Understanding the job demands and resources experienced by workers in an agricultural organisation.
The objective of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Adapted Job Demands and Resources Scale (AJDRS) as well as to establish prevalent job demands and resources of employees in an agricultural organisation. Demographic differences were also investigated.
The agricultural sector of any national economy plays a very important role in the overall welfare of the country. Identifying the prevalent job demands and resources in an agricultural organisation is therefore of paramount importance since the negative consequences of employees experiencing very demanding jobs with few resources have been well documented in stress literature.
A cross-sectional survey design was used. The sample consisted of 443 employees in an agricultural organisation. The AJDRS was used to measure the research variables.
The findings of this research show evidence for the factorial validity and reliability of the AJDRS. Statistical differences were found with regard to the job demands and resources experienced by employees in different positions.
Interventions to improve the perceived job demands and resources in the organisation should focus on physical resources (equipment).
This study contributes to knowledge concerning the job demands and resources that are prevalent in an agricultural organisation in South Africa.
The workplace has undergone tremendous changes over the last few decades. Organisations must survive in highly competitive local and global economies. The extent to which an organisation is able to attain organisational goals and objectives through the dedication of its workforce is an important factor in the organisation's ability to remain in business (Fay & Buhrmann,
The above discussion concurs with Rothmann, Mostert and Strydom (
Different models have been propounded to explain the interaction between the demands of a job and the resources available to the employee. These models include the Job Characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham,
The Job Characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham (
Another model of work-related stress is the Person-Environment Fit model, which was developed by Lazarus and Folkman (
A fourth model of job stress is the Job Demands-Resources model, which extends previous job stress models (Karasek,
According to Rothmann
Work-related stress research in the South African context indicates that different organisations experience different types of job demands and job resources (Rothmann,
Most of these research studies highlighted the most prevalent job demands as being work overload, excessive paperwork, insufficient time to meet deadlines, performing tasks not in their job description (role ambiguity), working long hours and having little control over their work; meanwhile, insufficient remuneration, lack of recognition, lack of growth and advancement opportunities, poorly motivated staff members, colleagues not doing their jobs, staff shortages, job insecurity, lack of control and lack of organisational, managerial and collegial support were identified as problems in terms of job resources (cf. Barkhuizen & Rothmann,
Researchers in agricultural research continue to strive for excellence in their pursuit of scientific solutions aimed at improving people's quality of life (Moephuli,
Another challenge in agricultural research includes the presence of unforeseen crisis situations such as attempting to modernise some of the laboratories and equipment so that new crops and animals and new techniques can be researched (ARC,
However, to date no research studies have investigated these job demands and resources experienced by workers in the agricultural sector in South Africa. Research studies have mostly focused on stress and to date the research population has been mostly farmers (Deshpande & Shah,
South African studies have reported results in support of the Job Demands Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti,
However, Rothmann
The following definitions of the factors provided by Jackson and Rothmann (
Other South African studies have obtained similar results to those reported by Jackson and Rothmann (
In order to determine the nature of the job demands and resources experienced in the agricultural organisation, the JDRS was adapted specifically for the agricultural sector. Subsequently, the following hypotheses were formulated regarding the adapted JDRS (AJDRS):
Agricultural workers are not a homogeneous group of employees. It would therefore be inappropriate to examine the job demands and resources of the employees in an agricultural organisation without taking cognisance of their demographic differences. Vokic and Bogdanic (
