (Indian Iron And Steel Company) is now owned by SAIL,
BCCL & ECL comes under CIL (Coal India Ltd), these two companies are the largest operators
of coal mines in Dhanbad, and have open cast mines as well as underground mines, whereas Tata
Steel has mostly underground mines. These companies have developed townships for their
employees.
Among the rail divisions of Indian Railway, Dhanbad Rail Division is the second largest in terms
of revenue generation after the Mumbai division.
Dhanbad coal fields are situated in the state of Jharkhand in the East of India, neighboring West
Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The Dhanbad-Jharia area forms part of a mineral rich corridor, most of
India’s reserves in coal, copper, iron ore and uranium are located in the Durgapur-Dhanbad-
Bokaro-Jamshedpur triangle. Industrial coal mining started in the second half of the 19th century,
subsequently both steel manufacturing and power generation came up in the region. Bokaro is
known as India’s steel city, location of India’s biggest steel plant, and currently major investment
hub for Arcelor Mittal and other multinationals. The steel industry attracted manufacturing
industries. After having set-up their steel plant in 1907, Tata opened their truck plant in
Jamshedpur in 1945. In 1952 Nehru opened the Sidri fertilizer plant, which he called ‘temple of
development’ and which became the symbol of ‘independent’ India’s industrial 5-years plan
regime and cornerstone of the Green Revolution. Up to the early 1980s around one fifth of India’s
total public infrastructure and industrial investment went to this ‘Ruhr Area’ of India. The mining
and industrial clusters are surrounded by agriculturally backward and jungle-dominated areas. The
‘local’ population in these areas belong to the poorest rural sections in India. They have become
important bases for the Maoist armed struggle.

The Dhanbad Jharia coal fields form part of this heavy industrial triangle. They are a rural
mining area, with about 110official coal mines and probably the same amount of unofficial
mines. They are India’s main center for coking coal, a particular sort of coal important for
steel production. Scattered in the region are the vast opencast mines, interspersed with
villages and miners colonies. Trucks loaded with coal and heavy machinery dominate the
scenery, interrupted by pushcarts and bicycles – loaded with
Coal. The Dhanbad Jharia region is said to be one of the most polluted areas of the world.
Mining in itself is a rather forceful intervention in the environment, but capitalist social
relations have resulted in forms of mining, which aggravate the attack on nature and, as
part of it, on the human bodies.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Stress is a general and global phenomenon encompassing man‘s psychological, physical, familial
and social dimensions. The study on stress in different occupations particularly in banking sector
is not new. Many studies have been carried out to find out the causes of stress and its effect in
organizational outcome.
2.1. FACTORS AFFECTING STRESS
Various organizational related variables have been found to be the reason behind the workplace
stress. Bhatti et al. (2010) reiterates that out of the intra organizational and extra organizational
causes of stress, 67 per cent of the overall stress experienced by the employees is due to factors
within the organization whereby major cause of the stress is the workload. Researches indicate
that nearly a third of the working population in developed countries report high to very high levels
of stress. Similarly, evidence for newly industrialized countries is also indicative of the prevalence
of stress. Time pressures, excessive demands, role conflicts, ergonomic deficiencies, job security
and relationship with customers are particularly common stressors amongst employees in the
financial services sector. Furthermore, new stressors such as computer breakdowns, computer
slowdowns and electronic performance monitoring, have developed as a result of increased human
interaction with computers .
According to Ganster & Loghan 2005, work environment, management support, work load etc.
are the key factors in determining how stressful the work can be and its effect on employee physical
and mental health.
According to (Anderson, 2002) work to family conflicts is also a predecessor which creates stress
in employees of an organization. Job stress has been also viewed as dysfunctional for organizations
and their members (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Eleven forces are used as an
antecedents of stress by researches which are Overload, Role vagueness, Role conflict,
Responsibility for people, Participation, Lack of feedback, Keeping up with quick technological
change, Being in an innovative role, Career growth, Organizational structure and environment, and
Recent episodic events.

2.2. CONSEQUENCES OF STRESS
The nature of relationship between role stress and outcomes important for organizations is diverse,
ranging from positive outcomes to negative of different intensities. Singh (1989) researched on the
impact of position of an employee in the hierarchy of an organization on stress and found that the
employees belonging to lower hierarchical position experience more stress. The forms of stress
reported include lack of group cohesiveness, role conflict, and experience of inequity, role
ambiguity, role overload, and lack of leadership support, constraints of change, job difficulty, job
requirement-capability mismatch, and inadequacy of role authority. Not only the normal work
routine, the organizational citizenship behavior shown by employees involving individual
initiative, like coming to work early, staying late, volunteering for special projects, etc. is also
associated with higher levels of employee role overload, job stress and work-family conflict
(Bolino and Turnkey, 2005).
The concepts of occupational stress and psychological health have been widely studied. Several
studies show clear evidence that employees who work under stressful conditions are suffering of
decreased mental health ( Mishra, Somany , 1993 ) and that traumatic work – related events have
psychological consequences ( Wolman , 1993). Warr (1994) also found that lack of decision
autonomy and high level of job demands were two important stressors that predicted anxiety and
depression. Lack of social support appeared to be part of an overall job stress measure and did
predict reduced mental/ physical health and job satisfaction (Kirkcaldy, Cooer, Brown, 1995).
Lack of participation in the decision making process, lack of effective consultation and
communication, unjustified restrictions on behavior, office politics and no sense of belonging are
identified as potential sources of stressors. Lack of participation in work activity is associated with
negative psychological mood and behavioral responses, including escapist drinking and heavy
smoking. Caplan ET. al. (1975).
Eric Verborg, Deputy Director, European Foundation (2013), declared that stress was the leading
illness among workers. The problem will not vanish but it can be minimized. It is possible to
prevent stress using an approach, which is global, multidisciplinary and involving synergy between
varied actors in the workplace and their environs. The challenge is how to develop and disseminate
measures to effectively present stress at the workplace.

