It is a known reality that much of the employees’ potential is being wasted due to JS in almost every organization. Stress is not confined in any geographic location, industry or profession, therefore the need is to assess its impact on different job related scenarios. Extensive work has been done to explore the relationship between role stressors, JS and its influence on employees attitude in the western individualist cultural context, whereas a little attention has been given to Asian collectivist countries [19
]. Like in developed countries, stress in developing nations is also considered as a hidden threat at all level of employees in the organization [21
]. On the other hand, it is important to focus collectivist cultures because MNCs increasingly relocating their operations in the developing countries [22
Collectivist attitude among the organizational settings in developing countries suggest more complex dynamics mediated by one emotion towards the collectivity [20
]. Spector et al., [24
] study middle level managers in twenty-four nations from different organizations about RC, RA, and RO. They found a close cultural relevance of these role stressors. Hence, Individual experience stress not only in contemporary complex and globalized societies, but in developing societies as well [3
]. Moreover, cultural patterns and several relations evolve in different ways in order to deal with different kinds of contextual and ecological stressors around the world [25
2.1.1. Relationship of Role stressors, JS and JSF
First hypothesis, measure role stressors, JS and JSF relationship in MNCs. Role stressors (a combination of four factors, i.e., RO, RC, RA and JI) have been a major concern at the workplace and considered a main source for job dissatisfaction [26
]. Past studies found mix (positive and negative) relationships between role stressors, JS and JSF [17
]. Conservation of Resource (COR) theory [10
] further explain that stress leading causes results resource losses for example, workplace conflicts may drains individual’s resources, waste time, and distract them from their basic roles. This notion further asserts that stress arises from three conditions: (1) when individual’s key resources are threatened (2) when resources are lost, or (3) when a person fail to generate resources despite significant investments are made.
Based on arguments above, stress cause losses that occurs due to stressors creating circumstances when individuals come under exceeding demand resulting psychological discomfort [28
]. Moreover, Karasek, [29
] job strain model have documented that the joint effects of job demand context results psychological strain specifically when the individual resource does not meet those demands. This model further predicts “job characteristics as the significant determinants of psychological strain”. The dimensions of role stressors are interconnected by three distinct constructs such as RO, RA, and RC [26
]. We have included multiple measures in a model because it clarifies the variance nature of the predictors and criterion variables [30
]. In our understanding all the behavioral outcomes of the role stressors are mediated by one’s overall level of JS caused by role stressors.
The first factor in the model RO
has significant positive influence on JS [31
] resulting poor JSF [17
]. Empirical evidence have revealed that RO is associated to a variety of physiological and behavioral attitudes appearing in the form of JS, burnout, and job dissatisfaction [32
]. A meta-analysis showed that, role stressors has direct negative link with JSF [33
]. The second factor RC on the other hand is a result of difference of opinion between two or more employees of the organization causing by incompatible decisions [34
]. In a RC situation individual may be caught between the crossfire of two managers and the desires of two operational groups in the organization [35
]. Kahn et al. [9
] observed that RC creates multiple adverse situations at the workplace producing high levels of conflicting situation and ambiguity which lead to job dissatisfaction. This notion was supported by other researchers and found that RC and RA are clearly associated with job dissatisfaction and dysfunctional behavior as a consequence of stress and anxiety [18
]. In Asian context, RC positively and significantly related to job anxiety and JS among middle-level cadre of employees [5
]. Thus, stressful environment exists where employees simultaneously perform multiple roles.
The third factor RA situation is created at the work place ‘when individual has less information necessary to carry out his job properly’ [37
]. Moreover, RA situation arises in organization due to lack of role clarity [9
]. In a western context, RA is more stronger predictor of JSF than RC [38
]. It is well documented in the literature that RA is a positive predictor of JS and job dissatisfaction [19
]. The fourth factor JI added in the model is generally considered to be stressful and adversely influence individual’s performance [36
], as well employees work health and wellbeing [40
]. Probst and Lawler [41
] report that compare to their western counterparts, employees with collectivist cultural values react more inversely to the threat of JI. JI is a potential threat to the continuity of one’s current job and become stressor for different work scenario [42
]. JI is considered as uncertain because it signifies unpredictability and uncontrollability at workplace [43
]... These arguments give us more confidence to test JI as a role stressor and a potential predictor of JS and JSF in this foreign ownership firm.
The second main hypothesis (H2) examines role stressors and JSF relationship. There is an ample evidence in the literature that JSF results from employees’ positive reaction about their specific role which occurs by comparing the actual results with the expected output, such as desired, wanted, needed, or perceived to be just and rational [17
]. Increasing work burden and professional uncertainty inversely influence employees’ JSF [8
]. Among the physical trainers in South Eastern European RC and RA are found significant predictors of JSF [44
]. Role stressors has direct negative relation with JSF and vastly inevitable in nature because of their positive and negative relations with JS and JSF respectively [27
]. Hence, we propose hypothesis H1 and H2 followed by the sub-hypothesis.
Role stressors will be positively related to JS such that:
(H1a), RO will be positively related with JS, (H1b), RC will be positively related with JS (H1c), RA will be positively related with JS (H1d), JI will be positively related with JS.
Role stressors will be negatively related with JSF such that:
(H2a), RO will be negatively related with JSF (H2b), RC will be negatively related with JSF (H2c), RA will be negatively related with JSF (H2d), JI will be negatively related with JSF.
2.1.2. Mediating Role of JS
Job strain model [29
] guides us that job characteristics are the major source of psychological strain, created by high job demands and low control over the resources. Individuals with inequality in job demands and resources given are less likely to respond effectively. These situations indeed threaten psychological well-being of workers and exacerbate individual stress level. This argument further predicts that work overload and time pressure can increase job strain. However, the extent to which RO, RC and RA contribute to stress under different working context has not yet been studied [3
]. It has been reported that MNCs’ employees have high negative stress that lead to individual physical and psychological illness which in turn results low JSF [46
]. Theoretically, role stressors by its job-related antecedents lead to organizational inequity results psychological strain and diminution of employee’s performance and satisfaction. Karasek’s [29
] job strain model and the Social exchange imbalances [47
], would support such mediation for JS where psychological stress jointly effected by job demands and the individual resources to meet those demands [3
We offer that stressors differentially affect the employees overall level of JS which further negatively results individual JSF. JS was also observed as a partial mediator between workplace discrimination and JSF [48
]. Moreover, the extent to which RA, RC, RO and JI contribute to JS and JSF has not yet been studied specifically under the non-western MNCs context. We therefore intend to explore the predicting role of stressors on JS and JSF to investigate the indirect path of this relationship. Therefore, we posit H3 and H4.
JS and JSF are negatively related.
JS will mediate the relationship of:
(H4a), RO and JSF (H4b): RC and JSF (H4c), RA and JSF (H4d), JI and JSF
In the light of above discussion and hypotheses, we propose following model (Figure 1
) to be tested in this study.