Previous researchers have examined the differences between various demographic groups in terms of how they perceive their job-related occupational stressors and resources. Variables that have been studied include: (1) gender (e.g. Antoniou, Polychroni & Vlachakis,
With regard to gender, researchers have found that men and women working in the same job level differ significantly in their perception of work stressors and resources. Antoniou
In relation to age, De Witte (
Pienaar and Rothmann (
With regard to work overload Bosch
In terms of job resources, Ribeiro
Barkhuizen (
According to Roskies and Louis-Guerin (
Differences have been found recently in terms of job resources and rank or job position: employees in manager or high seniority positions tend to score lower on job resources such as job control, positive work relationships and supervisory support, whilst scoring high on growth opportunities and role clarity (Marinaccio
In relation to the connection between education and workers’ perception of stress, Dua (
Marital status has also been found to be significantly related to perceived occupational stress levels. Married people, possibly because of their work-home conflict, experience higher levels of stress than single people (Vokic & Bogdanic,
Researchers have also identified number of years spent in a workplace as an important variable in relation to employees’ perceptions of stress. This is because new employees first have to understand the organisational structures and ethics, then understand the organisational expectations in relation to performance and then find a balance between various workplace demands (Sorcinelli,
Based on the aforementioned, the following hypothesis is presented:
For the purposes of the adaptation phase of the measuring instrument, a quantitative methodological design was used. In this approach, the researcher is interested in the development of new methods (such as questionnaires, scales and tests) of data collection (Mouton,
A survey design, specifically a cross-sectional design, in which a sample is drawn from the target population at a particular time (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister & Zechmeister,
Biographical information of participants (
Item | Category | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 221 | 49.9 |
Female | 217 | 49.0 | |
Race | African | 247 | 55.8 |
Mixed race | 19 | 4.3 | |
Indian | 3 | 7.0 | |
White | 170 | 38.4 | |
Marital status | Single | 124 | 28.0 |
Engaged | 18 | 4.1 | |
Married | 232 | 52.4 | |
Living together | 16 | 3.6 | |
Separated/Divorced | 24 | 5.4 | |
Widow/Widower | 16 | 3.6 | |
Other | 5 | 1.1 | |
Language | Afrikaans | 165 | 37.2 |
English | 21 | 4.7 | |
isiNdebele | 5 | 1.1 | |
isiXhosa | 6 | 1.4 | |
isiZulu | 26 | 5.9 | |
Sepedi | 64 | 14.4 | |
Sesotho | 59 | 13.3 | |
Setswana | 38 | 8.6 | |
siSwati | 14 | 3.2 | |
Tshivenda | 18 | 4.1 | |
Xitsonga | 8 | 1.8 | |
Other | 14 | 3.2 | |
Age | 20–25 | 28 | 6.3 |
26–30 | 53 | 12.0 | |
31–35 | 73 | 16.5 | |
36–40 | 60 | 13.5 | |
41–45 | 72 | 16.3 | |
46–50 | 71 | 16.0 | |
51–55 | 37 | 8.4 | |
55+ | 44 | 9.9 | |
Education | Grade 9–11 | 59 | 13.3 |
Grade 12 | 60 | 13.5 | |
Certificate/Diploma | 70 | 15.8 | |
Bachelor's degree | 44 | 9.9 | |
Honours degree | 42 | 9.5 | |
Master's degree | 86 | 19.4 | |
PhD | 51 | 11.5 | |
Other | 24 | 5.4 | |
Position | Research assistant | 124 | 28.0 |
Research technician | 122 | 27.5 | |
Researcher | 110 | 24.8 | |
Programme manager/Specialist scientist | 17 | 3.8 | |
Support staff | 62 | 14.0 | |
Years in position | 1–5 | 195 | 440 |
6–10 | 79 | 17.8 | |
11–15 | 48 | 10.8 | |
16–20 | 37 | 8.4 | |
21–25 | 33 | 7.4 | |
26–30 | 35 | 7.9 | |
30+ | 12 | 2.7 | |
Years in organisation | 1–5 | 152 | 34.6 |
6–10 | 75 | 16.9 | |
11–15 | 49 | 11.1 | |
16–20 | 51 | 11.5 | |
21–25 | 51 | 11.5 | |
26–30 | 39 | 8.8 | |
30+ | 22 | 5.0 | |
The JDRS (Jackson & Rothmann,
A South African agricultural organisation was approached and asked to participate in the study. Once the researcher received written permission from the director of human resources of the organisation to conduct the research, the research procedure commenced. The research procedure consisted of two phases: (1) adaptation of the JDRS and (2) data collection.
In order to adapt Jackson and Rothmann's (
Following the adaptation of the JDRS a letter requesting participation in the survey was emailed to the employees within the organisation. The letter explained the objective of the survey, which was to investigate work-related well-being in the agricultural sector, with specific reference to levels of wellness and the ways in which employees personally evaluate different aspects of their work and work environment.