Caplan (1985) reported the factors like supervisory climate, co-workers, and time pressures,
pressures for conformity which affect the mental and physical health of employees. Low control
over the work environment, decreased participation in decision making about conditions of work,
unpredictability of events, both too little and too much complexity in work, role ambiguity, and
excessive workload, responsibility for persons, role conflict, and lack of social support are found
to affect the wellbeing of employees at the work place. With more exposure to these factors over
a period of time, employees face more emotional and physiological trauma.
Abdel-Halim (1978) examined the relative importance of role ambiguity, role conflict and role
overload as source of stress and dissatisfaction among managerial level employees. The results
showed that role ambiguity has the strongest relationship with role responses. On the similar lines,
Quah and Campbell (1994) studied role conflict and role ambiguity as factors in work stress among
managers in Singapore and indicated that role conflict and role ambiguity are positively and
significantly related to work stress among managers and work stress is negatively and significantly
related to job satisfaction. Ambiguity, role conflict and role overload as source of stress and
dissatisfaction among managerial level employees. The results showed that role ambiguity has the
strongest relationship with role responses.
A 2½ year study involving almost 28,000 employees in 215 organizations showed that poor
teamwork and ineffective supervision were the two most important factors leading to employee
stress, with role conflict and lack of equality issues having the strongest influence on job burnout,
health problems, and performance problems. (Managing Employee Stress and Safety: A guide to
mini- mizing stress-related cost while maximizing employee Managing Employee Stress and
Safety (David, 2000).
Srilatha and Harigopal (1985) studied 156 junior and middle level executives both from public and
private sector organizations they also found that role conflict and role ambiguity are negatively
related with satisfaction with pay, supervision, working conditions, colleagues, opportunity for
promotions and with the job as a whole.

CHAPTER 3
3.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
1. 1. To identify the causes of work stress among coal mine workers.
2. To study the impact of demographic variables on stress experienced by workers
3. To study the relationship between job stress on one hand and organizational commitment,
work life balance and job satisfaction on the other hand.
4. To study different dimensions of work stress of coal mine worker
3.2. HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY
Hypothesis 1: There is no measurable set of factors that causes stress.
Hypothesis 2: Factors causing stress are independent of demographic factors.
Hypothesis 3: There is no significant relationship between work stress and its outcomes
3.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
The research design used quantitative and qualitative research. It is descriptive in nature as it
answer like who, where, what kind of questions and qualitative based as questionnaire is used to
measure some data. The design of the study contains statement of the problem, objective of the
study, scope of the study, research methodology, tools and techniques of data collection and
limitation of the study.
3.3.1 SAMPLE DESIGN
A sample design was constructed for the purpose of study including population, sampling unit and
sample size etc.
Sampling unit: coal mine worker
Sample Size: The sample unit consists of only 120 of the coal mine worker: The sample size is
120

3.3.2. DATA COLLECTION
For any study there must be data for analysis purpose. Without data there is no means of study. Data
collection plays an important role in any study. It can be collected from various sources. The data has been
collected from two sources which are given below:
Primary Data
• Personal Investigation
• Observation Method
• Information from Questionnaire Method
• Information from superiors of the organization
Secondary Data
• Published Sources such as Journals.
• Unpublished Sources such as Company Internal reports prepare by them given to their analyst &
trainees for investigation.
3.3.3. DATA ANALYSIS
The study uses various statistics tools to arrive at the results. The responses were categorized,
tabulated, processed and analyzed using different methods. The various tools applied in the present
study are mean, correlation, factor analysis, two-independent-samples t-test. SPSS version has
been used for the purpose of the analysis...
3.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The study enables to arrive at the factors responsible for stress among workers working in coal mine. This
study provides valid suggestions and measures to be taken to improve work stress of the workers and the
study is also useful in the area where the workers face work stress can be ascertained.

Table no.3.1 of Coal mine being survey
Number of coal mine frequency Percentage
Jharia (Bhowara North) 55 45.9%
Nirsa 15 12.5%
Digwadih 18 15%
Tetulmari (Sijua area) 12 7%
Dhansar (Kusunda area) 20 20%
Total 120 100%
Table no.1
3.5 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
The time period for carrying out the research was short as a result of which many facts have been left
unexplored. Lack of time and other resourcesasit wasnot possible to conduct survey at large level. Workers
responded positively. The study is limited to the workers of selected coal mine of Dhanbad and therefore
the findings of the study cannot be extended to other areas. During collection of the data many workers
were unwilling to fill the questionnaire due to lack of time. Respondents were having a feeling of wastage
of time for them. Convenient sampling has been used in the study and it has its own limitations. Personal
bias of the respondents might have crept in while answering a few questions. Results of the study may not
be generalized.

3.6 DEMOGRAPHICS
It is observed from the table that the respondents categorized based on their demographics such as age,
gender, marital status,educational qualification, designation, experience, and monthly income or wages of
the select PSBs.
Table 3.2: Age of the Respondents working in select coal mine worker in Dhanbad
Sl.No Demographics Frequency Percentage
01. Age
25-40 64 53.33%
40-55 20 16.66%
Above 55 36 30%
Total 100%
Fig 3.2
Table 3.2 reveals that about 30 % were basically between 25-40 years of age which include mainly
newly workers. 17% respondents were 40-55 years of age and their population is less followed by
30% of 55 years.
AG E
2 5 -4 0
4 0 -5 5
AB O V E 5 5
53.33%
16.66%
30%
AGE

Table 3.3
02 Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 71 59.16%
Female 49 40.83%
Total 100%
Table 3.3shows that 59 % are male respondents and 41 % are female respondents.
Table 3.4
03. Qualification Frequency Percentage
Not pass 10th 57 47.51%
high school 39 32.5%
More than graduate 24 20%
Total 100%
59.16%
40.83%
MAL E
F EMAL E
GENDER

Table 3.4 shows that about 20% respondents have completed Master and above followed by
322.5% of +2 or intermediate and 47.51% have not done 10 class
Table 3.5
04. Experience FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Less than 5 year 32 26.66%
5-10 year 54 45%
More than 10 year 34 28.33%
47.51%
32.50%
20%
N O T P AS S 1 0 T H H I G H S C HO OL MO R E TH AN G R AD UATE
QUALIFICATION
26.66%
45%
28.33%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%
Less than 5 year
5-10 year
More than 10 year
EXPERIENCE

