Influence of Job Stressors on The Quality of Work Life Among Coaches and Chaperone

Influence of Job Stressors on The Quality of Work Life Among Coaches and Chaperone

Vincent Anthony P. Isao, Ph.D¹, Roque N. Langcoy II, Ed.D²

¹Teacher III, Manuel B. Guiñez Sr. National High School, Division of Davao Oriental

²Associate Professor V, Davao Oriental State University- San Isidro Campus

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.806213

Received: 10 June 2024; Revised: 14 June 2024; Accepted: 21 June 2024; Published: 22 July 2024

ABSTRACT

This study aimed at determining domains in the job stressors that significantly influence the “quality of work life among coaches and chaperone. The non-experimental quantitative research was utilized in this undertaking. There were 150coaches and chaperone who are also teachers in Mati City Division with distinct range of working experiences and level of academic achievements from one year and above, who participated in this study as respondents. The Mean, Pearson-r and Regression Analysis were used as the statistical tools employed for the interpretation of the data gathered. The result of this undertaking revealed that the level of job stressors was high among coaches and chaperone in terms of job stress scale, co-worker support, role expectation conflict, and work life balance. Also, it was revealed that the level of quality of work life was high in terms of work environment, relation and cooperation, job satisfaction and job security, organization culture and climate, training and development, compensation and reward, autonomy of work, adequacy of resources, and facilities. Moreover, the result revealed that job stressors were significantly related to quality of work life among coaches and chaperone. It was also found that job stress scale and coworker support as job stressors were significantly influenced the quality of work life.

Keywords: Job stressors, quality of work life, coaches and chaperone, Philippines

INTRODUCTION

Quality of work life has become critical in the last two decades, capturing the attention of employees (Akdere, 2006). It is one aspect that people need to consider as it sometimes deals with stress. However, there are many other critical factors that contribute to the quality of work life, including social factors such as physiological and physical aspects (Berg et al., 2008). Overcoming these different factors that lead to extreme stress in their jobs has been a significant challenge for some employees.

In Ghana, the quality of work life has become a historical issue concerning the administration and its constituents. Employees’ work life has been affected by stressful conditions, including poor accommodation. This cause has subjected these employees to excessive constraints on staff and challenging situations related to stress (Gyamfi, 2014).

Job stressors are defined as factors that can have a detrimental impact on an individual’s physical and emotional well-being when they are unable to fulfill their role as an employee to the best of their potential, abilities, and desires (Vallasamy et al., 2023).In the field of education, stressors are increasing every day due to the growing difficulty in teaching, which can have harmful effects on teachers, particularly when they lack effective stress-coping strategies. This is because teachers are not only responsible for imparting academic knowledge but also for instilling good values in their students to help them become responsible citizens (Mehta, 2013).

It has been revealed that workload, work-life balance, coworker support, and role ambiguity are stressors that are commonly experienced by the teachers in some workplaces. These stressors are significantly connected to the quality of work life and job satisfaction (Wu, 2011). In a study conducted in Davao City by Bagtasos and Espere (2010), it was found that teachers in private schools experienced problems with their quality of work life due to compensation and the nature of their work compared to teachers in public schools.

Moreover, the study recommended that the Department of Education (DepED) and private schools increase the salary and benefits of teachers. It also suggests improving or providing physical facilities and upgrading teachers professionally at least twice a year. Additionally, involving teachers in the decision-making process, activating partnerships with stakeholders such as Parents Teacher Association (PTA) and Barangay Officials, and evaluating teachers’ promotions fairly are recommended. Introducing work-life programs and policies, as well as reducing workloads and working hours for teachers, are also suggested.

The researcher had not come across a local study on job stressors and the quality of work life that is like the study undertaken by previous researchers, specifically in Mati City. The researcher was undeniably eager and fascinated to find out whether the job stressors influence the quality of work life among coaches and chaperones, as this can elevate apprehension among the intended beneficiaries, especially the respondents of the study. It may help develop intervention schemes for job stressors and improve the quality of work life among coaches and chaperones. Thus, there is an urgency to conduct the study.

Research Questions

The core goal of this undertaking was to determine what domain in the job stressors significantly influence the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone. Specifically, this investigation sought the succeeding research objectives:

1. To ascertain the level of job stressors among coaches and chaperone;
2. To examinethe level of quality of work life among coaches and chaperone;
3. To assess if there is a significant relationship between job stressors and quality of work life among coaches and chaperone; and
4. To determine which domain in the job stressors would significantly influence the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone.

