Occupational Stress as a Function of Organizational Commitment and Personality Type: A Study on Legal Professionals

Preshita Neha Tudu
Assistant Professor, HR Department, IBS Hyderabad (Under IFHE - A Deemed to be University u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956), Hyderabad, Telangana, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: preshita@ibsindia.org

Piyushita Meha Tudu*
LLM Student, West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, India. E-mail: piyushita22148@nujs.edu

Occupational stress is experienced in all professions, law included. There are studies to suggest that organizational commitment has a positive impact on occupational stress. Similarly, studies have been conducted to prove the link between personality type and occupational stress. However, there are very few studies linking all three variables. The present work aims to bridge this gap. The aim of the paper is to measure occupational stress experienced by lawyers. Studies on this subject in India are few and far between. Data from 102 respondents, representing 68% response rate, were analyzed. The study was carried out using standardized questionnaires, which include Philip L Rice occupational stress questionnaire, Myers-Briggs personality type questionnaire and Alan Meyer organizational commitment questionnaire. Correlation and stepwise regression statistical analysis was performed to arrive at the results. The results show that there is significant correlation between occupational stress and personality types of introversion, sensing, feeling and thinking. A significant inverse correlation has also been deduced between occupational stress and organizational commitment. Emotional commitment has been identified as the best predictor of occupational stress and feeling as the least predicting variable. The findings of the study can be used to devise strategies to combat occupational stress experienced by lawyers working in litigation as well as for corporates.

Introduction

The word 'stress' is derived from the Latin word, stringere, meaning to draw tight. In 1936, Hans Selye, the father of modern stress, borrowed the term from physics and used it in medical literature. He suggested that stress is a non-specific response of the body to any demand. In this modern hyper competitive world, stress can come from anywhere and everywhere.

It is a condition in which an individual is confronted with constraints, or opportunities related to what she or he desires, but for which the outcomes are perceived as important and uncertain (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001; Stephen, 2002; Greenberg and Baron, 2003).

The business world has become global, demanding and competitive and organizations are looking for new means to sustain fierce competition in order to succeed in their operations and over doing in the process. A logical manifestation of this has been occupational stress leading to severe health and performance-related issues for the employee and the organization (NIOSH, 2002).

Studies have concluded that stress may influence an individual's psychological

well-being, physical health and behavioral intentions (Netemeyer et al., 1990; Babin and Boles, 1998; and Singh and Dubey, 2011).

Moderate level of stress is associated with superior performance, and results in a new awareness and an exciting new perspective and can be stimulating (Nowrouzi et al., 2017). Such type of stress is called eustress. However, sometimes stress undermines people's alertness or resource activation and may lead to anxiety, depression and various mental and physical illnesses, fatigue, burnout syndrome, behavioral responses, alcohol and drug abuse, smoking, suicide (Quick et al., 1986). This is called distress.

Although not always life threatening, stress can have devastating effects on nearly all aspects of human behavior and organizational functioning (Quick et al., 1992; Stephen, 2002; and Greenberg and Baron, 2003).

Statement of the Problem

The legal profession is a demanding job and lawyers are prone to face mental illness such as anxiety and depression. They deal with disputes and problems of the clients on daily basis which eventually bothers them on a personal level. They also have to interact with judges, senior attorneys, mediators, advocates, police, clerks, notaries on a regular basis each with their own sets of requirements and demands. Lawyers are overwhelmed because of the pressures they face due to their profession leading to stress. Client-induced deadlines, long working hours, pressure from seniors, poor management, a hyper-competitive billing culture, dwindling resources and poor salary results in stress among lawyers. According to a study by Am Law, 200 leading lawyers of law firms are stressed leading to substance abuse and mental health issues (The Global 200, 2018). Similarly, it was also found that one in every three lawyers or law student in Australia were stressed leading to depression (Telfer, 2017). Despite a different work culture, lawyers in India too face similar perils and pressures in the profession leading to stress. The competition in the market is tough and the lawyers that can win the war is the one that provides better services to the clients. Much attention has been directed to provide quality services. This can be achieved through utilizing the human resources. Given the pressure to perform and compete stress will be a natural concomitant of work life, an inevitable phenomenon. No individual is immune to stress and has to face it no matter what is his/her avocation. Naturally, organizations want to ensure that occupational stress does not bog down their human resources. Research has revealed that a strong organizational commitment can be earned by taking steps to reduce occupational stress (Hannif et al., 2006). Similarly, relationship between personality type and occupational stress has been established in many studies (Cooper, 2005). However, linking personality type, organizational commitment and occupational stress have not been attempted by many researchers owing to complex nature of these variable leaving gaps in the knowledge. Filling these gaps may help organizations earn commitment of their human resource, identify suitable personality types for gaining competitive advantage and reduce occupational stress of their employees. The present research work thus attempts to serve this purpose.

