Influence of Multitasking Job Demand on Job Stress with Polychronicity as a Moderator

全文

(1)Influence of Multitasking Job Demand on Job Stress with Polychronicity as a Moderator. by Irina Kudinova. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: C. Rosa Yeh, Ph.D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June, 2015.

(2) ABSTRACT Multitasking job demand has become an important characteristic in many job positions nowadays. But not all individuals can work under multitasking job demand. In the current study, two competing hypotheses were proposed. First, multitasking job demand causes a higher level of job stress perceived by individuals. Second, polychronicity moderates the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress. Polychronicity is a preference of an individual to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. A quantitative study was conducted and the data was collected through survey questionnaires from employees in different job positions and industries in the Russian Federation. The number of valid questionnaires collected is 402. Descriptive analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, Hierarchical Regression analysis and Structural Equation Modeling were used to test hypothesis. The result shows that multitasking job demand has no significant effect on job stress, and that there is a strong moderating effect of polychronicity on the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress. The interaction plot shows for those with lower levels of polychronicity, high multitasking job demand resulted in more job stress, while for those with higher levels of polychronicity, high multitasking job demand resulted in less job stress. Keywords: Multitasking Job Demand, Job Stress, Polychronicity.. I.

(3) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................I TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. IV LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... VI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1 Background of the Study ........................................................................................................ 1 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 4 Rationale of the Study ............................................................................................................ 5 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................................. 6 Research Questions ................................................................................................................ 6 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................ 6 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 7. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................8 Theoretical Background ......................................................................................................... 8 Polychronicity ...................................................................................................................... 10 Multitasking Job Demand .................................................................................................... 14 Job Stress .............................................................................................................................. 17 Multitasking Job Demand and Job Stress ............................................................................ 20 Multitasking Job Demand, Job Stress and Polychronicity ................................................... 22 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 24. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD...................................................................... 25 Research Framework ............................................................................................................ 25 Research Hypothesis ............................................................................................................ 26 Research Procedure .............................................................................................................. 26 Research Design ................................................................................................................... 27 Research Sample .................................................................................................................. 28 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 28 Questionnaire Design ........................................................................................................... 29 Measurement ........................................................................................................................ 29 Validity and Reliability ....................................................................................................... 40 II.

(4) Data Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 42 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 42. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................... 43 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................ 43 Correlation Analysis ............................................................................................................. 46 Structural Equation Modeling .............................................................................................. 49 Hierarchical Regression Analysis ........................................................................................ 51 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 52. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ....................................... 55 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 55 Research Implications .......................................................................................................... 56 Practical Implications ........................................................................................................... 57 Research Limitations ............................................................................................................ 57 Future Research Suggestions ............................................................................................... 58 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 59. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 60 APPENDIX: MEASUREMENTS AND QUESTIONNAIRE ............................... 69. III.

(5) LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Measurement for Job Stress ..................................................................................... 30 Table 3.2 Summary of Acceptable Fit Indices for Measurement Models ............................... 31 Table 3.3 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Original Job Stress Measurement Model ............ 32 Table 3.4 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Modified Job Stress Measurement Model .......... 32 Table 3.5 Summary of Model Comparison for Modified Job Stress Measurement Model ..... 32 Table 3.6 Measurement for Multitasking Job Demand ........................................................... 33 Table 3.7 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Original Multitasking Job Demand Measurement Model ....................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 3.8 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Modified Multitasking Job Demand Measurement Model ....................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 3.9 Summary of Model Comparison for Modified Multitasking Job Demand Measurement Model ................................................................................................................ 34 Table 3.10 Measurement for Polychronicity ........................................................................... 35 Table 3.11 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Original Polychronicity Measurement Model .. 36 Table 3.12 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Modified Polychronicity Measurement Model . 36 Table 3.13 Summary of Model Comparison for Modified Polychronicity Measurement Model .................................................................................................................................................. 36 Table 3.14 Measurement for Self-efficacy .............................................................................. 39 Table 3.15 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Original Self-efficacy Measurement Model ..... 39 Table 3.16 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Modified Self-efficacy Measurement Model .... 39 Table 3.17 Summary of Model Comparison for Modified Self-efficacy Measurement Model .................................................................................................................................................. 40 Table 3.18 Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted for Variables with Original Measurement Models ................................................................................................ 41 Table 3.19 Cronbach’s Alpha .................................................................................................. 41 IV.

(6) Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics on Sample Characteristics ..................................................... 45 Table 4.2 Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlation, and Reliability ......................................... 47 Table 4.3 Summary of the Goodness-of-fit for the Structural Model...................................... 50 Table 4.4 Summary of Path Coefficients for Structural Model ............................................... 50 Table 4.5 Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effects ................. 52 Table 4.6 Hypotheses Testing Results Summary .................................................................... 54. V.

(7) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Monochronic/Polychronic time use continuum...................................................... 11 Figure 3.1 Research framework .............................................................................................. 25 Figure 3.2 Research procedure ................................................................................................ 27 Figure 4.1 Structural model ..................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4.2 Interaction plot for the moderating effect of polychronicity .................................. 53. VI.

(8) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The introduction of this study provides an insight into this research. It discusses the background, problem statement, research purpose and questions, and rationale of the study.. Background of the Study The increasing globalization brings more changes in the business world. Business creates more demands from the employees, their work quality and skills they should possess. Nowadays many job positions require employees to be flexible and be able to perform several tasks simultaneously or switch back and forth between several tasks, thus, employees become involved in multitasking. DiMaggio (2001) mentions some reasons why multitasking could appear in the working environment. These reasons may include: companies’ organizational hierarchies became flat, organizations’ forms became team oriented, organizational structures underwent changes, employees have to focus on multiple initiatives, and job duties became flexible. (DiMaggio, 2001). An example of positions where multitasking is a demand may include the following: physicians, managers, software developers, analysts and small office workers (Chisholm, Dornfeld, Nelson, & Cordell, 2001; Gonzalez & Mark, 2004). An example of multitasking is a situation when a man is operating a computer, talking with a coworker about the future project and signing the documents that were brought to him by a secretary. Many of the previous studies described how managers were using their time at work, such as the structure and content of the work they have. It was shown that middle level managers are engaged in various activities and have little time for making solitary decisions (Horne & Lupton, 1965). Another study found that the activities that CEO performs can be characterized as various, full of fragmentation and brevity (Mintzberg, 1970, 1973). Toplevel managers used to be the primary working positions that were associated with a multitasking environment. But now even general employees are multitasking. One of the studies revealed that at work people on average spend about three minutes on each task and somewhat two minutes using electronic tool or paper document before switching tasks (Gonzalez & Mark, 2004). So, people from different positions may be involved in multitasking. 1.

