Abstract
Background
Professional world nowadays is very competitive, and surviving the cutthroat competition while sustaining work-related stress and pressure is an important task for employees. Professionals are required to meet daily and monthly objectives and may encounter work-related stressors.
Purpose
The study aims to explore occupational stress among middle-aged professionals in the age range of 45–60 years from the marketing, banking, and teaching sectors.
Methods
A total sample of 180 consented middle-aged professionals in the age range of 45–60 years from the banking, teaching, and marketing sectors were included in the study using a purposive and snowball sampling technique. Professionals having serious medical or psychiatric conditions and undergoing treatment for the same were excluded. The Occupational Stress Index was administered to assess different types of occupational stressors. The statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20 software. A descriptive analysis and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to get meaningful results.
Results
Results revealed that 40% of the middle-aged professionals reported experiencing minimal levels of occupational stress, followed by 32.2% experiencing moderate levels and 27.8% experiencing high levels of occupational stress. Additionally, it was found that a significantly higher percentage (91.6%) of banking professionals reported low levels of occupational stress compared to their counterparts. Eighty percent of marketing professionals reported experiencing high levels of occupational stress, whereas a majority (73.3%) of teaching professionals reported moderate levels of occupational stress.
Conclusion
Occupational stress with different severity levels is found to be common among middle-aged professionals, which is a risk factor to develop mental health problems and affects well-being. Large-scale primary and secondary interventions are required to manage stress and facilitate professional growth and development in India.
Keywords: Occupational stress, middle-aged professionals, banking professionals, marketing professionals, teaching professionals, India
Introduction
The professional world nowadays is very competitive, and surviving the cutthroat competition while sustaining work-related stress and pressure to achieve the targets and keep up performance is an important task for them. The professionals have to continuously work towards achieving the allocated targets while contributing to the organizational goals in order to prove themselves as productive and indispensable assets for their organization. Achieving this task is often at the cost of their physical, emotional, and behavioral health. 1
The work-related stressors affect the professional’s psychosocial domains, that is, emotional, behavioral, interpersonal, and family dynamics. Experiments by Keller-Wood have confirmed that once the stress response is beyond the tolerable limit of the brain, particularly that of the hippocampus, it will have deleterious effects on hippocampal structure and function. 2 Therefore, if the stress intensity exceeds the tolerable limits, it will result in the development of mental and somatic diseases. 3 Stress related to work has been found to be a significant contributor to organizational inefficiency, absenteeism due to sickness, decreased quality and quantity of work, increased costs of health care, and decreased job satisfaction. This prolonged experience of occupational stress leads to professional burnout. 4
The term “occupational stress” refers to the feelings and experiences that develop as a result of an individual’s inability to cope with the exceeding demands of his job. Nowadays, it is a very important occupational health problem since it can cause significant economic loss. It may produce both overt psychological and physiological issues in an individual and may also cause subtle morbidity that can affect an individual’s personal well-being and productivity. 3 Increased workloads, downsizing, overtime, hostile work environments, and shift work are a few of the many causes of stressful working conditions. 5
Occupational stress is summarized and categorized into six factors by Cooper which are responsible for the stress, such as intrinsic factors to the job (e.g., heat, noise, chemical fumes, shift work, etc.), individual’s relationships at work (e.g., conflict with co-workers or supervisors, lack of social support, etc.), the role of the individual in his organization (e.g., role ambiguity), individual’s career development (includes lack of status, lack of prospects for promotion, lack of a career path, job insecurity, etc.), organizational structure and climate (lack of autonomy, lack of opportunity to participate in decision making, and lack of control over the pace of work), and home and work interface (conflict between domestic and work roles; lack of support from spouse for remaining in the workforce).6, 7
Extant literature emphasizes that occupational stress is a widespread phenomenon that affects individuals in various industries and age cohorts. Research has indicated that middle-aged professionals who hold positions with specific performance objectives across various industries have reported experiencing higher levels of stress. A study done by Spielberger et al. (2002) has clearly established that job-related stress has an adverse impact on productivity, absenteeism, worker turnover, and employee health. 8 An Indian study evaluated the degree of occupational stress among private sector employees and concluded that 76% of professionals experienced moderate occupational stress, while 13.8% experienced low stress levels and 10.2% experienced high stress levels. 1
