A Qualitative Study of Work Stress and E

Running Head: Work Stress in Indian Oil & Gas Industry
A Qualitative Study of Work Stress and Employees’ Expectations of Stress

Management Interventions in Context of Indian Oil & Gas Industry
Professionals
Satish Pandey
Dinyar M. Pestonjee
Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, India
Submitted to the The AHRD Asia Conference, 2017
India
Refereed Full Manuscript
© 2017 Satish Pandey & Dinyar M. Pestonjee
Cite as:
Pandey, S. & Pestonjee, D. M. (2018). A qualitative study of work stress and employees’
expectations of stress management interventions in context of indian oil & gas industry
professionals. In D. M. Pestonjee and R. Naranedran (Eds) Sustainable development of human
capital: Exploring perspectives from grassroots to global research and practice (pp. 330-347),
New Delhi: Excel Publications.
1

Professionals
Abstract
The present study is aimed to understand impact of work environment on perceived work stress
of oil & gas professionals working in Indian oil/gas companies and their expectations about
stress management interventions in context of their organizations. To understand dynamics of
work stress in Indian oil and gas industry companies, we decided to adopt qualitative approach in
this research study. A convenient sample of 51 male executives who possess an average of seven
years’ experience from 16 leading companies in the Oil & Gas industry in India were
interviewed face-to-face by using open-ended questions that focus on work conditions, work
stress, reasons of work stress, impact of work stress on individuals’ professional, personal,
family and social life. The interviews also covered questions on employees’ expectations from
their organizations about organizational interventions to manage stress at individual, team and
organizational levels. Deadlines, project management issues, lack of resources, high
responsibility and multitasking were cited as most dominant reasons of high work stress in the
work environment of oil/gas industry professionals. Regarding employees’ expectations about
their organization’s role in stress management interventions, majority of our respondents agreed
that organizations can definitely play a major role in managing work stress of employees at
individual, team and organizational levels by adopting various organizational processes and
mechanisms. The findings of this study may provide many insights to HRD managers in
2
designing workplace stress management interventions for creating a positive, proactive work
culture which induce positive stress for better performance and achieving excellence.
Key Words: Work Stress, Stress Management Interventions, Employees’ Expectations,
Qualitative Approach, Oil & Gas Industry
3