(9) Generally, when there is a demand for multitasking, people may have lower task performance than people in the non-multitasking conditions (Grawitch & Barber, 2013). Since under multitasking job demand people have to constantly switch their attention between tasks, individual’s attention might decrease and lead to increased error rate (Buser & Peter, 2012). On the other hand, multitasking job demand also makes people perform several tasks at a time, meaning that an individual has to process big amount of information, which might bring the feeling of being overloaded (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Also multitasking makes people have the feeling of tension (Franklin & Hunt, 1993; Joslyn & Hunt, 1998; Oswald, Hambrick, & Jones, 2007). Moreover, doing multiple things at a time may provoke emotional exhaustion and somatic health symptoms (Xie, Elangovan, & Hrabluik, 2009). Therefore, it is assumed that under multitasking job demand people may feel high levels of job stress. Job stress indeed has some negative effects on the employees. High levels of stress in the working place may cause people to have high turnover intention (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003; Kavanagh, 2005). Also stress may have negative effect on health and psychological condition, cause a risk of premature mortality (Lantz, House, Mero, & Williams, 2005; McEwen, 1998; McEwen & Seeman, 1999; Miller, Cohen, & Ritchey, 2002). In the Russian Federation, nowadays, there is no precise statistics of stress levels at work, but according to rough estimation, approximately 70% of Russian people are constantly under stress, and one third of Russian population are under high levels of stress (Muchkaeva & Chapaikina, 2012). According to the results of a survey that was conducted in the central part of Russia, 45% of respondents believe that their work is connected with high levels of stress, 27% of respondents consider that their work provoked high levels of stress, 70% of respondents accused work stress in decreasing their mental and physical health (Muchkaeva & Chapaikina, 2012). Most importantly for organizations, stress may cause some financial disadvantages. Companies can lose considerable amount of money due to stress perceived by employees. For example, research in the UK in 2008 states that 20 percent of people mention stress as one of the main reasons for leaving the organization (CIPD, 2008). The average cost for turnover in the UK is approximately 5800 pounds, ranging from 2,750 pounds for manual laborer to 20,000 pounds for the senior manager (Donaldson-Feilder, Lewis, & Yarker, 2011). 2.

(10) Companies lose huge amount of money to hire new employees and train them. Although the statistical data is from the United Kingdom, the cost for the organizations in the other countries might be quite similar. Definitely, not any organization wants to lose huge amount of money on the issues that are related to employee’s stress. If knowing that multitasking job demand may increase job stress, organizations would probably like to seek for the solution of how to minimize levels of job stress in multitasking environment. So presumably, there should be a certain type of individual who fits this multitasking job environment, such as polychronic individuals. Polychronicity is a propensity of an individual to perform several tasks at a time or switch back and forth between the tasks. Polychronic individuals are able to withstand interruptions and adapt to unexpected situations by changing planned activities’ schedules (Hall & Hall, 1990). Also polychronic individuals have low turnover intention (Jang & George, 2012) and higher stress tolerance (Kantrowitz, Grelle, Beaty, & Wolf, 2012). Person-job fit theory may explain the relationships between multitasking job demand, job stress and polychronicity. Person-job fit is a model that characterizes stress as a lack of congruence between environment demands and person’s characteristics, such as abilities and values (French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982). Therefore, when there is a match between environment demand and person’s characteristics, person will feel lower levels of stress, and vice versa, when there is a misfit of environment demand and person’ s characteristics, person will feel higher levels of stress. Thus, it is predicted, that if there is a person-job fit between high multitasking job demand and individual with high levels of polychronicity, this individual shall have lower levels of stress, and if there is a misfit between high multitasking job demand and individual with low levels of polychronicity, this individual shall perceive higher levels of job stress. One of the studies reveals the outcome of person-job fit on the dimension of polychronicity on the psychological strain (Hecht & Allen, 2005). The study by Hecht and Allen (2005) tested their hypotheses on the alumni, faculty, and staff of two Canadian postsecondary institutions. They found that people high in polychronicity, working in multitasking environment, tend to perceive low levels of psychological strain, while people. 3.

(11) with low polychronicity levels, working in multitasking environment tend to perceive high levels of psychological strain. Thus, the aim of the current study was to retest part of the Hecht and Allen’s (2005) study, where they tested the moderating effect of polychronicity on relationships between polychronicity supply (i.e. multitasking job demand) and psychological strain, using a sample from the Russian workforce, and to identify the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress. The sample of this study included workers from different job positions in various types of organizations. This study was aimed at exploring variables in real working conditions using quantitative approach of collecting data.. Statement of the Problem Knowing that in recent times more and more employees are required to be constantly in the environment that demands multitasking, it was important to find out if the multitasking job demand has an influence on the level of job stress, perceived by employees. There have been not many studies that revealed the relationships between job stress and multitasking and most of them were experiments. Thus, it was important to find out if multitasking had any effect on job stress in real working conditions using quantitative approach of collecting data. Moreover, nowadays job stress is inevitable in modern job settings. Thus, it was important to explore if job stress levels can be minimized by the approach of person-job fit, by having the match between polychronic individual and multitasking job environment. The partial replication of the study by Hecht and Allen (2005) was needed, due to the difference in sampling. The sample in the study by Hecht and Allen (2005) were alumni, faculty, and staff of two Canadian post-secondary institutions. The sample in the current study was employees in different industries, most frequently working in office. It was important to do the replication, because the Hecht and Allen’s sample’s (2005) characteristics and working conditions are quite different from the current sample. First of all, there is a difference in the nature of work or tasks of employees in different industries (mostly business industries) and alumni, faculty and staff in institutions. For example for faculty workers, they are mostly involved in students’ affairs and their guidance, institution staff may be involved in advising students on educational issues, working with professors and other departments, 4.

(12) while employees in business industries may focus exclusively on one aspect of business, such as logistics. Secondly, the institution workers’ and business workers’ possessed skills and abilities might be different, depending on the environment requirements. Thirdly, the study by Hecht and Allen (2005) tested hypothesis in Canada, while the current study tested hypothesis in Russia, thus different cultural backgrounds might have showed different results. Thus, it is important to test hypothesis on the different sampling. The current study examined the relationships between multitasking job demand and job stress, and how polychroncity influenced the relationships between multitasking job demand and job stress. Finally, the results of current study were compared to the results of the study by Hecht and Allen (2005).. Rationale of the Study Multitasking job demand is a new concept that has not been studied a lot by researchers. In our rapidly changing world, this concept should be especially important. Multitasking environment is surrounding people everywhere, from home to work we are supposed to perform several tasks at a time or switch back and forth between them. As many people engage themselves in multitasking on the voluntary basis, there are also some places where people cannot choose, where they are required to multitask. Many present-day organizations and companies have new requirements towards their employeesmultitasking job demand. But even though many organizations have multitasking demands, not all of the people are suitable to work in these conditions, due to frequent stress that people might have because of multitasking. Therefore, it was important to investigate if there were some people’s propensities that might minimize the job stress under multitasking job demand. In particular, this study was interested in how the moderating effect of polychronicity could influence the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress.. 5.