There is a multitude of literature that suggests that most of the employees who are working in the banking industry are experiencing moderate levels of stress at workplace. Managers aged 25–35 years experienced higher job stress and lower job satisfaction compared to those in the 36–45 and 46–55 age groups, respectively. 9 It was revealed that role stagnation, inadequacy of role authority, role erosion, and role overload were the main stressors being encountered by employees. 10 The burden of responsibility induces significant stress in both employees and managers. Inadequate management of increased responsibilities may result in physical and psychological problems among managers. 11 A study reported that among senior managers, work-related stress was present across all levels of management. 12
In the private sector, higher levels of occupational stress were reported by banking professionals as compared to the public sector. 13 Banking employees experience significant occupational stress due to factors such as unreasonable group and political pressure, as well as role overload and ambiguity in the public sector. 14 A study concluded that banking employees working in the private sector scored higher in various domains of occupational stress, such as strenuous working conditions, unreasonable group, role conflict, under participation, peer relations, and intrinsic impoverishment, as compared to publicly owned bank employees. 15
The prevalence of occupational stress is significant among teaching professionals. National-level research carried out on academic professionals in the US, UK, and Australia reported serious work-related stress accompanied by decreased job satisfaction, frustration, reduced morale, increased drug use, inability to sleep, and health-related concerns such as fatigue, lifestyle disorders, heart disease, and psychosomatic illness leading to absenteeism and decreased productivity.16–18 Significant contributors to occupational stress among teaching professionals include research, educational reform, management approaches, organizational restructuring, and insufficient resources. 17
According to Tytherleigh et al., teaching professionals experienced a higher level of occupational stress due to factors such as inadequate control over decisions, insufficient resources, inadequate communication of job-relevant information, work-life interference, inadequate time to perform their duties at the desired level of quality, and inadequate compensation and benefits. 16 A study conducted by Reddy and Poornima in South India concluded that a significant proportion of university teachers (74%) report experiencing moderate to high levels of occupational stress, while a substantial majority (86%) report experiencing professional burnout. 4
The marketing sector is expansive and requires a significant workforce to meet its demands for adaptability and target fulfillment. This versatility is particularly important given the rapid pace of technological advancement and globalization, which can create stress for those seeking to adapt to these changes. A study done by Pandey concluded that the marketing sector is considered a high-pressure industry because of the long working hours, uncertain environment, tight deadlines, various teams, and performance criteria that are required. 19 Burman and Goswami concluded that the impact of occupational stress extends beyond the physical and psychological well-being of employees and can also have negative consequences for their familial and social relationships. 20
In the contemporary competitive era, it is necessary for all professionals to exert their utmost effort in order to sustain their position and meet the performance standards set by their respective organizations. Individuals who are employed in professions that require them to meet daily and monthly objectives may encounter work-related stressors. Professionals in the marketing industry are required to meet sales targets, while those in the banking sector must achieve targets set by their managers to enhance the bank’s profitability and customer satisfaction. Similarly, individuals in the teaching profession are tasked with conducting classes on novel topics, thereby encountering new challenges on a daily basis. It can be posited that individuals in these professions need to perform their jobs under significant levels of stress in order to attain desired and advantageous outcomes. Hence, the present study aims to explore occupational stress among middle-aged professionals.
Objectives
To assess the level of occupational stress in middle-aged professionals.
To measure the level of occupational stress of banking, teaching, and marketing professionals.
To analyze the level of occupational stressors among banking, teaching, and marketing professionals.
To compare the level of occupational stress among banking, teaching, and marketing professionals.
Hypotheses
H1: Middle-aged professionals will score high on occupational stress.
H2: Occupational stress levels will differ among banking, teaching, and marketing professionals.
H3: Level of occupational stressors will differ among banking, teaching, and marketing professionals.