Literature Review

Organizational Stress

Workplace stress has become a critical issue for the employers, employees and the organizations (Horwitz, 2010; and Nowrouzi et al., 2017). "Around 40% of the sampled executives say that they frequently lie awake at night or wake up thinking about work problems, while another 33% report that they often feel incapable of relaxing at home because of stress". This is the crux of a survey conducted by the Wall Street Journal (1982), which so ingeniously conveys how latently, and relentlessly job stress takes the toll on working people. Individuals, whether in organization or at home, often wish to have a life with no conflict, no frustration, believing that such a life would be fun. However, it has to be understood that "Without stress, there would be no life" (Seyle). Stress has both psychological and physiological dimensions (Schaufeli and Enzmann 1998; and Verhaeghe et al., 2008) and affects their cognitive processes (Kornitzer et al., 2006). According to the psychological model of stress and disease, individual perceives situation to be threatening, obstructing and challenging and this cognitive appraisal in turn, may trigger physiological disturbances such as cardiovascular problems, blood pressure, diabetes, ulcers, high cholesterol, etc. (Lazarus and Baker, 1956; Mason, 1975; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; and Alves, 2005). This causes negative affect to increase and in an effort to cope with this negative affect, behavior occurs (Hermann, 1966). Occupational stress also destroys the relationship among family members, particularly spouses, children and other relatives that leads to loss of job opportunities and achievements and hurts the quality of life (Thomas et al., 2017). Such events may lead to distress. Perceptions about the events or thinking style and attitude can also contribute to our levels of stress. The interpretation of stressful events is more important than events themselves. Stress has been referred to as 'the third wave plague' (Sutherland and Cooper, 1990).

Organizational stress is a consequence of lack of person-environment fit (Edwards and Cooper, 1990). The basic proposition of P-E fit is that stress arises due to misfit between the person and environment. There are two basic assumptions, first, that stress arises from the misfit between person and environment, and second, that subjective perceptions of work environments primarily determine stress (Bickford, 2005). Therefore, it is important to have congruence between characteristics of a person and characteristics of the environment so that individual and the organization both benefit and results in positive outcomes (Schneider et al., 2000). There should be integration between the individual and his/her work environment so that they fit in like a ball and socket joint. The work environment should provide opportunities for meeting individual's needs and aspirations failing which stress may result affecting the health, morale, performance and well-being of the individual.

When organizational stress is ignored, it is likely to affect the human potential in the organization. It may lead to impaired quality, lower productivity, and poor health, and can affect wellbeing and morale of the employees (Nelson and Burke, 2000). Studies have suggested that stress results in a wide range of somatic and psychological reactions that are detrimental to the individual (Strange and Brown, 1970). This in turn has negative economic implications too (Cooper and Cartwright, 1994; and Edworthy, 2000).

