Forster 21

Moderating Effect of Personality Variable on Stress-Effectiveness Relationship: An Empirical Study on B-School Students

Shalini SrivastavaDeepti Pathak

AbstractThe purpose of the study is to explore the moderating effect of locus of control on relationship between general role stress and personal effectiveness of management graduates. The present study was done on a sample of 186 management students belonging to different management institutes. Variables in the study were assessed using three validated instruments. Descriptive statistics, Pearson product moment correlation and regression analysis were used to analyze the data. It was found that general stress was negatively related to personal effectiveness and locus of control moderates the relationship between the two. Results confirmed the importance of personality dimension as factor affecting personal effectiveness. It shows that the intensity of stress is reduced if the student focuses on locus of control thus making him more effective. By understanding the relationship between these variables the management institute should conduct and deliver training programmes to actively manage the budding managers. This study is the first of its kind to study the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between general role stress and personal effectiveness.

Key WordsLocus of Control, Personal Effectiveness, General Role Stress, Management Students

Introduction

Changes in the nature of work and productivity demands of a global economy necessitate additional restructuring and reform efforts. As schools and colleges prepare students for careers and productive employment, education will con-tinue to modify its programmes and instructions. As col-leges prepare students for positions of responsibility and leadership, there will be an increased interest and recogn-ition of the importance of contributions of the emotional mind. In short, learning and personal effectiveness con-tribute to academic and career success.

Classrooms are always filled with youngsters display-ing a wide range of concerns and behavioural problems that often make learning in the classroom complex and ineffective. Today the meaning of education is being changed. There is a great pressure on students to attain the highest level of achievement. College success is import-ant to students because it demonstrates that they are meeting the expectation to achieve desired learning goals and, thereby, improves their chances of meeting long-term

personal and career goals. Students’ academic success is important to the institution because it demonstrates the accomplishment of its mission to educate and prepare stu-dents for life beyond college. Student is striving for his identity between institute and corporate, creating needless stress in his life. Students are often found to suffer from poor self-awareness, low self-esteem, lack of motivation, little self-discipline, poor peer interaction, an inability to express feelings effectively and sometimes, a significant amount of role stress.

Personal effectiveness comprises two key areas, namely, ‘personal competence’, how one manages the self, and ‘social competence’, how one manages relationships. While the former essentially implies self-awareness (of internal states, preferences, resources and inhibitions), self-regulation (of internal states, impulses and resources) and motivation (traits that facilitate accomplishing goals); the later comprises empathy (the ability to understand other’s emotions and other’s talents or skills needed to influence, communicate, lead, develop others, manage

Vision15(1) 21–30© 2011 MDI

SAGE PublicationsLos Angeles, London,

New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC

DOI: 10.1177/097226291101500103http://vision.sagepub.com

Article

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

22 Moderating Effect of Personality Variable on Stress-Effectiveness Relationship

Vision, 15, 1 (2011): 21–30

conflicts, promote teamwork or catalyse change) and social skills such as expertise in inculcating desirable responses in others (Bhalla and Nauriyal, 2004; Kierstead, 1999).

Even though the primary attention of education is aca-demic performance, there is simply too much convincing evidence that schools and colleges should not and cannot neglect the development of emotional intelligence skills and other personal and social factors. Emerging trends necessitate new studies and applied research on the con-tributions of the emotional mind and the emotional domain of learning. Building healthy and productive students re-quires the active and intentional development of emotional intelligence skills and competencies as a normal and inte-gral part of the process of education.

Personal Effectiveness

Personal effectiveness is the ability to make a positive and energetic impact onto others by conveying ideas and information clearly and persuasively. It involves planning and prioritizing available means by using interpersonal skills to help build effective working relationships with others and reduce personal stress. In the present study over-all effectiveness in terms of self-disclosure, perceptive-ness and openness to feedback was taken into consideration. Personal variables may include attitudes (for example, motivation, work ethics), self-perceptions (for example, confidence, self-efficacy), behaviours (for example, work organization, study habits), problem solving (for example, critical thinking, decision making) and values (for example, personal references, beliefs). There has been considerable research to indicate that many personal variables have sig-nificant influence on college outcomes. The key to attain-ment of success outcomes in life is the individual’s ability to utilize the personal factors including attitudes, emotions and behaviours that are directly within one’s control. Lyumbomirsky (2008) suggests that 50 per cent of the outcome is determined by the ‘setpoint’, primarily genetic qualities, and another 10 per cent is determined by the con-text or ‘circumstances’ in which one lives; however, the key to success is the remaining 40 per cent which includes the variables a person may directly influence. Satisfaction, happiness and success are manifested by putting effort into the variables in which one has control.

Empirical studies of personal influence factors have provided evidence to suggest that relationships exist be-tween personal variables and college performance (Chemers et al., 2001; Davidson and Beck, 2006; Friedlander et al., 2007; Lahmers and Zulauf, 2000; Macan et al., 1990; Robbins et al., 2006). Understanding the relationship be-tween certain personal variables and outcomes provides the opportunity for designing educational and supportive intervention strategies.

