Chapter Two

The Literature Review

2.1 Introduction to the theory of work-related stress

Experts in the banking industry and academics have stressed the need of addressing stress in
the workplace. Numerous theoretical models have been investigated in support of determining
what elements contribute to work-related stress; this has led to the development of instruments
that may be used to detect and assess these aspects.

One of the major causes of stress in the workplace is a lack of resources for doing one's job.
The theory of conservation of resources explains how three key factors contribute to the stress
felt by individuals as a result of limited resources. Firstly, a lack of resources may cause job-
overload, which in turn can lead to an employee losing time and energy and becoming stressed
because of their inability to get everything done. Second, according to this theory, employees
experience anticipatory stress when they are faced with job ambiguity or conflict because it
raises the likelihood that they will face negative outcomes with regard to their income and
professional prospects. Finally, this theory suggests that stress among workers might result
from organizations' collective inability to invest in providing appropriate resources (Moorthy et al,
2013).

Peter Warr's "Vitamin" model proposed nine different factors in the workplace that affect an
employee's stress levels and mental health. Organizational and employee autonomy, employee
and manager communication, work demand, personal financial stability, job-task diversity,
opportunities for skill development and advancement, physical safety, job clarity, and job
significance are among these nine qualities. While some of these traits will have an ongoing
effect on employee stress, others will only start impacting after a certain threshold is reached
(Murali et al, 2017). These three key aspects of workplace wellbeing are job satisfaction, job
anxiety, and emotional exhaustion.

Cox's transactional model, on the other hand, examines workplace stress from a different angle,
suggesting the existence of a dynamic-conversational interaction between a person and the
setting in which they operate. According to this framework, events may be broken down into two
categories:
Anyone may be stressed out, but those who are able to effectively deal with their stress are able
to influence and alter their immediate environments. There would be a dynamic, reciprocal
interaction between this influence emerging from the environment and the corresponding
reactions of the person. Understanding how people will respond to stress in different contexts
may be gained by investigating the nature of the interactions within the relationship (Murali et al,
2017).

The Job-Demand-Control-Support Model is a framework for analyzing the psychological factors

that contribute to occupational stress, particularly the demands and the ability to influence those
demands. Workplace stressors are identified as work-related factors such as work-rate, time
constraints, and job complexity. The concept of "Job Control" centers on how much leeway
workers are given to choose how and when they get their jobs done. A person's level of
psychological stress is inversely proportional to the amount of control they are given over their
work environment, which depends on both their level of job competency and the amount of
decision-making power they are given. In an effort to strike a reasonable balance between the
expectations placed on workers and the degree of autonomy that may be granted, this model
has been frequently utilized to identify and determine work-related psychological stress (Murali
et al, 2017).

2.2 A Philosophical Perspective on Worker Efficiency

Earlier models tended to concentrate on productivity-related metrics, such as output generated

according to organizational data or number of missing days in a calendar year, as a proxy for
employee performance. Quantity and quality of work done by workers with the help of peers and
supervisors were frequently used to evaluate worker performance; nevertheless, these methods
often resulted in subjective judgements that did not accurately reflect the complexity and depth
of compliant employeeperformance. Koopmans et al. (2011).

According to Campbell and Wiernik (2015), performance evaluations should focus on

employees' actions rather than their output, and only those actions that directly contribute to the
achievement of the company's objectives should be considered. He suggested a model for
assessing employee performance based on eight criteria. specifically technical
Expertise, Communication Skills, Negative Professional Behaviors, Persistence, Supervision
Skills, Management/Administrative Performance, Team Leadership, Team Management. They
also claimed that, in order to have a clearer picture of the outcomes, it is important to apply job-
specific frameworks rather than general ones when evaluating employees' performance on the
job.

According to Koopmans et al. (2011), who offered a more holistic view on how to evaluate staff
performance, task performance, contextual performance, and adaptive performance are the
three most important factors to consider. The efficiency with which critical work duties are
completed is reflected in an employee's task performance. The term "contextual performance"
refers to an evaluation of an employee's actions and dedications in the broader social,
psychological, and organizational contexts outside their specific work duties. Employees'
abilities to adjust to new circumstances on the job, such as those brought on by technology
advancements, gains in productivity, or changes in the specifics of how certain tasks are
performed, are quantified by a metric known as "adaptive performance." Employee adaptability,
resilience in the face of uncertainty, and openness to change are all factors that may be
evaluated in this way.

