Indian Journal of Positive Psychology © 2017 Indian Association of Health, Research and Welfare

2017, 8(1), 01-05 ISSN-p-2229-4937e-2321-368X

http://www.iahrw.com/index.php/home/journal_detail/19#list

Occupational stress as a function of type of school and gender

Kehkashan Hashmi and Basheer Hasan Khan Abraruzzaman Khan
School of Studies in Psychology Department to Psychiatry
Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur

WHO defined as occupational stress is the response people may have when presented with work demands and
pressures that are not matched to their knowledge and abilities and which challenge their ability to cope. Several
studies reported that occupational stress influenced by certain psychological, organizational and demo-graphical
factors in western context (Jeyaraj, 2013; Morrison, 2005; Berhem et al., 2004; Lewis, 1999). On the other hand in
Indian context studies are lacking. The aim of current empirical research work is to examine that whether or not type
of school, and gender work independently or interaction with each other are capable of generating variance in
occupational stress in case of school teacher. Employing a (2)2 ex-post facto, non-experimental factorial design
(fixed model) the two levels of type of school, i.e., residential and non-residential, the two levels of gender, viz.
male and female were manipulated in the study. Employing the incidental cum random sampling technique,
finally 120 teachers (60 males & 60 females) within the age range of 30 to 45 years were drawn randomly from
different school run by Govt. of India at Chhattisgarh state to serve as subjects in the current research work. All
the two independent variables were found to be potential enough in generating variance in occupational stress.
Interaction was found significant for almost four components of occupational stress. Theoretical interpretations
have been given.

Keywords: occupational stress, type of school and gender

Occupational stress is the inability to cope with the pressures in a job
(Rees, 1997). It is a mental and physical condition which affects an
individual's creativeness, effectiveness, personal health and quality
of occupation (Comish & Swindle, 1994). Teacher stress is a specific
type of occupational stress. Occupational stress is the experience by a
teacher of unpleasant emotions such as anger, tension, frustration and
depression resulting from aspects of his/her work as a teacher
(Kyriacou, 1987). Overall, teachers manifesting high levels of stress
also show signs of high levels of psychological distress, generally
demonstrated by high anxiety and low psychological well-being, as
well as decreased job satisfaction that is mental ill-health, burnout
and dissatisfaction of job among the teachers (Traverse & Cooper,
1996).
Each profession causes a specific level of stress. However,
teaching is among the professions that cause more stress compared to
other professions (Hargreaves, 1999; Pithers, 1995). Stress affects
both the teacher and the learners in the teaching process (Forlin,
Douglas, & Hattie, 1996). Kyriacou (1987) who has carried out
varies studies on teacher stress, described teacher stress as the
experiencing of unpleasant feelings such as depression, anger, worry,
irritableness and tension which are formed as a result of working as a
teacher. Stress sources of teachers may be summarized as low
motivation in students, discipline problems, the pressure of time and
the work load, being assessed by, colleague relationship, conflict and
indefiniteness of roles, and self-respect, bad working conditions
students' discipline problems, the inadequate support of colleagues,
family and friends (Kyriacou, 2001; Detert, Derosia, Caravella, &
Duquette, 2006). In addition, students' being late to school, not doing
homework, their failure and students' may cause stress in teachers
Correspondence should be sent to Khan Abraruzzaman Khan
Department to Psychiatry
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur
E-mail: abraruzzamankhan.1@gmail.com
(Joseph, 2000; Adams, 2001). It is essential for educational
organizations to study and manage rationalistically the stress
sources of teachers who have the important duty of educating
individuals. After scanning of relevant research literature, it is found
that this is dearth of studies in which occupational stress of teachers
working in residential and non-residential schools are conducted
that to under Indian conditions. It was also found that gender as an
independent variable has not been considered as a factor affecting
the occupational stress of teachers. So, it is considered appropriate to
find out the main and interactional effect of type of schools and
gender on occupational stress of teachers.
Research design
In the present study, a 2X2 factorial design has been employed
which means that the design used 2 factors or independent variables,
viz. type of school and gender were to be varied at two levels to study
their main and interaction effects on dependent variable, i.e., type of
school and gender.
Method
Participants
In the present study stratified random sampling technique was
employed to meet the requirement of 120 subjects distributed over
2x2 cell of factorial design. To select homogeneous and unbiased
sample in the present study, the sample has been drawn from the
population of teachers of schools of Chhattisgarh. The age group for
the sample taken into consideration is from 30 to 45 years. In this
study we have 2x2 or 4strata viz. Residential School and Male
Teachers; Residential School and Female Teachers; Non-residential
School and Male Teachers; Non-residential school and Female
Teachers. In present study, 2x2 factorial design having at least 30
subjects in each cell. A total number of 120 subjects were randomly
drawn following the stratified random sampling technique.
02 HASHMI ET AL./ OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF TYPE OF SCHOOL AND GENDER