Theoretical Framework

This study was anchored on the Ecological System Theory (Cote & Nightingale, 2011), which develops connections between good working conditions that are stress-free and the quality of work life among teachers. It encompasses vast support for honing a model of conflict between life and work that is suitable for understanding and examining the possible connections between distinct organizational structures in the workplace and individuals’ reactions to the outcomes. These outcomes include achieving higher job satisfaction, providing less conflict between work and family, and reducing employees’ intention to leave their jobs, which defines a good work condition where teachers do not feel the different stressors.

Conceptual Framework

Figure below presents the paradigm of this study. The independent variable of this quantitative study is the job stressors with four indicators, namely: job stress scale, coworker support, role expectation conflict, and work life balance (Shukla & Srivastava, 2016). The dependent variable of this study is the quality of work life with the following indicators, namely: training and development, work environment, relation and cooperation, organization culture and climate, facilities, compensation and rewards, job satisfaction and job security, adequacy of resources, autonomy of work (Swamy, Nanjundeswaraswamy, & Rashmi, 2015).

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

A qualitative research design was used in this undertaking, employing descriptive correlation method. Notably, Hidalgo (2014) defined quantitative research as a method where two or more quantitative variables are determined to have a significant relationship.Moreover, the utilization of the design was manifested by the researcher to distinguish the relationship and influence of job stressors on the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone.

Research Respondents

The respondents of the undertaking were the teachers who are also coaches and chaperone from the schools of Mati City Division.

A total of 150 coaches and chaperone who are also teachers were considered as respondents of this study from the different schools in Mati City Division. All coaches and chaperone had been included in the study by using total enumeration.These teachers have different range of working experience and levels of academic background. At the same time, they have also diverse range of services in their respective institution from 1 year to 30 years.

Research Instrument

There were two sets of questionnaires used in gathering data from the respondents and were adopted and modified to complete the questions and to suit in the environment where to be conducted.The first instrument was a questionnaire for job stressorswhich consisted of four indicators namely: job stress scale, coworker support, work life balance, role expectation conflict (Shukla & Srivastava, 2016).The second questionnaire was for quality of work life which comprised nine indicators namely(Swamy et al.,2015).

Statistical Tools

The data gathered were analyzed and interpreted using the appropriate statistical treatment. Meanwas utilized to determine the level of job stress and level of quality of work life among coaches and chaperone.Pearson r.was utilized to determine the significant “relationship between the level” of job stress and quality of working life among coaches and chaperone.Regression Analysiswas utilized to find out what domain in the job stress best predicts the quality of work life.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Level of the Job Stressors

Table below presents the level of job stressors among coaches and chaperone in terms of job stress scale, work life balance, role expectation conflict, co-worker support. The overall of job stressors garnered a mean score of 3.64 with a standard deviation of 0.68, described as high.

This means that the job stressors are much felt by the coaches and chaperone in Mati City Division. Among the four indicators, Work Life Balance got the highest mean score of 3.77 described as high and then followed by Coworker support which posted a mean score of 3.70 described as high; Role expectation conflict has a mean score of 3.60 indicated as high; and Job stress scale got the lowest mean score of 3.49 indicated as high.

Table 1: Level of Job Stressors

The results of the study were supported by the research findings conducted by Mosadeghrad et al. (2011), which revealed that job stressors commonly exist in schools due to factors such as low pay, work inequality, excessive workload, promotion expectations, staff shortages, lack of appreciation and recognition, time pressure, and inadequate support and security in managing roles. Moreover, the study recommended that to reduce the level of stressors in the organization, it is essential to utilize human rights regulations and improve working conditions for teachers.

Level of the Quality of Work Life

Presented in the Table below is the extent of quality of work life among coaches and chaperone in terms of the Work environment, adequacy of resources, job satisfaction and job security, organization and culture, training and development, relation and cooperation, autonomy of work, compensation and reward, and facilities.

The overall mean score is 3.80 and an SD is 0.65 described as high. This means that the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone is much observed. Among the nine indicators, the relation and cooperation got the highest mean score of 4.02 described as high and then followed by the organization and culture that has a mean score of 3.96 described as high.

