Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa

Vol. 13 No. 1 Maret 2020: 111- 126 ISSN: 2442 - 9732 (Online)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25105/jmpj.v13i1.5051 ISSN: 0216 - 3780 (Print)

THE ROLE OF WORK STRESS ON INDIVIDUAL WORK

PERFORMANCE: STUDY IN CIVIL SERVANTS
Novika Grasiaswaty1*
Dian Sukma Handayani1

1FakultasPsikologi, Universitas YARSI

*novika.grasiaswaty@gmail.com

Abstract
This study wanted to see the role of work stress of three kinds of individual work
performance (task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive work
behavior). Previous researches showed different kind of performance related with
different work stresses. The study was conducted on 83 civil servants in one work unit in
Jakarta. Data were analyzed by using Lavaan in R program. The results showed that
‘control’ and ‘support colleagues was significantly affected task and contextual
performance. While for counterproductive work behavior, ‘role’ and ‘change’ had positive
impact of the behavior. These results indicate that different work performance is related
to different types of work stress. Further result and implication were discussed.

Keywords: task performance; contextual performance; counterproductive work

behavior; work stress.

Article history: Submission date: Jul 24, 2019 Revised date: Mar 12, 2020 Accepted date: Apr 26, 2020

INTRODUCTION
The Ministry of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucracy Reform said that
around 40% of the 4,7 million Indonesian State Civil Apparatus (ASN) had poor
performance (Wasono, 2012). Thus, in order to create a competent civil servant, good
human resources are needed, so the organization will also perform well. Conversely,
lacking of human resource quality, or even inadequate, will lead to poor organization’s
performance (Isnaini, 2015). As stated in Government Regulation of the Republic of
Indonesia No. 101 year of 2000, in order to create civil servants who, have these
competencies, it is necessary to improve the quality of professionalism, devotion and
loyalty to the nation and state, spirit of unity and integrity and civil servant’s development
insights.

111
112 Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa Vol. 13 No. 1 Maret 2020

A good performance or a good employee task performance is an important thing

for any organization. Task performance can be explained as competencies possessed by
employee for doing their jobs (Koopmans et al., 2011). In organization, employee who has
good performance is essentially needed for achieving its target, especially for civil
servants, both at the central or regional offices. Unfortunately, in practice, expectations of
good performance were often hampered by many factors, both internal and external. One
of factors inhibited individual performance was work stress (Christy & Amalia, 2018).
Although previous studies showed consistent results regarding work stress and
work performance (Ahmad et al., 2018; Bashir & Ramay, 2010; Yani & Dwiyanti, 2017;
Yunita & Saputra, 2019), the deepening of what types of stress would relate to the three
types of performance had not received enough spotlight. This idea was based on previous
research which revealed that individual work performance could have different forms
(Hosie & Nankervis, 2016; Koopmans et al., 2012; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). More
specifically, the role of work stress to other types of work performance (contextual
performance and counterproductive performance) had not been much studied. Thus, this
study wanted to see whether different types of work stress would affect different types of
performance. In other words, the purpose of this study was to see whether different
sources of stress would affect different types of performance.
Koopmans et al., (2011) defined individual work performance as employee
behavior or actions that were consistent with organizational goals. A job can be measured
by the amount of work (Kallio, Kallio, & Grossi, 2017), work quality (Wijaksono, Hubeis, &
Saptono, 2017), work result (Groen, Wouters, & Wilderom, 2017), behavior or attitudes
(Etikawati & Udjang, 2016), presence (Simanjuntak & Hamali, 2016), and how they
cooperate each other (Fidiyanto, Warso, & Fathoni, 2018). On the other hand, based on
Allworth & Hesketh (1999), task performance referred to all behaviors conducted by
employees that were determined to achieve the target of organization. Motowidlo & Van
Scotter (1994) distinguished individual work performance into two types, task
performance and contextual performance. Task performance was related to how an
individual's ability to accomplish his task while contextual performance explained how
performance in the context of his work is, for example how he communicates with his
supervisor, establishing relationships, actively engage in their self-development or how to
help other workers. Meanwhile, Koopmans et al., (2012) divided work performance into
three dimensions and argued if these three types of performance were different
dimensions. Thus, despite sharing the same large construct of work performance, all three
dimensions could have different antecedents. In this study, the definition of Koopmans et
al., (2011) would be used because the definition included three types of performance:
task performance, contextual performance and counterproductive behavior. Her
explanation was also considered to be more comprehensive in describing types of
performance.
One construct that was also known to affect all three types of work performance
was work stress (Hosie, Sharma, & Kingshott, 2019; Ramli, 2018). Beehr & Newman
(1978) defined work stress as situation where the emergence of psychological and
physiological deviation normally functions when a person works. Meanwhile, work stress
by Cousins, Mackay, Clarke, Kelly, Lee & MacCaig (2004) was defined as the difference
between the skills, abilities, and values possessed by individuals with the demands of
The role of work stress on individual work performance: Study in civil servants 113

