The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 23 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
Impact of Core Self-Evaluation, Goal Orientation and Work
Stress Relationship on Public Sector Universities Teachers
in Islamabad and Rawalpindi
HAIDER ALI
PhD Scholar, Management Sciences Department
Qurtuba University Peshawar, Pakistan
DR. NISBAT ALI
National University of Modern Languages (NUML)
Islamabad (Pakistan)
YASIR KHAN
PhD Scholar, Qurtuba University Peshawar
MUKHARIF SHAH
Lecturer, Institute of Business Studies and Leadersip
Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan
Abstract
The association of core self evaluation, work stress and several elements of goal
orientation is discussed in this article. It will be a valuable contribution in the field of
HRD specifically in the lifes of University teachers in Pakistan.The same type of the study
was already carried out in United States but this article is focusing the same
consideration in Pakistani environment. It enlarges past research by probing the impact
and correlation among Self evaluation , Stress related to Work and Origeneation of goal .
Performance goal orientation (PGO) and learning goal orientation (LGO) are serving
and contributing as mediating variables in nature. So as results revealved that core self
evaluation (CSE) is adversely impact to the variable of work stress (WS). Moreover, the
variable of performance –prove goal orientation (PPGO) mediates this connection. The
stable personality trait which is termed as core self evaluation which includes in it
someones own control,knowledhe skills and abilities and subliminial.On other side
individuals having low core self-evaluations will definitely be not having confidence.This
study will enhance the performance of Faculty members of Public Sector Universities of
Pakistan and reduce their work stress at their work places.
Key Words: CSE termed as (Core -self -evaluation), Performance- prove goal-
orientation [PPGO], learning goal orientation (LGO), Performance-approach goal
orientation (PAGO) & Work stress.
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 24 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
1. Introduction
1.1 Core Self-Evaluation and Goal Orientation
1.1.1 Understanding Work Stress
The discipline of Human Resource (HR) is the most imperative, important &
vital Factor of Economic Development or it can be said HR is the only assest which is
always appreciated in any organization for development purpose, so the Developed
countries are much focusing on their Human resources they are trying to provide the
healthy environment to their human resources at their workplaces. US Organizations
spends $ 300 Billon each year ,Candian Organizations spends $ 16 billon for the welfare
of their employees they tried to increase their employees Job satisfaction level by
providing them extra compensations,more medical insurances,better packages to reduce
absentisism and turnover. (Schwartz, 2004; Tangri, 2003).
To reduce the work stress at work is becoming an important aspect for the
managers in order to consider and innovate the new ways of reducing the stress of theier
subordinates by appling appropriate practices (Mamberto, 2007; Sanchez, 2011). The
basis or the reasons of stress are equally significant for employees and
employers.Performance of Employee belonging to any level of hieracy effect from the
stress (Quillian-Wolever & Wolever, 2003).The causes of Job stress directly and
indirectly effect the persons and organizations.Resistance to change,Hurdles in
Learning,Ignorning career development,uderestmating employee dissatisfaction,turnover
are the basis of stress at job (Spielberger et al., 2003; Quick & Tetrick, 2003).
Russ-Eft (2001) argued that HRD discipline is vast area and it can’t close the
research gap and has opportunity that explores so many ways of exploring and
conducting research studies upon the impact of employees stress (ES) on performance
and learning. So HRD practitioners and scholars may develop proper knowledge and set
of informations to explore more supportive elements of study that enhances the influence
of employee’s experience on work stress (WS) (Kuchinke, Cornachione, Oh, & Kang,
2010), which is basically an obstacle in captilizing the potential performance of
employees or workforce (Swanson & Holton, 2001).
In above overview the discipline of HRD discipline appeals to explore the new
ways of research to be conducted in the area of stress and within its multiple contexts.
(Kuchinke et al., 2010). Moreover, several type of stress interventions like career
planning organizations, assessment of the stress and managing adaptive strategies are also
the elements of HRD discipline (Gilbreath, 2008). The 1st and the most important
objective of this article is to expand the discipline of Huaman resource development
(HRD) research related to relationship between the element of stress and core personality
trait. Present study is basically providing basis of input to the HRD literature. Fourth
objective includes that this study is supportive for University Teachers who can make use
of the results of this study and can best address themselves and their students regarding
the level of stress and related difficulties. It is an essential Issue for the Research
specially in Pakistan where the Importance of Human Resource is still ignoring and
welfare of the Human Resource given no greater significance.By providing Stress free
environment we can better utilize our human resource at work places and enhance the
productivity of our manpower.When we are taking about our faculty members of
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 25 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
Universities they are the basic source of talent development so stress free environment is
essential for them.
