This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
¹Awadhesh Kumar Shirotriya, Lecturer in Department of Physical Education, Anand College of Physical Education, Gwalior Education, Unit of Sharda Group of Institutions (SGI) Agra (UP) ² Dr. Biswajit Basumatary, Professor Lakshmibai National University of (MP)
It is my M.Phil Dissertation and Published in Indian Journal of Psychometry and Education (ISSN 0378-1003), Vol.41 (2), pp. 214-218.
ABSTRACT Statistics show that within the army and paramilitary force there have been more deaths in the recent past due to stress rather than combat. Occupational stress and low level of frustration are the two main root causes of suicides and shoot outs which are very pervasive in paramilitary and other security forces now a days. The purpose of this study was to compare occupational stress and Frustration tolerance among BSF, CISF and PAC with some selected rank and age categories. Data were collected through 150 male subordinate officers and other personnel of different rank categories from selected three forces. Samples were selected through random sampling by the Occupational Stress Index (OSI) by A.P. Srivatsava and A.P. Singh and Frustration Tolerance (FRTO) Inventory by S.N.Rai. Data were evaluated by applying ANOVA for comparing both parameters among selected three forces, level of significance was set at 0.05. The result of the study indicated that PAC endure highest level of occupational stress and BSF and CISF exhibit moderate level of occupational stress and each category of paramilitary forces has similar level of frustration tolerance this may be due to similar level of working atmosphere and transitions lifestyle. The occupational stress among selected forces is of significantly higher level and should be matter of concern of ensuring efficient work output from them.
Address for correspondence: A.K.Shirotriya, ‘Shrotriya Kunj’ 144, Civil Lines Opposite Commissioner Residence Meerut (UP) 250001: Contact No’s:0121-2670029,+919897289144, +919027036144,+917503324144:Email:email@example.com:Webpage:www.freewebs.com/akshirotriya
INTRODUCTION Stress in the workplace is a growing problem, with extensive costs to individuals, organizations and society. A recent study, has Reported that security forces have higher job stress than their civilian counterparts. 26% of the service men reported significant work stress, 15% reported that work stress led to emotional distress and 8% claimed that work stress was severe enough to affect their emotional and mental health. In fact statistics show that within the army and other security forces there have been more deaths in the recent past due to stress rather than combat, which means that more soldiers have been killed due to suicides or ‘fragging’ rather than militants or insurgents.1 As such incidents are on the rise, particularly with the security forces fighting militancy in border states like Jammu and Kashmir, the experts and the doctors call this growing phenomenon as ‘stress’ and ‘frustration’ that has brought about a behavior change in the security force personnel over the years. OCCUPATIONAL STRESS Stress has now become an area of concern for all types of occupation. There is little doubt, however, that some professions have fared worse than others. It has long been argued that workers involved in high levels of personal interaction, such as security forces and teachers, are more vulnerable to occupational stress and professional ‘burnout’ than those in product-oriented organizations. All occupations are associated with stress, but defense occupations are significantly more stressful than others. Occupational stress, also known as job stress, has been defined as the experience of negative emotional states such as frustration, worry, anxiety and depression attributed to work related factors (Kyriacou, 2001). Cooper and Marshal2 defined occupational stress as negative environmental factors or stressors associated with a
Rudroneel Ghosh, “Stress; The Army's New Enemy Health” Wednesday, India eNews July 04, 2007. Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J., “Occupational source of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49 pp.11-28.
particular job. Stress is not always harmful. It is the individual's reaction to stress that determines the outcome, i.e., whether the individual will adapt or become maladaptive.
Sources of Occupational Stress Srivastava and Singh3 identified twelve sources of occupational stress like: role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, group pressures, low profitability, under participation, low status, responsibility for poor people, intrinsic impoverishment, strenuous work, poor peer –relations and powerlessness. FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE Frustration is an emotional response to circumstances where one is obstructed from arriving at a personal goal. The more important the goal, the greater the frustration. It is comparable to anger and disappointment. Sources of frustration may be internal or external. Internal sources of frustration involve personal deficiencies such as a lack of confidence or fear of social situations that prevent one from reaching a goal. Conflict can also be an internal source of frustration when one has competing goals that interfere with one another. External causes of frustration involve conditions outside the person such as a blocked road; or conditions linked to the person's actions but not directly such as lack of money, or lack of sexual activity. All individuals at one time or another, in greater or lesser amount have to tolerate frustration in their life. The frustration tolerance refers to the amount of stress one can tolerate before his integrated functioning is seriously impaired. Thus, frustration tolerance refers to the capacity of the individual to show persistence in efforts despite repeated failures and antagonistic environment. Thus it is necessary to tolerate the frustration resulting from such events as failure in examination, loss of status etc., to maintain the integration of the personality. The person who continues his effort may be said to have more frustration tolerance that one who discontinues his efforts or indulges in any reactionary mode of behavior. Variables Affecting Frustration Tolerance A large number of independent variables related to frustration tolerance have been studied. These variables can be divided into the following categories: Organism variables, Environmental factors, Task
Srivastava, A.K., Management of Occupational Stress: Theories and Practice, New Delhi, 1999, Gyan House.