(13) Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was twofold. Firstly, this study focused on the exploration of the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress. Secondly, this study examined how the moderating effect of polychronicity influenced the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress. Replicating the part of the study by Hecht and Allen (2005) allowed this research to compare the results between different types of sample. This research is a partial replication of the study by Hecht and Allen (2005). It is replicated in the part where Hecht and Allen (2005) examined the moderating effect of polychronicity on relationships between psychological strain and polychronicity supply (i.e. multitasking job demand).. Research Questions Derived from the research purpose and problem statement written above, the current study investigated and analyzed the following research questions: 1). How does multitasking job demand relate to job stress?. 2). How will polychronicity as a moderator influence the relationship. between multitasking job demand and job stress?. Definition of Terms Multitasking Job Demand Multitasking job demand is a job demand that requires “accomplishing multiple-task goals in the same general time period by engaging in frequent switches between individual tasks” (Delbridge, 2000, p.1) or by performing several tasks at a time.. Job Stress Job stress is defined as an employee’s awareness or feeling of personal dysfunction as a result of perceived conditions or happenings in the working place, or employee’s. 6.

(14) psychological and physiological reaction, that are caused by workplace environment (Montgomery, Blodgett, & Barnes, 1996).. Polychronicity Polychronicity is “a non-cognitive variable reflecting an individual’s preference for shifting attention among ongoing tasks” (Poposki & Oswald, 2010, p. 250) within the same period of time or preference for focusing attention on several tasks at the same time.. Person-Job Fit Person-job fit is a fit between demands of the job and person’s abilities, or the fit between the attributes of a job and person’s desires (Edwards, 1991).. Summary This chapter provided an overview of the importance and need for replication of the study by Hecht and Allen (2005). The important concepts of this study were reviewed in the introduction. The statement of problem was identified. The purpose of the study in addition to research questions was provided. Lastly, the important terms in this study were defined.. 7.

(15) CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW The aim of this chapter is to provide the literature on the important concepts of this study. First, theoretical background is provided. Second, the literature review on polychronicity, multitasking job demand, and job stress are illustrated. Finally, the proposed relationships between multitasking job demand and job stress, as well as the proposed relationships of three variables- multitasking job demand, job stress and polychronicity are provided together with the hypotheses.. Theoretical Background When an individual is looking for a job and when organization is recruiting people, both organization and an individual wish to find a good individual- organization fit. Organization wants to recruit the individual, who will meet the requirements of the organization, easily adjust to changes in job demands, and will stay loyal and committed to the organization. And individual wishes to find an organization where his practical abilities will be in use and where his needs will be fulfilled (Caplan, 1987). In order to investigate different effects of the fit between individual and organization there was a personenvironment fit model introduced. In recent years person-environment fit approach to stress has gained a lot of attention from researchers. This model characterizes stress as a lack of congruence between environment demands and person characteristics, such as abilities and values (French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982). French, Caplan and Harrison (1982) in their person-environment fit model suggested that environment includes demands of a job or role, extrinsic or intrinsic rewards, cultural values, or characteristics of other individuals or collectives in the person’s social environment, while person characteristics include an individual’s psychological or biological needs, goals, values and personality. French, Caplan and Harrison (1982) in their model included two distinct versions of person-environment fit. The first version shows the relationships between environmental supplies that are available to fulfill personal values, goal, preferences and motives, which is normally referred to supplies-values fit or S-V fit. The second version focuses on the relationships between environmental demands and personal skills and abilities, which refers 8.

(16) to demands-abilities or D-A fit. The main idea in person-environment model is that subjective D-A or S-V misfit will result in the psychological, physiological and behavioral strains (French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982). Later on it was found that in person-environment fit model, strain can be replaced by stress (Pithers & Soden, 1999; Sutherland, Fogarty, & Pithers, 1995). The study by Sutherland, Fogarty, and Pithers (1995) supported the hypothesis that stress can be inversely related to person-environment fit measures. According to Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson (2005) person-environment fit dimensions include person-organization, person-job, person-supervisor, person-group fits. Person-job fit is a fit between job demands and abilities of a person (Edwards, 1991). In case individuals meet the job requirements, they are likely to feel psychological satisfaction (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). On the other hand, if individuals do not fit into the job requirements, it may affect the state of well-being in a negative way. As with the person-environment fit, person-job fit is also concerned with two types of fit: suppliesvalues fit and demands-abilities fit. In the present study person-job fit is an important model to be considered. The current study is interested in D-A fit, specifically, the fit between multitasking job demand and the polychronicity, defined as the aptitude or propensity of an individual to multitask. Demandability fit explores to which degree, job demands and abilities of the person match each other (French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982). Abilities include energy, skills and knowledge that a person possesses to meet the requirements of a job (Edwards, 1996). The abilities, such as knowledge and skills can grow with the use of them, while mental and physical energy will decrease with its use, and energy needs to be re-filled. According to Edwards (1996), demands are qualitative and quantitative requirements that are placed on the person. These demands might be objective, such as length of the working day or workload, and it might be socially constructed, such as role expectations. The misfit may happen when the person with certain abilities or propensities does not fit into the working environment. There are two types of misfit- excess abilities and insufficient abilities. Excess abilities situation occurs when an individual with high polychronicity does not fit the low multitasking job demand. It means that the individual’s 9.

(17) aptitude to perform several tasks at a time may not be satisfied by particular job settings. In this case, when there are excess abilities, misfit may or may not cause a negative psychological reaction (Edwards, 1996). Insufficient abilities misfit may happen when the level of abilities of a person is not high enough to meet the demand of the job, thus, the person will be exposed to stress (Edwards, 1996). Insufficient abilities misfit may occur when, for example, person with low levels of polychroncicity does not match the demands of the job, where he has to perform several tasks at a time, and therefore he might feel higher levels of stress. In this study the excess abilities situation will not be examined, since the current study is interested only in demands-abilities fit and misfit as a result from insufficient abilities situation.. Polychronicity In some studies terms “multitasking” and “polychronicity” may be interchangeably used, however in this study, they are two distinct variables. Multitasking here is a working condition under which employees should work, when there is a demand or requirement where individuals should perform multiple tasks at the same time or switch back and forth between tasks at the same period of time, while polychronicity is a propensity of the individual to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. Originally Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube and Martin (1999) defined polichronicity as a cultural variable: ‘‘the extent to which people (1) prefer to be engaged in two or more tasks or events simultaneously and are actually so engaged and (2) believe their preference is the best way to do things’’ (p. 207). Later on the other definition was developed by Poposki and Oswald (2010), stating that polychonicity is “a non-cognitive variable reflecting an individual’s preference for shifting attention among ongoing tasks, rather than focusing on one task until completion and then switching to another task” (p. 250). The current study is interested in both polychronic behaviors, which include preference for switching tasks and performing several tasks at the same time. Therefore, in this study polychronicity will refer to “a non-cognitive variable reflecting an individual’s preference for shifting attention among ongoing tasks” (Poposki & Oswald, 2010, p. 250) 10.

