✅ From among the four simulated scenarios, the fourth one, which is the increase in staff welfare parameters, had the most impact on reducing the burnout of Ardabil Regional Water Company employees.
According to the statistics available in 2017, the third most stressful job in the world is related to flight crew members. One of the causes of air accidents is human and human errors and stress and psychological pressures play an important role in increasing these errors [4]. In Iran, conditions such as severe sanctions against the aviation industry, distance from the current developments of the aviation industry, the worn-out fabric of the air fleet and the dependence of this foreign industry, have caused many problems in the aviation industry. These factors have caused flight crews to face more and more job stress [5]. Therefore, developing a training package to deal with stress is felt more than ever in this job.
The results indicated that the educational package of coping with occupational stress led to the reduction of stress in the flight crew. The analysis of each occupational stress components showed that the training for coping with the occupational stress is effective for, Decision-making Power, job & time strain, role ambiguity, value deficiency, as well as social support from the manager and colleagues.
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of job stress and its components in control and experimental group subjects
Variable | Test | Groups | M | SD | N |
Job stress | Pre-Test | Test | 112.55 | 5.53 | 20 |
Control | 116.25 | 6.80 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 143.65 | 13.53 | 20 | |
Control | 116.85 | 9.37 | 20 | ||
Attitude towards skill | Pre-Test | Test | 24.35 | 3.31 | 20 |
Control | 25.25 | 3.17 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 29.45 | 8.87 | 20 | |
Control | 26.50 | 1.87 | 20 | ||
Decision-making power | Pre-Test | Test | 10.30 | 1.49 | 20 |
Control | 11.25 | 1.02 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 12.30 | 1.31 | 20 | |
Control | 10.55 | 3.31 | 20 | ||
Task control | Pre-Test | Test | 7.10 | 1.62 | 20 |
Control | 6.35 | 1.87 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 8.80 | 2.31 | 20 | |
Control | 6.90 | 2.27 | 20 | ||
Time and Work pressure | Pre-Test | Test | 5.65 | 1.35 | 20 |
Control | 6.95 | 1.05 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 8.65 | 1.35 | 20 | |
Control | 6.75 | 1.12 | 20 | ||
Role ambiguity | Pre-Test | Test | 14.50 | 1.79 | 20 |
Control | 15.25 | 1.29 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 18.45 | 1.98 | 20 | |
Control | 15.10 | 1.62 | 20 | ||
Job insecurity | Pre-Test | Test | 9.70 | 1.17 | 20 |
Control | 9.80 | 1.54 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 12.70 | 2.12 | 20 | |
Control | 9.85 | 0.36 | 20 | ||
Lack of value | Pre-Test | Test | 10.60 | 0.88 | 20 |
Control | 11.45 | 1.14 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 11.50 | 1.39 | 20 | |
Control | 10.50 | 1.82 | 20 | ||
Manager social support | Pre-Test | Test | 14.20 | 1.64 | 20 |
Control | 14.55 | 1.10 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 18.95 | 1.19 | 20 | |
Control | 14.90 | 1.99 | 20 | ||
Social support of colleagues | Pre-Test | Test | 16.15 | 1.69 | 20 |
Control | 15.40 | 1.53 | 20 | ||
Post-Test | Test | 22.85 | 1.78 | 20 | |
Control | 15.80 | 2.50 | 20 |
Groups | N | M | S | T | d.f | P |
Control | 20 | -31.10 | 13.94 | -8.281 | 38 | 0.0001 |
Test | 20 | -0.600 | 8.768 |
Test | Amount | D.f1 | D.f2 | F | P | ɳ2 | Statistical power |
Effect of piling | 0.819 | 9 | 30 | 15.075 | 0.0001 >P | 0.819 | 1 |
Lambda Wilks | 0.181 | 9 | 30 | 15.075 | 0.0001> P | 0.819 | 1 |
Hoteling | 4.523 | 9 | 30 | 15.075 | 0.0001>P | 0.819 | 1 |
Roy's Largest Root | 4.523 | 9 | 30 | 15.075 | 0.0001 >P | 0.819 | 1 |
The dependent variable | S. S | d.f | M.S | F | P | ɳ2 | Statistical power |
Attitude towards skills Error |
148.225 1491.55 |
1 38 |
148.225 39.251 |
3.776 | 0.059 | 0.090 | 0.474 |
The power of decision Error |
72.900 318.200 |
1 38 |
72.900 8.374 |
8.706 | 0.005 | 0.186 | 0.820 |
Task control Error |
13.225 199.150 |
1 38 |
13.225 5.241 |
2.523 | 0.120 | 0.062 | 0.341 |
Time and work pressure Error |
102.400 111.200 |
1 38 |
102.400 2.926 |
34.993 | 0.0001 | 0.479 | 1 |
Role ambiguity Error |
168.100 179.500 |
1 38 |
168.100 4.724 |
35.587 | 0.0001 | 0.484 | 1 |
Job insecurity Error |
87.025 1858.95 |
1 38 |
87.025 48.92 |
1.779 | 0.190 | 0.045 | 0.255 |
Lack of value Error |
34.225 88.75 |
1 38 |
34.225 2.336 |
14.654 | 0.0001 | 0.275 | 0.962 |
Manager Social Support Error |
193.60 188.30 |
1 38 |
193.60 4.955 |
39.070 | 0.0001 | 0.507 | 1 |
Social support of colleagues Error |
396.90 265.00 |
1 38 |
396.90 6.974 |
56.914 | 0.0001 | 0.600 | 1 |
Stress management training package has had a significant effect on flight crew job stress. Therefore, it can be argued that flight crews can use this training to manage while facing job stress and thus this can be an effective step to reduce stress and increase the performance of their profession. Because the internal and external validity of the developed package was approved it is recommended to use this training package to reduce and control flight crew job stress. Consultants and therapists who intend to treat flight crew job stress can use this package. It is recommended that a training package to deal with job stress be implemented in other airlines. This research has been done in Mahan Airlines, therefore, caution should be exercised in extending its findings to other businesses.
The authors are grateful to all those who assisted in the writing of this article.
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions | |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |