\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Effect of Individualistic and Collectivistic Values on Total Role Stress among the Government Officers of Nepal},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2015-05-15 (revised: 15 May 2015)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2015-05-15}
\title{Effect of Individualistic and Collectivistic Values on Total Role Stress among the Government Officers of Nepal}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Kedar Bahadur  Rayamajhi}

             \author[2]{Kedar Bahadur  Rayamajhi}

             \affil[1]{  Mewar University}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 14 April 2015 Accepted: 5 May 2015 Published: 15 May 2015}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Stress is the psycho-biological construct. Stress creates from the personal behavior and their surrounding environment. Social relationship and organizational environment determines the level of stress among the employee. The study was going to explore the interrelationship between the individual value and collective value with role stress among the Nepal government officer. The study had adopted the simple random sampling to select the respondents. A total 284 government employees from technical and non-technical sectors were selected. Data was taken from the three strata: 1st class, 2nd class and 3rd class officers. The findings showed the significant relationship between the individual and collective values. Mean of individual value was higher than the collective value but the role stress was higher among the officer who took the collective value very much than individual value. Similarly, the non-technical officers felt higher level of stress than the technical officers.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{collectivistic value, government officers, individualistic value, nepal, role stress.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{I. Introduction}]{I. Introduction}\par
t is evident that, values hold a prominent role both in an individual and in organization life. However, there persists considerable confusion about what these values are and what role they play in these theories and, therefore, how they can be developed both within the individual and within the organization.\par
Values are one important element that affects who we are and how we behave towards others. If a person has a set of moral values then this will shape how they treat others and conduct them. People who lack these basic values may participate in unethical behavior that can hurt the organization as well as individual and its relationship and various other social problems. By analysing individual values relevant information concerning their attitudes, motives, feelings, beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, actions can be known to some extent. Because the underlying assumption is that when a value system has been developed, it creates a condition to exert some kind of behavior which can satisfy her/ his interests.\par
By analyzing values, attempt has been made to discover the principles behavior is directed or guided for individual or group. The underlying assumptions are that value works in outer level to control or determines the behavior at all level. In this sense, values appear to be more general in characters than attitudes but less general than ideologies \hyperref[b1]{(Berry, Poortinga, Segall, \& Dasen, 1992)}. Values are sometimes seen as a definitive descriptor of culture. Values have been classified in several ways. Spranger described values in six ideal types, namely theoretical, economical, aesthetic, social, political and religious \hyperref[b18]{(Spranger, 1928)}. Roakeach classified value as terminal and instrumental. Terminal values represent as salvation, quality, comfortable life, etc and refer to the preferred end state of existence. Instrumental values, as courageous, honest, polite etc. and associates with modes of conduct \hyperref[b16]{(Rokeach, 1973)}. A general classification of values are individualistic and collectivistic  {\ref (Hofstede, 1980;}\hyperref[b21]{Triandis, Bentempo, Villarieal, Asai, \& Lucca, 1988)}. These values are distributed among individuals and societies in such a way that individualism-collectivism has been regarded as one of the most important dimensions of cultural differences in human social behavior \hyperref[b13]{(Kagiticibasi, 1997)}. The macro social stress research of Boehnke, Regmi and others (1994) aims at shedding light on the interrelation of values, feelings of personal/ micro-social and macro-social stress and psychosocial well being in East and West Germany in contrast to two quiet different cultures namely the Asian countries of Nepal and Fiji. The Schwartz value survey  {\ref (Schwartz,1992)} was used to explore value orientation, Goldenring-Doctor Scale of existential worries \hyperref[b10]{(Goldenring-Doctor, 1986}) was used to gain information feelings of micro-macrosocial stress whereas different scale were used to measure mental health. With regard to worries substantial gender differences were found for personal and macro-social worries. They were higher for women then they were for men in both cultures. For microsocial worries neither culture nor sample differences were found. For mental health scores no differences between West Germany and Nepal were found.\par
In all four samples, security, achievement, and hedonism, values were positively related to personal and microsocial worries. Universalism, benevolence, and self direction were positively related to microsocial worries. All in all, the first hypothesis was confirmed. Feelings of personal/microsocial stress are more or less closely related to different value preferences, the letter two openness and self-transcendence value preferences. Second hypothesis stated that feelings of microsocial stress would not be related negatively to mental health. This hypothesis was confirmed in a convincing manner.\par
The study had also focused on the individual and collective values of government officers in relation to their level of stress. Nepal has multi-cultural and multiethnicity where values of individual is guided by their social, cultural, environmental, educational and professional orientation. The study had examined the inter-relationship between the values and role stress. Every human being is the part of society so s/he has to play the individual as well as social or collective role in society. So it was observed that one individual has both types of values. Some previous research also suggested that both "individualistic" and "collectivistic" elements are coexisting within a given culture \hyperref[b15]{(Mishra, 1994;}\hyperref[b17]{Sinha D. \& Tripathi, 1994)}. But it is also observed that perception and practices of one individual may vary because of their own interest or interest of their phenomena. It is true that there is no 100\% similarity between the perception and practices; what people perceive may not be visible in their daily practices also so some previous study also supported this argument. In another study individualism and collectivism found in a given culture can vary widely depending on its ecological and historical circumstances \hyperref[b0]{(Berry J. W., 1994)}.\par
Value is one of the determinants of our personality. Keeping this in view, Individualistic -Collective value scale developed by \hyperref[b15]{(Mishra, 1994})is used for this study. The individualistic values include personal happiness, autonomy, ambitiousness, physical comfort, advancement, achievement, independence, personal benefits, economic gains and assertiveness. The collectivistic values include welfare of others, obedience, dependency, tolerance of others, true friendship, altruism, modesty, reciprocation, social interaction, and enduring relationships. 