H4: There will be a significant difference in occupational stress among banking, teaching, and marketing professionals.
Methods
One hundred and eighty middle-aged professionals in the age range 45–60 years from the banking (60), teaching (60), and marketing (60) sectors who gave written informed consent were included. The study employed a cross-sectional research design, and the data was collected using purposive sampling and snowball sampling techniques based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria: Male and female middle-aged professionals working in various banking, marketing, and teaching sectors.
Exclusion criteria: Middle-aged professionals having any kind of serious medical or psychiatric condition and undergoing treatment for the same.
The semi-structured sociodemographic data sheet comprised informed consent and basic socio-demographic data related to age, gender, religious faith, marital status, qualification, work experience, working hours, and annual income.
The occupational stress of middle-aged professionals was assessed using the Occupational Stress Index, which was developed by Srivastava and Singh in 1984. The scale consisted of 46 items, each to be rated on a five-point scale. Reliability was found to be 0.935 by the split-half method. This measures 12 different types of occupational stressors, that is, role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, group and political pressure, person responsibility, under participation, powerlessness, poor peer relations, intrinsic impoverishment, low status, strenuous working conditions, and unprofitability. Figure 1 depicts the flowchart for data collection process.
Figure 1. Flowchart of Data Collection Process.
The statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 software. A descriptive analysis and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to get meaningful results. To evaluate the variation in the aforementioned categories, the dataset’s mean, SD, and p-values were computed.
Results
Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage of the sociodemographic variables. In the present study, out of the total 180 sample, 60 participants worked in the banking sector, 60 participants worked in the marketing sector, and the remaining 60 participants worked in the teaching profession. The demographic details relating to age, gender, religious faith, marital status, qualification level, working hours, years of work experience, and income slab for each of the group show the difference in terms of frequency and percentage.
Table 1. Frequency and Percentage of Socio-demographic Variables.
| Demographics | Banking Professionals n = 60 | Teaching Professionals n = 60 | Marketing Professionals n = 60 | ||||
| f | % | f | % | F | % | ||
| Age | 45–50 years | 30 | 50% | 25 | 41.7% | 29 | 48.3% |
| 51–55 years | 18 | 30% | 17 | 28.3% | 21 | 35% | |
| 56–60 years | 12 | 20% | 18 | 30% | 10 | 16.7% | |
| Gender | Male | 32 | 53.3% | 20 | 33.3% | 44 | 73.3% |
| Female | 28 | 46.7% | 40 | 66.7% | 16 | 26.7% | |
| Religious faith | Hindu | 44 | 73.3% | 48 | 80% | 40 | 66.7% |
| Islam | 16 | 26.7% | 12 | 20% | 20 | 33.3% | |
| Marital Status | Unmarried | 16 | 26.7% | 8 | 53.3% | 28 | 46.7% |
| Married | 44 | 73.3% | 7 | 46.7% | 32 | 53.3% | |
| Qualification | Graduate | 36 | 60% | 60 | 100% | 44 | 73.3% |
| Postgraduate | 24 | 40% | 0 | 0 | 16 | 26.7% | |
| Working hours | 6–8 h | 32 | 53.3% | 60 | 100% | 36 | 60% |
| 9–10 h | 28 | 46.7% | 0 | 0 | 24 | 40% | |
| Work experience | 0–5 years | 36 | 60% | 44 | 73.3% | 32 | 53.3% |
| 6–10 years | 24 | 40% | 16 | 26.7% | 28 | 46.7% | |
| Income | Below 5 lakhs | 32 | 53.3% | 60 | 100% | 44 | 73.3% |
| 5–10 lakhs | 28 | 46.7% | 0 | 0 | 16 | 26.7% | |
Abbreviations: f = frequency; % = percentage.
Figure 2 shows the level of occupational stress among middle-aged professionals. It was found that 40% of the middle-aged professionals scored lower on occupational stress, whereas 32.2% of the middle-aged professionals reported a moderate level of occupational stress, and 27.8% of the middle-aged professionals experienced a high level of occupational stress.