Table 3.5 reveals that about 27% respondents have less than 5 years of work experience followed
by 45 % of 5-10 years of work experience and 28% of more than 10 year.
Table 3.6 No of dependent in the family
05. Number of dependent Frequency Percentage
0 10 8.3%
1 06 5%
2 35 29.16%
3 30 25%
4 21 17.5%
5 6 5%
6 8 6.6%
7 2 1.6%
8 2 1.6%
Total 120 100%
Table 3.6 shows that 8.3 % respondents have no dependents in the family, 12.8% have 1 dependent,
26.1 % have two dependents in the family and about 59.5 % have more than two dependents i.e.
.three, four and even maximum of seven.
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
NUMBER OF DEPENDENTINTHE FAMILY

Table 3.7
06 Marital status Frequency Percentage
Single 52 43.3%
Married 68 57%
Total 100%
Table 3.7 indicates that more respondents are married i.e. 57 %.
43.30%
57%
S I N G L E
MAR R I ED
MARITAL STATUS

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
The present chapter deals with analysis of causes of stress and their impacts on employee himself/
herself and on organization, relationship between factors causing work stress and demographic
variables. The hypotheses are tested using different statistical tools.
4.1. Testing of Hypotheses
There are no measurable set of factors that cause stress.
Hypothesis is tested by using factor analysis. Factor analysis is a method of reducing data
complexity by containing the number of variables. With regard to the factors that cause stress, a
total of 41 variables are subject to factor analysis.
Table 4.1
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
.762
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2408.647
Df 820
Sig. .000
The measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin; KMO measure) was 0.762, which
demonstrates that factor analysis is appropriate for this data (Kaiser, 1974, Kaiser 1970). This
approach identifies the relationship between various interrelated variables and list them in few
appropriate factors .Bartlett’s Test Sphericity was significant for the test (χ2 =2408.647,df = 820,
p < 0.000), which shows that correlations exist among the items. Moreover, factors having loadings
greater than or equal to 0.30 (ignoring the signs) have been retained and the resulting solution
yielded twelve interpretable factors. The scale is analyzed using principle component analysis with
varimax rotation with the help of SPSS package version 14.Varimax rotated factor analytic results
for all the respondents are presented in the Table.

Table: 4.2
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
1 9.045 22.061 22.061 3.447 8.408 8.408
2 2.794 6.814 28.875 3.341 8.149 16.557
3 2.130 5.195 34.070 3.301 8.051 24.608
4 2.026 4.943 39.013 2.686 6.551 31.159
5 1.833 4.472 43.485 2.246 5.477 36.637
6 1.813 4.423 47.907 2.222 5.420 42.056
7 1.606 3.918 51.825 1.927 4.701 46.757
8 1.420 3.463 55.288 1.881 4.588 51.345
9 1.283 3.130 58.418 1.718 4.190 55.535
10 1.253 3.057 61.475 1.679 4.095 59.630
11 1.135 2.768 64.243 1.582 3.859 63.489
12 1.017 2.481 66.725 1.326 3.235 66.725
13 .990 2.414 69.139
14 .878 2.142 71.281
15 .854 2.084 73.365
16 .825 2.011 75.376
17 .749 1.826 77.202
18 .730 1.781 78.982
19 .673 1.641 80.623
20 .663 1.618 82.241
21 .655 1.598 83.839
22 .584 1.423 85.263
23 .543 1.325 86.587
24 .503 1.226 87.813
25 .487 1.187 89.001
26 .458 1.117 90.118
27 .429 1.047 91.165
28 .408 .995 92.161
29 .378 .922 93.083
30 .347 .846 93.928
31 .344 .840 94.768
32 .314 .767 95.535
33 .278 .678 96.214
34 .275 .671 96.884
35 .255 .621 97.505

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Principal Factor Method (PFM) was applied to this study. Because of its effectiveness in factor
extraction to maximize the variance explained for each factor, determined in order of increasing
factor number Twelve factors are extracted whose Eigen value is greater than one and the twelve
factors explain 66.725 variance.
Table 4.3
Rotated Component Matrix
Factors
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time
Management
-.010 .138 -.043 .221 -.106 .106 -.037 .715 -.041 -.176 -.128 -.029
More Working
hours
-.037 .036 -.112 -.062 .243 -.063 -.010 .691 -.215 .179 .031 -.154
Tedious work
culture
.086 -.186 .141 -.166 -.214 -.281 .002 .621 .168 .076 .227 .157
Satisfactory
salary
-.068 .156 .043 .769 .068 -.085 .172 .072 .190 -.060 -.091 -.079
Satisfactory
Compensation
Package
.197 .081 -.046 .848 .053 .119 -.063 -.087 -.098 .048 -.029 .085
Good Bonus
and Incentives
.134 .114 .239 .728 .079 .065 .032 .089 -.040 .085 .137 .165
Job recognition .235 .274 .270 .197 .115 .005 .208 .060 -.412 -.019 .351 -.234
Challenging
job
.118 .499 .222 .151 .437 -.079 .025 .249 .152 -.132 -.056 .107
Good working
condition
.414 .435 .186 .239 .145 .250 -.081 -.073 .109 -.044 .047 .008
Motivating
reward
.501 .074 .507 .346 .177 .097 -.205 .022 -.054 .138 .150 .085
Good HR
Practices
.587 .244 .301 .209 .088 .145 -.159 -.079 .120 .082 .262 .104
36 .218 .532 98.038
37 .197 .480 98.518
38 .188 .458 98.976
39 .174 .424 99.400
40 .141 .344 99.743
41 .105 .257 100.000