Instruments
Occupational Stress Index (Shrivastava & Singh, 1984): To measure
the dependent variable, i.e., occupational stress. The occupational
stress index (OSI) constructed and standardized by Shrivastava and
Singh (1984) was used. The scaled consisted of 46 items each to be
rated on the five point scale. Out of 46 items 28 are 'True keyed' and
rest 18 are 'False keyed' the item related to almost all relevant
components of the job life which causes role overload, role
ambiguity, role conflicts, group and political pressure, responsibility
for persons, under participation, powerlessness, poor-peer relations,
intrinsic impoverishment, low status, strenuous working conditions
and unprofitability. In the present sample the internal reliability
coefficient (α) was .890 for overall occupational stress.
Procedure
After seeking required consent regarding from the principal of the
schools, they were briefed about the purpose of the research and
questionnaire used in the study. They were also encouraged to give
their co-operation that fulfils the age criterion. The stratified random
sampling technique was employed in the present research work, to
meet the requirement of 120 subjects distributed over the 2x2 cell of
factorial design. Keeping in view the size criterion a sample is 120
teachers of residential and non residential schools were taken into
consideration. To form strata of residential and non-residential
teacher's two schools were taken into consideration that is kendariya
vidhyala as non-residential school and Navodaya Vidhyalaya as
residential school. The independent variable gender was categorized
into male and female teachers. And the final sample have been
selected those who fulfills the age criteria that is from 30 years to 45
years. Only one test was administered to assess the dependent
variable, i.e., occupational stress inventory which was standardized
by Shrivastava and Singh (2010). To establish good rapport with the
subject, they were assured that their responses and their identities
will be kept under strict confidence and will not be disclosed.
Statistical analysis was done by the help of SPSS 21 versions.
Results
All 120 cases were included for data calculation. ANOVA analysis
was used to examine the main and interactional effect of type of
effect and gender on overall and each component of occupational
stress. The Table-1 indicated that the type of school and gender are
able to account for the variance of all the components of
occupational stress. A perusal of table no.1 indicates the main
effect of type of school on various dimensions of occupational
stress. The obtained F-ratio of role ambiguity, role conflict, group
and political pressure, poor peer relation and unprofitability are
21.58, 20.48, 17.49, 42.87 and 23.28 correspondingly. These
components are found to be significant beyond .01 level. This
signifies that the group of non-residential school teachers shows
less occupational stress than residential school teachers. The
obtained F-ratio of some dimensions viz. role overload,
responsibility for person's, powerlessness, intrinsic
impoverishment and low status is 7.06, 9.92, 10.22, 9.73, 10.29
and 9.62 correspondingly. All the dimensions were found to be
significant at .05 level. This implies that these components type of
school is able to generate a significant variance upon occupational
stress. The component type of school is not able to generate a
significant variance upon one component of occupational stress,
i.e., under participation. This factor is not found to be significant at
any level of confidence. The overall analysis indicates that the F-
ratio is 39.48 which are found to be significant at .01 levels. It
signifies that the occupational stress of residential school teachers
was significantly higher than the occupational stress of non-
residential school teachers.

