Research Article   Occupational Stress and Job Performance Among University Library Professionals of North-East India   Pallabi Devi Research Scholar Dept. of Library & Information Science Gauhati University Guwahati, Assam, India Email: devipallabi.pd@gmail.com   Prof. Narendra Lahkar Former Professor & Head Dept. of Library and Information Science Gauhati University Guwahati, Assam, India Email: nlahkar@gmail.com   Received: 17 Aug. 2020                                                             Accepted: 9 Mar. 2021      2021 Devi and Lahkar. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.     DOI: 10.18438/eblip29821     Abstract   Objective – The present study intends to investigate the occupational stress and job performance of university library professionals in North-East India. The main objective of the study is to assess the perceived level of occupational stress among library professionals and to identify any relationship between occupational stress and library professionals’ job performance. The study also aims to study gender differences regarding perceived occupational stress and job performance among library professionals as well as examine the influence of occupational stress on perceived job performance.   Methods – Descriptive survey method was used for the study. The sample population consisted of 123 library professionals from different parts of North-East India selected through convenience sampling technique. The survey consisted of a structured questionnaire divided into three sections: demographic information, self-perceived occupational stress, and self-rated job performance. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques including frequency, mean, standard deviation, t test, correlation co-efficient, and simple linear regression analysis were used to analyze data and interpret results with the help of the statistical package SPSS version 20.   Results – The findings of the study established that a majority of library professionals working in university libraries of North-East India perceived a moderate level of occupational stress. It was also determined that male and female library professionals do not differ in their perception of occupational stress (p > 0.05), while a significant mean difference was found between male and female library professionals’ perceptions towards their job performance (p < 0.05). Males scored themselves higher than females in terms of eight indicators of job performance: quality of work performance, ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills, decision making, problem solving, technical skills, ability to perform competently under pressure, and contribution to the overall development of the library. Regarding the relationship between occupational stress and job performance, the data indicated a significant negative relationship between occupational stress and job performance (r = -0.296, p < 0.01). In addition to this, intrinsic impoverishment, under participation, low status, and poor peer relationships were some of the factors negatively affecting the job performance of library professionals.   Conclusion – The present study provides an insight about how occupational stress affects job performance of library professionals working in academic libraries. The findings revealed that there exists a modest but statistically significant negative relationship between occupational stress and job performance, which implies that an increment in the level of perceived occupational stress tends to influence library professionals’ self-perception of job performance negatively.     Introduction   Stress is a “perceived phenomenon associated with tension and anxiety. One is considered as being under stress when a situation is perceived as presenting an extra demand on the individual’s capabilities and resources” (Nawe, 1995, p. 30). Most often, stress can be defined:   As a way a human body reacts to stimuli from the environment; it can influence one’s psychological and physical condition. Experiencing lower levels of stress can be stimulating, but being exposed to higher levels of stress for long periods of time may affect one’s health and cause negative emotions, feelings of pressure, anxiety, irritability, loss of appetite, and others, and finally bad performance at work. (Petek, 2018, p. 129)   Research has shown that stress in general exists in different forms; it may be psychological, emotional, social, occupational, or job related. Over the past few decades, occupational stress, or job stress, has been emerging as a growing concern because we spend a lot of time at the workplace. Blix et al. (1994) stated that “occupational stress is considered to be one of the ten leading work-related health problems” (p. 157). According to Kaur and Kathuria (2018):   Occupational stress is a mental or physical tension or both, created and related to occupation and its environment which comprise of persons and objects from within and outside the work place resulting into absenteeism, lack of motivation and initiative, low productivity and service efficiency, job dissatisfaction and disruption of the smooth functioning of the organization. (p. 13)   Employees’ efficiency in the organization is evidenced in terms of their performance at the workplace. Job performance is an important criterion for organizational outcomes and success. Ojo (2009) defined job performance as an extent to which the day-to-day work is being carried out. Job performance can be defined as individual productivity in terms of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the job. It indicates how well a person is performing their job and to what extent, the employee is able to meet their job duties as well as policies and standards of the organization.   Several studies have pointed out that there are emerging issues in the library and information science profession that poses a threat or stress factor to library professionals, especially the academic librarians. These include “new expectations and the constantly changing role of librarians due to the dynamic nature of information and its delivery in the university system, triggered by the emergence of ICT in the library and information practice” (Ajala, 2011, para. 2). Reena (2009) further supported this by averring that one of the realities of 21st century is that the library professionals are faced with constant challenges in their working environments. This is not only because of the role they have to play inside the libraries but also due to the increasing demands and expectations of the users within the libraries. Moreover, as said by Saqib Saddiq, librarians were mostly unhappy with their workplace, often finding their job repetitive and unchallenging. They complained about their physical environment, saying that they were sick of being stuck between bookshelves all day as well as claiming that their skills were not used and that they felt they had very little control over their career (“Librarians ‘suffer most stress’,” 2006). According to Topper (2007), after years of doing the same tasks can be stressful and many librarians may feel that they are not being challenged in their work.   