Impact of Core Self-Evaluation, Goal Orientation and Work ...Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 23 ISSN: 2521 - 5337 Impact of Core Self-Evaluation, Goal Orientation and Work Stress Relationship

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

[email protected]

DR. NISBAT ALI

National University of Modern Languages (NUML)

Islamabad (Pakistan)

[email protected]

YASIR KHAN

PhD Scholar, Qurtuba University Peshawar

[email protected]

MUKHARIF SHAH

Lecturer, Institute of Business Studies and Leadersip

Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan

[email protected]

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.

mailto:[email protected]







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




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.




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




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




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:




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




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




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




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




“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




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.




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.

Documents

Impact of Core Self-Evaluation, Goal Orientation and Work ...Ali, Ali, Khan & Shah 23 ISSN: 2521 - 5337 Impact of Core Self-Evaluation, Goal Orientation and Work Stress Relationship