Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol.

6, Supplementary Issue 1 336

Effects of Stressor on Work and Employee

Performance in Higher Education
Etty Susanty
Faculty of Economics, Universitas Terbuka

Helmiatin
Faculty of Economics, Universitas Terbuka

ABSTRACT
This study discusses the factors that generate stress. Stressor is the source that generates
stress in the form of role ambiguity, role conflict, work overload, time availability,
career development, and responsibility. Excessive workload and availability and
insufficient time rapidly triggers the occurrence of stress. Stress is one cause of reduced
performance and productivity of employees. The three variables in a person’s frame of
mind are stressor, job stress, and employee performance. A questionnaire was developed
for the purpose of quantitative with three variables identified. The questionnaire
comprises 14 dimensions (2 to 6 dimensions for each variable) and each dimension
consists of 3 to 4 queries. The respondents of the survey we conducted were employees
from an open university and were selected via stratified random probability sampling.
Three hypotheses were developed and analyzed using partial least squares. Results
showed that job stressor significantly influences job stress. Stressor work did not
significantly affect the performance, whereas job stress did not significantly influence
the performance. The interrelated stressor is reflected by role overload and time
availability, work stress is reflected by emotions and attitudes/behaviors, and reflected
by the performance reliability, cooperation, quality of work, quantity of work, and
knowledge.

Keywords: stressor, work stress, performance, PLS

1. INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of studies on work stress and its influence and various
manifestations on the health of working individuals have been conducted. Occupational
stress can be viewed as a process, in which stressors are associated with the content and
circumstances of work and characteristics, resources, and social environment of
individuals (Baba et al., 2000). Stressful incidents at work were analyzed using an open-
ended technique for three different occupations, namely, clerical workers, university
professors, and sales associates. Narayana (2000) revealed that similarities and
differences in stressors and coping techniques are reported across all occupations. Sauter
et al. (1990) explained that the most common sources of occupational stress are
workload and work pace, conflict and ambiguity in the workplace, career concerns, work
schedule, interpersonal relationships, and job content and control.
Various problems can cause stress at work. For example, working conditions can
cause stress to employees. Stress has an important relationship with the productivity,

Copyright  2017 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 6, Supplementary Issue 1 337

finances, and material possessions of people. Stress in the workplace has cost companies
an enormous amount of money. Gibson et al. (1993) revealed that companies in the US
lose US$68 billion in annual income due to a decrease in productivity resulting from the
effects of stress on employees. These costs include medical benefits (i.e., when
employees are sick), hospital care costs, and costs associated with decreased
productivity. Workers, who have been trained at a huge cost, may experience stress
when under pressure in their respective jobs. Consequently, they may become prone to
make illogical decisions, such as habitual absence and alcohol and drug abuse, thereby
leading to their replacement by other workers who need retraining. Such decisions can
lead to increasing costs on the part of companies (Greenberg, 2003). Milbourn (2006)
determined that stressors can be observed due to six factors: role confusion, role
conflict, availability of time, work overload, career development, and responsibility.
Work stress can occur when work demands exceed the capability of an employee.
Therefore, companies should know the stress levels of their employees. After
determining the stress levels of employees, companies can act to ease the stress
experienced by the former, thereby enabling them to work productively.
The main task of higher education is to provide academic and professional
education in the various disciplines of science, technology, and the arts based on a
system of distance. Higher education has the following functions in terms of performing
its basic tasks: conduct research to develop science, technology, and the arts; perform
community service; employ academic guidance and administrative personnel to suit the
environment; and provide administrative services. Employees are required to provide the
best services to students. In providing these services, technical or non-technical issues
can cause stress on every employee. The aforementioned results indicate that stress
affects the health and costs incurred by companies.The three variables in this study are
stressor, job stress, and employee performance. Stressors were measured as role
ambiguity, role conflict, time availability, work overload (quantitative), career
development, and responsibility.
Work stress can be measured by emotions and attitude or behavior. Marifah
(2004) referred to Livine et al. (1990), Schuler (1996), Mink (1993), and Caspersz
(2002) and concluded that performance is measured using (1) reliability, (2) presence,
(3) cooperation,(4) quantity of work, (5) knowledge, and (6) ability. In the current
study, constructs/variables can be measured by considering the dimensions.
This research aims to investigate the concept of power stress (i.e., stressor) and
analyze the effect of work stress on employee performance. The results of this study are
expected to benefit company leaders to anticipate the potential causes of stress in view
of its negative effects that can be detrimental to the company. Leaders’ knowledge on
stress can also be used to solve this problem and turn stress into eustress, which is
beneficial for persons to develop themselves, improve their performance, and attain job
satisfaction.