Personality

Personality is a prominent factor in determining stress-it explains why certain people manage to work for years while handling huge amounts of stress, whereas others collapse under similar amounts of stress (Cooper, 2005; and Ervasti et al., 2019). According to Allen (1983), personality makes people "more prone" or "more resistant" to stress. Studies have revealed that personalities that are affirmative optimistic, cheerful generally have healthy psychological well-being whereas while distress is associated with negative personalities (Vollrath and Torgersen, 2002; and Ervasti et al., 2019). However, other research concludes that Type A personalities are characterized by impatience, ambition, hostility and a sense of constant time-pressure, thus more related to stress (Friedman, 1996; and Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001). Although Type A behavior is not a personality style, some authors also called it as Type A personality. Stress is caused by the interaction between the situation and the personality characteristics of a person (Montgomery and Rupp, 2005). Lazarus' Cognitive-phenomenological theory of psychological distress suggests that an individual's personality may influence the appraisal process and consequently the type of stress coping style he/she chooses (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Carver and Connor, 2010; and Dumitrescu, 2014). Individuals with optimistic and positive personalities are likely to appraise a stressful situation more positively and consequently engage in a pro-active coping style (Ball et al., 2002). On the other hand, individuals with pessimistic or negative personalities are more likely to appraise a stressful situation as negative and finally choose a more passive coping style (Ball et al., 2002). Type A behavior pattern is characterized by several components. They have a sense of time urgency, feel guilty when they relax, they are impatient and have high competitive drive and high level of hostility (Friedman and Rosenman, 1974; and Klarreich, 1990).The opposite characteristic of behavioral pattern is Type B. They feel themselves relaxed; do not feel under pressure of time. They are patient people, always getting things done slowly. They speak slowly, and eat slowly as well. They seem to know what their limitations are, and they seem to be able to accept them.

The concept of personality has gone beyond its former visual and social appearance, and currently refers to a substantial and sustained process of each individual (Ryckman, 2007). The congruence between personality and situation results in an individual's behavior and it often leads to wrong interpretation of how an individual behaves. According to Jung (1927), an individual's perception and reactions to his/her environment is determined by opposite introversion and extraversion mental attitudes. He identified four mental functions: Sensing, intuition, thinking and feeling. On the basis of Jung's psychoanalytical theories four dichotomies are deduced which make people different from one another. These are discussed below:

• Extraversion or Introversion: Jung (1995) defined introversion as "attitude-type characterized by orientation in life through subjective psychic contents" and extraversion as "an attitude type characterized by concentration of interest on the external object", (the outside world). People high in extraversion prefer being in large group of people and introverts tend to take pleasure in quieter activities and they focus on one's inner psychic activity.
• Sensing or Intuition: People who prefer sensing absorb actual and real data and are more dependent on past experiences. People who prefer intuiting are idealists and rely more on the future. They generate abstract possibilities from information that is gathered.
• Thinking or Feeling: When people prefer to make decisions based on logic and reasons or their decisions are influenced by their concerns for themselves and others, they are operating in thinking mode. On the other hand, when decisions are based on individuals' values system, then feeling mode is predominant.
• Judging or Perceiving: People who prefer judging like to have everything in order and in a scheduled manner. They are self-disciplined, specific and decisive, are generally curious and like to expand their knowledge.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is one of the important and crucial outcomes of the human resource strategies and it is considered as the key factor in achieving competitive advantage (Vickovic and Morrow, 2020).

Organizational commitment is something beyond passive loyalty of employees toward their organization, it involves an active relationship with the organization. Mowday et al. (1979) views organizational commitment as a measure of an individual's dedication and loyalty to an organization. Organizational commitment is not just the acceptance of the organization's goals and values by employees but also their willingness to put in effort on behalf of the organization as well as exert a desire to maintain membership in the organization. It is "the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization" (Mowday et al.,1982). Past studies have found variables that have an effect on organizational commitment, such as personal characteristics (age, sex, race, personality, attitudes, level of education, climate, culture), job characteristics (feedback, autonomy, teamwork, team spirit, leadership, skills required, work environment, work pressure), and organizational characteristics (competence, job challenges, degree of autonomy, leadership style, career prospects, human resource policies, possibilities for future education and participation in decision making) (Meyer and Allen, 1997; and Vickovic and Morrow, 2020).

There are three types of commitment: Affective commitment refers to employees' emotional attachment, identification with, and involvement in the organization (Fields, 2002). It focuses on involvement, attachment and moral obligation to stay in the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Employees with high affective commitment stay with the organization because they want to. Continuance commitment refers to employees' assessment of whether the costs of leaving the organization are greater than the costs of staying. Employees who perceive that the costs of leaving the organization are greater than the costs of staying remain because they need to. Normative commitment refers to employees' feelings of obligation to continue with the employment in the organization (Fields, 2002). Employees with strong normative commitment stay with the organization because they feel they ought to.