Statement of the Problem   The university library constitutes a vital element in any academic institution, and hence library professionals play a significant role in promoting teaching, learning, and research by providing information sources and services to students, researchers, and faculty. Library staff should be concerned about the needs of the library users so that optimum utilization of the resources available can be achieved. The library staffs are the facilitators for the contact between users and resources. The work of the library professionals in service delivery is a key element that contributes to overall effectiveness of the organization. In extending their services as much as possible, stress should not be a hurdle in enacting efforts to serve the user community. Research has already established that a high level of occupational stress may lead to a high level of dissatisfaction among the employees, a lack of job mobility, burnout, poor work performance, and less effective interpersonal relations at work (Manshor et al.,  2003).   Gender is another variable that can potentially affect the attitudes and perceptions of employees at the workplace. A few studies have already asserted that though the library profession is open for all genders, it is mostly female (Carmichael, 1992; Wiebe, 2004). “Although librarianship is a female-dominated profession, both males and females within the profession suffer from work-related pressures based on the practices of gender bias” (Greer et al., 2001, p. 127). Several studies have shown that some differences exist in the level of dissatisfaction between male and female library staff. Graddick and Farr (1983), for example, pointed out that females often view themselves as being treated worse than males in the workplace. Kirkland (1997) argued that most of the women in libraries suffer from a deprivation of inside information, challenging assignments, and recognition in their organizations. Thus, several studies have discussed the gender-related issues of different aspects of work, but very few empirical studies directly examine gender-based differences among library employees’ perceptions regarding occupational stress and job performance at the university level.   It is in the light of these problems that the present study seeks to gain an insight on how occupational stress affects job performance of library professionals working in university libraries of North-East India. The study also attempts to explore gender differences among library professionals in their perceptions of occupational stress and their own job performance.   Scope and Limitation of the Study   The study limits itself to measuring the perceived level of occupational stress and examining the relationship between perceived occupational stress and self-rated job performance of university library professionals in North-East India. The libraries attached to eight central universities, four state universities, and one Institution of National Importance located in various states of North-East India were picked up for the study. It should be noted that, North-East India is made up of total eight states: Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura. The geographical coverage of the study includes only Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Manipur, and Tripura. The newly established universities including private universities are excluded from the study because these institutions are still in their infancy.   Literature Review   Numerous bodies of literature have explored stress from different perspectives in different organizational settings and highlighted various stressors related to those situations. Stress can be caused by many problems, such as problems at the workplace, financial problems, family problems, and problems in employees’ surroundings.   The Health and Safety Executive (HSE, 2001) defined stress as an adverse reaction to excessive or extreme pressures or demands that may be placed upon individuals. The pressure and demands that causes stress are known as stressors. According to Hinkle (1974), the term stress denoted “force, pressure, strain or strong effort” exerted upon a material object or a person or upon a person’s “organs or mental powers” (p. 337). In this definition, individuals were acted upon by external forces.   Occupational stress or work-related stress arises when work demands of various types and combinations exceed the person’s capacity and capability to cope with it. Somvir and Kaushik (2013) investigated occupational stress among library professionals in Haryana state and reported that most of the librarians were frustrated because they were compared with clerical staff and had to work under the in-charge of a non-professional, who did not know about the duties and responsibilities of being a librarian. Low salary, less freedom to make decisions related to budget, responsibility for loss of books, technological changes, and a lack of interaction among library professionals were some of the factors discouraging librarians to provide better library services. Ratha et al. (2012) highlighted that workload, technology, shift work, user satisfaction, job insecurity, lack of administrative support, low status, inadequate salary, changing library environment, and reduced staff strength were some of the leading causes of occupational stress among library professionals in private engineering colleges in Indore City. Mahanta (2015) carried out a study to determine the sources of stress and magnitude of stress among the library professionals of Central Library, Tezpur University, Assam. The researcher found that the library employees in the study experienced organizational role stress to a moderate extent. The study identified that role ambiguity, inter-role distance, role stagnation, and role erosion were the powerful sources of stress among the library staff. In fact, role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload have also been studied as antecedents of occupational stress (Brief & Aldag, 1976; Ivanceyich et al., 1982).   