Organisational Role Stress

(ORS) Scale

53.1 THE INSTRUMENT AND ITS ADMINISTRATION

self-role
he organisational role stress (ORS) scale is used to measure 10 role stresses, that is,
distance, inter-role distance, role stagnation, role isolation, role ambiguity, role expectation
ORSis
conflict, role overload, role erosion, resource inadequacy and personal inadequacy.
items for each role and total of 50 statements. Thus,
a5-point scale (0-4), containing five stress a

the total scores on each role stress range from 0 to 20. Responses are to be given on an answer

sheet (appended).

53.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Modern life is full of stress. As organisations become more complex, the potential for stress
ncreases. Urbanisation, industrialisation and increase in scale of operations are some of the
Casons for rising stress. Stress is an inevitable consequence of socio-economic complexity and,
Some extent, its stimulant as well. People experience stress as they can no longer have complete
Control over what happens in their lives. If telephone goes out of order, power is shut down, the

water
supply is disrupted, an expected promotion is denied, children perform poorly at schoo
prices of essential commodities increase disproportionately to income, etc., we feel frustrated, and
then stressed.
ere being no escape from stress in modern life, we need to find ways of using stress

productively and reducing dysfunctional stress.

everal terms that are synonymous with stress or similar in meaning have been used. In order
avoid confusion, we will use the following terms, such as, stressor for stimuli thatinduce stress;
ress for the affective (emotional) part in the experience of incongruence; symptoms for the
aysiological, behavioural and conceptual responses or changes; and coping for any behaviour
 TRAINING INSTRUMENTS IN HRD AND OD
382
in the experience of incongruence (1.e., stress). The term
that deals with the emotional component
etc.
stress will be used here to
refer to such terms and concepts as strain, pressure,
as it is necessary for
human progress. It is like a
Stress is inevitable in today's complex life,
is needed to produce good music; loose wires
musical instrument, where an optimum stress
much stress) might result
would not the notes and too much tautness (too
produce
(less stress)
productive or functional stress (stress for
A distinction has been made between
in screeching.
creative work, entrepreneurial activities, Olympic competitions,
etc.) and dysfunctional stress
been called eustress
overwork, etc.). The former has
(stress of boredom, unmanageable conflicts,
and the latter distress.
individual performs in
role be defined as a set of functions, which an
As already stated, can
social system, and his own expecta-
the expectations
to of the significant members of a
response the two role systems (role
in it. The concept of role and
tions about the position that he occupies
and stress.
have a built-in potential for conflict
space and role set)

53.2.1 Role Space Conflicts

between the various roles an individual
As mentioned role space is the dynamic relationship
earlier, roles
the role under question and the other
and his self. It has three main variables-self,
occupies stress. These conflicts
conflict these is referred to as role-space conflict or
he occupies. Any among
forms.
may take several
and the
This stressof the conflict between the self-concept
arises out
1. Self-role distance: If a person occupies a
from the role, as perceived by the role occupant.
expectations
with the self-concept, he feels
role that he may subsequently find to be conflicting
stressed. For example, an introvert, who is fond of studying and writing, may develop
salesman and to realise that the
self-role distance if he accepts the role of
a comes
a
and being social. Such conflicts are

expectations from the role include meeting people

may not be so
severe.
fairly common, although they of his
2. conflhct: Since an expectations as a result
individual learns to develop
2.
Intrarole it is quite likely that he sees
a

socialising and identification with significant others, For

certain incompatibility between the different expectations
(functions) of his role.
between the expectations of teaching
example, a professor may see incompatibility but the
not be inherently conflicting,
students and of doing research. These may
individual may perceive these as incompatible.
he also in the role that he occupies
3. Rolk slagnation As an individual grows older, grows
his
the role changes and with
in an organisation. With the individual's advancement,
This problem of role
in role, the need for taking on a new role becomes crucial.
change
acute especially when an individual
who has ocupied a role for a long
growth becomes
 Organisational Role Stress (ORS) Scale 383

time enters another role in which he feels less secure. The new role demands that an
individual outgrows the previous one and takes charge of the new role effectively. This
is bound to produce some stress. In organisations that are fast expanding and do not
have any systematic strategy of human resource development, managers are likely to
experience this stress of role stagnation when they are promoted.

Inter-role distance: When an individual occupies more than one role, there are bound to
be conflicts between them. For example, a female executive often faces a conflict
between her organisational role as an executive and her familial role as a wife and
mother. The demands on her time by husband and children may be incompatible with
organisational demands. Such inter-role conflicts are quite frequent in a modern society,
where an individual is increasingly occupying multiple roles in various organisations
and groups.

53.2.2 Role Set Conflicts

The role set consists of important persons who have varying expectations from the role that an
individual occupies. The conflicts which arise as a result of incompatibility among these expecta-
tions by the significant others (and by the individual himself) are referred to as role set conflicts.
These conficts take the forms mentioned here.

1. Role ambignis When an individual is not clear about the various expectations that

people have from his role, he faces role ambiguity. Role ambiguity may be due to lack
of information available to a role occupant or his lack of understanding of the cues
available to him. Role ambiguity may be in relation to activities, responsibilities, priori-
ties, norms or general expectations. Generally, role ambiguity is experienced by persons
OCcupying roles that are newly created in organisations, roles that are undergoing
less concrete activities).
Change process roles (with less clear and
or
demands by different
Role exgpectation conflict When there are conflicting expectations or
roles senders (persons having expectations from the role), the role occupant experiences
this type of stress. The conflicting expectations may be from the boss, subordinates,
peers or clients.
overload: When a role occupant feels that there
are too many expectations from
oe
ne significant others in his role set, he experiences role overload. Role overload is

measured by asking questions about people's feelings on whether they can finish work
of work they do
gven to them during a modified workday and whether the amount
executive role occupants experience role
ght interfere with how well it is done. Most
lack power, where
Overload. Role overload is more likely to occur where role occupants
aere are large variations in the expected output and when delegation or assistance

cannot procure more time.

384 TRAINING INSTRUMENTS IN HRD AND OD

4. Role erosion: A role occupant may feel that the functions he would like to perform are
being done by some other role. Role erosion is the individual's subjective feling thor
that
some important cxpectations that he has from a role are shared by other roles within
the role set. Role erosion is likely to be experienced in an organisation that is redefinine
its role and creating new roles. Studies indicate that in several such organisations, the
stress of role erosion was inevitably felt. In one organisation, a particular role was
abolished and, in its place, two were created to cater to executive and planning needs.
This led to great erosion, and a feeling that the new roles were less important than the
previous role.
5. Resource inadequasy: Resource inadequacy stress is experienced when the resources
required by a role occupant for performing his role effectively are not available.
Resources may include information, people, material, finance or facilities.
6. Personal inadeguasy: When a role occupant feels that he does not have enough knowledge,
skills or training to undertake a role effectively or that he has not had time to prepare
for the assigned role, he may experience stress. Persons who are assigned new roles
without adequate preparation or orientation are likely to experience feelings of personal

inadequacy.
7. Role isolation. In a role set, the role occupant may feel that certain roles are psychologically
closer to him while others are at a much greater distance. The main criterion of distance
is the frequency and ease of interaction. When linkages are strong, the role isolation
will be low and vice versa. Role isolation can therefore be measured in terms of existing
and the desired linkages. The gap between them indicates the amount of role isolation.
To sum up, in relation to organisational roles, the following 10 stresses are worth

considering:
a. Self-role distance (SRD)
b. Inter-role distance (IRD)
C. Role stagnation (Rs)
d. Role isolation (R)
e. Role ambiguity (RA)
f. Role expectation conflict (REC)
gRoleoverload (RO)
h. Role erosion (RE)
i. Resource inadequacy (RIn)
iPersonalinadequacy (Pln)

53.3 SCORING
To
The score sheet is used for scoring. The total scores on each role stress range tromo
items).

get the total scores for each role stress, the ratings given are totalled horizontally (for n
 Organisational Role Stress (ORS) Scale 385