Professionals
Introduction
The work environment of the Oil & Gas industry is considered very difficult and highly
risky in terms of safety and occupational hazards. The professionals employed in upstream
(exploration and production) industry work under difficult work conditions e.g. adverse weather,
risk of fire, gas leakage, oil spill, unexpected technical failures to name a few. Physical work
conditions are identified as major work stressors for on-shore and off-shore professionals (Parkes
1993, 1998). Another important stressor is physical and social isolation; as most of the workers
and professionals are located in remote locations (mostly on seashores or deep sea oil
installations). They are far away from their family, no social contacts with their friends and
family, and work for continuous long hours in very crowded work stations (oil rigs). The
combined impact of crowding and social isolation leads to workplace aggression and bullying
behavior in some cases (Warren Shepell Report 2005). There are complaints of psychosomatic
health problems, sleep disorders, sea sickness, alcohol and drug abuse, smoking and obesity
naming a few, among oil professionals (Parkes 1998). In their seminal study on offshore
professionals working in North Sea oil fields, Scotland; Sutherland and Cooper (1996) identified
the following stress factors that affect work life of oil industry offshore professionals. These
factors are- career prospects and rewards; safety and insecurity at work; home/work interface;
understimulation-low demand; physical work conditions; unpredictability of work patterns;
living conditions; organization structure and climate; work overload; helicopter transportation
4
and physical well-being. Brešić, Knežević, Milošević, Tomljanović, Golubović and
Mustajbegović (2007) identified that more than one-third of all 125 workers (including oil field
workers, office staff and laboratory technicians) in their sample drawn from a Croatian oil
company; reported poor work organization, deadlines, insufficient time to perform work, lack of
permanent education, poor resources for work, and inadequate working space as major sources
of stress. Sutherland and Cooper (1996) identified the following adverse impacts of work stress
on offshore employees including- physical and/or psychological ill-health, premature death,
forced early retirement, absenteeism, high labor- turnover, poor productivity, job dissatisfaction,
increased rate of accidents, drug/alcohol abuse, unsatisfactory employee relations; naming a few.
Sutherland and Cooper (1996) strongly advocated that oil industry should acknowledge high
costs of mismanaged work stress and adopt a preventive approach to minimize impact of
workplace stress on its employees through targeted stress management interventions which
should focus on raising Awareness about work stress and its sources, Analysis of sources and
impact of work stress on individuals and the organization, and Action targeted to achieve
personal well-being for individuals and healthy work environment for the organization. A
research report by Sheppel.fgi (2009) revealed that use of employee assistance programs (EAPs)
has been found quite higher among oil & gas industry professionals (12-13%) than national
average (9%) for all industries in Canada. This report also emphasized on eldercare, childcare
and addictions as most important issues in work life of oil & gas industry professionals in
Canada.
5
There are some research studies conducted by few scholars on offshore professionals
(Parkes 1993, 1998); working women (Miller 2002, 2004); spouses of oil professionals (Parkes,
Carnell and Farmer, 2005) in UK and Canada Oil industry. There are also some research studies
on oil & gas professionals working in refineries and petrochemical industry too. Kiani, Borjali
and Farahbaksh and Farrokhi (2015) studied relationship between work overload, job stress and
work situation awareness on a sample of 180 employees of a national petrochemical company of
Iran. They argued that both work overload and job stress reduce work situation awareness very
significantly and these predictions can be statistically supported with 35% variance in case of job
stress and 11% in case of work overload. Jain, Jabeen, Mishra and Gupta (2007) studied
occupational stress, organizational climate and job satisfaction on a sample of 78 managers and
80 engineers of Indian Oil Corporation. They found that high stress leads to low job satisfaction
in case of both managers and engineers. Although there are plethtora of research studies on
work stress/occupational stress/job stress various occupational groups, industries in Indian
context but stress research literature is very scant on oil and gas industry (Pestonjee, 1992;
Pestonjee and Pandey, 2013).
Significance of the Study
Indian oil and gas industry is very much controlled and regulated by the Government of
India through regulatory bodies like Directorate of Hydrocarbon (DGH), Petroleum and Natural
Gas Regulation Board (PNGRB) under control of Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas
(http://www.petroleum.nic.in/). Although Indian oil and gas industry is dominated by
government-controlled public sector oil companies (e.g. ONGC, Oil India, Indian Oil, Bharat
6
Petroleum, GAIL) but there are many big private players (e.g. Reliance Industries Ltd., Essar
Oil) are emerging in the market in a more deregulated economic environment. The business
environment of Indian oil & gas industry is highly risky in terms of capital investment,
competition and growth. Energy security has been identified by the Govt. of India as the biggest
economic challenge for the country in the next decade. In context of rapidly changing
international geo-politics, survival and growth are the two biggest challenges for Indian oil & gas
companies. Hence, business environment of oil & gas industry is likely to be riskier and more
stressful in coming years. There are some factors that may differentiate work environment on oil
rigs in Indian sub-continent from other geographical regions. India has warm climate against
extremely cold climate in North Sea and Canada. Offshore oil fields in India are located in deep
seawater in Bombay High (Arabian Sea) and Krishna-Godavari Basin (Bay of Bengal) where
climate is hot and humid; and onshore fields in the desert of Barmer (Rajasthan) where climate is
extremely hot and dry during summers. Workforce demography may be another critical factor
determining workplace behavior of workers and work culture of oil field stations/refineries.
Workforce in Indian oil & gas companies is very diverse as these companies hire trained
professionals from across the country. These people belong to different communities/states,
speak different languages, follow different customs/religions and have different food choices.
These social-cultural factors should not be ignored while any research study is planned to
understand the dynamics of work stress in case of Indian oil & gas industry professionals. In a
highly competitive and stressful business environment, there is a need to study impact of
stressful work environment on workplace productivity, lifestyle, health and well-being of oil and
gas industry professionals especially in Indian context.
7
Research Questions:
The study is aimed to address three specific research questions:
R1: What are sources of work stress for oil & gas industry professionals working in Indian
oil/gas companies?
R2: What are perceived impact of work stress on personal, professional, family and social life of
oil/gas industry professionals?
R3: What are expectations of Indian oil/gas companies’ employees from their employers on
account of workplace stress management interventions?
Method
Sample and Data Collection:
The present study is aimed to understand impact of work environment on perceived work
stress of oil & gas professionals working in Indian oil/gas companies and their expectations
about stress management interventions in context of their organizations. To understand dynamics
of work stress in Indian oil and gas industry companies, we decided to adopt qualitative approach
in this research study. In this study, 51 male executives from 16 well-known companies in the
Oil & Gas industry in India (including public and private sector oil exploration companies,
refineries, gas pipeline network, city gas distribution companies, petrochemicals, petroleum
products marketing companies and technical/logistics support companies) voluntarily
participated with support of HR departments of those companies. In the total sample of 51
employees, we got 28 people having less than 10 years work experience, 11 people having 10-20
years work experience and 12 people more than 20 years work experience. The median work
experience for the total sample was 7 years (range 1 to 48 years). The median age of this sample
8
was 30 years (range 22 to 66 years). In the sample, more than 80% professionals were engineers,
followed by science (10-15%) and commerce graduates (less than 5%). These employees were
interviewed in personal meetings by field investigators using structured open-ended questions
(See Appendix-1) that focused on work conditions, work stress, reasons of work stress, impact of
work stress on individuals’ professional, personal, family and social life. The interviews also
covered questions on employees’ expectations from their organizations about organizational
interventions to manage stress at individual, team and organizational levels. The verbatim
responses on interview questions were recorded by field investigators in structured questionnaire
sheets. This approach to record interview responses was adopted because HR departments of
respective companies allowed our field investigators only on one condition that no video/audio
recordings would be done within their company offices/factories/worksites due to their safety
policy.
Data Analysis:
Recorded verbatim responses of participants were coded into specific theoretical
categories by using qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Elo and Kyngäs,
2008). This categorization process helped us to identify different factors related to perceived
work stress of participants, impact of work stress on their professional/personal/family/social life
and their expectations about organizational stress management interventions.
We divided respondents into 3 sub-groups- High Stress (N1= 25), Medium Stress (N2=
12) and Low Stress (N3= 14) on the basis of their ratings to one simple question asked about
their perceived level of stress on a given 7-point rating scale (1= low stress to 7= high stress).
9
The question was- Considering all the things related to your job/work, how much stressful is
your job/work? In our sample, no respondent marked 7 rating point against this question and
only one respondent rated himself at 1; hence we classified High Stress (ratings7, 6 and 5);
Medium Stress (rating 4) and Low Stress (ratings 3, 2 and 1). After classifying our sample into
these three categories of perceived stress levels, we started coding of respondents’ verbatim
responses into different theoretical categories to identify different factors influencing perceived
work stress; impact of work stress on individuals’ personal/family/social life; and employees’
expectations from their organizations about stress management interventions. We used inductive
content analysis approach (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008) and conventional content analysis (Hsieh and
Shannon, 2005) to identify appropriate categories. A specific theoretical category identified in
the statements of a respondent recorded and coded in Excel sheet as frequency (1 marked for
presence) in a specific field for that category. For example, if we have identified the category
“project-related operational issues” for a string of words (logistics, transportation, site problems,
technical failures, IT support, work processes, documentation etc.), then frequency of 21
suggests that 21 respondents have been classified as cases for “project-related operations issues”
in the total sample which comes out 41% of the total sample of 51 respondents. Tables 1-4
present theoretical categories which were close to preferences of 20% respondents in respective
samples.
10
Results
The table-1 presents a complete picture on content analysis of data classified into three
major themes- 1) sources of work stress; 2) impact of work stress on individuals’ personal,
professional, family and social life; and 3) employees’ expectations on their organization’s role
in stress management interventions to manage stress at individual, team and organizational
levels. Tables 2, 3 and 4 present group-wise data for three different sub-groups- High, medium
and low stress on account of sources of work stress, impact of work stress and employees’
expectations regarding organizational stress management interventions. In our sample of 51, 25
(49%) respondents were classified under ‘high stress’ group, followed by 12 (24%) in the
‘medium stress’ group and 14 (27%) in the ‘low stress’ group.
11
Table-1
A complete picture on perceived sources of work stress, its impact on employees’ life and their
expectations from their organization’s role on organizational stress management interventions
(Total Sample = 51)
Sources of work stress Impact of Work stress Employees’ expectations on