Organizational commitment is an effective and strong force (Culverson, 2002) and an important factor in understanding employees' behaviors (McMurray et al., 2004). Studies have demonstrated that organizational commitment, performance of employees and employee turnover affects the sales, profitability and staff absenteeism of the organization. It has been observed that existence of organizational commitment has resulted in an increase in profitability and a reduction in desertion (Vickovic and Morrow, 2020). Loui (1995) observed that organizational commitment was significantly related to trust, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Wiener and Vardi (1980) found a positive correlation between organizational commitment and job performance. Angle and Perry (1981) uncovered a relationship between commitment and turnover. Jermier and Berkes (1979) discovered that employee participation in decision-making had a positive relationship with organizational commitment. Employees when treated with consideration displayed greater levels of commitment (DeCotiis and Summers, 1987). Bycio et al. (1995) reported positive correlations between the leadership behaviors of charisma, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent reward and affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Employees when committed help organizations develop and expand (Vickovic and Morrow, 2020).

Scope of the Study

The present study covers lawyers working in litigation as well as for corporates in the cities of Delhi, Ranchi and Mumbai. It is largely concerned with linking personality type, organizational commitment and occupational stress in order to help organizations earn commitment of their human resource, identify suitable personality types for gaining competitive advantage and reduce occupational stress of their employees.

Objective

• To understand the nature of occupational stress and its relationship with organizational commitment and personality types.
• To find the impact of occupational stress on organizational commitment and personality types on lawyers working in litigation as well as corporates.

Data and Methodology

A survey was conducted of lawyers working in litigation as well as for corporates from all levels to gain a better understanding on the relation between stress, personality and organizational commitment. In carrying out the present research, both primary and secondary sources of data collection was used. The sample population selected for this particular study are the lawyers working in courts as litigators and corporate lawyers in Delhi, Ranchi and Mumbai.

The analysis and tabulation of results was done by the use of the statistical analysis package Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Correlation and regression statistical analysis was performed to arrive at the result.

The sampling frame comprised lawyers working in litigation as well as corporates in the cities of Delhi, Ranchi and Mumbai. 150 questionnaires were distributed out of which 102 employees responded. Random and convenience sampling was used for data collection. The respondents were assured that their responses would be kept strictly confidential. The sample included lawyers of different age groups, hierarchical levels, qualification levels, and experience level.

The collection of primary data was done through questionnaire. Mayers- Brig questionnaire was used to measure the personality type, Philip. L.Rice questionnaire was used to measure the stress level, and Allen and Mayer questionnaire was used to measure the organizational commitment. The secondary data was collected from research publications, standard journal and periodicals including the government organizations and from respective records about the job-related occurrence.

Mayers-Brigs Questionnaire

Developed in early 1950s by Katherine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers, Mayers- Brigs questionnaire is based on Gustav Jung's Theory on personality. It is one of the most famous questionnaires on personality which has a total of 88 items which measures extroversion-introversion dimension, sensory-intuition, thinking-feeling and judging-perceiving. The MBTI has been increasingly used in the field of counseling, education, business, government and religious communities (McCaulley, 1987).

Philip L Rice Questionnaire

Philip L Rice questionnaire (1991) determined occupational stress among employees. It has 57 items which has been reduced to three sub-scales of personal relations, physical condition and career interests.

Allen and Mayer Questionnaire

Allen and Mayer Organizational commitment questionnaire (1993) was developed by Allen, Mayer and Smith in 1993 to measure and evaluate three dimensions of occupational commitment that included feeling, continuous and normative commitment with 18 questions.

Meyer and Allen (1991) developed a framework to measure three different types of organizational commitment. These are:

• Affective commitment: Measures employees' emotional attachment, identification with, and involvement in the organization.
• Continuance commitment: Measures employees' assessment of whether the costs of leaving the organization are greater than the costs of staying.
• Normative commitment: Measures employees' feelings of obligation to the organization.

Results

Correlation and stepwise regression statistical analysis was performed to arrive at the result.

