MultiCraft

International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL SCIENCES www.ijbmss-ng.com 2011 MultiCraft Limited. All rights reserved

The impact of selected psychographic variables on individual job stress: A structural equation modelling approach
Rabia Mushtaq1, Abida Abi Ellahi2*
1 2

Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad, PAKISTAN Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Islamabad, PAKISTAN * Corresponding authors e-mail: abia.ell@gmail.com

Abstract In existing study, relationship among job scope, work-family conflict and outcome such as job stress has been examined. The mediating role of work-family conflict between the job scope-job stress relationships and the moderating role of negative affectivity in the job scope-work-family conflict is built. Theoretical frame work is built which shows that both high job scope and work-family conflict are related to job stress and work-family conflict mediated the job scope-outcome relationships. Negative affectivity moderates the relationship of job scope with work-family conflict. For testing the theoretical model, structural equation modeling (SEM) technique was used. All of hypotheses confirmed. Implication of the findings for research and practice are discussed in the end. Keywords: Job Scope, Work-Family Conflict, Negative Affectivity (NA), Job Stress 1. Introduction In research, job design is defined as the set of opportunities and constraints, which is ordered into assigned tasks and responsibilities that affect how an employee accomplishes and experiences work (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Work design can influence a person attitudinal, behavioral, cognitive, well-being, and organizational outcomes (Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson, 2007).The question is why work design is important: first, work is a vital part of life and society. Individuals spend more than half of their lives in some type of formal work (Warr and Wall, 1975); second, nature of work varies from department to department. Some where organizational environment is complex and some where simple according to that adjustments are required (Friedman, 2005); third, work design has considerable practical significance to managers, employees, and organizations. Managers have to change the designing or redesigning of the work according to change requirement of wok demands. Job design has played a central role in the history of research in applied psychology and organizational behavior and it continues to be a key topic (Miner, 1984, 2003). According to the job design leading thinkers who focus on job scope as functional for organizations and for their employees. Hackman and Oldham presented job characteristics model in which they explained the importance of job scope (Hackman and Oldham, 1976, 1980). Although the magnitude of the motivating potential of job-related activities performed by job holders varies among individuals with different needs and abilities, elevated job scope is commonly regarded as a motivator rather than a stressor (Ilgen and Hollenbeck, 1991). Job scope refers to the extent at which a job required the jobholder to be mentally and physically engaged in work (Kahn and Byosiere, 1992; Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Job scope is likely to exert contrasting effects on employees psychological states (Xie and Johns, 1995; Kahn and Byosiere, 1992). At one side, a high job scope may bring about challenges and a sense of meaningfulness for the jobholder, resulting in higher job satisfaction and lower stress (Hackman and Oldham, 1975, 1976). And at other side, a high job scope may lead to social and mental demands, information load, and responsibility, resulting in greater job dissatisfaction and greater stress (Martin and Wall, 1989). According to the job characteristics theory of job design which addresses the job scope, enriched or complex jobs are associated with high satisfaction, internal work motivation and better performance (Hackman and Oldham, 1975, 1976). The direct relationship between job complexity and work outcomes have been viewed as simplistic and incomplete. Due to complex job,