\section[{II. Methods}]{II. Methods}\par
The study is based on the quantitative data collected by using the structured questionnaires developed by R. C.  {\ref Mishara (1994)}. The cross-sectional data was collected to test the hypothesis. The sample of the present investigation comprised of 284 Nepal government employees belonging to section officer level to especial class (Secretary) levels, randomly selected from various Ministries and departments of government of Nepal. The study was conducted in 2013 in Kathmandu valley. The developed questionnaire was ensuring the reliability and validity of instrument by testretest method. Data was analyzed by using the SPSS (data analysis software). The statistical tools; descriptive analysis, ANOVA and multiple comparisons were done to present the data. The data presented in tabulation form in result section of this study. The study was conducted among the 284 government officer where in total 80.3\% were male. Level of education found thatin total 80.6\% respondents had completed Master level followed by 17.3\% had completed bachelor level and 2.1\% had PhD also. Occupation wise, in total 53.5\% respondents were participated from the technical group followed by 46.5\% were from the non-technical group. From the previous study and observation of field also, it was found that sometimes values creates the conflict between the family members, organizational staffs, management and employee etc. Clarke , Preston, Raksin and Bengtson investigated that conflicts between parents and children's found on habits and life style choices whereas children indicated on communication and interaction style(1999). Similarly, Brunswick examined age differences in black and white populations regarding outlook on life, international tolerance and hostility, and attitude towards the advocacy of violence. The researcher concluded that education might be an important determinant of generational difference as age \hyperref[b3]{(Brunswick, 1970)}. 
\section[{III. Results}]{III. Results} 
\section[{a) Job holders' values}]{a) Job holders' values} 
\section[{Volume XV Issue VIII Version I}]{Volume XV Issue VIII Version I}\par
There was significant different found between the individual/collective values and the level of stress among the government level technical and nontechnical officers at the 0.036 significant levels. The mean of individual value is 3.96 which is slightly greater than the collective value (3.15). 
\section[{b) Individualistic values and level of stress}]{b) Individualistic values and level of stress}\par
Study was focused to find out the difference between the individual and collective values. The table no. 2 shows that out of total 132 non-technical officer, 2 people had little individual values categories as followed by 38 had average value, 83 had much and 9 had very much. Similarly, out of total 152 technical officers, 38 had informed that they had average individual values categories followed by 106 had much and 8 had very much.\par
As compared with non-technical and technical officers, 2 (5.89\%) persons had high level of stress who had adopted the very much individual values categories among the non-technical officer followed by 2 (5.71\%) persons had high level of stress who had also very much individual values categories. 23 (67.64\%) nontechnical officers who had adopted the much individual values reported high level of role stress followed by 26 (74.28\%) technical officer reported the same. Similarly, who had average level of individual value among the non-technical officers, 8 (23.52\%) respondents reported high level of role stress followed by 7 (20\%) respondents of technical officers also reported the high level of role stress that had the average individual values categories.\par
As compared between the technical and nontechnical officers, level of stress found mostly similar. There was no significant relation found between the individual values and level of total role stress in case of non-technical officers (r = .047, p = .088) and technical officers (r = .115, p = .078). On the basis of this data, the hypothesis'there is significant relationship between the individual value and level of stress' is rejected. 