Discussion

Factors generating stress can vary from individual to individual depending on their belief, attitude and perception about the situation (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). The same stimulus can elicit different responses from different people, that is, a stressor to one person may be insignificant to another. So stress is more individual-based rather than stimulus-based. Mental health professionals believe personality plays a significant role in how stress is perceived. "Type A" personalities are ambitious, time-conscious and performance-driven. If these traits are not properly managed, it may cause stress-related illnesses (Day and Jregie, 2002). In contrast, "Type B" personalities are much more relaxed, less time-conscious and less performance-driven. They are able to view things more adaptively. As a result, they tend to be less stress-prone. However, certain studies indicate that personalities that are negative experience greater distress, while positive personalities who are more gregarious and social generally experience good psychological health (Suls et al., 1998; Vollrath and Torgersen, 2000; and Ervasti et al., 2019). Social, psychological, biological and behavioral factors play a pivotal role in developing the character. Researchers suggest that a combination of inheritance and experience form an individual's characteristic way of behaving, feeling and thinking-his/her personality. The results of the present study demonstrate the influence of personality factors and organizational commitment, quantified through the Mayers-Brig questionnaire, Philip L Rice questionnaire and Allen and Mayer questionnaire in shaping occupational stress. A direct and positive correlation was found between occupational stress and personality types-introversion, sensing, feeling and thinking. High occupational stress levels were identified in people who are introvert, who are not able to express his/her opinion, reserved and prudent. When stressed, they are likely to withdraw to a quiet place and engage in reflective activity. As they are reserved, quiet, lack confidence and shy they are not able to speak their grievances. Due to stress they get distant, tired, irritated and angry easily which ultimately leads to poor performance. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere". They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data.

An inverse correlation was found between occupational stress and personality types-extroversion, intuition and judging. Extrovert people are "action" oriented and they are interested in understanding the world that they live in. Using their perceiving function of intuition they constantly process information they collect and generally understand things quickly. When extroverts feel stressed, they are likely to look outside themselves for relief. They are social, friendly and outgoing. They appear relaxed and confident. As a result, they are less vulnerable to occupational stress. Individuals with optimistic and positive personalities are likely to appraise a stressful situation more positively and consequently engage in a pro-active coping style (Ball et al., 2002). The results of the present study is in line with the studies conducted by James (2011) who deduced that the extroverts are more adaptable to stress.

Judging their world to feel controlled and ordered, they prefer to make plans well in advance. The best predictor of occupational stress is variable of emotional commitment and the personality trait known as feeling has been found to be a least significant predictor of occupational stress.

Conclusion

Given the results of the present study and the general overview of the related literature, it can be concluded that stress is widespread and potentially disruptive for organizational and employee well-being (Benson, 1992; and Greenberg and Baron, 2003). This study was conducted to determine occupational stress of lawyers working for corporates and in litigation. According to the results, an inverse correlation was found between occupational stress and organizational commitment, and this means that lawyers prone to high occupational stress have lower organizational commitment and are more willing to leave the job. It was also found that lawyers with personality type 'feeling' are the most important type of Mayers-Brigs' personality types to predict occupational stress. Similarly, emotional commitment came out to be the most prominent type of Allen and Mayer's subscale of organizational commitment to predict occupational stress. That emotional commitment predicts high occupational stress among lawyers.

Limitations: This study has limitations which open up the opportunity for further research. Considering the time constraint, the study was conducted only at Ranchi, Delhi and Mumbai. The sample of respondents was from conveniently selected corporate offices and High Court and District Courts. Similar kind of studies can be done on a much larger population or different work settings. The opinion elicited from the research study cannot be taken as the opinion of the whole population. Since all information collected in the study depends on the respondent's view, it could influence the results resulting in biasness. The future academic researchers may use the present study as a stepping stone for further exploratory research toward defining personality type and organizational commitment and its effect on occupational stress.