organizational stress
management interventions
Project-related operational Professional Life Individual Level
issues (21; 41%) Not much impact on Yes (29, 57%)
Allocation of work (19; 37%) professional life (12, 24%) Stress management training
Deadlines (18; 35%) Reduced efficiency, (20, 39%)
Lack of resources (16; 31%) performance quality (10; 20%) Involve people with
Too many responsibilities (13; Loose temper, behavioral organizations (19, 37%)
25%) reactions (10) Sports, recreational facilities
Expectations/demands of Personal Life for staff (19, 37%)
bosses/management (13, 25%) Not much impact (14, 27%) Management support to
Lack of support from Don’t get time for self (10, employees (19)
bosses/management (12; 24%) 20%) Better work environment
Lack of support from Family Life (stress-free, positive work
colleagues, subordinates (11, Less attention to spouse, culture) (18, 35%)
22%) children, family (21, 41%) Focus on employee well-being
Interdepartmental politics (11, Increased work-family (15, 29%)
22%) interference (13, 25%) Proper distribution & planning
Not much impact on family of work (15, 29%)
life (13) Open communication between
Stress, anger directed to management & employees
family (10, 20%) (12, 24%)
Social Life Team-building (12, 24%)
No time for social relations Proper HR policy (11, 22%)
(23, 45%) Team Level
Feeling loneliness (18, 35%) Yes (29, 57%)
Not much impact on social life Team’s role important in
(12, 24%) reducing stress (40, 78%)
Team interactions reduce
individual level stress (11,
22%)
Organizational Level
Yes (34, 67%)
Stress management training
(8, 16%)
12
3.1 Sources of work stress
Table-1 presents content analysis data on major sources of work stress identified in the total
sample of 51 respondents. The data clearly suggest that ‘project-related operational issues’ are
the most important source of work stress for our sample (mentioned by 41% respondents). These
issues include logistics, transportation, site problems, technical failures, IT support, work
processes and documentation… naming a few. Other important sources of work stress were
identified as – allocation of work, deadlines too many responsibilities, expectations/demands of
management, lack of support from management/colleagues/subordinates and interdepartmental
politics. Further analysis of content analysis data presented in table-2 suggests that in the high
stress group ‘allocation of work’ emerged as the top most factor of work stress (12 respondents,
48%); whereas ‘deadlines’ preferred by medium stress group (8 respondents, 67%) and ‘lack of
resources’ (4 respondents, 29%) for low stress group. The content analysis data in table-2 also
suggests that high stress group respondents have identified more sources of stress than medium
and low stress group. The table-2 also presents data about reasons for perceived level of stress as
high, medium or low as anticipated by the respondents in that specific group. This data clearly
show that high stress group respondents have recognized project management issues, deadlines,
high responsibility, multitasking, work load, long work hours, performance quality and
workplace environment as reasons for their perceived high stress. In case of medium stress
group, 50% respondents accepted that their perceived stress is occasional (not prolonged or
consistent). They identified workplace culture, support from bosses and colleagues, and well-
organized work processes as reasons for perceived medium stress. Same reasons were also cited
by respondents of low stress group; however 36% respondents also mentioned “I don’t bother
about stress”. This data clearly suggest that workplace culture, support from bosses/colleagues,
13
well-organized work processes and learning opportunities on the job are important factors in
keeping work stress under optimum levels. Overall, project-related operational issues,
allocation of work, deadlines, lack of resources, too many responsibilities, lack of support from
bosses/management and lack of support from colleagues/subordinates were identified as major
sources of stress by high stress group and the total sample.
14
Table-2
Major Sources of Work Stress
High Stress Group (N= 25) Medium Stress Group Low Stress Group (N=14)
(N= 12)
Allocation of work (12; 48%) Deadlines (8; 67%) Lack of resources (4; 29%)
Deadlines (10; 40%) Project-related Project-related operational
Lack of resources (9; 36%) operational issues (8) issues (4)
Project-related operational issues Expectations/demands of Allocation of work (4)
(9) boss (6; 50%) Lack of support from
Too many responsibilities (8; 32%) Lack of support from colleagues/team
Less manpower (7; 28%) boss/management (4; members/subordinates/juniors
Lack of capable manpower (7) 33%) (4)
Lack of support from Too much
boss/management (6; 24%) responsibilities (4)
Lack of support from Work-related travelling
colleagues/subordinates (6) (4)
Demands from clients, suppliers, High risk projects (4)
vendors (6)
Unrealistic scheduling of projects
(6)
Reasons for perceived stress as high, medium or low stress
Project-management issues Stress is occasional (6; 50%) Workplace culture (6; 43%)
(12; 48%) Workplace culture (4; 33%) Don’t bother about stress
Tight deadlines (9; 36%) Support from boss/colleagues (5; 36%)
High responsibility (9) (3; 25%) Support from the
Multiple tasks/jobs (8; 32%) Well-organized work boss/colleagues (5)
Workload (8) processes (3) Learning opportunities on the
Long work hours (7; 28%) job (4; 29%)
Performance Well-organized work
efficiency/quality (7) processes (4)
Workplace environment &
safety issues (6; 24%)
15
3.2 Impact of work stress on individuals’ personal, professional, family and social life
Tables 1 and 3 present content analysis data on impact of work stress on individuals’ personal,
professional, family and social life. Interestingly, in the total sample of 51 respondents, 24-27%
respondents mentioned that work stress doesn’t have any impact on their personal, professional,
family and social life. However, on professional account, 20% respondents accepted that work
stress leads to reduced efficiency, short temper and behavioral reactions at workplace. On
personal front, 20% respondents in the total sample mentioned that they didn’t get enough time
for themselves whereas in case of high stress group, 24% respondents mentioned about ‘no time
for self’ and ‘disturbed mental health’. With respect to family, 41% respondents mentioned that
