Comparative analysis of the occupational stress profiles of male versus female administrators

Journal of Vocational Behavior 17, 344-355 (1980)

Comparative Analysis of the Occupational Stress Profiles of Male versus Female Administrators

ROSALIE L. TUNG

University of Oregon

This study sought: (1) to compare the occupational stress profiles of male versus female educational administrators to deternine whether there were significant differences in their profiles, and (2) to examine whether males and females were equally good candidates for administrative jobs, which positions are often as- sociated with a high degree of job-related stress. A 35-item questionnaire, known as the Administrative Stress Index (ASI) was sent to all members of the Confeder- ation of Oregon School Administrators (n = 1855). The 1156 usable questionnaires were returned. Approximatley 9.3% (or 108) of the respondents were female. One-way analyses of variance showed that female administrators experienced substantially lower levels of self-perceived occupational stress than their male counterparts. Findings were disucssed primarily in terms of implications for recruitment of women into admininstrative positions.

Today, one out of every three workers is female, and the number of women entering the labor force is increasing steadily. Despite these fairly impressive figures, it is interesting to note that the majority of women are employed in lower paying occupations with few women in managerial/ administrative positions. Even in the so-called predominantly female pro- fessions, such as education, there are comparatively few women in admin- istrative positions. According to statistics compiled by the National Edu- cation Association, some 70% of the teachers in elementary and second- ary schools are women, yet only 37% of elementary school principals and less than than 4% of secondary school principals are women.

The reasons often mentioned for not employing’women in administra- tive positions are: women are less committed to their careers; women are more emotional and less rational than men. Hence, they could not handle the stress and strain associated with administrative positions. According to a survey by Basil (1972, p. 87) on attitude towards women in manage-

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 87th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, September 1979. Requests for reprints should be sent to: Rosalie L. Tung, Assistant Professor of Management, Graduate School of Management and Business Administration, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403

344

0001~8791/8@‘060344-12$02.00/O Copyright @ 1980 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

MALE AND FEMALE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS PAlTERNS 345

ment, 70% of the male respondents were of the opinion that: “women cannot take the pressures required of an executive, they become tense under stress and let intuition take over instead of thinking the problem through to a logical conclusion.” The tendency to underestinate women’s performance is not exclusive to males only. Several studies (Goldberg, 1968; Pheterson, Kiesler & Goldberg, 1971; Rosen & Jerdee, 1973) indi- cate that women tend to underestimate the professional competence and intelligence of other women.

This study sought to test the validity of these assertions. Specifically, it sought: (1) to compare the occupational stress profiles of male versus female educational administrators to determine whether there were sig- nificant differences in their profiles, and (2) to examine whether males and females were equally good candidates for administrative jobs, which positions are often associated with a high degree ofjob-related stress. The research was conducted as part of a larger study which sought to identify the sources of occupational stress among school administrators in Oregon @went & Gmelch, 1977). A 35item questionnaire was developed for measuring job-related stress. These 35 items were factor analyzed to determine the underlying sources/dimensions of stress. Four factors were identified. These were task-based stress, role-based stress, boundary- spanning stress and conflict-mediating stress. Due to the novelty of ap- proach used in developing the instrument to measure the different dimen- sions of stress, the paper will briefly describe how the instrument was generated and also present an assessment of the instrument. For details see Tung and Koch (1980). The stress profiles of the women adminis- trators were then compared with those of their male counterparts on each of these four dimensions of stress, while controlling for effects such as adminstrative experience. The findings of the study were discussed primarily in terms of the implications for the recruitment of women into adminstrative positions.