Row Stress

Inter-role distance (IRD)

Role stagnation (RS)
5. Role expectation conflict (REC)
4. Role erosion (RE)
5. Role overload (RO)
. Role isolation (RI)
1. Personal inadequacy (PI)
8. Self-role distance (SRD)
9. Role ambiguity (RA)
10. Resource inadequacy (RIn)

53.4RELIABILITY

Retest reliability coefficients were calculated for group of about 500 employees from three banks
a

as well as
Sen, 1982). Table 53.1 gives retest reliability (after eight weeks) for all the cight stresses
for the toral role stress score. As may be seen, all the coefficients, except one, are significant at
0.001 level; one coefficient is significant at 0.003 level. The scale has acceptable reliability.

53.5 VALIDITY: ITEM ANALYSIS

Some evidence about validity is provided by a measure of self-consistency in an instrument.
Each item was correlated with the total score on the instrument for about 500 respondents

TABLE 53.1 Retest Reliability of Role Stress Variables

Variables Coefficient Level of Significance

1. Self-role distance 0.45 0.001
2. ***nseneersueawen****************
Inter-role distance
************************
********************
0.001
***************

0.58
*****
*********************p******************************* w

3 Role stagnation 0,63 0.001

********* eu-** ********
* * * * * *
******
* * * * " * * * * * * " * *

4. Role ambiguity 0.65 0.001

********** *********
**w*a*********************************
***
5. Role overload*******
***

0.53 0.001
**************************** - **************************************************
6, Role erosion 0.003
0.37 - L.
***********"*****"************************* *****
****m*
7. Role inadequacy 0.001
0.58
8. ****** ******* *************************7**************** **********************

Total role stress 0.73 0.001

 TRAINING INSTRUMENTS IN HRD AND OD
386

TABLE 53.2 Frequencies of Item: Total Score Correlation Values

for ORS Scale

Values of Correlation Frequency

Less than 0.15
0.16-0.20
2
0.36-0.40 19
0.41-0.45
0.46-0.50
10
0.51-0.55
0.56-0.60

at 0.002 and another

correlations were 0.001 level-one was significant
significant at
All but two
the scale. The distribution of the
at 0.008 levels. The results
show high internal consistency of
seen from the table, only
values of the coefficients of correlation
is given in Table 53.2. As can be
two items
15 and 25). In the entire scale, only
values of three items are below 0.36 (items 9,
final scale, these
were in the positive direction,
and Item 15 had a positive tone. In the
(9 and 25)
items were moditied.
was 1.42 and the
Mean and SD values of the items were
also analysed. The lowest m e a n value
have high mean values
items having low correlation with the total
highest 3.66. Incidentally, the found to be 2.1
and Item 25 (2.9). The m e a n of the total scores was
Item 9 (2.4), Item 15 (3.6)
on a 5-point scale.

53.6 VALIDITY: FACTOR ANALYSIS

The
of the instrument.
Construct validity of the instrument can by factor analysis
be tested

responses of about 500 respondents (Sen, 1981) were factor analysed.

These factors explain
Table 53.3 gives loadings of 10 factors on 40 items of the instrument.
almost the entire variance.

TABLE 53.3 Factor Loadings of Roles Stress

Factors
Item 8 10
1 2 3 4 6 7
No. Variables
096 012
165 051 167 046 149 153 085 388
1. SRD 055 076
005 065 -002 038 167 131
2. IRD 619 310 161
105 088 062 096 067 372 -286
3. RD 076 451
 Organisational Role Stress (ORS) Scale
387