work and organizational goals. Cousins et al. (2004) stated that there were seven
dimensions of work stress related to type, namely: demands (problems that occur in
individuals such as workloads and work patterns), control (related to how much
individuals have autonomy to do their work), support managerial (related to how much
superiors provide support to employee related their work), support colleague (related to
the extent colleagues provide support to individuals related to their work), relationships
(relationships that exist within the organization, the ambiance or the politics in their
work environment), role (whether individuals understand their role in the organization
and whether the organization ensures that the individual does not have conflicting roles),
and change (how the organization manages and communicates the changes (large or
small) that occur with its employee). Previous studies of work stress had focused on
aspects of work itself, demands and control (Lee, Migliaccio, Lin, & Seto, 2020; Lu, Du, Xu,
& Zhang, 2017), meanwhile in this research, Cousins et al. (2004) work stress was used
because it was considered more comprehensive and contained seven aspects of the world
of work and had proven its application in interventions concerning work stress in the UK
(Mackay, Cousins, Kelly, Lee, & McCaig, 2004).
Work stress was known to affect psychological and physiological employee
(Akinola, Kapadia, Lu, & Mason, 2019). The psychological symptoms that usually arise in
individuals who experience work stress are anxiety, loss of concentration, withdrawal,
and decreased self-confidence. While physiological symptoms such as individuals feel an
increased heart rate, sleep disturbance, headaches and decreased immune system
(Khanam, 2017). Symptoms of work stress also could appear in behavior, such as delaying
or avoiding work (Brunner, Igic, Keller, & Wieser, 2019), dietary changes, taking drugs, or
tendency to quit his job. In other words, a decrease in work performance could occur if a
person was under stress. Previous research revealed consistent results regarding the
relationship of work stress and performance, both in Indonesian sample studies (Nur,
2013; Yani & Dwiyanti, 2017) or foreign countries (Bashir & Ramay, 2010; Jamal, 1984;
LePine, Zhang, Crawford, & Rich, 2016). Study conducted by Copestake et al., (2020) in
Uganda revealed how work stress could also affect one's achievement at work.
The impact of work stress was undoubtedly diverse. Beehr & Newman (1978)
stated that the impact of work stress was divided into three aspects, psychological,
physiological and behavior. Those psychological symptoms are anxiety, confusion, loss of
concentration, decreased self-confidence, irritability, withdrawal, and depression. Next,
there are other physiological symptoms, such as increased heart rate, headaches, sleep
disturbance, muscle tension, and lower back pain. Finally, behavioral symptoms that
occur in individuals include delaying or even avoiding work, abnormal eating patterns
(both increasing and decreasing), consuming alcohol and drugs, and the tendency to
commit suicide. As explained earlier, there are three types of work performance discussed
in this study, that is task performance, contextual performance and counterproductive
work behavior (Koopmans et al., 2012). A later explanation would reveal how each
dimension of work stress would take a role in every work performance.
Work stress stated by Cousins et al., (2004) consisted of seven dimensions. First
two dimensions were control and demands. Both of them closely related to the internal
characteristic of its work. Control indicated the extent of autonomy workers had, while
demands explained the pressure of the work itself. These two constructs are in line with
114 Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa Vol. 13 No. 1 Maret 2020

the controls and demands referred to in the Job-Control Demands theory (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2014), which argued the higher demands would cause a person more easily
engage in work stress, but this stress can be reduced by increasing the person's control of
his work.
In various studies, these two constructs were known to affect one's performance.
Study conducted by Yana (2014) revealed that stress-related- control and demands were
two of the stressors that were often complained of by nurses. An excessive work
demands, or where individuals were required to do multiple tasks at the same time but
did not have enough time to finish it, was a stressor that often makes these nurses
complain about their health condition. Sometimes, complaints about stressor could cause
symptoms of work stress, such as sleep disturbances, headaches, so this could be an
obstacle in civil servants when carrying out their duties (Abdillah & Wajdi, 2011). When
someone was trapped in these conditions, it would affect their work performance, such as
decreasing their ability in doing their work tasks.
Topcic, Baum, & Kabst (2016) also stated when individuals could not meet work
demands within the allotted time (or in this case get high demands), the problem of work
pressure arose which could cause work stress and ultimately made their performance
decline. Job stress could cause employees to feel very tired, depressed, and suffer physical
illness. When employees felt work stress, it could cause the services provided by the civil
servants to be ineffective and inefficient. Besides, other studies conducted by Hessels,
Rietveld, & van der Zwan (2017) to the self-employed and office workers indicate if self-
employed workers who have high control of their work experience relatively have low
work stress.
Based on the explanation above, the first hypothesis of this study is: if the stress
associated with job demands would reduce the task performance of workers while
control would increase task performance.
Meanwhile, contextual performance was often associated with things outside of
work (not including KPIs or included in one's main job), but if done, it will benefit the
organization. Contextual performance itself was often associated with many constructs or
terms, such as OCB (Grasiaswaty, Ratna, & Setyasih, 2016) or helping behavior
(Grasiaswaty, Purba, & Parahyanti, 2019; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). One example of this
behaviors helps coworkers even though it was not their obligation or as simple as turning
off the lights when not in use.
Although not part of the job-specific performance, previous studies described how
the relationship between contextual and task performance is, and how the experts agreed
to make contextual performance as one of their performance, even in different domains
from task performance (Arthaud-Day, Rode, & Turnley, 2012; Koopmans et al., 2012;
Koopmans, Bernaards, Hildebrandt, De Vet, & Van Der Beek, 2014; Kwon & Farndale,
2018; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Previous research on the relationship between
contextual performance and work stress showed some differences with task performance,
which indicates that both of these performances could have different antecedents (Toderi
& Balducci, 2010). Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, (2005) found that employees who got
social support at work did not feel a high level of fatigue when they got excess work,
emotional and physical demands, and interference between work and home.
The role of work stress on individual work performance: Study in civil servants 115