work stress leads to less attention to family matters and needs to spouse and children. Increased
work-family interference was mentioned by 25% in the total sample but 44% in the high stress
group. 24% respondents in the high stress group also reported that high work stress results into
displacement of stress/anger to their family members. In case of medium stress and low stress
groups, 50% and 29% respondents mentioned about less attention to spouse, children and family.
On account of social life, 45% respondents in the total sample accepted that they couldn’t find
enough time for maintaining their social relations. Table-3 data revealed that 48% in the high
stress group, 50% in the medium stress group and 36% respondents in the low stress group
mentioned about ‘no time for social relations’ in their responses. In the total sample, 32%
respondents reported about ‘felt loneliness’ whereas this percentage was 32% in case of high
stress group, 50% in medium stress group and 29% in low stress group. This qualitative data
suggest that respondents felt greater impact of work stress in terms of work-family interference
and poor social relations than their own personal and professional life. Although respondents
16
mentioned words like short temper, emotional disturbance, behavioral reactions on account of
professional life and loneliness in case of social life, but these responses reflect on impact of
work stress on individuals’ own personalities.
Table-3 Impact of work stress on Individuals’ professional, personal, family and social life.
High Stress Group (N= 25) Medium Stress Group (N= Low Stress Group (N=14)
12)
Professional Life
Loose temper, emotional Loose temper, emotional Not much impact (6; 43%)
disturbance, behavioral disturbance, behavioral Reduced efficiency,
reactions (6; 24%) reactions (3; 25%) performance quality declines,
Reduced efficiency, more mistakes (3; 21%)
performance quality declines,
more mistakes (5; 20%)
Personal Life
Not much impact on personal Don’t get time for self Not much impact (4; 29%)
life (8; 32%) (3; 25%)
Don’t get time for self
(6; 24%)
Disturbed mental health (6;
24%)
Family Life
Less attention to spouse, Less attention to spouse, Not much impact on family
children, family (11; 44%) children, family (6; 50%) life (7; 50%)
Increased work-family Less attention to spouse,
interference (11; 44%) children, family (4; 29%)
Stress/anger directed to family
(6; 24%)
Not much impact on family
life (5; 20%)
Social Life
No time for social relations No time for social relations No time for social relations
(12; 48%) (6; 50%) (5; 36%)
Feeling loneliness (8; 32%) Feeling loneliness (6; 50%) Feeling loneliness (4; 29%)
Not much impact on social life Not much impact on social life
(6; 24%) (4; 33%)
17
1.3 Employees’ expectations on their organization’s role in stress management interventions
Content analysis data revealed in tables 1 and 4 reflect on our respondents’ expectations from
their employers on account on organizational stress management interventions. In the total
sample, 57% respondents accepted that organization’s role is very important in managing work
stress at individual and team levels whereas 67% respondents recognized that organization’s
interventions matter very much in case of stress management at organizational level. Stress
management training was considered most important intervention for effective management of
work stress at individual and organizational levels (39% and 16% respondents accepted it in the
total sample). Even across all three groups- high stress, medium stress and low stress; more than
50% respondents accepted that organization’s role is very important in managing stress
effectively at individual, team and organizational levels. More than 70% respondents in high
stress and medium stress group accepted importance of team’s role in reducing work stress. 20%
respondents felt that team interactions helped in reducing stress at individual level. Respondents
expected that their organizations should involve people through employee-friendly policy,
provide recreational facilities to staff, management support to employees, positive work culture
for stress-free work environment, proper allocation of work, focus on employee well-being, open
communication between management and employees, proper HR policy and team-building.
There were some variations observed in expectations raised by respondents of high, medium and
low stress groups but most of expectations were found similar across all three groups. Most of
preferences of employees in our sample could be classified under primary interventions (marked
with * in table-4) in which changes are expected in organizational systems and processes.
Secondary intervention choices are mentioned in italics (table-4).
18
Table-4 Employees’ expectations on organizational role in stress management interventions
High Stress Group (N= 25) Medium Stress Group (N= Low Stress Group (N=14)
12)
Individual Level
Yes (14; 56% ) Yes (7; 58%) Yes (8; 57%)
Stress management training (13; Sports/recreational facilities Employee-friendly policy*
52%) for staff (7; 58%) (5, 36%)
Management support to Stress management training Stress-free work
employees* (12; 48%) (4; 33%) environment* (5)
Employee-friendly policy* (10; Stress-free work Proper distribution of work*
40%) environment* (4) (4; 29%)
Focus on employee well-being Team-building* (4) Proper manpower for work*
(10; 40%) Management support to (4)
Stress-free work environment* employees* (4) Respect for individuals* (4)
(9; 36%) Supportive HR Policy* (4) More salary, employee
Sports/recreational facilities for Employee-friendly policy* welfare* (4)
staff (9) (4) Training skills for
Open communication between Proper distribution of work* improvement* (4)
management & employees* (9) (4)
Team-building* (8) Healthcare facilities, regular
Proper distribution of work* (7; health checkups (3; 25%)
28%) Focus on employee well-
Well-organized workplace*(7) being (3)
Team Level
Yes, it matters at team level (16; Yes (6; 50%) Yes (7; 50%)
64%) Team’s role is important in Team’s role is important in
Team’s role is important in reducing stress (11;79%) reducing stress (7; 50%)
reducing stress (22; 88%) Regular meetings of teams
Team members helping improve quality, information
others/being good team players* sharing* (3; 21%)
(5; 20%) Outside parties/trips help (3)
Team training/team-building
activities help in developing
team culture* (5; 20%)
Organizational Level
Yes (18;72% ) Yes (8; 67%) Yes (8; 57%)