2. Literature Review Goal orientation,stress and core self evaluation are the most important paradigms
to human resource development,s scholars because for HRD scholars these dimensions/
elements are based on the measureable constructs that has influence on performance and
that are the basis of work stress theory, CSE and goal orientation (Noe, 2008). Different
facets of stress is described as under
2.1 Work Stress
Work stress is best explained by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health called NIOSH. According to NIOSH work stress is “When the tasks, duties
and roles or the job description of the job does not in align with that of the skills and
competence level of the individual workers then it is injurious to the workers and their
performance” (NIOSH, 1999). However, in itself stress in neither good nor bad. It is
basically a response by the individual to a stressful event that results in a positive or
negative experience towards stress and its outcomes (McCubbin & Figley, 1983).
2.2 Core Self-Evaluation
The construct of CSE helps to examine the dispositional influences on several
kinds of satisfactions and happiness i.e. job satisfaction (Srivastava, Locke, Judge, &
Adams, 2010). In previous literature Judge et al. (1997), suggested that the CSE is
determined by the personality traits if they meet the following set of criteria: (a) the focus
must be to assess (b) rather than surface-level they must be elementary and fundamental,
and (c) they are of vast scope and broader in nature. Judge and colleagues concluded that
ther are four basic elements of CSE and they are latent construct in nature as following:
(a) self-esteem (b) self-efficacy, (c) locus of control, and (d) neuroticism as suggested
(Erez & Judge,2001).
2.2.1 Self-esteem
It is actually the perception or assumption about the value that one has on self
(Baumeister, 1997; Rosenberg, 1965).
2.2.2 Self-effi cacy
It is the belief or confidence on self that he or she can handle the challenges of
life (Bandura, 1997).
2.2.3 Locus of control
Locus of control is the individual’s feelings that he or she can have a power to
control life’s event. Locus can be internal in nature if in general the individual control the
outcomes of the life (Rotter, 1966).
At last,
2.2.4 Neuroticism It is generally a sense that is developed, that is some times illustrated as a
tendency to observe, monitor or evaluate negative aspects or negative events of one’s life
situations (Eysenck &Eysenck, 1968). If personality traits are highlighted as an important
measure of construct in research study then it is to be said that CSE is a collection of well
known traits and is general description of illustrious traits.
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 26 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
2.3 Goal Orientation
According to (Noe, 2008) goal orientation (GO) is paradigm and construct which is
helpful to detail descriptions of individual achievement situations and approaches.
Specifically goal orientation is divided into two main broader concepts. These two
dimensions as Learning and Performance goal orientation called LGO and PGO.
Past literature revealed that both pf these goal orientation, learning and performance
mainly emphasize and focus on strengthening their capabilities ,knowledge and skills.By
getting favourable judgements people with strong and valid Performance goal orientation
always deals and concerned with that of the skills and competenece level of
individuals..Philoshphies towards and related to PGO &LGO reflects that person with
high degree of LGO perceives abilities as soft and flexible kind of things whereas the
PGO examine the ability of individuals as of fixed nature (Dweck,1986).
PPGO relates and refer to attain positive evalations and PAGO refers to avaoid negative
evaluation form others on basis of three dimensional conceptualization, (Sideridis, 2005;
Wang & Takeuchi,. 2007). As a lot of past studies is about that of PGO, so this newly
formed concept is quite new in nature ant thus it differentiate among PPGO and PAGO
dimensions quite adequately.
Table 1: Concept Construct Variables Concept Construct Items Refernces
Core Self Evaluation
Core –self evaluation
Core self evaluation,(CSE) epitomise a stable
personality characteristic
which contains aperson's
intuitive, major evaluations
about themselves, their
knowledge, skills, abilities and their own control
(Judge, Erez, et al., 2002)
Self-esteem.
Self-effi cacy
Locus of control
Neuroticism
Self Satisfaction.
Not good at all.
Many good qualities.
Like other people.
Not much abilities
Useless.
Worthy person
More respect.
I am a failure.
Positive attitude
Achieve set goals.
Achieve difficult tasks.
Outcomes.
Get success.
Challenges.
Tasks effectively.
Tasks very well.
