STRESS AND WORK MOTIVATION IN BANKING SECTOR: A

STUDY OF SELECTED PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BANKS

AIM: To see if there is a positive significant relationship between work stress and work
motivation among bank employees in public and private sector.

BASIC CONCEPTS

In recent decades, moves to a global economy and deregulated markets have led to a series of
large changes in the way financial services work and are sold, and this is particularly true of the
organization and execution of work in the sector (Hassard et al., 2017; Kaur et al., 2017. In 1990-
91). Over the decades, India’s banking sector has grown steadily in size (in terms of total
deposits) at an average annual growth rate of 18%. There are about 100 commercial banks in
operation with 30 of them state owned, 30 private sector banks and the rest 40 foreign banks.
Still dominated by state-owned banks (they account for over 80% of deposits and assets), the
years since liberalization have seen the emergence of new private sector banks .This has resulted
in a much lower concentration ratio in India than in other emerging economies (Demirgüç-Kunt
and Levine 2001). There has been enormous change in the way banks were organized and the
effect on the working lives of employees of new technology and new structures was severe. The
workplace is potentially an important source of stress for bankers because of the amount of time
they spent in their respective banks. The financial security, opportunities for advancement,
demands to perform, relations, events, and physical environment at workplace, continuously
affect an individual’s ability to cope in the work environment (Hart and Wearing, 1995; Kelley,
1993; Near et al., 1983, Khan Khattak et al., 2010).

STRESS

Hans Selye1, a medical researcher first used term “Stress” to describe the body’s biological
response mechanism. He defined stress as “the nonspecific response of the body to any demand”.
John M. Ivancevich and Michael T. Matterson further defined stress as “adoptive response,
mediated by individual characteristics and/ or psychological processes that is a
consequence of any external action, situation or event that places special physical and/or
psychological demands upon a person”. Hence, Stress can be said as anything that brings
mental and emotional pressure that leads to fear, anxiety, worry, apprehensions, anger and even
excitement and the body responds in a prompt, speedy and inefficient way.

CASUAL FACTOR OF STRESS

People today are more active in many fields than in the past and therefore they also suffer from
stress which is a biological term, that refers to the consequences of the failure of the human body
to respond appropriately to mental or physical threats, whether actual or imagined. There are
various causes, which create stressful situations in the life of an individual. These causes are also
known as stressors and create a high level of stress. Stress depends on person capability and it
varies from person to person. These causes are given below:

 Environmental Causes
Environmental factors not only affect the functional growth and development of the
organization but also responsible for causing stress among individuals who work in
various organizations.

 Organizational Causes
People work in organizations, perform the various types of job, and play a variety of roles
for achieving the organization goals. There are various causes such as: Characteristics of
the job, Work-overload, Role in organization- Role conflict occurs when an individual is
expected to play two contradictory roles. Role ambiguity arises if the role is not well
defined and it involves uncertainty regarding job expectations and job description.
Relationship at Work; Organizational structure; Reimbursements and benefits; Work and
home interface.
 Personal Causes:
Many events related to the individual that are taking place outside the organization may
also become the source of stress at work for employees. Some past incidences like
traumas and unhappy events may contribute stress in life.
EFFECTS OF STRESS

In medical science, stress affects the human body and sub systems of human body such as
nervous system, immune system and blood pressure. Employees who work in highly stressful
situations develop undesirable tendencies in their working behavior. Hence , Stress affects these
employees in various ways such as physical effects (headache, backache, restlessness, loss of
appetite, infections, skin problems, and respiratory disorder), psychological effects (tension,
anxiety, fear, depression, loss of concentration, forgetfulness, loss of self-confidence,
nervousness, negative thinking, mental disorder, frustration, personality disorder, anger) and
behavioral effects such as arguing, crying, conflicting attitude, sleeping disorder, exhaustion,
burnout, carelessness and frequent mistakes, increase absenteeism, decrease commitment of
work and increase staff turnover. Stress not only effects the employees but also affects the
organizations. Major effects of stress can be classified as under:

 Performance: Stress adversely affects the performance of individuals in an

organization. It ultimately contributes low productivity of the whole organization because
the organization works through these individuals.
 Change in Attitude : Employees who face highly stressful situation constantly for a
long period are bound to experience some change in attitude. They develop negative
thinking, low morale and job dissatisfaction and fail to maintain friendly interpersonal
relation with co-workers.
 Withdrawal Behavior : The stress faced by employees also results in Behaviour. As a
result of this, it increases absenteeism, affects the internal environment of the
organization.