Stress management training (4; Stress management training Open communication
16%) (3; 25%) between management and
Open communication employees* (2; 14%)
between management and Better salary, perks*,
employees* (3) performance-linked rewards*
(2)
19
2. Discussion
The findings of this study as revealed in the content analysis of interview data in tables 1 to 4
reflect on various factors related to work stress as perceived by oil & gas industry employees
working in companies functioning in India. The findings suggest that major work stressors as
perceived by respondents of our sample are related to project management issues. Deadlines of
assigned projects; scheduling of various activities in the project; project work allocation to team
members; too many responsibilities on shoulders of project engineers and managers; transport
and logistics, expectations of bosses, top management, colleagues, subordinates and lack of
expected support; and interdepartmental politics. The following responses from a project
manager working in a big Indian EPC company, who was classified as ‘high stress’ case (stress
rating-6); reflect on perceived work stress very clearly:
“I am working under project management department of L & T construction & bid
petrochemical project & Oil - gas project. I have to do all pre-commissioning, commissioning &
performance test of any of above mention unit… As you see that daily working hrs is 12 hours
(in case of peak hours or too much pressure, I am unable to take weekly off) and I also have to
be informed continuously about my project while I am at home. In my routine job, I have to
handle client, project management consultant (PMC), my own people and contractors’ people
too. Because of that need, I have to give maximum importance to job than family. That's why
leaving alone without family at site.” (Case-1)
20
A sample response from a project manager working in an oil company on work stress whose case
was classified as ‘medium stress’ case (stress rating-4):
“When there is some important responsibility or I am accountable for a project - "heading it" - it
creates stress for me. If the work involves usual maintenance and all, it is fine. Work of routine
nature - ok, but new initiative/project, budgets, etc, where the work is of strategic nature and
there is no particular mandate to follow or example to refer, it creates stress. However, there are
times of stress and lax period, so it sort of balances out.” (Case-2)
A reflection on work stress by a geophysicist working in an oil exploration company:
“As I have mentioned low stress (stress rating-3), you may consider my job totally stress less as I
never keep any stress or tension neither for me nor for my workers/team members. I have to do
different things in my job, for example- from Marketing to execution and finally completion well
in time projects/works related to ground water exploration & its possible exploitation by drilling
tube wells. I do strict follow-up in execution of my projects and I have good understanding with
my coworkers.” (Case-3)
The beauty of qualitative analysis lies in patterns observed in responses of participants of the
study. All the above mentioned three cases talked about their perceived work stress in relation to
project management issues but every respondent experienced work environment and the work
itself differently in his context. These statements reflect high job demands and resources crunch
as perceived by professionals working in oil and gas projects, hence confirming Job Demands-
Resources Model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Most of work stressors as mentioned by our
respondents are very much similar with major work stressors identified for oil industry
21
professionals in studies conducted by Sutherland and Cooper (1996), WarrenShepell (2005) and
Brešić et al (2007).
Regarding impact of work stress, our respondents identified work-family interference and poor
social relations as major concerns for them. Their responses suggest that they are managing their
professional life somehow satisfactorily but they couldn’t be able to spend enough time with
their family members, pay enough attention to family matters and get very less time for
maintaining social relations which leads to them towards loneliness. The following reaction from
an engineer working in an oil exploration company reflects on guilt felt by him on account of
increased work-family interference, we classified him as ‘high stress’ case:
“Sometimes I show to reduce my stress and family would be supporting by suggestions. If am not
able to relieve my stress, I would like to do what interest me (like watching movie) but
concentration on family will be low.” (Case-4)
This person feels that because of work-family conflict he is unable to pay attention to family
needs though he gets time to watch movies and doing some other things for relieving his work
stress. Work-family interference has also been recognized very important factor to work stress
causing strained family relations in case of oil industry professionals (Sutherland and Cooper,
1996; WarrenShepell, 2005; Parkes et al, 2005). Work-Family Conflict has been found
associated with job demands and control (Karasek, 1979) and psychological health (Frone,
Yardley and Merkel, 1997).
22
Regarding employees’ expectations about their organization’s role in stress management
interventions, majority of our respondents agreed that organizations can definitely play a major
role in managing work stress of employees at individual, team and organizational levels by
adopting various organizational processes and mechanisms. Some of these
processes/mechanisms are well-organized workplace, proper allocation of work among team
members, sports/recreational facilities at workplace, stress management training, open
communication between management & employees, employee involvement in management
decisions, employee-friendly policy, family work culture, management’s support to employees,
team-building activities, mentoring and coaching of employees and stress-free,
supportive/positive work environment. Although patterns of these responses varied across high
stress, medium stress and low stress groups but overall trends support high expectations of
employees’ from their employer organizations on account of implementing primary and
secondary stress management interventions targeted at individual, team and organizational
levels. Sutherland and Cooper (1996) suggested stress management interventions focused on
