ABSTRACT
The study investigated
organizational justice, self efficacy and work status as predictors of
occupational stress among three hundred and eighty (380) workers of Nigeria prison in Enugu. They consisted of two hundred and
twenty six (226) junior and one hundred and fifty four (154) senior aged 18-60
years with a mean age of 39 years. Three instruments were used in the study;
Organizational Justice Scale, New General Self efficacy Scale and Role-Based
Stress Inventory. Linear regression analysis was used employed to test for
significances of the stated hypotheses, which showed a significant effect of
the predictors variables, organizational justice (ßÂ= .041, p=NS). Self
efficacy (ß = -.103, p<.05) and work status (ß = -.190, p<.001) on
occupational stress, the dependent variable. The result of the findings showed
that self efficacy and work status were statistically significant predictors of
occupational stress among prison workers. Organization stress was not
significant. Implications and limitations were discussed and suggestions were
made for further study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page i
Certification page
Dedication
Acknowledgments
List of Tables
Abstract
Table of Contents                                                                                            ii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction                                                                                                   1
Statement of the Problem                                                                          Â
Purpose of the Study
Operational Definition of Terms
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
THEORETICAL REVIEW
Response Based Model
Person-Environment Fit Theory
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
Consistency Theory
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
Identity Theory
Theory of Role Balance
Adams’ Equity theory (1963)
Herzberg’s two factors of motivation
EMPIRICAL REVIEW
Organizational justice and occupational stress
Self efficacy and occupational stress
Job Status and occupational stress
SUMMARY OF THE LITERATURE REVIEW
HYPOTHESES
CHAPTER THREE: METHOD
Participants
Instrument
Procedure
Design and Statistics
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The goal of every organization, is to work towards achieving the objective for its existence. As an organization, the major goal of the prisons at any level is towards attainment of safe custody of the inmates. Although there may be other peripheral objectives, emphasis is placed on the achievement of inmates’ reformation and rehabilitation. The extent to which this goal is actualized depends principally on the workforce most especially the prison workers. They constitute the oil that lubricates the factors of security performance and criminal justice system (CJS) objectives (Zapf, 2002). However, studies (e.g.Cooper & Cartwirght 1994; Kinman, 2001) have identified, among other things occupational stress as one of the militating factors against employees well being and effective performance.
Stress is an unavoidable characteristic of life and work. It is a generalized non-specific response of the body to any demand made on it. Occupational stress describes physical, mental and emotional wear and tear brought about by incongruence between the requirement of the job and capabilities resource and needs of the employee to cope with job demands (Lazarus 2000; Akinboye, Akinboye & Adeyemo, 2002). According to Youssef and Luthan (2007) over seventy percent of employees world – wide describe their jobs as stressful with more than one in five reporting high levels of stress at work on a daily basis.
Stress experienced by people in different occupational aress and job roles has been discussed in many papers with a number of different occupations being described as experiencing above average levels of stress. The job of prison officers, in particular, has been rated as stressful (Cooper, Cooper & Eaker 1988; Cooper, Dewe & O’Driscoll, 2001). A multivariate logistic regression analysis carried out by Stack & Tsoudis (2003) indicated that the risk of suicide among prison guards was 39% higher than the rest of the working age population. Prison officers play crucial roles in the functioning of prison. According to Moon and Maxwell (2004) prison officers can influence the positive behaviour of inmates through daily contact therefore helping to maintain the social and security environment of prisons on daily basis. However, the responsibility this position holds is fraught with stress (Lambert, Hogan & Barton, 2004).
           According to Crawley (2004) prison officer’s anxiety level arises from the unpredictability of prison life, although much of prison life is mundane and routine the officer is always conscious that a prisoner may assault him that a prisoner may try to escape, that a prisoner may try to take him hostage. Those who choose a career as a prison officer face a number of issues such as role problem, work over load, demanding social contracts (with prisoners, colleagues and supervisors) and poor social status (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). These factors may not only affect the officer but also have a ripple effect that can result in negative consequences for the officers’ family members as well as the organization. Furthermore, as the prison population continues to blossom the conditions within prison facilities will remain stressful. (Slates, Vogel, Johnson, 2001; Wahab 2010). Â
According to Armstrong and Griffin (2004) prisons is regarded as unique working environments as very few other institutions are charged with the primary duty of supervising and securing a population that can be unwilling and potentially violent. In consequence working in prisons results in a number of equally distinct occupational stressors which collating the evidence from the literature that author identified as work over loads gender issues, and role problem. These factors reduced worker satisfaction and motivation (Lambert & Barton, 2004).
One factor related to both job satisfaction and employee motivation is the extent to which employees perceive that they are being treated fairly. In line with equity theory it is believed that our levels of job satisfaction and motivation are related to how fairly we believe we are treated in comparison with others. If we believe we are treated unfairly we attempt to change our beliefs or behaviour. Until the situation appears to be fair (Hoy & Tarter, 2004)
Furthermore, research on equity has recently expanded into what researchers call distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal and informational justice. Distributive justice is the perceived fairness of the actual decisions made in an organization, procedural justice is the perceived fairness of the methods used to arrive at the decision. Interpersonal justice refers to employees perceptions towards the interpersonal treatment worker receives during the procedure of gathering incentives (Bies & Moag, 1986). Informational justice refers to perceptions of employees’ about the clear information related to a decision that made by the organization (Bies, Shapiro & Cummings, 1988). These entire four dimensions are the processes that involved in rewarding works.