\section[{c) Collective values and level of stress}]{c) Collective values and level of stress}\par
Researcher had also identified the level of total role stress who had adopted the collective values. The data shows that out of 34 non-technical officers who had high level of total role stress; 1 (2.95\%) had adopted little collective value, followed by 6 (17.65\%) had average, 24 (70.58\%) had much and 3 (8.83\%) had very much collective value. Similarly, 35 non-technical officers reported that they had high level of total role stress who had adopted collective values. 3 (8.57\%) had average collective value followed by 27 (77.14\%) had much and 5 (14.28\%) had very much.\par
As compared with the technical and nontechnical officers, technical officers had high level of role stress that had very much collective value than the nontechnical officers. There was no significant relation found between the collective values and level of total role stress in nontechnical officers (r = -.035, p = .088) and technical officers (r = .097, p = .078).\par
In the comparison between the individual and collective values, level of stress was found higher among those officer who took collective value very much (8) than those officers who took individual value very much (4). 
\section[{d) Total role stress between the officers having the individualistic values and the collectivistic values}]{d) Total role stress between the officers having the individualistic values and the collectivistic values}\par
Level of total stress was also measured on the basis of respondents who had adopted the collective and individual values. In total 69 (24.29\%) had high level of total role stress followed by 144 (50.70\%) had moderate level of stress and 71 (25\%) had low level of total role stress.\par
In total, 5 people had high level of role stress who had high level of values followed by 10 had moderate level stress having with moderate level values and 56 had low level of stress having with low level of value. There was no association found between the collective values and individual values with total role stress at the P = .804 significant levels at 95\% confidence interval. 
\section[{e) ANOVA of Individual/collective values with technical and non-technical officer}]{e) ANOVA of Individual/collective values with technical and non-technical officer}\par
Analysis of variance was done among the total respondents having with individual and collective values.  There was no significant difference found between the technical and non-technical officer regarding their individual values (F = 1.909 at p = .060) and collective values (F = .715 at p = .678) in total. The data showed that collectivistic value seems to be higher than the individualistic value. The reason behind may be organizational value in government offices are similar either for technical officer or non-technical job. In Nepalese context, the job has not been taken seriously or professionally as it should be. The data also indicates that both values are overlapping each other and affects behaviour. It is evident that Nepalese society seems to be still collectivistic in its nature and people's behaviour by an large dominated by this value which is support by this date. However, in relation to the organization and professional development or progress employee may exert more individualistic value in organization or in the join either it is technical or non-technical job. The individual and collective value was analyzed on the basis of position of respondents. There was significant difference found between the class I and class III at P = .003. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the class I and class II (P = .109) and class II and class III (P = .809). 
\section[{f) Multiple Comparisons of position and individual and collective value:}]{f) Multiple Comparisons of position and individual and collective value:}\par
The significant difference of value as the data showed between class I and III is at 0.5 level. Such type of finding indicates that the junior level officer accept higher level officer value easily and work smoothly without feeling stress. It is a kind of confirmatory behavior.\par
In day to day observation Nepalese value system is still seems to be confirmatory. But class II level officer differ in both I/C value among class I and III officer due to various reasons. The reason might be class II officer working very closely with both level and conflict may occur now and then in their work life. Another cause might be class II officer has to play the role of link pin between the class I and III officer and very often communication gap may create misunderstanding among them. Such misunderstanding and their perception may create value differences between class I, II and III respectively. Comparatively, the mean value of male was found higher in individual value whereas mean value of female was higher in collective value. The data showed that female believed in collective values more than the Volume XV Issue VIII Version I male. In the Nepalese context, even educated and more empowered females also believe in social values, cultural norms, ritual and collective decision of family and organization. In Nepalese society, gender role is also perceived differently. In general, gender refers to the biological and social differences between men and women. Gender is a socio-economic and cultural construct for differentiating between roles, responsibilities, constraints, opportunities and needs of women and men in a given context. A basic distinction between men and women which is socially and culturally determined creates unequal power relation in our social life. Thus, an understanding of the unequal power relations between women and men is necessary to be familiar with the basic problems in gender relations. Power is directly related to gender with regard to the access, distribution and use of resources, which are unequally distributed between women and men (Lazim, 2011, p. 168). 