Social support in the workplace could be obtained from direct supervisors, for
example, in providing feedback or helping some problematic work. Psychologically, the
effect of having functional quality interactions with supervisors could make individuals
felt more responsible for their work. They could trust their supervisors to help them
solving their work problems (Brooks et al., 2019). Support from supervisors and
coworkers as well as relationships established in an organization had a positive impact on
individuals. When individuals felt pressure because they were not able to complete their
jobs, but they get support from their work environment, they are also less stressed at
work (Wood, Daniels, & Ogbonnaya, 2018). However, if the individual did not get
excellent support from the surroundings, the individual would experience symptoms of
work stress such as feeling anxious, becoming insecure, losing concentration and could
affect the contextual performance that he displays in his work (Yang et al., 2015).
Workers could do not actively participate in meetings, do not want to help their
coworkers and lazy to develop themselves.
Role, or understanding the duty of its work, was also one of the factors triggering
individuals to feel stressed at work. When individuals did not understand their role, did
not understand their duties and responsibilities, and did not know how to complete their
work, they would not be able to understand their organizational goals, and it would
impact their performance (June & Mahmood, 2011). Another possibilities on how role
would affect performance was proven by Chen & Spector (1992). Their research stated
role conflict, and role ambiguity could become a stress trigger, alongside with job
demands, conflict interpersonal and harmful situational obstacles. These negative
emotions could provoke frustration, anger and anxiety. Malik, Schat, Shahzad, Raziq, &
Faiz (2018) stated how stressful employee would give effect to work performance. They
tend to do absenteeism, organization and interpersonal aggressiveness. Thus, this
negative emotion could lead to counterproductive work behavior (CWB), or the
emergence of anti-role behavior, antisocial, maladaptive or deviant that did not align with
organizational goals. Another research in Indonesia also showed how counterproductive
work behavior could be implemented in some behavior, like corruption or aggression
(Tiarapuspa, Indyastuti, & Sari, 2018). These behaviors were considered to interfere with
the work performance of organizational tasks, or effectiveness so that it could damage the
organization.
Based on those explanations, the researcher argued that if different stress
dimensions will be related to different performance. In other words, if the first hypothesis
revealing two dimensions of stress (job demands and job control) giving impact to task
performance, our second hypothesis that support supervisor, colleague support,
relationship, role and change would give more effect in contextual performance and
counterproductive work behaviour.

METHOD
The sample in this study are all employees at one of DKI Jakarta Provincial Offices
who are still actively working. Of all 105 active employees and research questionnaires
distributed, 83 returned questionnaires which could be further processed. The selection
of samples that were still in one division was intended to uniform the perception of
116 Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa Vol. 13 No. 1 Maret 2020