characteristics, Cultural variables and other variables like Success in any task, Reinforcement also affects frustration tolerance. The aim of current study was to compare occupational stress and frustration tolerance among BSF, CISF and PAC with some selected rank categories. Conceptualization of this study was mainly based on the facts that occupational stress and low level of frustration are the two main root causes of suicides and shoot outs which are very pervasive in army and security forces now a days. We used survey methodology in this study and based on extensive review of literature, we postulated following hypotheses: 1. All these forces have different fixed work pattern and have different working atmosphere so it was hypothesized that there would be significant difference among all three forces on occupational stress. 2. Further it was hypothesized that there would be significant difference among all three forces on frustration tolerance. METHODOLOGY Sample Selection Total 150 (50 subjects from each force) male subordinate officers and other personnel of different rank categories (Sepoy to Sub Inspector) as subjects were randomly selected from BSF, CISF and PAC from various battalions and places. The age of the subjects were ranging from 20-50 years. All the subjects belonged to different states and union territories of India and all the subjects had a minimum of 3 years job experience, efforts were made to include all the branches. Table-1 Selection of Subjects PAC 6 BN (Meerut) 25 44 BN (Meerut) 10 15 BN (Agra) 15 CISF 5 Res. BN (Ghaziabad) 50 BSF STS (Tekanpur) 38 BTC (Indore) 12
Table-2 Rank Categories of Subjects PAC Sep. 15 L.Nk 10 Nk. 10 Hav. 05 P.C. 10 Sep. 20 CISF Hav. 17 S.I . 13 Cons. 20 BSF H.Cons. 16 A.S.I 8 S. I. 6
Sep. L.Nk. Nk. Hav. P.C. Cons. H.Cons. A.S.I. S.I. Research Tools
Sepoy Lance Nayak Nayak Havaldar Platoon Commander Constable Head Constable Assistant Sub Inspector Sub Inspector
1. Occupational Stress was measured using the Hindi version of Occupational Stress Inventory(OSI) developed by AP Srivatsava and AP Singh consisting of 46 items, each to be rated on a five-point scale. e.g., 5 for strongly agree, 4 for agree 3 agree, 2 for disagree and 1 for strongly disagree. Total score on this scale is considered for the assessment of occupational stress. More the score on this scale indicates more stress. 2. Frustration Tolerance was measured using the Frustration Tolerance Inventory (FRTO) developed by S.N.Rai. This battery consists of 5 puzzles. Respondent were required to draw the figures for solving the puzzles. Puzzle number I and III time (in minute and seconds) were summed and mean time were calculated for each subject to know his frustration tolerance. PROCEDURES Data for this investigation were collected 150 (50 from each force) male officers and other personnel of different rank categories from various battalions and places, starting with seeking permission from the higher authorities (Director General & Commandant) concerned to involve subjects in the study. Almost
all the authorities agreed to co-operate in the study. Researcher were assured all the concern authorities that each of them will receive a copy of the abstract of study. The data was collected from by using Hindi version of occupational stress index (OSI) and Frustration Tolerance Inventory (FRTO).These index and inventory are standardized, valid, reliable and objective, which are widely used in Indian context. DATA ANALYSIS To compare the three paramilitary forces on occupational stress and frustration tolerance analysis of variance (ANOVA) were exclusively employed and the level of significance for F- ratio was set at 0.05. Moreover, the analysis of variance was done with the help of SPSS Version 15.Wherever F value was found significant, Least Significance Difference (Ronald. A. Fisher) post hoc test for mean comparison were conducted to find out the status and different level of psychological parameter among the three paramilitary groups. Further norms based grading among both psychological parameters was done to depict the group status on occupational stress and frustration tolerance. RESULTS For analyzing the data collected from this study the results were divided into 3 groups (low, moderate and high) based on mean and then according to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and their relations with other parameters have been explored. Table -2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF OCCUPATION STRESS AMONG BSF, CISF AND PAC
Source of variation
Between the group
8359.72 28.55* 292.79
Within group 147 *Significant at 0.05 level of significance Tab F (.O5), N-2=3.06
It is evident from table 2, there is a significant difference in occupational stress among the three paramilitary groups i.e. BSF, CISF and PAC as the obtained f value was 28.55 which are much greater
than tabulated f value (3.06).This finding implies that occupational stress level of paramilitary forces i.e. BSF, CISF and PAC are of significantly different level. Since f value was significant post hoc mean test was conducted to find out the status and actual differences among three groups for occupational stress. Table -3 LSD Post Hoc Test for Comparison of Means Among BSF, CISF and PAC PAC 161.68 161.68 CISF 135.82 BSF 148.50 M.D. 25.86* 13.18* C.D.