Tough things.
My ability.
Powerful people.
Implement plans.
Good luck.
Personal interests.
Hardwork.
Own actions.
likeness of important
people.
Mood up and down.
Miserable .
Feelings.
Fed up.
Nervous person.
Worrier.
Highly Strung.
Rosenberg, 1965)
Judge et al., 1998 Levenson, 1981
Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1968
Baumeister,1997;
Bandura, 1997
Rotter, 1966
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 27 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
2.1. Theoretical Framework
Independent Variable Mediating Variables Dependent
Variable
H8a
H2(+)
H5(-) H1(-)
H3(-) H8b
H6(+)
H4(-) H8 c
H7(+)
Embarrasing experience.
Nerves.
Feel lonely.
Feelings of guilt.
Irritable person.
Work Stress
Less stress in work is percieved by High CSE
individuals than low core self-evaluation (CSE)
individuals
( Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; McCubbin &Figley, 1983).
Job Satistfaction Work Ability
General Health Personal Burnout
Behavioural
Stress Congnitive Stress
Intention to
Leave Satisfaction with
Life
Satisfication with Job.
Perform all the tasks.
Health .
Lack satisfaction.
Change of habbits.
Critical at work.
Impatient Behavior.
Lack of energy.
Punctuality.
Happy or unhappy.
Memory to rember.
Leave the Job.
Satisfy with life.
(CSP; Olson & Stewart, 1988)
(Srivastava, Locke, Judge, & Adams,
2010).
(Alarcon et al., 2009),
Goal Orientation
The goal orientation (GO) concept was illustrated as
the level of change in
situational/ dispositional goal preferences that an
individual tacitly sets
circumstances for him/herself in order to
achieve.
(Dweck, 1986; Dweck .& Leggett, 1988; Noe, 2008).
learning goal orientation or
LGO
Performance prove goal
orientation or
PPGO Performance-
approach goal
orientation or PAGO
Better position.
Perform well
Do better.
Perform poor.
Feel fear.
Performing poorly.
Contents of job.
Learn all things.
Perception about your
learning.
Master.
Maximum learning.
Job description.
VandeWalle’s (1997)
(Dweck, 1986).
(Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Noe, 2008).
(Brett & VandeWalle, 1999;
Dykman, 1998;
Sideridis, 2005; VandeWalle,
1997;Wang &
Takeuchi, 2007)
PAGO
LGO
CSE Work
Stres
s
PPGO
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 28 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
2.2. Working Hypotheses
H 1: core-self evaluation (cse) is negatively related to work stress.
H 2: core self evaluation (cse) is positively related to learning goal orientation (lgo).
H 3: core self evaluation( cse) is negatively related to performance prove goal
orientation (ppgo).
H 4: core self evaluation (cse) is negatively related to performance-approach goal
orientation (pago).
H 5: learning goal orientation (lgo) is negatively related to work stress.
H 6: performance prove goal orientation (ppgo) is positively related to work stress.
H 7: performance-approach goal orientation (pago) is positively related to work stress
H 8a: learning goal orientation ( lgo )partially mediates the relationship between cse and
work stress.
H 8b: performance-approach goal orientation (ppgo) partially mediates the relationship
between cse and work stress
H 8c: performance-approach goal orientation (pago) partially mediates the relationship
between cse and work stress.
3. Measurement
3.1 Work Stress
To measure the constructs and definations three instruments were selected. The
dimension of work stress was measure on a scale that includes 13-items as suggested and
adapted from the previous study of (CSP; Olson & Stewart, 1988), originally this
instrument was created by Fournier (1981). The self-assessment instrument of CSP
incorporate 24 scaling items to measure stress dealing with resources (i.e. communication
style, problem-solving, closeness &flexibility style) and while satisfaction as a single
assessment tool (Coping & Stress Profile Research Report, 1995). The researcher used
the scale of work stress of CSP in this study.
3.2 Core Self-Evaluation The general concept of CSE was measured with four scales. Particularly, the
dimension of self esteem was measured on the instrument adapted from (Rosenberg,
1965) having 10 items to be measured, measure of self-efficacy has 8 scaling items
adapted from (Judge et al., 1998). Similarly, locus of control measure is also consisting of
8- items adapted from the findings of (Levenson, 1981) where as the measure of
neuroticism has 12 items to be measured on likert scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968). The
scale used to answer the questions are spread and measured on a five points likert scale,
called a nominal scale of measurement from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly
Agree. Each of the items of each variable for selfesteem, self-efficacy, locus of control,
and neuroticism are measured on same scaling measure. Findings from prior research
(Judge et al., 1998, 2005), and consistent with past theoretical exploration (Judge, Erez,
et al., 2002), these four scales were treated as an obvious measure of CSE as a latent
construct.