Gender seems to play a significant role in employees’ perception of work-related stress and job performance. Jick and Mitz (1985) stated that workplace stress is a major problem and suggested that gender may be considered an important demographic characteristic in the experience of stress. Mosadeghrad (2014) revealed in his study that there was a strong correlation between the occupational stress of hospital employees and their gender. Female employees reported higher occupational stress than their male colleagues. Dina (2016) found that women suffered from stress more frequently than men owing to their dual responsibilities including work in the library and taking care of children or parents at home. Oloruntoba and Ajayi (2006) found that most male academic librarians have higher job performance than their female colleagues. Oyeniran and Akphorhonor (2019) stated that male librarians working in the university libraries in Nigeria contributed more than their female counterpart in terms of performance. The gender difference had a positive influence on the job performance of librarians in the university libraries in Nigeria.   Much of the earlier literature on occupational stress emphasizes its effects on job performance. Ali et al. (2011) found that there exists a highly significant positive relationship between job stress and job performance among banking employees (i.e., job performance was found to be better under stressful situations at workplace). In addition, all the three indicators of job performance—skills, efforts, and working conditions—had a positive direct relationship with job stress. Conversely, Ahmed and Ramzan (2013) reported the existence of a significant negative relationship between job stress and job performance in the banking sector, which implied that both variables were inversely proportional to each other. When job stress was low, job performance increased, and when job stress was high, job performance decreased.   Dina (2016) carried out a study to investigate the impact of stress on professional librarian’s job performance in Nigerian University libraries. The findings showed that high amounts of stress can affect a professional librarians’ quality in terms of job performance in relation to their job demands and expectations. Those professional librarians engaged in other activities besides their primary assignments for which they are employed were found more likely to be stressed than the others thereby affecting their job performance negatively. Occupational stress was identified as one of the major problems impacting professional librarians’ wellbeing, commitment, and job performance.   Kaur and Kathuria (2018) conducted a study among 301 library professionals working in central libraries of 24 universities in Punjab and Chandigarh. The study revealed that occupational stress and job performance shared a negative but significant co-efficient of correlation with each other, which implies that as the level of occupational stress increased, the level of job performance decreased. Ilo et al. (2019) investigated the relationship between job stress and job performance in university libraries in Nigeria. The study identified low productivity, increased absenteeism, hypertension, job dissatisfaction, frustration, depression, and negative job attitude as negative effects of stress on the job performance of librarians. Amusa et al. (2013) revealed in their study that a significant correlation exists between the work environment and job performance of librarians. Moreover, the study highlighted that the librarians’ job performance was considered fair with regard to variables such as professional practice, contribution to the overall development of the library, ability to attend promptly to client’s request, and meeting minimum requirements for job promotion.   In summary, after reviewing all the relevant studies, occupational stress clearly exists in academic library environments and some of the common stressors affecting maximum the number of library employees include role overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, low status, lack of administrative support, and changing library environment. Both occupational stress and job performance were found to be interrelated with each other, which imply that higher levels of occupational stress are related to lower levels of job performance and vice-versa. Gender proved to be one of the significant factors influencing both occupational stress and job performance.   Aims   The aims of the present study are presented here:   To assess the perceived level of occupational stress among library professionals working in university libraries of North-East India. To study the gender differences regarding perceived occupational stress and job performance among the library professionals. To identify the relationship between occupational stress and job performance. To examine the impact of occupational stress on job performance.   Hypotheses of the Study   Based on the aims of the study, the following null hypotheses were formulated:   H0 – There is no significant difference between male and female library professionals regarding perceived level of occupational stress. H01 – Male and female library professionals do not differ in their perception of job performance. H02 –No significant relationship exists between occupational stress and job performance. H03 – There is no significant impact of occupational stress on job performance.   Methods   The Population   A descriptive survey method was employed to collect primary data from library professionals who work full time and who have a minimum qualification of a Diploma in Library & Information Science in different universities of North-East India that were recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) of India. Convenience sampling technique was used to gather data from a sample population of 123 library professionals who were easily available as well as willing to participate in the study from various states of North-East India. The breakdown of the sample population is given in Table 1.   Research Instrument   A structured questionnaire was constructed in print and distributed personally to the participants, making quantitative data relatively easy to collect. The questionnaire was divided into three sections: demographic information, self-perceived occupational stress, and self-rated job performance. To measure the level of perceived occupational stress, we designed an Occupational Stress Scale that was adapted from the Occupational Stress Index (OSI) of Srivastava and Singh (1984) and the Organisational Role Stress (ORS) Scale of Pareek (1983). The OSI scale, a widely used scale in India was adopted by Ratha et al. (2012) and Chandraiah et al. (2003) in their studies. Similarly, the ORS scale, which is more specifically used in Indian socio-cultural settings, was used by Mahanta (2015) and Jena and Pradhan (2011) in their research studies. Reena (2009) used both the OSI and ORS scales in order to construct an instrument especially useful for the library and information science profession. The scale used in the study consists of a total of 23 items