performance. The selection of one of the employment agencies in the DKI Jakarta
Provincial Government was the easiness of access.
Individual Work Stress was measured by Health Safety and Executive (HSE), an
measurement arranged by Cousins et al., (2004). This scale consisted of 35 items with
seven dimensions: demands, control, support managerial, support colleague, relationship,
role, and change. HSE measurement using a Likert-like scale with options never-always
and strongly disagree-strongly agree. Meanwhile, individual work performance was
measured by scores obtained from the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire
(IWPQ) compiled by Koopmans et., (2012, 2014). It consisted of 18 items with three
dimensions (task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive work
behavior) and using a Likert-like scale with option rarely-always and never-often. Both
scales had already been gotten through an adaptation process based on recommendations
of Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz (2000). This adaptation, including synthesis,
back-translates, and gets a recommendation from the expert. The results showed that the
reliability of the measurement instrument was in the range .666 to .846, which indicated
that the measuring instrument was quite reliable (Kaplan & Sacuzzo, 2008).
Reliability and validity test of the HSE measuring instrument were tested on 37
respondents. In each dimension, the reliability test was carried out; the reliability results
obtained were in the range of .666 to .846. The results obtained from the value of
corrected item correlation of each dimension was in the range of -.005 to .755. The
researcher decided to continue to include three items contained in the dimensions of
demands with item numbers 4 and 5, and control dimensions with item number 14
because the value of the overall HSE scale reliability was relatively good even though
there were items that had total item correlations less than .20. Thus, all 35 items can be
used as research instruments for the data collection process.
Meanwhile, the IWPQ measurement tool had also been tested on 37 respondents
to obtain the results of the dimension reliability coefficient. The task performance
dimension had a reliability coefficient of .915. Also, task performance had a critical value
(corrected item correlation) value in the range of .694 to .828. Thus, the IWPQ
measurement tool can also be used for the next step.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Result
Several steps were taken to process the data from this study. First, the reliability
value for each measuring instrument was rechecked. For task performance, the reliability
value was .825, with critical values in the range of .432 to .735, while for the contextual
performance dimension had a reliability coefficient of .818 with a critical range of values
.403 to .711. Next, for counterproductive work behavior had a reliability coefficient
of .717 with a critical value range of .197 to .753. For complete results, see Table 1.

Table 1
Reliability and Corrected Item Correlation for Individual Work Performances
Scale and Items Critical value
Task performance α = .825
Item 1 .589
The role of work stress on individual work performance: Study in civil servants 117

Scale and Items Critical value

Item 2 .432
Item 3 .627
Item 4 .735
Item 5 .716
Contextual performance α = .820
Item 6 .403
Item 7 .497
Item 8 .539
Item 9 .583
Item 10 .711
Item 11 .402
Item 12 .631
Item 13 .553
Counterproductive work behavior α = .717
Item 14 .718
Item 15 .408
Item 16 .441
Item 17 .753
Item 18 .197
Source: data processed

Meanwhile, for measuring work stress, it is known that the Demands dimension
has a reliability coefficient value α = .801 with a critical value between .155 to .766 while
the control has a value of α = .667 with a critical value between .268 to .562. For support
managers and support colleagues each has a reliability coefficient of .467 and .620,
respectively, while relationship, role and change respectively have a reliability coefficient
of .638, .766, and .635. Complete results can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2
Reliability and Corrected Item Correlation for work stress
Item Critical value
Demands α = .801
Item 1 .614
Item 2 .644
Item 3 .647
Item 4 .155
Item 5 .227
Item 6 .766
Item 7 .707
Item 8 .422
Control α = .667
Item 9 .395
Item 10 .268
Item 11 .457
Item 12 .562
Item 13 .359
Item 14 .348
118 Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa Vol. 13 No. 1 Maret 2020

Item Critical value

Support Manager α = .467
Item 15 .449
Item 16 .305
Item 17 .255
Item 18 .081
Item 19 .072
Support Collogues α = .620
Item 20 .535
Item 21 .514
Item 22 .300
Item 23 .292
Relationship α = .638
Item 24 .384
Item 25 .490
Item 26 .380
Item 27 .417
Role α = .766
Item 28 .675
Item 29 .696
Item 30 .467
Item 31 .342
Item 32 .597
Change α = .635
Item 33 .404
Item 34 .555
Item 35 .414
Source: data processed

Data was processed by using multiple regression techniques using the R program
with Lavaan packages (Rosseel, 2012) to see the role of each dimension of work stress
with different types of work performance. The results showed that the control dimension
had a significant role both in task performance (β = .254; p <.05) and contextual
performance (β = .328; p <.01). This result indicated that the more employees feel they
have control over their work, then more they will have higher task performance and
contextual performance. The opposite happened to colleague support which also had a
significant role in task performance (β = -.314; p <.01) and with contextual performance
(β = -.275; p <.05). However, the role of the two types of performance was negative, which
indicated that the higher the role of support colleagues, the lower the performance.
Meanwhile, for counterproductive work behavior, the role is relationship dimension (β
= .220; p <.05) and role (β = .427; p <.01), where the higher the three dimensions are, the
more tendency people will not engage in counterproductive behavior.
The role of work stress on individual work performance: Study in civil servants 119

Table 3
Hyphotesis Testing
Work Stress Task Contextual Contreproductiuctive
Dimension Performance Performance Work Behavior
Demands .215 .118 .076
Control .254* .328* .006
Support -.021 -.092 .142
Managerial
Support -.314** -.275** .073
Colleagues -.073 -.020 .220*
Relationship .177 .037 .427**
Role .082 .035 -.170
Change
Data processing with significant value * = p <0.05; ** = p < 0.01

