See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329058108

A STUDY ON OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND COPING STRATEGIES AMONG THE

TEXTILE MANAGERS

Preprint  in  The Journal of High Technology Management Research · June 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 84

1 author:

Shenbhagavadivu Thangavel
Sri Krishna College of Arts and Science
24 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Coping and Stress View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shenbhagavadivu Thangavel on 20 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dr. T. Shenbaga Vadivu, Journal of Management Research and Analysis (JMRA)
Available online at http://jmraonline.com
ISSN: 2394-2770, Impact Factor: 4.878, Volume 05 Issue 02, June 2018, Pages: 165-169

A STUDY ON OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND COPING STRATEGIES

AMONG THE TEXTILE MANAGERS
1
Dr. T. Shenbaga Vadivu
1
(Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, Nehru Arts and Science College,
Thirumalayampalayam, Coimbatore)

Abstract: This research was conducted to investigate the relationship between occupational stress and coping
strategies among textile managers. This paper aims to find out the relationship between occupational stress and
coping strategies based on age, gender, marital status, work experience and income of textile managers in
Tirupur. 553 Textile managers were invited to participate in the questionnaire survey. A cross sectional study
was used to examine the relationship between occupational stress and coping strategies. Descriptive analysis,
Pearson correlation and multiple regression analysis were employed to analyse the data. The findings also
revealed that there is a significant relationship between occupational stress and coping strategies.
Keywords: Occupational Stress, Coping Strategies, Demographics, Textile industry.

INTRODUCTION
Stress at work is an increasingly common feature in India. According to Lazarus and Folkman, stress
involves transactional relationships between individuals and their environment, which are appraised as taxing or
exceeding their resources and endangering their well-being. They emphasize cognitive appraisal, not only of the
demands of situations but also of the person’s ability and resources for coping. Coping behaviors are the specific
cognitive and behavioral strategies that individuals use to deal with the stressor.
It is the perception of demand and coping capacity which determines stress levels (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984).
Coping consists of both cognitive and behavioral efforts aimed at managing specific external and /or
internal demands appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person (Monat & Lazarus, 1988).
Coping is flexible, goal-oriented, and responds to needs of the present as well as the future. Coping
efforts aim at managing or altering a problem causing distress (problem-focused coping) or regulating
unpleasant emotions (emotion-focused coping) that are aroused because of the problem (Glass & Chang, 1989).
Folkman and Lazarus (1988) identified eight categories of coping strategies that depict a broad range of
cognitive and behavioural strategies people used to manage the demands of stressful encounters. Coping efforts
can be focused upon managing or altering a problem causing distress (problem-focused) or regulating
unpleasant emotions (emotion-focused) that are aroused because of the problem (Glass & Chang, 1989).
According to Lazarus (1993), the function of problem focused coping is to change the troubled person-
environment relationship by acting on the environment or oneself. The function of emotion focused coping is to
change either the way the stressful relationship with the environment is attended to or the relational meaning of
what is happening. Problem focused strategies include categories of confrontive coping and planful problem
solving. The remaining six categories are emotion-focused strategies which include distancing, accepting
responsibility, escape avoidance, seeking social support, and positive reappraisal.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Chan et.al. (2000) examined work stress among professionals and para-professions (namely general
practitioners, lawyers, engineers, teachers, nurses and life insurance personnel) in Singapore. Results showed
that performance pressure and work family conflict were perceived to be the most stressful aspects of work.
These two stressors also significantly contributed to the experience of overall work stress.
Shah (2003) examined role stress among employees in banking industry. The results indicated that
most of the employees were experiencing moderate level of stress at work. It revealed that role stagnation,
inadequacy of role authority, role erosion and role overload were the main stressors being encountered by
employees.
Gan, Yiqun, Yueqin Hu, and Yiwen Zhang (2010) compared the relative importance of proactive
coping and preventive coping in the adjustment to university life among four hundred and three freshmen at a
Chinese university and evaluated the function of proactive coping in the stress process. The Future- Oriented
Coping Inventory (Gan, Yang, Zhou, & Zhang, 2007), the Student-Life Stress Inventory (Gadzella, 1994), and
the College Maladjustment Scale (Kleinmuntz, 1960) were administered among the participants.
Marika Rantanen et al (2011) examined the moderator role of coping strategies between work-to-
family and family-to-work conflict and well-being. A sample of five hundred and twenty seven Finnish workers