METHOD

Rationale for Development of New Measure of Stress

A cursory review of the literature on social-psychological stress indi- cates that there is a plethora of analytically independent sources of stress, implying the multidimensionality of the construct (Cooper & Marshall, 1976; McGrath, 1976; Beehr & Newman, 1978). However, most measures of stress available to date fail to tap the multidimensionality of the con- struct. The Job-Related Stress Index (JRS) developed by Indik, Seashore, and Slesinger (1964), which is one of the more widely used measures of stress, was only able to tap one or at best two (Burke & Belcourt, 1974) underlying sources of occupational stress. Consequently, the larger study, of which this particular research is a part, sought to

346 ROSALIE L. TUNG

develop a more comprehensive instrument that would measure the diverse sources of social-psychological stress which arise within complex admin- istrative organizational roles. To maximize internal validity of the instru- ment, the questionnaire was developed specifically for use on a homogeneous population, namely administrators of educational institu- tions. Although the sample included vice principals, principals, and superintendents, all these positions involve administrative functions.

Perceptual versus Objective Measures of Stress

In this study, following French, Cobb, Van Harrison, and Pinneau’s (1976, p. 3) definition, stress refers to “any characteristic of the job environment which poses a threat to the individual-either excessive demands or insufficient supplies to meet his needs. Stress also refers to a misfit between the person and his environment.” Stressors, on the other hand, refer to the sources of stress, such as the task itself. At the outset, it should be pointed out that the present study only dealt with self-perceived stress as opposed to physiological and task-defined stress. It did not examine objective characteristics of the environment per se. This is not to suggest that these physical environmental characteristics do not influence the level of subjectively experienced stress; rather, previous research indicates that the objective environment (e.g., cold) must be combined with the subject’s perception or translation of such objective reality (e.g., fear of cold) before it could significantly alter the stress level experienced by the individual (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; Levine & Scotch, 1970; McGrath, 1970; House, 1974; Beehr & Newman, 1978). These findings provide justification for the argument that a stressor must be perceived in order to be stressful.

In a number of studies (Kahn et al., 1964; Sales, 1970; French & Caplan, 1973; Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Cooper & Payne, 1978; Beehr & Newman, 1978) which examined the relationships between objective and subjective measures of stress, it was found that even though the empirical relationships between the two were not perfect, the perceptual measures of stress were strongly related to objectively stressful situations, and that these perceptions were related to individual and/or organizational out- comes, including the employee’s state of physical health, such as the occurrence of coronary heart diseases, disabling ulcers, etc.

In the larger research of which this particular study is a part, these self-perceived measures of stress were correlated with employees’ physi- cal health. Given the restrictions imposed on the collection of data that involve potential risks to subjects, it was not possible to collect more objective measures of physiological stress and strain. Consequently, the researchers had to settle for self-reported indicators of physical health. Respondents were asked to identify the state of their current physical health on a 5-point scale which ranged from 1 = “poor physical health” to

MALE AND FEMALE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS PAlTERNS 347

5 = “excellent physical health.” In addition, the administrators were asked to identify what percentage of total stress in their life resulted from their job. More than 60% of the administrators reported that 70% of their total life stress resulted from their jobs. Given the fairly high percentage of total life stress attributed to work itself, stress arising fron the perfor- mance of one’s job could be expected to have a significant impact on one’s physical health. Self-report measures of physical health were correlated with each of the four dimensions of stress. Correlation coefficients ranged from .62 to .78 (I, < .OOl). Each stress dimension was strongly and significantly associated with reports of current physical health, i.e., the higher the level of perceived stress, the poorer the physical health. This is consistent with previous research findings which show the debilitating effects of stress on employee’s health.

Instrument Development

The questionnaire developed to measure sources of administrative stress was evolved through a series of iterations designed to insure that all relevant dimensions ofjob-related stress were tapped. Indik et al.‘s (1964) JRS index comprised the initial questionnaire core. These 15 items were supplemented by others suggested from a review of current publications for public school administrators, and by items suggested from stress logs kept by 40 school administrators for a period of 1 week. These 40 admin- istrators were asked to keep a diary of work-related stress. They were asked to record the most stressful single incident and the most stressful series of related incidents occurring every day for a period of 7 days. At the end of the week, they were asked to identify other sources of stress that might not have occurred during the week in which stress logs were kept.

The pilot instrument was pretested with a sample of 25 practicing administrators. After revision and a second pilot test (n = 20) the final instrument comprised 35 items with the following 5-point Likert-type response categories: 1 = “rarely or never bothers me,” 3 = “occasionally bothers me,” and 5 = “frequently bothers me.” This 35-item instrument was designated as the Administrative Stress Index (ASI). Of these 35 items, 12 were retained from the JRS.