Item Factors
Variables 1 2 3 4
No. 5
8 9 10
RA 144 119 154 228 034 157 366
RO 335 -098 076 076 269-160 155
335 184 076 024
RI 105 001 122 033 320
. 339 181 458 146 150 055 299
RE 109 103 073 477 -038 244 114 253 -011 127
RIn 016 126 228 048 099 309 038 325 044 296
9 SRD -057 031 -034 -041 026 018 125 125 415 016
10. IRD 798 005 124 110 -025 056 121 -038 007 -028
11. RS 246 407 126 226 103 033 158 058 029 186
12. RA 196 097 724 127 065 100 005 171 002 101
13. RO 257 255 158 007 181 143 112 146 060 140
14 RI 014 254 167 093 -047 316 040 259 186 193
15. RE -025 248 -105 -049 -241 148 -059 131 256 -142
16. RIn 224 121 099 103 033 061 449 098 248 072
17. SRD 012 179 049 064 032 193 126 503 208 120
18. IRD 584 085 172 -058 135 208 027 035 -071 027
19. RS 076 309 057 114 059 -029 249 204 156 075
20. RA 183 048 618 058 118 170 136 075 039 012
21. RO 264 1448 129 016 281 013 241 198 139 020
22. RI 135 434 114 043 002 441 -031 038089 078
23 RE 140 262 203 265 118 098 178 080 083-051
24. RIn 154 117 064 049 083 497 238 149 -007 107
25 SRD 018 143 006 007 047 027 139 047 410 053
26. IRD 056 060 128 091 187 151 220 129 020 131
27. RS 055 003 091 171 195152 042 -130
536081
28. RA 115 159 061 098 109 233 459 046 034 044
29 RO 225 155 168 -032 242 226 383 101 155 007
30 RI 056 171 128 098 -002 505 033 093 -031 -018
31. RE 420 202 230 091 080 089 -108
087 346 071
32. RIn 070 310 369 008 191 -138 -026
355 132 102
33. SRD 170 237 013 611 -060 -107
111 237 104 145
34 IRD 665 010 099 061 129 071 -013 045 082 066
35. RS 086 -033 182 -015 192 015 -046
-058 551 -020
36. RA -031 267 134 8 046 -005 020
153 105 366
37. RO 097 667 129 118 039 008 024
187 114 166
38 RI 102 196 196 518 162 280 009 -095
117 083
39. RE 211 087 455 224 358 014 018
090 125 026
40. RIn 043 124 070 288 -045 093 083
089 501 192 0.642 0.469 0.442 0.394
Eigenvalue 8.186 2.168 1.190 1.049 0.824
5.1
0.734
4.6 4.0 2.9 2.7 2.4
variance 50.8 13.5 7.4 6.5
97.5 99.9
Cumulative 50.8 64.3 71.7 78.2 83.3 87.9 91.9 94.8

Percentage
Note: Decimal points have been eliminated.
 AND OD
INSTRUMENTS
IN HRD
TRAINING

388
of Factors of Role Stress
Summary of Loadings
TABLE 53.4

Frequency of Loadings % of
5+ 6+ 7+ Variance
4+
Factors 2+ 1 51
1 2
13.5
3
6.5
1
2
(-1) 4 4
2 3
1
8
2

(-2) -1) 2
10

of loadings ot 7+
Table 53.4 gives the summary of these loadings, mentioning the frequency
6+, 5+, 4+, 3+ and 2+. ot *
from Table 53.4 that factor 10 has a loading
of 3+ only on one item and
It may be seen
tnis
It contributes 2% to the total variance. In view of these considerations,
on another item.
one self-distance item.
It has a negave
factor can be dropped, Factor 9 has loading of 3 on
of 3 on another self-role distance item. We may also ignore
this factor. We have taken on
loading
those factors that have at least 3 loadings of 3. Thus, we are left with eight factors. Table 53.3 g
luded
the summary of loadings of three of the eight factors on different role stress dimensions inc
in the instrument, Your Feelings About Your Role. role
Factor 1 has high loadings on four items of inter-role distance and one item eac
I role
overload and role inadequacy. Three IRD items relate to conflict between the organisa
and the family role. Role overload, in a way, also contributes to such a contflict. KoIe "
relates to
(Item 32) relates to doing 'all the things I feel should be done'. In a way, this item also
allow me

inter-role distance. This factor has loading of about 8 on Item 10 (My role does nou
stands

to have enough time with my family). We may call this an inter-role distance (F) tactot:
isational role and
for family. This factor has the dominant theme of conflict between the
organisationa
family role. IRD can be of two type-IRD (F and IRD (S)-one concerned with
family roles and the other with social roles.
t e r - r o l e