Encouraging
promotion
opportunity
.240 .386 .259 .089 .482 -.048 -.030 -.249 -.049 .176 .026 .001
Good Career
development
Opportunity
.163 .443 .152 .135 .556 .064 .030 -.104 .175 .187 .086 -.061
Good quality
of work life
.364 .437 .088 .067 .282 .327 -.325 -.017 .014 .032 -.004 -.284
Convenient
work place
.151 .199 -.040 .076 .053 -.110 -.002 -.063 .677 .058 .050 -.046
Flexibile work
schedules
.665 -.019 -.009 .040 .175 -.047 .183 -.046 .174 -.107 -.057 -.112
Satisfactory
paid vacation
leave
.133 .000 .011 .116 .751 .139 .191 .071 -.037 -.082 .118 .231
Opportunities
for learning
new skill
.212 .194 .585 -.015 .495 -.092 .064 -.048 .089 -.092 -.061 .031
Participation in
decision
making
.173 .061 .163 .244 .042 .194 .530 .018 .044 -.285 -.095 .124
Good Superior
encouragement
-.039 .099 .762 .052 .107 .096 .109 .058 -.079 -.009 .197 .132
freedom in job .147 -.021 -.002 -.030 .157 .347 .721 -.098 .007 .023 -.024 -.065
Training
opportunity
.537 -.051 .336 .116 .297 -.121 .219 .134 .053 -.029 -.090 .014
Fair
Performance
appraisal
.307 .172 .422 .331 .162 .076 .248 -.119 .037 .055 .352 .118
High team
work
.658 .112 .245 .035 -.042 .023 .223 .031 -.052 .107 .118 .074
Continuous
feedback
.275 .306 .462 .193 -.002 -.012 .482 -.027 -.112 .068 .022 -.123
Relations with
Colleagues
.302 .349 .035 -.063 .135 .318 .340 .203 .304 .151 -.148 -.041
Clear
responsibilities
and target
.385 .237 .554 .106 .055 .055 -.029 .103 .262 -.105 -.192 -.032
Interesting Job .369 .497 .324 .067 .024 -.013 .048 .040 .197 -.296 -.018 .229
Reward for
performance
.039 .160 .119 -.013 .054 .016 -.103 .020 .062 -.005 .841 -.022
Job
Accomplishme
nt
-.031 .766 .221 .153 -.043 .032 .070 -.033 .099 .017 .151 -.029
Job satisfaction .206 .567 .240 .296 .159 -.059 -.021 .030 -.078 -.048 .227 .078

Willingness to
work
-.045 .521 -.094 -.101 .268 .029 .389 .270 .018 -.073 -.014 .221
Task overload .125 -.153 -.196 -.017 .029 -.664 -.078 .114 -.282 .078 .006 .086
Role overload -.018 .055 -.011 -.037 .058 -.710 -.155 .067 .301 .011 -.126 -.074
Roles
Ambiguity
.129 -.035 -.139 .079 .161 .693 .186 .122 -.022 -.121 -.076 .284
Personal
Growth
.051 .097 .131 .152 .159 .140 -.012 -.067 -.014 .084 -.019 .774
Recreation in
Job
-.052 .101 .151 .080 -.059 -.301 -.150 .138 -.508 .388 -.313 -.027
quality time for
Family
.121 .083 -.111 -.145 .107 .067 -.028 -.073 -.189 -.775 .156 -.039
Job Priority .168 .003 -.200 -.078 .141 -.065 -.100 -.087 -.189 .661 .210 .064
Good
counseling
services
.237 .192 .608 .025 -.078 -.052 -.027 -.272 -.207 -.003 .072 -.046
Valued in
organization
.541 .419 -.162 .021 .112 .037 .047 -.050 -.224 -.090 .074 .340
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
In case of few components, factor loadings are less. In case of five components, either the factor
loadings are small or there are only one or two factors with minimum factor loadings of 0.3. Hence
seven factors out of twelve factors are considered.
Table 4.4
Factors identified based on Factor Loadings
Factors Variables
1. Time Management 1. I start and. finish work on-time.
2. I work more than agreed number of
hours.
3. Work culture is tedious in my
organization
2. Compensation System 1. Wages is satisfactory.
2. Overall compensation package is
satisfying.

3. Bonus and incentives given by
management are good
4. Rewards offered by the management
are motivating.
3. Intrinsic Factors 1. The job is challenging and responsible.
2. Encouraging promotion opportunity.
3. Overall quality of work life is good.
4. I get support and encouragement from
my colleagues.
5. My job is interesting and meaningful.
6. I feel a sense of accomplishment in my
work
7. I am very satisfied with my work
4. Empowerment 1. Suggestions given are not recognized
by the superiors.
2. There is no freedom in doing the job.
4. I am willing to put extra effort in order
to help the organization become
successful.
5. Development 1. Training is given frequently in the
organization.
2. Appraisals are conducted in a fair and
objective manner.
3. Superior’s encouragement for my
development is good.
4. Opportunities to learn new skills are
encouraged.
5. Expectations and targets are clearly
communicated.
6. Role Overload 1. I experience role overload.
2. I feel that I am unable to do proper
justice to all the roles equally.
3. 3. I often suffer from shifting of time
7. Time for himself and his family 1. I take quick, short or no breaks during
the day.
2. My family members and friends
complain that I don’t have enough
quality time for them.
3. In order to get recognized in
organization, employees must
constantly put work ahead of their
family or personal life.

Hence, null hypothesis is rejected it is because there are measurable set of factors that cause stress
in bank employees.
4.1.2. Hypothesis 2: Factors of work stress are independent of demographic variables.
Hypothesis is tested using chi – square
Table 4.5
Age and Factors causing Stress
Factors Chi square Level of significance
Time Management 27.951 1 % significant
Compensation System 46.207 Insignificance
Intrinsic Factors 80.298 Insignificance
Empowerment 59.818 10 %
Development 59.818 10%
Role Overload 84.770 10%
Quality time for family and his
family
22.701 Insignificance
Null hypothesis is rejected in case of time management, Empowerment, Development, Role
overload i.e .These factors causing stress differ depending on the age group because chi- square
values are significant.
Null hypothesis is accepted in case of compensation system and quality time for family and himself
because chi- square values are insignificant.

Table 4. 6
Gender and Factors causing stress
Time Management 4.931 Insignificance
Empowerment 13.678 Insignificance
Development 13.678 Insignificance
Role Overload 23.813 Insignificance
family
What we can infer from the table 4.9 that there is no significant difference between gender and
factors causing stress because the chi square is insignificant. So we can accept the null hypothesis
in this case. Now a days, gender may not be the factor to determine the stress level.
Table 4.7
Marital Status and Factors causing Stress
Time Management 8.404 10% level of significance
Empowerment 9.789 Insignificance
Development 9.789 Insignificance
family