18

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

different problems are created for employees which cannot be ignored (O'Connor et al., 1980). Knowledge characteristics are also included in the challenging job. Today jobs require varying type of learning and skills. Jobs which are high in complexity and information processing require considerable mental demands and challenges. They can be served as sources of both stress and satisfaction (Xie and Johns, 1995; Morgeson and Campion, 2002; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). Researchers are increasingly acknowledged that specific job characteristics are complex. Researchers identified that autonomy is varying in terms of decisionmaking, scheduling and methods dimensions (Breaugh, 1985; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006), task significance as changeable in terms of magnitude, scope, frequency, focus, beneficiary, and well-being domain dimensions (Grant et al., 2007). However, Relationship between job scope and job stress is considered as negative (Alfredsson et al., 1982).But high job scope can also enhance the job stress. As high responsibility of work that is given to employees in the form of autonomy enhance the job stress (French and Caplan, 1973). Similarly, when job complexity will enhance then employees social demands fulfillment will be minimized, which can be appeared in the form of work-family conflict. These social complexities in the life will increase the stress (Schaubroeck and Ganster, 1993). To a lesser extent, research has examined antecedents of social complexities especially in the case of work-family conflict. According to the role theory, role variables play pivotal role for generation of work-family conflict among the employees (Aryee, 1992; Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Demographic factors and number of hours worked to complete the challenging assignment will also create work family conflict (Greenhaus et al., 1997; Frone et al., 1997). Dispositional or personality variables can enhance the work- family conflict in the presence of different antecedents. In particular, Type A behavior and negative affectivity are the two dispositional variables which are related with negative personality. They can enhance the work-family conflict in the presence of different complex and challenging situations (Burke, 1988; Carlson, 1999; Frone, Russell and Cooper, 1993). The purpose of the present study is threefold. First, it will be examined the direct relationship between job scope and job stress, which is positive. In usual studies it is identified that elevated job scope is commonly regarded as a motivator rather than a stressor (Ilgen and Hollenbeck, 1991). In this study a positive relationship has been depicted between these dimensions. The combined effect of job scope with all its dimensions has been rarely linked with stress in this way. Second, intervening mechanisms explored behind job scopestress relationships. One specific mediator workfamily conflict is taken to find out that if job design is appropriate then why employees face wok- family conflict which enhances their stress level. Third, impact of dispositional factor of Negative affectivity (NA) personality is taken as moderator between high job scope and work-family conflict. As, in high demanding situation, high NA individuals would exhibit more hostile reaction to the situation and have less meticulous problem solving skills (Bolger, 1990). Therefore, in high scope job these people would react impatiently, high job scope and work-family conflict relation would be stronger when these types of personalities exist. Job Scope and Job stress Job Characteristics Theory. Job should be designed in such a manner as; it provides balanced significance to managers, workers and organizations (Birdi et al., 2008). Job characteristics theory has been extremely influential and a dominating area of work design (Roberts and Glick, 1981). In spite of many problems, which are associated with job characteristics theory, it has suggested that job characteristics model has rapidly become the more prominent in the organization psychologys search (Roberts and Glick, 1981). Hackman and Oldham (1976) focused on the five job dimensions of job scope in which skill variety; task identity, autonomy, task significance and feedback from the job itself were included. Skills variety refers how much a job requires the employees to sustain various kinds of skills and abilities. Task identity describes about the beginning and ending of the job. Task significance shows the importance of task in which internal and external significance are included. Autonomy explains the job independence. Finally, feedback explains the performance rating by the supervisor or sometime from the employees also (Garg and Rastogi, 2006). The Job Characteristics Model (JCM) is widely studied model of job design. It elaborates that job design when high in scope will enhance the challenges (Fried and Ferris, 1987).If all these job characteristics are explored one by one then they give the concept of high challenging job. To cope with that challenging job employees have to exert efforts to cope with challenging nature of job. To learn about different skills they will have to spend extra time in the organization and have to put extra efforts. Individuals who want to attain task identity, task significance and to show their work worthwhile, they need concentration. As autonomy increases the independence, it also increases the responsibility of individuals. Feedback is considered an important element of accountability but it also increases the fear of poor rating in the case of bad performance. Therefore, individuals try to maintain their good performance rating. For that purpose, extra efforts are required for sustainability. Hence, with high scope job, these factors cannot be ignored. All these challenges automatically enhance the attachment of employees with job and their family life is affected. In one time they can give more attention to one perspective either home or family. Job Stress. When the concept of job stress is related to high job scope then it often confused with challenges. No doubt, challenge energizes to employees psychologically and physically, and it motivates them to learn new skills and master their jobs (NIOSH, 1999). When the challenges are met, employees feel sense of accomplishment. Therefore, challenging job is considered as an important ingredient for healthy and productive work. Therefore, low job stress for achieving the goals is considered positive. However, sometime when the job is highly challenging with a lot of responsibilities then that challenges will convert into job demands that cannot be achieved then job stress will be higher (NIOSH, 1999). A low level of job scope can cause stress when there will be lack of meaningfulness at work (Edwards and Cooper, 1990). Sometime a high level of job scope can cause stress

19

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

when the human adaptability for responsibility, skill variety, time pressure and work load is not too much high (Edwards and Cooper, 1990). Therefore, on the basis of above mentioned arguments it can be hypothesized that: Hypothesis 1: High Job scope will be positively related with job stress. The Mediating Role of WorkFamily Conflict Job Scope and Work-Family Conflict. In addition to examining the job scopestress linkage, it is also important to explore the connecting mechanisms that might trigger the relationship. One possible connecting factor can be workfamily conflict. Workfamily conflict is the role tension that arises as job demands get in the way with the performance of family duties (Netemeyer et al., 2004).According to the role theory simultaneously multiple roles are antecedents of role conflict (Kahn et al., 1964). Commonly scrutinize role variable in the stressor domain is role conflict, in which the demands of one role are unable to get along with the demands of another (Kahn et al., 1964).Workfamily conflict is one specific form of role conflict, which appears in the list of key stressors (Hart and Cooper, 2001; Kahn and Byosiere, 1992). Work overload that means one has too much to do is associated with higher levels of Work-family conflict (Leiter and Schaufeli, 1996; Frone et al., 1997). Research on workfamily conflict has been increased from the past decade. Workfamily conflict and facilitation are linking mechanisms in the processes through which work and family characteristics are related to individual, family and work well-being (Voydanoff, 2002). Sometime challenging jobs in which individual perceives that the demands of the environment exceed and due to increase responsibilities their work-family conflict will raise and that conflicts will enhance the stress level of employees. Demands are associated with work and family roles. Demands are structural or psychological claims associated with role requirements, expectations and norms to which individuals must respond or adapt by exerting physical or mental effort. Resources are structural or psychological assets that may be used to facilitate performance reduce demands or generate additional resources (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson and Kacmar, 2003). Workfamily conflict is a form of inter role conflict in which the demands of work and family roles are incompatible in some respect. Therefore, simultaneous participation in two roles with full concentration is difficult (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). This conflict can be bifurcated into two forms: work-to-family conflict in which the demands of work make it difficult to perform family responsibilities and family-to-work conflict in which family demands limit the performance of work duties (Wayne et al., 2003). One major issue is regarding time; time spent in one role is time that cannot be spent in another. More hours spend at work predict work-family conflict (Major et al., 2002). Work context is different for individuals in various occupational levels; its relationship to work-life conflict is less well known. All the challenging jobs need more exposure and more time to spend for all level of employees (Quick et al., 1997). Higher level employees have one advantage that their salary level is high which can offset some of the costs that demanding jobs require but salary cannot offset all the conflicts which raise due to employees more spending on the job and less towards family matters (ONeil and Greenberger ,1994). Kahn and Byosiere (1992) envisaged that high variety job can be stress full for the individuals. High scope requires concentration, problem solving and attention to information inputs from the environment. High responsibility has also been identified as cause of stressor (French and Caplan, 1973; Martin and Wall, 1989).Although high level of autonomy of individuals gives them feelings of recognition but it can produce qualitative overload and emotional strain as well as cause of work-family conflict ( Walls et al., 2001). Mental demands, people complexity and responsibility are generally characteristic of jobs with modest to high scope. When these all factors are included in work then employees will have to tackle the different issues which requires a lot of time (Levi and Jensen, 1996). These factors will also accelerate the role conflicts which individuals will have to face in the form of work-family conflict and exacerbates the stress level of employees. In the case of high job scope, issues of role conflict needs additional research (Walls et al., 2001). Some occupations are differentiated by a high number of stressors originating from the physical environment. The jobs, which are physically more demanding, are facing different type of challenges and work-family conflict can be a big challenge. Usually, these types of challenges are more faced by those employees who are indulged in technical jobs (Duxbury et al., 1999). While normally, high task demands are related with stress but the stress response model suggests that task demands can be stressful at each end of the spectrum. Best performance is related with maximum level of efforts with high level of motivation. Task characteristics can be stressful, especially, when they are repetitive tasks or when they are too much challenging in nature for which employees need continuous learning. In the case of challenging task, employees need more time at work that can cause high work -family conflict (Duxbury et al., 1999). Role factors are associated with the behavior that employers expect from employees as they fulfill their organizational functions. In multiple work roles in which employees will have to simultaneously acting as supervisor, subordinate, team member and friend then it is possibility that these roles may not always be consistent or compatible. Complex multiple work roles cannot be compatible with family life also (Duxbury et al., 1999). Employees may encounter problems in high challenging work when they will have to do work in teams to enhance their skills level. They will have to face other diversity issues including differences in backgrounds, personalities and aptitudes. All these factors cumulatively impact on the family life of employees because they try to make balance or adjustment in challenging environment then automatically they cannot create compatibility with family life (Duxbury et al., 1999). . Furthermore, antecedent conditions in work and family domains may or may not be highly stressful when considered one by one but their combined occurrence is apt to produce distress (Bedeian et al., 1988). There are different aspects of the work-life interface including factors associated with the time required to perform work and family roles, and the psychological pressure of performing both domain roles (Voydanoff, 1988). Usually, work and family duties are performed in separate locations, and employees are generally physically not available to perform both sets of duties at same time (Duxbury et al., 1999). Work-life