General Role Stress

Stress exists from the change in individuals’ thinking and their lifestyle nowadays. Now, individuals have changed their perception and the way they interpret this life. Stu-dents in their teen are the ones who are going through the transitional phase, which is an intermediate of childhood and adulthood. In order to stabilize these changes, the stu-dents are always confronted with problems and conflicts (Asri, 2002). For some students who are not capable of dealing with it, the changes will create stress and tension to them. If it is not dealt with in the early stages, the student may experience mental problems (Newman, 2005).

College students are at a critical period where they will enter adulthood. They are expected to be the elites in the society. Thus, they should enhance their stress manage-ment abilities so as to live a healthy life after entering the society. Adolescence is a dangerous period of time where young people experience self-organization and role con-fusion. For them, stress mainly comes from academic tests, interpersonal relations, relationship problems, life changes and career exploration. Such stress may usually cause psychological, physical and behavioural problems.

The dynamic relationship between the person and envir-onment in stress perception and reaction is especially mag-nified in college students, so the problems and situations encountered by students may differ from those faced by their non-student peers (Hirsch and Ellis, 1996). Stress is believed to be caused by the various problems that exist such as problems at school, financial problems, family problems and problems in their surroundings. Students also experience stress because they are sometimes trapped between making decisions which is to follow rules and orders or to be free and discover the world like they should. Morris (1990) stated that teenagers always face stress in school and they compete each other to get better grades. Levine (1970, cited in Dobson, 1980) explained that stress has a relationship with a specific situation like a learning environment in school and the inability to do work perfectly and the failure to achieve anything that is desired.

In life there are many unusual, unpleasant and threaten-ing experiences which put people under stress. If that stress is too severe or if it is perceived as such, it can lead to damaging psychological effects. Lazarus (1966) suggested that perception of threat is influenced not only by char-acteristics of the stimulus but also by characteristics of the perceiving individual. One of these personal factors is the individual’s locus of control orientation. Individuals with internal locus of control perceive the outcomes of their lives as resulting from their own behaviour, whereas people with external locus of control attribute control to chance, fate or powerful others. Individuals who attribute control to external factors perceive the world differently than those

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

Shalini Srivastava and Deepti Pathak 23

Vision, 15, 1 (2011): 21–30

who believe that they have personal control. Externals are more prone to perceive threat because they believe that they lack control, whereas internals tend to see situations as controllable and therefore perceive less threat (Levenson, 1981).

When people are confronted with stress they face two challenges: meeting the requirements of the stress situation and protecting the self from psychological disorganization (Lazarus, 1993, 2000). When they feel competent to handle the stress, they may opt for problem-focused coping; when they doubt their own competencies, emotion-focussed cop-ing may prevail.

The existence of stress depends on the existence of the stressor. Feng (1992) and Volpe (2000) defined stressor as anything that challenges an individual’s adaptability or stimulates an individual’s body or mentality. Stress can be caused by environmental factors, psychological factors, biological factors and social factors. According to Chang’s Dictionary of Psychology Terms, stress is a state of physical or mental tension that causes emotional distress or even feeling of pain to an individual (Lai et al., 1996).

Locus of Control

The locus of control is a concept in psychology, originally developed by Julian Rotter in the 1950s. The two ‘loci’, as established by the theory, are the internal and external loci. The locus of control represents how a person’s decision-making ability is influenced; essentially, those who make choices primarily on their own are considered to have in-ternal loci, while those who make decisions based more on what others desire are said to have external loci. People with external loci are generally more apt to be stressed and suffer from depression as they are more aware of work situations and life strains. Having an internal locus of con-trol can also be referred to as ‘personal control’, ‘self-determination’, etc.

As an aspect of personality, locus of control measures an individual’s expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement (Rotter, 1966). Specifically, it refers ‘to the extent to which people believe they or external factors such as chance and powerful others are in control of the events that influence their lives’ (Firth et al., 2004).

In the workplace, employees who perceive higher levels of control report higher levels of satisfaction, motiva-tion, commitment and involvement (Spector, 1986). Van Raalte et al. (1991) found the more psychology students believed their actions allowed them to take some control over chance events, the more likely they were to exhibit superstitious behaviour. An earlier study found a positive relationship between an external locus of control and belief in self-oriented superstitions (Peterson, 1978). In contrast, Groth-Marnat and Pegden (1998) found in a study of

undergraduate students that an internal locus of control was related to stronger beliefs in superstitions. Tobacyk et al. (1988) found that greater personal efficacy control and greater interpersonal control corresponded with less belief in superstition. Also, low belief in self-efficacy in undergraduate students was positively linked with super-stitious behaviours (Tobacyk and Shrader, 1991). Rudski (2004) found that pessimism was positively correlated with a belief in superstitions. Optimism has been associated with an internal locus of control and pessimism with an ex-ternal locus of control (Dember et al., 1989).

In the health field, older women with an internal locus of health control view particular health threats as more controllable or preventable (Gerend et al., 2004). The re-sulting behaviour was a lower perception of general sus-ceptibility to disease. In the same study women with an external locus of control believed themselves to have a higher susceptibility to particular diseases because they viewed health risks as less preventable and controllable (Gerend et al., 2004). With depressed patients (Alloy and Abramson, 1979), there was less likelihood to assume an illusion of control in the absence of a contingency between behaviour and a desired outcome than the non-depressed patients.