Figure 2. Level of Occupational Stress in Total Sample of Middle-Aged Professionals (N = 180).
Figure 3 shows the level of occupational stress among marketing, banking, and teaching professionals. It was found that the majority (80%) of marketing professionals experienced a high level of occupational stress, whereas the majority (73.3%) of professionals in the teaching sector experienced a moderate level of occupational stress. It was also found that the majority of the professionals (91.6%) in the banking sector experience a low level of occupational stress as compared to the marketing and teaching sector.
Figure 3. Level of Occupational Stress in Banking, Marketing, and Teaching Professionals.
Occupational stressors are computed on the domains of role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, group and political pressure, person responsibility, under participation, powerlessness, poor peer relations, intrinsic impoverishment, low status, strenuous working conditions, and unprofitability among banking, marketing, and teaching professionals.
Table 2 shows the level of occupational stress for marketing professionals. It was found that the marketing professionals scored high in role overload (76.6%), role conflict (86.7%), powerlessness (60%), poor peer relations (90%), low status (66.7%), strenuous working conditions (93.3%), and unprofitability (83.3%), whereas they scored moderate in role ambiguity (53.3%), group and political pressure (53.3%), person responsibility (50%), under participation (53.3%), and intrinsic impoverishment (56.7%).
Table 2. Level of Occupational Stressors in Marketing Professionals.
| Marketing Sector | Low | Moderate | High | |||
| f | % | F | % | f | % | |
| Role overload | 0 | 0 | 14 | 23.3% | 46 | 76.6% |
| Role ambiguity | 16 | 26.7% | 32 | 53.3% | 12 | 20% |
| Role conflict | 4 | 6.7% | 4 | 6.7% | 52 | 86.7% |
| Group and political pressure | 22 | 36.7% | 32 | 53.3% | 6 | 10% |
| Person responsibility | 4 | 6.7% | 30 | 50% | 26 | 43.3% |
| Under participation | 2 | 3.3% | 32 | 53.3% | 26 | 43.3% |
| Powerlessness | 0 | 0 | 24 | 40.0% | 36 | 60.0% |
| Poor peer relations | 0 | 0 | 6 | 10.0% | 54 | 90.0% |
| Intrinsic impoverishment | 14 | 23.3% | 34 | 56.7% | 12 | 20.0% |
| Low status | 0 | 0 | 20 | 33.3% | 40 | 66.7% |
| Strenuous working conditions | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6.7% | 56 | 93.3% |
| Unprofitability | 0 | 0 | 10 | 16.7% | 50 | 83.3% |
Abbreviations: f = frequency; % = percentage.
Table 3 depicts the level of occupational stress among banking professionals. It was found that the banking professionals scored high in only one dimension, that is, intrinsic impoverishment (90%), whereas the majority of the professionals scored low in role overload (73.3%), Role ambiguity (70%), role conflict (90%), group and political pressure (70%), under participation (46.7%), low status (70%), and unprofitability (76.7%). Banking professionals experienced a moderate level in the area of person responsibility (63.3%), powerlessness (86.7%), poor peer relations (63.3%), and strenuous working conditions (53.3%).
Table 3. Level of Occupational Stressors in Banking Professionals.
| Banking Sector | Low | Moderate | High | |||
| f | % | f | % | f | % | |
| Role overload | 44 | 73.3% | 16 | 26.7% | 0 | 0 |
| Role ambiguity | 42 | 70.0% | 10 | 16.7% | 8 | 13.3% |
| Role conflict | 54 | 90.0% | 6 | 10.0% | 0 | 0 |
| Group and political pressure | 42 | 70.0% | 16 | 26.7% | 2 | 3.3% |
| Person responsibility | 16 | 26.7% | 38 | 63.3% | 6 | 10.0% |
| Under participation | 28 | 46.7% | 28 | 46.7% | 4 | 6.7% |
| Powerlessness | 8 | 13.3% | 52 | 86.7% | 0 | 0 |
| Poor peer relations | 12 | 20.0% | 38 | 63.3% | 10 | 16.7% |
| Intrinsic impoverishment | 0 | 0 | 6 | 10.0% | 54 | 90.0% |
| Low status | 42 | 70% | 18 | 30% | 0 | 0 |
| Strenuous working conditions | 14 | 23.3% | 32 | 53.3% | 14 | 23.3% |
| Unprofitability | 46 | 76.7% | 12 | 20% | 2 | 3.3% |
Abbreviations: f = frequency; % = percentage.