*Significant Table 3, shows post hoc comparison of occupational stress between PAC and CISF, PAC and BSF, CISF and BSF are significantly different as the mean difference values were found to 25.86, 13.18 and 12.86 respectively which are greater than the criterion mean difference i.e. 3.42. Above statistical findings shows the three paramilitary forces were found to be of significantly different level of occupational stress. The finding on occupational stress showed the trend PAC > BSF > CISF.
This trend indicates that PAC having the highest level of occupational stress followed by BSF and CISF. Table-4 Norms Based Grading of Occupational Stress among BSF, CISF and PAC (In Numbers and Percentage) Groups BSF CISF PAC High (156-230) 16 (32%) 07 (14%) 34 (68%) Moderate (123-155) Low (46-122) 32 (64%) 32 (64%) 16 (32%) 03 (06%) 11 (22%) 00 (00%) Overall Grading Based on Mean Scores 148.58 (Mean Scores) –Moderate 132.82 (Mean Scores) –Moderate 161.68(Mean Scores) –High
Table-5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE AMONG BSF, CISF AND PAC Source of variation d.f SS MSS f-ratio
Between the group
8.12 1.16 6.99
Within group 147 1028.51 Not significant at 0.05 level of significance Tab F (.O5), N-2=3.06
It is evident from table 5, there is no significant difference in frustration tolerance among the three paramilitary groups i.e. BSF, CISF and PAC as the obtained f value was 1.16 which is less than tabulated f value (3.06).This finding implies that frustration tolerance level of paramilitary forces i.e. BSF, CISF and PAC are not significantly different. Table-6 Norms Based Grading of Frustration Tolerance among BSF, CISF and PAC (In Number and Percentage) Groups BSF CISF PAC High Tolerance 20 (40%) 18 (36%) 20 (40%) Low Tolerance 30 (60%) 32 (64%) 30 (60%)
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS The analysis of data reveals that there is significant deference in Occupational Stress among BSF, CISF and PAC. This may be attributed to the fact that all three forces do not have a fixed work pattern and they must be geared to meet expected and unexpected emergencies for unspecified periods of time. A CISF job is not a high tension job like the BSF and PAC. Theirs are mainly shift jobs with little pressure. It is not fare to compare the CISF with the BSF or PAC as both forces are wholly deployed in high stress and tense areas including borders and high counter-insurgency zones, with very short time for rest and or even training. Probable other reasons for significant difference could be that high job demands, hectic work schedules, conflicting demands ,shift work , poor relations with co-workers ,lack of promotions ,excessive overtime, multiple & prolonged tours, limited leaves and loneliness. In addition to this financial benefit in relation to job profile being obtained matter of dissatisfaction among forces is the major issues over and above their constantly changing working conditions in terms of their placement of duties over the area which could be always rafting with diverse topography, alien place with accustomed in different cultural environment. The finding pertaining the BSF, CISF and PAC are not significantly in Frustration Tolerance in other words we can interpret that there were similar level of this parameter. This may be attributed to the fact that all three forces have same working conditions, relationship with co workers, transitions lifestyle, living arrangements, atmosphere, pattern of leave and same system of administration.