\section[{g) Mean value of Male and female}]{g) Mean value of Male and female} 
\section[{h) Sex wise individual values}]{h) Sex wise individual values}\par
The study had analysed the data on the basis of sex distribution of respondents. In total, average individual value was higher among the female (35.7\%) than male (24.6\%) whereas much individual value was higher among the male (68.9\%) than female (57.1\%). Similarly, the data of table no. 8 reported that occupation wise also average values was higher among the female (37.5\%) of non-technical than male (26\%) whereas much value was higher among the male (65\%) than female (56.2\%). Females of technical group were also reported average individual valueshigher than male whereas much value was reported higher among the male (71.9\%) than female (58.3\%). Sex wise, there was no association (P = .558, .400, .300) between the sex in individual values among the non-technical and technical and total officers respectively. 
\section[{i) Sex wise collective values}]{i) Sex wise collective values}\par
The study had also analysed the status of collective values between the male and females of nontechnical and technical officers. The data presented in table no. 9 reported that in total very much collective values was reported higher by females (10.7\%) than male (8.3\%). Similarly, occupation wise, male (10\%) of non-technical officer reported the higher very much collective values than females (6.2\%) whereas 16.7\% female of technical group reported the very much collective values against the 7\% male.\par
Volume XV Issue VIII Version I   
\section[{IV. Discussions}]{IV. Discussions}\par
The main objective of this study was to explore the inter-relationship between the values (individual \& collective) and role stress. There was significant difference found between the individual and collective values among the government officers. Working environment, organizational relationship, facilities and incentives determined the level of stress of individual staff. The finding of this study is also supported by the previous study. A 2007 Euro found report on workrelated stress looks in detail at the issue of stress, noting that stress occurs in many different circumstances, but is particularly strong when a person's ability to control the demands of work is threatened. Insecurity about successful performance and fear of negative consequences resulting from performance failure may evoke powerful negative emotions of anxiety, anger and irritation. The stressful experience is intensified if no help is available from colleagues or supervisors at work. Therefore, social isolation and lack of cooperation increase the risk of prolonged stress at work. Conversely, work tasks with a high degree of personal control and skill variety, and a work environment with supportive social relationships; contribute to workers' wellbeing and health (Europen Foundation, 2010). The role stress has multiple effects in the individual, social and professional life. Stress can fully destroy the human life also. Hotopf. \& Wessely had explained about the implications of work-related stress include the effects on worker satisfaction and productivity, their mental and physical health, absenteeism and its economic cost, the wider impact on family function and finally, the potential for employer liability. While depression is the most likely adverse psychological outcome, the range of other possible ''psychological'' problems include ''burnout,'' alcohol abuse, unexplained physical symptoms, 'absenteeism,'' chronic fatigue and accidents, sick building syndrome and repetitive strain injury \hyperref[b12]{(Hotopf \& Wessely, 1997)}.\par
Occupational stress has been noted as an increasing problem for employees. Evidence has been presented to suggest that occupational stress is related to mental and physical well-being, job satisfaction, absenteeism, turnover rate and intent to quit \hyperref[b9]{(Ganster, 1991;}\hyperref[b19]{Sullivan, 1992)}. One of the most damaging effects of work stress is its impact on the economy. It is estimated that US industry loses about 550 million working days each year due to absenteeism, and 54 per cent of them are in some way stress related \hyperref[b7]{(Elkin, 1990)}. Cooper and Cartwright estimated that overall 360 million working days are lost in the UK annually through sickness; out of which about half are stress related potential occupational stressors, and to find variables, which have beneficial consequences for both employees and organizations. Chiu and Kosinski argued that stress is influenced by cultural and social variables such as values, attitudes, and perception \hyperref[b5]{(Chiu \& Kosinski, 1995)}.\par
A study conducted by Maria Vakola and Ioannis Nikolaou explores the linkage between employees' attitudes towards organizational change and two of the most significant constructs in organizational behavior; occupational stress and organizational commitment. Data was collected from the 292 participants. The results were in the expected direction showing negative correlations between occupational stressors (low salary) and attitudes to change (turnover intentions), indicating that highly stressed individuals demonstrate decreased commitment (showed poor performance) and increased reluctance to accept organizational change interventions. The most significant impact on attitudes to change was coming from the consequence of inappropriate work relationships emphasizing the importance of that occupational stressor on employees' attitudes towards change. The results did not support the role of organizational commitment as a moderator in the relationship between occupational stress and attitudes to change \hyperref[b22]{(Vakola \& Nikolaou, 2005}, p. 160). Gorodnichenko and Roland found that the individualismcollectivism cultural dimension has an important and robust causal effect on innovation and long run growth of employees. Job performance feedback provides deficit about their performance \hyperref[b11]{(Gorodnichenko \& Roland, 2011)}. 