Table 1: Means and standard deviations of the scores of overall and each component of occupational stress index
for four treatment groups. The corresponding main and interaction effects of type of school and gender have also
been shown (n=30, N=120)
Component of Values of Non-Residential School Residential School Summary of ANOVA
occupational stress Statistical
Main/Interac- F- Ratio
Properties
Male Female Male Female tional Effects df (1,116)
Role overload Mean 19.53 20.73 21.43 22.90 TS 7.06**
G 3.04
SD 3.95 4.35 4.77 3.58 TS X G .030
Role ambiguity Mean 10.43 10.06 12.13 13.50 TS 21.58**
G .819
SD 3.22 2.40 3.61 2.71 TS X G 2.46
Role conflict Mean 13.66 13.33 15.30 16.27 TS 20.48**
G 3.94
SD 3.95 4.35 4.77 3.58 TS X G 1.66
Group and political pressures Mean 11.06 9.73 11.66 13.43 TS 17.49**
G 0.17
SD 2.57 2.66 3.39 2.54 TS X G 9.09**
Responsibility for persons Mean 9.63 9.26 10.30 11.00 TS 9.92**
G 0.19
SD 2.26 2.03 2.08 1.94 TS X G 1.96
Under participation Mean 13.16 12.90 13.43 14.56 TS 3.66
G .736
SD 2.98 2.56 3.24 2.14 TS X G 1.92
 Indian Journal of Positive Psychology 2017, 8(1), 01-05 03

Powerlessness Mean 9.83 9.26 10.03 11.36 TS 10.28**

G 1.13
SD 2.26 1.59 2.20 1.73 TS X G 6.98**
Poor peer relation Mean 10.30 9.63 11.00 14.40 TS 42.87**
G 10.71**
SD 2.10 2.31 2.34 2.37 TS X G 23.72**
Intrinsic impoverishment Mean 10.33 9.93 10.00 13.50 TS 9.73**
G 8.95**
SD 2.94 2.44 3.42 2.41 TS X G 14.16**
Low status Mean 8.70 7.46 8.16 10.90 TS 10.29**
G 2.75
SD 2.38 1.90 2.70 2.80 TS X G 19.26**
Strenuous working condition Mean 5.93 5.80 6.56 7.03 TS 9.62**
G 0.30
SD 1.72 1.66 1.97 1.09 TS X G 0.99
Unprofitability Mean 10.46 10.40 11.63 14.36 TS 23.28**
G 6.28*
SD 2.80 2.52 3.48 2.74 TS X G 6.92*
Overall Mean 133.06 128.53 141.66 163.23 TS 23.28**
G 6.28*
SD 17.95 15.61 23.34 17.69 TS X G 6.92*
**p<.01, p<.05; TS= Type of school; G= gender