DISCUSSI
The result of this research showed that in civil servants, task performance and
contextual performance had similar stress antecedents that was control and support
colleagues, whereas, in counterproductive behavior, antecedents that influenced this
behavior were different. The results of this study also revealed that demands, change and
managerial support did not significantly affect the three types of performance. While
college control and support affected only two types of performance (task and contextual
performance), relationships and roles affected only one type of performance
(counterproductive work behavior) and did not affect the other two performances.
These results were aligned with other studies which suggested that if an
individual had control over his work, it could improve his performance (Bond & Bunce,
2003; Day, Crown, & Ivany, 2017). Moreover, another study conducted by Cotti, Haley, &
Miller (2017) also revealed how flexibility which was identical to work control affects
stress and performance. Hessels et al., (2017) did another study that revealed
comparisons between workers who did self-employment and those who had a
supervisor. Those who tied to their work showed a higher level of stress compared to
self-employed individuals. This result indicated that when someone had control over his
or her work, he or she will be less stressed. When the employee was not easily stressed,
the physiological response would also get better. An excellent physiological response was
known to increase a person's confidence in completing his task (Brooks et al., 2019), thus
helping to improve the performance of his tasks. Individuals who had control over their
work also tended to be more active in learning their work (Bond & Flaxman, 2006), so
they have more ability to complete their task.
This study also revealed that controls also affected contextual performance but
not counterproductive work behavior. One of the things that could explain this result was
the research conducted by Muldoon, Kisamore, Liguori, Jawahar, & Bendickson (2016).
The research revealed how having autonomy towards his work contributes to someone in
doing a contextual performance. The feeling of having autonomy includes a person having
control over his work (Boxall & Macky, 2014), starting from what can be done first to
determine the end time of work. This autonomy was in line with the stated job control
Cousins et al., (2004) used in this study. The role of job control in contextual performance
120 Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa Vol. 13 No. 1 Maret 2020

could also be mediated by workplace wellbeing (Sattar, Khaliq, & Butt, 2018). The feeling
of having control and autonomy about one's work made a person's workplace wellbeing
better (Davis, 2019). This wellbeing ultimately made a worker engage more in his
contextual performance.
There was no correlation between job control or autonomy and
counterproductive work behavior in this study in line with previous research (Rehman &
Shahnawaz, 2018). One reason was that sometimes job control did not directly affect
performance like job demands, but previous studies showed that job control would affect
more as a moderator (Baka, 2018). Therefore, for further research, it would be better to
see how job control acts as a moderator to influence employee work performance. The
differences of antecedents between contextual performance and counterproductive work
behavior also indicated that these two dimensions were two different constructs, and
support the research proposed by Spector, Bauer, & Fox, (2010).
Demands were known to have no role in any performance. This result was not
supported by other studies, especially those based on Job-Demands Control theory
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2014; Bakker et al., 2005) finding that job demands affected
someone's performance. One that could explain why this hypothesis was a meta-analysis
was conducted by Gilboa, Shirom, Fried, & Cooper (2013) which revealed how the
relationship between demands-performance could be influenced by other moderator
variables, which caused the results to be unstable between one study and another.
The unpredictable result was how support from colleagues had a significant
negative effect on task performance and contextual performance. These results indicated
that if a person felt that he was receiving support from his colleague, he/she would
decrease his work standards. This result was not in line with previous research stated
that colleague support was highly related to task performance (Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy,
2002). One explanation that might explain this is because the individual did not feel
pressure from his coworkers and felt relying on his coworkers. Thus, it made him more
relax about his/her job. Another study also explained the why support of colleagues could
cause a decrease in work performance done by Şeşen, Soran, & Caymaz (2014) to teachers
in Turkey. The results of the study revealed teachers help with each other improved social
loafing, or the tendency to hang their work on co-workers.
Role was also known not to have a significant role in task performance and
contextual performance, but it had a role in counterproductive work behavior. These
results were in line with Ling & Bhatti (2014) who found that the role did not have any
effect on task performance. The research was conducted on admin staff and the academic
sector, which had a job profile similar to civil servants, which had clearly defined roles
and responsibilities. The role dimension of work stress emphasized that work stress
would occur when individuals did not have or not know their role in their work. This
stress might not occur in a sample of civil servants who already had a clear main task so
that it did not affect their performance at work.
Meanwhile, change was a dimension of work stress that emphasized how
organizations communicate any change to their employees (Cousins et al., 2004).
Employee stress would not be high when they could contribute to organizational change.
Since the sample was civil servants, according to regulations, civil servants in Indonesia
did not have the authority to make policy. They only followed the policies that had been
The role of work stress on individual work performance: Study in civil servants 121

determined. This reason could be one of the reasons why the change had no impact on
any performances.

