ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORAND HUMANPERFORMANCE33, 1-21 (1984)

Job Stress and Job Performance Controversy: An

Empirical Assessment

M U H A M M A D JAMAL

Concordia University

This study examined the relationship between job stress and employees'
performance and withdrawal behavior among nurses (N = 440) in two hos-
pitals in a metropolitan Canadian city on the east coast. Job stressors assessed
included role ambiguity, role overload, role conflict, and resource inadequacy.
Employees' performance was operationalized in terms of job performance,
motivation, and patient care skill. Withdrawal behaviors assessed were ab-
senteeism, tardiness, and anticipated turnover. Multiple regressions, curvi-
linear correlation coefficients, and canonical correlations were computed to
test the nature of the relationship between stressors and the criterion variables
of the study. In general, data were more supportive of the negative linear
relationship between stress and performance than for positive linear or cur-
vilinear relationsNp. However, the stressor role ambiguity did exhibit a mono-
tonic nonlinear relationship with a number of criterion variables. Employees'
professional and organizational commitment were proposed to moderate the
stress-performance relationship. However, the data only partially supported
the role of the moderators.

In recent years, empirical studies of job stress and outcomes relation-

ship have proliferated, and interest in writing books on stress has been
gaining momentum (Cooper & Payne, 1978; House, 1981; McLean, 1979;
Moss, 1981; Shostak, 1980). The popularity of stress as a research topic
among behavioral scientists and practitioners may be attributed to the
undesirable effects which stress may lead to. Stress has been suggested
to be linked to physical and mental health (Cobb, 1976; Kornhauser, 1965;
Morris & Snyder, 1979); to coronary heart disease (House, 1974;
Matteson & Ivancevich, 1979); to absenteeism (Gupta & Beehr, 1979;
Margolis, Kroes, & Quinn, 1974); to turnover (Gupta & Beehr, 1979;
Porter & Steers, 1974); to job dissatisfaction (Beehr, 1976; Johnson &
Stinson, 1975; Lyons, 1971; Miles, 1975). The present study attempts to
bring forward some empirical evidence on the relationship between job
stress and job performance.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the NATO, ASI Conference on Work,
Stress and Health at Castera-Verduzan, France, August 2-14, 1981. This study was sup-
ported by a research grant from the Bronfman Business Faculty Research Award, Canada.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Muhammad Jamal, Department of Management,
Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke St. West, Montrral, Qu6bec H4B 1R6, Canada.
1
0033-5073/84 $3.00
Copyright© 1984by AcademicPress,Inc.
All fightsof reproductionin any formreserved.
2 MUHAMMAD JAMAL

Following the Michigan group's (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Ro-
senthal, 1964) perspective, stress can be viewed as individuals' reactions
to the characteristics of work environment which appear threatening. It
points to a poor fit between individuals' capabilities and their work en-
vironment, in which either excessive demands are made upon the indi-
viduals or the individuals are not fully equipped to handle a particular work
situation (French, 1963). Job performance can be viewed as an activity
in which an individual is able to accomplish successfully the task/goal
assigned to him, subject to the normal constraint of the reasonable uti-
lization of available resources. In the behavioral sciences, at the theo-
retical level, there appear to be two major competing theoretical models
relating stress with performance. The first model can be traced back to
the Yerkes-Dodson law (1908), which suggested an inverted U-shaped
relationship between stress and performance. This model gained mo-
mentum with the development of the activation theory of motivation
(Scott, 1966) and at present tends to be the most popular one (Ivancevich
& Matteson, 1981; McLean, 1979; Meglino, 1977; Moss, 1981). The rea-
soning behind this model is as follows. When an individual experiences
low stress at the job, he is most probably not activated and thus would
not exhibit any improved performance. On the other hand, if the indi-
vidual experiences a high level of job stress, he may spend more time in
coping with stresses and his efforts for job performance may be reduced,
resulting in low job performance. The model postulates a moderate
amount of stress as the most optimal one for job performance because,
at this level, the individual is not only activated but also able to expend
his energies toward job performance. A number of laboratory studies
have supported this hypothesis (Anderson, 1976; Cohen, 1980). In the
real life work situation this hypothesis has rarely been tested, with one
exception. In a study of 93 owner-managers of small businesses damaged
by hurricane floods, Anderson (1976) found that perceived stress and
performance displayed an inverted U-shaped relationship.
The second model equates stress with "challenge" (Meglino, 1977) and
can be traced back to the work of John Dewey and Arnold Toynbee,
which viewed problems, difficulties, and anxieties and challenges as oc-
casions for constructive activity and improved performance. Thus, this
model postulates a positive relationship between job stress and perfor-
mance. The model suggests that at the low level of stress, the individual
does not face any challenge and, therefore, is not likely to show any
improved performance. At the medium level of stress, the individual is
mildly aroused in terms of challenge and thus would exhibit a mediocre
performance. At the high level of stress, the individual will experience
optimal challenge and his performance would correspond accordingly.
There are some laboratory studies supporting this model (Cohen, 1980).
 JOB STRESS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 3