Rudski (2001) placed undergraduate students in a com-petitive environment to measure superstition and illusion of control. When students were placed in a winning condi-tion in a competitive environment they did increase their superstitious belief. Rudski found a link supporting self-efficacy and increased use of superstition. In another study, Rudski et al. (1999) evaluated superstitious rules created by participants when solving a task without instructions and the relationship with locus of control. Locus of control showed no relationship with superstitious rule generation. This supports the findings of Tennen and Sharp (1983) which also suggested that locus of control does not affect illusion of control in a given situation.

Cummins (1989) and Kobasa and Puccetti (1983) sup-ported the hypothesis that relationship between stress and strain is moderated by locus of control personality. Strain can be related to the impact that stress has on effectiveness or ineffectiveness in the work area. The direct and mod-erating effects locus of control has on work have been demonstrated in Chinese societies. In Hong Kong, it has been found that externals have lower job satisfaction and greater quitting intentions among employees; and work locus of control moderated the stress–strain relationships, in which a negative relationship between stressors and job satisfaction was found significant among externals (Siu and Cooper, 1998).

In an interesting study by Noor (2002), it was found that the internal orientation is not always associated with positive outcomes. In her study, locus of control could not

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

24 Moderating Effect of Personality Variable on Stress-Effectiveness Relationship

Vision, 15, 1 (2011): 21–30

moderate the relationship between conflict and job satis-faction showing that internal beliefs could not help those experiencing high conflict.

Review of Literature

Since the publication of Rotter’s original paper dealing with the locus of control construct (Rotter, 1966), there has been increasing interest in the relationship between locus of control and the performance variable. For example, Durand and Shea (1974) showed that activity scores of internal entrepreneurs were significantly higher than those of external entrepreneurs on a business activity index. The rationale for this relationship usually follows the argument that individuals who attribute responsibility for their per-formance to themselves tend to assume that they can cause certain changes in their environment (they apply specific decision patterns) which in turn leads to an increase in motivation. Other authors including Mitchell et al. (1975), Lawler (1973) and Phares (1973) have followed this argu-ment by relating the locus of control paradigm to expect-ancy theory. In general, their conclusions seem to indicate that locus of control is at least related to the effort–performance expectancy, and has a somewhat weaker relationship to the performance–reward expectancy; that is, internals appear to show increased motivation on achievement-type tasks. Anderson (1976) demonstrated a relationship between perceived stress and performance and found that this relationship followed the inverted-U pattern. It was indicated that this was due to the decision patterns followed by the manager/entrepreneurs.

A task-oriented decision pattern closely corresponded to the performance curve while the emotional decision pattern was not related to short-run measures of performance. The study in this report is concerned with an attempt to examine the effect of the locus of control variable on this relationship. It was hypothesized that the locus of control variable is a common factor which leads to differences in stress per-ception and use of decision behaviours; it ultimately affects the performance variable through its influence on the decision behaviours.

Second, the effect of long-term success or failure in performance is examined as a possible determinant of the stability of this particular personality dimension. The effectiveness as per the situation is also contingent upon the number of factors. In one study, Seery et al. (2004) examined the notion that individuals with unstable high self-esteem possess implicit self-doubt.

While Rahim (1996) stated internals perceive less stress than externals, Kobasa et al. (1982) found convincing evi-dence to support that personality factors operate as stress

buffers, which suggests that the relationships in the stress process is moderated by locus of control personality dis-positions. Since uncertainty is a major contributor to stress, and a lack of control aids in the perception of situational stress (Buck, 1972), the degree to which an employee per-ceives his/her ability to control the environment can mod-erate the influence of felt stress on both job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

The pressure to earn good grades and to earn a degree is very high (Hirsch and Ellis, 1996). Earning high grades is not the only source of stress for students. Other potential sources of stress include excessive homework, unclear assignments and uncomfortable classrooms (Kohn and Frazer, 1986). In addition to academic requirements, rela-tions with faculty members and time pressures may also be sources of stress (Sgan-Cohen and Lowental, 1988). Rela-tionships with family and friends, eating habits and lone-liness may affect some students adversely (Wright, 1967). We believe that many of these sources of stress are also applicable in the urban Indian context. Gohm et al. (2005) examined the association between emotional intelligence as assessed by an ability measure. Mayer, Salovey and Caruso conducted emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT; Mayer et al., 2002) and studied stress (feelings of inability to control life vents) among American students. They found that overall emotional intelligence was potentially useful in reducing stress for some people, but irrelevant or unneces-sary for others.

Carriochi et al. (2002) and Salovey et al. (2002) found evidence that emotional intelligence moderates the rela-tionship between stress and mental health. Furnham et al. (2002) showed that personal effectiveness is related to healthy social coping styles. Research has shown the im-portance of not only perceptions of control in the immediate work environment, but also of a person’s more general beliefs about control. Locus of control, perhaps the most studied control-related variable, reflects a person’s belief in personal control in life (internality) rather than in control by outside forces or individuals (externality). It has been noted that internal control beliefs are an important com-ponent of emotional adjustment and ability to handle stress in general life (for example, Kobasa et al., 1982) and at work (Spector, 1982). Locus of control in the workplace in particular (that is, belief that one has control at work) has likewise been linked to employee well-being (for example, Spector, 1988; Spector and O’Connell, 1994). In sum, re-search supports the notion that internality is associated with positive well-being both on and off the job.