CONCLUSION
The results of this study indicate that not all hypotheses mentioned by researcher
are supported. There was a significant influence of work stress on the dimensions of
control and support colleagues on task performance and contextual performance.
Meanwhile, work stress in the relationship and role dimensions had a significant
influence on counterproductive work behavior. Two dimensions of work stress that do
not influence the three types of performance were managerial support and change.
For further researches, it was suggested to examine more other work stress
factors, like personality type and self-assessment, so that it could help researchers to see
the individual factors causing work stress and to measure whether it should use
multidimensional in order to get more specific results. For civil servants, it was essential
to have a good quality relationship with supervisors and to have control, so that they can
overcome the demands of the job. They also need to understand their role in the
organization. The supervisor can give them more training related to managing stress
because it can help reducing the effects of work stress, so it does not affect work
performance.

REFERENCES

Abdillah, A. C., & Wajdi, F. (2011). Pengaruh kepemimpinan, stres kerja, disiplin kerja, dan
kompensasi dengan kinerja pegawai. Ekonomi Manajemen Sumber Daya, 12(1), 1–11.
Ahmad, E. H., Maidin, A., Abdullah, T., Naiem, F., Buraerah, S., Handayanif, R., & Prihantono,
P. (2018). Relationship of work stress to the performance of intensive care unit
nurses in Makassar. American Journal of Public Health Research, 6(1), 18–20.
https://doi.org/10.12691/ajphr-6-1-4.
Akinola, M., Kapadia, C., Lu, J. G., & Mason, M. F. (2019). Incorporating physiology into
creativity research and practice: The effects of bodily stress responses on creativity
in organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(2), 163–184.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0094.
Allworth, E., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Construct-oriented biodata: Capturing change-related
and contextually relevant future performance. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 7(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00110.
Arthaud-Day, M. L., Rode, J. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2012). Direct and contextual effects of
individual values on organizational citizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027352.
Baka, L. (2018). Types of job demands make a difference. Testing the job demand-control-
support model among Polish police officers. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1443962
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. Wellbeing, III, 1–28.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of
job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170–180.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170.
Bashir, U., & Ramay, M. I. (2010). Impact of stress on employees job performance: A study
on banking sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(1), 122–
122 Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa Vol. 13 No. 1 Maret 2020

126. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v2n1p122.
Beaton, D., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process
of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. SPINE, 25(24), 3186–3191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/000163599428823.
Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology,
31(4), 665–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb02118.x.
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and job control in mental health,
job satisfaction, and work performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1057–
1067.
Bond, F. W., & Flaxman, P. E. (2006). The ability of psychological flexibility and job control
to predict learning, job performance, and mental health. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 26(1–2), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v26n01_05.
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2014). High-involvement work processes, work intensification and
employee well-being. Work, Employment and Society, 28(6), 963–984.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017013512714.
Brooks, R. P., Jones, M. T., Hale, M. W., Lunau, T., Dragano, N., & Wright, B. J. (2019).
Positive verbal feedback about task performance is related with adaptive
physiological responses: An experimental study of the effort-reward imbalance stress
model. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 135(November 2018), 55–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2018.11.007.
Brunner, B., Igic, I., Keller, A. C., & Wieser, S. (2019). Who gains the most from improving
working conditions? Health-related absenteeism and presenteeism due to stress at
work. European Journal of Health Economics, 20(8), 1165–1180.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01084-9.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression,
withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 65(3), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1992.tb00495.x.
Christy, N. A., & Amalia, S. (2018). Pengaruh stres kerja terhadap kinerja karyawan the
influence of job stress on employees job performance. Jurnal Riset Bisnis dan
Investasi, 3(2), 74. https://doi.org/10.35697/jrbi.v3i2.935.
Copestake, J., Theuss, M., Brownie, S., Davies, G., Burke, E., Mukuru, M., … Edwards, G.
(2020). Recently graduated midwives in Uganda: Self-perceived achievement,
wellbeing and work prospects. Midwifery, 82(March 2020), 102596.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.102596
Cotti, C. D., Haley, M. R., & Miller, L. A. (2017). Assessing the impact of different workplace
flexibilities on workplace stress in the presence of varying degrees of job control.
Applied Economics Letters, 24(3), 198–201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2016.1176108.
Cousins, R., Mackay, C. J., Clarke, S. D., Kelly, C., Kelly, P. J., & McCaig, R. H. (2004).
“Management Standards” and work-related stress in the UK: Practical development.
Work and Stress, 18(2), 113–136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370410001734322.
Davis, A. L. (2019). Job Control in Professional Practice : A study on the Implications for
Well-Being. University of Calgary. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110241.
Day, A., Crown, S. N., & Ivany, M. (2017). Organisational change and employee burnout:
The moderating effects of support and job control. Safety Science, 100, 4–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.004.
Etikawati, E., & Udjang, R. (2016). Strategi rekrutmen dan seleksi terhadap kinerja
karyawan. Jurnal Perilaku dan Strategi Bisnis, 4(1), 9–23.
The role of work stress on individual work performance: Study in civil servants 123

