The impact of role stressors, rotating shift work and job design on job stress: A study

of airline employees in Mainland China

Louise TourignyUniversity of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Vishwanath V. BabaMcMaster University

Xiaoyun Wang University of Manitoba

December 1, 2006Rollins College, Florida

ProgramOccupational Mental Health:

Antecedents and Consequences

Project 1Prediction and

Modeling of Mental Health

Project 2Dynamics of Occupational Mental Health

Project 3Mental Health

Outcomes

Management of Occupational Mental Health

Rational for this Research

• Karasek’s model (D-C) needs further testing – Person-environment fit

• Personal characteristics (e.g., Xie, 1996)

– Can decision latitude be too high?• Rotating shifts versus fixed shifts• Person-environment fit

– Exacerbating effects of shift work life disruption

Evidence Sustaining this Research

• Baba & Wang (2003) found that when there is a discrepancy between the actual and preferred schedule, shift work constitutes an important predictor of occupational mental health

• Jamal & Baba (1992) found that rotating shifts are associated with higher levels of job stress than fixed shifts

• Barton (1994) found that night shifts were not associated with more stress for employees who decide to work on night shifts

• Karasek’s demands-control model predicts that when job demands are high and job control is high employees experience positive outcomes

• Xie (1996) found statistical evidence among Chinese employees substantiating Karasek’s model but only for employees with perceived ability-job fit

Theoretical Framework• Mental health is a state of well-being without the stress and its manifest resultants of

anxiety, depression, and burnout precipitated variously by personal, role, job, and organizational inadequacies.

• When occupational demands are to be met in the absence of adequate resources and in the face of serious negative consequences, distress results. This manifests itself through repeated episodes of high levels of job stress which result in chronic job strain. The demands-control model predicts that high job demands and low job control will be associated with high job strain whereas high job demands and high job control will be associated with positive outcomes.

• Role stressors – role ambiguity, role conflict and role overload – are important predictors of job stress, a precursor of job strain.

• Shift work is disruptive to normal routines of life, causes sleep disturbances associated with mental and physical health problems

• Employees who work on shift and did not select their schedule experience a discrepancy between the actual and preferred schedule

• Decision latitude and job scope are elements of job control that can moderate the effects of job demands

• The person-environment fit determines the extent to which the D-C model offers effective predictions

Interactive approach to the D-C model

• Interactive approach has proved more accurate than the additive approach in testing the D-C model– Add some contextual exacerbating factors – Test the moderating effects of decision

latitude and job scope

Major Hypotheses

• Barton (1994) found that employees who select to work on shifts experience more resilience to job stress

• Baba & Wang (2003) found that a match between actual and preferred schedule is associated with less job stress than a discrepancy

• Jamal & Baba (1992) found that rotating shifts are associated with higher levels of job stress

Hypothesis 1: “When employees work on rotating shifts they experience higher job stress when they report high role stressors in comparison to employees who work on fixed shifts”

Hypothesis 2: “When employees report greater life disruption associated with shift work they tend to experience higher job stress when they perceive high role stressors in comparison to other employees who do not report life disruption”

Major Hypotheses (continued)

• Decision latitude (discretion over decision pertaining to one’s work) is a psychosocial factor associated with lower job strain

• Karasek’s D-C model

Hypothesis 3: “The relationship between role stressors and job stress is moderated by decision latitude such that when decision latitude is low role stressors will have a positive effect on job stress”

Major Hypotheses (continued)• Xie (1996) found that positive outcomes were associated with high job

demands and high decision latitude for employees with perceived ability-job fit only

• The person-environment fit sustains the proposition that shift work as a context for job stress may fit better certain employees

• Rotating shifts lead to higher levels of job stress because these are associated with unpredictability of the work

• Decision latitude will act as a buffer when there is a fit

Hypothesis 4: “In the context of rotating shift work decision latitude will not have a buffering effect on the relationship between role stressors and job stress whereas in the context of fixed shift work decision latitude will have a buffering effect on these relationships”

Hypothesis 5: “Decision latitude will have a buffering effect on the relationships between role stressors and job stress only when there is low life disruption associated with shift work”

Major Hypotheses (continued)

• Job scope is a motivator – Experienced meaningfulness of the work– Responsibility for outcomes– Feedback

• Job scope is associated with lower anxiety, frustration and emotional exhaustion (Kelloway & Barling, 1991; Spector & Jex, 1991)

• Job scope may be too high when employees work on rotating shifts especially if they have too high task variety (Xie & Johns, 1995)

Hypothesis 6: “High job scope will moderate the relationship between role stressors and job stress such that it will prevent an increase in job stress for employees working on fixed shifts, and provoke an increase in job stress for employees working on rotating shifts”

Major Hypotheses (continued)

• High job scope is associated with more responsibilities in the workplace

• It requires an adequate work life and family life balance to maintain an optimal level of well-being

• Important life disruption associated with shift work is associated with higher levels of job stress

• High job scope in the context of important life disruption is not likely to moderate the detrimental effects of role stressors. Indeed, it may be a source of additional stress

Hypothesis 7: “High job scope will have a buffering effect on the relationship between role stressors and job stress only when there is low life disruption associated with shift work. High job scope will further exacerbate the effect of role stressors on job stress when there is high life disruption associated with shift work”