\section[{V. Conclusion}]{V. Conclusion}\par
The study found that there was significant difference between the individual and collective value in relation to the role stress. The mean score of individual's value is comparatively higher than the collective value. It was known that in professional life, government employees were dominated by the individual value which was needed to improve because organizational value should be dominated by the collective interest or values. Organization is the collective place established for the welfare of people. Organization has one common goal, mission, policies, system and program which are guided by the collective norms and values so during the time of organizational work, each employee should take it seriously. In relation to the level of stress, it was observed that level of stress was found higher among those officers who took collective value very much (8 respondents) than those officers who took individual value very much (4 respondents).But the result found some how different. Similarly, level of stress was found significantly higher among the non-technical officers than the technical officers. Technical job is understood more specific and serious job than the non-technical officer so there is gap to explore the factors affected the level of stress of technical and non-technical officers. Non-technical have low self esteem than the technical officers. They also lack work autonomy. The senior officers should play the role of mentors for junior officers and develop value of positive work culture which may enable and foster the organizational value positive and can hope better quality life and performing culture.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_4}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.6003300330033003\textwidth}P{0.04768976897689769\textwidth}P{0.14306930693069309\textwidth}P{0.022442244224422443\textwidth}P{0.022442244224422443\textwidth}P{0.014026402640264024\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Effect of Individualistic and Collectivistic Values on Total Role Stress among the Government Officers}\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep of Nepal\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Job holders value\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean P-value}\\
Individual value\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{138 3.96}\tabcellsep 2.88\tabcellsep 0.24\tabcellsep 0.036\\
Collective value\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{116 3.15}\tabcellsep 3.29\tabcellsep 0.31\\
Data source: Field survey, 2013\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
© 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2387298747763864\textwidth}P{0.18550983899821108\textwidth}P{0.03193202146690519\textwidth}P{0.12468694096601073\textwidth}P{0.09123434704830052\textwidth}P{0.07754919499105546\textwidth}P{0.10035778175313058\textwidth}}
Occupation\tabcellsep Level of Total Role Stress\tabcellsep Little\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Individual values categories Average Much}\tabcellsep very much\tabcellsep Total\\
\tabcellsep Low\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 28\\
Non-technical\tabcellsep Moderate High\tabcellsep 0 1\tabcellsep 22 8\tabcellsep 42 23\tabcellsep 6 2\tabcellsep 70 34\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 38\tabcellsep 83\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 132\\
\tabcellsep Low\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 28\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 43\\
Technical\tabcellsep Moderate High\tabcellsep 0 0\tabcellsep 17 7\tabcellsep 52 26\tabcellsep 5 2\tabcellsep 74 35\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 38\tabcellsep 106\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 152\\
\tabcellsep Low\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 22\tabcellsep 46\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 71\\
Total\tabcellsep Moderate High\tabcellsep 0 1\tabcellsep 39 15\tabcellsep 94 49\tabcellsep 11 4\tabcellsep 144 69\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 76\tabcellsep 189\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep 284\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Correlation between Individual values and occupation}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Occupation\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Value\tabcellsep Asymp. Std. Error a\tabcellsep Approx. T b\tabcellsep Approx. Sig.\\
Non-technical\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Pearson's R}\tabcellsep .047\tabcellsep .088\tabcellsep .531\tabcellsep .596 c\\
Technical\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Pearson's R}\tabcellsep .115\tabcellsep .078\tabcellsep 1.420\tabcellsep .158 c\\
Total\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Pearson's R}\tabcellsep .078\tabcellsep .058\tabcellsep 1.306\tabcellsep .193 c\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Data source: Field survey, 2013}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.14393939393939395\textwidth}P{0.2287878787878788\textwidth}P{0.049999999999999996\textwidth}P{0.05909090909090909\textwidth}P{0.14242424242424243\textwidth}P{0.04545454545454545\textwidth}P{0.016666666666666666\textwidth}P{0.06363636363636363\textwidth}P{0.09999999999999999\textwidth}}
Occupation\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Level of Total Role Stress}\tabcellsep Little\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Collective values categories Average Much}\tabcellsep Very much\tabcellsep Total\\
\tabcellsep Low\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 28\\
Non-technical\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Moderate High}\tabcellsep 0 1\tabcellsep 23 6\tabcellsep 42 24\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 5 3\tabcellsep 70 34\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 35\tabcellsep 84\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 132\\
\tabcellsep Low\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 43\\
Technical\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Moderate High}\tabcellsep 0 0\tabcellsep 10 3\tabcellsep 58 27\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6 5\tabcellsep 74 35\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 121\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 152\\