on 11 dimensions of occupational stress: role overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, under participation, low status, poor peer relationship, personal inadequacy, strenuous working conditions, career stagnation, intrinsic impoverishment, and unreasonable groups & political pressures. Brief descriptions of the dimensions of occupational stress used in the context of present study are stated here:   Role overload arises when employees feel pressured because of added duties and responsibilities and lack the resources to perform them. Role conflict refers to situations with conflict of role expectations. Role ambiguity refers to a situation caused by lack of clarity or understanding about job expectations and responsibilities in the performance of a particular role. Under participation is when there is a lack of one’s influence on the decision-making process of the organization. Low status refers to a state of insignificance in the organizational as well as in the social system. Poor peer relationship occurs when there is lack of mutual co-operation between coworkers in solving organizational problems. Personal inadequacy refers to employees lacking the required skills to perform tasks expected to function within their roles. Strenuous working conditions refers to a lack of comfort and safety in the work environment. Career stagnation occurs when a employees feel a lack of engagement with their work or career. Intrinsic impoverishment refers to monotonous nature of assignments, lack of ample opportunity to utilize one’s abilities and develop one’s aptitude, etc. Unreasonable group and political pressure evolve from a situation where one is required to take a lot of decisions against his will or against formal rules and procedures under pressure.     Table 1 Breakdown of the Sample Population Type of University No. of Universities Surveyed No. of Respondents State Universities 4 33 Central Universities 8 79 Institution of National Importance 1 11 Total 13 123     Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Occupational Stress and Job Performance Variable N Minimum Score Maximum Score Mean Standard Deviation Occupational Stress 123 40 85 60.91 9.069 Job Performance 123 40 70 59.02 6.968     Responses on all items were gathered through a five-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Disagree = 3, Strongly Disagree = 2, and Undecided = 1). The Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient of Reliability was computed to verify the internal consistency of items used to measure a variable which was found to be .744. Nunnally (1978) recommended at least .70 alpha coefficients for social sciences as acceptable.   Similarly, to measure job performance, a self-assessment “Job Performance Scale” was constructed that consists of a total of 14 job performance indicators (including completion of tasks on a given time, quality of work performance, ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills, decision making, problem solving, technical skills, managerial skills, ability to perform competently under pressure, punctuality and regularity at work, meeting minimum requirements for promotion, interpersonal relationship with co-workers, contribution to the overall development of the library, and overall capacity to work)  rated on a five-point Likert scale (Very Good = 5, Good = 4, Average = 3, Poor = 2, and Very Poor = 1). The purpose of designing the scale was to gather input from the library professionals about their self-perception of how well they are performing their job. The reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be .905 using Cronbach’s alpha method. Statistical techniques like frequency, mean, standard deviation, t test, correlation co-efficient, and simple linear regression analysis were used to analyze the data and interpret the results with the help of the statistical package SPSS version 20. The descriptive statistics of the two variables selected for the study, i.e., occupational stress and job performance, are presented in Table 2.   Table 2 reflects that the mean and standard deviation of the total scores of perceived occupational stress is 60.91 and 9.069 respectively, whereas the mean and standard deviation of the total scores of self-rated job performance is calculated to be 59.02 and 6.968 respectively. The overall score ranges from a minimum of 40 to a maximum of 85 in the case of perceived occupational stress while the job performance scores ranges from a minimum of 40 to a maximum of 70. The table shows that the mean of both variables (i.e., occupational stress and job performance) seems to be identical; however, the range of scores was found to be greater in the case of occupational stress.   Results   The results and their analysis are presented here and keeping in mind the aims of the study.   Demographic Information   The demographic data collected are presented in Table 3 and describe the demographic characteristics of the sample population.   The demographic profile of the respondents in the present study demonstrated that with respect to responses on gender, 77 (62.60%) respondents were males while 46 (37.39%) were females. In response to age distribution, the highest number of respondents (35.77%) belongs to the age group of 31 to 40 years, which indicates a youthful working class. Table 3 also shows that a majority of the respondents (55.28%) hold master’s degrees as their highest professional qualification and a plurality (45.52%) had work experience of above 15 years.   Perceived Levels of Occupational Stress   In order to assess the perceived levels of occupational stress, the Mean (x) and Standard Deviation (SD) of the total scores of occupational stress obtained from the sum of the responses of all respondents were considered. Therefore, the total scores of occupational stress were divided into three categories on the basis of their x and SD. Following the principles of normal distribution, the scores falling above or equal to  x + SD, between x + SD and x – SD, and below or equal to x – SD were categorized as high level, moderate level, and low level, respectively.   