MOTIVATION

Motivation is defined as “inner burning passion caused by need, wants and desire which propels
an individual to exert his physical and mental energy to achieve desired objectives”. Efficiency
of a person depends upon performance. Performance can be expressed as under

Performance= Ability × Motivation

According to the encyclopedia of management, “Motivation refers to degree of readiness of an
organization to pursue some designated goals and implies the determination of the nature and the
locus of the focus, including the degree of readiness.”

Many contemporary authors have also defined the concept of motivation. Motivation has been
defined as psychological processes that gives behavior purpose and direction (Kreitner, 1995); a
predisposition to behave in a purposive manner to achieve specific, unmet needs (Buford,
Bedeian and linder, 1995); and internal drive to satisfy an unsatisfied needs (Higgins,
1994).Research shows that work motivation varies with age, individual psychology and is often
related to ability and environmental factors.

TYPES OF MOTIVATION

Two types of motivation are intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation.

1. Intrinsic Motivation:
It can arise from the self-generated factors that influence people’s behaviour. It is not
created by external incentives. Deci and ryan (1985) suggested that intrinsic motivation is
based on the needs to be competent and self-determining (that is, to have a choice).
According to an early writer on the significance of the motivational impact of job design
(katz, 1964): ‘the job itself must provide sufficient variety, sufficient complexity,
sufficient challenge and sufficient skill to engage the abilities of the worker.
2. Extrinsic Motivation :
It occurs when things are done to or for people to motivate them. These include rewards,
such as incentives, increased pay, praise, or promotion; and punishments, such as
disciplinary action, withholding pay, or criticism. Extrinsic motivators can have an
immediate and powerful effect, but will not necessarily last long.

THEORIES OF WORK MOTIVATION

Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an
individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction,
intensity, duration. Understanding what motivates an organization’s employees is central to the
study of I-O psychology.

Theories are as follows:

A. Need theories of motivation

 Need Hierarchy Theory-Abraham Maslow
The need hierarchy theory of Maslow is often quoted and used in management to
motivate workers. Maslow’s theory generally state five needs of human beings Viz,
Physiological, safety, belonging, (Social) esteem and self-actualization. Original theory
of Maslow did recognized that people’s needs varied at different times, and in
hierarchical order. Before a person enters to fulfill higher order needs he must achieve
minimum two basic needs (Physiological and Safety). He further stated that needs do not
disappear but its potency is reduced and the next higher order need takes precedence,
once that is fulfilled the next needs becomes dominating and so on. Needs which are
commonly used in the theory and its meaning is given below. Physiological Needs –
Decoration, Vibration, Temperature, etc. Security Needs – Job description, regularity,
role clarity, structure, communication, etc. Social Needs – Joint Tasks, appreciation,
sharing offices, etc. Self – esteem – Being consulted, rank, success, achievement, etc.
Self – actualization – Personal or professional growth, autonomy, etc.

 Theory X and Theory Y:

Douglas McGregor introduced Theory X and theory Y which are diagonally opposite to
each other.

Theory X:

McGregor assumed that average human being dislikes work and will try to avoid it if
possible. Employees are lazy, they must be controlled, coerced and even punished to
achieve organizational goals. Average employee do not accept responsibility and seek
direction from their superiors. They lack ambition. Because of these changes McGregor
prorogated Theory Y.
Theory Y:

Theory Y suggests that average human being likes work and takes it as natural as play.
Employees can exercise self-direction and self-control and given the proper working
conditions, average person seeks responsibilities. It assumes that management must
appreciate the potential among employees and adopt such management practices like
delegation, job enlargement and management by objective. Management must appreciate
the individual and organizational goals and create such environment, which is conducive
for its attainment. Reward System, recognition and facilities for creativity should be
provided.

McGregor in his theory displayed a total recognition of humanistic approach. He laid

stress on delegation of authority, setting organizational objectives and leaving it to the
employees to attain the same. He carried forward the behavior approach proposed by
Mayo, Maslow in mid-20th century. McGregor’s theory Y is as valid today as it was 50
years ago.