Many studies have been conducted on this concept and its relationship to such concepts as job stress, job satis-faction and organizational commitment (Marks, 1977). Specifically several studies have identified the interaction

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

Shalini Srivastava and Deepti Pathak 25

Vision, 15, 1 (2011): 21–30

between locus of control and job stress (Daniels and Guppy, 1992; Rahim, 1996), job satisfaction and job performance (Judge et al., 2003). As an aspect of personality, locus of control measures an individual’s expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement (Rotter, 1966).

Spector (1982) has made the point that personality vari-ables play an important role in understanding of a range of behaviours at the workplace. Locus of control is perhaps one of the most prominent personality variables that has been studied in a variety of work and organizational settings. Both O’Brien (1983) and Spector (1982) have provided reviews of this personality dimension as related to the work context. Findings generally suggest that internal subjects tend to be more satisfied with their jobs than do external ones, see their supervisors as higher on considera-tion and initiating structure report less role stress, perceive more autonomy and control, and tend to favour long job tenure. For internal subjects, attainment in the work con-text is seen to be more under their control and come as a result of effort. A study investigated whether the leader’s locus of control moderated the relationship between per-ceived leader influence behaviours and certain subordinate outcome variable. The results showed that locus of control did significantly moderate the effect of supervisor’s influ-ence on productivity and subordinate’s satisfaction with supervision (Johnson et al., 1984).

Research has frequently demonstrated that ‘internals’ tolerate role ambiguity and role conflict better than ‘ex-ternals’ and are less stressed (Jackson and Schuler, 1985; Organ and Greene, 1974; Szilagye et al., 1976). Locus of control may be particularly important to study where many people have been raised to believe that fate plays a big part in their success. External locus of control was associated with low job satisfaction and psychological distress.

Singh and Rhoads (1991) found that those with an in-ternal locus of control experience less role ambiguity, since they tend to be better informed about their role and task environment. Similarly, Von Emster and Harrison (1998) argued that ‘internals’ have a great sense of control over situations and experience less role ambiguity as a result. Pestonjee and Singh (1981) investigated the moderating effect of locus of control on the stress and job satisfaction relationship in 101 role incumbents of a private electricity supply company. The authors concluded on the basis of their study that one way to reduce stress is to provide a better fit between the job’s demands and the person’s physiological and social needs. For example, internals can be assigned those jobs which involve greater integrity and sense of responsibility, whereas jobs which make lesser demands on the ability, motivation, etc., are best suited for externals. Research has indicated that locus of control moderated the relationships between self-role distance and

satisfaction with the job, self-role distance and satisfaction with on-the-job situations, self-role distance and satis-faction as a whole, role ambiguity and satisfaction with the job, and role isolation and personal adjustment (Pestonjee and Singh, 1983).

Support from a variety of sources focusing on problems at work was found to be stress buffering for internals whereas supervisory support was directly related to job satisfaction for externals (Cummins, 1989). A further re-search indicated that externally controlled subjects per-ceived more stress in three areas, namely, role expectation conflict, role overload and role ambiguity (Malik and Sabharwal, 1999). Locus of control was a significant and positive predictor of job satisfaction (Abdel-Halim, 1980).

Objective of the Study

The objective of this study is to find out the moderating effect of locus of control on stress–personal effectiveness relationship.

Hypotheses:

H1: General role stress is negatively related to personal effectiveness.H2: Internal locus of control moderates the relationship be-tween general role stress and personal effectiveness.

Research Methodology

Sampling

The sample for this study consisted of management insti-tutes of Delhi and NCR region. Sample of 200 students were taken, out of which 14 questionnaires were rejected. Thus, the analysis was done on the sample of 186 students.

Research Instruments

Locus of Control Inventory (LOCO)

This scale was developed by Udai Pareek (1992). The LOCO inventory has 10 items each for internality, extern-ality (others) and externality (luck). A 5-point scale is used in scoring responses ranging from ‘hardly feel’ (0) to ‘strongly feel’ (4). An example item is: ‘The cause of my career largely depends on me and My promotion in the organization depends mostly on my ability and effort.’ The three dimensions of locus of control are: Internal (I), External (E-O), External (E-C). Out of the three dimensions only one dimension, namely internal locus of control, was found to be significant (α = 0.82).

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

26 Moderating Effect of Personality Variable on Stress-Effectiveness Relationship

Vision, 15, 1 (2011): 21–30

Personal Effectiveness Scale-Students (PE Scale-S)

This scale was developed by Udai Pareek. The scale gives the profile in terms of self-disclosure, openness to feed-back and perceptiveness. It contains 15 statements, five for each aspect. A 5-point scale is used in scoring responses ranging from ‘not at all true’ (0) to ‘most characteristic of you’ (4). Overall effectiveness was found to be significant (α = 0.78).