Homepage: http://jmraonline.com, Email: jmraeditor@gmail.com Page 165

Dr. T. Shenbaga Vadivu, Journal of Management Research and Analysis (JMRA)
Available online at http://jmraonline.com
ISSN: 2394-2770, Impact Factor: 4.878, Volume 05 Issue 02, June 2018, Pages: 165-169

participated in the study. Regression analyses showed that emotion focused coping buffered against job
dissatisfaction in a high family-to-work conflict situation.
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The study was aimed at studying the occupational stress and coping strategies adopted among the
Textile Managers.
METHODOLOGY
A convenience sample consisting of 553 employees working in selected textile mills participated in the
study. Questionnaires were administered to assess occupational stress and coping strategies. The collected data
was analysed with Mean, Standard Deviation, ANOVA, and Correlation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section deals with the analysis of the data collected from the respondents.
Table: 1 Demographic characteristics of the Sample
No. Of No. Of
Demographi Demographi
Group Respon % Group Respo %
c Variables c Variables
dents ndents
30 & Below 144 26.0 Diploma 149 26.9
Age (in Educational Under
31 – 45 233 42.2 234 42.4
years) Qualification graduate
Above 45 176 31.8 Post graduate 170 30.7
Male 367 66.4 Married 304 55.0
Gender Marital Status
Female 186 33.6 Unmarried 249 45.0
Work Below 5 129 23.4 Below 20000 200 36.2
Monthly
Experience 5 – 10 270 48.8 Income (in 20000-30000 269 48.6
(in years)
Above 10 154 27.8 rupees) Above 30000 84 15.2
Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation of Research Variables in different Age Groups
Age Con Distanc Self social Accept Escape Planful Positive Stress
Mean 13.89 15.56 15.29 9.42 7.08 12.29 20.25 16.36 55.48
30 & SD 3.045 2.727 2.831 2.944 3.491 3.977 1.238 2.975 4.840
Below
(N=144)
31 – 45 Mean 12.41 15.40 13.88 8.53 8.05 12.24 18.94 15.32 57.65
(N= 233) SD 3.479 2.751 3.507 2.170 2.385 3.890 1.686 3.307 3.660
Above 45 Mean 12.91 14.21 13.37 9.58 8.35 12.51 19.72 16.34 57.11
(N=176) SD 3.512 2.983 2.562 2.497 2.450 5.673 1.114 3.094 3.886
Total Mean 12.95 15.06 14.09 9.09 7.90 12.34 19.53 15.92 56.91
(N= 553) SD 3.428 2.876 3.144 2.537 2.775 4.547 1.509 3.191 4.155
F – value 8.506 11.933 16.516 10.540 9.186 0.184 40.726 7.217 12.953
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.832 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table 3: Mean and Standard Deviation of Research Variables in different Gender Groups
Age Con Distanc Self Social Accept Escape Planful Positive Stress
Male Mean 13.24 15.53 14.44 9.05 7.98 13.17 19.49 15.89 56.99
(N= SD 3.454 2.587 3.324 2.140 2.758 4.463 1.522 3.494 4.047
367)
Female Mean 12.39 14.15 13.40 9.17 7.72 10.70 19.61 15.96 56.76
(N=186) SD 3.314 3.191 2.631 3.183 2.807 4.266 1.485 2.495 4.367
Total Mean 12.95 15.06 14.09 9.09 7.90 12.34 19.53 15.92 56.91
(N=553) SD 3.428 2.876 3.144 2.537 2.775 4.547 1.509 3.191 4.155
t – Value 2.940 23.889 18.514 34.472 0.146 0.102 2.284 37.496 3.370

Sig. 0.0087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.703 0.749 0.131 0.000 0.706

Homepage: http://jmraonline.com, Email: jmraeditor@gmail.com Page 166

Dr. T. Shenbaga Vadivu, Journal of Management Research and Analysis (JMRA)
Available online at http://jmraonline.com
ISSN: 2394-2770, Impact Factor: 4.878, Volume 05 Issue 02, June 2018, Pages: 165-169

Table 4: Mean and Standard Deviation of Research Variables in different Marital Status Groups
Marital Status Con Distanc Self Social Accept Escape Planful Positive Stress
Married Mean 13.34 15.27 14.13 9.48 8.33 12.36 19.36 16.08 57.58
(N=304) SD 3.544 3.060 3.337 2.304 2.375 3.506 1.535 3.384 3.592
Unmarried Mean 12.49 14.82 14.03 8.62 7.37 12.32 19.74 15.71 56.10
(N=249) SD 3.227 2.619 2.898 2.727 3.121 5.568 1.454 2.933 4.632
Total Mean 12.95 15.06 14.09 9.09 7.90 12.34 19.53 15.92 56.91
(N=553) SD 3.428 2.876 3.144 2.537 2.775 4.547 1.509 3.191 4.155
t – Value 15.085 15.605 3.985 4.584 32.398 86.804 3.576 12.090 18.057

Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.000 0.000
Table 5: Mean and Standard Deviation of Research Variables in different Education Groups
Education Con Distanc Self Social Accept Escape Planful Positive Stress
Mean 13.91 15.54 13.69 9.03 8.29 11.94 19.32 16.48 57.03
Diploma
SD
(N=149) 3.102 3.182 2.691 2.341 2.470 3.169 1.485 3.161 3.930
Undergraduate Mean 12.46 15.15 13.88 9.63 7.50 11.48 19.40 15.86 56.84
(N=234) SD 3.582 2.996 3.335 2.616 2.637 4.231 1.673 2.907 4.429
Postgraduate Mean 12.80 14.52 14.72 8.41 8.09 13.88 19.89 15.49 56.91
(N=170) SD 3.331 2.295 3.164 2.434 3.135 5.522 1.209 3.520 3.974
Mean 12.95 15.06 14.09 9.09 7.90 12.34 19.53 15.92 56.91
Total (N=553) SD 4.155
3.428 2.876 3.144 2.537 2.775 4.547 1.509 3.191
t – value 8.690 5.256 5.270 11.822 4.360 15.311 7.203 3.856 0.090

Sig. 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.914
Table 6: Mean and Standard Deviation of Research Variables in different Experience Groups
Experience Con Distanc Self Social Accept Escape Planful Positive Stress
Below 5 Mean 12.97 15.62 15.04 8.42 7.53 12.05 19.36 17.08 57.05
(N=129) SD 3.723 2.415 3.920 2.287 3.123 4.762 1.713 2.554 4.146
5 – 10 Mean 12.95 14.55 13.94 9.42 7.47 11.97 19.71 15.73 56.76
(N=270) SD 3.252 3.103 2.855 2.774 2.538 3.504 1.296 3.177 4.379
Above Mean 12.95 15.50 13.55 9.09 8.95 13.23 19.36 15.27 57.06
10
SD 3.495 2.667 2.718 2.179 2.593 5.739 1.644 3.451 3.754
(N=154)
Total Mean 12.95 15.06 14.09 9.09 7.90 12.34 19.53 15.92 56.91
(N=553) SD 3.428 2.876 3.144 2.537 2.775 4.547 1.509 3.191 4.155
t – value 0.002 8.763 8.723 6.925 16.450 4.107 3.687 12.667 0.353
Sig. 0.986 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.703
Table 7: Mean and Standard Deviation of Research Variables in different Income Groups
Income Con Distanc Self Social Accept Escape Planful Positive Stress
Below 20000 Mean 13.31 15.73 14.59 8.65 7.19 12.19 19.63 16.21 57.03
(N=200) SD 3.727 2.569 3.556 2.154 3.064 4.281 1.729 2.596 4.195
Mean 13.30 15.00 13.48 9.71 8.02 11.10 19.52 15.67 56.38
20000-30000
(N=269) SD 3.458 3.108 2.638 2.888 2.377 3.624 1.439 3.384 4.199
Above Mean 11.00 13.67 14.83 8.17 9.17 16.67 19.33 16.00 58.33
30000(N=84) SD 1.299 2.224 3.256 1.471 2.750 5.217 1.112 3.764 3.558
Total Mean 12.95 15.06 14.09 9.09 7.90 12.34 19.53 15.92 56.91
(N=553) SD 3.428 2.876 3.144 2.537 2.775 4.547 1.509 3.191 4.155
t – value 17.036 16.275 10.279 17.711 16.430 58.004 1.163 1.687 7.414
Sig. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001

Homepage: http://jmraonline.com, Email: jmraeditor@gmail.com Page 167

Dr. T. Shenbaga Vadivu, Journal of Management Research and Analysis (JMRA)
Available online at http://jmraonline.com
ISSN: 2394-2770, Impact Factor: 4.878, Volume 05 Issue 02, June 2018, Pages: 165-169

Table: 8 showing the correlation among the research variables

Stress Con Distanc Self Social Accept Escape Planful Positive

Stress 1 .060 -.215** -.094* -.111** .156** .127** -.091* .057
Con 1 .087* .137** .063 .106* .187** -.060 -.218**
** ** ** ** **
Distanc 1 .238 .346 -.465 -.343 .150 -.069
Self 1 .172** -.184** .109* .113** -.131**