Theory Z

Management professor William Ouchi first proposed theory z. Theory Z stresses the need

to help workers become generalists, rather than specialists. It views job rotations and
continual training as a means of increasing employees’ knowledge of the company and its
processes while building a variety of skills and abilities.  The rationale for the drawn-out
time frame is that it helps develop a more dedicated, loyal, and permanent workforce,
which benefits the company; the employees, meanwhile, have the opportunity to fully
develop their careers at one company. When employees rise to a higher level of
management, it is expected that they will use Theory Z to “bring up,” train, and develop
other employees in a similar fashion. Ouchi’s Theory Z makes certain assumptions about
workers. One assumption is that they seek to build cooperative and intimate working
relationships with their coworkers. Another assumption is that workers expect reciprocity
and support from the company. Theory Z also makes assumptions about company
culture.
 ERG theory:

Clayton Alderfer revised the need hierarchy is called ERG theory. Alderfer argues that
there are three groups of core need—existence, relatedness, and growth—hence, the
name: ERG theory. These are as under: E-Existence need - There are related to provision
of basic material requirement of human being and are related to Maslow’s Physiological
and safety needs. R-Relatedness - This need is related to desire of an individual to
maintain sound interpersonal relationship. It is related to Maslow’s, Social need and
External component of Esteem need i.e., status, recognition and attention. G-Growth -
Growth is an intrinsic desire for personal development. It is related to intrinsic
component of Esteem Need like advancement, self-respect, autonomy, achievement and
self-actualization need.

 McClelland’s three motives:

McClelland’s theory of needs was developed by David McClelland and his associates to
help explain motivation. The theory focuses on three needs: achievement, power, and
affiliation. They are defined as follows: Need for achievement: The drive to excel, to
achieve in relation to a set of standards, to strive to succeed. Need for power: The need
to make others behave in a way that they would not have behaved otherwise. Need for
affiliation: The desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships.

 Herzberg’s two-factor theory:

Maslow’s theory of motivation implicitly distinguishes between the need for self-
actualization as their evinced by development and growth of the individual, and the other
needs as making up for some deficiency. This distinction was dramatically sharpened by
Herzberg, whose theory of work motivation is most widely known, applied and
discussed; his theory is also called the two-factor theory of motivation, as he discussed
two main classes of deficit and development needs.
Herzberg, collected data about people’s satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their jobs. The
analysis of this data led him to propose two sets of needs, one set of needs caused
dissatisfaction is they were not met; the other set provided positive satisfaction to people
if they were met. Using his prior experience in the field of health, Herzberg proposed his
 two-factor theory. According to him, preventing or reducing dissatisfaction in the work
situation is not the same as providing positive satisfaction.
B. Cognitive theories
 Expectancy Theory
Based upon the early work of Tolman (1932), the central assumption made by expectancy
theory is that human behavior is the result of conscious choices made by individuals
among alternative courses of action. According to this theory, such choices are made by
the individuals with the goal of maximizing the pleasure and minimize the pain that
results from their choice. In his Valence–Instrumentality–Expectancy (VIE) model,
Vroom (1964) argued that individuals accomplish this goal by utilizing three perceptions
in the decision: expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Expectancy refers to the
perceived likelihood that engaging in a given act or behavior will lead to a particular set
of outcomes. Instrumentality represents perceptions of the strength and nature of the
relationship between attainment of these first level outcomes and subsequent attainment
of a given set of second level outcomes. Valence represents the affective orientation that
individuals hold towards these second level outcomes.
 Cognitive evaluation theory
According to the theory, there are two persons- intrinsically motivated and extrinsically
motivated. Each individual evaluates a situation and responds to it according to his or her
frame of reference. Intrinsically motivated individuals perform for their own
achievements and satisfaction and are motivated by intrinsic motivators, such as the
intrinsic interest of the work, nature of job, responsibility, competence, actual
performance, etc. If they perceive that they are doing some job because of the pay or the
working conditions or some other extrinsic reason, they began to lose motivation.
According to this theory, the presence of powerful extrinsic motivation can actually
reduce a person’s intrinsic motivation, particularly if the extrinsic motivators are
perceived by the person to be controlled by people.
 Equity theory:
According to Adams’s (1963, 1965) equity theory, workers perceive their work-related
participation in an organization as an exchange process where they provide inputs to the
organization (e.g., experience, effort, education) in return for valued outcomes (e.g., pay,
 promotions, recognition). The central tenet of this theory is that individuals are motivated
to attain fairness or equity within this exchange process in terms of the outcomes they
receive relative to the inputs that they provide. Individuals evaluate the fairness of this
exchange through a social comparison process in which they compare the ratio of their
perceived outcomes to their perceived inputs (termed an equity ratio) to the equity ratio
of a ‘referent other,’ which may be a coworker, the individual in a previous situation
(e.g., at a previous job), a hypothetical ‘ideal other,’ or a system referent.
 Reinforcement theory:
This theory is based on Skinners’ concept of shaping behavior by controlling the
consequences of the behavior. In this theory, a combination of rewards and/or
punishments is used to reinforce desired behavior or extinguish unwanted behavior.
According to this theory,
individuals can choose from several responses to a given stimulus and will generally
select the response that has been associated with positive outcomes in the past. There are
two types of reinforcements: positive and negative. Positive reinforcement results when
the desired behavior is followed by the valued consequence thus, negative reinforcement,
results when an undesirable behavioral consequence is withheld, with the effect of
strengthening the probability of the behavior being repeated. Both the positive and
negative reinforcement, have the effect of increasing the probability that a particular
behavior will be learned and repeated and also strengthens the behavior, while both
punishment and extinction weaken behavior.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRESS AND WORK MOTIVATION