2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Greenberg (2003) explained that stress is associated with the life of an

organization, where stress is a pattern of emotional and physical reactions that occurs in
response to demands from within and outside such organization. Luthan (1998) used the
definition of stress as basis to conclude that stress is an adaptive response to external

Copyright  2017 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 6, Supplementary Issue 1 338

situations that result in irregularities or deviation in the physical, psychological, and

behavioral aspects of an offender or organization. Work stress is a condition of
dependency that affects emotions, thought processes, and condition of a person
(Hasibuan, 2001). Siagian (2008) explained that the sources of job stress are classified
into work stress, which is the workload of authority that is characterized as imbalanced,
obscure, involves duty work, and related to unpleasant environment and co-workers
which involves financial worries, disharmonious family life, and children’s negative
behavior. Wood (2001) concluded that the two sides of stress are stress that is building
(i.e., constructive stress) and stress that is damaging (i.e., destructive stress). If stress is
completely lacking, then employees will not be challenged, thereby resulting in the
tendency of their performance to decline. If the stress intensity increased up to the
optimal level (moderate), then such increase will assist employees to maximize all
available resources.
Rahmawati (2009) elaborated that the factors that cause job stress (stressor)
among bank employees are task and role demands, demands of interpersonal
relationships, organizational structure, organizational leadership, and organizational life
stages. Laughlin (2001) studied occupational stress and its relationship with social
support and life turbulence of teachers in New South Wales.Laughlin research revealed
that nearly one-third of the teachers studied considered their job to be extremely
stressful. Self-reported teacher stress was determined to be negatively related to job
satisfaction and intention to continue teaching. Shaikh et al. (2011) studied a plant
manager in Pakistan and determined that work conflict and time availability are
significantly positively associated with job stress and job stress managers are
significantly negatively associated with job satisfaction. Makhbul (2009) suggested that
health, work, work shift, and working hours are factors that are significantly associated
with work stress.
Wheatley (1990) suggested that individual responses to the sources of stress can
be observed from one or a few aspects of life, including social habits, social relations,
sexual preferences, and individual sleeping habits. The reactions include the responses
of individuals to life events experienced and the heart condition and psychiatric
symptoms of each individual. In addition, special aspects include specific aspects for
women (e.g., menstrual cycle) and the elderly. Stress in one aspect of life can affect the
other aspects. For example, work stress, which includes the social life aspects, can also
affect sleep habits, sex life, or health of the heart.
Kahn et al. (1990) investigated the variable stressors (stressors), role of
ambiguity (role ambiguity), excessive workload (role overload), and conflict in work
(role conflict). By the time individuals interact with other actors (e.g., customers,
supervisors, or co-workers) to obtain information (direction and assistance),
expectations and demand for such actors can be categorized as a source of stress.The
negative effects of stress (distress), which is a variety of prolonged stress that can cause
a variety of diseases, such as allergies, high blood pressure, migraine, and stomach pain.
In addition, stress is often followed by feelings of anger, anxiety, depression,
nervousness, irritability, tension, and saturation (Luthans, 1998). Beehr and Newman
(2000) explained that stress can affect a person who has difficulty in concentrating,
making decisions, and experiencing job dissatisfaction. The two sides of stress are stress
that is building (constructive stress) and stress that is damaging (destructive stress).

Copyright  2017 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 6, Supplementary Issue 1 339

If stress is completely lacking, then employees will not be challenged, thereby

resulting in the tendency of their performance to decline. If the stress intensity increased
up to the optimal level (moderate), then such increase will assist employees to maximize
all available resources (Wood et al., 2001). Performance is essentially work that can be
achieved by a person or group of people within an organization in accordance with the
authority and responsibilities of each individual, to achieve organizational goals legally,
and in accordance with moral and ethical standards (Prawirosentono, 1999). A direct
correlation exists between work stress and performance. The stress experienced by
employees can facilitate the improvement of job performance, although such experience
can also inhibit or impair work performance. The effect depends on the level of stress
experienced by employees (Handoko, 2001).

3. METHODOLOGY, DESIGN, AND HYPOTHESES

This study measures variables by considering the dimensions. The dimensions

are stressor, work stress, and employee performance.Table 1 shows that this research
comprises multidimensional constructs.

