INTRODUCTION:

Stress management is an essential step for one has to take is facing stressful situations in their life, regardless of the cause. Although there are helpful types of stress that enables them to cater this added burst of energy into something positive and productive, it is not recommended for the body. Long term stress can specifically produce negative impacts on the health and is recognized to deteriorate your health faster than some other diseases.

Furthermore, stress can reduce the capacity to perform and function well, either at school or in the workplace. Therefore, stress isn't something to be dismissed. Aside from the personal impacts one can experience from stress, it also affects how to deal with the environment and the people in lives. It is important to first know the causes of stress then stress management techniques to achieve stress relief.

Consequences of stress

The effect of stress is closely linked to individual personality. The same level of stress affects different people in different ways and each person has different ways of coping. Recognizing these personality types means that more focused help can be given.

Stress shows itself number of ways. For instance individual who is experiencing high level of stress may develop high level pressure, ulcers, irritability, difficulty in making routine decisions, loss of appetite, accident proneness and the like. These can be subsumed under three categories.

· Individual consequences

· Organizational consequences

· Burnout

ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS:

Environmental stress is defined as the minor irritations and frustrations of everyday life that we all experience. Stress in human results from interactions between persons and their environment that are perceived as straining or exceeding their adaptive capacities and threatening their well-being. The element of perception indicates that human stress responses reflect differences in personality, as well as differences in physical strength or general health.

Risk factors for stress-related illnesses are a mix of personal, interpersonal, and social variables. These factors include lack or loss of control over one's physical environment, and lack or loss of social support networks. People who are dependent on others (e.g., children or the elderly) or who are socially disadvantaged (because of race, gender, educational level, or similar factors) are at greater risk of developing stress-related illnesses. Other risk factors include feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, extreme fear or anger, and cynicism or distrust of others.

Stress is simply a fact of nature – forces from the outside world affecting the individual. The individual responds to stress in many ways that affect the individual as well as their environment. Hence, all living creatures are in a constant interchange with their surroundings (the ecosystem), both physically and behaviorally. This interplay of forces, or energy, is of course present in the relationships between all matter in the universe, whether it is living (animate), or not living (inanimate). However, there are critical differences in how different living creatures relate to their environment. These differences have far-reaching consequences for survival. Because of the overabundance of stress in our modern lives, we usually think of stress as a negative experience, but from a biological point of view, stress can be a neutral, negative, or positive experience.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Environmental Stress Factors

The table 1 describes the distribution of respondents based on their level of agreeability on the various factors relating to environmental stress factors.

It is found from the table 1 that 325 (65%) and 66(13.2%) of the respondents have agreed and have strongly agreed respectively, that they all enjoy working as a team at the work place. Further 301(60.2%) and 64(12.8%) of the respondents have agreed and have strongly agreed respectively, that they are happy with the ventilation at the work place. 275(55%) and 66(13.2%) of the respondents have agreed and have strongly agreed respectively, that the facilities provided in office are good. 288(57.6%) and 51(10.2%) of the respondents have agreed and have strongly agreed respectively, that they agree with the staff of other departments.

It is concluded that 78.2% of the respondents have agreed that they all enjoy working as a team at the work place when compared to other factors relating to environmental stress factors.

Environmental Stress Factors

Gender

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different genders.

The table 2 describes the results of the ANOVA relating to the environmental stress factors of the respondents classified gender wise in terms of source, degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean sum of squares, F value, p value and its significance.

It is found from the table 2 that the hypothesis is accepted (Not significant).

It is concluded that there is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different genders.

Marital Status

Hypothesis:

There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different marital status.

The table 3 describes the results of the ANOVA relating to the environmental stress factors of the respondents classified marital status wise in terms of source, degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean sum of squares, F value, p value and its significance.

Table 1: Environmental Stress Factors

S. No	Environmental Stress Factors	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
1	Enjoy working as a team	66 (13.2)	325 (65)	93 (18.6)	14 (2.8)	2 (0.4)
2	Inter-departmental unity	51 (10.2)	288 (57.6)	138 (27.6)	20 (4)	3 (0.6)
3	The ventilation at the work place	64 (12.8)	301 (60.2)	101 (20.2)	32 (6.4)	2 (0.4)
4	The management structure at the office	77 (15.4)	236 (47.2)	152 (30.4)	33 (6.6)	2 (0.4)
5	The communication system in the office	61 (12.2)	239 (47.8)	168 (33.6)	29 (5.8)	3 (0.6)
6	Various other work systems in the office	62 (12.4)	231 (46.2)	176 (35.2)	26 (5.2)	5 (1)
7	The facilities provided at the office	66 (13.2)	275 (55)	122 (24.4)	32 (6.4)	5 (1)
8	Lighting facilities	73 (14.6)	256 (51.2)	144 (28.8)	22 (4.4)	5 (1)
9	The hygienic condition in the office	68 (13.6)	263 (52.6)	124 (24.8)	37 (7.4)	8 (1.6)

Note: The values in brackets are in percentage.