 Stress in low motivational jobs

Herzberg (1987) noticed that motivation is often a little known subject for managers.
Many managers think they can motivate their employees by offering raises or other
benefits. The study of Herzberg (1987) has shown that these kind of offerings only have a
short term positive effect, because employees do not get internally motivated from it. An
assumption based on this finding could be that employees who work in an environment
with a low level of internal motivation, experience a higher level of stress. Due to the fact
 that they get „pushed‟ to perform a job for which they are not internally motivated. This
indicates a difference between the actual and preferred level of influence on the job. Such
a low level of decision latitude is defined by Karasek (1979) as one of the factors
resulting in job stress. The results of the study of Abdel Halim (1978) show that the way
employees cope with stress depends on the enrichment level of the jobs they have.
Individuals on high-enriched jobs are able to direct stress into performance. Stress causes
them to become more involved in planning and understanding the work itself, their
personal role in it and the role of others. On the other hand, individuals on low-enriched
jobs have less options to direct stress in a positive way. An incomplete view of the work
process makes it more difficult for employees to understand the importance of demands
and high dependence on external sources makes it more difficult to change the outcome.
This low decision latitude is a stress factor by itself (Karasek, 1979) and in combination
with high demands it will results in a very high level of stress that is likely to have a
negative effect on the workers performance and satisfaction. This shows that
implementation of job enrichment as a motivational tool can influence the effect of stress
on employees. In general, high enriched jobs have more decision latitude which decreases
the stress level caused by job demands.

 Stress in high motivational jobs

If managers succeed to create high motivational jobs by implementing job enrichment,

the level of perceived stress still stays an important factor that has to be taken in to
account. A direct study on the subject was done by Wallgren and Hanse (2007), who did
empirical research on the relationship between motivators and stressors. In their study a
model was tested of the relationship between job characteristics (job demand, decision
latitude) and perceived stress, with motivators (responsibility, recognition, achievement,
possibility of growth) as the mediating variable. The results show that job demand was
directly positively related to perceived stress. The relationship between decision latitude
and perceived stress was partly mediated by motivators. A high level of decision latitude
was significantly related to a high level of motivators on the job. Another study of
Wallgren and Hanse (2007) about the finding that motivators were negatively related to
the level of perceived stress. The work of Wallgren and Hanse (2007) shows that
 although increasing motivators on the job (job enrichment) has a positive effect on the
motivation of workers, it can also affect the level of perceived stress. Wallgren and Hanse
(2007) point out that it is difficult to tell when “decision stress‟, caused by increased
responsibilities, changes from something positive to something negative. The theory of
Hackman et al. (1975) concluded that the effect of job enrichment depends on the
employees personal growth need. By interpreting and relating this to the findings of
Wallgren and Hanse (2007), an assumption may be that when job enrichment exceeds the
personal need for growth it leads to a higher level of stress. This is purely a hypothetic
statement, further research has to be done to test this relationship.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Kakkos N. Panayiotis T. (2011) investigated the link between motivations, work stress and job
performance in the banking industry. The study was based on a sample of 143 respondents drawn
from private (n=71) and public banks (n=72). It examined the impact of work stress and also
such variables as gender, age, bank type, work experience, position and income on job
Performance. Unlike the four (out of five) motivation dimensions studied it is the Growth needs
element (only) that is found to have a positive impact on employee job Performance. The
analysis also supported a negative relationship between Stress experienced at work and employee
job Performance while the latter does not seem to be influenced by any of the control variables
examined. The findings shed light into key drivers of job Performance and may contribute to the
development of HR strategies, bank policies or practices aiming at enhancing the human capital
potential and thus, individual employee performance outcomes thereby assisting ultimately
banks' competitiveness in a period of economic recession.