Using organizational behavior as a model, social exchange theory also improves our knowledge
of employee performance. Accordingly, it provides an explanation of the fundamental nature of
the connection between workers and their workplace, which is an exchange process with the
goals of maximization of benefits and minimization of costs (Cook et al., 2013). When the costs
of maintaining the connection outweigh the benefits, one or both partners may choose to sever
ties (Nguyen et al., 2016). For instance, from the perspective of the workplace, when an
employer provides a more secure working environment, an employee may be more dedicated to
their work and produce better results in all areas, not just those directly related to their job
duties. On the other hand, if workers perceive that their workplace is hostile and full of stress
and negativity, this may have a negative effect on their morale and productivity. Saleem et al.
(2021) use this as their source.

2.3 Critical Workplace Stressors in the Asian Banking Industry

Multiple studies have linked job overload as a major cause of stress in the workplace.
Therefore, bank personnel were found to be working beyond their normal working-hours,
leading to a lack of personal time and a consequently elevated degree of stress (Usman Ali et
al., 2016; Geng et al., 2018). According to research conducted by Ashfaq et al. (2013) on private
banks in Pakistan, workers' personal and family life have suffered since they are required to
work on holidays and weekends. As a result, many are finding it difficult to maintain a healthy
work-life balance, which has added stress to their already hectic schedules. One
counterargument comes from research conducted by Razak et al. (2014) on Malaysian workers,
who claim that stress at work is mostly self-inflicted since people put off doing their job until the
last minute.

Researchers in Malaysia found that bank clients might be a significant source of stress for
financial institutions. The worst hit are the frontline workers who interact directly with
consumers. According to the research, variables like clients' unpleasant attitudes and refusals
are significant causes of stress for frontline workers. (Chienwattanasook & Jermsittiparsert,
2019). According to Alarcon (2011), sales efforts are an integral part of many office jobs,
especially those in which employees interact directly with consumers. They feel more pressure
since they have less say over their work life.

Bank employees in Pakistan, according to Malik (2011), experience high levels of stress due to
a combination of factors, including a lack of organizational support and poor work relationships,
and a lack of supervisor support towards the accomplishment of their tasks. When workers are
inexperienced, it is more crucial for supervisors to help them complete their jobs, as stated by
Ismail & Hong (2011).

It has been acknowledged that role-stressors, such as role-conflicts, role-ambiguity, and role-
instability, can contribute to job-related stress. Role-stressors lead to high levels of stress,
according to a study among Indian banks, and this has impacted the quality of work-life
adversely, the authors write (Purkait et al., 2016). Devi and Sharma (2013) conducted a study
on Jammu and Kashmir bank tellers.

Employees experiencing role-stressors have emotional challenges as a result of receiving

conflicting information or obligations that lead to role-multiplicity, as reported by researchers in
India. According to Yldrm & Solmaz (2020), the current pandemic has altered the way bankers
carry out their duties, causing disruption to their usual work schedules and processes and
resulting in role-ambiguity, disagreements, and stress.

When equipment and software fail to perform as promised, it may be very frustrating for
workers. When servers go down, consumers become more irritated, and staff may experience
increased levels of stress and anxiety as a result (Khattak et al, 2011). According to research by
Purkait (2016), stress levels rise when workers are required to make changes to their working
methods as a consequence of technological progress. They may experience stress if they have
trouble adjusting to changes in long-established processes.

Multiple studies have linked poor working conditions to stress on the job, with the root reason
being competing priorities within performance-driven businesses. Workplace tensions may soar
as a consequence, leading to an unhealthy workplace for everyone involved (Kashefi, 2011).
Constraints on personal time, negative attitudes from coworkers, and strict adherence to rules
and regulations all contribute to stressful workplace environments, according to research by
Shahid et al. (2012). Discrimination in the workplace is linked to less-than-desirable working
circumstances, which in turn lowers job satisfaction, according to the research of Imam et al.
(2013). Makhbul et al. (2011) found that workers at Malaysian banks experienced stress due to
inadequate amenities such ergonomic workstations, lighting, and work-space. Nonetheless,
significant operational risk is singled out by Saleem et al. (2021) as a cause of stress in the
workplace.

Additionally. Uncertainty about one's professional trajectory and biased evaluations of one's
performance on the job may also add unnecessary pressure. When workers don't know how
their performance is assessed or how their salaries are raised in response to that assessment,
they might feel mistreated and underappreciated (Khattak et al, 2011). According to Tudu and
Pathak (2014), when workers see little room for advancement and no bright future ahead of
them, they may begin to feel underused.

Stress at work may also be the result of personal concerns, which workers may be dealing with.
These problems may be related to the employee's family or finances. The impacts of one's job
life might spill over into one's personal life, and vice versa. Authors: Ahmed, Ramzan, 2013.