\tabcellsep Low\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 54\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 71\\
Total\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Moderate High}\tabcellsep 0 1\tabcellsep 33 9\tabcellsep 100 51\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 11 8\tabcellsep 144 69\\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 53\tabcellsep 205\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 25\tabcellsep 284\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{Correlation between collective values and Occupation}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Occupation\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Value\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Asymp. Std. Error a}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Approx. T b}\tabcellsep Approx. Sig.\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Non-technical}\tabcellsep Pearson's R\tabcellsep -.035\tabcellsep .088\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -.398\tabcellsep .691 c\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Technical}\tabcellsep Pearson's R\tabcellsep .097\tabcellsep .078\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.192\tabcellsep .235 c\\
Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Pearson's R\tabcellsep .017\tabcellsep .059\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep .286\tabcellsep .775 c\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Data source: Field survey, 2013}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3573863636363636\textwidth}P{0.23825757575757572\textwidth}P{0.051515151515151514\textwidth}P{0.12556818181818183\textwidth}P{0.028977272727272723\textwidth}P{0.048295454545454544\textwidth}}
Level of Total Role Stress\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{Collective Values -Individual Value with stress}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep No stress\tabcellsep Low\tabcellsep Moderate\tabcellsep High\tabcellsep Total\\
Low\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 56\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 71\\
Moderate\tabcellsep 14\tabcellsep 115\tabcellsep 10\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 144\\
High\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 69\\
Total\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 221\tabcellsep 21\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 284\\
Chi-Square Tests\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Value\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)}\tabcellsep \\
Pearson Chi-Square\tabcellsep 3.039 a\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep .804\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Data source: Field survey, 2013\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.16212534059945505\textwidth}P{0.22234332425068118\textwidth}P{0.19686648501362397\textwidth}P{0.053269754768392366\textwidth}P{0.10885558583106267\textwidth}P{0.03474114441416894\textwidth}P{0.0717983651226158\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Sum of Squares\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Mean Square\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep Sig.\\
\tabcellsep Between Groups\tabcellsep 313.254\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 39.157\tabcellsep 1.909\tabcellsep .060 (NS)\\
Individual Values\tabcellsep Within Groups\tabcellsep 4163.288\tabcellsep 203\tabcellsep 20.509\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 4476.542\tabcellsep 211\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Between Groups\tabcellsep 110.665\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 13.833\tabcellsep .715\tabcellsep .678 (NS)\\
Collective values\tabcellsep Within Groups\tabcellsep 3925.161\tabcellsep 203\tabcellsep 19.336\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 4035.825\tabcellsep 211\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Between Groups\tabcellsep 692.713\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 86.589\tabcellsep 1.426\tabcellsep .187 (NS)\\
TOTAL\tabcellsep Within Groups\tabcellsep 12324.268\tabcellsep 203\tabcellsep 60.711\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep 13016.981\tabcellsep 211\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Data source: Field survey, 2013}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4214583333333333\textwidth}P{0.138125\textwidth}P{0.138125\textwidth}P{0.09208333333333334\textwidth}P{0.06020833333333333\textwidth}}
(I) Position\tabcellsep (J) Position\tabcellsep Mean Difference (I-J)\tabcellsep Std. Error\tabcellsep Sig.\\
Class I\tabcellsep Class III Class II\tabcellsep 4.379 * 3.120\tabcellsep 1.317 1.484\tabcellsep .003 .109\\
Class II\tabcellsep Class III\tabcellsep 1.259\tabcellsep 1.138\tabcellsep .809\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Note: * the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Data source: Field survey, 2013}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.32012987012987015\textwidth}P{0.10303030303030303\textwidth}P{0.1067099567099567\textwidth}P{0.08095238095238094\textwidth}P{0.11774891774891774\textwidth}P{0.12142857142857141\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Group Statistics}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Gender\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std. Deviation\tabcellsep Std. Error Mean\\
Individual values categories\tabcellsep Male Female\tabcellsep 228 56\tabcellsep 3.79 3.71\tabcellsep .545 .594\tabcellsep .036 .079\\
collective values categories\tabcellsep Male Female\tabcellsep 228 56\tabcellsep 3.89 3.91\tabcellsep .524 .549\tabcellsep .035 .073\\
Data source: Field survey, 2013\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.05098241985522233\textwidth}P{0.039555325749741466\textwidth}P{0.06153050672182006\textwidth}P{0.23996897621509822\textwidth}P{0.051861427094105475\textwidth}P{0.128335056876939\textwidth}P{0.08614270941054808\textwidth}P{0.0984488107549121\textwidth}P{0.09317476732161323\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Crosstab\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Occupation}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Individual values categories}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Total\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Little\tabcellsep Average\tabcellsep Much\tabcellsep very much\tabcellsep \\