Oginni et al. (2013) investigated how job stress affected staff turnover in the Nigerian banking
sector. This study identified job stress variables including personal problems, organizational and
institutional policies, work materials, work pressure and environment, and job security. 533
respondents took part and job security was revealed as the biggest source of job stress to
Nigerian bankers, with work materials second and organizational policies guiding employee
activities and decisions third. Then came work pressure, which may be regarded as a follow-up
the organizational policies. Work environment, institutional policies and personal problems were
also important sources of stress for bankers. Job stress variables already listed had a significant
effect on staff turnover. The conclusion was that job stress variables were important indicators
and should be connected to staff turnover for better workforce productivity and stability (Abang
et al., 2009).

Wani, S.K. (2013) conducted a study to assess the job stress and its impact on motivation on
employees in banking industry in J&K bank. The objectives were: To study the difference in job
stress at different levels of management in J and K bank and To study the relationship between
employees motivation and job stress. The study has been conducted on 400 employees,
consisting of 200 officers and 200 clerks, randomly selected from different branches of the
sample organization. Both primary and secondary sources were used for the data collection.
Besides discussions and deliberations with the concerned employees, a well-designed
questionnaire was used for the study. The data analysis indicated that the clerical grade
employees were more prone to stress as compared to officers working in the organization. It
further showed that there was a significant relationship between employee motivation and job
stress. Higher level of job stress leads to lesser motivation and vice-versa.

Preshita and Pramod (2014) set out to understand what contributed to occupational stress in
Indian private and public sector banks. With 230 respondents collected by convenience and
random sampling through the ORS scale (Pareek, 1983), they looked for differences in the kinds
of stress felt and the strength with which it was experienced, looking also for male/female and
public/private sector differences. The study found that stress was experienced, at levels ranging
from moderate to high, in both sectors, with stagnating roles being the most powerful stressor
across either sector; distance between roles and erosion of roles came next. ORS scores were
higher in private sector employees. According to the authors, stagnation of roles is inherent in
the job–banking contains many monotonous jobs and employees who have repeated the same
task again and again over a long period without career growth opportunities and with no
likelihood of future change are likely to feel that their capacities are not used to the full, that
there are no learning opportunities, and to be stressed by the perception that their role is
stagnating.
George, E., Zakarriya, K.A. (2015) conducted a study to examine whether job satisfaction and
job-related stress differ among employees of different banking sectors. A questionnaire was
administered to 337 employees from various banks belonging to private sector, public sector
and new generation banks. One way ANOVA was conducted to find out whether job
satisfaction and job relates stress varied on the basis of three different sectors of banks. The
results indicated that employees of different sectors of bank had different level of job
satisfaction and job-related stress. Further it was revealed that public sector banks have lower
job-related stress when compared to private sector banks and new generation banks; and
higher job satisfaction when compared to new generation banks.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study have been arranged in the following order:
1. To study the relationship between work stress and work motivation.
2. To study the difference among the private and public sector bank employee in
relation to stress and work motivation.

HYPOTHESES

With the above mentioned objectives for the study, following hypotheses were postulated as
under:
1. There will be a significant difference between work motivation in Private and Public
Bankers.
2. There will be a significant difference between Job Stress in Private and Public Bankers.
3. There will be a significant correlation between Work Motivation and Job Stress.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

A Total of 60 bankers from different banks (30 private and 30 nationalized public) were taken as
a sample utilizing purposive sampling. The age range for participants was 25-60 years of age
with Experience minimum of 3 years. They should be have minimum graduation degree and no
known psychological and physical problem.

DESIGN

The present research is designed to carry out comparison between bankers working in Private
Organization and bankers working in Public Organization on the work stress and work
motivation. The study is designed to find the relationship among participants on work stress and
work motivation.