Factor 2 has high loadings on all five role

stagnation items and on one eact , it he
distance, role erosion, role isolation and role inadequacy. One role isolation item, ou on
which

the

a 4+ loading, relates to consultation with other roles; one role erosion item (1)
 Organisational Role Stress (ORS) Scale 389

TABLE 53.5 Summary of Loading of 3+ on Eight Factors on

Role Stress Dimensions

Role Stress Dimensions

Role
Inter-role Role Role Role Role Role Inade Self-role
Factors Distance Stagnation Ambiguity Erosion Overload Isolation quacy Distance
1
5 1 1
3
2
2
6 1
2
8

desire to have more functions in one's own role (indirectly referring to role stagnation); one role
inadequacy item (40) on which the factor has 5+ loading refers to lack of skills in handling
responsibility (reflecting role stagnation). Since most of these items refer to stagnation, we may
Call this a role stagnation factor, interpreting stagnation as lack of growth of the individual and
lack of growth of the role. This factor contributes 13.5% to the total variance of role stress.
Factor 3
(explaining about 7% variance) has high loadings on only three role ambiguity
ems: rem 12, on conflicting demands of various people (loading of 7+); Item 20, relating to
oniicting demands of peers/subordinates (loading of 6+); and Item 56, relating to demands of
Cents and others having expectations (loading of 3+). Its loadings of other role ambiguity items
rela g to clarity of responsibilities (4) and clarity about what people expect (28) are very low
n

f herefore, this factor can be called the role ambiguity (CE). CE stands for conflict
pectations. Role ambiguity may consist of two elementslack of clarity and conflict of
aion. Role ambiguity may consist of two elements: lack of clarity (LC) and conflict expec-
tations (CE).
dhesnas high loadings on two role erosion items with loadings of 4+ (ltem 7, relating to
Teductic
h t importance of the role; and Item 31, relating to important functions being assigned
to other roles).
tsponsibs). It has a slightly negative loading (of 1+) on Item 15, relating to taking on more
responsi
ole bility. On other er role erosion items, it has loadings of 2+. It has a high loading on Item 6
isolation): 'Other role occupants
also reflects occuf do not give enough attention and time to my role'. This item
t h e lower importance of the role. This factor can be called role erosion in which
ttheinealkirole
ng respox
l b l i t y is not significant but the general feeling of the importance given by others to
role is the
central theme.
 TRAINING INSTRUMENTS IN HRD AND OD
390
Factor 5 has high loadings on two role overload items-Item 37, relating to the need to
reduce some parts of the role (loading of 6+); and Item 5, stating workload being high (loadino
of 3+)-and has one role inadequacy item (I do not have sufficient time or resources to do all
the things I feel should be done). The role inadequacy item also reflects a feeling of role overload
with the existing resources. On other role overload items, it has the loading of 2+ on two items

and 1+ on one item. We can call this factor role overload.