However, in the real work setting this model has rarely been tested. One
exception is the "little league play" study by Lowe and McGrath (1971),
in which a positive linear relationship was established between job stress
and performance.
Notwithstanding the laboratory studies, only two empirical studies
have systematically tested the relationship between job stress and perfor-
mance. However, both of these studies are limited in their generalization
of results because both involved a "unique" sample of population. An-
derson's (1976) study involved small business entrepreneurs who nor-
mally exhibit different characteristics than the regular employees in work
organizations. Similarly, little league players may be viewed as having a
very short time perspective because of a very high turnover rate (vol-
untary and involuntary) at that level. Therefore, it was felt that there was
a need to test the n a t u r e of the relationship between job stress and job
performance among individuals working in normal work settings. The
present study was undertaken with this objective in mind.
It is further argued that employees' commitment may moderate the
relationship between job stress and job performance. Commitment may
be divided into "commitment to organization" and "commitment to the
job/profession." In the latter case, when an individual shows commitment
to his job/profession, the phenomena of self-selection plays an important
role. In many cases, individuals who consciously look for certain types
of jobs and professions tend to exhibit stronger commitment when they
are in such jobs. Therefore, it may be the case that such individuals,
through anticipatory socialization, become more knowledgeable about
these jobs (in terms of demands and excesses) and may appear to be more
receptive to job stresses. Whenever these individuals face adverse things
at the job, it does not necessarily lead to reality shock for them because
of their prior learning about the intricacies of their chosen jobs. It is thus
hypothesized that the job performance of individuals with high profes-
sional commitment will be less affected by high job stress than the per-
formance of individuals with low professional commitment.
Organizational commitment refers to the nature of an individual's re-
lationship to an organization, such that a highly committed person will
indicate a strong desire to remain a member of a particular organization,
a willingness to exert high levels of effort on behalf of the organization,
and a definite belief in, and acceptance of, the values and goals of the
organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Thus, organizational
commitment represents something beyond mere passive loyalty to an
organization. Instead, as Mowday et al. (1979) point out, it involves an
active relationship with the organization in which individuals are willing
to give something of themselves in order to help the organization succeed
and prosper. Since organizational factors play an important role in
4 MUHAMMAD JAMAL

creating job stress (Cooper & Payne, 1978), individuals with different
levels of organizational commitment may view stress differently. Orga-
nizationally committed individuals generally, as suggested by Ouchi
(198I), show a high level of trust towards employing organizations. Ad-
verse things such as symptoms of high job stresses may not be perceived
by these individuals as enough reason for not performing at a reasonable
level of performance. These individuals may end up spending some of
their time in coping with, as well as removing, job stress but they may
utilize their remaining time in such a way as to be able to perform at a
reasonable level. On the other hand, individuals with low organizational
commitment to start with, have only limited loyalty feelings toward em-
ploying organizations. In the face of adverse happenings (i.e., j o b
stresses), these feelings may even be further reduced and the individuals
may put the blame for this adversity on the shoulders of the employing
organization. As a consequence, the individuals may be very likely to
perform only at a marginal level. It is therefore hypothesized that the job
performance of individuals with high organization commitment will be
less seriously affected by high job stress than the performance of indi-
viduals with low organizational commitment.
METHOD
Research Setting
The present research was conducted in two large hospitals serving the
English population of the city of Montreal. Both hospitals were under the
direct administration of the provincial government and had similar ad-
ministrative practices. Employees in both hospitals were represented by
the same unions for various occupational groups.

Subjects
All nurses in both hospitals were included in the present study. Multiple
sources of data collection were employed. Attitudinal data were collected
through a structured questionnaire. Approximately 580 nurses in both
hospitals were given copies of the questionnaire and, with one follow-up,
440 (76%) usable questionnaires were received. The response rate of sub-
jects working various shifts was proportionate to the actual distribution
of nurses on all shifts. Absenteeism and tardiness data were obtained
from hospital records whereas information on nurses' performance was
provided by immediate supervisors. Fifty-three percent of the respon-
dents were single; 39% were married; and 8% were widowed, divorced,
or separated. The average age was 31 years; average monthly income
$1065; and average length of service, 6 years. The majority of nurses
 JOB STRESS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 5

were female (97%), were raised in large cities (77%), and had English as
a mother tongue (57%).

Measures
Job stress. Job stress was assessed with a 15-item Likert-type scale
developed by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964). This
scale attempts to find out various job-related tensions (JRT) which people
experience in their work situation. A recent study by Mackinnon (1978)
has empirically supported the stability of the factor structure of the JRT
scale. Thus, in the present study, 15 items of the JRT scale were divided
into four stressors (i.e., role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, and
resource inadequacy), consistent with Mackinnon's (1978) findings. How-
ever, it should be mentioned that the JRT scale is a self-administered
instrument, which measures stress in terms of respondents' perceptions
of stressors instead of some hard objective indicators. Reliabilities of the
four stressors are presented in Table 4.
Job performance. Job performance, the dependent variable in the
present study, was treated in a rather broad manner. It included within
it not only employees' overall effectiveness in terms of performance,
motivation, and patients care skill, but also employees' withdrawal be-
havior such as absenteeism, tardiness, and anticipated turnover.
Employees' effectiveness. Employees' effectiveness was assessed by
obtaining immediate supervisor ratings for each respondent on three di-
mensions: performance, motivation, and patient care. Each effectiveness
dimension consisted of three items. Reliabilities of the three effectiveness
dimensions are presented in Table 4. One sample item from each of the
three dimensions is presented below:

Very A great
Little amount
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(1) Quality of Work
(Performance)
(2) Level of Motivation
at this Time
(Motivation)
(3) Overall Interest
in Patients
(Patient Care)