Level of Occupational Stress ·        High level = Above or equal to 70 ·        Moderate level = Between 52 and 70 ·        Low level = Below or equal to 52     Table 3 Demographic Profile of the Respondents Demographic Variables Frequency (n = 123) Percentage (%) Gender Male 77 62.60 Female 46 37.39 Age Group (in years) 21–30 12 9.75 31–40 44 35.77 41–50 34 27.64 51–60 33 26.82 Highest Professional Qualification Ph.D. 23 18.69 M.Phil. 8 6.50 Master’s Degree 68 55.28 Bachelor’s Degree 16 13.00 Certificate/Diploma 8 6.50 Years of Work Experience 0–5 19 15.44 6–10 36 29.26 11–15 12 9.75 Above 15 56 45.52     Both Table 4 and Figure 1 depict that a majority of library professionals surveyed perceived a moderate level of occupational stress (i.e., 63.41%), which consists of 47 males and 31 females. Of the remaining library professionals, 18.69% perceived a low level of stress and 17.88% experienced a high level of occupational stress. Gender Differences with Regard to Perceived Occupational Stress   The results in Table 5 clearly depict that t value for mean difference in occupational stress between male and female library professionals is -0.741, which is not significant (p > 0.05). The overall mean and standard deviation of male and female library professionals are found to be 60.44 (SD = 9.372) and 61.70 (SD = 8.581) respectively regarding their perceived level of occupational stress. This implies that the male and female library professionals working in university libraries do not differ in their perception of occupational stress. Thus, the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. The dimension-wise comparative analysis between male and female library professionals in terms of perceived occupational stress is presented in Table 6.     Table 4 Perceived Levels of Occupational Stress Among Library Professionals Levels Levels N (%) Gender N (%) Occupational Stress High Level 22 17.88 Male 14 63.63 Female 8 30.43 Moderate Level 78 63.41 Male 47 60.25 Female 31 39.74 Low Level 23 18.69 Male 16 69.56 Female 7 30.43     Figure 1 Perceived levels of occupational stress.     Table 5 Significance of Mean Difference in Perceived Occupational Stress of Library Professionals Between Male and Female Variable Gender N Mean Standard Deviation t value p value Occupational Stress Male 77 60.44 9.372 -0.741 0.460 Female 46 61.70 8.581             Table 6 Comparative Analysis Between Male and Female Library Professionals in Terms of Occupational Stress Dimensions Dimensions of Occupational Stress Gender N Mean Standard  Deviation t value p value Role Overload Male 77 9.60 1.982   0.743   0.459 Female 46 9.33 1.921 Role Conflict Male 77 2.99 0.939   -0.184   0.854 Female 46 3.02 1.125 Role Ambiguity Male 77 4.75 1.425   -0.455   0.650 Female 46 4.87 1.276 Low Status Male 77 4.47 1.586   -0.377   0.707 Female 46 4.59 1.881 Under Participation Male 77 5.10 2.043   -0.754   0.452 Female 46 5.39 2.049 Poor Peer Relationship Male 77 7.71 1.891   0.053   0.958 Female 46 7.70 1.860 Personal Inadequacy Male 77 5.86 1.457   0.120   0.905 Female 46 5.83 1.270 Career Stagnation Male 77 3.01 1.082   -0.257   0.798 Female 46 3.07 1.104 Strenuous Working Conditions Male 77 10.13 2.232   -0.882   0.380 Female 46 10.50 2.288 Intrinsic Impoverishment Male 77 4.45 1.667   -1.717   0.088 Female 46 5.02 1.938 Unreasonable Groups & Political Pressures Male 77 2.36 0.872   -0.180   0.858 Female 46 2.39 0.745                                                         Gender Differences with Regard to Perceived Job Performance   Table 7 reveals that the t value for the mean difference in terms of job performance between male and female library professionals is 3.163 (p < 0.05). There exists a significant mean difference in library professionals’ perception of job performance based on their gender. The overall mean and standard deviation of male and female library professionals are found to be 60.51 (SD = 6.522) and 56.54 (SD = 7.051) respectively. Since the mean score of male library professionals is greater than their female counterpart, we can derive that the male library professionals perceived their level of job performance as better compared to the female library professionals. Thus, the null hypothesis (H01) is rejected. Table 8 shows the comparative analysis between male and female library professionals in terms of their self-perception towards job performance indicators.   From Table 8, we can observe a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of male and female library professionals with regard to eight indicators of job performance: quality of work performance, ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills, decision making, problem solving, technical skills, ability to perform competently under pressure, and contribution to the overall development of the library. The mean score of male library professionals is greater than their female counterpart in terms of these eight indicators of job performance. Hence, it indicates that the male library professionals had a better self-perception than the female library professionals in the case of quality of work performance, ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills, decision making, problem solving, technical skills, ability to perform competently under pressure, and contribution to the overall development of the library.     Table 7 Significance of Mean Difference in Perceived Job Performance of Library Professionals Between Male and Female Variable Gender N Mean Standard Deviation t value p value Job Performance Male 77 60.51 6.522 3.163 0.002* Female 46 56.54 7.051             *Significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)     Table 8 Comparative Analysis Between Male and Female Library Professionals in Terms of Job Performance Indicators Indicators of Job Performance Gender N Mean Standard Deviation t value p value Completion of Tasks on a Given Time  Male 77 4.49 0.620 1.035 0.303 Female 46 4.37 0.679 Quality of Work Performance Male 77 4.47 0.575 2.306 0.023** Female 46 4.22 0.593 Ability to Handle Multiple Jobs Male 77 4.40 0.712 2.326 0.022** Female 46 4.09 0.755 Communication Skills Male 77 4.26 0.715 2.333 0.021** Female 46 3.93 0.800 Decision Making Male 77 4.09 0.747 2.501 0.014** Female 46 3.72 0.886 Problem Solving Male 77 4.26 0.637 3.348 0.001* Female 46 3.85 0.698 Technical Skills Male 77 4.27 0.719 3.816 0.000* Female 46 3.74 0.801 Managerial Skills Male 77 3.92 0.900 1.100 0.274 Female 46 3.74 0.880 Ability to Perform Competently Under Pressure Male 77 4.10 0.836 3.307 0.001* Female 46 3.57 0.935 Punctuality and Regularity at Work Male 77 4.64 0.605 1.615 0.109 Female 46 4.46 0.585 Meeting Minimum Requirements for Promotion Male 77 4.06 0.978 1.053 0.294 Female 46 3.87 1.024 Interpersonal Relationship With Coworkers Male 77 4.52 0.641 0.749 0.455 Female 46 4.43 0.544 Contribution to the Overall Development of the Library Male 77 4.56 0.573 2.243 0.027** Female 46 4.30 0.662 Overall Capacity to Work Male 77 4.45 0.527 1.765 0.080 Female 46 4.26 0.681                                                                     *Significant at 0.01 (2-tailed) level; **Significant at 0.05 (2-tailed) level     Table 9 Correlation Between Occupational Stress and Job Performance Variables Occupational Stress Job Performance Occupational Stress Pearson Correlation Sig. (two-tailed)     N   1       123 -0.296**   0.001   123 Job Performance Pearson Correlation Sig. (two-tailed)       N   -0.296**   0.001   123 1       123 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).     