3.3 Goal Orientation The dimension of goal orientation was measured on the survey of 12 items from
the findings of (VandeWalle’s, 1997). Goal orientation has a measure for sub scales.
These sub scales are:
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 29 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
A scale of 5 items measure for learning goal orientation (LGO). Performance-prove goal
orientation (PPGO) has 4 items to be measured and for performance-avoid goal
orientation (PAGO) there is three items measurement scale. All of these items are
measured with a 5-point Likert-type response scale, having a scale 1 for Strongly
Disagree to 5 strongly Agree.
3.4 Sampling I distributed 300 questionnaires among the faculty members of Public sector
universities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi out of 300 I got 180 filled Questionnaires.
3.5 Sector/Organizations
The target sector of my study is Public Sector Universities of Islamabad and
Rawalpindi and I distributed my questionnaires in five universities i-e Air University
Islamabad, NUML Islamabad, AIOU Islamabad, International Islamic University
Islamabad and Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi.
3.6 Data Analysis and Results
Hypothesis of this current study were tested by using two statistical methods.
Firstly, in order to examine common bias the method of correlation was used in this
study. Secondly, in order to examine the bivariate correlation, correlation was further
scrutinized.
3.7 Correlation and Common Method Bias
All the possible self report measures of correlation of this current study are based
on the past study as suggested by Conway and Lance (2010) in order toreduce the
common method bias effect and to justify measure on self-report of the study (see also
Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Firstly, self report measures are
important and suitable for the dispositional dimensions (i.e. CSE & goal orientation) and
the construct variable (work stress) (Chan, 2009). Secondly, the construct of this study
were measured and examined on the basis of reliability, factor construction, convergent
and the discriminant validation to ensure the validity of the construct (Conway & Lance,
2010). Thirdly, predictor measures were collected at a time separate from the criteria
measure. Fourth, the correlation results for predictor variables shows that some of them
are having non significant relationship and it is suggested that in common bias method
all of the results among variables must be significant (Spector, 2006). So, the common
method bias is so tiny and worthless otherwise.
3.8 Bivariate Examination between Goal Orientation, CSE and Stress
In order to test bivariate hypotheses of the framework for the dimensions of
CSE, work strees and goal orientation (GO) correlations for their relationship is
analyzed. WS is negatively associated CSE with a value r=–0.57 and a value of p<0.02.
Thus these results support the hypothesis no.1 of the study. LGO and CSE are in positive
correlation with values r=0.43, p<0.01 and similarly CSE negatively influence the
dimension of PPGO with values r=–0.27 and p<0.05 and likewise the value of r=–0.30,
p<0.01 showing that CSE and PAGO are in negative relationship, thus supports the
hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 of the study, respectively. At last, the LGO work stress results are
r=–0.23 and p < 0.05. It reveals that LGO and work stress are negatively related and
support the hypothesis no.5. PPGO has a positive correlation with work stress r=0.20,
p<0.01, supporting the hypothesis no.6 of the article whereas in the similar fashion
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 30 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
PAGO is positively correlated with work stress at the value r=0.45 and p<0.01 and it
supports the hypotheses 7 of the study.
3.9 Mediation Analysis
In order to test the mediation hypotheses SEM two step technique is used as
suggested by (Anderson & Gerbing’s 1988). It appeals for the model measurement, CFA
preceeds to draw the latent variable structural association. CSE has been studied in many
past studies, items subscales were combined together to comsoitely study the items like
self esteem, efficacy, control over locus and neuroticism etc given by (Judge et al.,
2005). The number of items for PAGO, LGO and PPGO has 4,5 and 4 respectively.
These items are further explored and validated by using CFA and SEM models.The
sample size of this study is (n = 178) and the study includes the number of items for
stress are 28; used to minimize the complexity of mdel (Little, Cunningham, & Shahar,
2002). The item package for the study is not basically subscale. Instead, the items are
used as observed items to be examined under the analysis of SEM. Its is confirmed that
using items parcels in methodology results more in a concrete and meaningful way as
that of the using a vast number of items (Gibbons & Hocevar, 1998; Hall, Snell, & Foust,
1999; Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000).