MEASURES

1. Work Motivation Questionnaire ( WMQ)

WMQ developed by Agarwal K G (1990) is used to measure the work motivation of the sample.
It consists of 26 Likert type items with 5 alternatives. It is used to measure the work motivation
of employees of different strata in any industry or organization. This questionnaire consists of 6
dimensions namely Dependence, Organizational orientation, Work group relations,
Psychological work incentives, Material incentives and Job situation. Internal consistency of the
instrument was found out by split half method. The reliability co- efficient by Spearman Brown
formula was very high i.e. 0.99. Face validity, items validity and factorial validity were
established for the scale.

Face validity computed by taking the opinion of 22 judges and resulted in high agreement for
different items of ranking. Item validity was established by correlating each item with total
scores and obtained co-efficient are varying from 0.24 to 0.67 (all are significant beyond 1%
level).

Factorial validity was computed by using principal component method (by carrying out varimax
rotation criteria). Six factors were identified and these factors were found to measure what
intended to measure.
2. Brief Job Stress Questionnaire ( BJSQ)
The BJSQ consists of 57 items used to assess job stressors (17 items: e.g., psychological job
demands, job control), psychological and physical stress reactions (29 items), and buffering
factors, such as social support at work (11 items). The criteria for defining high-stress
workers based on the BJSQ. High-stress is defined as having the highest level of stress
reaction (criterion (i) ) or having a moderate level of stress reaction, along with having the
highest job stressors (or lowest social support in the workplace) (criterion (ii) ). The criteria
were established based on expert consensus, and criterion (ii) was included because the
program is aimed at improving the psychosocial work environment and reducing
psychosocial stress among the high-stress workers.

PROCEDURE:

The data was collected utilizing purposive sampling. The class was divided into several groups
for the purpose of data collection. Each group consisted of 5-6 members. Each member collected
the data of 10 bankers from their respective banks.The respondents were asked to fill up a
consent form mentioning their agreement on participating in the study along with a demographic
data sheet mentioning their age education, salary range and professional experience. The data
sheet included intrusion on how to record their response. Participation was anonymous and
voluntary and respondents didn’t receive any reimbursement or incentive to be in the study.
After the data was collected the analysis was done using SPSS.

RESULTS:

Inter correlation between the variables and its sub-components were calculated using Pearson co-
relation and co-efficient and an independent t-test was also performed using SPSS. From the
Table no.1 we can see that
Table 1: Comparison between private bankers and public bankers on various variables
change t value

Private Bankers Public Bankers

Variables t-value

Mean SD Mean SD
15.25
1.134
BJSQT 1.236 7 16.711 2.469*

15.12
WMT 78.966 80.333 15.816 -.324
5
JOB STRESS 42.066 5.711 36.733 4.94 -.2.46*

PSYCHOLOGICAL
61.166 13.21 57.200 13.87 -3.86
RESPONSE

ORGANIZATION
18.133 4.710 18.4667 4.431 -2.82
ORIENTATION
JOB SITUATION 9.20 2.74 9.50 2.28 -.460
MATERIAL
10.766 3.988 12.266 5.698 -1.18
INCENTIVES
WORK GROUP
12.466 3.401 11.966 4.156 .510
RELATION

PSYCHOLOGICAL
15.7667 4.50 16.26 4.68 4.21
WORK INCENTIVES

DEPENDENCE 23.50 2.78 24.03 2.32 .424

When the bankers of the Public and Private organization were compared on certain
psychological correlates, the following results were obtained: for the private bankers the mean
for job stress ( motivation ) was 42.06 and for public bankers the mean was 36.73 (t= -2.46, p=
0.017 ); the obtained mean for psychological response was 42.06 in private bankers while the
mean of public bankers was 36.73 (t=-3.868, p=.260); the mean for organizational orientation
was 18.13 in private bankers whereas it was 18.46 for public bankers (t=-2.82, p=.779); for job
situation the obtained mean of private bankers was 9.20 and 9.50 of the public bankers (t=-.460,
p=.697) ; the mean for material incentive was found out to be 10.76 of private bankers and it was
12.66 for public bankers (t=-1.181, p=.242); for group relationship mean for private bankers was
12.46 and 11.96 for public bankers (t = .510,p=.612);the mean for psychological work incentive
for private bankers was 15.76 and 16.26 for public bankers ( t=-4.21,p=.675),and the mean for
dependence for private bankers was 23.50 and 24.03 for public bankers ( t=.424 , p=.804).

The mean of combined scores of dimensions of job BJSQ for private bankers was 1.123 and for
public bankers was 1.134.The mean of combined scores of dimensions of motivation for private
bankers was 78.9 and for public bankers was 80.3 .