The data was collected by means of convenience sampling. Convenience sampling involves selecting participants primarily on the basis of their willingness and availability to participate in the research (Fink,
The statistical analysis was carried out with the Statistical Package for the Social Scientist (SPSS;
Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine the construct validity of the AJDRS. Firstly, a simple principal component analysis was conducted on the items of the AJDRS and the eigenvalues and scree plot were studied to determine the number of factors to extract. Kaiser (
The reliability of the obtained factors was investigated using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Nunnally and Bernstein (
Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to determine differences between demographic groups with regard to job demands and resources. The demographic variables included were gender, race, marital status, language, age, education, unit, position, years in organisation and years in position. MANOVA is the multivariate equivalent of analysis of variance (ANOVA) methods, and is used in instances where there is more than one dependent variable and where the dependent variables cannot simply be combined (see Pallant,
The Bonferroni adjustment was used to prevent inflated type 1 error, which is the possibility of finding a significant difference when there is actually none (Pallant,
Ethical aspects attended to included obtaining written permission from the organisation as well as from the individual participants. Participation in the study was voluntary and participants were assured of confidentiality. The objectives of the study were explained to the participants at their place of work and each questionnaire and consent form was accompanied by a letter explaining the rationale of the study and indicating the participant's voluntary participation in the research.
In order to examine the distribution pattern of the scores, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis) were used to explore the data on the initial 60 items of the AJDRS (see
Descriptive statistics of the initial 60 adapted Job Demands and Resources Scale items (
Item 1 | 4.99 | 1.52 | −0.52 | −0.09 |
Item 2 | 4.79 | 1.49 | −0.48 | −0.01 |
Item 3 | 4.84 | 1.49 | −0.19 | −0.57 |
Item 4 | 5.59 | 1.26 | −0.82 | 0.63 |
Item 5 | 4.38 | 1.65 | −0.26 | −0.42 |
Item 6 | 2.65 | 1.66 | 0.85 | −0.05 |
Item 7 | 4.83 | 1.49 | −0.35 | −0.27 |
Item 8 | 5.63 | 1.34 | −0.99 | 0.90 |
Item 9 | 5.52 | 1.49 | −0.99 | 0.56 |
Item 10 | 3.53 | 1.58 | 0.17 | −0.53 |
Item 11 | 3.21 | 1.75 | 0.45 | −0.55 |
Item 12 | 3.11 | 1.49 | 0.37 | −0.33 |
Item 13 | 4.24 | 1.79 | −0.27 | −0.77 |
Item 14 | 4.15 | 1.69 | −0.19 | −0.60 |
Item 15 | 4.80 | 1.75 | −0.60 | −0.48 |
− |
||||
Item 17 | 5.09 | 1.51 | −0.56 | −0.20 |
Item 18 | 4.64 | 1.86 | −0.39 | −0.88 |
Item 19 | 5.67 | 1.43 | −1.13 | 0.88 |
Item 20 | 6.14 | 1.14 | −1.70 | 3.38 |
Item 21 | 5.46 | 1.42 | −0.83 | 0.18 |
Item 22 | 5.46 | 1.43 | −1.04 | 0.99 |
Item 23 | 5.77 | 1.40 | −1.29 | 1.44 |
Item 24 | 5.36 | 1.58 | −0.90 | 0.18 |
Item 25 | 5.27 | 1.46 | −0.56 | −0.16 |
Item 26 | 5.62 | 1.36 | −0.86 | 0.40 |
− |
||||
Item 28 | 5.75 | 1.41 | −1.35 | 1.69 |
Item 29 | 6.05 | 1.13 | −1.42 | 2.40 |
Item 30 | 5.49 | 1.55 | −0.99 | 0.57 |
− |
||||
Item 32 | 5.93 | 1.26 | −1.48 | 2.32 |
Item 33 | 5.05 | 1.70 | −0.78 | −0.15 |
Item 34 | 5.35 | 1.39 | −0.72 | 0.33 |
Item 35 | 5.32 | 1.55 | −0.85 | 0.15 |
Item 36 | 4.92 | 1.77 | −0.55 | −0.59 |
Item 37 | 4.59 | 1.64 | −0.24 | −0.49 |
Item 38 | 4.09 | 1.72 | 0.04 | −0.77 |
Item 39 | 5.04 | 1.66 | −0.60 | −0.41 |
Item 40 | 5.52 | 1.63 | −1.08 | 0.45 |
Item 41 | 5.04 | 1.69 | −0.67 | −0.31 |