https://doi.org/10.26486/jpsb.v4i1.443.
Fidiyanto, D., Warso, M. M., & Fathoni, A. (2018). Analisis pengaruh organizatioal
citizenship behavior dan kompensasi terhadap kinerja karyawan (Study pada PT Hop
LunIndonesia Kab . Semarang). Journal of Management, 4(4), 1–17.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). A meta-analysis of work demand
stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. In: Cooper
C.L. (eds) From Stress to Wellbeing Volume 1. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 227–271.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137310651_10.
Grasiaswaty, N., Purba, D. E., & Parahyanti, E. (2019). Me or us? How values (power and
benevolence) influence helping behaviour at work. Diversity in Unity: Perspectives
from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, (June 2018), 345–353.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315225302-44.
Grasiaswaty, N., Ratna, F., & Setyasih, N. (2016). Adaptasi alat ukur organizational
citizenship behavior ( OCB ) dengan peer review di Indonesia, Seminar ASEAN 2nd
Psychology & Humanity, 318-325.
Groen, B. A. C., Wouters, M. J. F., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2017). Employee participation,
performance metrics, and job performance: A survey study based on self-
determination theory. Management Accounting Research, 36, 51–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.10.001.
Hessels, J., Rietveld, C. A., & van der Zwan, P. (2017). Self-employment and work-related
stress: The mediating role of job control and job demand. Journal of Business
Venturing, 32(2), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.007.
Hosie, P., & Nankervis, A. (2016). A multidimensional measure of managers’ contextual
and task performance. Personnel Review, 45(June), 419–447.
Hosie, Peter, Sharma, P., & Kingshott, R. P. J. (2019). “Happy-performing managers” thesis:
Testing the mediating role of job-related affective outcomes on the impact of role
stressors on contextual performance. International Journal of Manpower, 40(2), 356–
372. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2018-0124.
Isnaini, K. (2015). Pengaruh lingkungan kerja dan stres kerja terhadap kinerja karyawan
(studi kasus pada PT Putra Nugraha Sentosa Mojosongo). Universitas
Muhammadiyah Surakarta. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ums.ac.id/35697/1/Naskah Publikasi.pdf.
Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90009-6.
June, S., & Mahmood, R. (2011). Role ambiguity and job performance of employees in the
service sector SMEs in Malaysia. Malaysian Management Journal, 15, 1–20.
Kallio, K. M., Kallio, T. J., & Grossi, G. (2017). Performance measurement in universities:
Ambiguities in the use of quality versus quantity in performance indicators. Public
Money and Management, 37(4), 293–300.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2017.1295735.
Kaplan, R. M., & Sacuzzo, D. (2008). Psychological Testing (Seventh Ed). California:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Khanam, S. (2017). Impact of stress on physiology of endocrine system and on immune
system: A Review. International Journal of Diabetes and Endocrinology, 2(3), 40–42.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijde.20170203.12.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., Van Buuren, S., Van Der Beek, A. J., & de Vet,
H. C. w. (2012). Development of an individual work performance questionnaire.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(1), 6–28.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401311285273.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., De Vet, H. C. W., & Van Der Beek, A. J.
(2014). Construct validity of the individual work performance questionnaire. Journal
124 Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa Vol. 13 No. 1 Maret 2020

of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(3), 331–337.