Relationship Between Occupational Stress and Job Performance   Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation was used to investigate the relationship between occupational stress and job performance in totality as well as through eleven dimensions of occupational stress. The level of significance of coefficient of correlation was calculated through two-tailed significant value.   A highly significant relationship was found from the above analysis between occupational stress and job performance through Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation, which means that the correlation is significant at 0.01 level. The results from Table 9 reveals that there is a negative relationship that proves to be significant (p < 0.01) between occupational stress and job performance of library professionals (r = -0.296). Hence the null hypothesis (H03) is rejected.   The objective of identifying the relationship between occupational stress and job performance of library professionals was further studied by focusing on the relationship of each dimension of occupational stress with job performance. Table 10 demonstrates dimension-wise values of coefficient of correlation. It is evident from the table that intrinsic impoverishment has the strongest value of coefficient of correlation (r = -0.352) followed by under participation (r = -0.331), low status (r = -0.242), and poor peer relationship (r = -0.188). The remaining seven dimensions of occupational stress (role overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, personal inadequacy, career stagnation, strenuous working conditions, and unreasonable groups & political pressures) have shown no correlation with job performance. This means that the library professionals working in university libraries moderately experiencing these seven dimensions of occupational stress are not likely to bear a definite effect of it on their job performance.     Table 10 Relationship Between Dimensions of Occupational Stress and Job Performance Dimensions of Occupational Stress Coefficient of Correlation (r) Role Overload -0.005 Role Conflict -0.051 Role Ambiguity -0.133 Low Status -0.242** Under Participation -0.331** Poor Peer Relationship -0.188* Personal Inadequacy -0.096 Career Stagnation -0.087 Strenuous Working Conditions -0.054 Intrinsic Impoverishment -0.352** Unreasonable Groups & Political Pressures -0.036   *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed) **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)   Impact of Occupational Stress on Job Performance   Simple linear regression analysis was chosen to determine whether there is significant impact of occupational stress on job performance of library professionals working in university libraries. The present study was conducted to find out any association between the two variables selected (i.e., occupational stress and job performance). In this case, occupational stress was used to predict the dependent variable job performance. No doubt, there may be other parameters or factors affecting job performance that are not presented in the study because of its limitations. The value of R2 is found to be 0.088, which means that 8.8% of the variance in job performance can be explained by occupational stress. Furthermore, the value of F = 11.629 (1,121) with significance level of p = 0.001 determined the linear regression model as statistically significant.   The criterion to assess the contribution of the predictor variable given by Cohen (1988) was used in this study. According to this source, for linear regression models in behavioural sciences, the proportion of variance explained by the predictor variable an R2 value between 2% and 12.99% suggests a small effect size, a value between 13% and 25.99% indicates a medium effect size, and a value of 26% and greater suggests a large effect size. Since the correlation coefficient in the present study is -0.296 and the R2 value is equal to 8.8% variance, the independent variable—occupational stress—is having a small but significant impact on the dependent variable job performance in a negative manner. From Table 11, we can observe that occupational stress is able to explain the variance in job performance by the B value of -0.227. Since the sign of regression coefficient value is negative, it indicates that as occupational stress increases by one unit, job performance decreases by 0.227 units. Therefore, the null hypothesis (H04) is rejected.     Table 11 Simple Linear Regression Analysis Between Occupational Stress and Job Performance Dependent Variable Independent Variable Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta     Job Performance (Constant)   Occupational Stress 72.882   -0.227 4.108   0.067     -0.296 17.741   -3.410 0.000   0.001 R = -0.296     R2 = 0.088     Adjusted R2 = 0.080   F = 11.629     Sig. = 0.001     Discussion   The main purpose of the present study was to investigate the occupational stress and job performance of university library professionals in North-East India. The results obtained from the current study revealed that a majority of the university library professionals perceived occupational stress to a moderate extent. This finding obtained from Table 4 is in agreement with the result obtained from the study carried out by Mahanta (2015) and Wijetunge (2012), where the existence of a moderate level of work-related stress was reported among university library professionals. However, a few studies carried out by Ogunlana et al. (2013), Saddiq (2015), and Agyei et al. (2019) were not in agreement with the prior result and reported a higher level of work-related stress. The variation in stress levels recorded in the previous studies may be a result of different organizational factors like conditions of service, size of the user community served by the library, status of library staff, financial availability, job security, career growth, and other reasons that might have brought about different perceptions about work-related stress among library professionals.   The result obtained from both Tables 5 and 6 reveal that male and female library professionals do not differ in terms of perceived occupational stress, which is in line with the studies carried out by Kaur and Kathuria (2018) and Somvir and Kaushik (2013), wherein there was no significant difference found between male and female library professionals in terms of occupational stress. In spite of dual responsibilities at both home and workplace, women library professionals did not differ from their male counterpart in terms of their perception of occupational stress. This is contrary to the findings of Ogunlana et al. (2013), who exposed that male librarians were more susceptible to job stress than female librarians despite the fact that both were working in the same environment. The data acquired from Table 7 indicates that significant mean difference exists between male and female library professionals’ perception of their job performance. Males scored themselves better than females in the areas of quality of work performance, ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills, decision making, problem solving, technical skills, ability to perform competently under pressure, and contribution to the overall development of the library (Table 8).   