Absenteeism~tardiness. Both absenteeism and tardiness were assessed

by the actual incidents of absenteeism and tardiness reported in organi-
6 MUHAMMAD JAMAL

zation records for each respondent, for 4 months from the day the ques-
tionnaires were distributed. In both cases, frequency of absenteeism and
tardiness was measured, rather than duration.
Anticipated turnover. Anticipated turnover was assessed by asking
each respondent to state the probability of his/her staying with the same
hospital for 2 years, from the day the questionnaire was answered. This
measure has been reported to be highly correlated with actual turnover
(Miller, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979).
Employees' commitment. In the present study, two kinds of commit-
ment were assessed: commitment to organization and commitment to
profession. Organizational commitment was measured with the Porter
and Smith scale (Mowday et al., 1979). This scale consists of 15 Likert-
type items with response categories ranging from "strongly agree" to
"strongly disagree." The scale has previously been found reliable (Jamal,
1975; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). Professional commit-
ment was measured with a modified version of the 8-item scale developed
by Landy and Guion (1970). This scale was originally developed to tap
the professional commitment of engineers. Items in the scale were mod-
ified in order to reflect the reality of nursing jobs, which has been very
well accepted as a profession (Deloughery, 1977). Reliability coefficients
(Cronbach's alpha) of organizational commitment and professional com-
mitment scales were .83 and .76, respectively.
RESULTS
Pearson correlations among variables of the study are presented in
Table I. Most of the correlations are significant but not alarmingly high.
Three dimensions of employees' effectiveness show the highest intercor-
relations, whereas anticipated turnover tends to be weakly correlated,
with both absenteeism and tardiness. Employees' professional commit-
ment and organizational commitment consistently show negligible rela-
tionships with almost all variables of the study, except with anticipated
turnover.
In order to examine the nature of the relationship between job stress
and outcome variables, several types of analyses were performed. As a
starting point, respondents were divided into decile groups separately for
each independent variable (4 sets of 10 groups). Group means were cal-
culated on each criterion variable. Twenty-four graphs (4 stressors × 6
criterion variables) of decile group means on the criterion variables were
plotted and a freehand curve was fitted.1 These graphic presentations of
data clearly indicated the presence of a linear relationship between stress
and outcome variables for many of the 24 relationships.

i The graphs are not included in the main body of the paper because of space limitations.
However, interested readers can obtain them by writing to the author.
 TABLE 1
PEARSON CORRELATIONS AMONG STUDY VARIABLES

Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Job stressor
(1) Role ambiguity ra~
,-q
(2) Role overload .43 --
(3) Role conflict .56 .47 -- r~
(4) R e s o u r c e inadequacy .48 .43 .40 --
>
E m p l o y e e s ' effectiveness Z
(5) Job performance -.41 -.33 -.31 -.42 -- ~7
(6) Job motivation -.39 -.27 -.25 -.39 .58 --
(7) Patients' care -.37 -.31 -.27 -.38 .70 .60
Withdrawal behavior
(8) A b s e n t e e i s m .34 .27 .23 .37 -.54 -.51 -.48
-.46 .53 -- o
(9) Tardiness .35 .25 .23 .34 -.49 -.50
(10) Anticipated turnover .17 .29 .19 .24 - .09 - .07 -.15 .06 .15 --
>
Employees' commitment Z
(11) Organizational c o m m i t m e n t -.05 -.02 -.09 -.17 .07 .04 .13 -.04 .05 -.53 --
(12) Professional c o m m i t m e n t .02 .02 -.00 -.02 .12 .13 .16 .05 .07 -.35 .31

Note. N = 435, r = .08, p < .05, r = .11, p < .01.

"--,1
8 MUHAMMAD JAMAL

As a further test of the nature of the relationship between job stress

and outcome variables, both linear and nonlinear measures of association
were computed. Bivariate multiple regression coefficients were obtained
as evidence for the linear relationship and curvilinear correlation coeffi-
cients were obtained as evidence for the nonlinear relationship. Both
multiple regression r's and curvilinear r's are presented in Table 2 for 4
stressors and 3 dimensions of employees' effectiveness. Since the non-
linear r, like eta, is necessarily squared when computed, for comparison
purposes, square roots of nonlinear r's are also presented in Table 2.
In order to support the curvilinear relationship between stress and three
dimensions of employees' effectiveness, nonlinear r's must be signifi-
cantly higher than the linear r's. Results presented in Table 2 indicated
that in only 2 of the 12 instances nonlinear r's were significantly higher
than the linear r's. Both of these instances involved the stressor role
ambiguity. Thus, it may be said that the relationship between role am-
biguity and job performance and job motivation for the sample of the
employees in the present study was monotonic nonlinear. For stressors
role overload, conflict, and resource inadequacy, the relationship be-
tween stress and three dimensions of employees' effectiveness appeared
to be negative linear (reading negative sign from Table 1). Similarly, the
relationship between role ambiguity and patient care was found to be a
negative linear.
Multiple regression r's and curvilinear r's for four stressors and em-
ployees' absenteeism, tardiness, and anticipated turnover are presented
in Table 3. Curvilinear relationships between job stress and three forms

TABLE 2
R AND R 2 FROM MULTIPLE REGRESSION AND FROM CURVILINEARCOEFFICIENT FOR FOUR
STRESSORS AND THREE DIMENSIONS OF EMPLOYEES' EFFECTIVENESS

R from R from
Criterion multiple curvilinear
Stressor variable regression R2 coefficient R2

Role ambiguity Job performance .36 .129 .42 .176 a

Job motivation .34 .115 .42 .176 ~
Patient care .32 .102 .35 .122
Role overload Job performance .30 .090 .32 .103
Job motivation .21 .044 .23 .053
Patient care .25 .062 ,26 ,068
Role conflict Job performance .31 .098 .33 .110
Job motivation .24 .057 .26 .068
Patient care .24 .057 .27 .072
Resource inadequacy Job performance .36 .129 .37 .137
Job motivation .33 .109 .34 .115
Patient care .30 .090 .31 .098

a Difference between linear and curvilinear r ' s is statistically significant.