(18) within the same period of time or preference for focusing attention on several tasks at the same time. There are two types of polychronic time use- dovetailing and “at the same time” (Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, 1992). They explained this phenomenon by time use continuum (See Figure 2.1).. Figure 2.1. Monochronic/ Polychronic time use continuum. Adapted from “How Many Things Do You Like to Do at Once? An Introduction to Monochronic and Polychronic Time,” by A. C. Bluedorn, C. F. Kaufman, & P. M. Lane, 1992, Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), p. 18. Copyright 1992 by Academy of Management Executive.. 11.

(19) Polychronic behavior may refer to a preference to produce several tasks at the same time, or it may refer to dovetailing. Dovetailing is the dispersion of several activities within the same time period. Dovetailing, in fact, is switching back and forth between several tasks within the same time period, where the attention is focused only on one task at a time. For example, while writing a research, the phone rang, and the individual prefers to switch to picking up the phone call, and then switch back to the research. Dovetailing should not be confused with monochronicity, because monocronic people prefer to start first task and finish it, and then move to the second task and complete it, while being engaged in dovetailing, an individual prefers to leave the first task unfinished and switch to the other tasks (Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, 1992). Polychronicity was originally proposed as a cultural difference for preference of time use (Hall, 1983). It was found that there are two types of people’s preference for using timemonocronicity and polychronicity. Hall (1983) found that in different cultures people prefer to accomplish tasks in different way: polychronic people engaged themselves in completing tasks on the sequential manner, while monocronic preferred to do one thing at a time. Monocronic cultures feel it is necessary to start one task and finish it, and then turn to the other task, while polychronic feel comfortable at doing several things at a time and leaving some of them unfinished. The examples of the people with polychronic cultures are: native people from North America, Latin America (Hall, 1983; Hall & Hall, 1990), most of Africa, the Arab world, South and Southeast Asia (Gesteland, 1999). On the other hand, some examples of monochronic cultures include the following countries: Nordic and Germanic Europe, North America and Japan (Gesteland, 1999). There also were countries that could be categorized somewhere in between polychronic and monochronic: Russia, Eastern, Southern and Central Europe, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, China (Gesteland, 1999). Some studies examined the cultural differences in polychronicity and monochronicity and it did not support the hypothesis that for example North Americans are more polychronic than those people from Europe. There was a study conducted by Tinsley (1998), where he found that American managers were more polychronic than German managers and Japanese managers. This gives the idea that there is not only cultural level of monochronicitypolychronicity, but also an individual level of polychronicity and monochronicity. It means that even polychronic culture may have people who are monochronic, or monochronic culture 12.

(20) may have individuals who are polychronic (e.g., Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, & Martin, 1999; Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, 1992; Conte, Rizzuto, & Steiner, 1999; Hall & Hall, 1990; Kaufman, Lane, & Lindquist, 1991a; Kaufman, Lane, & Lindquist, 1991b). Currently, polychronicity is often studied as an individual variable. Individual polychronicity was successfully studied in the working environment studies, which showed that polychronicity is positively correlated with Big Five personality dimensions, such as Extroversion, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and negatively correlated with Contentiousness, but it was found that only Extraversion was significantly related to polychronicity (Conte & Gintoft, 2005). The relationship between polychronicity and Big Five Personality dimensions tends to show different correlation (Conte & Jacobs, 2003; Conte & Gintoft, 2005). One study suggests that measuring Big Five personality dimensions is too broad to show significant correlation with polychronocity, so the author decided to find correlation between polychronicity and personality inventories (MesmerMagnus, Viswesvaran, Bruk-Lee, Sanderson, & Sinha, 2014). It was found that polychronicity was positively correlated with assertiveness, need to be liked, energy or preference for fast paced work, criticism tolerance, need for freedom, optimism, self-reliance , and sociability; and negatively correlated with detail orientation, preference to be organized, fact-based thinking and logical thinking (Mesmer-Magnus, Viswesvaran, Bruk-Lee, Sanderson, & Sinha, 2014). Also polychronicity was found to be positively correlated with Type A behavior pattern, such as achievement striving, impatience, general hurry time urgency, irritability (Conte, Rizzuto, & Steiner, 1999). It was also correlated positively with stress tolerance (Kantrowitz, Grelle, & Beaty, 2012). Polychronicity was also studied at the organizational level. There are some organizations that value polychronicity in their employees, such employees should have a preference to perform several tasks at a time (Onken, 1999). Many these kinds of polychronic organizations have many scheduled activities per day, with a small period of time spent on each of the tasks, therefore it is necessary for individual to simultaneously perform the projects or switch back and forth between them. But it was shown that polychronic individual prefer not to stick to schedules (Conte, Rizzuto, & Steiner, 1999) and that they show less punctual behavior (Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, & Martin, 1999), and they prefer to have nonroutine tasks (Benabou, 1999). 13.

(21) Polychronicity was studied as a variable that is related to some important organizational concepts. It was shown that polychronicity is positively correlated with willingness to exert effort, belief in and acceptance of organizational goals (Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999), supervisor ratings of job performance (Kantrowitz, Grelle, & Beaty, 2012), desire to remain in the organization (Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999). Polychronicity was also found to be negatively correlated to turnover intention (Jang & George, 2011) and role overload (Kaufman-Scarborough & Lindquist, 1999). But on the other hand it was found that polychronicity has positive correlation with absence (Conte & Jacobs, 2003). Some of the studies show positive correlation between polychronicity and job performance (Fournier, Weeks, Blocker, & Chonko, 2013), while others show negative relationship (Conte & Jacobs, 2003). Some researchers suggest that it happens, because polychronicity can facilitate job performance only if there is a match between polychronicity and organizational multitasking demand (König & Waller, 2010). It is important to have a fit between individual’s preference and working settings. As such it was found that polychronic individuals show more creativity when their environment allows them to rotate through tasks, while monochronic individuals show more creativity when they complete one task at a time (Madjar & Oldham, 2006). In the study by Hecht and Allen (2005) it was found that personjob fit on the dimension of polychronicity was related to several well-being indicators: selfefficacy, job satisfaction, and psychological strain. Poposki and Oswald (2010) discovered that person-job fit model shows that polychronic individual perceive more job satisfaction in the multitasking conditions (Poposki & Oswald, 2010).. Multitasking Job Demand Multitasking job demand nowadays is often seen as the important attribute in the working place. Demand for multitasking appears to be growing over time due to the changing work styles, introduction of new technologies and more tight schedules for workers. Employees are expected to do different work activities simultaneously in order not to lose time on doing tasks one by one. Recently multitasking has been studied by many researchers. But in different studies, the definition varies a lot. Many studies use the word “multitasking” referring to the multitasking ability, multitasking performance, multitasking behavior (Appelbaum, 14.