General Role Stress Scale-Students (GRS Scale-S)

This scale was developed by Udai Pareek. The scale gives the profile in terms of self-disclosure, openness to feed-back and perceptiveness. It contains 12 statements, three for each aspect. A 5-point scale is used in scoring responses ranging from ‘not at all true’ (0) to ‘most characteristic of you’ (4). In the present study all four factors self-role dis-tance (α = 0.76), inter-role distance (α = 0.72), role boun-dedness (α = 0.75) and personal inadequacy (α = 0.71) were found to be significant.

As seen from Table 1, the instruments used in the study were reliable with coefficients ranging from 0.71 to 0.82, which exceeded the minimum acceptance level of 0.70 (Nunnaly, 1978).

Table 2 shows the mean and SDs of the variables under study. The mean score computed for internal locus of

control was 22.26 and standard deviation was 5.1. The mean for personal effectiveness was 35.35 with a standard deviation score of 8.56.

The table further shows that personal effectiveness is negatively and significantly related to all dimensions of general role stress at 0.01 level of significance. Thus, the first hypothesis of the research is proved.

To analyze the second hypothesis, that is, internal locus of control moderates the relationship between general role stress and personal effectiveness, hierarchical regression analysis was applied.

As shown in Table 3, when four general role stress vari-ables were entered into the regression analysis in the first step, the coefficient of determination (R2) was found to be 0.242 indicating that 24.2 per cent of personal effective-ness is explained by the independent general role stress variables. As observed, all the four independent variables were found to have a negative and significant effect on per-sonal effectiveness. These results provided full support for the first hypothesis of the study. In step 2, to test whether internal locus of control serves as an independent variable, a second regression was undertaken. The R2 increased from 24.2 per cent to 51.2 per cent indicating a change of 27 per cent, which is significant (p < 0.01). The F-statistics is significant (p = 0.000) suggesting that the proposed model was adequate. As can be seen from Table 2, internal locus of control had a positive relationship with personal effect-iveness (r = 0.52, p < 0.01). To examine the moderating effects of internal locus of control, a third regression model was developed by adding the interaction terms. It can be observed from the Table 3 that additional variance ex-plained by interaction terms (33.1 per cent) was significant (p < 0.01) indicating that there is a moderation effect. The results derived from the final step provided full support for the second hypothesis of the study.

Discussion and Conclusion

The changing dimensions of education have created pres-sure on students to attain higher level of achievement. The

Table 2. Mean, SD and Correlations of the Computed Variables under Study

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

Self-role distanceInter-role distanceRole boundednessPersonal inadequacyInternal locus of controlPersonal effectivenessMeanSD

1 0.38∗∗ 1 0.31∗∗ 0.43∗∗ 1 0.36∗∗ 0.31∗∗ 0.26∗∗ 1 0.35∗∗ 0.44∗∗ 0.36∗∗ 0.41∗∗ 1 –0.31∗∗ –0.23∗∗ –0.32∗∗ –0.31∗∗ 0.52∗∗ 1 7.02 9.26 13.47 11.12 22.26 35.35 2.57 3.18 4.26 3.02 5.1 8.56

Source: The results are obtained from the sample of population studied and the analysis was done through SPSS. Note: N = 106; ∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗p < 0.05

Table 1. Reliability Coefficient of Instruments

Variables No. of Items Cronbach α

Self-role distanceInter-role distanceRole boundednessPersonal inadequacyInternal locus of controlPersonal effectiveness

3333

1015

0.760.720.750.710.820.78

Source: The results depicted in this table are obtained after testing the reliability of the instruments using SPSS.NOT FOR C

OMMERCIAL U

SE

Shalini Srivastava and Deepti Pathak 27

Vision, 15, 1 (2011): 21–30

authors were not able to locate any papers which seek to explore impact of stress on personal effectiveness of stu-ents. Therefore, the results are supported by previous stud-ies done on relationship between stress and effectiveness in managerial context.

The present study aimed to investigate two major as-pects. First, it attempted to identify the relationship be-tween general role stress and personal effectiveness. The second aspect was to examine the moderating effect of internal locus of control on the relationship between per-sonal effectiveness and general role stress. Through this an attempt was made to identify the impact of internal locus of control on the relationship between personal effectiveness and general role stress.

Our first result shows that general role stress is nega-tively related to personal effectiveness; it is proved by the results derived in Table 2. It was found that all the four dimensions of general role stress are negatively correlated to the personal effectiveness (r = –0.38, –0.47, –0.56 and –0.41 respectively, p < 0.01). In other words, a student who is able to deal with stress in a healthy and positive way will be more effective as compared to the student who considers stress as a barrier. This is being indirectly supported by the earlier studies done by Ahmed A. Abdel-Halim (1978) which examine the relative importance of each of three role variables—role conflict, ambiguity and overload—as sources of stress and dissatisfaction among managerial-level personnel. Results show that role ambiguity has the strongest relationships with role responses in the predicted directions. Another study conducted by Elovainio et al. (2002) indirectly supports the present study. It suggests that organizational stress inadvertently results in low organ-izational performance. Stress makes the person strained

which reflects in his or her performance. So, if a student is able to face the stress intrepidly, he or she will perform well and as a result will be considered more effective.