Sample

The AS1 was sent to all members of the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (n = 1855). The 1207 questionnaires were re- turned. Of these, 1156 were usable. Subjects occupied administrative positions at either the vice principal, principal, superintendent, or central school administrator levels.

The average subject was 42 years old and had 9 years of administrative experience. The median hours worked per week per subject were 55, and

348 ROSALIE L. TUNG

TABLE I Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix (n = 1156)

Items” Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Role-based stress *Knowing I can’t get information needed to carry out my job properly.

*Thinking that I will not be able to satisfy the conflicting demands of those who have authority over me.

-Trying to resolve differences with my superiors.

*Not knowing what my supervisor thinks of me, or how he/she evaluates my performance.

*Feeling that I have too little authority to carry out responsibilities assigned to me.

*Being unclear on just what the scope and responsibilities of my job are.

*Trying to influence my immediate supervisor’s actions and decisions that affect me.

Task-based stress -Being interrupted frequently by tele-

phone calls. -Supervising and coordinating the

tasks of many people. -Having my work frequently inter-

rupted by staff members who want to talk.

-Imposing excessively high expecta- tions on myself.

-Writing memos, letters, and other communications.

-Feeling I have to participate in school activities outside of the nor- mal working hours at the expense of my personal time.

*Feeling I have too much responsibil- ity delegated to me by my super- visor.

*Feeling that I have too heavy a work load, one that I cannot possibly finish during the normal workday.

-Feeling that meetings take up too much time.

-Trying to complete reports and other paper work on time.

.03

.I6

- .46

.42

.06 .Ol

.20 .I2

.oo .48 .I1 .03

.21 .41 .01 .11

.09 .34 .I6 .I4

.I2 .41 .08

.31 .49

.22

.I5

.Ol

.oo

-.Ol

-.06

.I3 .70

.15 .42

.08 .55

.03

.24

.33

-.04 .I9 .I0

.06 .I7 .09

.05

.02

.03

-.02

.05 .09

.03 .07

.I3

.I6

.07

.II

.05 .I1 .05

MALE AND FEMALE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS PATTERNS 349

TABLE I-Continued

Items” Factor I Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Conflict-mediating stress -Trying to resolve differences

between/among students. -Trying to resolve parent/school

conflicts. -Handling student discipline problems.

Boundary-spanning stress -Preparing and allocating budget re-

sources. -Being involved in the collective bar-

gaining process. -Complying with state, federal, and

organizational rules and policies. -Administering the negotiated contract

(grievance, interpretations, etc.). -Trying to gain public approval and/or

financial support for school pro- grams.

Summary statistics Eigenvalue Percentage of common variance

.Ol .I4

.05 .23

.Ol .I4

.I2 .08 .24

.03 .07 .Ol

.05 -.02 .26

.I0 .I2 .06

.I4 .05

4.8 2.0 51.6 21.7

.I0

I.4 14.7

.03

.23

.06

.46

.6l

SO

L .64

SO

I.1 12.0

Source. Reprinted, with permission from John Wiley & Sons, from Tung and Koch (1980). a JRS items are designated by an asterisk. Others, developed in the present study, are

designated by a dash.

the median percentage of total life stress attributed to work was 75%. Approximately 9.3% (or 108) of the respondents was female. These oc- cupied positions at all four different levels of administration: vice princi- pal, principal, superintendents, and central school administrators.

RESULTS

Principal Components Analysis of ASI

Principal components analysis of the AS1 revealed a weak general factor, suggesting that the scale was multidimensional in nature. Upon subsequent rotation, four interpretable factors were obtained. The 10 items failed to cluster around any single factor. Consequently, these items were deleted from subsequent analysis.

Table 1 presents the factor loading obtained under orthogonal varimax rotation for the remaining 25 items.