Item 42 | 3.11 | 1.86 | 0.59 | −0.66 |
Item 43 | 5.74 | 1.34 | −1.02 | 0.70 |
Item 44 | 5.79 | 1.31 | −1.08 | 0.83 |
Item 45 | 5.08 | 1.41 | −0.46 | 0.13 |
Item 46 | 5.43 | 1.40 | −0.79 | 0.43 |
Item 47 | 4.62 | 1.99 | −0.36 | −1.03 |
Item 48 | 4.77 | 2.05 | −0.50 | −1.03 |
Item 49 | 4.48 | 1.97 | −0.27 | −1.07 |
Item 50 | 4.51 | 1.94 | −0.27 | −1.01 |
Item 51 | 3.05 | 1.74 | 0.42 | −0.72 |
Item 52 | 3.06 | 1.70 | 0.45 | −0.59 |
Item 53 | 2.84 | 1.75 | 0.64 | −0.51 |
Item 54 | 2.78 | 1.73 | 0.79 | −0.19 |
Item 55 | 4.50 | 1.80 | −0.35 | −0.66 |
Item 56 | 4.85 | 1.62 | −0.40 | −0.39 |
Item 57 | 2.89 | 1.80 | 0.79 | −0.22 |
Item 58 | 4.75 | 1.63 | −0.38 | −0.49 |
Item 59 | 4.84 | 1.60 | −0.40 | −0.38 |
Item 60 | 4.56 | 1.75 | −0.33 | −0.68 |
Bold indicates the items that displayed kurtosis exceeding 4.00.
M, mean; SD, standard deviation.
The results indicated that three items (16, 27 and 31) displayed kurtosis exceeding 4.00. This suggested that these items deviated from the normal distribution and indicated the presence of clustering of scores. These items were therefore removed from further analysis. The remainder of the items presented data that was fairly normally distributed.
A principal component analysis was conducted on the remaining 57 items to determine the number of factors that could be extracted. An initial analysis of the Eigen values (larger than 1) suggested that 14 factors could be extracted, explaining 68% of the variance. However, the scree plot (see
Scree plot of the adapted Job Demands and Resources Scale items.
A maximum likelihood factor analysis with a direct oblimin rotation was then conducted on the proposed 14-factor solution. After investigating various factor solutions, a decision was taken to retain eight factors based on the criteria set out in the statistical analysis section of this article. Five items did not load on any of the factors (e.g. ‘Do you have enough time to complete your work?’) and three items had double loadings (e.g. ‘Does your job give you the opportunity to be promoted?’). In addition, item 42 (‘Do you have direct influence on your institute's/organisation's decisions?’) was also removed as it lowered the Cronbach's alpha of the factor and did not match the rest of the items on the scale. These items were all excluded from further analysis. The results of the factor loadings and communalities of the retained items are presented in
Factor loadings and communality of items (
Factor | Item | ||
Organisational Support | Do you feel appreciated by your supervisor? | 0.74 | 0.68 |
Does your direct supervisor inform you on how well you are doing your work? | 0.72 | 0.73 | |
Can you discuss work problems with your direct supervisor? | 0.71 | 0.68 | |
Do you receive sufficient information on the results of your work? | 0.68 | 0.72 | |
Can you count on your supervisor when you come across difficulties in your work? | 0.67 | 0.68 | |
Do you know exactly what your direct supervisor thinks of your performance? | 0.66 | 0.62 | |
Do you get on well with your supervisor? | 0.60 | 0.65 | |
Do you receive sufficient information on the purpose of your work? | 0.58 | 0.71 | |
Are you kept adequately up to date about important issues in your organisation/institute/division? | 0.64 | 0.66 | |
Is it clear whom you should address within the organisation/institute for specific problems? | 0.49 | 0.59 | |
Can you participate in decisions about the nature of your work? | 0.36 | 0.57 | |
Do you know exactly for what you are responsible and what not? | 0.42 | 0.60 | |
Is the organisation's/institute's decision-making process clear to you? | 0.33 | 0.72 | |