(22) Marchionni, & Fernandez, 2008; Konig & Waller, 2010; Lee & Taatgen, 2002), which is different to the concept in the present study. Moreover, in many studies researchers define multitasking as working on several tasks at the same time (Bühner, König, Pick, & Krumm, 2006), while the others define it as switching between tasks (Appelbaum, Marchionni, & Fernandez, 2008). There also have been only few studies concerned about the multitasking as a requirement in the job settings. In order not to be confused with different multitasking terms, in the present study the term “multitasking job demand” was used. It refers to the job demand that calls for “accomplishing multiple-task goals in the same general time period by engaging in frequent switches between individual tasks” (Delbridge, 2000, p.1) or by performing several tasks at a time. Early studies were concerned with the ability to perform several tasks at the same time. For example, Broadbent (1958) focused the attention on the ability of the individual to listen to two different types of information at the same time. The individual had to listen to one speaker that was situated near his left ear, and listen to other speaker situated near his right ear. In this situation it was found that individual may truly listen only to one type of information or switch back and forth between two sources of information (Huey & Wickens, 1993). The term multitasking was originally connected to the computer culture, multitasking in computer-related studies referred to the method by which multiple tasks share common resources. Nechipor (2005) argued that computer with multiprocessor could execute multiple processes simultaneously. Later multitasking variable started to appear in the studies related to human multitasking. Thus, multitasking started to be defined as working on several tasks simultaneously (Bühner, König, Pick, & Krumm, 2006). On the other hand, the other multitasking type appeared which referred to task switching. Task switching was originally called mental set (Jersild, 1927). It was defined as work fragmentation that resulted from the frequent switching between multiple tasks or activities (Pashler, 2000). Later on task switching was incorporated in the definition of multitasking. For example, Delbridge (2000) defined multitasking as “accomplishing multiple task goals in the same general time period by engaging in frequent switches between individual tasks” (p. 1). There are two types of multitasking- concurrent and sequential (Salvucci & Taagen, 2011). Sequential multitasking is switching back and forth between different activities, for example, filling in the document and then switching to make a phone call and going back to 15.

(23) fill in the document again. Switching to the other task normally happens after several minutes or hours of working on only one task (Salvucci & Taagen, 2011). There are several characteristics of the multitasking environment, such as time pressure to complete several tasks, frequent task switching and uncertainty when task switching will be required next time (Delbridge, 2000). The second type is doing several tasks simultaneously or with very short interruption, which is called concurrent multitasking, for example, answering the phone call and filling in the document at the same time. Salvucci and Taagen (2011) found that “people switch tasks at sub-second intervals up to every few seconds” (p.8) when they are involved in concurrent multitasking. Often in different job positions in various organizations, there is a multitasking job demand. The main idea here is that one person may complete several tasks faster and more productively. But in reality multitasking leads to a great loss of accuracy (Adler & BenbunanFich, 2012). This might be explained in the way that when engaging in multitasking, people may use a smaller amount of the brain, than they could use if they were completing one task at a time (Shao & Shao, 2012). In fact, multitasking increases the time people spend on performing the tasks, because people cannot concentrate on one task completely, they have to juggle between tasks, so they need more time to go back and forth among several problems. But it was also proven that interrupted tasks are remembered by employee twice better than completed tasks, because unfinished tasks cause tensions and it will stay in the memory longer (Zeigarnik, 1927). The other problem connected with multitasking job demand, is that if a person is involved in performing several activities, he will have a decreased concentration, which will lead to increased error rate (Buser & Peter, 2011). Buser and Peter (2011) found that performance was significantly lower when doing multiple tasks than finishing each of the tasks and then moving to the next one. Additionally, some of the studies state that under multitasking a high pressure will occur, and it may cause mistakes and tension (Franklin & Hunt, 1993; Joslyn & Hunt, 1998; Oswald, Hambrick, & Jones, 2007). Paridon and Kaufmann (2010) indicated similar results: multitasking in working environment may cause mistakes and mental strain. It has an important implication not only for business losses, but also for the occupational health and safety (Paridon & Kaufmann, 2010). In working 16.

(24) conditions, mistakes caused by multitasking will decrease overall performance, increase accidents, and may lead to corresponding health consequences. Also, an individual may feel emotional exhaustion , if he is working under multitasking job demand, where he is required to perform several tasks at the same time (Xie, Elangovan, & Hrabluik, 2009). Moreover, under multitasking settings, multitaskers may start to feel that their working memory is overloaded. Therefore, the more challenging task is, the more anxiety and frustration multitasker will have, since these challenging tasks may outweigh cognitive resources that the person has (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). But interestingly, if the multitasker perceives workload, it may facilitate his performance, meaning that if the perceived level of workload is high, the performance will be enhanced (Branscome & Grynovicki, 2007).. Job Stress Job stress and general stress are two distinct variables. The difference lies in the origin or nature of those variables. General stress can be caused by any event that happened to the individual. Kavanagh (2005) defines general stress as a nonspecific body’s reaction to a stimulus or event. But the nature of work stress is different from general stress, because job stress is caused by working settings that individuals have at their jobs. Job stress was defined in many ways. For example, one of the definitions states that job stress is a person’s response towards the threats that happen in the workplace (Jamal, 1990). Job stress in the current research will refer to an employee’s awareness or feeling of personal dysfunction as a result of perceived conditions or happenings in the working place, or employee’s psychological and physiological reaction, that are caused by workplace environment (Montgomery, Blodgett, & Barnes, 1996). Stressors are different situations or conditions that cause stress (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). It was found that when stressors are interpreted cognitively by individual, it may lead to stress (Dua, 1994). Therefore, stressors are objective situations that happen to a person, while stress is the subjective person’s experience of the situation (Pratt & Barling, 1988). It means that job stress is a consequence of stressors. There are two types of stressors- chronic and acute. Chronic stressors are thought to be constant or long-term for employees. Chronic stressors are usually related to all jobs. Acute stressors, on the other hand, are more shortterm stressors, and they are more job-specific (Motowidlow, Packards, & Manning, 1986). 17.