Table 4 shows the level of occupational stress among teaching professionals. It was found that the teaching professionals scored high in role ambiguity (90%), group and political pressure (80%), and under participation (90%). Moderate levels of scores were obtained in role overload (73.3%), role conflict (60%), intrinsic impoverishment (70%), strenuous working conditions (56.7%), and unprofitability (66.7%). It was also found that teaching professionals scored low in domains like person responsibility (70%), powerlessness (73.3%), poor peer relations (53.3%), and low status (96.7%).
Table 4. Level of Occupational Stressors in Teaching Professionals.
| Teaching Professionals | Low | Moderate | High | |||
| f | % | f | % | f | % | |
| Role overload | 10 | 16.7% | 44 | 73.3% | 6 | 10% |
| Role ambiguity | 0 | 0 | 6 | 10% | 54 | 90% |
| Role conflict | 22 | 36.7% | 36 | 60% | 2 | 3.3% |
| Group and political pressure | 0 | 0 | 12 | 20% | 48 | 80% |
| Person responsibility | 42 | 70% | 18 | 30% | 0 | 0 |
| Under participation | 00 | 00 | 6 | 10% | 54 | 90% |
| Powerlessness | 44 | 73.3% | 16 | 26.7% | 0 | 0 |
| Poor peer relations | 32 | 53.3% | 20 | 33.3% | 8 | 13.3% |
| Intrinsic impoverishment | 0 | 0 | 42 | 70% | 18 | 30% |
| Low status | 58 | 96.7% | 2 | 3.3% | 0 | 0 |
| Strenuous working conditions | 10 | 16.7% | 34 | 56.7% | 16 | 26.7% |
| Unprofitability | 12 | 20% | 40 | 66.7% | 8 | 13.3% |
Abbreviations: f = frequency; % = percentage.
Table 5 depicts the descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) for occupational stress among 180 middle-aged professionals.
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Occupational Stress Among Middle-Aged Professionals. (One-way ANOVA) (N = 180).
| Sector | N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error |
| Marketing | 60 | 139.80 | 29.99 | 3.87 |
| Banking | 60 | 113.80 | 34.21 | 4.41 |
| Teaching | 60 | 118.60 | 41.82 | 5.39 |
For significance of difference on occupational stress among middle-aged professionals (banking, marketing, and teaching professionals), one-way ANOVA was computed on the dataset.
Table 6 presents the summary of the one-way ANOVA for occupational stress. The summary of one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in occupational stress among banking, marketing, and teaching professionals (F(2,177) = 9.021, p = .00).
Table 6. Summary of ANOVA Shows Difference Among the Middle-Aged Professionals.
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Between groups | 22969.60 | 2 | 11484.80 | 9.021 | .000 |
| Within groups | 225353.60 | 177 | 1273.18 | ||
| Total | 248323.20 | 179 |
Table 7 presents the post-hoc multiple comparison for occupational stress among middle-aged professionals. It was found that the mean value of occupational stress was significantly different between marketing and banking sector professionals (p = .000). It was also found that the mean value of occupational stress was significantly different between marketing and teaching sector professionals (p = .004). However, there was no statistically significant difference in mean occupational stress scores between banking and teaching sector professionals (p = .742).
Table 7. Tukey’s Post-hoc Multiple Comparison for Occupational Stress Among Middle-Aged Professionals.
| Variable | (I) SECTOR | (J) SECTOR | Mean Difference (I-J) | Sig. |
| Occupational stress | Marketing | Banking | 26.00* | .000 |
| Teaching | 21.20* | .004 | ||
| Banking | Marketing | −26.00* | .000 | |
| Teaching | −4.80 | .742 | ||
| Teaching | Marketing | −21.20* | .004 | |
| Banking | 4.80 | .742 |
Note: *Level of significance (p = .05).