This mean difference showed that there is a difference between job stress and work motivation
among private and public bankers. But from Table 1 it can be inferred that there was no
significant difference between work motivations but a significant difference was seen between
job stress among private and public bankers. There was no significant difference seen on the
level of Job stress and levels of work motivation.
TABLE 2: Correlation between work motivation and job stress

D PWI WGR MI JOB.S OO WMT PR JS BJST

D 1

PWI .393** 1

WGR .179 .788** 1

MI .215 .885** .770** 1

JOB.S .187 .801** .711** .684** 1

OO .183 .791** .692** .742** .762** 1

WMT .394** .954** .849** .886** .861** .878** 1

PR .169 .223 .162 .174 .134 .112 .184 1

JS -.031 -.062 .099 -.007 -.058 -.033 .006 -.062 1

BJST .123 .141 .122 .123 .072 .077 .133 .909** .297* 1

*significant at .05 level **significant at .01 level

***Note: D=Dependence; PWI=Psychological work incentives; WGR=Work group relations;

MI=Material incentives; JOB.S=Job situation; OO=Organizational orientation; MT =Work
motivation total; PR=Psychological response; JS=Job stress; BJST=Brief job stress total
Inter-correlation between the variables was calculated using Pearson correlation coefficient.
From the table 2 we can see that all dimensions of work motivation namely Dependence ,
psychological work incentive , work group relations , material incentives , job situation and
organizational orientation is positively correlated with work motivation tool at 0.01 level and
psychological work incentives is positively correlated with dependence at 0.01 level. Work
group relations, material incentives, job situation and organizational orientation is positively
correlated with psychological work incentive at 0.01 level. Material incentives, job situation and
organizational orientation is positively correlated with work group relations at 0.01 level. Job
situation and organizational orientation is positively correlated with material incentives at 0.01
level. Organizational orientation is positively correlated with job situation at 0.01 level.

INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

The study was aimed to find out the positive significant relationship between work stress and
work motivation among bank employees in public and private sector. A Total of 60 bank
employees from different banks (30 private and 30 nationalized public) were taken as a sample
utilizing purposive sampling for this study. The respondents were asked to fill up a consent form
mentioning their agreement on participating in the study along with a demographic data sheet
mentioning their age education, salary range and professional experience. Participation was
anonymous and voluntary and respondents didn’t receive any reimbursement.
While looking at the t-test and the significant value we infer that as the significant value for work
motivations was greater than 0.05. Hence our hypothesis that there will be significant difference
between work motivation of bankers working in Private and nationalized Public Sector, was not
proved. It was also seen in the table that a significant difference was in the job stress [t= .96;
p=0.00]. Hence, our hypothesis that there will be significant difference between job stress of
bankers working in private and public sector has been proved. From table no. 1 it can be inferred
that mean value of private bankers was higher than that of public bankers. Hence, it can be
concluded that private bankers reported high on job stress than public bankers.

The reason for this can be that employees from private bank have overload of work compared to
the public sector bank employees. The private sector bank employees felt that they were facing
different work pressure like collecting the depository amount from customer/client place, form
filling, etc., as they were expected to handle multiple roles and charter of duties. Research study
(Malik, 2011; Bano et al., 2012; Swarnalatha et al., 2012; Dhankar 2015) have found that the
“employees working in private banks have shown high mean values of role overload in
comparison to public sector banks”. Another reason could be that the private sector bank
employees have a high level of performance pressure compared to public sector bank employees.
Private bank employee’s performance was measure through general banking activities and
market their bank products & services. In this respect, the employees have to perform both the
areas to retain their job long years. Also majorly in private sector bank employees does not have
a surety to continue their job long days in the same organization. Due to heavy competition,
employees have to give a best performance, those who are not perform well, they have a chance
for termination, demotion and etc. Therefore, the effect of job security as an occupational stress
factor appears to be more pronounced among private sector bank employees (Jha, Gupta &
Yadav, 2008; Singh & Kohli, 2006; Thakur, 2007).
Edison, 2015 in their research study conducted to examine the factors causing stress among
employees in public and private sector banks. The results indicated that the job stressors
affecting the private sector bank employees included overload of work, role conflict, role
ambiguity, performance pressure, and job security.
The reason for no difference in work motivation could be that employees employed in the public
sector tend prioritize work motivation in different ways than their counterparts employed in
private sector. From table 1 we can analyse Private bankers could have high trust and confidence
on people in the work and are highly motivated to do the work with the support and cooperation
of their colleagues irrespective of lower work incentives and stressful job situation. Whereas in a
public sector bank banker might have more material incentives and are more oriented towards
their organization.
A study was conducted by Swathi B (2014) to examine Motivation and job satisfaction in SBI
and ICICI banks. The results indicated that there is there is statistically significant difference
between employee work motivation and banks with respect to SBI and ICICI banks.
It also concluded that there is no statistically significant difference between these motivational
dimensions i.e. work content ;promotion ;benefits ;recognition ;working conditions ;leader
supervision ;personal; security and banks.
From table 2, the correlation of work motivation and job stress were examined. It was found
that work motivation and job stress were not positively correlated with each other. Hence, our
third hypothesis that there will be a significant correlation between work motivation and job
stress was disproved. Empirical evidence suggests that stress-related positively and significantly
related to work motivation (Widiastuti, 2008). Work stress has a significant effect on intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic motivation (Barney & Elias, 2010). Hence, the empirical evidence does
not support our research findings from table it could.