The result presented in Table 9 show a significant negative relationship between perceived levels of occupational stress and job performance of library professionals. This finding gives further support to the literature that demonstrates a significant negative relationship between occupational stress and job performance, including those studies conducted by Smith (2000), Kaur and Kathuria (2018), and Nwadiani (2006). This is also in agreement with the claims of Palmer et al. (2004), which stated that stress beyond an optimal point can lead to low productivity. Similarly, Hansen (2008) also claimed that stress is critical to maximizing one’s job performance. Furthermore, McGrath (1976) emphasized that job stress is considered a factor that may affect organizational effectiveness through lowering employee’s performance. The stressor intrinsic impoverishment has proved to be the most negative predictor influencing job performance (Table 10). It implies that the monotonous nature of library jobs and the lack of ample opportunities to utilize the abilities and experience of library professionals independently can also yield negative outcomes on their self-perception of job performance. Other stressors like under participation, low status, and poor peer relationship were some of the factors found to negatively affect the job performance of library professionals in university libraries of North-East India. Furthermore, based on the findings of Table 11, it was established that occupational stress has a statistically significant impact on job performance.   Conclusion   Based on the findings from the investigation, it can be concluded that occupational stress exists among university library professionals in North-East India, and majority of the professionals experienced stress up to moderate extent. Though the level of occupational stress is moderate among library professionals, the study reveals significant negative relationship between perceived occupational stress and job performance. It implies that an incremental increase in the level of perceived occupational stress tends to influence library professionals self-perception of job performance negatively. Stressors like intrinsic impoverishment, under participation, low status, and poor peer relationship were some of the factors negatively influencing their perception of job performance. Male and female library professionals did not differ with regard to their perceived occupational stress. On the other hand, males scored themselves better than females on of eight indicators of job performance: quality of work performance, ability to handle multiple jobs, communication skills, decision making, problem solving, technical skills, ability to perform competently under pressure, and contribution to the overall development of the library. The results reveal a negative relationship between the two variables of occupational stress and job performance, but the current study cannot be generalized due to a limited sample size. Further studies can be conducted with a larger sample size in order to realize the other organizational or socio-cultural factors that may have an effect on job performance.   Author Contributions   Pallabi Devi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation (lead), Visualization, Writing – original draft Prof. Narendra Lahkar: Conceptualization (lead), Methodology (lead), Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing   References   Agyei, D. D., Aryeetey, F., Obuezie, A. C., & Nkonyeni, S. (2015). The experience of occupational psychosocial stress among librarians in three African countries. Library Management, 40(6/7), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-11-2017-0122   Ahmed, A., & Ramzan, M. (2013). Effects of job stress on employees job performance: A study on banking sector of Pakistan. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 11(6), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-1166168   Ajala, E. B. (2011). Work-related stress among librarians and information professionals in a Nigerian University. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 450. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/450   Ali, F., Farooqui, A., Amin, F., Yahya, K., Idrees, N., Amjad, M., Ikhlaq, M., Noreen, S., & Irfan, A. (2011). Effects of stress on job performance. International Journal of Business & Management Tomorrow, 1(2), 1–7.   Amusa, O. I., Iyoro, A. O., & Olabisi, A. F. (2013). Work environments and job performance of librarians in the public universities in South–West Nigeria. International Journal of Library and Information Science, 5(11), 457–461. https://academicjournals.org/journal/IJLIS/article-abstract/07A6FF242586   Blix, A. G., Cruise, R. J., Mitchell, B. M., & Blix, G. G. (1994). Occupational stress among university teachers. Educational Research, 36(2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188940360205   Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1976). Correlates of role indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 468–472.   Carmichael, J.V. (1992). The male librarian and the feminine image: A survey of stereotype, status, and gender perceptions. Library and Information Science Research, 14(4), 411–446.   Chandraiah, K., Agrawal, S. C., Marimuthu, P., & Manoharan, N. (2003). Occupational stress and job satisfaction among managers. https://www.ijoem.com/temp/IndianJOccupEnvironMed726-8600177_235321.pdf   Coetzer, W., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Occupational stress of employees in an insurance company. South African Journal of Business Management, 37(3), 29–39.   Dina, T. (2016). The effect of stress on professional librarians’ job performance in Nigerian university libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-Journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1431   Graddick, M. M., & Farr, J. L. (1983). Professionals in scientific disciplines: Sex-related differences in working life commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 641–645.   