Page 1 of 9

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No. 7

Publication Date: July 25, 2021

DOI:10.14738/assrj.87.10570. Mitevska, M., & Byuylekova, M. (2021). Role Stressors and Alienation From Work During Covid-19 Setting. Advances in Social

Sciences Research Journal, 8(7). 455-463.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Role Stressors and Alienation From Work During Covid-19

Setting

Mitevska, Mayiana

UNIBIT, Sofia, Bulgaria

Byuylekova, Maria

PU "Paisiy Hilendarski", Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Abstract

This study explores the interrelationships between work alienation and the role

stressor dimensions of ambiguity and conflict. Diagnostics of role stressors in the

workplace /Radoslavova, M. 2005/ and Assessment of alienation from work

/Velichkov, A. 2005/. The data were collected with an online questionnaire, entered

with Google Forms and processed with SPSS-21 using: descriptive statistics, and

correlation analysis. The results are compared with similar previous studies

conducted in Bulgaria and abroad. Respondents were 75 individuals, 72% of them

were doctors working in a government hospital in a regional city. The results of the

study showed that role ambiguity is a major workplace stressor in coping with the

Covid-19 pandemic. Alienation from work is very high, which is also a significant

antecedent for developing Burnout Syndrome.

Keywords: organization, stress, role stressors, alienation

Human work activity is associated with specific stress-inducing features. The work process and

its demands can be stressful for the individual, disrupting the work-life balance. Factors

associated with this condition are varied and include - the importance of one's professional role

and career, one's involvement in the activity, cooperation and relationships with colleagues,

and quality of organizational behaviour. When there is a problem in any one factor,

occupational stress is experienced, which has an impact on work behaviour, ambition, work

style and job satisfaction and overall on the mental and physical well-being of the individual.

The occurrence of this type of stress is associated with factors that force the individual to

change his or her mental or physical state, deviating him or her from normal functioning [1].

Role conflict is a form of stress that has negative effects on job satisfaction, task performance,

and the mental and somatic well-being of the individual [9]. It is observed when individuals

experience conflicting and different expectations, demands for the tasks they perform. In an

organization, one person often has to perform several roles. This is what gives rise to role

conflict. In some cases, the expected behaviour in one role may not match the expectations of

another. By its nature, role conflict is the awareness and recognition of incompatible or

conflicting demands and can manifest in a variety of forms. A situation of role conflict occurs

when people in an organization have mutually exclusive expectations (e.g., expectations of

different leaders). Role conflict is also observed when the person in the organization also has

Page 2 of 9

456

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 7, July-2021

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

competing expectations. Another manifestation of role conflict is the conflict between a

person's roles (e.g., the roles of worker, spouse, and parent).

Role ambiguity is a state of uncertainty of the individual occupying a particular position about

the behaviour regarding the sphere of responsibilities, the acceptable ways of their

performance, the people to whose demands the results must meet, the consequences of one's

behaviour for personal well-being, the well-being of the role set and the organization as a

whole. This condition is due to ambiguous or insufficient information that the worker

exchanges with colleagues. Role conflict is the experienced tension of perceiving situations in

which an individual's agreement to fulfil one requirement prevents him or her from fulfilling

another requirement of co-workers. It arises from information exchanges with colleagues that

have conflicting content. Conflict is expressed by: conflicting expectations of an individual from

a role set, inconsistency between the expectations of two or more members of a role set,

between members of two or more sets, or between the individual and other members of the

set. An overload is a specific form of conflict that combines the second and fourth of the listed

forms of incongruence among colleagues [11]. We assume that role perceptions are dynamic as

they depend on ongoing communication with colleagues in different situations. A long tradition

of research on role ambiguity and role conflict has accumulated a wealth of evidence on their

sources and effects on mental functioning and somatic health. Most authors find weak to

moderate relationships between the two stressors. Second, some empirical evidence suggests

that role ambiguity produces stronger adverse psychological consequences than role conflict,

while other evidence suggests the opposite finding. Third, there is also empirical evidence of

additive effects of the two stressors on mental and somatic health. Moreover, their impact

depends on current or persistent subjective perceptions and states. Such mediating factors are

orientation about the causes and course of events in the service [29], satisfaction with various

aspects of the job [8], perception of the immediate supervisor as supportive [30], attachment

to the organization [31], and personal potential to influence colleagues and gain their trust [32].

Mediating factors combine in determining the relationship between role stressors and

psychological distress responses. Examples include the combination between job satisfaction

and states of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization [33], task demands on personal

competence, and opportunities for autonomy and supervisor support (Pascual, Perez- Jover,

Mirabel, paediatrics 2003).

Alienation from work is a term that turns out to be quite vague, with its usage including both

a scientific and a popular side. The theory of labour alienation gained prominence thanks to the

work of Marx (1932). The author explains the observed condition by the separation between

the labourer and the product he produces. The German philosopher defines 3 forms of

alienation - from the product of labour, in the process of production and from society. The

sociologist Durkheim (1947) also deals with the definition of the problem. He explains

alienation as a consequence of the breakdown of social norms that imply the absence of such

norms, and this condition is introduced by the term anomie. Different definitions of the

phenomenon under consideration emphasize certain aspects of alienation - the sense of

separateness is fundamental in Fromm (1955) and Horowitz (1966), the dissociative state in

Schacht (1970), and the lack of work commitment in Hirschfeld & Feild (2000).

Viewed as a mental state, alienation from work is seen in other terms. For example, the

phenomenon under consideration is identified with job dissatisfaction [34]. On the other hand,

Page 3 of 9

457

Mitevska, M., & Byuylekova, M. (2021). Role Stressors and Alienation From Work During Covid-19 Setting. Advances in Social Sciences Research

Journal, 8(7). 455-463.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.87.10570

satisfaction is presented as a consequence of dealing with alienation, but authors such as

Watson (2003) and Hall (1994) assume that if work provides an opportunity for individuals to

freely express themselves, then alienation does not always follow from experienced

dissatisfaction (M. Radoslavova, A. Velichkov, 2005).

The following hypotheses are put forward in their study:

Hypothesis 1) It is hypothesized that there are statistically significant relationships

between different aspects of role stressors influencing levels of work alienation.

Hypothesis 2) Demographics are hypothesized to influence levels of alienation and the

ranking of role stressors.

The subjects of the study were physicians, nurses and orderlies, the former varying in their

specialization - paediatrics, orthopaedics, general practitioner, psychiatry, neurosurgery,

cardiology, gastroenterology, infectious diseases and radiologists. They are grouped according

to various attributes and distributed as follows in number and percentage:

Depending on gender

30 men, 40% of respondents

45 women, 60% of respondents

Depending on age

up to 35 years, 15 persons, 20% of respondents

36-50 years, 36 persons, 48% of respondents

over 50 years, 24 persons, 32% of respondents

Depending on the position held

doctor, 54 persons, 72% of respondents

nurse, 12 persons, 16% of respondents

Sanitiser, 9 persons, 12% of respondents

Depending on the position in the hierarchy

supervisor: 16 persons, 21.3% of respondents

subordinate doctor: 51 persons, 68% of respondents

subordinate-nurse: 8 persons, 10.7% of respondents

Depending on seniority in the organization

up to 5 years: 19 persons, 25.3% of respondents

over 5 years: 56 persons, 74.6% of respondents

Depending on the total length of service

up to 5 years: 7 persons, 10% of respondents

5-10 years: 11 persons, 14% of respondents

11-20 years: 26 persons, 35% of respondents

over 20: 31 persons, 41% of respondents