organizational structure and climate, management communication, work-family interference and
individuals’ personal development through counseling, relaxation training and cognitive
appraisal training could be very effective for offshore professionals of oil industry. Cartwright
and Cooper (2005) argued that primary level interventions focus on job redesign, structural
changes in the organization, communication and organizational processes and policies; whereas
secondary and tertiary level interventions are oriented towards the individual. As secondary level
interventions, stress management programs target at personal resources of individuals for better
coping with stress. Tertiary level interventions (i.e. counseling, employee assistance programs)
are concerned with treatment and rehabilitation of individuals affected by acute and chronic
23
health problems because of work stress. Hurrell (2005) suggested that primary prevention
interventions focused on ‘sociotechnical’ approach address issues related workload, work
schedules and work processes by using methods like participatory action research, job redesign,
changes in managerial and supervisory behavior and improved organizational communication ;
whereas tertiary interventions are concerned with support services e.g. medical care,
psychological counseling and posttraumatic stress interventions caused due to accidents and
injuries or any other bad incidence related to work and work environment. A research report by
Shepell.fgi (2009) advocated stress management interventions focused on eldercare, childcare
and addiction (alcohol and drug addiction) in employee assistance programs (EAPs) for oil and
gas industry professionals but employees in our sample preferred healthcare facilities and regular
health checkups as a mean to achieve employee well-being at their workplaces. Our findings
suggest that management of oil/gas companies should focus more on primary interventions
through work processes redesign, work systems improvements, management communication
between employer and employees, improving organizational culture and strengthening team-
building processes. The organizations should also conduct stress management training
workshops for their employees, provide healthcare facilities and focus on employee well-being
as secondary intervention strategies for effective workplace stress management.
24
Limitations of the study
No research is free from limitations. In our study too, we faced several limitations and hurdles to
collect appropriate sample for our research. To get participants for our study, we approached
several companies working in oil & gas industry in India and sought support from their HR
departments. We could get respondents from only those companies which allowed our field
investigators to access their employees. Our few MBA students offered their services voluntarily
to get primary data through personal interviews of employees during their summer internships in
the participant companies. As HR departments of participant companies didn’t allow any
audio/video recording within their company offices/work sites; our field investigators had to
record responses of participant employees on structured interview sheets. The qualitative data for
this study are extracted from those recorded responses. There could be chances of human errors
in recording verbatim responses of participants during personal interviews (e.g. interviewer may
miss some crucial response to note down while the respondent was narrating his
stories/experiences).
Another limitation, which just happened by chance, that we got all males in our sample; hence
we couldn’t explore specific gender-related stress issues in oil and gas industry employees.
25
3. Implications of the study in HRD context
The findings of our study provide strong theoretical support to JD-R model (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007) and WFC Model (Karasek, 1979; Frone, Yardley and Merkel, 1997). These
findings suggest that employees working in Indian oil and gas industry are well aware about
serious impact of work stress on their professional, personal, family and social life; and perceive
stress management training workshops very helpful in managing their work stress. Their
expectations suggest that their employers need to focus on both primary and secondary
interventions for effective workplace stress management. Their management should make their
policies more employee-friendly, provide positive work environment, focus on proper allocation
of work, provide necessary management support and open communication between management
and employees. Sutherland and Cooper (1996) have strongly advocated targeted stress
management programs to address industry/occupation-specific stressors. These findings may
provide enough insights to HRD managers for designing targeted stress management
intervention programs for specific employee groups working in the oil and gas industry as per
their special needs.
26
4. Conclusion
Work stress has always been an important concern for both employers and employees in any
industry (Pestonjee, 1992; Pestonjee and Pandey, 2013). Increasing awareness about serious
impact of high work stress on employees’ personal, professional, social and family life has also
alerted employers to think seriously on improving their work systems and work culture for
keeping work stress within manageable limits. The findings of this study may provide many
insights to HRD managers in designing workplace stress management interventions for creating
a positive, proactive work culture which induce positive stress for better performance and
achieving excellence. Although study is based on limited sample of oil/gas industry professionals
but these findings may also be considered in designing stress management interventions for other
occupational groups or industries.
27
References
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the
art. Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Brešić, J., Knežević, B., Milošević, M., et al. (2007). Stress and Work Ability in Oil Industry
Workers. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, 58(4), 399-405. Retrieved 15 Apr.
2017, from doi:10.2478/v10004-007-0032-4
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/aiht.2007.58.issue-4/v10004-007-0032-4/v10004-007-0032-
4.xml
Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C. L. (2005). Individually targeted interventions. In J. Barling, E.