A perusal of table no.1 also indicates that, main effect of gender on
occupational stress. Obtained F-ratio of components of occupational
stress, viz., poor peer relation, intrinsic impoverishment and
unprofitability are 10.71, 8.95 and 6.28 correspondingly. These
components were found to be significant at .05 levels. This implies
that the factor gender is able to generate a significant variance upon
occupational stress. The factor, gender is not able to generate a
significant variance upon the following component of occupational
stress, viz., role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, group and
political pressure, responsibility of person's, under participation,
powerlessness, low status and strenuous working condition. These
factors were not found to be significant at any level of confidence.
The overall analysis indicates that the F-ratio is 6.11 which is found
to be significant at .05 level. It signifies that the occupational stress of
residential school teachers was significantly higher than the
occupational stress of male teachers the factor gender is able to
generate significant variance upon occupational stress.
Moreover, table-1 indicated that interactional effect of type of
school and gender on different components of occupational stress.
The obtained F-ratio of poor peer relation, intrinsic impoverishment
and low status are 23.7, 14.1 and 19.2 correspondingly. All the
components are found to be significant beyond .01 level. This
signifies that the group of male and non-residential school teachers
shows less occupational stress than female and residential school
teachers. The obtained F-ratio of components group and political
pressures, powerlessness and unprofitability is 9.09, 6.98 and 6.92
correspondingly. All the components were found to be significant at
.05 level. This implies that the factor type of school and gender is able
to generate a significant variance upon occupational stress. The
factor type of school and gender are not able to generate a significant
variance upon the six components, i.e., role overload, role ambiguity,
role conflict, responsibility for person's, under participation and
strenuous working condition. These factors are no found to be
significant at any level of confidence. The overall analysis indicates
that the F-ratio is 14.34 which is found to be significant at .01 level.
This finding indicates that the joint action of type of school and
gender has able to generate significant variance upon occupational
stress. Since, two factor interactional effect of type of school and
gender has found to be significant therefore, it can be said that these
two factors, viz., type of school and gender are jointly capable of
generating variance upon occupational stress.
Discussion
A close examining of the results drowns the some important
inferences- types of school (High-Low) are able to generate variance
upon occupational stress, genders (High-Low) are able to generate
variance upon occupational stress, all the differential hypotheses of
the present study have been empirically verified and turned out to be
significant at acceptable level of confidence, the interaction effect
between the factors type of school and gender (AxB) turn out to be
significant at accepted level. The interactions type of schools and
gender generate significant variance upon occupational stress. Since
both variables powerful enough independently, they are capable to
generate significant variance upon occupational stress, their
interactional effect of all the dimensions are found to be significant
beyond .01 level.
It is apparent that the type of schools found to influence the
occupational stress. As the present study also corroborate with the
empirical finding of the present study. The result has shown that the
residential school teachers used to have more occupational stress
than the non- residential school teachers. The reason of having more
occupational stress in residential school teachers is the nature of job.
The job of teaching itself is a stressful job and teacher who used to
stay in school campus have to indulge in additional work. They have
to carry out the work and responsibilities relating to the student of
the hostel. The overload gives the extra burden of stress i.e. relating
to the organization (Pitcher & Soden, 1998). Although they perform
additional work they used to get same package of salary as non-
04 HASHMI ET AL./ OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF TYPE OF SCHOOL AND GENDER
residential school teachers gets. Due to which job satisfaction became a
cause of stress in residential school teachers (Cunninghum, 1983). The
second IV, i.e., gender is capable of influencing the occupational stress
in teachers. This signifies that in female teachers occupational stress
was found significant more than the male. Females have to stay away
from their family, as a result of which they did not get emotional
support from their dear ones. Being women they have to play dual task
of maintaining a balance between family and organization. The stress
related to organization is more in females. Some of the studies reported
that women need extra care and support to confront stressor of work
than men (Billing & Moos, 1984).
Conclusion
On the basis of above mentioned discussion it may be concluded that