Greer, B., Stephens, D., & Coleman, V. (2001). Cultural diversity and gender role spillover: A working perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 33(1/2), 125–140. https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J111v33n01_09   Hansen, R.S. (2008). Managing Job Stress: Ten Strategies for Coping and Thriving. https://www.quint-careers.com   Hinkle, L. E. (1974). The concept of “stress” in the biological and social sciences. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 5(4), 335–357. https://doi.org/10.2190/91DK-NKAD-1XP0-Y4RG    HSE. (2001). Tackling Work Related Stress: A Managers’ Guide to Improving and Maintaining Employee Health and Well-being. Health & Safety Executive.   Ilo, P. I., Amusa, O. I., Chinwendu, N. A., & Esse, U. C. (2019). Job-related stress and job performance among librarians in university libraries in Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3650   Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T, & Preston, C. (1982). Occupational stress, Type A behavior, and physical well-being. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 373–391.   Jena, P. and Pradhan, S. (2011). Impact of organisational role stress among library professionals of Odisha: A study. PEARL - A Journal of Library and Information Science, 5(3), 1–8.   Jick T. D. & Mitz L. F. (1985). Sex differences in work stress. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4278947   Kaur, H., & Kathuria, K. (2018). Occupational stress among library professionals working in universities of Punjab and Chandigarh. International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 8(1), 22–24. https://www.ijidt.com/index.php/ijidt/article/view/8.1.5/399   Kaur, H., & Kathuria, K. (2018). Occupational stress and job performance among university library professionals. Educational Quest: An International Journal of Education and Applied Social Science, 9(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.30954/2230-7311.2018.04.02   Kirkland, J. J. (1997). The missing women library directors: Deprivation versus mentoring. College and Research Libraries, 58, 376–84. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/viewFile/15144/16590   BBC News. (2006, January 12). Librarians ‘suffer most stress’. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/4605476.stm   Mahanta, K. (2015). Assessment of stress in university library: A case study. In M. Saikia, M. Eqbal & D. Pratap (Eds.), Library management: New trends and challenges (1st ed., pp. 33–41). Academic Publication.   Manshor, A. T., Rodrigue, F., & Chong, S. C. (2003). Occupational stress among managers: Malaysian survey. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6): 622–628   McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1351-1395). Rand McNally.   Mosadeghrad, A. M. (2014). Occupational stress and its consequences. Leadership in Health Services, 27(3), 224–239. http://tums.ac.ir/1395/02/22/Occupational%20stress%20and%20its%20consequences.pdf-mosadeghrad-2016-05-11-10-24.pdf   Nawe, J. (1995). Work-related stress among the library and information workforce. Library Review, 44(6), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242539510093674   Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.   Ofoegbu, F., & Nwadiani, M. (2006). Level of perceived stress among lectures in Nigerian universities. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 33(1), 66–74.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292796793_Level_of_perceived_stress_among_lecturers_in_Nigerian_Universities/citations     Ogunlana, E. K., Okunlaya, R. O. A., Ajani, F. O., Okunoye, T., & Oshinaike, A. O. (2013). Indices of job stress and job satisfaction among academic librarians in selected federal universities in South West Nigeria. Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS), 60(3), 212–218. http://op.niscair.res.in/index.php/ALIS/article/view/2204   Ojo, O. (2009). Impact assessment of corporate culture on employee job performance. Business Intelligence Journal, 2(2), 389–412. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26844798_Impact_Assessment_Of_Corporate_Culture_On_Employee_Job_Performance   Oyeniran, K., & Akphorhonor, B.A. (2019). Assessment of the influence of demographic factors on job performance of librarians in university libraries in South West, Nigeria. Research Journal of Library and Information Science, 3(2), 13–19. https://www.sryahwapublications.com/research-journal-of-library-and-information-science/volume-3-issue-2/3.php   Palmer, S., Cooper, C., & Thomas, K. (2004). A model of work stress to underpin the Health & Safety Executive advice for tackling work-related stress and stress risk assessments. Counselling at Work, Winter, 2-5.  https://www.academia.edu/3814856/Palmer_S_Cooper_C_and_Thomas_K_2004_A_model_of_work_stress_to_underpin_the_Health_and_Safety_Executive_advice_for_tackling_work_related_stress_and_stress_risk_assessments_Counselling_at_Work_Winter_2_5)   Pareek, U. (1983). Role stress scales manual. Navin Publications.   Petek, M. (2018). Stress among reference library staff in academic and public libraries. Reference Services Review, 46(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-01-2017-0002   Ratha, B., Hardia, M., & Naidu, G.H.S. (2012). Occupational stress among library professionals: A study at Indore City. PEARL - A Journal of Library and Information Science, 6(1), 1–7. https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:pjolis&volume=6&issue=1&article=001   Reena, K.K. (2009). Quality of work life and occupational stress among the library professionals in Kerala [Doctoral dissertation. University of Calicut]. Shodhganga. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/1415   Saddiq, S., & Iqbal, Z. (2019). Environmental stressors and their impact at work: The role of job stress upon general mental health and key organisational outcomes across five occupational groups. Psychology & Behavioral Science International Journal, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.19080/PBSIJ.2019.11.555809   Smith, A. (2000). The scale of perceived occupational stress. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 50(5), 294–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/50.5.294   Somvir, S. K. (2013). Occupational stress among library professionals in Haryana. International Journal of Knowledge Management & Practices, 1(1), 19–24. http://www.publishingindia.com/ijkmp/57/occupational-stress-among-library-professionals-in-haryana/210/1588/    Srivastava, A. K., & Singh, A. P. (1984). Manual of Occupational Stress Index. Manovaigyanik Parikchhan Sansthan.   Wiebe, T.J. (2004). Issues faced by male librarians: Stereotypes, perceptions, and career ramifications. Colorado Libraries, 31(1), 11–13.   Wijetunge, P. (2012). Work-related stress among the university librarians of Sri Lanka. Journal of the University Librarians Association, Sri Lanka, 16(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.4038/jula.v16i2.5204