Kevin Kelloway and Michael R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 607-622). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Elo, Satu, and Helvi Kyngäs. "The qualitative content analysis process." Journal of advanced
nursing 62.1 (2008): 107-115.
Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative
model of the work–family interface. Journal of vocational behavior, 50(2), 145-167.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content

analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hurrell, J. J. (2005). Organizational stress interventions. In J. Barling, E. Kevin Kelloway and

Michael R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 623-645). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Jain, K. K., Jabeen, F., Mishra, V., & Gupta, N. (2007). Job satisfaction as related to
organizational climate and occupational stress: A case study of Indian Oil. International Review
of Business Research Papers, 3(5), 193-208. http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/Jain.pdf
Karasek, R.A. Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implication for
job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-311.
Kiani, F., Borjali, A., Farahbaksh, K. and Farrokhi, N. (2015). Predictive power of work
situation awareness by work overload and job stress among workers: Implication for
occupational health. Journal of Health Science Surveillance Systems, 3(2), 64-70.
http://jhsss.sums.ac.ir/index.php/jhsss/article/view/97
Miller, G. E. (2002). The frontier, entrepreneurialism, and engineers: Women coping in a web of
masculinity in an organizational Culture. Culture and Organization, 8(2), 145-160.
Miller, G. E. (2004). Frontier masculinity in the oil industry: The experience of women
engineers. Gender, Work and Organization.11(1), 47-73.
28
Parker, K. R. (1993). Human factors, shift Work and alertness in the offshore oil industry. OTH
92 389, Health & Safety Executive, Offshore Technology Report.
Parkes, K. R. (1998). Psychosocial aspects of stress, health and safety in North Sea installations.
Scandevian Journal of Environmental Health, 24(5), 321-333.
Parkes, K.R., Carnell, S. C. and Farmer, E. L. (2005). “Living Two Lives”- Perceptions, attitudes
and experiences of spouses of UK offshore workers. Community, Work and Family. 8 (4), 413-
437.
Pestonjee, D. M. (1992). Stress and coping: The Indian experience. New Delhi: SAGE.
Pestonjee, D. M. and Pandey, S. (2013). Stress and work: Perspectives on understanding and
managing stress. New Delhi: SAGE.
Sutherland, V. J. and Cooper, C.L. (1996). Stress prevention in the offshore oil and gas
exploration and production industry. ILO Working Paper CONDI/WE.7/1996, International
Labor Organization, Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---
protrav/---safework/documents/publication/wcms_250121.pdf
Shepell. fgi (2009). Health and wellness trends in the oil and gas sector. Shepell.fgi Research
Group. https://www.shepell.com/en-
ca/knowledgeandmedia/news/research%20report/pdf/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Report_2009.pdf
WarrenShepell (2005). Occupational stress and health in the oil & gas industry. WarrenShepell
Research Group.
http://www.morneausobeco.com/_brochures/reports/ir_oilandgasindustry_en_report_SFGI2005.
pdf
29
Appendix-1
Interview Questions
Q. 3. Considering all the things related to your job/work, how much stressful is your job/work?
Please, tick [√] at the appropriate rating point as per your assessment.
Low Stress High Stress
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q 4. Please, give three reasons for your response. Why?
(The respondent can give more than three reasons if s/he wishes so.)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Q. 5. Which of the wrok-related factors do cause “stress” to you? Mention at least 10 of them.
Q.8. Please, describe how does your “job stress” affect your daily life?
(a) Work Life
(b) Family Life
(c) Personal Life
(d) Social Life
Q. 16. How does work stress impact performance and behavior of teams?
Q. 17. Do teams’ dynamics have a role to play in managing stress better for its individual
members?
Q.18. What are the factors that organization can focus on to help individuals to manage stress
better?
30
Q. 19. What can be the role of organization to ensure good physical and mental health of
employees?
Q. 20. Do you feel that organizations can help individuals and teams in managing their job
stresses effectively? If yes, then, what areas do organizations need to focus on? If NO, then, how
can individuals cope up to achieve well-being at the individual level? Please, explain.
(a) At the individual level (Yes/ No)
(b) At the team level (Yes/ No)
(c) At the organizational level (Yes/ No)
31