Bankers agree that the lack of say over their working lives contributes to stress, and that they
need to be part of the organization's decision making. Employees in the banking profession tend
to be highly educated and competitive by nature, so failing to put their skills to good use and
giving them little say in their work environment may be frustrating for everyone involved (Malik,
2011).

In a nutshell: too much work, too little time, too much stress, and lousy relationships with clients
and customers. pressures related to roles, workplace environment, technology, and lack of
organizational support. Widely accessible research has highlighted work-relations, career
possibilities, personal difficulties, and a lack of professional autonomy as important contributing
elements to work-stress.

2.4 Worker Performance in the Asian Banking Industry

According to a study conducted on Pakistani financial institutions, it was found that providing
incentives for employees to work hard, as well as measuring their progress toward their goals,
has a positive effect on productivity. Performance bonuses would encourage workers to put in
more effort, which would eventually improve output (Saeed et al., 2013).

Kalyani (2021) found in her research on the banking industry in Sri Lanka that providing workers
with opportunities for growth via training, job design, and evaluations of their performance led to
increased productivity. Furthermore, Shahid et al. (2012) found that employees' performance
might suffer when their bosses don't back them up or they have a strained connection with their
coworkers. Furthermore, they found that this lack of management oversight has resulted in
lower-quality output.

According to research by Saeed et al. (2013) at banks throughout Pakistan, favorable working
conditions have a considerable impact on worker productivity would make for a more pleasant
place to work and, in turn, more productivity among staff members by promoting a healthy work-
life balance. In addition, as Shahid et al. (2012) found, significant turnover and a damaged
image for the company result when upper management ignores employee complaints and does
not provide answers.

What this research also showed was how much an employee's mental health impacts their
productivity. Employees' mental health suffers as a result of the stress brought on by personal
and family issues, which in turn hinders their ability to give their full attention to their work and
ultimately their performance (Saeed et al, 2013).

Multiple studies have pointed to the importance of effective communication as a crucial factor in
determining employee effectiveness. 45% of bank employees in a Malaysian survey said they
were unsure of their function and the extent to which they could exercise power in their position.
They were also confused about how the internal performance review process operated. As a
result, workers may not be able to do their jobs as well as they could if they had access to the
information they needed (Murali et al, 2017).
Key factors of employee performance in the banking business have been identified as pay,
career prospects/training, working conditions, work-life balance, work relations, organizational
support, psychological well-being, and organizational communication.

2.5 The impact of job stress on Asian financial institutions' productivity.

According to research by Usman Ali et al. (2014), occupational stress is mostly caused by role
conflict, work-overload, and a lack of financial incentives. Abbas and Raja (2015) found that
anxiety is common across a variety of sectors, which has a negative impact on worker
satisfaction and productivity. George and Zakkariya (2015) found that public bankers experience
less stress than their private sector counterparts. This is because private banks are in a highly
competitive industry, which causes job-stress, lowers job satisfaction, and ultimately results in
poor performance. Higher levels of stress are associated with poorer levels of commitment and
satisfaction, which in turn leads to lower levels of work performance, as found by Saleem &
Gopinath (2015).

However, several studies have shown that, under some conditions, work-related stress might
actually improve performance. According to Jayasinghe and Mendis (2017), stress is pervasive
and unavoidable; nevertheless, the impacts of anxiety may be mitigated and work performance
can be improved via training and the cultivation of tolerance. Dobre (2013) echoed this
sentiment, writing that understanding what drives an individual and capitalizing on that
knowledge might help improve productivity even when workplace stress rises.

Kordee et al. (2018) provide a new angle on the topic by describing an inverted U-shaped link
between work-stress and employee performance. At initially, stress would improve performance
by increasing drive to work harder. However, at a certain point, the employee's motivation levels
would decline, which would inevitably lead to a drop in performance. They add that people's
tolerance for stress and the resulting subjectivity would decide this threshold.

In conclusion, most studies found a negative correlation between employee performance and
job-related stress, suggesting that elevated levels of stress would have a deleterious effect on
output. The literature on this topic is extensive (Usman Ali et al., 2014; George and Zakkariya,
2015; Saleem & Gopinath, 2015). However, some studies have shown that, under certain
conditions, stress may actually inspire workers to work more. Dobre (2013) and Jayasinghe and
Mendis (2017). Both of these reasons are supported by studies that found the connection
between the two variables to be non-linear, with positive and negative outcomes depending on
context (Kordee et al., 2018).