https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000113
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., De Vet Henrica, C. W., &
Van Der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance:
A systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 856–
866. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318226a763
Kwon, B., & Farndale, E. (2018). Employee voice viewed through a cross-cultural lens.
Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.06.002.
Lee, W., Migliaccio, G. C., Lin, K. Y., & Seto, E. Y. W. (2020). Workforce development: To
understanding task-level job demands-resources, burnout, and performance in
unskilled construction workers. Safety Science, 123(December 2019), 104577.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104577.
LePine, M. A., Zhang, Y., Crawford, E. R., & Rich, B. L. (2016). Turning their pain to gain:
Charismatic leader influence on follower stress appraisal and job performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 1036–1059.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0778.
Ling, S., & Bhatti, M. (2014). Work stress and job performance in Malaysia academic
sector: Role of social support as moderator. British Journal of Economics, Management
& Trade, 4(12), 1986–1998. https://doi.org/10.9734/bjemt/2014/12098.
Lu, C. Q., Du, D. Y., Xu, X. M., & Zhang, R. F. (2017). Revisiting the relationship between job
demands and job performance: The effects of job security and traditionality. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(1), 28–50.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12158
Mackay, C. J., Cousins, R., Kelly, P. J., Lee, S., & McCaig, R. H. (2004). “Management
Standards” and work-related stress in the UK: Policy background and science. Work
and Stress, 18(2), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370410001727474.
Malik, O. F., Schat, A. C. H., Shahzad, A., Raziq, M. M., & Faiz, R. (2018). Workplace
psychological aggression, job stress, and vigor: A test of longitudinal effects. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 00(0), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518770650.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4),
475–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475.
Muldoon, J., Kisamore, J. L., Liguori, E. W., Jawahar, J., & Bendickson, J. (2016). Emotional
stability and contextual job performance: The moderating effects of meaning and
autonomy. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 15232.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.15232abstract.
Nur, S. (2013). Konflik, stres kerja dan kepuasan kerja pengaruhnya terhadap kinerja
pegawai pada Universitas Khairun Ternate. Jurnal EMBA, 1(3), 739–749.
https://doi.org/10.1109/siu.2009.5136498.
Ramli, A. H. (2018). Manage of job stress and measure employee performance in health
services. Business and Entrepreneurial Review, 18(1), 53–64.
Rehman, U., & Shahnawaz, M. G. (2018). Machiavellianism, job autonomy, and
counterproductive work behaviour among indian managers. Revista de Psicologia Del
Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 34(2), 83–88.
https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2018a10.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. R package
version 0.5-15 http://lavaan.org. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
Retrieved from
https://econpapers.repec.org/article/jssjstsof/v_3a048_3ai02.htm%0Ahttp://www.j
statsoft.org/v48/i02/.
Sattar, H., Khaliq, L., & Butt, M. (2018). Effect of performance management on employees
The role of work stress on individual work performance: Study in civil servants 125

well-being via perceived job control. Human Resource Research, 2(1), 18.
https://doi.org/10.5296/hrr.v2i1.13155
Şeşen, H., Soran, S., & Caymaz, E. (2014). Dark side of organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB): Testing a model between OCB, social loafing and organizational commitment.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(5), 125–135.
Simanjuntak, B., & Hamali, A. Y. (2016). Pengaruh disiplin kerja terhadap kinerja pegawai
pada PT. Bank BNI 1946 (Persero) Tbk Kantor Cabang Asia Afrika Bandung. Banking
and Management Review, 5(1), 1–10.
Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of
counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we
know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781–790.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019477.
Tiarapuspa, Indyastuti, D. L., & Sari, W. R. (2018). Constructing counterproductive
behavior for supporting evironmental management system research. IOP Conference
Series : Earth and Environmental Science 106.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/106/1/012083/pdf.
Toderi, S., & Balducci, C. (2010). HSE management standards indicator tool and positive
work-related outcomes. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 3(2),
362–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijwhm.2010.35403baa.002.
Topcic, M., Baum, M., & Kabst, R. (2016). Are high-performance work practices related to
individually perceived stress? A job demands-resources perspective. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(1), 45–66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1043136.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.
https://doi.org/10.2307/256902.
Wasono, H. T. (2012). Kinerja Buruk, 40 Persen PNS Diminta Pensiun Dini. Retrieved
December 1, 2019, from https://nasional.tempo.co/read/391746/kinerja-buruk-40-
persen-pns-diminta-pensiun-dini/full&view=ok.
Wijaksono, B., Hubeis, A. V., & Saptono, I. T. (2017). Pengaruh kualitas kerja terhadap
kinerja Bank BNI Syariah Cabang Bogor. Jurnal Aplikasi Bisnis dan Manajemen, 3(2),
254–265. https://doi.org/10.17358/jabm.3.2.254
Wood, S., Daniels, K., & Ogbonnaya, C. (2018). Use of work–nonwork supports and
employee well-being: the mediating roles of job demands, job control, supportive
management and work–nonwork conflict. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 5192, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1423102.
Yana, D. (2014). Stres kerja pada perawat Instalasi Gawat Darurat di RSUD Pasar Rebo
Tahun 2014. Jurnal Administrasi Rumah Sakit Indonesia, 1(2), 107–115.
https://doi.org/10.1234/arsi.v1i2.2176.
Yang, T., Shen, Y. M., Zhu, M., Liu, Y., Deng, J., Chen, Q., & See, L. C. (2015). Effects of co-
worker and supervisor support on job stress and presenteeism in an aging
workforce: A structural equation modelling approach. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010072.
Yani, M. D., & Dwiyanti, E. (2017). Hubungan kompensasi finansial dan stres kerja dengan
kinerja karyawan PT. Dok dan perkapalan Surabaya (Persero). The Indonesian
Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, 5(2), 163.
https://doi.org/10.20473/ijosh.v5i2.2016.163-172.
Yunita, P. I., & Saputra, I. G. N. W. H. (2019). Millennial generation in accepting mutations:
Impact on work stress and employee performance. International Journal of Social
Sciences and Humanities, 3(1), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.29332/ijssh.v3n1.268.
Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’
126 Jurnal Manajemen dan Pemasaran Jasa Vol. 13 No. 1 Maret 2020

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1068–1076.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1068.