Factor 1 was comprised of 7 items, 6 of which were similar to the JRS index of Indik et al. (1964). These items dealt with stress arising from the respondent’s role and responsibilities as an administrator. This factor was

350 ROSALIE L. TUNG

TABLE 2 Coefficient Alphas, Factor Correlations, Median Within and Between

Analysisa Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Factor matrix Factor I (31) Factor 2 .37 (31) Factor 3 .I1 .33 (.77) Factor 4 .24 .36 .22 (.70)

Median item correlations Within .39 .53 .23 .31 Between .I4 .I6 .ll ;I6

Source. Reprinted, with permission from John Wiley & Sons, from Tung and Koch (1980). n Coefficient alphas are indicated in the diagonal of the Factor matrix.

TABLE 3 ANOVA: Male versus Female Subgroups on All Four Factors

Factor 1 Factor 2 role based task based

Factor 3 conflict

mediating

Factor 4 boundary spanning

Total male X Total female X

I to 5 years admin. exper. male X female X

6 to 15 years admin. exper. male .? female X

16 to 20 years admin. exper. male X female X Age (~39 years) male X female X

Age (40 to 49) male X female X

Age (50 to 60+) male X female X I to 5 years in present nos. male X female X

;::;: (N.S.) ;I;; (.Ol I)

;;‘;; (N.S.) ;:‘;; (N.S.) ;.“o; (.003)

;;I;; (.lOO) ;:I; (N.S.) ;I;: (.@m

;;:I; (.008) ;;I;; (N.S.) ;:;; (N.S.)

;;‘; (N.S.) ;;::; (N.S.) ;‘;; (.060)

1;‘;; (N.S.) ‘2:‘;; (N.S.) 66:;; (N.S.)

;;:g (.020) ;;I;; (.060) ;‘; (N.S.)

1;:; (N.S.) ;;:;: (N.S.)

I;:;; (.OOl)

10.92 9 84 C.096)

I;:; (.003)

;;.A; (.003)

I;:;; (.030)

‘;:;; (.OOl)

‘;:;y (.OOl)

;;.y; (.005)

MALE AND FEMALE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS PATTERNS 351

Table ?-Continued

Factor 3 Factor 4 .Factor 1 Factor 2 conflict boundary role based task based mediating spanning

6 to 20 years in present pos. male X female X ;;:; (.003) ii.;; (N.S.) ;:;; (.050)

Admin. pos vice principal male X female X

Admin. pos. principal male X female X

Admin. pos. superintendent male X female X

;;‘;: (N.S.) ;:‘z (.060) “6’;; (N.S.)

Admin. pos. C.S. admin. male X female X

1;‘;; (.003) ;:f; (.060) ‘6.;: (.090)

‘;f (.003)

I;.;; (.OOl)

“g.“d: (.OOl)

;;.;y (.005)

if.;; (.003)

Nore. Figures in parentheses are significance levels. N.S. = not significant or p > .10.

labeled role-based stress. Factor 2 was made up of 10 items. It was labeled tusk-bused stress or stress arising from the performance of one’s day-to-day activities in an organizational setting. The 8 of the 10 items comprising this factor were developed through content analysis of the stress logs and relevant occupational literature. Factor 3 was comprised of 3 items which dealt with resolution of conflicts between students, and between parent/school. This factor was labeled conflict-mediating stress. Factor 4 was comprised of 5 items which dealt with stress arising from the administrator’s activities in relating the school to the external environ- ment, such as collective bargaining, and gaining public support for school budgets. This factor was labeled boundary-spanning stress.

Coefficients of internal consistency and median item correlations were also calculated to provide further justification for conceptualizing stress as a multidimensional construct. These are presented in Table 2.

Comparative Analysis of Stress Projiles

To examine the relationships between sex and each of the four factors of stress, correlational analysis was performed. Correlation coefficients ranged from .46 to .54 (p < .005).