CONCLUSION Within the limitation of present study and findings of the study following conclusion may be drawn: 1. Among all the selected security forces PAC endure highest level of occupational stress. Probable reasons for this result could be no clear cut assign level of duty and extended duty hours for PAC personnel. 2. Each category of security forces has similar level of frustration tolerance this may be due to similar level of working atmosphere and transitions lifestyle. 3. The occupational stress among security forces is of significantly higher level and should be matter of concern of ensuring efficient work output from them. 4. Contrary to popular perception civilian armed force like PAC working conditions are significantly unfavorable and not ideal one resulting more occupational stress among PAC personnel. 5. It is also concluded that it is higher authorities who are concern and policy maker think of stream liming services conditions in terms of pay, benefits, duty hours etc. be stream line. REFERANCES: 1. Charles D. S. et al. (1994), “Job Stress in University, Corporate, And Military Personnel”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-31.Available at www.springerlink.com/index/N448318248073808.pdf. (accessed 27 September2008) 2. Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. (2001), “Occupational Source of Stress: A Review of the Literature Relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 49, pp.11-28. Available at medind.nic.in/iay/t03/i2/iayt03i2p6.pdf –(accessed 29 September 2008) 3. Dedic G and Kostic P. (2001), “Causes Of Frustration In Soldiers During The Period Of Adaptation To The Military Environment” Vojnosanit Pregl. Nov-Dec; Vol.58 No.6, pp.621630.Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11858018. (accessed 30 September2008) 4. Edwards J A et al. (2007), “A Longitudinal Study Exploring The Relationships Between Occupational Stressors, Non-Work Stressors And Work Performance”. Journal of Work and Stress, Vol. 21 No.2, pp.99-116. Available at http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a779904266~db=all~jumptype=rss. (accessed 02 October 2008)
5. G Prasad Rao et al. (2000), “A Study Of Stress And Psychiatric Morbidity In The Central Industrial Security Force”, Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. Vol. 30 Issue 1, pp. 3947.Available 2008) 6. Hourani, Laurel L et al. (2006), “Mental Health, and Job Performance among Active Duty Military Personnel: Findings from the 2002 Department of Defense Health-Related Behaviors Survey”, Journal of Military Medicine. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17036605 (accessed 29 September2008) 7. John M.V.and Fred A. (1995), “Police Stressors: Variations in Perception Among Police Personnel” Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 23 Issue 3, pp. 287-294. Available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/00472352/1995/00000023/00000003/art00012;jsessio nid=3jbmg1kucj5hc.alexandra (accessed 04 October 2008) 8. Karen Miller et al. (2000), “Occupational Stress And Gender: A Cross-Cultural Study”. Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, Vol. 16 Issue 5, pp.271 – 278. Available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/73504773/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 (accessed 03 October 2008) 9. Pflanz S and Sonnek S. (2002), “Work Stress In The Military: Prevalence, Causes, And Relationship To Emotional Health”, Journal of Military Medicine, Nov; Vol. 167 Issue 11, pp.877-82. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12448610 (accessed 29 September 2008) 10. Rosenweig, S. (1944), An Outline of Frustration Theory. In Personality And Behaviour Disorders. New York,pp. 14-16. 11. Srivastava, A.K.,(1999), Management of Occupational Stress: Theories and Practice, Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, pp.12-20. 12. Srivastava, A.K. and Singh A.P. (1981), “Construction and Standardization of an Occupational Stress Index: A Pilot Study”. Indian journal of clinical psychology. Vol. 8 No.5, pp.13-16. Available at www.bizresearchpapers.com/Jain.pdf (accessed 05 October 2008) 13. SI Gangyan et al. Medalist”,
7176;year=2008;volume=30;issue=1;spage=39;epage=47;aulast=Rao (accessed 27 September
“Changing Low Frustration Tolerance: A Case Study of an Olympic
Sinica, Vol. 40 No. 02 pp.240-252.
at www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/en/aps/200800400002/0240.htm (accessed 29 December 2008) 14. Shi L et al. (2003), “Job Stress: A Study Of University Faculties And Staffs In China”. J. Beijing Normal University, Vol.177, pp.65-71. Available at www.academicjournals.org/pdf %202008/Sep/Jing.pdf (accessed 29 December 2008)
15. Thompson, J.W. (1978), “Frustration Tolerance, Parenting Attitudes and Perception of Parenting Behavior as Factors in the Incidence of Child Abuse”. Dissertation abstract. Available atwww.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract. aspx?id=50993(accessed 01 January 2009) 16. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational stress –(accessed 24September 2008) 17. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frustration_tolerance (accessed 01 November 2008) 18. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustration –(accessed 01 January 2009) 19. www.symptoms-of-stress.com/occupational-stress.php (accessed 3 February 2009)