The indicator job satisfaction and job security has the mean score of 3.88 described as high, the autonomy to work earned the mean score of 3.86 is also described as high, and indicator work environment got the mean score of 3.76 is as well described as high, followed by the training and development that has the mean score of 3.75 described as high, adequacy of resources gained the mean score of 3.70 and is also described as high, the mean score of 3.66 described as high got by the compensation and rewards and the indicator got the lowest mean score of 3.60 is the facilities and is described as high.

Table 2: Level of the Quality of Work Life

This is in consonance with the study conducted by Kaur and Sharman (2016), which postulated that the quality of working life improves when employees experience contentment in their chosen career. Moreover, the study recommended that a high quality of work life can be achieved when workers enjoy their roles and are satisfied with the quality of their work.

Significant Relationship Between Job Stressors and the Quality of Work Life among coaches and chaperone

Table below presents the four indicators that show the significant relationship between the level quality of work life and job stressors. The R value of the job stress scale and quality of work life is 0.638 with p-value of 0.001 that shows a positive correlation of 40.70%. While the R-value of role expectation conflict is 0.482 with p-value of 0.001 that also shows positive correlation of 23.23%. Also, the R-value of co-worker support is 0.618 with p-value of 0.001 that indicates the positive correlation of 38.19%. Lastly, work life support has an R-value of 0.594 with p-value of 0.001 that undeniably proves a positive correlation of 35.28%.

Since the table shows that the domains job stress scale, co-worker support,work life balance, and role expectation conflict have the p-value of 0.001 which is lesser than the level of significance at 0.05, thus, the null hypothesis which states that “There is no significant relationship between job stressors and quality of work life among coaches and chaperone” is rejected.

Table 3: Significant Relationship between Job Stressors and the level of Quality of Work Life

*P < 0.005

The r- square has proven that the job stress scale has a strength of relationship of 40.70% to the quality of work life while the coworker support and work life balance have38.19% and 35.28%, respectively. Lastly, the role expectation conflict has an R- squared of 23.23%. The strong interdependence of the variables shows that job stress scale, coworker support, work life balance, and role expectation conflict have significant relationship on the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone.

It is affirmed in the findings conducted by Prathibha& Antonio (2010) that there is a proven relationship between job stressors and the quality of work life. The results of the study show that employees can improve their quality of work life by implementing the management strategies intended to address job stressors. This stressor management training includes defining and identifying stressors and their effects on both the mind and body, describing how to overcome these stressors, and achieving a positive mental state.

Regression Analysis on the Influence of Job Stressors on the Quality of Work Life

Table 4 displays the regression analysis on the influence of the domains of job stressors to the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone. The table proves that F-ratio of 32.41 and probability value of 0.001 that is lesser than the 0.05 level of significance. The result has indeed allowed the researcher to reject the null hypothesis that says “There is no domain in the job stressors that significantly influences the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone.The R- value of 0.687 signifies a high positive relationship between job stressors and quality of work life among coaches and chaperone. The R- squared of 0.472 implies that only 47.2% of the variation in the level of quality of work life attributed in the level of job stressors among coaches and chaperone. The remaining52.8 %, is the possible variation that means that the level of quality of work life would be attributed to the other elements that aren’t included in this undertaking. The job stress scale indicator had as beta of 0.369* and a p-value of 0.001 that is lesser than the level of significance at 0.05. This manifests that the job stress scale has a significant influence on the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone. Undeniably, this indicator has the highest beta compared to the other domains and it stands as the strongest domain among the four domains.

The second indicator which is the co-worker support has 0.259 of a beta with a corresponding value of 0.010 of probability that is lesser than the level of significance at 0.05. This is the second domain that has a highest beta. The result presents that the co-worker support as a domain of job stressors has a significant influence on the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone. This implies that teachers have their genuine support from their colleagues who shared their skillfulness and expertness in the field that would really make the work light and really help the coaching job of the teachers.

Also, work life balance has 0.187 of a beta and a value of 0.052 of probability that is greater than the level of significance at 0.05. The result proves that work life balance has no significant influence on the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone. This implies that teachers who are also coaches and chaperone can balance in terms of their time at work and in the time of their other curricular activities. Also, it only proves that they learn to maintain the time management amid heavy schedules and their responsibility in their family and balance their coaching and teaching job.