20

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

conflict can be seen to have two main components: the practical aspects associated with time crisis and scheduling conflicts are due to high pressure of multiple roles. On the basis of above arguments it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 2: High job scope is positively related to the work-family conflict. Work-Family conflict and Job Stress. Job stressors (work pressure and role ambiguity) contributed to greater work-family conflict (Frone et al.,1992).Pressures in the work environment: extensive work hours; far-reaching travel; work overload ; interpersonal conflicts at work and career transitions in challenging job can be the cause of work-family problems . In these circumstances, it becomes difficult for employees to perform family duties and maintain family relationships (Clark, 2001; Thompson et al., 1999). Organizational policies and activities can enhance or reduced the workfamily conflict. Organizations vary distinctly in their responsiveness to workfamily issues (Milliken et al., 1998). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) described three different types of work-family conflict: time-based conflict, strain-based conflict and behavior-based conflict. Time-based conflict occurs because time spent on activities within one role generally cannot be devoted to activities within another role (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985, p. 77). Time-based work-family conflict has two forms. One form of time based work-family conflict occurs when time obligations from one role make it physically impossible to fulfill expectations from another role. A scheduled responsibility at work would make it physically impossible for an individual to stay home to care family members. Another form of time-based work-family conflict occurs when pressures from one role create an obsession with that role, making it more difficult to meet the requirements of another role. In this situation individual may be physically able to complete responsibilities that are originating from multiple roles but an emotional or mental anxiety makes this more challenging. This type of time-based work-family conflict can appeared in many forms, depending on the work and family variables involved (Greenhaus and Buetell, 1985). Strain-based work-family conflict is appeared, as roles are incompatible in the sense that the strain created by one makes it difficult to comply with the demands of another (Greenhaus and Buetell, 1985, p. 80). Work-family conflict that results from pressure from a given task exists then this strain affects his/her performance in another role. Strain from one role, which can enhance stress, tension, anxiety, irritability and fatigue makes it more challenging to fulfill obligations from another, contending role (Hennessy, 2005). The third type of work-family conflict is behavior-based conflict, in which specific patterns of in-role behaviors may be incompatible with expectations regarding behavior in another role (Greenhaus and Buetall, 1985, p. 81). A male manager might be expected to be aggressive on the job but his family members may have different expectations from him. Behavior expectations at work place and in family matter are totally different. The difference in the expectations may create conflicts and that conflicts will increase the stress of employees (Hennessy, 2005). Some occupations are differentiated by a high number of stressors originating from the physical environment. The jobs, which are physically more demanding, are facing different type of challenges and work-family conflict can be a big challenge. Usually, these types of challenges are more faced by those employees who are indulged in technical jobs (Duxbury et al., 1999). While normally, high task demands are related with stress but the stress response model suggests that task demands can be stressful at each end of the spectrum. Best performance is related with maximum level of efforts with high level of motivation. Task characteristics can be stressful, especially, when they are repetitive tasks or when they are too much challenging in nature for which employees need continuous learning. In the case of challenging task, employees need more time at work that can cause high work -family conflict (Duxbury et al., 1999). Role factors are associated with the behavior that employers expect from employees as they fulfill their organizational functions. In multiple work roles in which employees will have to simultaneously acting as supervisor, subordinate, team member and friend then it is possibility that these roles may not always be consistent or compatible. Complex multiple work roles cannot be compatible with family life also (Duxbury et al., 1999). Employees may encounter problems in high challenging work when they will have to do work in teams to enhance their skills level. They will have to face other diversity issues including differences in backgrounds, personalities and aptitudes. All these factors cumulatively impact on the family life of employees because they try to make balance or adjustment in challenging environment then automatically they cannot create compatibility with family life (Duxbury et al., 1999). Furthermore, antecedent conditions in work and family domains may or may not be highly stressful when considered one by one but their combined occurrence is apt to produce distress (Bedeian et al., 1988). There are different aspects of the work-life interface including factors associated with the time required to perform work and family roles, and the psychological pressure of performing both domain roles (Voydanoff, 1988). Usually, work and family duties are performed in separate locations, and employees are generally physically not available to perform both sets of duties at same time (Duxbury et al., 1999). Work-life conflict can be seen to have two main components: the practical aspects associated with time crisis and scheduling conflicts are due to high pressure of multiple roles. On the basis of above mentioned facts it can be hypothesized that: Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship among the high job scope and stress will be mediated by perceptions of work-family conflict. Negative affectivity as a moderator of High Job Scope and Work-Family Conflict relationship Personality may influence when individuals experience challenging or supportive environments. These environments may make it easier or more difficult for employees to manage the demands of work and family (Friede and Ryan, 2005). Different types of personalities influence how individuals react to situations. In the same situation, which two different types of personality individuals encounter, they will perceive those situations according to their personalities and their coping mechanism will be