 JOB STRESS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 9

TABLE 3
R AND R 2 FROMMUEFIPLE REGRESSION AND FROMCURVILINEARCOEFFICIENT FOR FOUR
STRESSORS AND ABSENTEEISM~ TARDINESS AND ANTICIPATEDTURNOVER

R from R from
Criterion multiple curvilinear
Stressor variable regression Rz coefficient Rz

Role ambiguity Absenteeism .30 .093 .41 .167a

Tardiness .34 .114 .36 .129
Anticipated turnover .14 .018 .17 .029
Role overload Absenteeism .22 .049 .24 .058
Tardiness .24 .056 .25 .065
Anticipated turnover .09 .008 .13 .017
Role conflict Absenteeism .17 .030 .19 .036
Tardiness .24 .056 .26 .067
Anticipated turnover .17 .030 .19 .036
Resource inadequacy Absenteeism .26 .070 .40 .164a
Tardiness .31 .093 .33 .109
Anticipated turnover .14 .018 .16 .026

Difference between linear and curvilinear r's is statistically significant.

of withdrawal behavior would have been valid if the nonlinear r's were
significantly higher than the linear r's. Again, in only 2 of the 12 instances
nonlinear r's were significantly higher than the linear r's. In one instance
it was for role ambiguity, and in the other instance it was for resource
inadequacy. Thus it can be said that for employees in this sample, the
relationship of stressors role ambiguity and resource inadequacy with
absenteeism were monotonic nonlinear. For the remaining 10 relation-
ships between stressors and three forms of withdrawal behavior, the na-
ture of the relationship appeared to be positive linear (reading sign from
Table 1).
As a final test for the nature of the relationship between stress and
outcome variables canonical correlations were computed between four
stressors and three employees' effectiveness dimensions, using both
linear models and curvilinear models. The same procedure was repeated
for four stressors and three forms of withdrawal behavior, as well as for
four stressors and six criterion variables (three performance dimensions
and three forms of withdrawal). In all instances, results did not change
to any substantive level and, in general, nonlinear models did not add
much significant variance to linear models.
To examine the role of organizational and professional commitment in
job stress-outcome relationship, the sample was split into high, medium,
and low groups on the measures of commitment and subgroup analysis
was performed. Subgroup analysis as a moderator technique requires
that groups should be more or less the same in terms of the study vari-
10 MUHAMMAD JAMAL

ables' means, variances, reliabilities, and that the moderators should not
be related either to the predictor variable or to the criterion variable
(Zedeck, 1971). Similarly, it suggests that unless the correlations found
between the high and low groups differ significantly from each other, it
is unwise to claim that a reliable moderator effect exists in a study (Ze-
deck, 1971).
All of the above three rules were applied in testing the moderator ef-
fects on stress-outcome relationship in the present study. Means, vari-
ances, and Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients are presented in Table
4 for all variables, for the overall sample as well as for each subgroup.
Data presented in Table 4 revealed a reasonable level of similarity among
various subgroups, including the overall sample. Reliability coefficients
of various variables in many subgroups showed remarkable similarity to
the reliability coefficients in the overall sample. Correlations of the two
measures of commitment with the predictor and criterion variables of the
study were reported in Table I. Almost all correlations were very low,
except the correlations of the commitment measures with anticipated
turnover. The average correlation of organizational commitment and
professional commitment with 10 variables of the study w e r e . 12 and .09,
respectively.
As to the last rule concerning the subgroup analysis, it was decided
that owing to the exploratory nature of the present study, the difference
found in correlations in high and low subgroups will be considered sig-
nificant a t . 10 level or better. Results for stress-outcome relationship for
different levels of organizational commitment are presented in Table 5. It
is evident from the data in the table that organizational commitment only
partially moderated the relationship between stress and outcomes. Out
of a possible 24 comparisons, significant differences were observed only
in 13 comparisons. For the stressor role overload, organizational com-
mitment appeared to be an important moderator, moderating five of the
six relationships between overload and outcome variables. Organiza-
tional commitment also significantly moderated the relationship of role
ambiguity and role conflict with three of the six outcome variables, re-
spectively. For the stressor resource inadequacy, organizational commit-
ment significantly moderated two of the six relationships between re-
source inadequacy and outcome variables. In 12 of the 13 comparisons,
the low organizational commitment group had stronger correlations be-
tween stress and outcome variables than the high organizational com-
mitment group, which partially confirmed our earlier hypothesis.
Subgrouping analysis results for job stress and outcomes relationship
for different levels of professional commitment are presented in Table 6.
Again, professional commitment only partially moderated the relation-
ship between stress and outcome variables. Out of 24 comparisons, sig-
 TABLE 4
MEANS, VARIANCES AND CRONBACH'S ALPHA RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTSOF THE INDEPENDENT AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES FOR
OVERALL SAMPLE AND VARIOUS SUBGROUPS

Organizational commitment (OC) Professional commitment (PC)

5
Overall sample High OC Medium OC L o w OC High PC Medium PC Low PC
No. of 09
--]
Variable items (M) ° (V) (R) (M) (10 (R) (M) (V) (R) (M) (V) (R) (M) (V) (R) (M) (V) (R) (M) (I0 (R)