Job Insecurity | Do you need to be more secure that you will keep your current job next year? | 0.95 | 0.83 |
Do you need to be more secure that you will keep the same function level next year? | 0.84 | 0.76 | |
Do you need to be more secure that you will still be working in one year? | 0.83 | 0.78 | |
Do you need to be more secure that you will be working on a funded project after the current one ends? | 0.62 | 0.52 | |
Financial Rewards | Do you think that you are paid enough for the work that you do? | 0.89 | 0.74 |
Can you live comfortably on your pay? | 0.88 | 0.76 | |
Do you think your organisation pays good salaries? | 0.87 | 0.73 | |
Does your job offer you the possibility to progress financially? | 0.66 | 0.58 | |
Work Overload | Does your work put much demand on you mentally? | 0.62 | 0.54 |
Do you have to be attentive to many things at the same time? | 0.58 | 0.46 | |
Do you work under time pressure? | 0.57 | 0.43 | |
Do you have to remember many things in your work? | 0.54 | 0.55 | |
Does your work put you in emotionally upsetting situations? | 0.52 | 0.47 | |
Are you confronted in your work with many things that affect you personally? | 0.51 | 0.47 | |
Does your work put much demand on you physically? | 0.48 | 0.46 | |
Do you have to put in extra hours beyond your working time? | 0.48 | 0.40 | |
Do you have contact with difficult clients in your work? | 0.44 | 0.47 | |
Do you have too much work to do? | 0.44 | 0.42 | |
Do you have to give continuous attention to your work? | 0.43 | 0.51 | |
Work-related Resources | Is/Are the equipment/implements you use in your work in good working condition? | 0.94 | 0.71 |
Do you have all the equipment/implements you need to accomplish your work? | 0.78 | 0.67 | |
Do you have modern equipment/implements to do your work? | 0.67 | 0.65 | |
Growth opportunities | Does your organisation/institute give you opportunities to follow training courses/workshops/conferences? | 0.84 | 0.66 |
Does your work offer you opportunities to learn on the job? | 0.68 | 0.63 | |
Does your work offer you opportunities for personal growth and development? | 0.42 | 0.58 | |
Control | Does your job offer you opportunities for independent thought and action? | 0.75 | 0.67 |
Do you take part in the planning of your work activities? | 0.74 | 0.70 | |
Can you participate in decisions about when a piece of work must be completed? | 0.70 | 0.61 | |
Do you have freedom in carrying out your work activities? | 0.63 | 0.62 | |
Do you think you are doing important work people can benefit from? | 0.53 | 0.54 | |
Does your work contribute significantly to the growth of your institute/organisation? | 0.35 | 0.45 | |
Relationship with colleagues | Do you have enough contact with colleagues during working hours? | 0.68 | 0.54 |
Can you have a chat with colleagues during working hours? | 0.60 | 0.48 | |
Do you talk with your colleagues regarding work-related matters? | 0.49 | 0.62 | |
Do you have contact with colleagues as part of your work? | 0.41 | 0.61 |
The remaining 50 items represented the eight extracted factors well. These items were labelled Organisational support (13 items), job Insecurity (four items), financial Rewards (four items), work Overload (11 items), work-related resources (three items), Growth opportunities (three items), Control, (six items) and Relationship with colleagues (four items). The factor loadings for the eight AJDRS factors ranged between 0.33 and 0.95, with communalities ranging between average (0.42) and high (0.83).
The descriptive statistics, reliabilities and Pearson's product moment correlation coefficients of the obtained factors are presented in
Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and Pearson's correlations of the factors.