The second hypothesis that internal locus of control moderates the relationship between general role stress and personal effectiveness is also proved by our results. In other words, when internal locus of control acted as a mod-erator, the impact that stress had on effectiveness was reduced to some extent. Student, who has internal locus of control, will perceive role stress in a healthy way and try to understand and solve the conflicting expectations of others in a mature manner. Same goes for personal inadequacy. If students realize that they are inadequate, and that inad-equacy is due to internal factors for which they are re-sponsible, they will try to overcome it and will be more effective. This is supported by the study on the behaviour of entrepreneurs and managers, where Rahim (1996) con-cluded that a person with high internal locus of control believes that they can cope with stress functionally and more effectively than someone with high external locus of control. Tweng et al. (2004) in his research work con-cluded that externality is correlated with poor school achievement, helplessness, ineffective stress management, decreased self-control and depression. A study conducted by Anderson and Faust (1973) indirectly supports the present study. They found that students with internal locus of control did not report a higher level of stress/anxiety as compared to their external counterparts. Anderson (1976) found that perceived stress negatively affects the perform-ance of an individual. He found that internals see a strong relationship between their task behaviour and goal accom-plishment; they are achievement oriented. Such an orien-tation has been shown to lead consistently its task-oriented

Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Results

Independent Variables Std Beta (Model 1) Std Beta (Model 2) Std Beta (Model 3)

Model VariablesSelf-role distance –0.312∗∗ –0.126∗∗ 0.212∗∗Inter-role distance –0.234∗∗ –0.224∗∗ 0.128∗∗Role boundedness –0.326∗∗ –0.321∗∗ 0.316∗∗Personal inadequacy –0.308∗∗ –0.224∗∗ 0.208∗∗

Moderating VariableInternal locus of control (ILOC) 0.520∗∗ 3.186∗∗

Interaction TermsSelf-role distance × ILOC 0.233∗∗Inter-role distance × ILOC 0.162∗∗Role boundedness × ILOC 0.328∗∗Personal inadequacy × ILOC 0.236∗∗R² 0.242 0.512 0.843Adj. R² 0.236 0.511 0.841R² change 0.242 0.270 0.331F change 0.000 0.000 0.000

Source: The results are obtained from the sample of population studied and the analysis was done through SPSS.Note: ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗p < 0.05

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

28 Moderating Effect of Personality Variable on Stress-Effectiveness Relationship

Vision, 15, 1 (2011): 21–30

behaviour by Durand and Shea (1974), Durand (1975) and others. Research has frequently demonstrated that ‘inter-nals’ tolerate role ambiguity and role conflict better than ‘externals’ and are less stressed (Organ and Greene, 1974; Szilagye et al., 1976; Jackson and Schuler, 1985). Kalbers and Fogarty (2005) found that individuals with an internal locus of control are less likely to experience a high level of stress but external locus of control people are more vul-nerable to stress and are more likely to perceive certain events as stressful. Singh and Rhoads (1991) found that those with an internal locus of control experience less self-role distance, since they tend to be better informed about their role and task environment.

It was found in the result that the students with high per-sonal effectiveness and internal locus of control experience less amount of stress in their lives as compared to others. It further says that students with an external locus of control orientation, who believe they have little or no control over their environment, are less likely to assume personal re-sponsibility for their course performance and are more prone to blame powerful others or outside factors, such as luck or fate, to explain observed outcomes which in turn creates higher level of stress in their lives.

It can be concluded from the study that locus of control, which represents an important personality dimension, is associated with personal effectiveness. As predicted, inter-nally controlled students have been found to be higher on overall personal effectiveness and stress management. In order to be effective as managers, it is very much essential that students should try to reduce the stress faced due to organizational variables.

There should be more social and institutional support as well as better resources and opportunity to extend collab-orative relationship among B-schools and students, and to develop appropriate coping strategies.

Contribution of the Present Study

The findings of this study are indeed significant for B-schools. The results of this study indicate that it is possi-ble to identify the potentials of students from the point of view of placement in short run and their prospective career growth in the long run. The findings of this study can assist training and placement department and faculty members to design suitable mentoring programme for their students. The students can be counselled to monitor their efforts for desirable goal by strengthening the internal locus of con-trol. By developing a better understanding of self, students may develop their overall effectiveness and design stress-coping strategies to reduce role-related stress.

Limitations and Scope for Future Research

The authors were not able to come across any research work seeking the influence of internal locus of control on the relationship between personal effectiveness and general role stress among management graduates. This indicates a good area for future study.

ReferencesAbdel-Halim, A. (1978). Personnel psychology. Employee Affect-

ive Responses to Organizational Stress: Moderating Effects of Job Characteristics Personnel Psychology, 31(3), 561–579.

———. (1980). Effects of person-job compatibility on man-agerial reactions to role ambiguity. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 193–211.

Alloy, L.B., & Abramson, L.Y. (1979). Judgment of contin-gency in depressed and non depressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 108(4), December, 441–485.

Anderson, C.R. (1976). Coping behaviors as intervening mech-anisms in the inverted-U stress-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 30–34.

Anderson, R.G., & Faust, G.W. (1973). Educational psychology: The science of instruction and learning. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.