Factor 6 has high loadings on all five role isolation items, three role inadequacy items and one
role erosion item. It has a loading of 5+ on items related to joint problem-solving (ltem 30) and
items related to attention from
response for collaboration and help (ltem 38); a loading of 4+ on
other role occupants (ltem 6) and mutual consultation (Item 22); and a loading of 3t on an item
of 4+ on role inadequacy items
related to interaction with other roles (Item 14). It also has loading
related to getting needed information. This item also denotes isolation. However, there are two
other role inadequacy items on which it has loadings of 3+ (one related to authority given, i.e.,
Item 32). The main theme in this factor
Item 8 and the other to time and resources available, i.e.,
a role isolation factor. This factor contributes
is lack of linkages with other roles; we can call it
about 50% of the total variance.
and one
Factor 7 for 4% variance) has high loadings on two role ambiguity items,
(accounting
each of role overload and role inadequacy. It has loading of 4+ on a role inadequacy item (16)
item (28: I do not know what the
related to lack of adequate knowledge and a role ambiguity
in the latter item seems to be on one's own
people I work with expect of me). The emphasis
of 3+ on a role ambiguity item (Item 4:
inadequacy: 1 do not know'. Similarly, it has loadings
Too many people expect too much...).
I am not clear...) and a role overload item (Item 29:
therefore call this factor role
Both these items show helplessness and personal inadequacy. We may
for personal.There may be two types of role inadequacies: personal
inadequacy (P)-P standing or role
role demands) and resource inadequacy
inadequacy (lack of internal resources to meet the
meet role demands. This factor
accounts
inadequacy (R), rclated to lack of external resources to
for about 3% variance of role stress.
each role stagnation,
high loadings on three self-role distance items, and one
on
Factor 8 has
role erosion and role inadequacy items. It has a loading of 6+ on SRD
Item 33 (value-role
SRD Item 17 (interest-responsibility conflict) and loading ot 3* on
contlict), loading of 5+ on
otner
distance items. The
SRDItem value-role-performance conflict). All these are self-role
in the role), rolc
items on which it has loadings of 3t are role stagnation Item 3 (not learning
and role erosion Item 39 (attention ben
inadequacy Item 8 (not having enough responsibility) ano
learning) an
to other Out of these, Item 3 reflects conflict between self-image (of
roles).
given %
the role contents. We may thus call this a self-role distance factor. This factor explains about
variance.
We thus got the following factors for ORS Scale:
 Organisational Role Stress (ORS) Scale
391
F a c t o r 1
Inter-role distance (IRD)
Factor 2 Role stagnation (RS) 51% variance
Factor 3 Role expectation conflict 14% variance
Role erosion (RE)
(REC) 7/% variance
Factor 4
Factor 5 Role overload (RO) 7% variance
Factor 6 Role isolation (RI) 5% variance
Role 5% variance
Factor inadequacy (Person) (R In P) 4% variance
Factor 8 Self-role distance (SRD)
3% variance

Eactor analysis
of the responses of 380 executives
from three
ahic. private and joint sector-gave similar evidence of the organisations-one each in the
validity of the
underload was also suggested as a tactor (Srinivasan & Anantharaman, 1988).scale, although role
Srivastava (1993)
o t similar results from factor
analysis of data on ORS of about 400 executives in a
public sector
company.

53.7NORMS
Based median and quartile deviation, the
on
following norms are
suggested (Khanna, 1985) for
managers:

Stress Median Low High

SRD 5 3 9
IRD 2 8
RS 2
RI 6 3
RA 1
REC
RO
RE 12
RIn 2 8

PI 2 8

53.8 CORRELATESS
Sriv of various dimensions of role stress with
9he
9 1 ) found a significant positive correlation
role ambiguity and role:stagnation most
symptoms of
ptoms of mental
me ill health. Stress arising from
intensively correlated with somatic concomitants of anxiety.
 392 TRAINING INSTRUMENTS IN HRD AND OD

In a sample of 120 engineering executives, Rajagopalan and Khandelwal (1988) found total
role stress had a positive correlation (0.28) with avoidance and a negative correlation (-0.29)
with approach coping styles, both being significant at 0.001 level. REC, RE and SRD were not
correlated with each other; correlations in case of IRD, RI and RA were significant at .05 level
and in others (RS, RO, PI and RIn), these were significant at 0.01 level.

53.9 USE FOR HRD

This instrument gives data about the number of different role stresses experienced by a
respondent. A detailed analysis of stresses on which a respondent has high scores can be done
and some plans can be worked out to manage and reduce these.
 Organisational Role Stress (ORS) Scale 393
ORS Scale

Name:
Role:
Onganisation:
Date:
Read tructions carefully before
responding on this sheet.
nle
Ped
have different feelings about their roles. Statements describing some of them are given below.
1ee the answer sheet to write your responses. Read each statement and indicate in the space against the
echonding number in the answer sheet how often you have the feeling expressed in the statement in
relation
ion to vour role in the organisation. Use the numbers given below to indicate your own feelings.
If vou find that the category to be used in answering does not adequately indicate your own feelings, use
dhe one which is closest to the way you fel. Do not leave any item unanswered. Answer the items in the
order given below:

Write 0 if you never or rarely feel this way

Write 1 if you occasionally (a few times) feel this way
Write 2 if you sometimes feel this way
Write 3 if you frequently feel this way
Write 4 if you very frequently or always feel this way

Do not write anything on these pages. Give responses on the answer sheet.