21

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

different (Judge et al., 1998). Hence, personality may influence whether individuals perceive their work and family lives as stressful or manageable and whether they perceive work and family as conflicting or enriching. (Friede and Ryan, 2005). Usually, individuals show different reactions to different working environment and they tackle stressful situations according to their personalities. Coping is actually an adaptation way, which is used by different individuals to handle serious psychological threats and it enhance negative feelings (Galinsky, 1986). In the situation of high work demand, environment work- family conflicts raise. It depends on the individuals interpretation how he or she will evaluate a stressful situation and decides among alternative strategies to manage it (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Therefore, personality plays important role for coping different demanding situations. According to exposure-reactivity model, individual differences in personality having different prospective to be reactive in various job situations (Bolger and Zuckerman's, 1995).In this study, the individuals with negative affectivity are taken as a moderator. Individuals high on trait negative affectivity are likely to experience anxiety, scarcity of energy, irritability and anger. Usually individuals of this type of personality have aversive mood states, distress and negative emotions. High NA individuals show more hostile reaction when they faced high challenging situation (Watson and Clark, 1984; Watson et al., 1988; Bolger, 1990).A positive relationship is found between negative affectivity individuals and high work-family conflict. High NA individuals tend to report greater work-family conflict. In some researches NA individuals were related to bidirectional measure of work-family conflict ( Frone et al., 1993) and in some researches it is highly related with all three dimensions of work-family conflict (Carlson ,1999). It is obvious from above discussion that personality plays vital role in the coping mechanism between high challenging job and work family conflict situation (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Work and family researchers found the strong link between negative affectivity and work-family conflict. Researchers have given the arguments that individuals who have high NA retain the tendency to assess the situations in negative terms. On the basis of their tendency, they are more likely to experience negative emotions towards work and family life (Eby et al., 2005). It is also identified that higher negative affectivity is likely to be associated with greater time-, strain-, and behavior-based work-family conflict (Carlson, 1999).In previous literature NA was found the strongest predicator of work-family conflict. This Variable is not only significant predicator of work-family conflict but also work to family conflict (Stoeva et al., 2002). On the basis of above discussion it hypothesized: Hypothesis 4: The relationship between high job scope and work-family conflict will be stronger when NA is high. The model sketched below in figure 1 depicted the whole relationship. This figure explicitly shows that job scope directly related to the work-family conflict and job stress. Negative affectivity moderates the job scope and work-family conflict relationship.

Negative Affectivity

Job Scope

Work-Family Conflict

Job Stress

Figure 1.Proposed Research Model 2. Method Data Collection and Sample: The data collection was done through onsite administration of a survey to employees who were working in various educational institutions as well as in hospitals. In educational sector, colleges and universities (private and public) were selected. The size of the colleges, universities and hospitals varies so that sampling was not equal across these institutions. The participants were randomly sampled across departments and ranks. The reason of simple random sampling technique for data collection was that it was difficult to select the data from only a one specified sector; people are no more research oriented. Thus, the design of study is cross sectional. These individuals were sent covering letters in which it was mentioned the purpose and scope of the study and it was assured that their responses would be retained completely confidential. The educational qualifications of the respondents varied from high school to doctoral degrees. Total 400 questionnaires were distributed. Out of 400, only 300 usable responses were received. Thus, total response rate was 75%. Measures: In Pakistan, English is the official language of correspondence in all offices as well as medium of instruction in educational institutions. Therefore, in the questionnaires all the questions were written in English language. Usually, researchers used questionnaires in English in Pakistan (Raja and Johns, 2010).Self-report questionnaires were used for all the measures. All variables were rated on 5 point likert scale except job scope. Job scope was rated on 7 point likert scale. Responses were ranged from 1 depicted strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree. While in the case of job scope 1 depicted strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree. All items were averaged to form overall scales.