Factor | Mean | SD | α | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
1. Organisational support | 68.15 | 14.33 | 0.92 | 1.00 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
2. Job insecurity | 18.37 | 6.85 | 0.87 | 0.03 | 1.00 | - | - | - | - | - |
3. Financial rewards | 11.73 | 6.04 | 0.89 | 0.23* | -0.02 | 1.00 | - | - | - | - |
4. Work overload | 48.91 | 10.05 | 0.80 | 0.03 | 0.13* | 0.03 | 1.00 | - | - | - |
5. Work-related Resources | 14.15 | 4.35 | 0.84 | 0.46*a | 0.10* | 0.35*a | 0.02 | 1.00 | - | - |
6. Growth opportunities | 14.00 | 4.41 | 0.78 | 0.49*a | 0.04 | 0.31*a | 0.09 | 0.36*a | 1.00 | - |
7. Control | 33.86 | 6.19 | 0.83 | 0.58*b | 0.04 | 0.17* | 0.16* | 0.27* | 0.47*a | 1.00 |
8. Relationship with Colleagues | 22.04 | 4.19 | 0.77 | 0.39*+ | 0.17* | 0.12* | 0.15* | 0.28* | 0.25* | 0.41*a |
*, correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
a, correlation is practically significant
b, correlation is practically significant
Next, the factors were subjected to a second-order factor analysis. Principal component analysis showed that two factors, which accounted for 50% of variance, could be extracted. Oblimin rotation showed that the two factors were not related (
Factors | Job resources | Job demands |
---|---|---|
Organisational support | 0.80 | - |
Job insecurity | - | 0.68 |
Financial Rewards | 0.54 | - |
Work Overload | - | 0.65 |
Work-related Resources | 0.69 | - |
Growth opportunities | 0.75 | - |
Control | 0.70 | - |
Relationship with colleagues | 0.51 | 0.48 |
To test Hypothesis 2, MANOVA was then used to determine differences between demographic groups with regard to job demands and job resources. Firstly, preliminary assumption checking was conducted to check for normality, linearity, univariate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices and multicollinearity. No serious violations were noted with regard to the above criteria. The demographic groups included were gender, race, marital status, language, age, education, position, years in organisation and years in position. The results of the MANOVA analysis are presented in
Variable | Value | Partial eta-squared | |||
Gender | 0.94 | 1.10 | 8.00 | 0.361 | 0.03 |
Race | 0.93 | 1.05 | 24.00 | 0.393 | 0.03 |
Marital status | 0.85 | 0.12 | 48.00 | 0.268 | 0.03 |
Language | 0.74 | 1.19 | 88.00 | 0.119 | 0.04 |
Age | 0.81 | 1.28 | 56.00 | 0.079 | 0.03 |
Education | 0.78 | 1.48 | 56.00 | 0.013 | 0.04 |
Position | 0.86 | 1.60 | 32.00 | 0.019 | 0.04 |
Years in position | 0.88 | 0.92 | 48.00 | 0.622 | 0.02 |
Years in organisation | 0.85 | 1.15 | 48.00 | 0.225 | 0.03 |
An analysis of Wilks's lambda (see
Lastly, an ANOVA was performed to further investigate the relationship between the dependent variable (job resources) with regard to the position of the employees (see
Item | Research assistant | Research technician | Researcher | Programme manager or Specialist scientist | Support staff | Partial eta-squared | |
Job Resources | 15.03 | 13.03 | 13.85 | 14.18 | 15.29 | 0.001 | 0.04 |
*, The mean difference is significant at
A one-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the impact of position on the perceived job resources as measured by the AJDRS. Participants were divided into five groups according to their position in the organisation (research assistants, research technicians, researchers, programme managers or specialist scientists and support staff). There was a statistically significant difference at the
This study aimed to investigate the validity and reliability of the AJDRS as well as to identify the job demands and resources that are prevalent amongst employees in an agricultural organisation. Additionally, the possible existence of differences related to various demographics was also investigated.
With regard to the first objective of the study, the results indicated that an eight-factor solution fitted the data best, explaining 54.58% of total variance. The eight factors were labelled Organisational support (F1), job Insecurity (F2), financial Rewards (F3), Overload (F4), physical Resources (equipment) (F5), Growth opportunities (F6), Control (F7) and Relationship with colleagues (F8).
The main difference between this study and Jackson and Rothmann's (
A second-order factor analysis was carried out using the eight observed factors and resulted in a two-factor structure. The first factor was labelled Job Resources (organisational support, financial rewards, physical resources, growth opportunities and control), whilst the second factor was labelled job demands (overload and job insecurity). These findings are in accordance with findings reported by research on the Job Demands-Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti,
In the current study, relationship with colleagues loaded on both the job demands and job resources factors. This dual finding is supported by the literature. Literature (see Demerouti
The internal consistency of the AJDRS was assessed using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient test for reliability. The items of each of the obtained eight factors were analysed for reliability. In previous research by Jackson and Rothmann (
Next, the differences within groups based on various demographic variables were examined. MANOVA was used to determine these differences with regard to job demands and resources. The demographic groups included were gender, race, marital status, language, age, education, position, years in organisation and years in position.