352 ROSALIE L. TUNG

To determine whether males and females were equally good candidates for administrative positions, the levels of stress experienced by female administrators on all four dimensions were compared against those of their male counterparts. Table 3 presents the results of one-way analyses of variance between the male and female subgroups on all four factors while controlling for effects such as administrative position, age, number of years in present position, and number of years of administrative experi- ence. The reason for controlling for such effects was to make sure that any difference in means between the two subgroups could not be attrib- uted to differences in administrative position nor to such demographic variables as age, number of years in present position, and number of years of administrative experience. Table 3 indicates that the levels of stress experienced by female administrators on all four factors were lower than that of their male counterparts, even though in some instances the differ- ences were not statistically significant at the G .lO level. The most noticeable and significant differences were those for Factor 4. The boundary-spanning stress (Factor 4) experienced by female adminis- trators in all “administrative position,” “age,” “number of years in present position,” and “number of years of administrative experience” categories was substantially lower than that of male administrators. The role-based stress (Factor 1) experienced by female administrators was significantly lower than that of their male counterparts in 8 out of the 13 categories. It appears that once the fenale administrators have been in their present position or administrative position for over 5 years, the level of felt stress would decline faster than that of their male counterparts. The conflict-mediating stress (Factor 3) experienced by female administrators was significantly lower than that of their male counterparts in 9 out of the 13 categories. With the exception of the “ 16 to 20+ years of administra- tive experience,” two “age” categories and “principals” categories, female administrators experienced lower levels of conflict mediating stress. Under task-based stress (Factor 2), with the exception of the “50 to 60+” age category, the “principals” and “central school adminis- trators” categories, the differences between the female and male sub- groups were not statistically significant. But even here, the means of the female subgroups were lower than those of the male subpopulation in 10 of the 13 categories. These findings tend to show that for the sample of Oregon school administrators, women were equally good, if not better, candidates for administrative positions because they experienced signifi- cantly lower levels of self-perceived stress than their male counterparts on almost all four dimensions of stress, particularly with respect to boundary-spanning stress and conflict-mediating stress.

Since only 9.3% or 108 of the respondents were female, an argument could be made to the effect that some of the statistically significant

MALE AND FEMALE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS PATTERNS 353

findings may be an artifact of the unequal sizes of the male versus female subgroups. To examine the possibility of this occurrence, a random sam- ple of 108 males was selected to match the 108 females and separate analyses of variance were run. The results obtained from the matched subgroups were consistent with the ones reported in Table 3. This ruled out the possibility that some of the statistically significant findings were due to the unequal sizes of the subgroups.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Previous research that showed the stress levels of females to be lower than that of males have generally attributed such differences to either one or both of two reasons: (1) the fact that women were usually employed in less responsible and less demanding positions; and (2) a woman’s job was secondary to her natural role as a mother, wife and homemaker. Since she drops out from the labor force once she marries or has children, she does not view her job as a lifetime career. Hence, the less stress experienced from her job. Both these reasons do not apply in explaining the findings of this study. Reason (1) does not hold because the male and female sub- groups were engaged in the same type of administrative positions. In addition, the effects of age, number of years in present position, and number of years of administrative position were also controlled for. Reason (2) does not apply either because the women included in the sample were fulltime administrators who view their jobs as lifetime careers.

This study indicated that women administrators experienced lower levels of stress than their male counterparts on all four factors, particu- larly with respect to boundary-spanning stress and conflict-mediating stress, both of which relate to stress arising from the management of the organization-external environment interface. Researchers and prac- titioners of management (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Duncan, 1972; Tung, 1979) have emphasized the importance of the organization’s environment, and the need for the organization to successfully respond to and cope with the complexities and changes in the environment in order to survive. The same holds true for the educational sector. In recent decades, the general public has become more vocal in its criticisms of public school opera- tions; the specter of tax revolts poses serious risks to institutional sur- vival; and the emergence of collective bargaining together with govern- mentally imposed employment regulations greatly increase uncertainty. Moreover, as educational institutions have become a focal point for social change, they have had to respond at an increasingly rapid rate to govern- ment pressures for program innovations. All these changes point to the need for administrators who chould keep a clear mind in dealing with the school’s external environment. Given the findings in this study, it appears that female administrators are well prepared to perform these functions

354 ROSALIE L. TUNG

and activities. The findings of this study indicate that for Oregon school administrators at least, women administrators stood up to the pressures, stresses, and strains of their job better than their male counterparts.