In order to measure scale, four parcels of 7 items were shaped by calculating the
overall stress scale mean. The packages of item were formed by selecting every fourth
question of stress scale having total of 28 numbers of items. These four items parcels
having the mean and standard deviation as; 2.39 (SD=0.67), 2.26 (SD=0.60), 2.26
(SD=0.38) and 2.27 (SD=0.38). the parcels mean values are reflecting and assuring the
overall mean of the stress scale as it is (i.e. 28 items having M=3.30). Furthermore for
every items package an independent sample t-test was performed. The independent t-test
shows that there is insignificant difference among data packages and overall scale of
work stress. The indicators used for this study for the fitness of the model were (a) chi-
square statistics (b) standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler,
1999), (c) comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) and (d) root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). CFA results of this article indicate that the data
model is fit for the hypothesis established. It specifies that all of the results are in the
acceptable ranges as suggested by the thumb rule
[χ2(179)=267.49;RMSEA=0.053;CFI=0.91;SRMR=0.062]. Moreover, all the observed
variables show the significant loading to confirm the appropriate direction. No specific
modifications are exercised by the study model. Consequently, mediation hypothesis is
tested to the SEM analysis.
Initially, the partial mediation was measured for the study model. This includes
the path from CSE to work stress, from CSE to all the mediators that are LGO, PPGO
and PAGO and in the same direction the path from mediators to the stress. The model
fitness results are satisfactory and good
(χ2(182)=299.38;RMSEA=0.060;CFI=0.93;SRMR=0.083). The fully mediation results
for the model are (χ2(183)=317.73;RMSEA=0.064;CFI=0.92;SRMR=0.096), that shows
that fully mediation results are significantly not as good as that of the partially mediation
model (∆χ2 (1)=18.35 where p<0.001). Moreover, the researcher examined the direct
effect of CSE with stress having a direct relationship. This path model includes CSE
dimension with three mediators namely; LGO, PAGO and PPGO, work stress. The path
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 31 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
of the model from CSE to LGO, PAGO & PPGO and from LGO, PAGO and PPGO to
work stress is contrained to 0. The model direct effect results are
(χ2(188)=367.81;RMSEA=0.073;CFI=0.89; SRMR=0.152) showing that the direct effect
results considerably worse than the partially mediation model (∆χ2 (6)=68.43 where
p<0.001). Hence, it is argued that the partial mediation for the mode best fit the data (In
Figure 2).
As recommended and suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008), when the model
data has more number of mediators, the when multiple mediators are included in a
model, the data effects must be observed collectively. Moreover, Preacher and Hayes
suggested that bias-corrected bootstrapped estimates are used to test the indirect effect of
the model significantly. It is because the product-of-coefficients tests (i.e., Sobel test) are
based upon the normal distribution of the multivariate data, which is seldom attain in
such applications. As bootstrapping measures is not dependent on the multivariate
normal data distribution so Preacher and Hayes recommended it to be highly favorable to
be use instead. However AMOS provides the indirect overall effect of the model but here
the researcher is interested to examine and study the separate indirect effect for each
mediator variable. For this very purpose the phantom modeling approach is used and
highly recommended by (Macho & Ledermann, 2011).
According to Phantom modelling approach in order to examine the indirect
effect for each mediator it creates a series of separate paths constraining to the specicific
values in structural modelling. Exclusively, in order to see the effect of each mediator the
researcher builds a path from CSE to a phantom mediator and from phantom mediator to
the work stress. The value from CSE to phantom mediator is constrained the same as
from CSE to PPGO and the value of PPGO to stress is constrained same for the phantom
mediator to the phantom dependent variable. Hence, these new paths have no impact on
model fit and other parameters of the study model and so do not reveal the degree of any
independence. This new study allows AMOS to just establish a new indirect effect
through the phantom mediator on phantom dependent variable. It constructs the phantom
model for LGO, PPGO & PAGO mediators that divide the indirect overall effect of the
model into each mediator indirect effect, to test the mediators through their regression
values followed by measuring p-values and their confidence intervals. It was important to
test the mediation effect as the CSE and work stress were in the same hypothesized
direction. Bootstrapped tests indicated that the indirect effect of PPGO mediator was
significant with values (β=−0.06, p<0.05), revealing that it supports the hypothesis 8b of
the study. However, the indirect effects for LGO (β=−0.01, p=0.73) and PAGO (β=0.01,
p=0.68) were insignificant and hence it does not supports the hypotheses 8a and 8c of the
study.