(1) Role am-

biguity 4 8.94 14.25 .87 8.78 14.29 .84 8.98 13.43 .88 8.89 15.31 .89 9.04 16.89 .88 8.75 12.21 .86 8.91 12.38 .88
(2) Role
>
overload
x
4 12.66 15.32 .83 12.28 20.05 .81 13.01 14.07 .86 12.57 12.55 .83 12.93 17.41 .82 12.13 11.82 .80 12.91 16.34 .84
(3) Role
conflict 3 6.55 5.87 .73 6.37 5.61 .70 6.51 5.98 .72 6.77 6.17 .76 6.67 6.22 .73 6.30 4.75 .71 6.68 3.77 .74
(4) Resource in-
adequacy 4 8.23 13.68 .81 8.30 11.82 .80 8.55 tl.21 .80 8.31 17.16 .85 8.18 13.56 .80 8.12 11.41 .80 8.38 16.14 .83
(5) Job per-
formance 3 11.59 3.79 .83 11.88 4.09 .82 11.66 3.91 .80 11.67 3.39 .82 11.72 4.20 .84 11.84 3.01 .83 11.64 4.16 .83 ~n
(6) Job moti- 0
~u
vation 3 11.72 3.18 .89 12.08 2.79 .90 11.69 3.08 .88 11.44 3.50 .87 11.75 3.36 .88 11.68 2.94 .87 11.75 3.27 .89
(7) Patient >
care 3 11.23 4.15 .91 11.43 4.13 .92 11.19 4.23 .91 10.93 4.03 .88 11.34 4.17 .92 11.25 3.98 .90 11.31 4.19 .90
(8) Absenteeism 1 0.65 0.79 -- 0.57 0.81 -- 0.74 0.90 -- 0.65 0.64 -- 0.66 0.84 -- 0.64 0.68 -- 0.64 0.86 --
(9) Tardiness 1 1.12 1.83 -- 0.96 1.39 -- 1.14 1.71 -- 1.23 2.37 -- 1.09 1.67 -- 1.15 2.55 -- 1.12 1.34 --
(10) Antici-
pated
turnover 2.51 1.39 -- 2.29 0.85 -- 2.46 1.06 -- 2.63 1.30 -- 2.40 0.89 -- 2.51 1.29 -- 2.61 1.48 --

a M = Means, V = variances, R = reliabilities.

 tO

TABLE 5
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FOUR STRESSORS AND EMPLOYEES' WITHDRAWAL BEHAVIOR AND EFFECTIVENESS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
EMPLOYEES' ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Stressor
Role ambiguity

High Medium Low Role overload Role conflict Resource inadequacy

OC a OC OC High Medium Low High M e d i u m Low High Medium Low
(N = 139) (N = 171) (N = 125) OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC
Withdrawal behavior
(1) A b s e n t e e i s m .28 .35 .36 .09 .27 .36** .21 .24 .21 .43* .41 .29
(2) Tardiness .32 .37 .35 .25 .28 .22 .06 .22 .38** .38 .36 .27
(3) Anticipated
turnover .09 .20 .46*** .05 .05 .34*** .01 .04 .30*** .09 .10 .44**
Employees'
effectiveness
(1) Job performance -.20 -.31 -.51"** -.14 -.26 -.43** -.17 -.41 -.34* -.38 -.50 -.41
(2) Job motivation -.29 -.33 -.38 -.05 -.14 -.41"** -.32 -.19 -.20 -.36 -.40 -.37
(3) Patient care -.18 -.21 -.39** -.14 -.29 -.37** -.29 -.30 -.19 -.37 -.35 -.43

OC = organizational c o m m i t m e n t .
b M i n i m u m N = 125: r = .13, p < .05; r = .18, p < .01.
* Differences b e t w e e n high and low OC groups are significant a t . 10 level.
** Differences b e t w e e n high and low OC groups are significant at .05 level.
*** Differences b e t w e e n high and low OC groups are significant at .01 level.
 TABLE 6
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FOUR STRESSORS AI~TDEMPLOYEES' WITHDRAWAL BEHAVIOR AND EFFECTIVENESS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
EMPLOYEES' PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT

Stressor
Role ambiguity
High Medium Low Role overload Role conflict Resource inadequacy O']
PC a PC PC High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low
( N = 147) ( N = 141) b ( N = 147) PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC
Withdrawal behavior
(1) A b s e n t e e i s m .36 .29 .33 .15 .10 .41"* .13 .21 .3t** .18 .20 .47***
(2) T a r d i n e s s .38 .26 .46 .12 .22 .38** .09 .17 .33*** .38 .20 .37
(3) A n t i c i p a t e d t~
turnover .21 .27 .11 .06 .16 .48*** .17 .18 .15 .13 .19 .42***
Employees'
effectiveness ©
(1) J o b p e r f o r m a n c e - .40 - .37 -.42 - .09 -.23 - .41"** - .37 - .17 - .32 - .49 - .26 - .48
(2) J o b m o t i v a t i o n -.43 -.28 -.44 -.14 -.11 -.44*** -.31 -.17 -.25 -.47 -.32 -.37
(3) P a t i e n t c a r e -.39 - .27 -.43 - .10 -.23 - .36** - .34 -.10 - .30 - .34 -.32 - .47

" PC = p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t .
b M i n i m u m N = 141: r = .13, p < .05; r = .18, p < .01.
* Differences between high and low PC g r o u p s are s i g n i f i c a n t at t h e .10 level.
** D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n h i g h a n d l o w P C g r o u p s are s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l .
*** D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n h i g h a n d l o w P C g r o u p s are s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l .