From the table, 44.10 it shows that only gender is related to the time management because there is
significant difference between gender and factors causing stress. In all other cases the value is
insignificant.
Table 4.8
Qualification and Factors
Table 4.11 shows that qualification is significantly related to intrinsic factors, Empowerment and
development. Thus null hypothesis is rejected in this case but there is no significant difference
between qualification and time management, compensation system, role overload and quality time
for family and himself.
Table 4.9
Work Experience and Factors causing Stress
Empowerment 76.351 10 % level of significance
Development 76.351 10 % level of significance
Quality time for himself and 37.266 Insignificance
Intrinsic Factors 103.636 5 % level of significance
Quality time for himself and
his family

his family
Table 4.12 shows that work experience is significantly related to empowerment and development
but in other factors there is no significant difference between work experience and factors causing
stress.
Table 4.10
No. Of Dependents and Factors causing Stress
family
Table 4.14 shows that no. of dependents are only significantly related to empowerment and
development. But null hypothesis is accepted to other factors and no. of dependents.
4.1.3. Hypothesis 3: There is no relationship between work stress and its outcomes.
Hypothesis is tested using correlation
Table 4.11
Work Stress and its Outcomes
Factors Correlations Level of significance
1. Job satisfaction - 0.617 Significant at 1%
2. Work-life balance - 0.125 Significant at 10%
3. Attrition Rate 0.100 Insignificant

4. Job commitment - .128 Significant at 10%
a. There is negative correlation between job satisfaction and work stress. i.e 0.617 at 1%
level of significance. If job satisfaction increases level of stress decreases.
b. Work life balance and level of stress have weak negative correlation at 10 % level of
significant. .If work stress increases work life balance is difficult to maintain.
c. There is positive correlation between attrition rate and work stress. If stress increases
attrition rate also increases but the correlation value is insignificant.
d. There is weak negative correlation between job commitment and work stress at 10 % level
of significance. If work stress increases, job commitment may come down.
Hence , null hypothesis is rejected in case of the relationship between work stress on one hand and
outcomes such as job satisfaction, work-life balance and job commitment on the other hand as the
correlation values are significant. Therefore it can be concluded that there is significant negative
relationship between work stress and outcomes such as job satisfaction, work-life balance and job
commitment thereby implying that if work stress increases, job satisfaction, work-life balance and
job commitment decreases.
In case of the relationship between work stress and attrition, the correlation value is insignificant
and hence null hypothesis is accepted.
4.2. Various Dimensions of Work Stress
Table 4.12
Dimensions of Time Management
Factors Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
Missing
Time
Management
Frequency
Percentage
9
5
5
2.8
14
7.8
79
43.9
70
38.9
3
1.7

More working
hours
Frequency
Percentage
5
2.8
24
13.3
37
20.6
78
43.3
34
18.9
2
1.1
Tedious work
culture
Frequency
Percentage
7
3.9
39
21.7
62
34.4
52
28.9
12
6.7
8
4.4
It is inferred from the table 4.19 that 83 % agree that they can manage the time and 7.8 % believe
that they cannot manage the time. 7.8 % respondents are neutral about their views on time
management.
Similarly 43.3 % agree that they agree that they have working hours and 18.9 % strongly agree
that they have more working hours. 16.1 % believe that they don’t have more working hours.20.6
% are neutral about their views on more working hours.
6.7 % strongly agree that they have tedious work culture and 28.9 % percent believe that they
agree about tedious work culture. 25 % believe that they don’t have tedious work culture.
Table 4.13
Dimensions of Compensation System
Factors Strongly
disagree
Agree
Missing
System
Satisfactory salary Frequency
Percentage
10
5.5
36
19.9
50
27.6
75
41.4
7
3.9
3
1.7
Satisfactory
compensation
package
Frequency
Percentage
8
4.4
27
14.9
59
32.6
76
42
5
2.8
6
3.3
Good Bonus &
Incentives
Frequency
Percentage
21
11.6
34
18.8
55
30.4
68
37.6
2
1.1
1
0.6
Motivating reward Frequency
Percentage
9
5
43
23.8
67
37
54
29.7
6
3.3
2
1.1

The table 4.20 shows us that 45.3 % agree that they are satisfied with salary and 25.4 believe that
they don’t have satisfactory salary.
In the same way 2.8 % strongly agree that they have satisfactory compensation system and 19 %
believe that they don’t have satisfactory salary.
About 38.7 % strongly agree that they have good bonus and incentives and about 30.4 % believe
that they disagree about having good bonus and incentives in their banks.
About 29 % believe that they don’t have motivating reward in their organization and about 33 %
believe that they agree about having motivating reward. 37 % are neutral about having motivating
reward.
Table 4.14
Dimension of Intrinsic Factors
Factors Strongly
disagree
Agree
Missing
Challenging Job Frequency
Percentage
3
1.7
6
3.3
32
17.7
97
53.6
42
23.2
1
0.6
Encouraging
Promotion
Opportunity
Frequency
Percentage
8
4.4
27
14.9
53
29.3
76
42
16
8.8
1
0.6
Good career
Development
Frequency
Percentage
2
1.1
26
14.4
49
27.1
87
48.1
16
8.8
1
0.6
Good quality of
work life
Frequency
Percentage
3
1.7
18
9.9
60
33.1
84
46.4
12
6.6
4
2.2
Relations with
Colleagues
Frequency
Percentage
2
1.1
7
3.9
35
19.3
114
63
21
11.6
2
1.1
Interesting job Frequency
Percentage
4
2.2
18
10
43
23.9
89
49.4
25
13.9
1
1.7

Job
Accomplishment
Frequency
Percentage
3
1.7
11
6.1
45
24.9
104
57.5
15
8.3
3
1.7
Job Satisfaction Frequency
Percentage
4
2.2
17
9.4
58
32
84
46.4
15
8.3
3
1.7
From the table 4.21, about 77 % believe that they agree about having challenging job and 5 %
believe that they disagree about having challenging job. Similarly about 50 % believe that they
have encouraging promotion opportunity. 29.3 % respondents are neutral about their view on
having promotion opportunity. About 57 % agree about having good career development
opportunity but 16 % disagree about having career development opportunity. About 53 % and 74
% believe that they have good quality of work life and good relationships with colleagues.
7.8 % respondents believe that they don’t have interesting job and 63.3 % believe that they don’t
have interesting job. About 65.8 % respondents agree about accomplishing job and 7.8 % don’t
agree about accomplishing job in time.
46.4 % agree about having job satisfaction but only 8.3 % strongly agree about having job
satisfaction. 11.6 % don’t agree about having job satisfaction.
Table 4.15
Dimensions of Empowerment
Factors Strongly
disagree
Agree
Missing
System
Participation in
decision making
Frequency
Percentage
4
2.2
50
27.6
73
40.3
43
23.8
10
5.5
1
0.6
Freedom in Job Frequency
Percentage
7
3.9
44
24.3
51
28.2
60
33.1
17
9.4
2
1.1
Continuous
feedback
Frequency
Percentage
3
1.7
24
13.3
49
27.1
97
53.6
6
3.3
2
1.1
Willingness to
work
Frequency
Percentage
3
1.7
14
7.7
24
13.3
96
53
43
23.8
1
0.6