3.10 Goal Orientation Variables and CSE Interaction
Among CSE and the goal the interactions was measured through post hoc tests.
It is suggested that the relationship between CSE and work stress variables would be
greater in amount at higher level and vice versa particularly of LGO & PAGO.
Moderated regression comes in action to test the relationship. According to the
recommendations suggested by Howell (2002), researcher formulized the CSE and goal
orientation (GO) dimensions preceeding to form interaction and adding them to the
model. There is no significant moderating relationship especially the dimension of LGO
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 32 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
did not mediate among the relationship of CSE and stress. As in the full model the CSE ×
LGO interaction is insignificant with a value (β=0.11 and p=0.10) and thus in stress
dimension the interaction term does not add any proportion significantly
(∆R2=0.01;F(1,174)=2.68, p=0.10). The same results found for the dimension of PPGO
revealing that interaction term was insignificant given by with value (β=–0.07, p=0.30)
and the CSE x PPGO interaction does not add a significant proportion of variance in the
dimension of stress followed by value (∆R2=.00; F(1,174)=1.703, p=0.30). At last, same
results are obtained for the dimension of CSE x PAGO, results are insignificant as that of
similar to the PPGO and LGO (β=–0.13, p=0.07) and it shows that addition of the
interaction term did not explain a significant proportion of variance in the dimension of
dependent variable work stress (∆R2=0.02;F(1,174)=3.43, p=0.07). Thus, it is concluded
and confirmed by post hoc analysis that none of the goal orientation (GO) dimension
moderates the CSE–Stress relationship.
4. Discussion
In order to brainstorm the effects of stress is a vital thing that enhances the
awareness of the researcher about the relationship among work stress and individual
differences. It is recommended by the previous research that CSE is linked to work stress
(Judge et al., 2002), job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1998) and the job performance (Judge
& Bono, 2001). However, the past studies did not include the goal orientation (GO)
dimention as mediator in the model specifically. This model of the study is examined in
working related environment. It can be concluded that the relationship among CSE and
stress is not a straight forward one, as it include the PPGO as a partial mediator in this
current study. In fact, the current study answer and support the findings of Ruft-Eft’s
(2001) about work stress and learning, as it argue that by making performance goals less
important reduces the stress at work. It is that individual experience the stress is
influenced by the importance of the goal. Moreover, rather than focusing on performing,
individual must focus on the learning that could influence the work stress more.
The current study is an addition to the past literature in the field of stress.
Importantly, this study focus on the relationship among CSE and goal orientation
dimensions. It is proven by the results that LGO is positively related to the CSE
dimension, while PPGO & PAGO has negative effect on CSE dimension. These findings
make the clear observations of goal orientation sub dimensions in important ways.
Particularly, by dividing the PGO dimensions into two sub dimensions like PPGO &
PAGO gives the reader more visible considerations and understanding of one’s self view
(Brett & VandeWalle, 1999). From individual view point the current study may give
dissimilar understanding of Brett and VandeWalle’s conceptualization of the PPGO
dimension. This study reveals that self efficacy and self esteem is negatively influenced
by the PPGO dimension. Though, these findings support the differentiantion proposed by
this VandeWalle’s conceptualization between PPGO and PAGO.
This study also focuses upon the direct relationship among work stress and goal
orientation dimensions. It is found that individuals with higher level of PGO experience
more stress at work whether they are concerned about the PPGO or PAGO dimension of
goal orientation. Goal orientation and work stress dimension creates a conceptual sense
of relationship among these variables. High-LGO individuals, who ususaly see the tasks
challenging one to develop and grow, observe more stress than who conceptualize it as a
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 33 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
“developmental” approach (Porath et al., 2012). In contrast, as individual measure their
level of input and ability on performance so high-PPGO and PAGO individuals
experience more stress as the take in account the “measurement” approach to life.
5. Conclusion
Stress at workplaces are commom in Pakistan because of overwork ,Job
insecurity,low levels of Job satisfaction,nepotism,Leg pulling,unequal distribution of
work load and lack of autonomy.Workplace stress is harmful for Indivuals and as well as
for organizations.It reduce the productivity and profitability of organizations and destroy
the health of employees.Stress can be reduced by the mutual concern of employees and
employers.Change must come from the top ant it is therefore essential for managers to be
aware that they have official and moral liability to protect the health of their employees
by assigning the tasks according to their personality traits and other appropriate practices.