k~
14 MUHAMMAD JAMAL

nificant differences were found only in 10 comparisons and in all 10 in-

stances the low professional commitment group had stronger correlations
between stress and outcome variables than the high professional com-
mitment group, resulting in partial confirmation of our earlier hypothesis.
For the stressor role overload, professional commitment emerged as a
moderator, moderating all six relationships between overload and various
outcome variables. For the stressors role conflict and resource inade-
quacy, professional commitment significantly moderated two of the six
relationships. Professional commitment failed to moderate any relation-
ship between role ambiguity and outcome variables in this study.
DISCUSSION
The results of the present study clearly demonstrate that all four stres-
sors are significantly related to employees' effectiveness and withdrawal
behavior. Job stressors role conflict, role overload, and resource inade-
quacy were found to be related to job performance, motivation, and pa-
tient care in a negative linear fashion. The stressor role ambiguity showed
a monotonic nonlinear relationship with job performance and motivation
and a negative linear relationship with patient care. Role overload and
role conflict were found to be related to absenteeism, tardiness, and an-
ticipated turnover in a positive linear fashion. Both role ambiguity and
resource inadequacy were also related to tardiness and anticipated turn-
over in a positive linear manner but both showed a monotonic, nonlinear
relationship with absenteeism.
The overwhelming findings of a negative linear relationship between
stress and performance may be of surprise to many as it tends to be
contrary to the Yerkes-Dodson law (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908) and the
activation theory (Scott, 1966). However, a close examination of the four
stressors (ambiguity, conflict, overload, and resource inadequacy) may
shed more light on this relationship. Out of the four stressors, role am-
biguity and conflict have been the focus of a large number of empirical
studies (Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981). A number of studies in different
work settings related role ambiguity to performance and the relationship
appears to be a negative linear one (Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976; Ber-
nardin, 1979; Breaugh, 1980; Brief & Aldag, 1976; House & Rizzo, 1972;
Schuler, 1975; Schuler, Aldag, & Brief, 1977). None of these studies
systematically attempted to test for the curvilinear relationship, but they
did n o t find a positive linear relationship between ambiguity and perfor-
mance, either. Similarly, few studies related role conflict, overload, and
resource inadequacy with performance (House & Rizzo, 1972; Sales,
1970; Schuler, 1975) and again relationships appeared to be'hegative
linear. Our findings on stress and performance are logical because stress
(defined with stressors) most probably creates hindrances and adversely
 JOB STRESS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 15

affects expectancies for better performance. When the individual is not

sure about his job duties and obligations, or gets conflicting messages
from different people in the organization, it becomes unlikely--if not
impossible--for the individual to show better or even moderately better
performance at the job. Therefore, a negative linear relationship between
stressors (such as role overload, conflict, and resource) and performance
becomes more appropriate. The monotonic, nonlinear relation found in
this study between role ambiguity and job performance and job motiva-
tion should be tested in other occupational groups before more confidence
is placed in it. However, it should be mentioned that investigators who
did not operationalize stress in terms of perceived role conflict, overload,
ambiguity, and resource inadequacy (Anderson, 1976; Btau, 1981;
McGrath, 1976) their results at this time appeared too inconclusive and
mixed. Anderson's (1976) study supported the curvilinear relationship,
whereas McGrath's (1976) little league study supported a positive linear
relationship. Blau (1981), in a study of bus drivers, found that two job
stress factors (physical danger and scheduling/assistance stresses) were
unrelated to performance, while the passenger/intracompany stress factor
was negatively related to performance (the latter finding was consistent
with our findings)
At this time, o:ae tentative conclusin may be drawn concerning the
stress-performance controversy. The nature of the relationship between
job stress and performance tends to be a negative linear one, provided
stress is operationalized in terms of perceptions of stressors such as role
conflict, overload, and resource inadequacy. On the other hand, if stress
is measured directly or by other methods (Anderson, 1976; Blau, 1981;
Lowe & McGrath, 1971), then the nature of the relationship between
stress and performance is far from conclusive. However, it is felt that in
both instances much more empirical research is warranted before any
definitive conclusions can be drawn. Additionally, it is suggested that
more, and a different set of, stressors should be included in a variety of
work settings to examine the nature of the job stress-performance rela-
tionship. It may well be true that some stressors such as role ambiguity
be related to job performance in a monotonic nonlinear fashion as op-
posed to positive or negative linear fashions.
The findings that job stress is positively related to withdrawal behavior
tends to be in agreement with the empirical literature, provided stress is
operationalized in terms of perceptions of stressors. A positive relation-
ship between role ambiguity and absenteeism, turnover and anticipated
turnover have been supported by many studies (Bedeian & Armenakis,
1981; Berkowitz, 1980; Breaugh, 1980; Brief & Aldag, 1976; Gupta &
Beehr, 1979; Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1974; Johnson & Graen, 1973;
Lyons, 1971; Morris & Snyder, 1979; Quick, 1979; Parkington &
16 MUHAMMAD JAMAL

Schneider, 1979; Sorensen & Sorensen, 1974). Similarly, role conflict,

overload, and resource inadequacy have been found to be positively re-
lated to absenteeism, turnover, and anticipated turnover (Bedeian & Ar-
menakis, 1981; Brief & Aldag, 1976; Hamner & Tosi, 1974; Morris &
Snyder, 1979; Quick, 1979; Parkington & Schneider, 1979). The longitu-
dinal investigation of Johnson and Graen (1973) supported a hypothesized
causal relationship between increased role conflict with supervisors and
voluntary turnover among secretaries. Gupta and Beehr (1979), in a
sample of 651 employees from five different organizations, found that
role overload and resource inadequacy were significantly related to an-
ticipated turnover and the frequency of subsequent absenteeism (mea-
sured 1 month after the stress measurement). However, they also found
that role overload and resource inadequacy were not related to actual
turnover. In a national representative sample of 1496 employees, Margolis
et al. (1974) found that resource inadequacy was significantly related to
anticipated turnover, and that role overload and resource inadequacy
were significantly related to absenteeism. Investigators who did not op-
erationalize stress in terms of perceptions of stressors did not systemat-
ically examine the relationship between stress and withdrawal behavior.
At this moment, one conclusion can be drawn concerning the relation-
ship between stress and withdrawal behavior. Consistent with Van Sell
et al. (1981), it may be concluded that the higher the job stress (as mea-
sured, for example, with role ambiguity and conflict, etc.), the higher the
employees' absenteeism, anticipated turnover, and turnover. Very little
empirical support exists for the nonlinear relationship or negative linear
relationship between stress and withdrawal behavior. The monotonic
nonlinear relationship found in this study between role ambiguity and
resource inadequacy and employees' absenteeism should be repeated in
other occupational groups before more confidence is placed on it. More-
over, a few studies did not find any relationship between role ambiguity/
conflict and anticipated turnover (Hamner & Tosi, 1974).
Our results on stressors and withdrawal behavior tend to be logical
because, as Gupta and Beehr (1979) suggest, job stress is, by its very
nature, extremely aversive to most employees, creating a noxious situ-
ation in the work environment. In face of the work situation being nox-
ious, individuals normally attempt to avoid it by being late, being absent,
quitting, or in some other way. Therefore, the higher the job stress, the
more unpleasant the work situation becomes, and the more individuals
try to escape from it.
The results from the subgrouping analysis indicated that both organi-
zationaland professional commitment only partially moderated the re-
lationship between job stressors and employees' performance and with-
drawal behavior. As noted previously, organizational commitment mod-
 JOB STRESS AND JOB P E R F O R M A N C E 17

crated 13 of the 24 relationships between stressors and outcome variables.