(25) There are several categories of stressors: role stressors, social stressors, work-related stressors, time-related stressors, traumatic stressors, stressful change processes, physical stressors, and career related stressors (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). Role stressors are related to role conflict, role overload and role ambiguity. Role stressors can originate in stressful work events, which do not allow a person to handle work events. Role ambiguity is unclear set of expectations towards employee, therefore employee is uncertain of what is expected from him (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Also, if there is a big amount of work to do, the individual can have an overload. Role overload happens when employee feels that there are too many job activities or responsibilities required from him in a given time limit (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Work events may also create role conflicts if there is inconsistency in priorities and expectations. Role conflict is a situation when there are different contradictory expectations from work colleagues which confront each other and make it difficult to complete tasks (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Physical stressors appear due to aversive working conditions, such as heat, dirt, chemical and toxic substances, etc. (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). Although these types of stressors are physical, they may cause psychological stress. Work-related stressors are stressors that appear while performing a task; they can be related to time pressure and work overload, monotonous tasks, high complexity of work and disruptions (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). Time-related stressors are stressors that are connected to working schedule, such as shift work, working long hours or overtime (Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, 1997). Social stressors are stressors that are connected to poor interactions with coworkers, subordinates, supervisors and others. They may include bullying, harassment, conflicts at the working place (Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996). Traumatic stressors are stressors that relate to accidents, that the individual was a subject to. Accidents may include disasters, dangerous activities, etc. The jobs that usually involve traumatic stress are policeman, fireman, soldier (Corneil, Beaton, Murphy, Johnson, & Pike, 1999). The individuals who were subjects to traumatic stressors, usually report physical health problems, such as pain-related symptoms, for example back pain or headaches (McFarlane, Atchison, Rafalowicz, & Papay, 1994). Career-related stressors may refer to low career opportunities and job insecurity (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). Organizational change refers to major changes in organizations, such as downsizing, mergers, 18.

(26) acquisitions, etc. The outcome of those events might be job insecurity, conflicts, therefore, organizational change is stressful (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). In modern times, employees more often become a subject of job stress. Researchers are interested in what kind of individuals suffer from stress more often. Therefore, work stress was found to have correlations with age. In some studies the relationship is found to be negative (Indik, Seashore, & Slesinger, 1964), while in others it was shown to be positive (Reissman, Orris, Lacey, & Hartman, 1999). Moreover, there were studies conducted trying to identify the relationship between individuals’ personality traits and work stress. It was found that Type A behavior is correlated with the level of stress the person might have. Type A behavior includes impatience, aggressiveness, competitiveness (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1984). Ivancevich and Matteson (1984) found that nurses with Type A behavior had more time pressure, role conflict and work overload. Therefore, people with this type of behavior will produce more stressful situations for themselves and finally will feel stress. Moreover self-esteem was also found to be negatively associated with work-related stress and depression (Lee, Joo, & Choi, 2013). In general, job stress is a big issue related to the employee’s turnover in the organizations (Vokic & Bogdanic, 2007). It has an impact not only on the employee’s health, but also on the organizational workforce and financial stability. First of all, job stress may lead to risk of premature mortality, poor health and psychological conditions (Lantz, House, Mero, & Williams, 2005; McEwen, 1998; McEwen & Seeman, 1999; Miller, Cohen, & Ritchey, 2002). Karasek (1979) suggested the explanation of the relationships between work and health by the demands and control in the job. Job demands are features of the work that may include workload and time pressure. On the other hand, control is ‘‘the extent to which employees have the potential to control their tasks and conduct throughout the working day’’ (Karasek, 1979, pp.289-290). This job demand-control model may produce stressful situations when there are high demands and low control over the situation, and later on it will cause the damaging effect to health (Belkic, Landsbergis, Schnall, & Baker, 2004). As such when there are great job demands and low control over the work, there will be a great chance of becoming ill. Later on, there was the other variable 19.

(27) added to this model- social support at work (Johnson & Hall, 1988). Employees with low social support, high job demands and low control have a very high risk of getting ill. Secondly, there are two job stress dimensions: psychological and physiological stress. Psychological stress is an emotional response towards stress, such as anxiety, anger, burnout, frustration, etc. (Antoniou, Davidson, & Cooper, 2003; Millward, 2005). Physiological stress is a physiological response of the organism towards stress, such as headache, backache, sleep disturbance, etc. (Antoniou, Davidson, & Cooper, 2003; Beehr, Jex, & Ghosh, 2001; Critchley et al., 2004; Mansor, Fontaine, & Chong, 2003). Both stress dimensions may cause negative consequences, such as job dissatisfaction (Wang , Zheng, Hu, & Zheng, 2014), poor job performance (Donald et al., 2005), and withdrawal from organization (Barnes, Agago, & Coomb, 1998; Jou, Kuo, & Tang, 2013). Moreover, job stress is related to burnout, meaning that the more job stress the individual feels, the more burnout he will have (Day, Sibley, Scott, Tallon, & Ackroyd-Stolarz, 2009; Wang, Zheng, Hu, & Zheng, 2014). Most importantly for organizations, stress may cause some financial disadvantages. Companies can lose considerable amount of money due to stress perceived by employees. For example, the research in the UK in 2008 states that 20 percent of people mention stress as one of the main reasons for leaving the organization (CIPD, 2008). The average cost for turnover in the UK is approximately 5800 pounds, ranging from 2,750 pounds for manual laborer to 20,000 pounds for the senior manager (Donaldson-Feilder, Lewis, & Yarker, 2011). Companies lose huge amount of money to hire new employees and train them. Although the statistical data is from the United Kingdom, the cost for the organizations in the other countries might be quite similar.. Multitasking Job Demand and Job Stress Working in the environment, which requires an individual to perform several tasks simultaneously or switching back and forth between tasks, might be difficult for many people. There might appear several problems with multitasking job demand that will lead to the individual’s perceived level of stress.. 20.

(28) Performing several tasks or switching between tasks requires an individual’s increased attention. Task set is built and updated in the working memory of an individual when he is performing the task. If the task is interrupted, the working memory of an individual has to be updated again, and the task set has to be built up in the task set system again. The more complicated a task is, the larger task set will be. If there are difficult tasks in a task set, an individual will have to spend more time and effort on building up the task set (Hancock & Szalma, 2008). When performing easy or well-trained task, an individual does not need to use big effort or many resources, but when he is performing complex or novel set of tasks, a big effort, high level of energy and all of the processing resources are required to complete those difficult tasks. In fact, mental effort for performing a set of difficult tasks might be kept up only for a short period of time. It turns out that the cost of effort and energy mobilization is high, it causes strain and fatigue (Hancock & Szalma, 2008). Since under multitasking job demand an individual has to constantly perform several tasks at a time or switch attention between several tasks, it is hard to keep up energy and effort at the same level due to constant fragmentation and simultaneity. The supply of energy and effort resources will decrease, therefore, the concentration will gradually diminish and it will cause high error rate and lower levels of performance (Buser & Peter, 2012). Moreover, under multitasking settings, multitaskers may start to feel that their working memory is overloaded. Therefore, the more challenging task is, the more anxiety and frustration multitasker will have, since these challenging tasks may outweigh cognitive resources that the person has (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Therefore, negative effects of being a part of multitasking environment and being involved in multitasking is mental strain, tension and stress (Franklin & Hunt, 1993; Joslyn & Hunt, 1998; Oswald, Hambrick, & Jones, 2007). Thus, the first hypothesis is introduced as follows: H1: Multitasking job demand is positively related to job stress.. 21.