Asri, Mohamad (2002). Assessing learning outcomes of infor-mation literacy programmes: Malaysian academic libraries. Paper presented at the International Conference on Libraries: Towards a Knowledge Society, Penang, 14–16 March.

Bhalla, S., & Nauriyal, D.K. (2004). Emotional intelligence: The emerging paradigm in personnel dynamics. Psychological Studies, 49(2), 97–106.

Buck, V.E. (1972). Working under pressure. London: Staples Press.

Chemers, M.M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjust-ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55–64.

Carriochi, J., Deane, F.P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between stress and mental health. Personality & Individual Differences, 32(2), 197–209.

Cummins, R. (1989). Locus of control and social support: Clari-fiers of the relationship between job stress and job satis-faction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 772–786.

Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1992). Control, information seeking preferences, occupational stressors, and psychological well-being. Work and Stress, October–December, 347–353.

Davidson, W.B., & Beck, H.P. (2006). Using the survey of academic orientations to predict undergraduate stress levels. NACADA Journal, 26, 13–20.

Dember, W.N., Martin, S.H., Hummer, M.K., Howe, S.R., & Melton, R.S. (1989). The measurement of optimism and pessimism. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 8, 109–119.

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

Shalini Srivastava and Deepti Pathak 29

Vision, 15, 1 (2011): 21–30

Dobson, C.B. (1980). Sources of sixth social support from stress. Journal of Adolescent, 3, 65–75.

Durand, D.E. (1975). Relation of achievement and power motives to performance among black business. Psychological Reports, 37, 11–14.

Durand, D., & Shea, D. (1974). Entrepreneurial activity as a func-tion of achievement motivation and reinforcement control. Journal of Psychology, 88, 57–63.

Elovainio, M., Kivimaki, M., & Vahtera, J. (2002). Organisational justice: Evidence of a new psychological predictor of health. American Journal of Public Health, 92(1), 105–108.

Feng, G.F. (1992). Management of stress and loss. Taipei: Psychological Publishing Co. Ltd.

Firth, L., Mellor, D.J., Moore, K.A., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduce employee intention to quit? Journal Managerial Psychology, 19(1&2), 170–187.

Friedlander, L.J., Reid, G.J., Shupak, N., & Crribie, R. (2007). Social support, self-esteem, stress as predictors of adjustment to university among first year undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223–236.

Furnham, A., Petrides, K.V., & Spencer-Bowdage, S. (2002). The effects of different types of social desirability on the identi-fication of repressors. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 119–130.

Gerend, M., Aiken, L., & West, S.G. (2004). Personality factors in older women’s perceived susceptibility to diseases of aging. Journal of Personality, 72, 243–270.

Gohm, C.L., Corser, G.C., & Dalsky, D.J. (2005). Emotional intelligence under stress: Useful, unnecessary, or relevant? Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1017–1028.

Groth-Marnat, G., & Pegden, J., (1998). Personality correlates if paranormal belief: Locus of control and sensation seeking. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 291–296.

Hirsch, J.K., & Ellis, J.B. (1996). Differences in life stress and reasons for living among college suicide ideators and non-Ideators. College Student Journal, 30, 377–384.

Jackson, S., & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta-analysis and concep-tual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 36, 16–78.

Johnson, A.L., Luthans, F., & Hennessey, H.W. (1984). The role of locus of control in leader influence behavior. Personnel Psychology, 37(1), 61–75.

Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E., & Thoresen, C.J. (2003). The core-self evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–333.

Kalbers, L.P., & Fogarty, T.J. (2005). Antecedents to internal auditor burnout. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(1), 101–118.

Kierstead, J. (1999). Human resource management trends and issues: (EI) in the workplace. Research Directorate, Policy Research & Communication Branch, Public Service Com-mission Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada.

Kobasa, S.C., & Puccetti, M.C. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress resistance. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 45, 839–850.

Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 168–177.

Kohn, J.P., & Frazer, G.H. (1986). An academic stress scale: Identification and rated importance of academic stressors. Psychological Reports, 59, 415–426.

Lahmers, A., & Zulauf, C. (2000). Factors associated with academic time use and academic performance of college students: A recursive approach. Journal of College Student Development, 41(5), 544–556.

Lai, P.C., Chao, W.C., Chanf, Y.Y., & Chang, T.T. (1996). Adolescent psychology. Taipei: National Open University.

Lawler, E.E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, Cal.: Brooks-Cole.

Lazarus, P.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating between internality, power-ful others, and chance. In H.M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct Vol. 1 (pp. 15–63). New York: Academic Press.

Lyumbomirsky, S. (2008). The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want. London: Piatkus.

Macan, T.H., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R.L., & Philips, A.P. (1990). College student’s time management: Correlations with academic performance & stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 760–768.

Malik, A.K., & Sabharwal, M. (1999). Locus of control as deter-minant of organizational role stress. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, January–July, 25(1&2), 4–61.

Marks, S.R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42, 921–936.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D.R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Mitchell, T.R., & Nebeker, D. (1973). Expectancy theory pre-dictions of academic effort and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 61–67.

Morris, C.G. (1990). Contemporary psychology and effective behaviour (7th edition). Glenview, IL: Scoptt & Foresman.