My role tends to interfere with my family life.

I am afraid, I am not learning enough in my present role for taking up higher
responsibility.
I am not able to satisfy the conflicting demands of various people above me.
My role has recently been reduced in importance.
My workload is too heavy.
Other role occupants do not give enough attention and time to my role.
I do not have adequate knowledge to handle the responsibilities in my role.
I have to do things in my role that are against my better judgement.
.
I am not clear on the scope and responsibilities of my role (job).
10.
I do not get the information needed to carry out responsibilities assigned to me.
11
I have various other interests (social, religious, etc.) which remain neglected
12. because I do not get time to attend to these.
I am too preoccupied with my present role responsibility to be able to prepare
13. for taking up higher responsibilities.

14 I am not able to satisfy the conflicting demands of my peers and juniors.

Many functions that should be a part of my role have been assigned to some
15. other role.
The amount of work I have to do interferes with the quality I want to maintain.
16
17 There is not enough interaction berween my role and other roles.
18, I wish I had more skills to handle the responsibilities of my role.
I am not able to use my training and expertise in my role.
19. I do not know what the people I work with expect of me.
20. I do not get enough resource to be effective in my role.
My role does not allow me enough time for my family.
394 TRAINING INSTRUMENTS IN HRD AND OD

21. I do not have time and opportunities to

prepare myselt for the future challenges
of my role.
22. I am not able to satisfy the demands of clients and others since these are
conflicting with one another.
23. I would like to take on more responsibility than I am
handling at present.
24 I have been given too much responsibility.
25 I wish there was more consultation between my role and others' roles.
26. I have not had the right training for my role.
27 The work I do in the organisation is not related to my interests.
28. Several aspects of my role are vague and unclear.
29. I do not have enough people to work with me in my role.
30. My organisational responsibilities interfere with my extra organisational roles.
31. There is very little scope for personal growth in my role.
32 The expectations of my seniors conflict with those of my juniors.
33. I can do much more than what I have been assigned.
34. There is a need to reduce some parts of my role.
35. There is no evidence of several roles (including mine) being involved in joint
problem-solving or collaboration for planning action.
36. I wish I had prepared myself well for my role.
37. If I had full freedom to define my role, I would be doing some things differently
from the way I do them now.
38. My role has not been defined clearly and in detail
39 I am rather worried that I lack the necessary facilities needed in my role.
My family and friends complain that I do not spend time with them due to the
40
heavy demands of my work role.
41 feel stagnant in my role.
II am bothered with the contradictory expectations different people have from my
42
role.
43. I wish I had been given tasks that are more challenging to do.
44. I feel overburdened in my role.
45. Even when I take the initiative for discussions or help, there is not much

response from the other roles.

46. I need more training and preparation to be effective in my work role.
I experience a conflict between what I have to do in my role and my values.
47.
48. I am not clear what the priorities are in my role.
49. I wish I had more financial resources for the work assigned to me.
 Organisational Role Stress (ORS) Scale 395
ORS Scale
Score Sheet
Role:
Name:
Onganisation:
Date:

11. 21. 31. 41. 1. Inter-role distance (IRD)

1.
12 22 32. 42. 2 Role stagnation (RS)
13. 23. 33. 43. 3. Role expectation conflict (REC)

6.
14.
15.
16.
24.
25
26.
E 34.
35.
36.
44
45.
46.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
Role erosion (RE)
Role overload (RO)
Role isolation (RI)
17. 27. 37. 47. 7. Personal inadequacy (PI)
18. 28. 38. 48. 8. Self-role distance (SRD)
9. 19 29. 39 49. 9.
9. Role ambiguity (RA)
10 20. 30. 40. 50. 10. Resource inadequacy (RIn)