A Qualitative Study of Work Stress and E

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Qualitative Study of Work Stress and E

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: Work Stress in Indian Oil & Gas Industry

A Qualitative Study of Work Stress and Employees’ Expectations of Stress

Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, India

Submitted to the The AHRD Asia Conference, 2017

Refereed Full Manuscript

© 2017 Satish Pandey & Dinyar M. Pestonjee

A Qualitative Study of Work Stress and Employees’ Expectations of Stress

stress management interventions in context of their organizations. To understand dynamics of

organizational levels. Deadlines, project management issues, lack of resources, high

work environment of oil/gas industry professionals. Regarding employees’ expectations about

Key Words: Work Stress, Stress Management Interventions, Employees’ Expectations,

Qualitative Approach, Oil & Gas Industry

A Qualitative Study of Work Stress and Employees’ Expectations of Stress

understimulation-low demand; physical work conditions; unpredictability of work patterns;

and physical well-being. Brešić, Knežević, Milošević, Tomljanović, Golubović and

on offshore employees including- physical and/or psychological ill-health, premature death,

work situation awareness on a sample of 180 employees of a national petrochemical company of

work stress/occupational stress/job stress various occupational groups, industries in Indian

Pestonjee and Pandey, 2013).

Significance of the Study

(http://www.petroleum.nic.in/). Although Indian oil and gas industry is dominated by

gas industry professionals especially in Indian context.

The study is aimed to address three specific research questions:

oil/gas industry professionals?

account of workplace stress management interventions?

Sample and Data Collection:

about stress management interventions in context of their organizations. To understand dynamics

products marketing companies and technical/logistics support companies) voluntarily

participated with support of HR departments of those companies. In the total sample of 51

interviewed in personal meetings by field investigators using structured open-ended questions

covered questions on employees’ expectations from their organizations about organizational

responses on interview questions were recorded by field investigators in structured questionnaire

Recorded verbatim responses of participants were coded into specific theoretical

work stress of participants, impact of work stress on their professional/personal/family/social life

and their expectations about organizational stress management interventions.

Shannon, 2005) to identify appropriate categories. A specific theoretical category identified in

technical failures, IT support, work processes, documentation etc.), then frequency of 21

in stress management interventions to manage stress at individual, team and organizational

expectations regarding organizational stress management interventions. In our sample of 51, 25

‘medium stress’ group and 14 (27%) in the ‘low stress’ group.

Sources of work stress Impact of Work stress Employees’ expectations on

3.1 Sources of work stress

identified as – allocation of work, deadlines too many responsibilities, expectations/demands of

management, lack of support from management/colleagues/subordinates and interdepartmental

bosses/management and lack of support from colleagues/subordinates were identified as major

sources of stress by high stress group and the total sample.

Major Sources of Work Stress

work stress on individuals’ own personalities.

1.3 Employees’ expectations on their organization’s role in stress management interventions

their employers on account on organizational stress management interventions. In the total

communication between management and employees, proper HR policy and team-building.

Secondary intervention choices are mentioned in italics (table-4).

Table-4 Employees’ expectations on organizational role in stress management interventions

rating-6); reflect on perceived work stress very clearly:

“I am working under project management department of L & T construction & bid

be informed continuously about my project while I am at home. In my routine job, I have to

leaving alone without family at site.” (Case-1)

was classified as ‘medium stress’ case (stress rating-4):

times of stress and lax period, so it sort of balances out.” (Case-2)

A reflection on work stress by a geophysicist working in an oil exploration company:

increased work-family interference, we classified him as ‘high stress’ case:

concentration on family will be low.” (Case-4)

Yardley and Merkel, 1997).