Social 1 -.263** -.193** .239** .265**

Accept 1 .222** -.446** .080

Escape- 1 .098* -.078

Planful 1 .083

Positive 1

DISCUSSION
Higher levels of confrontive coping, distancing, self-controlling, seeking social support, accepting
responsibility, escape-avoidance, planful problem solving, positive reappraisal and general health were observed
among the respondents of 30 years and below age group. Higher levels of confrontive coping, distancing, self-
controlling, seeking social support, accepting responsibility, escape-avoidance, planful problem solving, positive
check, and general health were observed among the married respondents. There were significant differences in
escape – avoidance, planful problem solving, and positive reappraisal among the respondents of different age
groups. There were significant differences in seeking social support, accepting responsibility, escape –
avoidance, planful problem solving, and positive reappraisal among the married and unmarried respondents.
There were significant differences in accepting responsibility, planful problem solving, and positive reappraisal
among the respondents of different income groups. There was a significant between stress and distancing, self-
controlling, seeking social support, accepting responsibility, escape avoidance, planful problem solving.
CONCLUSION
Coping consists of both cognitive and behavioral efforts aimed at managing specific external and /or
internal demands appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person. The present study was aimed at
studying the occupational stress and coping strategies adopted among the textile managers. A convenience
sample consisting of 553 employees working in selected textile mills participated in the study. Questionnaires
were administered to assess coping strategies adopted by the employees and their stress. The collected data was
analysed with mean, standard deviation, ANOVA and correlation. On the basis of results, it is concluded that
coping strategies have positive and significant impact in reducing occupational stress. There is also a significant
difference among age wise coping strategies. This study confirms that coping strategies lead towards lower level
of occupational stress.
REFERENCES
1. Chang Kirk (2011). Less Stressed at Work - Research on the Efficacy of Job Stress Coping Strategies.
Advances in Management, 4 (11), 31-40.
2. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). The dynamics of
a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 992-1003.
3. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

Homepage: http://jmraonline.com, Email: jmraeditor@gmail.com Page 168

 Dr. T. Shenbaga Vadivu, Journal of Management Research and Analysis (JMRA)
Available online at http://jmraonline.com
ISSN: 2394-2770, Impact Factor: 4.878, Volume 05 Issue 02, June 2018, Pages: 165-169

4. Leana C.R. and Feldman D.C. (1995). Finding new jobs after a plant closing: Antecedents and
outcomes of occurrence and quality of Reemployment, Human Relations, 48 (12), 1381-1401.
5. Lee, R. M., Keough, K. A., & Sexton, J. D. (2002). Social connectedness, social appraisal, and
perceived stress in college women and men. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 355-361.
6. Lepore, S., Miles, H., & Levy, J. S. (1997). Relation of chronic and episodic Stressors to psychological
distress, reactivity, and health problems. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 39-59.
7. Lopez, F. G., Mauricio, A. M., Gormley, B., Simko, T., & Berger, E. (2001). Adult attachment
orientations and college student distress: The mediating role of problem coping styles. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 79, 459—464.
8. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 593-614.
9. Miller T.A. and Mccool S.F.(2003). Coping with stress in outdoor recreational settings: an application
of transactional stress theory. Journal of Leisure Science, 25, 257-275.
10. Nilsson, K. W., Leppert, J., Simonsson, B., & Starrin, B. (2010). Sense of coherence and psychological
well-being: Improvement with age. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 64, 347-352.
11. Noor, N. M. (2008). Work and women's well-being: Religion and age as moderators. Journal of
Religion and Health, 47,476-490.
12. Pearlin L.I., Aneshensel C.S. and LeBlanc A.J. (1997) The forms and mechanisms of stress
proliferation: The case of AIDS caregivers. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 38 (3), 223-236.
13. Ruby R. Brougham, Christy M. Zail, Celeste M. Mendoza and Janine R. Miller (2009). Stress, Sex
Differences, and Coping Strategies among College Students. Current Psychology, 28, 85-97.
14. Sam Loc Wallace, Jayoung Lee, Sang Min Lee (2010). Job stress, Coping strategies, and Burn out
among abuse specific counselors. Journal of Employment Counseling, 47: 111-122.
15. Shapiro, S. L., Oman, D., Thoresen, C. E., Pante, T. G., & Flinders, T. (2008). Cultivating mindñilness:
Effects on well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64, 840-862.
16. Sideridis, G. D. (2008). The regulation of affect, anxiety, and stressful arousal from adopdng mastery-
avoidance goal orientations. , Stress and Health. 24, 55-69.
17. Siegel, K., Kanis, D., Raveis, V H., & Hagen, D. (1998). Psychological adjustment of women with
HIV/AIDS: Racial and ethnic comparisons. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 439-455.
18. Skowron, E. A., Wester, S. R., & Azen, R. (2004). Differendation of self-mediates college stress and
adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 69-78.
19. Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Brown, R. F. (2008). Mediators and moderators of the stressor-fatigue
relationship in nonclinical samples. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 66, 21-29.
20. Veit, C. T, & Ware, J. E. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general
populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51,730-742.

Homepage: http://jmraonline.com, Email: jmraeditor@gmail.com Page 169

View publication stats