Table 8 presents the outcome of post-hoc analysis using Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons of mean scores for occupational stress among middle-aged professionals. Findings suggested that occupational stress was significantly higher among marketing professionals (139.80 ± 29.99, p = .004) as compared to banking professionals (113.80 ± 34.21, p = .000) and teaching professionals (118.60 ± 41.82, p = .742).
Table 8. Tukey’s Post-hoc (Homogeneous Subset) for Occupational Stress Among Middle-Aged Professionals.
| Variable and its Stressors | Sector | N | Subset for alpha = 0.05 | |
| 1 | 2 | |||
| Occupational Stress | Banking | 60 | 113.80 | |
| Teaching | 60 | 118.60 | ||
| Marketing | 60 | 139.80 | ||
| Sig. | 0.742 | 1.000 | ||
Note: *Level of significance (p = .05).
Discussion
Occupational stress is a widespread phenomenon that affects individuals in various industries and age cohorts. In line with the current scenario of stress pertaining to roles, responsibilities, and organizational structure, this study attempts to provide a glimpse of occupational stress and its associated domains (role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, group and political pressure, person responsibility, under participation, powerlessness, poor peer relations, intrinsic impoverishment, low status, strenuous working conditions, and unprofitability) in middle-aged professionals in India. The study was conducted to examine the level of occupational stress and associated stressors among professionals employed in the banking, marketing, and teaching sectors. Professionals in these fields are required to execute their duties under considerable pressure to achieve favorable and beneficial results, which could potentially trigger or prolong work-related stress.
Extant literature has reported that professionals working in various sectors experience higher levels of occupational stress due to various factors. The present study revealed that 27.8% of middle-aged professionals scored higher in occupational stress, while 32.2% experienced a moderate level, and 40% experienced a lower level of occupational stress. Therefore, the first hypothesis, which stated that middle-aged professionals would score high in occupational stress, is accepted. A study done by Gupta (2022) concluded that the level of occupational stress has significantly increased which brought drastic changes in the professional as well as personal life of employees.21–23
People who were employed in India were found to be experiencing the highest levels of occupational stress. 24 Consistent with the existing literature on occupational stress among professionals, the outcome of the present study revealed that 73.3% of teaching professionals and 83.3% of marketing professionals experienced moderate–severe levels of occupational stress, while the majority of the banking professionals (93.3%) experienced a lower level of occupational stress. 21 Therefore, the second hypothesis stated that occupational stress levels would differ among banking professionals, teaching professionals, and marketing professionals, is accepted.
The findings of the present study also revealed that the marketing professionals scored high in role overload (76.6%), role conflict (86.7%), powerlessness (60%), poor peer relations (90%), low status (66.7%), strenuous working conditions (93.3%), and unprofitability (83.3%), whereas they scored moderate in role ambiguity (53.3%), group and political pressure (53.3%), person responsibility (50%), under participation (53.3%), and intrinsic impoverishment (56.7%). Similarly, it has been reported that “lack of clarity and growth,” “work-life imbalance,” “work overload,” “lack of autonomy,” “unachievable targets,” “poor communication system,” and “poor interpersonal relations” are contributing factors to occupational stress in marketing and banking employees.25, 26
In the banking sector, 90% of the professionals scored high in intrinsic impoverishment and a moderate level in person responsibility (63.3%), powerlessness (86.7%), poor peer relations (63.3%), and strenuous working conditions (53.3%). Low scores were obtained in other dimensions of occupational stress (role overload (73.3%), role ambiguity (70%), role conflict (90%), group and political pressure (70%), underparticipation (46.7%), low status (70%), and unprofitability (76.7%). The results validate the findings of previous studies. 26
It was found that the teaching professionals scored high in role ambiguity (90%), group and political pressure (80%), and underparticipation (90%). Moderate levels of scores were obtained in role overload (73.3%), role conflict (60%), intrinsic impoverishment (70%), strenuous working conditions (56.7%), and unprofitability (66.7%). The findings are in sync with Indian literature, which highlights factors of stress as “role overload,” “increased working hours,” “pressure from management,” “interpersonal problems,” and “lack of control over the job.”28 It was also found that teaching professionals scored low in domains like person responsibility (70%), powerlessness (73.3%), Poor peer relations (53.3%), and Low status (96.7%), which is also supported by extant literature.4, 6, 11, 18, 27 Hence, the stated hypothesis that occupational stress levels will differ among banking professionals, teaching professionals, and marketing professionals is accepted.