From the table 4.22, 29 % respondents agree about their suggestions are taken by superiors but 30
% don’t agree that their suggestions are taken by superiors. 40. 3 % are neutral whether their
suggestions are taken by superiors or not.
About 43 % agree about having freedom in job and 28 % don’t agree about having freedom in
job.55 % agree that they get continuous feedback from the superiors and 15 % disagree about
getting continuous feedback.27.1 % are confused whether they get continuous feedback or not.
About 77 % respondents agree that they are willing to put extra effort but 9 % don’t agree that
they are not willing to put extra effort to get their jobs done.
Table 4.16
Dimensions of Development
Factors Strongly
disagree
Agree
Missing
Training
Opportunity
Frequency
Percentage
12
6.6
44
24.3
62
34.3
54
29.8
8
4.4
1
0.6
Fair
Performance
Appraisal
Frequency
Percentage
18
9.9
32
17.7
47
26
77
42.5
4
2.2
3
1.7
Good Superior
encouragement
Frequency
Percentage
5
2.8
17
9.4
56
30.9
88
48.6
12
6.6
3
1.7
Good
Counseling
services
Frequency
Percentage
10
5.5
23
12.7
50
27.6
84
46.4
12
6.6
2
1.1
Opportunities
for learning
new skills
Frequency
Percentage
5
2.8
27
14.9
61
33.7
71
39.2
14
7.7
3
1.7
Clear
responsibilities
and target
Frequency
Percentage
2
1.1
26
14.4
52
28.7
83
45.9
16
8.8
2
1.1
From the table 4.23, 34 % agree that they get good training opportunity and 31 % disagree about
getting training opportunities.
44 % agree that they get fair performance appraisal but 27 % disagree about having fair
performance appraisal. 26 % are neutral about getting fair performance appraisal.

55 % agree that they get good superior encouragement but 12 % disagree about having good
superior encouragement. 30.9 % are neutral about good superior encouragement.
53 % agree that they get good counseling services but 18 % disagree about getting good counseling
services.
39.2 % agree that they get opportunities for learning new skills but 2.8 % strongly disagree that
they don’t get opportunities for learning new skills.
55 % agree that their responsibilities and target are properly communicated but 16 % disagree on
getting clear communication of clear responsibilities and target.
Table 4.17
Dimensions of Role Overload
Factors Strongly
disagree
Agree
Missing
Task overload Frequency
Percentage
38
21
73
40.3
32
17.7
33
18.2
2
1.1
3
1.7
Role Overl0ad Frequency
Percentage
19
10.5
46
25.4
53
29.3
52
28.7
7
3.9
4
2.2
Role Ambiguity Frequency
Percentage
5
2.8
30
16.6
40
22.1
80
44.2
24
13.3
2
1.1
From the table 4.24 it is cleared that about 19 % agree that they have task overload. About 51 %
disagree about having task overload.
28.7 % agree that they have role overload and 3.9 strongly agree that they have role overload. 10.5
% strongly disagree about their role overload and 29.3 % with neutral responses.
About 58 % agree on their role ambiguity but 19 % disagree on having role ambiguity.22.1 % is
with neutral responses
Table 4.18
Dimensions for Quality time for himself and his family
Factors Strongly
disagree
Agree
Missing

Recreation in Job Frequency
Percentage
9
5
50
27.8
34
19.1
69
38.8
16
9
2
1.1
Quality time for family Frequency
Percentage
20
11.1
66
36.7
40
22.2
41
22.8
12
6.7
1
0.6
Job Priority Frequency
Percentage
15
8.3
48
26.7
39
21.7
66
36.7
12
6.7
0
0
From the above table 4.25, it is clear that 48 % agree that they get free time during work but 5
% strongly disagree on that, 27.8% disagree, 19.1 % are neutral on this point.
30 % believe that they have quality time for family but 48 % believe that they don’t have quality
time for family and 22.2 % are neutral on this view.
43 % agree that they give more priority to job, 8.3 % strongly agree, 26.7 % agree, 21.7 % on
neutral responses.

Table 4.19
Valued in Organization
Opinions Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 3 2.6
Disagree 13 10.9
Neutral 52 43.3
Agree 36 30
Strongly Agree 14 11.7
Total 118 98.3
Missing
2 1.7
Total 120 100.0
Fig: 4.1
Table 4.31 reveals that 11.7 % strongly agree that they are valued in an workplace and 2.6 %
strongly disagree, 10.9 % disagree, 43.3 % on neutral responses.
2.60%
10.90%
43.30%
30%
11.70%
S TR O N G LY
D I S AG REE
D I S AG REE N EU TR AL AG R EE S T R O N G LY
AG R EE
VALUE I N OR GANI S ATI ON

Work stress
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Total
10 8.3
21 17.6
48 40
15 12.6
16 13.3
120 100.0
From the table it is inferred that 12 % agree that they are stressed but 17.6% disagree that they
are stressed.8.3 % strongly disagree that they are stressed.8.9 % strongly agree that they are
stressed.40 % have neutral responses.
8.30%
17.60%
40.00%
13%
13.30%
S TR O N G LY
D I S AG REE
AG R EE
W ORK STRESS

Table 4.33
Effect of Work Stress on Personal Life
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
11 9.2
42 35.2
35 29.4
21 17.7
10 8.4
119 99.9
From the table 4.2, it can be seen that 17.7% agree that there is impact of stress on personal life.
8.4 % strongly agree that there is high impact of stress on personal life. 9.2 % strongly disagree on
these and 35.2 % disagree on the same. Again 31.1 % are neutral about this point.
9.20%
35.20%
29.40%
18%
8.40%
S TR O N G LY D I SAGR EE
D I S AG REE
N EU TR AL
AG R EE
S TR O N G LY AG R EE
W ORK STRESS ON P ERSONAL LIFE