From table 1 it could be observed that there was a significant difference between bank
employees between private and nationalized public banks in terms of job stress hence it can be
said that the two groups are hetrogenous.Since homogeneity as basic assumption of correlation is
not full filled the non-significant correlation between two groups in terms of work motivation
and job stress can be attributed to the heterogeneity among them.

Noermijati, Noermijati & Primasari, Diana. (2015) conducted a research to analyze the direct
effect of job stress and motivation on employee performance, and indirect effect of job stress and
motivation on employee performance through job satisfaction. This research involved 108
married female employees, with minimal one year working period. The result indicated that.
Motivation has a significant positive effect on employee performance. Motivation significantly
positive influences job satisfaction. Motivation has an indirect effect on employee performance
through job satisfaction. Motivation has the most important role to enhance employee
performance. As an implication, company must give more attention and enhance employee
motivation, especially on fulfilling self-actualization need.

Another study conducted by Li L, Hu H, Zhou H, et al (2014) –a sectional survey to examine the

Work stress, work motivation and their effects on job satisfaction in community health
workers.The participants were 930 community health workers from six cities in Heilongjiang
Province (China).to measure socioeconomic and demographic status, work stress, work
motivation and job satisfaction. The findings indicated that levels of overall motivation
perception and scores on the career development, responsibility and recognition motivation
subscales were higher in satisfied respondents relative to dissatisfied respondents.
Even though this study did give us the results there were some limitations to it. Firstly, this study
is correlational in nature. One cannot draw causal inferences from the results. There could be
alternative explanations for the findings. Secondly, Generalization of results is another limitation
of this study. Purposive sampling was employed in the current research.
The present results are based on a sample of relatively small size-it remains a task for future
researcher to replicate these findings.

Hence the non-significant difference tells us that bankers work under same perception and same
aim in both government and private organization hence a very low change can be seen in their
job stress and work motivation.

CONCLUSION

The study was aimed to find out the positive significant relationship between work stress and
work motivation among bank employees in public and private sector. A Total of 60 bank
employees (30 private and 30 public) were taken as a sample utilizing purposive sampling for
this study. There was no significant difference between work motivations but a significant
difference was seen between job stress among private and public bankers.(t= ; p= ).Also
correlation among work motivation and job stress were found to be not positively correlated with
each other.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, K. G. (2019, 3 1). shodhganga. Retrieved from shodhganga:

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/112397/19/19_appendix%202.pdf

Kondalkar, V. G. (2007). Organizational Behaviour. New Delhi: New Age International.

Levy, P. E. (2010). INDUSTRIAL/ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY-Understanding the
Workplace (3rd ed.). New York: Worth Publisher.

Li L, Hu H, Zhou H, et al (2014) Work stress, work motivation and their effects on job
satisfaction in community health workers: a cross-sectional survey in China
BMJ Open 2014; 4:e004897. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004897

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LABOUR WELFARE,JAPAN. (2019, 2 3). Retrieved from

MHLW: http://www.ibarakis.johas.go.jp/outline/magazine/attach/150803-2.pdf

Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology Applied to Work (8th ed.). United States of America:
Thomson Wadsworth.

N, N., & D, P. (2015). The effect of job stress and job motivation on employees performance
through job statisfaction. Journal of Economics,Business & Accountance, 1-42.
doi:18.231.10.14414/jebav.v18i2.450