In 12 of the 13 comparisons, individuals who had high organizational
commitment appeared to be better off in terms of the adverse conse-
quences of stress than individuals who showed low organizational com-
mitment. These findings are consistent not only with the theoretical
models of organizational commitment, but also with the empirical liter-
ature. Organizational commitment often develops into an exchange re-
lationship in which individuals attach themselves to the organization in
return for certain rewards or outcomes from the organization (Becker,
1960; Homans, 1961; March & Simon, 1958). Highly committed individ-
uals, through favorable exchange, develop a strong liking for organiza-
tional goals and objectives (improved performance and lower withdrawal
in many cases) and seriously work for their achievement, which may be
partly responsible for their effective functioning in the face of adversity
(high stress). At the empirical level, organizational commitment has been
found to be inversely related to turnover (Angle & Perry, 1981; Koch &
Steers, 1978; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979; Porter, Steers, Mowday,
& Boulian, 1974) and positively related to employees' effort and perfor-
mance (Mowday, ?orter, & Dubin, 1974; Mowday et al., 1979). The in-
dependent relatiov.ship of organizational commitment to employees' ef-
fort and performance and withdrawal behavior may also be partly re-
sponsible for our findings that highly committed individuals are not as
seriously affected by job stressors as are individuals who are low on
organizational commitment. Since, in the present study, organizational
commitment was substantially correlated with anticipated turnover, cau-
tion should be taken in interpreting the moderator effects of organiza-
tional commitment on the relationship between stressors and anticipated
turnover.
Professional commitment significantly moderated I0 of the 24 relation-
ships between stressors and employees' performance and withdrawal be-
havior, and in all 10 instances employees with high professional commit-
ment appeared to be better off in terms of consequences of job stress
than employees with low professional commitment. Very little empirical
research has been done on professional commitment and its work-related
consequences (Bartol, 1979; Greenhaus, 1979; Weiner & Vardi, 1980).
However, the available research tends to be supportive of our findings.
Bartol, in a study of 167 computer specialists, found that professional
commitment was independently related to turnover expectancy. Similarly,
in a study of 56 insurance salesmen and 85 staff professionals, Weiner &
Vardi (1980) found that professional commitment was significantly related
to indices of effort among staff professionals and to overall performance
effectiveness among insurance salesman. The independent relationship
of professional commitment to anticipated turnover, effort, and perfor-
18 MUHAMMAD JAMAL

mance may be partly responsible for our findings that highly profession-
ally committed individuals are not seriously affected by job stressors as
are low professionally committed individuals. However, in the face of
previous research evidence, as well as a medium relationship observed
in the present study between professional commitment and anticipated
turnover, care must be taken in interpreting the moderator effects of
professional commitment on the relationship between job stressors and
anticipatory turnover.
The implications of our findings for management may be quite simple
and straightforward. Job stressors assessed in the present study are of
the nature which will be affected mainly through management actions.
Therefore, management should invest time and effort to discover how
role ambiguity, role conflict, and resource inadequacy could be reduced
for better results (Newman & Beehr, 1979). The effect of high overload
may be minimized by enhancing employees' organizational and profes-
sional commitment. Management may not be able to readily enhance
professional commitment because of its basic nature, but management
may certainly be able to enhance organizational commitment by in-
creasing perquisites (Becker, 1960; Baba & Jamal, 1979) or by making
exchange more reasonable for individuals (March & Simon, 1958; Ho-
mans, 1961).
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. R. Coping behaviors as intervening mechanisms in the inverted U stress-
performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 30-34.
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and
organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, 26, 1-13.
Baba, V. V., & Jamal, M. On Becker's theory of commitment: An empirical verification
among blue-collar workers. Industrial Relations (Laval) 1979, 34, 123-139.
Bartol, K. M. Professionalism as a predictor of organizational commitment, role stress, and
turnover: A multi-dimensional approach. Academy of Management Journal, 1979, 22,
815-821.
Becker, H. S. Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 1960,
66, 32-40.
Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. A path-analytic study of the consequences of role
conflict and ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 1981, 24, 417-424.
Beehr, T. A. Perceived situational moderators of the relationship between subjective role
ambiguity and role strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 35-40.
Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T. & Taber, T. D. Relationship of stress to individually and orga-
nizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1976, 61, 41-47.
Berkowitz, E. N. Role theory, attitudinal constructs, and actual performance: A measure-
ment issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 240-245.
Blau, G. An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service length, and job
strain. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1981, 27, 279-302.
Breaugh, J. A. A comparative investigation of three measures of role ambiguity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 584-589.
 JOB STRESS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 19