The results from the study provide partial support for Hypothesis 2, which was to examine differences in the perceived job demands and resources. No significant differences were found in the perceived job demands and resources of the employees based on gender, race, marital status, language, age, education, position, years in position or years in organisation. Although it initially seemed that there was significant difference in perceived organisational support based on education, no statistically significant difference was observed when the results for the dependent variables were examined separately using a Bonferroni adjusted level of 0.006. This result indicates that all the employees perceived organisational support in the same way. The mean score of the employees with regard to organisational support showed that the employees often experience organisational support. The organisation under investigation communicates with its employees through a centralised email system and strives to ensure that employees are aware of all developments in the organisation as well as in the various institutes. Employees are also given written job descriptions, thus ensuring that all employees are aware of their responsibilities. Finally, the management of the organisation places a premium on good employee relations and provides a good environment to bring out the best potential of all its employees.
The results of the MANOVA showed a significant difference in the perceived Physical Resources (equipment) of research technicians, research assistants and support staff, with research technicians perceiving lower levels of Physical Resources than research assistants and support staff. This may be due to the fact that support staff generally have the resources they need to work with (e.g. computer, printer, fax machines) and research assistants generally perform jobs that do not require sophisticated equipment. In contrast, research technicians require sophisticated equipment which may not be readily available or in good working condition. In terms of resources, the organisation faces challenges in relation to modernising some of the laboratories and equipment in order to effectively research new crops and animals as well as new techniques.
Firstly, work characteristics within the agricultural sector can be measured reliably and in a valid manner using the AJDRS. Also, physical resources (i.e. equipment) are deemed to be very important within the agricultural sector not only because literature (see ARC
The major limitation of this study is that it made use of a cross-sectional survey design for data collection. The disadvantage of this type of design is that it does not allow the researcher to examine how variables manifest on different occasions. The results were also obtained only from self-report questionnaires and this increases the probability of contamination of reported relationships.
It is recommended that future research studies further examine the reliability and validity of the AJDRS in other agricultural organisations in South Africa. It is also recommended that research be conducted on the construct equivalence of the AJDRS, as this could not be undertaken in the present study because of the limitations in terms of the demographic makeup of the participants. Furthermore, it is recommended that the AJDRS be used in research studies with other samples of agricultural organisations outside of South Africa in order to provide a point of reference for comparison of the job demands and resources of agricultural organisations worldwide.
In addition, based on the fact that the items in the relationship with colleagues subscale loaded on both job demands and job resources, it is recommended that this factor be refined in future studies. These studies should examine the relationship between job demands and resources and other well-being variables such as burnout and work engagement. Refinement of the relationship with colleagues subscale could involve rephrasing the items to better reflect the individual employee's experience of relationship with colleagues as either a demand or a resource. Future research studies should also involve a diary study of the job demands and resources of employees within a South African agricultural organisation in order to establish how workers’ experiences of job demands and job resources vary over time. It is also recommended that the findings of this research study be utilised by agricultural organisations and managers in relation to job design.
The Job Demands-Resources model suggests that two vital processes at work are caused by job demands and resources, which is of relevance in the industrial psychology profession especially: (1) jobs that are poorly designed (i.e. high demands including overload) could deplete mental and physical resources, which could ultimately result in exhaustion of energy and ill health in the workplace and (2) jobs that have high job resources could reduce the experience of job demands and enhance goal achievement. The results of this study should therefore be used to assist managers in agricultural organisations in ensuring that employees in every category have sufficient resources to cope with the job demands of their positions so as to ensure that all employees are engaged in their work.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
D.N.A. (North-West University) was the lead author, wrote up the article and was responsible for data collection and data analysis. C.H. (University of Johannesburg) was the associate postgraduate supervisor of the lead author and provided data analysis and editorial input. L.I.J. (North-West University) is the postgraduate supervisor of the lead author and gave editorial input.