The results of the study further revealed that occupational stress showed a significant difference in mean scores among middle-aged marketing, banking, and teaching professionals. Post-hoc analysis using Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons of mean scores suggested that marketing professionals reported a higher level of stress and its associated stressors as compared to banking and teaching professionals. The findings of the study are consistent with the outcome of a study conducted by McDonald and Korabic (1991), which explored sources of stress and ways of coping among male and female managers. Gender-based implications of the study highlighted that women were more likely than men to report that prejudice, discrimination, tight work, and unnecessary interference in work were dominant predictors of stress. Hence, the stated hypothesis that there will be a significant difference in occupational stress among marketing, banking, and teaching professionals is accepted.
Conclusion
Relying on the traditional organizational setup in India, work-related stress is one of the liminal entities to be taken care of by management and business leaders. The constant negligence of such work-related stressors imposes irreparable repercussions on the mental health and overall well-being of the employees. This study was conducted to investigate the contributing factors for occupational stress among middle-aged professionals from the marketing, banking, and teaching sectors in India. The results of the study indicated that occupational stress was higher among marketing professionals in the domains of role overload, role conflict, powerlessness, poor peer relations, low status, strenuous working conditions, and unprofitability in comparison to banking and teaching professionals.
This study provided a varied perspective on occupational stress by delineating the contributing factors. Addressing these occupational stressors using an individualized and focused intervention plan would promote employee engagement and improve overall occupational health and well-being at the workplace.
Limitation
The limitations of the study include
Gender-based outcomes were not explored in the current study.
The sample size for the current study was 180 middle-aged professionals who were recruited through purposive sampling which limits the scope for generalizability of the outcome.
The sample of this study included professionals from the marketing, banking, and teaching sectors only, which limits the perspectives for other differences.
Future Research
Future research can be carried out using gender-based approaches for exploring occupational stress at workplace. For generalizability, future research can be done with larger sample size and sociodemographic with wider geographical limits.
Acknowledgement
The authors extend their gratitude to the participants from banking, marketing, and teaching sectors and the concerned authorities for permitting the researcher to conduct this study. The authors also acknowledge the support of staff and colleagues who provided a conducive environment to carry on with this research work.
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD: Syed Sajid Husain Kazmi 
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3436-9458
Authors’ Contributions
All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Research conceptualization, data sorting, analysis, and duplication checks were performed by SSHK, JS, RKT, and SZHZ. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SSHK, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Statement of Ethics
This study was performed in line with the principles of ICMR and World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The approval was granted by Institutional Ethics Committee of Amity University Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Campus.
Informed Consent
Written informed consent was taken from professionals to participate in the study. Participants were briefed about their voluntary participation and confidentiality of their responses. No incentive was provided for their participation.
ICMJE Statement
The manuscript complies with ICMJE guidelines.
References
- 1.Kazmi SS, Dubey A.. Cognitive Style, Occupational Stress and Job Satisfaction among Marketing and Banking Professionals. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3503252 (December 13, 2019).