Table 4.34
Impact of Work Stress on Health
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
Missing
14 11.7
16 13.3
26 21.7
43 35.9
19 15.9
118 98.3
2 1.1
Total 120 100.0
It is inferred from the table 4.34 that 13.3 % disagree as well as agree of their impact of stress on
health. 21.7% are neutral of their view.11.7 % disagree that there is impact of stress on health.
11.70%
13.30%
21.70%
36%
15.90%
S TR O N G LY
D I S AG REE
D I S AG REE N EU TR AL AG R EE S TR O N G LY
AG R EE
IMPACT OF S TRES S ON HEALTH

Table 4.36
Work- Life Balance
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Total
Missing
26 21.7
18 15
45 37.5
24 20
113 94.1
7 5.9
Total 120 100.0
Table 4.18 reveals that 37.5 % agreed that they have work-life balance and 21.7 % disagreed.
21.70%
15.00%
37.50%
20%
D I S AG REE N EU TR AL AG R EE S TR O N G LY AG R EE
W ORK LIFE BALANCE

Table : 4.37
Intention to Quit the Job
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
Missing
25 20.9
42 35
35 29.1
13 10.9
5 4.1
Total 120 100.0
Fig: 4.7
It is inferred from the figure that 20.9 % strongly disagree on their intention to quit the job, 35%
disagree, 29.1 % have neutral responses, 10.9 % agree and 4.1 % strongly agree about their
intention to quit the job
20.90%
35.00%
29.10%
11%
4.10%
S TR O N G LY
D I S AG REE
D I S AG REE N EU TR AL AG R EE S TR O N G LY
AG R EE
INTENTION TO QUITE JOB

Table : 4.38
Job Security
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
20 17
33 27.6
24 20
39 32.5
4 3.3
120 100.0
Table 4.38 reveals that 32.5 % agree that they feel job security and 27.6 % disagree about having
job security. 17 % strongly disagree in having job security but only 3.3 % strongly agree on having
job security. 20 % are neutral about their view on job security.
17%
27.60%
20%
32.50%
3.30%
S TR O N G LY
D I S AG REE
AG R EE
JOB SECURITY

Table 3.49
Work stress due to shift of time
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
2 1.6
9 7.5
16 13.3
33 27.5
60 50
120 100.0
1.60%
7.50%
13.30%
27.50%
50%
S TR O N G LY
D I S AG REE
AG R EE
SHIFT

CHAPTER 5
5.1. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
The present chapter outlines the findings of the research study highlighting various factors causing
stress, stress level experienced by coal mine workers of Dhanbad, Jharkhand impact of stress on
various outcomes and other dimensions of work stress. The findings are presented as per the
objectives of the study.
Hypothesis1: There is no measurable set of factors that causes stress.
Finding: In order to determine the major factors causing stress, factor analysis was applied.
The results revealed that seven factors have been identified as the factors affecting stress.
They are:
1. Time Management
2. Compensation System
3. Intrinsic Factors
4. Empowerment
5. Role Overload
6. Time for himself and his family
Hypotheses 2: Factors causing stress are independent of demographic factors.
Findings
Through testing of hypothesis by chi square, it is found that age is the demographic factor
for causing differences in the individuals’ stress level whereas for other demographic
variables like gender, marital status, education qualification , it is not significant.
Hypothesis 3
There is no significant relationship between work stress and its outcomes.
Findings
Using correlation, it is found that job satisfaction, work – life balance, job commitment are
negatively related to work stress whereas attrition rate is positively related to the stress. Job
satisfaction, work life balance, organizational commitment are at stake due to stress level in
workers which seriously affect the performance of coal mine

It implies that with increase in stress, intention to leave the work also increases which
impede the productivity and efficiency of workers.
Findings
 About 50 % of the respondents believe that they face high level of stress which are due to
the different causes
 About 31 % are dissatisfied with the low bonus, incentives and lack of reward.
 About 20 % opined that there is lack of promotion opportunity and career advancement.
 About 30 % are not satisfied with the empowerment and freedom in job.
 Similarly other grey areas include training opportunity, fair performance appraisal and role
ambiguity.
 It has been seen that 50% of respondent are cause stress due to shift problems

5.2. CONCLUSION
To sum up, the quality of work life of workers is poor in areas like working conditions, flexible
working system, and nature of work, job enrichment, timely promotions, autonomy, participative
decision making and stress. But the quality of work life of workers is quite good in various areas
like job security, social relevance of work, wages and salaries, training and development, safety,
reward mechanisms welfare etc. In short, the areas where the quality of work life is poor is offset
by the provision of various employee oriented programs undertaken by the company.
.Work stress is becoming a major issue and a matter of the concerns for the workers as well as the
organization. It has various psychological, sociological and organizational impacts.
Eustress is regarded as beneficial force that helps to forge ahead against obstacles. Feeling of
insecurity, inadequacy, helplessness, anxiety and frustration turn stress into distress. Number of
factors cause work stress in coal mine industry like more working hours, inadequate salary , lack
of career development opportunity, task overload, working condition which has a high level of
impact on employee efficiency and productivity. Work stress gives rise to increased turnover,
dissatisfaction, lack of job commitment which impedes the growth and success of banks.
In an age of highly dynamic world, workers are exposed to all kinds of stressors that can affect
him on all realms of life. Hence, the management must take several initiatives in helping their
workers to overcome its disastrous effect. Theoretical implication of this study will be for diverse
organizations for understanding the factors that are causing the stress among workers and how to
get rid from this evil of stress to increase workers satisfaction, performance and commitment.
5.3. RECOMMENDATIONS
Stress, at work, is one of the threats in providing a healthy platform of work to workers. The cost
of stress is not only direct but also it leads to much indirect costs. The management of stress is
therefore very essential especially in coal mine industry.
Since the working conditions are poor, the company has to implement all the provisions of Mines
Act to ensure good working conditions. It should also educate the workers about the various
measures taken to improve the working conditions

 At the organizational level, there is need to formulate preventive and remedial strategies to
keep their workers away from the exposure of all types of stress. The most helpful method
of dealing with stress is learning how to manage it.
The following measures will help in mitigating stress:
 Attractive system of reward and recognition of good work.
 Equal distribution of the workloads, fair performance appraisal, recognition of good
performers at the right time.
 Adequate role clarification to be made whenever necessary to eliminate role ambiguity.
 Empowerment to the employees so that they get freedom in job and have chance for
personal growth.
 Introduce more job oriented training programs, which improve employees’ skill and their
confidence to work effectively.
 As stress has got a number of negative consequences for the individuals that is why very
individual should take responsibility for reducing his or her stress level. Knowledge about
stress, Time Management, Planning in advance, Social support network are some of the
stress coping strategies for individual.
 To overcome the high stress levels of workers the company has to conduct yoga and
meditation classes at regular intervals. It should also educate workers about the advantages
of quitting bad habits such as smoking, alcoholism, gambling, gutka chewing etc.