22

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

Independent variables: Job scope: Job scope measured selecting 15 items scales from validated self-report Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman and Oldham, 1976). The JDS has been the frequently used self-report measure of job design; it used in many studies (Fried and Ferris, 1987; Pierce and Dunham, 1978; Dawali and Taha 2004; 2006). Job scope was calculated through averaging the responses to the five characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback). A high score reflects high scope. The reliability of this scale was .89. Negative affectivity: Negative affectivity was measured by the 10-items scale which was developed by Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1988). The reliability of this scale was .93. Work-family conflict: Work-family conflict was measured with the 4 item scale developed and validated by Gutek, Searle and Klepa (1991). The scale has been also used in other workfamily conflict researches (Judge et al., 1994). The reliability of this scale was .92. Dependent variable:Job stress: Job stress measured with the 13 items scale developed by Parker and DeCotis (1983), which is a widely used measure of job stress with proven validity and reliability. The reliability of this scale in the existing study was .79. Control variables: one-way analyses of variance revealed significant differences in mean values of dependent variables across organization (F = 5.41, p < .01). Two dummy variables were created to control for effects of organizations. Similarly, differences existed across education levels (F = 2.41, p < .001). Therefore, we controlled for effects of education levels by creating four dummy variables. There were no differences in responses across other variables such as gender, income level and age. 3. Results The demographic profile of 300 respondents in table 1 shows that majority (79%) respondents were males, while 21% were females. 40% respondents were from hospital staff, while 33% and 27% were from Universities and colleges staff respectively. The maximum age of respondents was above 30 years, 25.3% were of age range 25-30 years and only 19% were below 25 years. In table 1 demographic information of respondents is cited. Table 1: Demographic Information of Sample Frequency 237 63 99 120 81 58 76 166

Category Gender Male Female Work Place

Percentage 79 21 33 40 27 19 25.3 55.3

Hospital Universities Colleges Age >25 years 25-30 years <30 years

Reliability analysis of factors :Reliability analysis is the measure taken to ensure that the scale is consistently measuring the constructs used in questionnaire. It is used to measure the internal consistency of items. The most common measure of scale reliability is Cronbachs alpha, which is used in this research. The value of Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient normally ranges between 0 and 1. The closer Cronbachs alpha coefficient near to 1.0 shows the greater internal consistency of the items in the scale. The table 2 shows the constructs, number of their items and values of reliability analysis. The values in table indicate that all of the factors have the individual value of Cronbach alpha above 0.7, which is deemed significant. The highest value of alpha was of the factor Negative Affectivity i.e., 0.93 and the lowest value was of the factor Job Stress, which was 0.79. Table 2: Validation of construct measures Construct Number of Items Composite Reliability Job Stress (JSt) 13 .79 Job Scope (JS) 15 .89 Work Family Conflict (WFC) 4 .92 Negative Affectivity (NA) 10 .93 Assessment of measurement model:In order to test theoretical model, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used. SEM is a useful technique for testing theoretical propositions of multiple variables in a complex model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). SEM was performed using LISREL 8.8 software. In figure 2 shows the hypothesized effects. In the figure 2 values of R2 ,factor loadings and path coefficients are included.

23

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

a) Factor analysis The construct validity was confirmed by computation of loading values of items on their respective constructs as shown in figure 2. The model estimation result shows values of factor loadings on their respective items which were assigned to their corresponding indicator. It is clear from figure that factor loading values are in suggested range, confirming validity of constructs in model. The values of factor loadings show the strength of relation of items with their respective constructs. The items giving higher loadings that are near to 1 depict strong relation with constructs on which their loadings are computed. The highest factor loading value in this model was of work-family conflict, WFCiv (0.91) and the lowest value was of autonomy, Axi (0.60). Thus, all factor loadings are significant and fairly high as shown in figure 2. b) Path analysis Along with factor loadings, path coefficients values are also shown in figure 2. The values for path coefficients are showing hypotheses support for all hypotheses. The R2 values of dependent variables were ( =.47, p < .05) and ( =.32, p < .01) respectively, show explanatory power of model. In this regard model depicted 47% variance in work family conflict and 0.32% variance in job stress. The path coefficient value of negative affectivity as moderator is ( =.59, p < .001) which is high than path coefficient of job scope and work family conflict ( =0.30, p < .01) without moderator. First it confirms that high job scope is positively related to the work-family conflict (hypothesis 2), and also confirms that the relationship between high job scope and work-family conflict will be more strong when NA will be high (Hypothesis 4). Thus moderating role of negative affectivity is confirmed. Similarly the path coefficient value of work family conflict and job stress is also high ( =0.40, p < .01) which supports Hypothesis 3 stating that the positive relationship among the high job scope and stress is mediated by perceptions of work-family conflict. The direct effect of job scope on job stress is low with low significance ( =0.11, p < .05) while the effect of job scope on job stress mediated by work family conflict is greater than it. But the positive relationship of high job scope and job stress has been proved (Hypothesis 1). The model postulated that the effect of job scope on job stress was fully mediated by work family conflict along with factor loadings of items.

c) Goodness of fit The goodness-of-fit table 3 shows how well the model/framework matches the observed data. The goodness-offit of the research model/framework developed that is usually determined by the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI),Average Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) and the 2/df ratio. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) which indicates the degree of similarity or of variance jointly explained by the model. The suggested values of GFI ranges between 0 and 1, higher values indicating better model fit. The GFI in this research model is 0.90, indicating a good fit of the model to the data.