type of schools and gender independently can be accepted as factors
affecting occupational stress of teachers.
References
Adams, E. (2001). A proposed causal model of vocational teacher stress. Journal of
Vocational Education and Training, 53(2), 223-246.
Allen, R. J. (1983). Human Stress: Its nature and control. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Amason, P., Allen, M.W., & Holmes, S. (1999). Social support and acculturative stress in
the multi cultural workplace. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(4),
310-334.
Amason, P., Allen, M.W., & Holmes, S. (1999). Social support and acculturative stress in
the multi cultural workplace. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(4),
310-334.
Atkinson, M. (1994). Coping with stress at work. London: Thornsons Publishing.
Beehr, T.A., & Newman, J.E. (1978). Job stress, employees health and organizational
effectiveness: A factor analysis, model and literature review. Personnel Psychology,
31, 665-669.
Bhagat, R.S., Steverson, P.K., & Segovis, J.C. (2007). International and cultural
variations in employee assistance programmes: Implications for managerial health
and effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), 222-242.
Billings, A.G., & Moss, R.H. (1984). Coping, stress and social resources among adults
with unipolar depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,46(4),
877–891.
Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., & French, J.R.P. (1975). Relationships of cessation of smoking with
job stress, personality, and social support. Journal Applied Psychology, 60, 211-219.
Comish, R., & Swindle, B. (1994). Managing stress in the workplace. National Public
Accountant, 39(2), 24-28.
Cooper, C., & Davidson, M. (1987). Sources of stress at work and their relations to
stressors in non-working environments. In R. Kalimo, M. El-Batawi, and C. Cooper
(Eds.), Geneva: World health organization, psycho-social factors at their relations to
health (pp. 99-111).
Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: A review of the
literature relating to coronary heart disease and Mental ill health. Journal of
Occupational Psychology,49(1), 11-28.
Cunningham, W.G. (1983). Teachers burnout solutions for the 1980's a review of
Literature. Urban Review,15(1), 119-182.
Detert, R.A., Derosia, C., Caravella, T., & Duquette, D. (2006). Reducing stress and
enhancing the general well-being of teachers using Tai Chi Chih movements: A pilot
study. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 4(1), 162-173.
Dua, J.K. (1994). Job stressors and their effects on physical health, emotional health,
and job satisfaction in a University. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1),
59-78.
Dunham, J. (1992). Stress in teaching. New York: Routledge Publishing.
Friedman, I. A. (2000). Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable
professional performance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 112-117.
Fontana, D., & Abouserie, R. (1993). Stress levels gender and personality factors in
teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 26-270.
Forlin, C., Douglas, G., & Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusive practices: How accepting are
teachers?. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(2),
119-133.
Furnham, A. (1997). The psychology of behavior at Work. Hove East Sussex:
Psychology Press.
Griffin, R.W. (1990). Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Gupta, N. (1981). Some sources and remedies of work stress among teachers. [Online]
Available: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED211496.pdf (August 12 2010)
Hargreaves, G. (1999). Management: The essential guide to thinking and working
smarter. New York: Amacom İstanbul: Dı.
Holmlund, R.M., & Strandvik, T. (2005). Stress in business relationship. Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 20(1), 12-22.
Hubbard, A. S. (1995). The human side of technology. Mortgage Banking, 55(7), 48-53.
Ivancevich, J., Matteson, M., Freedman, S., & Philips, J. (1990). Work side stress
management interventions. American Psychologist, 45, 252-261.
Jepson, E., & Forrest, S. (2006). Individual contributory factors in teacher stress: The
role of achievement striving and occupational commitment. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 183-197.
Jick, T. D., & Mitz, L. F. (1985). Sex differences in work stress. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 408-420.
Joseph, R. (2000). Stress free teaching: A practical guide to tackling stress in teaching,
lecturing and tutoring. London: Kogan Page Publishing.
Kaldenberg, D. O., & Becker, B. W. (1992). Work load and psychological strain: A test
of the french Rodgers and Cobb hypotheses. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
13, 617-624.
Klarreich, S. H. (1988). Stress Solution: A rational approach to increasing corporate
and personal effectiveness. Canada: Key Porter Publishing.
Krüger, I. (1993). Performance power: Transforming stress into creative energy.
Tempe, Arizona: Summit Records Inc.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review,
53, 27-35.
Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher stress and burnout: An international review. Educational
Research, 29(2), 146-152.
Little, L. M., Simmons, B. L., & Nelson, D.L. (2007). Health among leaders: Positive