In short, the current study adds up to the past literature and research conducted in the
field of work stress by suggesting that:
(a) Suggesting that work stress is negatively influenced by the dimension
(b) This study also examine the relationship among work stress and goal orientations
(GO) dimensions
(c) Thirdly, this study examine and the relationship among CSE and goal orientation
(GO)
(d) Finally, these findings are helpful for HRD practitioners and scholars to avoid the
experiencing stress in any working environment or work place.
5.1 Recommendations
Our research is concerned with University teachers so there are so many ways to
increase their productivity and reduce their stress at workplaces.
1. Provide modern equipments for research and development.
2. Courses distribution should be according to their expertise.
3. Pay structure should be set according to their qualification and research
publiciations.
4. Equal Employment Opporunties for all.
5. Permanent Jobs should be offer.
5.2 Limitations and Future Directions
Based upon the natural constructs, The PPGO partial mediation effect is lesser in
amount although it is statistically significant in the model. So it reveals that the
relationship among stress and CSE can be influenced by other variables too, but are not
the part of this study. Also, complexity of the job at work place may also be the part of
this relationship and may be studied in some future time. Executive MBA enrolled
students were the participants this current study. The individuals that are the part of a
complex nature of jobs as sample may have more job demands but they may not
experience and may leads to limit the generalizability of the study results. In addition, as
the individuals were enrolled in MBA programm so scaling their personality
characteristics may also experience from constraint of range. Heterogeneous sample may
reflect higher variance among the stated variables of the study. Making comparison of
general population, CSE scores may be positively where as scores for PAGO may be
skewed negatively. This may be because the students may have challenging program as
they were actively involved in graduate program or it may be because learning goals
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 34 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
were deactivated and the performance based were activated one as the data was gathered
from an evaluation-based program. Multiple and diverse occupational settings may leads
to the different outcomes of the study. CSE and Stress relationship must continue to be
researched in future HRD studies.
References
Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K. J., & Bowling, N. A. (2009). Relationships between
personality variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 23, 244–263.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated
with work-to-family confl ict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278–308.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–
423.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2010). Amos 19 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the
impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and
performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 127–152.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-effi cacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Identity, self-concept, and self-esteem: The self lost and found.
In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology ,
681–710.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fi t indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Boerner, S., Dutschke, E., & Wied, S. (2008). Charismatic leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior: Examining the role of stressors and strains. Human Resource
Development International, 11, 507–521.
Bonanno, G. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the
human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist,
59, 72–82.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its
role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality, 17,
S5–S18.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors
regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business
Psychology, 25, 325–334.
DeFrank, R. S., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1998). Stress on the job: An executive update.
Academy of Management Executive, 12, 55–66.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1968). Manual for the Eysenck Personality
Inventory. London, England: Hodder and Stoughton.
The Discourse Volume 03 Number 01
January – June, 2017
Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 35 ISSN: 2521 - 5337
Farren, C. (1999). Stress and productivity: What tips the scale? Strategy and Leadership,
27, 36–37.
Good, L. K., Sisler, G. F., & Gentry, J. W. (1988). Antecedents of turnover intentions
among retail management personnel. Journal of Retailing, 64, 236–239.
Halbesleben, J., & Rotondo, D. M. (2007). Developing social support in employees:
Human resource development lessons from same-career couples. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 9, 544–555.
Johnson, V. A., Radosevich, D. J., & Radosevich, D. M. (2009). Implicit and explicit
self-esteem as antecedents of the goal orientation and cognitive engagement
relationships. Review of Business Research, 164–175.
Joo, B., Jeung, C., & Yoon, H. J. (2010). Investigating the infl uences of core self-
evaluations, job autonomy, and intrinsic motivation on in-role job performance.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 353–371.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Scott, B. A. (2009). The role of core self-
evaluations inthe coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 177–195.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance.Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability:
An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4,
710–718.
Wright, L. A., & Smye, M. D. (1996). Corporate abuse: How lean and mean robs people
and profi ts.New York, NY: Macmillan.
Zivnuska, S., Kiewitz, C., Hochwater, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (2002).
What is toomuch or too little? The curvilinear effects of job tension on turnover
intent, value attainment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32(7), 1344–1360.