24

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

RMSR (Root Mean Square Residual) represents the average remaining value of the variance which is left unexplained by the model. In a well- fitting model, the value should be small i.e less than 0.5. The value of RMSR in this model is 0.12, signifying that only some of the variances were left unexplained by the proposed model. 2 is considered as classic goodness-of-fit measure to determine overall model fit. The 2/df ratio is 1.73; a ratio of less than 2 is taken as indicator of good fit. Table 3 : Goodness of Fit in Structural Model Fit index Goodness of Fit (GFI) RMSR Chi Square () Degrees of Freedom (df) Prob x2/df 4. Discussion and Conclusion Job scope, job stress and work-family conflict have remained important variables in organizational behavior (OB) research but their relationship is not checked in this direction. In this study, a model of job scope-work-family conflict-job stress is highlighted and work-family conflict is taken as a mediator between job scope and job stress and negative affectivity as a moderator of job scope work-family conflict relationship. A theoretical background is developed and on the basis of that background these relationship is checked in a new cultural setting using a sample from different organizations to find out that hypotheses is supported or not. Job scope and work-family conflict show the strong relationship with each other and both are related to outcomes in expected directions. As main aspect of this study is to test the job scope work-family conflict job stress which is mediated model. As mediation required weak relationship of independent and dependent variables. Thus, hypothesis 1 showed value 0.11 ( p < .05),this value depict low significance and this value was in support of mediation. Thus, hypothesis 1 was giving result in expected direction. Hypothesis 2 was also proved, as it was mentioned that high job scope was positively related with work-family conflict. value of .30 with p < .01 show desired and significant results. Similarly the path coefficient value of work family conflict and job stress is also significant with value 0.40,( p < .01) which supported hypothesis 3,which is elaborated as the positive relationship among the high job scope and stress is mediated by perceptions of work-family conflict. The direct effect of job scope on job stress was low with low significance as it was mentioned above, while the effect of job scope on job stress mediated by work family conflict was significant than that direct relationship. The model suggested that the effect of job scope on job stress was fully mediated by work family conflict. These results support to previously mentioned literature that as job scope was high then employees work-family conflict issues will be higher and in the result employees stress level will be enhanced (French and Caplan, 1973; Walls et al., 2001). Similarly relationship between high job scope and work-family conflict became stronger in the presence of NA, it supported hypothesis 4. High NA individuals are more inclined to work-family conflict. They show more resistance toward challenging job. Personality role cannot be ignored in their way of coping between high challenging job and work family conflict situation (Bolger, 1990; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).Thus, this hypothesis is giving results in expected direction. Therefore, also it is important to consider the negative aspects of high job scope, which enhance the work- family conflict and in return stress level of individuals will be enhanced. In designing the job, it is not only important to consider the content of jobs. High challenging job automatically reduced the attention of individuals toward their family life. When the job characteristic model of Hackman and Oldham (1975) is studied then in that model more emphasis is to make the job more challenging and dynamic. This factor is totally ignored that when the job becomes more challenging then automatically more time will be required to meet the requirements of job. In this regard, family life will be disturbed. Walls, Capella and Greene (2001) suggested that work and family lives are interdependent. This is misconception to separate the work and family. Considerably more research is required during the designing of high scope job; the issue of work-family conflict cannot be ignored. It can be also main cause of job stress. Another significant aspect of this study is to test the moderation effects of negative affectivity as a trait in the relationship between job scope and work-family conflict. In this study this relationship is also proven as the hypothesis 4 is also accepted. Negative affectivity moderated the relationship of job scope with job work-family conflict such that individuals high on NA feel higher work-family conflict as compared to those who are low on NA. NA is very relevant and important factor in the environment of high challenging job and to balance the work-family conflict because the high tendency of being anxious, worried and emotional (i.e., high NA) does intensify this relationship. Individuals cannot retain balance in the work and family life when they have high NA personality. Actually, NA as an emotional state and it has a very strong impact on attitudes and behaviors in the varied environment (Butt et al., 2005). Values 0.90 0.12 154.17 89 0.001 1.73

25

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

5. Conclusion In existing study, relationship among job scope, work-family conflict and outcome such as job stress has been examined. The mediating role of work-family conflict between the job scope-job stress relationships and the moderating role of negative affectivity in the job scope-work-family conflict is built. Theoretical frame work is built which shows that both high job scope and work-family conflict are related to job stress and work-family conflict mediated the job scope-outcome relationships. Negative affectivity moderates the relationship of job scope with work-family conflict. Theoretical findings and links of this study depict that employers should not overlook work family-conflict issue as sources of job stress while designing high challenging job which has high scope. The negative consequences of an imbalance between work and family life mainly appeared in the form of negative outcomes within the individuals (Frone, 2003). The conflict of work life with family life is also linked to the quality of family interactions. However, our findings suggest that organizations should simultaneously pay attention to work-related characteristics like high responsible job with variety of task which is high demanding and that increase intrusion from work to family life (Thompson et al., 1999). This study can contribute for mangers or employers who are designing the jobs. They should pay special attention to the issue of work-family balance while designing the job. Managers also need to be vigilant about employees with high NA because this trait may increase the work-family imbalance due its negative impact and severity. Individuals higher in NA have more probability to exhibit work-family conflict (Carlson, 1999).Precedents from previous researches depicts that NA is linked with that occupations which are more stressful and demanding (Fogarty et al., 1999). 6. Future Research Directions Firstly, current study used only two sectors in service settings including hospitals and educational institutions to test the hypothesized relationships. Future studies can test these relationships in different service settings as well as manufacturing settings. Secondly, different moderating roles of personality dimensions can be studied in this context. Thirdly, the design of the study was cross sectional, it is recommended that in future longitudinal study design should be applied. References Alfredsson, L., Karasek, R and Theorell, T. (1982). Myocardial infarction risk and psychosocial work environment: An analysis of the male Swedish working force. Social Science and Medicine, vol. 16, pp. 463-467. Anderson, J. G. and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, vol.107, No.3, pp. 238 246. Aryee, S. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict among married professional women: Evidence from Singapore. Human Relations, vol. 45, No.2, pp. 813837. Baron, R. M and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, No.6, pp. 1173-1182. Bedeian, A. G., Burke, B. G and Moffett, R. G. (1988). Outcomes of work-family conflict among married male and female professionals. Journal of Management, vol. 14, No.3, pp. 475-491. Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 59, No.3, pp. 525-537. Bolger, N and Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 69, No.5, pp. 890902. Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, vol, 38, No. 6, pp. 551-570. Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C. B., Wall, T. D and Wood, S. J. (2008). The impact of human resource and operational management practices oncompany productivity: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, vol, 61, No. 3, pp.467-501 . Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work-family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, vol, 3, No.4, pp. 287302. Butt, A. N., Choi, J. N and Jaeger, A. (2005). The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: A comparison of individual-level and dyad-level dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol, 26, No.6, pp. 681-704. Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol, 55, No.18, pp. 236253. Clark, S. C. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,vol, 58,No.3,pp.348365. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dawali,S.Z and Taha,Z. (2006). Factors affecting job satisfaction in two automotive industries. Jurnal Teknologi, vol, 44, No.A, pp. 6580. Dawali, S.Z and Taha, Z. (2004).The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Factors in Industrial Work Design: A Case Study of Automotive Industries in Malaysia.J.Human Ergol, vol, 33, pp.19-27.