Table 2: Results of ANOVA – Gender & Environmental Stress Factors

Source	Degrees of freedom	Sum of squares	Mean sum of squares	F value	p value	Significant/ Not significant
Between groups	1	1.623	1.623	0.090	0.764	NS
Within Groups	498	8970.127	18.012
Total	499	8971.750

S – Significant at 5% level (p value<= 0.05); NS – Not Significant at 5% level (p value>0.05

Table 3: Results of ANOVA – Marital Status & Environmental Stress Factors

Source	Degrees of freedom	Sum of squares	Mean sum of squares	F value	p value	Significant/ Not significant
Between groups	1	24.175	24.175	1.346	0.247	NS
Within Groups	498	8947.575	17.967
Total	499	8971.750

S – Significant at 5% level (p value<= 0.05); NS – Not Significant at 5% level (p value>0.05)

It is found from the table 5 that the hypothesis is accepted (Not significant).

It is found from the table 3 that the hypothesis is accepted (Not significant).

It is concluded that there is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the marital status.

Age group

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different age group.

The table 4 describes the results of the ANOVA relating to the environmental stress factors of the respondents classified age group wise in terms of source, degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean sum of squares, F value, p value and its significance.

It is found from the table 4 that the hypothesis is accepted (Not significant).

It is concluded that there is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the age group.

Education

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different education wise.

The table 5 describes the results of the ANOVA relating to the environmental stress factors of the respondents classified education wise in terms of source, degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean sum of squares, F value, p value and its significance.It is concluded that there is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the education.

Annual Income

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different annual income.

The table 6 describes the results of the ANOVA relating to the environmental stress factors of the respondents classified annual income wise in terms of source, degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean sum of squares, F value, p value and its significance.

It is found from the table 6 that the hypothesis is accepted (Not Significant).

It is concluded that there is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different annual income.

Experience

Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different experience.

The table 7 describes the results of the ANOVA relating to the environmental stress factors of the respondents classified experience wise in terms of source, degrees of freedom, sum of squares, mean sum of squares, F value, p value and its significance. It is found from the table 7 that the hypothesis is accepted (Not Significant).

It is concluded that there is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different experience.

FINDINGS:

· The 78.2% of the respondents have agreed that they all enjoy working as a team at the work place when compared to other factors relating to environmental stress factors.

· There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different genders.

· There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the marital status.

· There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the age group.

· There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the education.

· There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different annual income.

· There is no significant difference in the environmental stress factors between the respondents classified under the different experience.

SUGGESTION:

The management of the organization has to follow the proactive approach rather than the reactive approach. So, that its employees are emotionality not hurt. The emotional feeling of a person is like a piece of glass which once broken can never be repaired and the reflection of the hurt always remains. The organization must also give importance to the individual contribution equivalent to the team work. The organization must recognize the individual’s contribution by giving them monetary benefits. The organization must ensure that there is no bias and that all the employees are the same to them. Enough opportunities must be provided to the employees to expresses their views and suggestion. Proper counseling and guidance to the employees paves way for reduced stress level.

CONCLUSION:

Stress can be challenging and useful. However, it can also become chronic and excessive to the point where it is no longer able to adapt and cope with the pressures. An optimal level of stress is characterized by high energy, mental alertness, high motivation, calmness under pressure, thorough analysis of problems, improved memory and recall, sharp perception, and a generally optimistic outlook.

REFERENCE:

1. Steers, (1981): Effective Stress Management, Himalaya Publishing House, pp 31-34.

2. Genmill, G. R. & Heisler, W. J. (1972): Fatalism as a factor in managerial job satisfaction, job strain, and mobility, Personnel Psychology 25, pp 241-250.

3. Mallach, C. & Jackson, S.E. (1979): Burned – out coping and their families, Psychology Today, 12(12), pp 59-62.

4. Das, G.S. (1982): Organizational determinants of anxiety based management stress, Vikalpa 7(3), pp 217-222.

5. Osipow, S.H., Doty R.E., and Spokane A.R. (1985): Occupational stress strain an coping strategy the life span, Journal of vocational Behaviour, 27, pp 99-108.

6. Sevelius, G. (1986): Experience with preventative measures, In Occupational Stress, Wolf, S. G., Jr. and Finerstone, A. J. (eds.), PSG Publishing, pp 191-211.

7. Pestonjee, D.M., (1987): Executive Stress: Should it be Avoided? Vikalpa, 12(1), pp 20-30.

8. Lawless, P. (1992): Employee Burnout: Causes and Cures. Minneapolis, MN: Northwestern National Life Employee Benefits Division, pp 4-6.

9. Akinnusin,,D.M. (1994): Relationship between personal attributes, stressors, stress reactions and coping styles, Management & Labour Studies, Vol.19No.4 October, pp 211-218.

10. Davis, Keith, (1995): Stress and Counseling, Organizational Behaviour, Tata Mc Graw Hill Edition, pp 456-468.

11. Chand, P. (1997): Organizational Factors in the development of work stress, Indian Journal of Industrial relations, Vol.32. No.4. April pp 453-459.

12. Yuvaraj, S. (1999): Stress; Good, Bad, and the ugly”, Udyog Pragati, Vol. XXIII, No. 1. January-March, pp 10-14.

13. Lim V.K.G. & Hian T.T.S. (1999): Organizational Stress among Information Technology Personnel in Singapore, www. Occuphealth.file/info/asian/ ap199.singapore.

14. Aldwin, Carolyn (2007): Stress, Coping, and Development, Second Edition. , The Guilford Press. ISBN 1572308400, New York, p 239.

Received on 21.12.2011 Accepted on 02.02.2012

Asian J. Management 3(1): Jan. – Mar. 2012 page 14-17