- 2.Keller-Wood M. Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal Axis—feedback Control. Compr Physiol 2011; 5(3): 1161–1182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Reichel M, Rhein C, Hofmann LM, et al. Chronic psychosocial stress in mice is associated with increased acid sphingomyelinase activity in liver and serum and with hepatic C16: 0-ceramide accumulation. Front Psychiatry 2018; 9: 496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Reddy GL, Poornima R.. Occupational stress and professional burnout of University teachers in South India. Int J Edu Plann Administration 2012; 2(2): 109–124. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Quick JC, Murphy LR, Hurrell JJ. Jr. Stress & well-being at work: Assessments and Interventions for Occupational Mental Health. American psychological association; 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cooper CL. Identifying stressors at work: Recent research developments. J Psychosomatic Res 1983; 27(5): 369–376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Cooper CL. The stress of work: An overview. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine . 1985. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Vagg PR, Spielberger CD, Wasala CF.. Effects of organizational level and gender on stress in the workplace. Int J Stress Management 2002; 9: 243–261. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chandraiah K, Agrawal SC, Marimuthu P, Manoharan N.. Occupational stress and job satisfaction among managers. Indian J Occupation Environ Medicine 2003; 7(2): 6–11. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Shah FA. Role stress in the Indian industry: A study of banking organisations. Indian J Industri Relations 2003; 38(3): 281–296. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Caplan RD, Cobb S, French JR.. Relationships of cessation of smoking with job stress, personality, and social support. J Appl Psychol 1975; 60(2): 211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Pant N, Bhardwaj G.. Executives stress and its correlates. Indian J Industri Relations 1992; 396–411. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Kainat R. A study of occupational stress among public and private sector bank employees. J Res : THE BEDE ATHENAEUM Year. 2011; 2(1): 33–37. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Suleman Q, Hussain I, Shehzad S, Syed MA, Raja SA.. Relationship between perceived occupational stress and psychological well-being among secondary school heads in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. PloS One 2018; 13(12): e0208143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
- 15.Niharika KU. Occupational stress among bank employees. European Acad Res 2014; 2(4): 5404–5411. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Tytherleigh MY, Webb C, Cooper CL, Ricketts C.. Occupational stress in UK higher education institutions: A comparative study of all staff categories. Higher Educ Res Devel 2005; 24(1): 41–61. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Winefield AH, Gillespie N, Stough C, Dua J, Hapuararchchi J.. Occupational Stress in Australian Universities: A National Survey (Doctoral dissertation, National Tertiary Education Union). [Google Scholar]
- 18.Milstein MM, Golaszewski TJ.. Effects of organizationally based and individually based stress management efforts in elementary school settings. Urban Edu 1985; 19(4): 389–409. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Moonat S, Pandey SC.. Stress, epigenetics, and alcoholism. Alcohol Res 2012; 34(4): 495–505. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Burman R, Goswami TG.. A systematic literature review of work stress. Int J Manag Stu 2018; 3(9): 112–132. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Moharana G, Gupta R.. Assessment of occupational stress of teaching professionals during COVID-19 pandemic. J Krishi Vigyan 2022; 10(2): 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Joshi K, Modi B, Singhal S, Gupta S.. Occupational stress among health care workers. In: Kavitha P, ed. Identifying Occupational Stress and Coping Strategies . IntechOpen, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Gupta S. Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on occupational stress level among IT professionals. In: Rana NK, Shah AA, Iqbal R, Khanzode V, eds. Technology Enabled Ergonomic Design . Proceedings of HWWE 2020, Springer Nature, Singapore, 2022. Mar 1, 321–328. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Darshan MS, Raman R, Rao TS, Ram D, Annigeri B.. A study on professional stress, depression and alcohol use among Indian IT professionals. Indian J Psychiatry 2013; 55(1): 63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Goolsby JR. A theory of role stress in boundary spanning positions of marketing organizations. J Acad Mark Sci 1992; 20(2): 155–164. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Sharma D, Singh D.. Identification of sources of job stress: a study of bank marketing executives. Sharma, Sakshi & Singh, Jashandeep (2016). Identification of sources of job stress: A study of bank marketing executives, J Organ Human Behav 2016; 11: 26–31. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kaur S. Comparative study of occupational stress among teachers of private and govt. schools in relation to their age, gender and teaching experience. Int J Educ Plann Administration 2011; 1(2): 151–160. [Google Scholar]