Brief, A. E, & Aldag, R. J. Correlates of role indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976,
61, 468-472.
Cobb, S. Social support as moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1976, 38,
300-314.
Cohen, S. After-effects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of
research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 82-108.
Cooper, C., & Payne, R. (Eds.) Stress at work. New York: Wiley, 1978.
Deloughery, G. L. History and trends of professional nursing. St. Louis: C. V. Masby,
1977. 8th ed.
French, J. R. C. The social environment and mental health. Jou"rnal of Social Issues, 1963,
19(4), 39-56.
Greenhaus, J. H. Self-esteem as an influence on occupational choice and occupational
satisfaction. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 1971, 1, 75-83.
Gupta, N., & Beehr, T. A. Job stress and employees' behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 1979, 23, 373-387.
Hamner, W. C., & Tosi, H. W. Relationship of role conflict and role ambiguity to job in-
volvement measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 497-499.
Homans, G. C. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World. 1961.
House, J. S. Occupational stress and coronary heart disease: A review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1974, 15, 12-27.
House, J. S. Work stress and social support. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1981.
House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of
organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7,
467-505.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H. A study of role clarity and need for clarity for three
occupational groups. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 17, 28-36.
Ivancevich, J. M. & Matteson, M. T. Stress at work. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman
Company, 1981.
Jamal, M. Task specialization and organizational commitment: An empirical examination
among blue-collar 7¢orkers. Industrial Relations (Laval), 1975, 30, 612-627.
Johnson, T. W, & Graen, G. Organizational assimilation and role rejection. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, 72-87.
Johnson, T. W., & Stinson, J. E. Role ambiguity, role conflict and satisfaction: Moderating
effects of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 329-333.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. E, Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. Organizational
stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Koch, J. L., and Steers, R. M. Job attachment, satisfaction and turnover among public
sector employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 12, 119-128.
Kornhauser, A. Mental health of the industrial worker. New York: Wiley, 1965.
Landy, E J., & Guion, R. M. Development of scales for the measurement of work moti-
vation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1970, 5, 93-103,
Lowe, R., & McGrath, J. E. Stress, arousal and performance: Some findings calling for a
new theory. Project report, AF 1161-67, AFOSR, 1971.
Lyons, T. E Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension and withdrawal. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, 6, 99-110.
MacKrimmon, N. J. Role strain: Assessment of a measure and its invariance of factor
structure across studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 321-328.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.
Margolis, G. L., Kroes, W. H., & Quinn, R. E Job stress: An unlisted occupational hazard.
Journal of Occupational Medicine, 1974, 16, 659-661.
20 MUHAMMAD JAMAL

Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. Organizational stressors and heart disease: A re-
search model. Academy of Management Review, 1979, 4, 347-357.
McGrath, J. E. Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1976.
McLean, A. A. Work stress. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
Meglino, B. M. Stress and performance: Are they always incompatible? Supervisory Man-
agement, 1977, 22(3), 2-12.
Miles, R. H. An empirical test of causal inference between role perception of conflict and
ambiguity and various personal outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60,
334-339.
Miles, R. H., & Perrault, W. D. Organizational role conflict: Its antecedents and conse-
quences. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1976, 17, 19-44.
Miller, H. E., Katerberg, C. H., & Hulin, C. H. Evaluation of the Mobley, Homer and
Hollingsworth model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64,
509-517.
Morris, H. H., & Snyder, R. A. A second look at need for achievement and need for
autonomy as moderators of role perception-outcome relationships. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1979, 64, 173-178.
Moss, L. Management stress. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1981.
Mowday, T. T., Porter, L. W., & Dubin, R. Unit performance, situational factors and em-
ployee attitudes in spatially separated work units. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1974, 12, 231-248.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. The measurements of organizational com-
rnitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1979, 14, 224-247.
Newman, J. E., & Beehr, T. A. Personal and organizational strategies for handling job
stress: A review of research and opinion. Personnel Psychology, 1979, 32, 1-41.
Ouchi, W. G. Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. New
York: Avon, 1981.
Parkington, J., & Schneider, B. Some correlates of experienced job stress: A boundary role
study. Academy of Management Journal, 1979, 22, 270-281.
Paul, R. J. Role clarity as a correlate of satisfaction, job-related strain, and propensity to
leave--Male vs. female. Journal of Management Studies, 1974, 11, 233-245.
Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. Organizational commitment and managerial
turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1976, 15, 87-98.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 1974, 19, 475-479.
Quick, J. C. Dyadic goal-setting and role stress: A field study. Academy of Management
Journal, 1979, 22, 241-252.
Sales, S. M. Some effects of role overload and role underload. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 1970, 5, 592-608.
Schuler, R. S. Role perceptions, satisfaction and performance: A partial reconciliation.
Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 683-687.
Schuler, R. S. Role perceptions, satisfaction and performance moderated by organizational
level and participation in decision-making. Academy of Management Journal, 1977,
20, 159-165.
Schuler, R. S. The effects of role perceptions on employee satisfaction and performance
moderated by employee ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1977, 18, 98-117.
 JOB STRESS AND JOB PERFORMANCE 21

Scott, W. E. Activation theory and task design. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
formance, 1966, i, 3-30.
Shostak, A. Blue-collar stress. Don Mills, Ontario: Addison-Wesley, 1980.
Sorensen, J. E., & Sorensen, R. L. The conflict of professionals in bureaucratic organi-
zations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 38-42.
Steers, R. M. Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative
Science Quarterl3, 1977, 22, 46-56.
Tosi, H. Organization stress as a moderator of the relationship between influence and role
response. Academy of Management Journal, 1971, 14, 17-20.
Tosi, H., & Tosi, D. Some correlates of role conflict and ambiguity among public school
teachers. Journal of Human Relations, 1970, 18, 1068-1075.
Van Sell, M., Brief, A. E, & Schuler, R. S. Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration
of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 1981, 34, 43-71.
Weiner, Y., & Vardi, Y. Relationship between job, organization and career commitments
and work outcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1980, 26, 81-96.
Yerkes, R., & Dodson, J. D. The relationship of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation.
Journal of Comp¢~rative Neurological Psychology, 1908, 18, 459-482.
Zedeck, S. Problems with the use of "moderator" variables. Psychological Bulletin, 1971,
76, 295-310.
RECEIVED: February 2, 1982