Non-technical\tabcellsep Gender\tabcellsep Male Female Total\tabcellsep Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender\tabcellsep 2 2.0\% 0 0.0\% 2 1.5\%\tabcellsep 26 26.0\% 12 37.5\% 38 28.8\%\tabcellsep 65 65.0\% 18 56.2\% 83 62.9\%\tabcellsep 7 7.0\% 2 6.2\% 9 6.8\%\tabcellsep 100 100.0\% 32 100.0\% 132 100.0\%\\
Technical\tabcellsep Gender\tabcellsep Male Female Total\tabcellsep Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 30 23.4\% 8 33.3\% 38 25.0\%\tabcellsep 92 71.9\% 14 58.3\% 106 69.7\%\tabcellsep 6 4.7\% 2 8.3\% 8 5.3\%\tabcellsep 128 100.0\% 24 100.0\% 152 100.0\%\\
Total\tabcellsep Gender\tabcellsep Male Female\tabcellsep Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender\tabcellsep 2 0.9\% 0 0.0\%\tabcellsep 56 24.6\% 20 35.7\%\tabcellsep 157 68.9\% 32 57.1\%\tabcellsep 13 5.7\% 4 7.1\%\tabcellsep 228 100.0\% 56 100.0\%\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Count \% within Gender\tabcellsep 2 0.7\%\tabcellsep 76 26.8\%\tabcellsep 189 66.5\%\tabcellsep 17 6.0\%\tabcellsep 284 100.0\%\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Chi-Square Tests}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Occupation}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Value\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Non-technical}\tabcellsep Pearson Chi-Square\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2.069 b\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep .558\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Technical\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Pearson Chi-Square\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1.834 c\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep .400\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Pearson Chi-Square\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3.664 a\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep .300\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{Data source: Field survey, 2013}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.05087719298245614\textwidth}P{0.039473684210526314\textwidth}P{0.013157894736842105\textwidth}P{0.09385964912280702\textwidth}P{0.19210526315789472\textwidth}P{0.05175438596491228\textwidth}P{0.12543859649122807\textwidth}P{0.08684210526315789\textwidth}P{0.10350877192982456\textwidth}P{0.09298245614035087\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Crosstab\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Occupation\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{collective values categories}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Total\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Little\tabcellsep Average\tabcellsep Much\tabcellsep very much\tabcellsep \\
Non-technical\tabcellsep Gender\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Male Female\tabcellsep Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender\tabcellsep 1 1.0\% 0 0.0\% 1 0.8\%\tabcellsep 27 27.0\% 8 25.0\% 35 26.5\%\tabcellsep 62 62.0\% 22 68.8\% 84 63.6\%\tabcellsep 10 10.0\% 2 6.2\% 12 9.1\%\tabcellsep 100 100.0\% 32 100.0\% 132 100.0\%\\
Technical\tabcellsep Gender\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep Male Female\tabcellsep Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 15 11.7\% 3 12.5\% 18 11.8\%\tabcellsep 104 81.2\% 17 70.8\% 121 79.6\%\tabcellsep 9 7.0\% 4 16.7\% 13 8.6\%\tabcellsep 128 100.0\% 24 100.0\% 152 100.0\%\\
Total\tabcellsep Gender\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Male Female\tabcellsep Count \% within Gender Count \% within Gender\tabcellsep 1 0.4\% 0 0.0\%\tabcellsep 42 18.4\% 11 19.6\%\tabcellsep 166 72.8\% 39 69.6\%\tabcellsep 19 8.3\% 6 10.7\%\tabcellsep 228 100.0\% 56 100.0\%\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Count \% within Gender\tabcellsep 1 0.4\%\tabcellsep 53 18.7\%\tabcellsep 205 72.2\%\tabcellsep 25 8.8\%\tabcellsep 284 100.0\%\\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Chi-Square Tests}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Occupation\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Value\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)}\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Non-technical}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Pearson Chi-Square}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep .905 b\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep .824\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Technical\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Pearson Chi-Square}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2.480 c\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep .289\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Total\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Pearson Chi-Square}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep .633 a\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep .889\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Data source: Field survey, 2013}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 9 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 			\footnote{© 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US)\hyperref[b4]{(Cartwright, 1997)}.Therefore it is important to identify the} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Vakola and Nikolaou ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘Attitudes towards organizational change What is the role of employees' stress and commitment’.  		 			M Vakola 		,  		 			I Nikolaou 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Emerald}  		2005. 27  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chiu and Kosinski ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Chinese Cultural Collectivitism and Work related stress: Implication for employment Counsellors’.  		 			R Chiu 		,  		 			F Kosinski 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Employment Counselling}  		1995. 