References

1. Allen R J (1983), Human Stress: Its Nature and Control, Macmillan Inc., New York.
2. Angle H and Perry J (1981), "An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, No.1, pp. 1-14.
3. Babin B J and Boles J S (1998), "Employee Behavior in a Service Environment: A Model and Test of Potential Differences Between Men and Women", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, No.2, pp. 77-91.
4. Ball S, Smolin J and Shekhar A (2002), "A Psychobiological Approach to Personality: Examination Within Anxious Outpatients", Journal of Psychiatric Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 97-103.
5. Benson H (1992), The Wellness Book, Simon and Schuster, New York.
6. Bickford M (2005), "Stress in the Workplace: A General", Canadian Mental Health Association Newfoundland and Labrador Division.
7. Bycio P, Hackett R and Allen J (1995), "Further Assessment's of Bass's (1985). Conceptualization of Transactional and Transformational Leadership", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80, No. 4, pp. 468-478.
8. Carver C S and Connor-Smith J (2010), "Personality and Coping", Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 679-704, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352
9. Cooper C L and Cartwright S (1994), "Healthy Mind, Healthy Organization: A Proactive Approach to Occupational Stress", Human Relations, Vol. 47, No.4, pp. 455-471.
10. Cooper I D (2005), "Approaching Burnout", South African Family Practice, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 5-8.
11. Culverson D E (2002), "Exploring Organizational Commitment Following Radical Change: A Case Study Within the Parks Canada Agency" [Dissertation], University of Waterloo, Canada. pp. 342-356.
12. Day A and Jreige S (2002), "Examining Type A Behavior Pattern to Explain The Relationship Between Job Stressors and Psychosocial Outcomes", Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 7, No.2, pp. 109-120, retrieved on October 21, 2005 from The Psycarticles Database.
13. Decotiis T and Summers T (1987), "A Path Analysis of a Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment", Human Relations, Vol. 40, No. 7, pp. 445-470.
14. Dumitrescu C (2014), "Influence of Psychotherapeutic Interventions on Occupational Stress", Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 127, pp. 696-701.
15. Edwards J R and Cooper C L (1990), "The Person-Environment Fit Approach to Stress: Recurring Problems and Some Suggested Solutions", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.11, No. 4, pp. 293-307.
16. Edworthy A (2000), Managing Stress, Open University Press, Buckingham.
17. Ervasti M, Kallio J, Määttänen I, et al. (2019), "Influence of Personality and Differences in Stress Processing Among Finnish Students on Interest to Use a Mobile Stress Management App: Survey Study", JMIR Mental Health, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. E10039.
18. Fields D (2002), Taking the Measure of Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for Organizational Research and Diagnosis, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
19. Friedman M (1996), Type A Behavior - Its Diagnosis and Treatment, Prevention in Practice Library, November.
20. Friedman M and Rosenman R H (1974), Type A Behavior and Your Heart, Times Books, New York.
21. Greenberg J and Barona R (2003), Behavior in Organizations, Prentice Hall International, Inc., New Jersey
22. Hannif Z, Lamm F, Lo K and Lu J (2006), "Occupational Stress in the Service Sector: A New Dimension", Labour, Employment and Work in New Zealand.
23. Hermann M G (1966), "Testing a Model of Psychological Stress", Journal of Personality, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 381-396.
24. Horwitz A V (2010), "How an Age of Anxiety Became an Age of Depression", The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 112-138.
25. Huczynski A and Buchanan D (2001), Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall.
26. Jermier J and Berkes L (1979), "Leader Behavior in a Police Command Bureaucracy: A Closer Look at the Quasi-Military Model", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 1-23.
27. Jung C (1995), Memories, Dreams, Reflections, Fontana Press, London.
28. Jung C G (1927), The Structure of The Psycho, in Collected Works, Princeton University Press, Vol. 8, pp. 129-158, Princeton, NJ.
29. Klarreich S H (1990), Work Without Stress: A Practical Guide to Emotional and Physical Well-Being on The Job, Brunner/Mazel.
30. Kornitzer M, Sans S, Dramaix M et al.(2006), "Job Stress and Major Coronary Events: Results from the Job Stress, Absenteeism and Coronary Heart Disease in Europe Study", European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 695-704.
31. Lazarus R S (1963), "A Laboratory Approach to the Dynamics of Psychological Stress", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 192-213.
32. Lazarus R S and Baker R W (1956), "Personality and Psychological Stress: A Theoretical And Methodological Framework", Psychology Newsletter, Vol. 8, pp. 21-32.
33. Lazarus R S and Folkman S (1984), Stress, Appraisal and Coping, Springer, New York.