Lastly, role expectation conflict has a beta value of -0.072 with a corresponding p-value of 0.442 which is greater than the level of significance at 0.05. The p- value of this domain is obviously greater than the level of significance, this means that role expectation conflict has no significant influence on the quality of work life among coaches and chaperone. This implies that teachers who are also coaches and chaperone have satisfied the things required for them to accomplish based on the roles given to them with clear description and aims.

Table 4: Regression Analysis on the Influence of Job Stressors on Quality of Work Life

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The level of job stressors among coaches and chaperon was high. This indicates that the level of job stressors among coaches and chaperon are much evident.
2. The level of quality of work life among coaches and chaperon was high. This indicates that the level of quality of work life among coaches and chaperon are much observed.
3. There is a significant relationship between job stressors and quality of work life among coaches and chaperon.
4. The job stress scale and work life balance as one of the indicators have significant influence on the quality of work life, while coworker support and role expectation conflict have no significant influence on the quality of work life among coaches and chaperon.

Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations were given:

1. Since the level of job stressors among coaches and chaperones is high, it is recommended that teachers who also serve as coaches and chaperones identify the different factors that can cause extreme stress. By identifying these stressors, they can be guided on how to effectively overcome them.
2. Since the level of quality of work life among coaches and chaperones is high, it is recommended that teachers who also serve as coaches and chaperones continue to improve themselves personally and professionally. This will help sustain the quality of their work life.
3. Since job stressors have a significant relationship and influence on the quality of work life, while the two indicators of coworker support and role expectation conflict have no significant influence on the quality of work life among coaches and chaperones, it is recommended that teachers who are also coaches and chaperones build a strong support system with fellow teachers. This support system will help them succeed in achieving their goals while fulfilling their duties in the organization.
4. It is highly recommended to initiate further studies that focus on this research using distinct indicators to validate the outcomes and address any additional problems not covered in this research. The researcher suggests that conducting a timely and relevant follow-up study on this issue is crucial, as it remains a major dilemma for many teachers.

REFERENCES

1. Akdere, M. (2006). Improving quality of work life: implications for human resources. The Business Review, 6(1), 173-177
2. Bagtasos, R.P. &Espere, R.P. (2010). Quality of work life of selected secondary teachers in davao city. Semantic Scholar, 8, 23-25
3. Berg, T.I.J., Alavinia, S.M., Bredt, F.J., Lindeboom, D., Elders, L.A.M., &Burdorf, A. (2008). The influence of psychosocial factors at work and lifestyle on health and work ability among professional workers. International Archive of Occupational Environmental Health, 81(8),1029-1036
4. Cote, M. & Nightingale, A.J. (2011). Resilience thinking meets social theory: situating social change in socio-ecological systems research. Sage Journal, 36(4)
5. Gyamfi, G.D. (2014). Influence of job stress on job satisfaction: Emperical evidence from ghana police service. International Business Research, 7(9), 108-118
6. Kaur, M., & Sharma, N.R. (2016). Perceptions of university teachers regarding factors determining quality of work life. Journal of Management & Technology, 1(1), 9-18
7. Mansoor, M., Fida, S., Nasir, S. and Ahmad, Z. (2011). The Impact of job stress on employee job satisfaction: A study on telecommunication sector of pakistan. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 2, 50-56.
8. Mehta, A. (2013). A study of how emotional intelligence reduces occupational stress among teachers. International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in Management and Technology, 2, 19-28.
9. Mosadeghrad, A.M., Ferlie, E., Duska, Rosenberg. (2011). A study of relationship between job stress, quality of work life and turnover intention among hospital employees. Health services Management Research, 24(4), 170-181
10. Prathibha, V., Antonio, K. (2010). Change management for effective quality improvement. American Journal of Medical Quality, 25(4), 268-273
11. Shukla, A. & Srivastava, R. (2016). Development of short questionnaire to measure an extended set of role expectation conflict, coworker support and work-life balance: The new job stress scale. Cogent Business & Management,
12. Taylor & Francis Journals, 3(1), 1134034-113, Swamy, D.R., Nanjundeswaraswamy, T.S., & Rashmi, S. (2015). Quality of work life: scale development and validation. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 8(2), 281
13. Vallasamy, S.K., Muhadi., Kumaran, S. (2023). Underlying factors that contributed to job stress in an organization. Journal of Business and Social Sciences Research, 13(5), 1239-1250
14. Wu, Y.C. (2011). Job stress and job performance among employees in the Taiwanese finance sector: The role of emotional intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(1), 21–32.