Table 1: Variables and dimensions of the study

No Variables Dimensions
X 1 : role ambiguity
X 2 : role conflict
Stressor X 3 : role overload
1
(X) X 4 : time availability
X 5 : career development
X 6 : responsibility
2 Work stress (Y 1 ) Y 11 : emotional
Y 12 : attitude / behavior
Y 21 : reliability
Performance Y 22 : presence
3 Y 23 : cooperation
(Y 2 ) Y 24 : quality
Y 25 : quantity
Y 26 : knowledge

Table 1 shows the appropriate stage to establish a model that will be investigated using
quantitative procedures.

Copyright  2017 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 6, Supplementary Issue 1 340

Figure 1: Operational framework of the current study

The respondents were employees of a higher education institution with high level
of stress. Data were collected through a questionnaire that focuses on job stress and
adapted from Kahn et al. (1964) and Milbourn (2006) and the procedure developed by
Marifah (2004). The current study uses partial least squares (PLS) to determine the
effects of stressors on the work stress of employees and their performance.
Variables are explored through the questionnaire (Tjiptono & Chandra, 2011)
and a survey was conducted to collect data from the respondents (Fowler, 2014). The
respondents for this survey were selected via stratified random probability sampling.
Three hypotheses were developed and analyzed using PLS.
Khan et al. (1990) explained that these stressors can be role ambiguity, excessive
workload (role overload), or work conflict (role conflict). Control deficiencies and
excessive job stress eventually trigger work stress (Narayana, 2000). Milbourn (2006)
stated that the sources of stress are confusion of roles, role conflicts, time constraints,
and excess labor. The preceding studies concluded that stressors would lead to
considerable stress. This conclusion is based on a variety of stressors that will have an
impact on stress. Employee performance is crucial to the success of a company and
directly or indirectly contributes to the company (Mangkuprawira, 2009). If the stress
intensity increased up to the optimal level (moderate), then such increase will assist
employees to maximize all available resources (Handoko, 2001). Stress affects
employee performance. An extremely low level of stress causes employees to work
below their true potential, whereas people who work at a high level of stress make them
unable to concentrate on their jobs (Crampton et al., 1995). Two forms of stress are
constructive stress (eustress) and destructive stress (distress). Eustress increases a
worker’s performance and provides the additional motivation, energy, and courage
required for administrative duties (Cloud, 1991). Balci (2000) argued that medium levels
of stress pave the way for individual creativity. Many administrators exhibit their best
performance when they experience medium level of stress. A few studies indicate that
stress at the lowest point makes the performance of an employee better than when they

Copyright  2017 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 6, Supplementary Issue 1 341

experience high levels of stress. Accordingly, the present researcher provides the second
and third hypotheses related to employee performance.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 2: Characteristics of the respondents

The characteristic
gender Men 46% women 54%
age 40-55 years 54% 30-39 years 22% over 55 years 24%
education level postgraduate 39% undergraduate 30% high school 13% diploma 18%
years of service <21-30 years 38% 11-20 years 24% 1-10 years 20% >30 years 18%

The analysis was conducted to determine the shape and influence of the
independent latent variables (exogenous), which is a stressor, to the dependent latent
variables (endogenous), which are work stress and employee performance. We used PLS
doped with SmartPLS 2.0 in this analysis.
The form of relationship with the latent variable is a reflective indicator.
Variable stressors are reflected by role ambiguity, role conflict, time availability, work
overload, career development, and responsibility. Variable job stress is reflected by
attitude/behavior and emotions. Employee performance variables are reflected by
reliability, presence, collaboration, quality, quantity, and knowledge. Once the model is
formed using SmartPLS, we can now test the feasibility of this model.
Ghozaly (2008) explained that the evaluation of the outer reflection model is
based on four criteria, namely, convergent validity, discriminant validity, average
variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability. First, convergent validity or
reliability of indicators is reflected in the value of the loading factor, thereby reflecting
the strength of the interrelation between the latent variables stressor, job stress, and
employee performance against each indicator variable. The interrelation stressor is
reflected by the role overload (X 3 ) and the value of the loading factor is 0.7979 and time
availability (X 4 ) by loading values at 0.552. The results of this study are similar to those
of Rahmawati (2009), which explained that one cause of stress is excessive task
demands. Makhbul (2009) determined a significant effect on the working hours of work
stress. Siagian (2008) also determined that work stress is caused by workload obscurity.
Stress can also occur among employees in the field of education. Laughlin
(2001) suggested that teachers’ stress negatively affects job satisfaction and intensity to
continue teaching. Zang (2010) reported that female Chinese academics were exposed to
more considerable stress at work than their male colleagues do because the former
experience difficulties in adapting to the male-dominated relations and face gender
discrimination in promotions. Perlberg and Keinan (1986) indicated that women were
supposed to assume the majority of the responsibilities at home apart from their
responsibilities at work. Gerdes (2003) argued that female academics emerged as an
employee group that faces high levels of work-related stress due to their heavy career
and household responsibilities. These conclusions are associated with the results of the
current study, in which role overload and time availability become a source of stress.