Methods

• 485 employees working for a major international airline in Beijing, Shanghai, Urumqi, Nanjing, and Chengdu

• Pilots (first, second and third), engineers, flight attendants, mechanical technicians, plane maintenance assistants, and other service and maintenance employees

• 315 males and 157 females (for 472 responses to this question)• Age: Between 19 and 60 (mean 32.75 and standard deviation 8.37)• Procedure: 700 Survey questionnaires, 485 useful questionnaires

were collected (69% response rate).• Analysis: Descriptive statistics, Correlations, Hierarchical

moderated regression

Measures

• Role stressors – Role ambiguity, role conflict and role overload– Beehr, Walsh & Taber (1976) – Scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)– Reverse scored items to reflect high role stressors

• Role ambiguity– Mean: 2.19– Standard deviation: .53

• Role conflict– Mean: 2.96– Standard deviation: .65

• Role overload (3 items pertaining to environmental factors)– Mean: 3.09– Standard deviation: .68

Measures (continued…)

• Decision latitude and job scope– Beehr et al., 1976– 5-point scale with 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)– Reverse scored so as to reflect high decision latitude and high job scope

• Decision latitude– Mean: 3.02– Standard deviation: 1.09

• Job scope– Mean: 3.55– Standard deviation: .65

• Fixed or rotating shifts– Respondents just indicate whether they work on shifts– Then, if yes, they indicate whether it is on fixed or rotating shifts

Measures (continued…)

• Shift work disruption– Folkard (1998) Survey

• 3 items

• 5-point scale with 1 (none at all) to 5 (intolerable amount)

• Mean: 2.71

• Standard deviation: .97

• Job stress– Parker & Decotiis (1983)

• 5-point scale with 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree)

• Reverse scored so that a high score indicates high job stress

• Mean: 2.89

• Standard deviation: .65

• Control variables– Age– Gender

• 1 for female

• 2 for male

ResultsVariable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age 2. Gender 1 .13**

3. Role ambiguity

-.08 -.08 (.54)

4. Role conflict

-.02 .16** .05 (.72)

5. Role overload

.12* .16** .03 .42** (.59)

6. Fixed or rotating

shift 2

-.05 .09 .01 -.02 .13

7. Shift work

disruption

-.11 -.13 .09 .12 .22** .14 (.90)

8. Decision latitude

.07 .04 -.20** -.23** -.07 -.25** -.19** (.83)

9. Job scope

.06 .15** -.19** .04 .10* -.03 -.12 .28** (.62)

10. Stress .03 .10* .13** .40** .60** .21** .38** -.16** .02 (.88)

Results (continued)

Model 1: Moderating effect of fixed or rotating shift ΔR2 β Step 1

Age Gender

.00 -.05 -.02

Step 2 Role overload Fixed or rotating shift

.45** .65** .13*

Step 3 Role overload X Fixed or rotating shift

.06** 1.49**

Model 2: Moderating effect of shift work disruption

ΔR2

β

Step 1 Age Gender

.00 -.00 -.04

Step 2 Role overload Shift work disruption

.44** .56** .26**

Step 3 Role overload X Shift work disruption

.02* .70*

Model 3: Moderating effect of decision latitude

ΔR2

β

Step 1 Age Gender

.00 -.05 -.02

Step 2 Role overload Fixed or rotating shift Decision latitude

.46** .64** .10 -.11

Step 3 Role overload X Fixed or rotating shift Role overload X Decision latitude Decision latitude X Fixed or rotating shift

.06** 1.39** -.21 -.02

Step 4 Role overload X Fixed or rotating shift X Decision

latitude

.01* 2.72*

Results (continued)Figure 1

Moderating effect of fixed or rotating shift

Role overload

Stress

Fixed shift

Rotating shift

Figure 2Moderating effect of shift work disruption

High shift work disruption

Low shift work disruption

Role overload

Stress

Results (continued)Figure 3a

Moderating effect of decision latitude: Fixed shift

Role overload

StressLow decision latitude

High decision latitude

Figure 3bModerating effect of decision latitude: Rotating shift

Role overload

StressHigh decision latitude

Low decision latitude

Discussion

• Rotating shift work exacerbates the positive effect of role overload on job stress

• Life disruption associated with shift work exacerbates the positive effect of role overload on job stress

• Decision latitude alleviates the effect of role overload on job stress only for employees working on fixed shifts

• Decision latitude can actually exacerbate the effect of role overload on job stress when employees work on rotating shifts

• High demands and high decision latitude is effective for employees working on fixed shift but not for employees working on rotating shifts

– Too high demands– Decision latitude perceived as an additional demand

Implications

• Job enlargement versus job enrichment

• Skill variety may not be suitable for rotating shifts

• Decision latitude is contextually bounded

• Structure and organizational support should not be neglected elements

• Predictability of workloads and workplace events may come into play

• Rotating shifts are associated with less predictability

• Increasing decision latitude when there is low predictability may actually increase confusion and job pressure

• Need to study coping strategies of employees working on rotating shifts

• Need to determine how organizations can compensate for excessive job demands

• Need to pursue interventionist studies