(29) Multitasking Job Demand, Job stress and Polychronicity Presumably, many people may feel difficult to work in multitasking conditions, because it requires to complete different tasks simultaneously or to switch between tasks, which may lead to stress. Multitasking environment has a great demand on the individuals, such as mental effort and mobilization of energy, which is difficult to achieve for the individual on the constant basis, unless an individual has enough supply of motives. Motives are cognitive representation of the drives and aspirations that people have in their work and life. These motives may provide an individual with energy in his work (Hancock & Szalma, 2008). Motives may come from an individual’s aptitude to do something. As such individuals with polychronic aptitude should feel higher motivation to exert effort in the working conditions of fragmentation and simultaneity. This is consistent with Kaufman, Lane and Lindquist’s (1991a) hypothesis that individuals feel higher levels of motivation, intrinsic satisfaction and wellness, when the individual’s preference for particular time personality, such as polychronicity, will fit their “time role”, such as working in the conditions that require fragmentation and simultaneity. As multitasking working conditions require employees to work on several tasks simultaneously or switch between the tasks, it is believed that this working condition has a frequent task rotation, changes, unpredictability and workload. Kaufman-Scarborough and Lindquist (1999) stated, that in the environment with frequent changes, polychronic individuals will feel more comfortable and less stressful about changes. Moreover, it should be easier for polychronic individuals to perform non-scheduled or interrupted tasks, since it was found that they prefer to have non-routine tasks (Benabou, 1999) and they have flexibility towards planning and scheduling (Bluedorn, Kaufman & Lane, 1992). It was suggested by Kaufman, Lane and Lindquist (1991b) that the feeling of being overloaded with work will be negatively correlated with polychronicity, because polychronic individual will response better to the situation which requires individuals to complete several tasks. Therefore, there should occur a match between the individual’s level of polychronicity with the working conditions. According to Hall (1983) both polychronic individuals working in the monocronic environment and monocronic individuals working in the polychronic environment exercise difficulty to work in the environment that does not fit their aptitudes. 22.

(30) Also it was found by Cotte and Ratneshwar (1999) that for monochronic individuals, polychronic behavior means hard, chaos, frustration, fragmentation and stress, while polychronic individuals identified polychronic behavior as motivating, efficient and realistic. One of the studies reveals a supposed match between polychronic individual and multitasking job demand. The respondents of this study were Emergency Department managers in Sweden. Some of the respondents indicated that multitasking or interruptions for them was not stressful, and they had a good performance in these conditions (Forsberg, Athlin, & Schwarz, 2014). While the other respondents felt stress and did not perform well in the environment with frequent multitasking and interruptions. Therefore, the author explained this variation of perceived stress in the way that the respondents who did not feel stress in that working condition might be polychronic individuals (Forsberg, Athlin, & Schwarz, 2014). Hecht and Allen (2005) in their study found that people with high levels of polychronicity working in multitasking environment, tend to feel lower levels of psychological strain, while people with low polychronicity levels, working in multitasking environment, tend to feel high levels of psychological strain. Their sample were alumni, faculty, and staff of two Canadian post-secondary institutions. Demands-abilities fit under person-job theory may explain why people with certain polychronicity levels, when working under multitasking job demand; perceive certain levels of job stress. When there is a fit between the demands of a job and abilities of an individual, the individual tends to feel low levels of stress (Edwards, 1996). In this case, it is assumed that if there is a fit between high multitasking job demand and individual with high levels of polychronicity, this individual will perceive lower levels of job stress. There are two types of demands- abilities misfit. They are insufficient and excess abilities, but because this study is not interested in excess abilities, the excess abilities were not considered. Under person-job fit theory, misfit happens when a person has insufficient abilities to reach the job demand; therefore he may have a negative psychological reaction (Edwards, 1996). Therefore, it is assumed that if the individual’s level of polychronicity is too low to match high multitasking job demands, an individual will have negative psychological reaction- high levels of job stress.. 23.

(31) Thus, it is logical to assume that people with high levels of polychronicity, when working under high multitasking job demand, will experience lower levels of job stress. On the other hand, people with low levels of polychronicity will experience higher levels of job stress under high multitasking job demand. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest the following hypothesis: H2: Polychronicity moderates the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress: when polychronicity is high, high multitasking job demand will result in less job stress; when polychronicity is low, high multitasking job demand will result in more job stress.. Summary This chapter addressed a review of the literature relevant to this study. The theoretical background of person-job fit, literature review on polychronicity, multitasking job demand and job stress were provided. The supposed relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress with literature support was proposed. The assumed relationship between three variables- polychronicity, multitasking job demand and job stress with literature review were proposed. The hypotheses were provided.. 24.

(32) CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD This chapter describes the research framework, hypotheses and methodology that are used in the study. It outlines the research procedure, sample, instrument, data collection procedure, and statistical methods for data analysis.. Research Framework The research framework was developed in accordance with the purpose of the study and reviewed literature. The Research Framework presented in Figure 3.1 shows the overview of the components of this study. Based on the research hypotheses, this study explored the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress, and revealed how the polychronic individual fit or misfit with multitasking job environment influenced the job stress. All of the variables included in the framework are unidimensional variables.. Polychronicity. Demographic factors and control variables Gender Age Years of working experience Job position. H2. Industry Self-efficacy. Multitasking. Job stress. H1. job demand. Figure 3.1. Research framework.. 25.

(33) Research Hypothesis There were 2 hypothesis developed. These hypotheses are competing, meaning that if Hypothesis 1 is supported, Hypothesis 2 should be rejected, and vice versa if Hypothesis 2 is supported, Hypothesis 1 should be rejected. H1: Multitasking job demand is positively and significantly related to job stress. H2: Polychronicity moderates the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress: when polychronicity is high, high multitasking job demand will result in less job stress; when polychronicity is low, high multitasking job demand will result in more job stress.. Research Procedure The research procedure included nine steps that were followed to complete the study (See Figure 3.2). At the very beginning the research problem was identified. Then, the research objectives were identified and defined, and they served as the basis of the current research. The literature review was conducted in order to get the insights into the topic. Based on the literature review, the framework was developed. The instruments developed by other researchers were adapted in the current study. The pilot study was used in order to analyze the reliability of the instrument, the main study was conducted. After conducting the main study, the collected data was analyzed and hypotheses were tested. Finally, the report of the findings of the study was provided, and the conclusion based on the findings was drawn.. 26.