26

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

Duxbury, L., Higgins.C and Associations. (1999). An Examination of the Implications and Costs of Work-Life Conflict in Canada. Health Canada, pp.1-116. Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A.(2005). Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysisand review of the literature (19802002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 66, No.1, pp. 124197 Edwards, J. R and Cooper, C. L. (1990). The person-environment fit approach to stress recurring problems and some suggested solutions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol, 4, No. 11, pp.293-307. Fogarty, G. J., Machin, M. A., Albion, M. J., Sutherland, L. F., Lalor, G. I and Revitt, S. (1999). Predicting occupational strain and job satisfaction: The role of stress, coping, personality, and affectivity variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol, 54, No.3, pp. 429452. French, J. R. P., Jr and Caplan, R. D. (1973). Organizational stress and individual strain. In A. J. Murrow (Ed.), The failure of success, pp. 30-66. New York: AMACOM. Fried, Y. and Ferris, G. R.(1987). The validity of job characteristics model; a review and meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, vol. 40, No.2, pp.287-322. Friede, A. and Ryan, A. M. (2005). The importance of the individual: How self-Evaluations influence the work-family interface. In E. E. Kossek and S. Lambert (Eds.). Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Frone, M. R. (2003). Workfamily balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology, pp. 143162. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Frone, M. R., Russell, M and Cooper, M. L. (1993). Relationship of work-family conflict, gender, and alcohol expectancies to alcohol use/abuse. Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol, 14, No.6, pp. 545558. Frone, M. R., Russell, M and Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of workfamily conflict: Testing a model of the workfamily interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.77, No.1, pp. 6578. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K and Markel, K. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work-family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 50, No.2, pp.145167. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Galinsky, E. (1986). Family life and corporate policies. In: Yogman, M. & Brazelton, T. (Eds.),In support of families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 109-145. Garg,P and Rastogi,R.(2006). New model of job design: motivating employees performance. Journal of Management Development, vol.25, No.6, pp. 572-587. Gary D. Walls,G.D., Capella.L.M and Greene.W.E.(2001). Toward a Source Stressors Model of Conflict between Work and Family. Review of Business. Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D and Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol, 103, pp. 53-67. Greenhaus, J. H and Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, vol, 10, No.1, pp. 7688. Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., Singh, R and Parasuraman, S. (1997). Work and family influences on departure from public accounting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol, 50, No.2, pp.249270. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1999). Stress at work. Center for Disease Control (Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-101/. Gutek, B. A., Searle, S and Klepa, L. (1991). Rational versus gender role explanations for work family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol, 76, No.4, pp. 560568. Hackman, J. R and Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hackman JR and Oldham GR. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 16, No.3, pp. 250-279. Hackman,J . R and Oldham,GR.(1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol, 60, No.2, pp. 159-170. Hart, P.M and Cooper, C.L. (2001) Occupational Stress: Toward a more integrated framework. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaren (Eds) International handbook of work and organizational psychology, vol.2: Organizational psychology. London: Sage Publications. Hennessy,D.K.,(2005). Work-Family Conflict Self-Efficacy: A Scale Validation Study.Thesis. Department of Counseling and Personnel Service, pp. 1-116. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., and Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol, 92, pp. 1332-1356. Ilgen, D. R., and Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2d ed.), vol. 2, pp. 165-207. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C.C and Kluger, A.N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol, 83, No.1, pp.1734.