32  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Berry et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Cross Cultural psychology: Research and application},  		 			J Berry 		,  		 			Y H Poortinga 		,  		 			M Segall 		,  		 			P Dasen 		.  		1992. New York: Cambridge University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Berry ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Ecology of individualism and collectivism’.  		 			J W Berry 		.  	 	 		\textit{Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications},  				 			U Kim,  			H C Kagiticibasi,  			S Choi,  			YG 		 (ed.)  		 (London)  		1994. Sage. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kagiticibasi ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Individualism and collectivism’.  		 			C Kagiticibasi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Handbook of Cross-cultural psychology},  				 			S \& J W Berry 		 (ed.)  		 (Boston)  		1997. Allin \& Bacon. 3 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Triandis et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Individualism and collectivism.: Cross cultural perspectives on self-ingroup ralationships’.  		 			H Triandis 		,  		 			R Bentempo 		,  		 			M J Villarieal 		,  		 			M Asai 		,  		 			N Lucca 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}  		1988. 54 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sinha and Tripathi ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Individualist and collectivist culture: A Case of coexistence of opposites’.  		 			D Sinha 		,  		 			R C Tripathi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications},  				 			H C U Kim 		 (ed.)  		 (Thousand Oaks)  		1994. SAGE. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mishra ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Individualist and collectivist orientations across generations’.  		 			R Mishra 		.  	 	 		\textit{Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications},  				 			H C U Kim 		 (ed.)  		 (Thousand Oaks; Sage)  		1994. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cartwright ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Managing workplace stress},  		 			S \& Cartwright 		.  		1997. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.  	 
\bibitem[Sullivan ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Organizational stress, job satisfaction and job performance: Where do we go from here?’.  		 			S \& Sullivan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Management}  		1992. 18 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Elkin ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Promoting mental health at the workplace’.  		 			A \& Elkin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Occupational Medicine. State of the Art Review}  		1990. 5  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hotopf and Wessely ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Stress in the workplace: unfinished business’.  		 			M Hotopf 		,  		 			S Wessely 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Psychosom Research}  		1997. 43  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[
			M
		 ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Stress in the workplace: unfinished business’.  		 			M 		,  		 			H 		,  		 			\&S 		,  		 			W 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Psychosom Research}  		1997. 43  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Goldenring and Doctor ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Teenage worry about nuclear war: North American and European Questionnaire studies’.  		 			J Goldenring 		,  		 			R Doctor 		.  	 	 		\textit{International journal of Mental Health}  		1986. 15 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rokeach ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		\textit{The Nature of human values},  		 			M Rokeach 		.  		1973. New York: Free Press.  	 
\bibitem[Clark et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Types of conflicts and tensions between older parents and adult children’.  		 			E J Clark 		,  		 			M Preston 		,  		 			J Raksin 		,  		 			V Bengtson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Gerontologist}  		1999. 39  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Spranger ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{Types of Men},  		 			E Spranger 		.  		1928. Hafner Publishing Company.  	 
\bibitem[Schwartz ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Universals in the content and structure of values: theoritical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries’.  		 			S H Schwartz 		.  	 	 		\textit{advances in Experimental Social Psychology}  		1992. 25 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Brunswick ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘What is generation gap? A comparison of some generational differences among Blacks and Whites’.  		 			A Brunswick 		.  	 	 		\textit{Social Problem}  		1970. 17  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gorodnichenko and Roland ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Which Dimensions of Culture Matter for Long-Run Growth?’.  		 			Y Gorodnichenko 		,  		 			G Roland 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings}  		2011. 101  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ganster ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Work stress and employee health’.  		 			D \& Ganster 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Management}  		1991. 17 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Work-related stress: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		\textit{Work-related stress: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions},  		 \url{Ireland:www.eurofound.europa.eu}  		2010.  	 
\bibitem[Boehnke and Others ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Worries, Values and Well-Being: A Comparison of East and West Germany, Nepalese, and Fijian Undergraduates’.  		 			K Boehnke 		,  		 			Regmi Others 		.  	 	 		\textit{Key Issues In Cross-Cultural Psychology},  				 			H Grad,  			A Blanco 		 (ed.)  		 (Netherlands)  		1994. 1996.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