The study reported here represents the first of a series of studies to compare the occupational stress profiles of male versus female adminis- trators in other professions and other types of industry. If these findings are supported in other industries, employers and personnel administrators should take a close look at these findings plus other statistics showing that the average women worker has a better record of absenteeism, job turn- over. and longevity on the job than she is generally credited with. A Public Health Service study showed that for 1967, women lost an average of 5.6 days compared to 5.3 days for men, including days lost because of childbearing and complications of pregnancy. Statistics on longevity on the job show that women actually stay longer in their jobs, and that there are small differences in job turnover of men versus women (Katzell & Byham, 1972). Based on such statistics, employers and personnel admin- istrators should reevaluate their attitudes toward the recruitment and promotion of women-the greatest source of untapped “human-power” resource-into administrative positions.

Besides the implications this study has for the employment of women into administrative positions, the 35-item questionnaire, known as the Administrative Stress Index, developed for the larger study of which this particular research is a part, can potentially contribute to the field of research on occupational stress. The results of this study suggest that the AS1 is a significant improvement over the JRS as a measure of stress among administrators. The latter index was only able to tap generic role-based stress (Indik et al., 1964; Burke & Belcourt, 1974), whereas a general consensus exists among researchers that stress is a multidimen- sional construct. Principal components analysis of the AS1 reveals four interpretable factors. Three of the four factors were consistent with McGrath’s (1976) theoretically derived model of occupational stress.

As pointed out previously, in order to maximize internal validity of the instrument, the AS1 was developed for use on a homogeneous population, namely administrators of educational institutions. In order to be applica- ble to subjects employed in other contexts, many AS1 items would have to be modified and adapted to the unique social and cognitive realities of their work populations.

REFERENCES Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. Job stress, employee health, and organizational effective-

ness: A facet analysis, model and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 1978, 31, 665-699.

Burke, R. J., & Belcourt, M. L. Managerial role stress and coping responses. Journal of Business Adninistration, 1974, 5, 55-68.

Basil, D. C. Women in management. New York: Dunellen, 1972.

MALE AND FEMALE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS PATTERNS 355

Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. Occupational sources of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental health. Journal of Occuparional Psy- chology, 1976, 49, 1 l-28.

Duncan, R. B. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 313-327.

French, J. R. P., Cobb, S., Caplan, R. D., Van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R. Job demands and worker he&h. Symposium presented at the 84th Annual Convention of the Ameri- can Psychological Association, September, 1976.

Goldberg, P. Are some women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 1968 (April), 28-30. House, J. S. Occupational stress and coronary heart disease: A review and theoretical

integration. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1974, 15, 12-27. Indik, B., Seashore, S. E., & Slesinger, J. Demographic correlates of psychological strain.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, 26-38. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Shoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. Organizational

stress. New York: Wiley, 1964. Katzell, M. E., & Byham, W. C. (Eds.) Women in the work force. New York: Behavioral

Publications, 1972. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. Organization and environment: Managing diSferentiation

and integration. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwon, 1%7. Levine, S., & Scotch, N. A. (Eds.). Social stress. Chicago: Aldine, 1980. McGrath, J. E. Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Pp. 1351- 1395.

Pheterson, G., Kiesler, S., & Goldberg, P. Evaluation of the performance of women as a function of their sex, achievement and personal history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 19, 114- 118.

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. The influence of sex-role stereotypes on evaluations of male and female supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 57, 44-48.

Swent, B., & Gmelch, W. H. Stress af the desk and how to creatively cope. Oregon School Study Council, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 1977.

Tung, R. L. Dimensions of organizational environments: An exploratory study of their impact on organization structure. Academy of Management Journal, 1979,22,672-693.

Tung, R. L., & Koch, J. L. School administrators: Sources of stress and ways of coping with it. In C. L. Cooper & J. Marshall (Eds.), White collar and professional stress. Chiches- ter, England: Wiley, 1980

Received: November 12, 1979.