27

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

Judge, T. A., Erez, A and Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, vol, 11, No.2/3, pp. 167188. Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W and Bretz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol, 79, No.5, pp.767782. Kahn, R. L and Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology 2 nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 571 650. Palo Alto , CA : Consulting Psychological Press. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snock, J. D and Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley. Lazarus, R and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Leiter, M. P and Schaufeli, W. B. (1996).Consistency of the Burnout Construct Across Occupations. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, vol, 9, No.3, pp. 229-243. Levi, L and Lunde-Jensen, P. (1996). A model for assessing the costs of stressors at the national level. Socio-economic costs of work stress in two EU member states. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Major, V. S., Klein, K. J and Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, No.3, pp. 427436. Martin, R and Wall, T. (1989). Attentional demand and cost responsibility as stressors. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 32, No.1, pp. 69-86. Milliken, F.J., Martins, L and Morgan, H. (1998). Determinants of an organizations responsiveness to work-family issues: An integration of competing theories. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 41, No.5, pp. 580-592. Miner, J. B. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. Academy of Management Review, vol. 9, No.2, pp. 296-306. Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 2, No.3, pp. 250-268. Morgeson, F. P and Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 91, No.6, pp. 1321-1339. Morgeson, F. P and Campion, M. A. (2002). Avoiding tradeoffs when redesigning work: Evidence from a longitudinal quasiexperiment. Personnel Psychology, vol. 55, pp. 589-612. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1999). Stress at work. Center for Disease Control (Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-101/). Netemeyer, R. G., Brashear-Alejandro, T and Boles, J. S.(2004). A Cross-National Model of Job-Related Outcomes of Work Role and Family Role Variables: A Retail Sales Context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol, 32, No.1, pp. 4960. O'Connor, E. J., Rudolf, C. M and Peters,L . H. (1980). Individuald ifferencesa nd job design reconsidered: Where do we go from here? Academy of Management Review, vol, 5,pp.249-254. ONeil, R and Greenberger, E. (1994). Patterns of commitment to work and parenting: Implications of role strain. Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol, 56, pp.101-112. Parker,D.F and DeCotiis,T.A. (1983) Organizational determinants of job stress. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 32, pp.160-177. Pierce, J.L and DunhAM, R.B., (1978). The measurement of perceived job characteristics. The job diagnostic survey versus the job characteristics inventory. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 21, pp.123-128. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Quick, J., Nelson, D and Hurrell,J. Jr. (1997). Preventive stress management in organizations. American Psychological Association Washington, D.C. Raja, U and Johns,G.(2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role performance, citizenship behaviors and creativity. Human Relations, vol. XX, No.X, pp. 125. Roberts, R. H and Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design: A critical review.Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 66, pp.193-214. Schaubroeck, J and Ganster, D. C. (1993). Chronic demands and responsivity to challenge. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, No.1, pp. 73-85. Stoeva, A. Z., Chiu, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2002). Negative affectivity, role stress, and work family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 60, No.1, pp. 116. Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L and Lyness, K. S. (1999). When workfamily benefits are not enough: The influence of work family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and workfamily conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 54, No.3, pp.392415. Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work-family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 50, No.3, pp.749-761.

28

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29

Walls, G. D., Capella, L. M and Greene, W. E. (2001). Toward a Source Stressors Model of Conflict Between Work and Family. Review of Business. Warr, P., and Wall, T. (1975). Work & well-being. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Watson, D., Clark, L. A and Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 54, No.6, pp. 10631070. Watson, D and Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative Affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 96, No.3, pp. 465-490. Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S, and Kacmar, M. K. (2003). Workfamily facilitation: A theoretical elaboration of the construct. Manuscript submitted for publication. Xie, J.L and Johns,G. (1995) Job Scope and Stress: Can Job Scope Be Too High? The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 38, No.5, pp. 1288-1309.

Appendix A. Instrument items

Stsi Stsii Stsiii Stsiv Stsv Stsvi Stsvii Stsviii Stsvix Stsx Stsxi Stsxii Stsxiii JSi JSii JSiii JSiv JSv JSvi JSvii JSviii JSix JSx JSxi JSxii JSxiii JSxiv WFCi WFCii WFCiii WFCiv NAi NAii NAiii NAiv NAv Stress Working here makes it hard to spend enough time with my family. I spend so much time at work; I cant see the forest for the trees. Working here leaves little time for other activities. I frequently get the feeling I, am married to the company. I have too much work and too little time to do it in. I sometimes dread the telephone ringing at home because the call might be job related. I feel like I never have a day off. Too many people at my level in the company get burned out by job demands. I have felt uneasy or nervous as a result of my job. My job gets to me more than it should. There are lots of times when my job drives me right up the wall. I feel guilty when I take off from the job. Sometimes when I think about my job I get a tight feelings in my chest Job scope How much variety is there in your job? The job requires me to use a number of complex or high level skills? The job is quite simple and repetitive. (Reverse coded). To what extent does your job involve doing a whole and identified piece of work? That is, is the job a complete piece of work that has an obvious beginning and ending? Or it is only a small part of the overall piece of work, which is finished by other or by automatic machines? The job provides me the chance to completely finish the piece of work I begin. The job is arranged so that I dont have the chance to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end. In general, how significant or important is your job? That is the result of your work likely to significantly affect the lives or well being of other people? This job is one where a lot of people can be affected by how well the works get done. The job itself is not very significant and important in the broader scheme of things(Reverse coded). How much autonomy is there in your job? That is, to what extent does your job permit you to decide on your own how to go about doing the work? The job gives me considerable opportunity for the independence and freedom in how does the work? The job denies me any chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work(R). My supervisors or coworkers rarely give me feedback on how well I am doing the job( R) The work itself provides me with information about how well I am doing. Work family conflict After work, I come to home too tired to do some of the things Id like to do. On the job I have so much work to do that it takes away from my person al interests. My family/friends dislike how often I, am preoccupied with work while I, am at home. My work takes up time that I do like to spend with family/friends. Negitive affectivity I often feel unhappy I take a gloomy view of things I am often down in the dumps I often make a fuss about unimportant things I often find myself worrying about something

29

Mushtaq and Ellahi / International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2011, pp. 17-29 NAvi NAvii NAviii NAix NAx I am often irritated I am often in a bad mood I often become nervous while doing work I often feel guilty about something I often feel fear about unexpected outcomes

Biographical notes Rabia Mushtaq is PhD Scholar in Management Sciences at International Islamic University of Islamabad and holds a MS degree in Management Sciences from the same University in 2010 with a thesis in Job scope and its outcomes: Moderating impact of job stress. Her research has been published on international journal, as well as on national and international conferences. Her research interests include organizational behavior, human resource management and strategy management. Abida Abi Ellahi is PhD scholar in Technology Management at International Islamic University of Islamabad. She earned his MS degree from the University in 2010. His research interests include policy research, e-health, e learning , and social work education.

Received January 2011 Accepted June 2011 Final acceptance in revised form June 2011