Copyright  2017 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 6, Supplementary Issue 1 342

The work stress variables are reflected by emotion (Y 11 ) with the largest value of
the loading factor at 0.7038. Greenberg (2003) explained that stress can be divided into
emotional and physical reactions. The results of this study indicate that the work stress
variables are reflected by emotion. The performance variables are reflected by reliability
(Y 21 ) with a loading factor value of 0.6951. One measure of worker performance is
reliability factor. Reliability measures the ability to perform a task well and discipline
(Marifah, 2004). Sliskovic and Maslic (2011) showed that teachers in higher education
are exposed to the highest level of work stress, thereby causing an emotional high as
well. The two researchers determined that (1) most university teachers have to cope with
excessive workloads and (2) women report high exposure to stressors at work,
particularly workload. Pressure that is sufficiently high can make someone become
emotional.
Discriminant validity indicates a correlation value between variable stressors,
work stress, and performance with each indicator. If the indicator stressor is reflected
from the stress of work and performance, then the correlation values of these indicators
on work stress and performance should be larger than the correlation of these indicators
against the other latent variables, including job stress variables and performance. If the
indicators for each of the variables describe reflection, then the correlation value must be
higher than the correlation of these indicators against other latent variables. This study
proves that the model is a reflective stressor to stress and the work and performance in
this study is valid.

Table 3: AVE values for the stressors, work stress,

and employee performance
Variable AVE
Performance 0.3826
Stressor 0.5056
Work Stress 0.3757

Table 3 presents the AVE stressors, work stress, and employee performance. The
values above the standard (> 0.5) indicate that the indicators for performance and work
stress are a less consistent measure than each latent variable stressor. Meanwhile, the
indicators are a consistent measure of the latent variables.
Composite reliability (ρc) shows a test of the stability and internal consistency of
a good indicator. This study showed that the stressor, employee stress and employee
performance are 0.8346, 0.7484, and 0.8713, respectively. The composite reliability
value is above 0.5. Thus, the indicators used for any latent have stability and are
consistently good.
The results of the evaluation’s outer reflection model suggest that a few
indicators should be dropped. After completing the procedure, the effects of the latent
variables and hypothesis testing were evaluated. The structural models were evaluated
using R-square for endogenous variables and by comparing the t arithmetic with t table
(t table at the 95% confidence level is 1.96). The PLS processing results showed that the
R-square stressors against employee stress are equal to 0.4095. This result means that
the performances of 40.95% of the employees were affected by the stressors and the rest
was influenced by other factors. The performances of 6.28% of the employees were
affected by the stressors and the rest was influenced by other factors. Hypothesis testing

Copyright  2017 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 6, Supplementary Issue 1 343

was performed by considering the path, coefficients bootstrapping analysis, and by

comparing the value of the t arithmetic with t table. This approach analyzes the three
hypotheses.
The stressor’s positive effect on job stress has a coefficient parameters value of
11.335. The first hypothesis (H1) indicates that positive stressors affect job stress due to
many factors that cause job stress. In this study, the causes of stress are the most
dominant, namely, overwork and time constraints. This result means that the more
stressors, the higher the stress of the employees. The stressor that does not affect the
performance of employees is 0.7559. In this study the causes of stress are the most
dominant: overworking and time constraints. Work stress is not positively influenced by
performance, in which the coefficient parameter is 1.6905. Hypothesis s (H3) showed
that work stress does not affect the performance. This result indicates that even if a high
level of employee stress is present, such stress will not affect employee performance.

5. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, one of our hypotheses was proven, while the other two were not.
First, the first hypothesis states that the more stressors, the higher the stress of
employees. Stressors from this research are the workload and availability of time.
Second, no influence exists between stressors and employee performance. This result
indicates that despite the causes of stress (stressor), the more it will not affect the
performance of the employee. Third, job stress has no effect on performance. This result
indicates that high level of employee stress will not affect the performance of
employees. This study recommends that the workload of each employee be reviewed
and that the workload burden of employees analyzed. Evidently, the workload should be
compared with the time available to do the work assigned to employees. For future
research on stress, we recommend the analysis of employees based on position and the
inclusion of additional independent variables apart from work stress and employee
performance. Moreover, among the independent variables that can be included in the
model are work motivation, organizational culture, job satisfaction, and training.