(34) Identify Research Problem Identify Research Objectives Review Literature Construct Framework Construct Research Instruments Run Pilot Study Collect Data Analyse Data Conclude Research Findings Figure 3.2. Research procedure.. Research Design In the current study, quantitative research method was used in order to identify the relationships between multitasking job demand, job stress and the moderating effect of polychronicity on the relationship between multitasking job demand and job stress. Selfreport survey was utilized to obtain the data. Convenience sampling was used, because the target population was employees in different job sectors in the Russian Federation, and no 27.

(35) sampling frame was available for the population. Before the data collection for the current study, the pilot study was conducted to ensure validity and reliability of the measurement scale in questionnaire. Inferential statistics were applied to test hypotheses.. Research Sample In order to test hypotheses of this study, convenience sampling was utilized. The targeted population was employees in different job positions in the different organizations in Russia. The sample consisted of the employees in different job positions in diverse organizational sectors. The respondents were working for companies situated in different cities of the Russian Federation (e.g., Saint-Petersburg, Moscow, Chelyabinsk, Volgograd, Pskov, Perm, etc.). Organizational sectors included banking sphere, medical equipment sales industry, computer industry, wholesale of household products sphere, manufacturing industry, etc. A total number of 451 questionnaires were received, but 49 questionnaires were found to be invalid, because some respondents failed to meet the sample criteria for job location in Russia or current job position (some of the respondents appeared to be students or unemployed). The number of valid questionnaires entered into the analysis was 402.. Data Collection Data collection process included several ways to distribute questionnaires. First, since online questionnaires were used, the questionnaire link was sent through emails to people that the researcher was familiar with, or to the managers of companies who were responsible of spreading questionnaire’s link within the company. The connections with managers were built through personal contacts. A week after the questionnaire link was sent, the phone or email reminder was done. Second, the questionnaire link was posted in different groups of social networks, such as vk and facebook, so that any working person in Russia had a chance to fill in the questionnaire. Third, hard copies of questionnaires were handed in to some companies in Moscow region, which the researcher had personal contacts with. Hard copies of questionnaires were collected a week after they were handed in to the companies.. 28.

(36) Questionnaire Design The questionnaire items included measures of research variables that were chosen from the previous studies. The questionnaire, including variables’ items and demographics, was originally designed in English. Because the target population was Russian employees, the questionnaire was translated from English into Russian. To ensure that questionnaire, translated into Russian, matched the original meaning of the questionnaire’s statements in English, back translation was done by the Russian native speaker, who was working as a Russian-English interpreter. The translated version of questionnaire underwent a pilot study with 31 respondents; the pilot study sample was similar to the sample in the current study. The pilot study revealed a translation problem for some of the items, so those items were cross-checked and changed. In general, the results of pilot study showed good face validity and internal consistency reliability. Questionnaire included 5 parts, the first part had the items for job stress, the second part included questions about multitasking job demand, the third part contained polychronicity items, the fourth part had self-efficacy questions and, finally, the fifth part included demographics. There were two types of questionnaires: online and hard copies. The online questionnaires were made through Google Forms.. Measurement The research instrument for this study is a questionnaire as shown in the Appendix. It consists of five sections, where the first section includes job stress items, second section contains a multitasking job demand items, the third section comprises polychronicity items , the fourth section includes self-efficacy and the last section includes the measurement for the demographics.. Job Stress Job stress is defined as an employee’s awareness or feeling of personal dysfunction as a result of perceived conditions or happenings in the working place, or employee’s 29.

(37) psychological and physiological reaction, that are caused by workplace environment (Montgomery, Blodgett, & Barnes, 1996). Job stress questionnaire items were derived from the 12-item General Health Questionnaire by Goldberg (1972). It included 12 items, where 6 of them were reversedcoded. The questions from 12-item General Health Questionnaire were modified into statements. For example the original item was: “Have you been able to concentrate on whatever you are doing?” , and it was modified into “I have been able to concentrate on whatever I am doing.” Participants were asked to describe their psychological and emotional health over the past few weeks. Table 3.1 shows the measurement items. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91 (Hecht & Allen, 2005). A Likert scale ranging from “1=Strongly Disagree” to “7=Strongly Agree” was utilized. Table 3.1. Measurement for Job Stress Construct Job Stress. Code Questionnaire item. JS2. I have been able to concentrate on whatever I am doing. (reversed coded) I have felt that I was playing a useful part in things. (reversed coded). JS3. I have felt capable of making decisions about things. (reversed coded). JS4. I have been able to enjoy my normal day-to-day activities. (reversed coded) I have been able to face up to my problems. (reversed coded) I have been feeling reasonably happy, all things considered. (reversed coded) I have lost much sleep over worry I have felt constantly under strain I have felt that I could not overcome my difficulties I have been feeling unhappy and depressed I have been losing confidence in myself I have been thinking of myself as a worthless person. JS1. JS5 JS6 JS7 JS8 JS9 JS10 JS11 JS12. 30.

(38) Job stress items underwent Confirmatory Factor Analysis in the Amos software to ensure construct validity of the measurement. It was suggested by researchers that CMIN/DF in a ratio between 2 and 5 indicates a reasonable fit (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985), and ratio smaller than 2 are considered to represent a minimally plausible model (Byrne, 1991). As for RMR, the values lower than .08 are thought to be acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999), but ideally it should be less than .05 (Stieger, 1990). According to MacCallum, Browne and Sugawara (1996), RMSEA less than .01 is excellent fit, less than .05 is good fit and less than .08 is mediocre fit. In order to indicate a good fit for GFI and AGFI, it should be equal or greater than .90 (Byrne, 1994). The values of acceptable fit indices are shown in Table 3.2. The results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for original measurement of job stress are shown in Table 3.3. Therefore, none of the indices in Table 3.3 show good fit, thus, items JS2, JS3, JS4, JS5, JS6, JS7, JS8, and JS9 were deleted. The results for new measurement model are shown in Table 3.4. CMIN/DF is 1.571, which shows that it is a minimally plausible model, RMR is .025, which is an ideal fit, RMSEA is .038, which is a good fit, GFI and AGFI are higher than .90, these indices show good fit. Thus, the modified model shows good fit and can be used, and a modified model could go through cross validation. Therefore, the new job stress measurement model was tested by cross validation. First, the data set was randomly split into two sample groups, and second, the new model of job stress was tested by the multi-group comparison in IBM SPSS Amos. Table 3.2. Summary of Acceptable Fit Indices for Measurement Models Fit indices. Value. Interpretations. Citations. CMIN/DF. 2-5 <2. reasonable fit minimally plausible model. Marsh and Hocevar, 1985 Byrne, 1991. RMR. <.08 <.05. acceptable value ideal value. Hu and Bentler, 1999 Stieger, 1990. RMSEA. <.01 <.05 <.08. excellent fit good fit mediocre fit. MacCallum, Browne and Sugawara,1996. GFI AGFI. >.90 >.90. good fit good fit. Byrne, 1994 Byrne, 1994 31.