and negative effect, engagement and burnout, forgiveness and revenge. Journal of
Management Studies, 44(2), 241-260.
Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., Kao, S.F., & Zhou, Y. (2003). Work stress, control beliefs and
well-being in gender china-an exploration of sub cultural differences between the
PRS and Taiwan. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6), 479-510.
Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline. Social
Psychology of Education, 3, 120-132.
Luthans, F. (1994). Organizational behavior. Boston: Mc Graw Hill Publishing.
Morton, L. L., Vesco, R., Williams, N. H., & Awender, M. A. (1997). Student teacher
anxieties related to class management, pedagogy, evaluation and staff relations.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 112-139.
Mc-Grath, J.E. (1976). Stress and behaviour in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1351-1395).
Manthei, R., & Solman, R. (1988). Comparative teachers stress and negative outcomes in
canterbury state schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 2(2), 145-163.
Margolis, B., Kroes, W., & Quinn, R. (1974). Job stress: An unlisted occupational
hazard. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 1(16), 659-661.
Mondal, J., Shrestha, S., & Bhaila, A. (2011). School teachers: Job stress and Job
satisfaction, Kaski, Nepal. International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Health, 1, 27-33.
Nahavandi, A., & Malekzadeh, A.R. (1999). Organizational behavior: Person-
organization fit. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Nydegger, R. V. (2002). Stress and job satisfaction in white- and blue-collar workers.
International Business and Research Journal, 1(12), 35-44.
Odessa, F. L. (1990). Psychological assessment resources organization: How can TQM
help? Education, 121, 375-382.
Osipow, S. (1998). Occupational stress inventory professional manual (Rev. ed.).
Palmer, M., & Hyman (1993). Yönetimde Kadınlar (Çev:V. Öner). İstanbul: Rota
Yayınları.
Pierce, C.M.B., & Molloy, G. (1990). Relations between school type, occupational
stress, role perceptions and social support. Australian Journal of Education,34(3),
401-407.
Pettegrew, L.S., & Wolfe, G.E. (1982). Validating measures of teaches stress. American
Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 124-150.
Pithers, R.T., & Soden, R. (1998). Scottish and Australian teachers stress and strain: A
comparative study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 187-200.
Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (1984). Organizational stress and preventive management.
New York: McGraw- Hill Publishing.
Randall, R., & Altmaier, E. (1994). Intervention in occupational stress. London: Sage
Publications.
Reddy, V.S., & Ramamurthy, P.V. (1991). The relation between stress experience on the
job-age, personality and general ability. Psychological Studies, 36(2), 87-95.
Rees, K. (1997). Journey of discovery: A longitudinal study of learning during a
graduate professional programme. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.
 Indian Journal of Positive Psychology 2017, 8(1), 01-05
Robbins, S. (1986). Organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Publishing.
Rosenblatt, Z., Talmud, I., & Ruvio, A. (1999). A gender based framework of the
experience of job insecurity and its effects on work attitudes of Israeli School
teachers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 197-217.
Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J., & Osborn, N. (2000). Organizational Behavior. USA: John
Wiley and Sons Inc.
Selye, H. (1956). Selyes guide to stress research. New York, NY: Van No strand
Reinhold.
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Selye, H. (1993). History of the stress concept: Theoretical and clinical. In L. Goldberger
and S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects
(2nd ed., pp. 7-17). London, U.K.
Srivastava, A.K., & Singh, A.P. (1981). Construction and standardization of
occupational stress Index. A pilot study. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 8,
113-136.
Srivastava, A.K. (1990).Moderating effect of job attitudes on occupational stress mental
05
health relationship. Indian Journal of Applied Psychology, 27, 98-102.
Srivastava, A.K. (2000). Management of occupational stress: Theories and practice.
New Delhi. India: Gyan Publishing House.
Steers, R. M. (1981). Introduction to Organizational Behavior. Glenview: Scott-
Foresman Publishing.
Sutherland, V., & Cooper, C.L. (1990). Understanding Stress a Psychological
Perspective for Health Professionals. London: Chapman and Hall Publishing, Pp.
130-162.
Traverse, C.J., & Cooper, C.L. (1996). Teachers under pressure: Stress in the teaching
profession. Routledge: London.
Van Dick, R., Phillips, U., Marburg, M., & Wagner, U. (2001). Stress and strain in
teaching: A structural equation approach. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 243-259.
Weiskopf, P. (1980). Burnout among teachers of exceptional children. Exceptional
Children, 47(1), 154-162.
Yates, J. E. (1989). Gerilim altındaki yönetici. (Çev:F. Dilber). İstanbul: İlgi Yayıncılık.
Copyright of Indian Journal of Positive Psychology is the property of Indian Association of
Health, Research & Welfare and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.