34. Loui K (1995), "Understanding Employee Commitment in The Public Organization: A Study of the Juvenile Detention Center", International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 1269-1295.
35. Mason J W (1975),"A Historical View of the Stress Field: Part II", Journal of Human Stress, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 22-36.
36. McCaulley M (1987), "The Myers Briggs Type Indicator - A Jungian Mode for Problem Solving", in J Stice, (Ed.) , Developing Critical Thinking and problem Solving Abilities, Josseybass, San Francisco.
37. McMurray A J, Scott D R and Pace R W (2004), "The Relationship Between Organizational Commitment and Organizational Climate in Manufacturing", Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 473-488.
38. Meyer J P and Allen N J (1991), "A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 61-89.
39. Meyer J and Allen N (1997), Commitment in the Workplace, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
40. Montgomery C and Rupp A A (2005), "A Meta-Analysis for Exploring the Diverse Causes and Effects of Stress in Teachers", Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne De L'education, pp. 458-486.
41. Mowday R T, Porter L W and Steers R M (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, (Vol. 153), Academic Press, New York.
42. Mowday R T, Steers R M and Porter L W (1979), "The Measurement of Organizational Commitment", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 224-247.
43. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2002), "Stress at Work", (No. 99-101) Department of Health And Human Services, Washington, DC.
44. Nelson D L and Burke R J (2000), "Women Executives: Health, Stress and Success", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 107-121.
45. Netemeyer R G, Johnston M W and Burton S (1990), "Analysis of Role Conflict and Ambiguity, in a Structural Equations Framework", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 148-157.
46. Nowrouzi B, Nguyen C, Casole J and Nowrouzi-Kia B (2017), "Occupational Stress: A Comprehensive Review of the Top 50 Annual and Lifetime Cited Articles", Workplace Health & Safety, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp.197-209.
47. Quick C, Murphy L R and Hurrell Jr J (1992), Stress and Wellbeing at Work, American Psychological Association, Washington D C.
48. Quick J D, Horn R S and Quick J C (1986), "Health Consequences of Stress", Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 8, No.2, pp. 19-36.
49. Schaufeli W and Enzmann D (1998), The Burnout Companion to Study and Practice: A Critical Analysis, CRC Press.
50. Schneider K T, Hitlan R T and Radhakrishnan P (2000), "An Examination of the Nature and Correlates of Ethnic Harassment Experiences in Multiple Contexts", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 3-12.
51. Selye H (1936),"The Alarm Reaction", Can Med Assoc J, Vol. 34, p.704.
52. Singh A P and Dubey A K (2011), "Role of Stress and Locus of Control in Job Satisfaction Among Middle Managers", The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 42-56.
53. Stephen P R (2002), Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
54. Strange R E And Brown D (1970), "Home from the War: A Study of Psychiatric Problems", in Vietnam Returnees", American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 127, No. 4, pp. 488-492.
55. Suls J, Green P and Hillis S (1998), "Emotional Reactivity to Everyday Problems, Affective Inertia and Neuroticism", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 127-136.
56. Sutherland V J and Cooper C L (1990), Understanding Stress: A Psychological Perspective for Health Professionals, Chapman and Hall/CRC.
57. Telfer T G W (2017), "The Wellness Doctrines for Law Students & Young Lawyers, by Jerome Doraisamy", Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 645-654.
58. The Global 200 (2018), "Big Law Leaders Say Stress Is Main Cause of Addiction and Mental Health Problems", available at Https://Www.Law.Com/2018/10/01/Big-Law-Leaders-Say-Stress-Is-Main-Cause-of-Addiction-And-Mental-Health-Problems/?Slreturn=20211019023238
59. Thomas P A, Liu H and Umberson D (2017), "Family Relationships and Well-Being", Innovation in Aging, Vol. 1, No. 3, available at https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx025
60. Verhaeghe R, Vlerick P, De Backer G et al. (2008), "Recurrent Changes in the Work Environment, Job Resources and Distress Among Nurses: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Survey", International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 382-392.
61. Vickovic S G and Morrow W J (2020), "Examining the Influence of Work-Family Conflict on Job Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment Among Correctional Officers", Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 5-25.
62. Vollrath M and Torgersen S (2000), "Personality Types and Coping", Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 367-378.
63. Vollrath M and Torgersen S (2002), "Who Takes Health Risks? A Probe into Eight Personality Types", Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 1185-1197.
64. Wiener Y and Vardi Y (1980), "Relationships Between Job, Organization and Career Commitments and Work Outcomes: An Integrative Approach", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 26, pp. 81-96.