Newman, J. (2005). Early life stress linked to teenage mental problems. Oregon: Oregon Health & Science University.

Noor, N.M. (2002). Work-family conflict, locus of control, and women’s well-being: Tests of alternative pathways. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(2), 645–662.

Nunnally, J.G. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Brien, G.E. (1983). Locus of control, work, and retirement. In H.M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research in locus of control, Vol. 3 (pp. 1250–1257). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Organ, D., & Greene, C. (1974). Role ambiguity, locus of control and work satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 101–102.

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE

30 Moderating Effect of Personality Variable on Stress-Effectiveness Relationship

Vision, 15, 1 (2011): 21–30

Pareek, Udai. (1992). Locus of control inventory. In J.W. Pfeiffer (Ed.), The 1992 annual: Developing human resources (pp. 135–148). San Diego, California: University Associates.

Pestonjee, D.M., & Singh, U.B. (1981). Locus of control as moderator of stress-satisfaction relationship. Working Paper No. 402, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

Pestonjee, D.M., & Singh, G.P. (1983). EDP Managers: An organ-izational behavior study. Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

Peterson, C. (1978). Locus of control and belief in self-oriented superstitions. Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 305–306.

Phares, E.J. (1973). Locus of control: A personality determinant of behavior. Horrlstown, R.J.: General Learning Press.

Rahim, A. (1996). Stress, strain, and their moderators: An em-pirical comparison of entrepreneurs and managers. Journal of Small Business Management, 34(1), 46–58.

Robbins, S.P., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C.H., & Le, H. (2006). Unraveling the differential effects of motivational and skills, social & self-management measures from traditional predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 598–616.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28.

Rudski, J. (2004). The illusion of control, superstitious belief, and optimism, Current Psychology, 22, 306–315.

Rudski, J.M. (2001). Competition, superstition, and the illusion of control. Current Psychology, 20, 68–84.

Rudski, J.M., Lischner, M.I., & Albert, L.M. (1999). Superstitious rule generation is affected by probability and type of out-come. Psychological Record, 49, 245–260.

Salovey, P., Stroud, L.R., Woolery, A., & Epel, E.S. (2002). Per-ceived emotional intelligence, stress reactivity and symptom reports: Further explorations using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychology and Health, 17, 611–627.

Seery, M.D., Blascovich, J., Weisbuch, M., & Vick, S.B. (2004). The relationship between self-esteem level, self-esteem stability, and cardiovascular reactions to the performance feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 133–145.

Sgan-Cohen, H.D., & Lowental, U. (1988). Sources of stress among Israeli dental students. The Journal of the American College Health Association, 36, 317–321.

Singh, J., & Rhoads, G.K. (1991). Boundary role ambiguity in marketing-oriented positions: A multidimensional, multi-faceted operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 328–338.

Siu, O.L., & Cooper, C.L. (1998). A study of occupational stress and job satisfaction and quitting intention in Hong Kong firms. Stress Medicine, 14, 55–66.

Spector, P.E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482–497.

Spector, P.E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.

———. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335–340.

Spector, P.E., & O’Connel, B.J. (1994). The contribution of per-sonality traits, negative affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent reports of job stressors and job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 1–4.

Szillagyi, A.D. Jr, Sims, H.P. Jr, & Keller, R.T. (1976). Role dynamics, locus of control and employees attitudes & behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 19(2), 259–276.

Tennen, H., & Sharp, J.P. (1983). Control orientation and the illusion of control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 369–374.

Tobacyk, J.J., Nagot, E., & Miller, M. (1988). Paranormal beliefs and locus of control: A multidimensional examination. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 241–246.

Tobacyk, J.J., & Shrader, D. (1991). Superstition and self-efficacy. Psychological Reports, 68(1), 387–1388.

Twenge, J.M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960–2002. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 308–319.

Van Raalte, J.L., Brewer, B.W., Newmeroff, C.J., & Linder, D.E. (1991). Chance orientation and superstitious behavior on the putting green. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 14, 41–50.

Volpe, J.F. (2000). A guide to effective stress management. Career and Technical Education, 48(10), 183–188.

Von Emster, G.R., & Harrison, A.A. (1998). Role ambiguity, spheres of control, burnout, and work-related attitudes of teleservice professionals. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 375–385.

Wright, J.J. (1967). Reported personal stress sources and adjust-ment of entering freshmen. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14(4), 371–373.

Shalini Srivastava (shalinisrivastava2@gmail.com) is working as an Associate Professor—OB & HRM at Jaipuria Institute of Management, NOIDA, UP, India. She has done her Doctorate in Psychology from Lucknow University. Her research papers have been published in refereed journals like, among others, Vikalpa, Vision, MLS, Abhigyaan, Drishtikon and Management & Change. Her areas of interest are Team Building, Emotional Intelligence and Managerial Effectiveness.

Deepti Pathak (pathakdeepti2000@gmail.com) is an Assistant Professor—OB & HRM at Galgotias Business School, NOIDA, UP, India. She has submitted her Ph.D. thesis on HR to Kumaun University, Nainital. She has more than five years of teaching experience in the field of OB & HR. Her areas of interest are team building, conflict management and personal effectiveness.

NOT FOR COMMERCIA

L USE