REFERENCES

[1] Ana Sliskovic and Darja Maslic (2011). Work Stress among university teachers:
Gender and position differences. 62: 299-307.
[2] Baba VV, Jamal M, Tourrigny L. Work and Mental Health: A decade in Canadian
Research. Can Psychol. 2000;39:94-104.
[3] Balci, A. 2000. Work Stressof faculty. Ankara: Nobel
[4] Beehr, T.A, Newman, J.E. Job Stress, Employee Health and Organizational
Effectiveness: A Facet Analysis, Model and Literature Review. Personel
Psyschology. Winter: 2000. 665-699.
[5] Crampton, S.M., Hodge, J.W., Mishra, J. M., &Price, S. 1995. Stress and Stress
Management. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 90(3), 10-18
[6] Cloud, R. C. 1991. Thoughts on stress and collage administration. Community
Collage Review, 19(1), 24-29.

Copyright  2017 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 6, Supplementary Issue 1 344

[7] Fowler, F. J. Jr. (2014). Survey research methods. 5th Ed. Los Angeles, USA:
SAGE.
[8] Gibson, C.B., Zellmer and Schwab. "Team Effectiveness in Multinational
Organization: Evaluation Accross Context", Group And Organization
Management. 28 (4), 1993, pp. 444-475.
[9] Greenberg, J., Baron, R.A, "Behavior in Organization", Upper Saddle River. New
York : Prentice Hall, 2003.
[10] Ghozali I, "Structural Equation Modeling Metode Alternatif dengan Partial Least
Square", Ed. 2. Semarang : Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro, 2008.
[11] Hasibuan, M.S.P. 2006. Manajemen Sumber daya Manusia. Jakarta: PT. Haji
Masagung.
[12] Handoko, T.H. 2001. Manajemen Personalia dan Sumber Daya Manusia.
Yogyakarta: FE UGM.
[13] Kahn,R.L.,Wolfe,D.M.,Quinn,R.P.,Snoek,J.D.,&Rosenthal,R.A. 1990.
Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
[14] Laughlin A. Occupational Stress and its relationship to social supports and life
turbulance: A study of teacher in New South Wales, Abstract, Dissertation
Abstract International. 2001. 46, 945.
[15] Luthan, F. 1998. Organizational Behavior.8th edition. Boston Mss: McGraw Hill
[16] Milbourn, G, "Teaching the Job Stress Audit to Business School Student: Cause,
Meansures, Reduction", Journal of American Academy of Business. 8 (2), 2006, pp.
44-50.
[17] Makhbul, Z.M., Idrus,D. 2009. Work Stress Issues in Malaysia. Malaysia Labour
Review. 3(2):13-26.
[18] Mangkuprawira S, "Horizon: Bisnis, Manajemen dan Sumberdaya Manusia",
Bogor: IPB Press, 2009.
[19] Narayana, Lakshmi. Stress in the workplace: a comparison of gender and
occupations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 2000;20,63-73.
[20] Perlberg and Keinan. 1986. Source of stress ini academe- The Israeli Case. Higher
Education. 15. 73-88.
[21] Rahmawati, S. Analisis Stres Kerja Karyawan pada PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia
(Persero) Tbk Cabang Bogor. Jurnal Manajemen IPB. 2009. 5(2): 111-122.
[22] Shaikh, F.M.,Syed, A.S.G., Luhno,H.D.,& Kartio,M.A. Role Conflict and Role
Ambiguity as Factors in Work Stress among Manager: Case Study of
Manufacturing Sector in Pakistan. Terengganu International Management and
Bussiness Journal. 2011; 1(2):36-45.
[23] Tjiptono, F., & Chandra, G. (2011). Service, quality & satisfaction. Yogyakarta:
Penerbit Andi.
[24] Wood, et. al. 2001. Organizatinal Behaviour: A Global Perspective. 3rd edition.
Jhon Wiley and Sons.
[25] Zang, L. 2010. A Study on the Measurement of Job-Related Stress among
Women Academic in Research Universities of China. Frontier of Education in
China. 5(2). 158-176.

Copyright  2017 GMP Press and Printing (http://buscompress.com/journal-home.html)

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)