REFERENCES
Journals
 Ahmad S, Ahmad H (1992 in press), “Role stress and work satisfaction: a study on middle
manager”, Indian Psychiatry J., 1(6): 110-115.
 A P Singh and Sadhana Singh (2009), “Effects of Stress and Work Culture on Job
Satisfaction”, Vol. VIII, No. 2, the Icfai University Journal of Organizational Behavior.
 Anderson E.S., Coffey S.B., & Byerly T.R. (2002), “Formal Organizational Initiatives and
Informal Workplace Practices: Links to Work-Family Conflict and Job-Related
Outcomes.”, Journal of Management, 28(6), pp787-810.
 Bhatti, Nadeem; Shar, Amir Hussain; Shaikh, Faiz M.; Nazar, Muhammad Suhail (2010),
“Causes of Stress in Organization, A Case Study of Sukkur”, International Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 5, No. 11.
 Brief, Arthur P., Randall S. Schuler and Mary Van Sell (1981), “Managing Job Stress”,
Boston: Little Brown
 Caplan, Robert D. (1985), “Psychosocial Stress in Work”, Management and Labour
Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 63-76.
 Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., Harrison, R.V & Pinneau, S.R., Jr (1975), “ Job
demands and worker health”, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan.
 Cartwright, S; Cooper, C L and Barron, A (1997), “An Investigation of the Relationship
between Occupational Stress and Accidents amongst Co Car Drivers”, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 78-85.
 Chand, P. and Sethi, A.S. (1997), "Organizational Factors in Development of Work Stress",
Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 453-462.
 Chaudhary, A. (1990), “A Study of Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Role Stress
of Bank Officers,” Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Department of Psychology, University
of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

APPENDICES
I am pursuing MBA final year in Department of Management, Sikkim University. I am
working on Research Project and for this purpose, I need your cooperation. I request you to kindly
spare your precious time and fill the questionnaire. You are requested to feel free and frank in your
responses. The information you are going to give will be kept strictly confidential and will be used
for academic purpose. Once again, I request you to kindly fill the questionnaire and co-operate in
my research work.
A) GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name of the Coal Mine in which you are working:
2. Age (in Years) :
a) Below 20 b) 20-30 c) 30-40 d) 00340 & above
3. Gender :
a) Male b) Female
4. Marital status :
a) Single b) Married
5. Educational qualification :
a) SLC or below b) +2 or intermediate c) Bachelor d) Master or above
6. Work experience in current organization:
a) Less than 1year b) 1-3 years c) 3-5 years d) more than 5 years
7. Overall work experience
a) Less than 1 year b) 1-5 years c) 5-10 years d) more than 10 years
8. No. of dependents in the family:
9. Designation in the coal mine:

B) Read the following statements and indicate the extent of agreement or disagreement by
indicating a tick mark against the response.
SN
o.
Statements 1
(Strongly
Disagree)
2
(Disagree)
3
(Neutral)
4
(Agree)
5
(Strongl
y Agree)
1. I start and. finish work on-time.
2. I work more than agreed number of
hours.
3. Work culture is tedious in my
organization.
4. Salary or wages is satisfactory.
5. Overall compensation package is
satisfying.
6. Bonus and incentives given by
management are good.
7. The amount of praise received for
outstanding efforts satisfies and
motivates me.
8. The job is challenging and responsible.
9. Working conditions in the mine are
good.
10. Rewards offered by the management are
motivating.
11. Proper management practices
12. Opportunities for increasing the salary
are encouraging.
13. Workplace provides good career
development opportunities.
14. Overall quality of work life in the mine
is good.
15. Location of work is convenient.
16. Coal mine provides flexibility in
scheduling work.
17. Paid vacation time/sick leave offered
are satisfying.
18. Opportunities to learn new skills are
encouraged.
19. Suggestions given are not recognized by
the superiors.
20. Superior’s encouragement for my
development is good.
22. Training is given frequently in the
organization.

SN
o.
Statements 1
(Strongly
Disagree)
2
(Disagree)
3
(Neutral)
4
(Agree)
5
(Strongl
y Agree)
23. Appraisals are conducted in a fair and
objective manner.
24. High support for team work is
prevalent.
25. Continuous feedback is given by my
superiors.
26. I get support and encouragement from
my co-worker
27. Expectations and targets are clearly
communicated.
28. My job is interesting and meaningful.
29. Good performance is recognized and
rewarded.
30. I feel a sense of accomplishment in my
job.
31. I am very satisfied with my job.
32. I am willing to put extra effort in order
to help the organization become
successful.
33. I often feel shift problem
34. I experience role overload.
35. I feel that I am unable to do proper
justice to all the roles equally.
36. I am not learning enough in
my present role for taking up higher
responsibility.
37. I take quick, short or no breaks during
the day.
38. My family members and friends
complain that I don’t have enough
quality time for them.
39. In order to get recognized in
organization, workers must constantly
put work ahead of their family or
personal life.
40. Counseling services provided for
workers are useful and good.
41. I feel that I am valued in the
organization.
42. I feel lot of work stress very frequently.
43. Work stress is affecting my personal
life.

SN
o.
Statements 1
(Strongly
Disagree)
2
(Disagree)
3
(Neutral)
4
(Agree)
5
(Strongl
y Agree)
44. Work stress has an adverse impact on
my health.
45. My income largely inhibits stress in me.
46. I am able to balance my work-life and
personal life.
47. I frequently think about quitting my job.
48. I do not feel emotionally attached to my
organization.
49. I am not afraid of what might happen if
I quit my job without having another
one lined up.
50. Too much in my life would be disrupted
if I decide to leave my organization
now.
Thank you for your time and support.

stress level of coal mine workers of dhanbad

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to stress level of coal mine workers of dhanbad

Similar to stress level of coal mine workers of dhanbad (20)

More from Pallavi Singh

More from Pallavi Singh (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (16)

stress level of coal mine workers of dhanbad