CHAPTER this survey. From the survey, it shows that

  CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGSAND DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION             In this chapter, the results of 79 setsquestionnaires being analyzed.  Theobjectives are to analyze and interprets the collected data from KPJ RawangSpecialist Hospital.  The data will beanalyzed by SPSS and the result will be evaluated based on the hypothesis.  This chapter will present the quantitativeresearch findings of The Implication of Occupational Stress Toward Employee JobPerformance at KPJ Rawang Specialist Hospital (KPJ RSH)There are divided into several parts toanalyzing the results obtained. It comprises the analysis of demographic analysis,reliability test, Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Multiple Regressions. Thedemographic analysis include gender, age, marital status, education level, positionlevel and working experience were discussed under this chapter.

  The reliability test will be used to examinethe relevant of statements in each variable towards the studies. For the PearsonCorrelation Coefficient, it is used to examine the relationship between thefour independent variables with employees job performance. On the other hand,multiple regression analysis is being used to examine the effect of the independentvariables on the dependent variables.  Anaddition, the tables and charts were used to present the clearer results to thereader.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

       Profile of RespondentsGender.Table 4.1.1shows the percentage and the number of respondents referring to the gender involvedin this survey.

From the survey, it shows that the gender is comprised of 29.1%(23 respondents) for male and 70.9% (56 respondents) for female respondentsthat have involved in this survey. Table 4.1.1 Gender(n=79) Gender   Frequency (n) Percent (%) Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid male 23 29.1 29.

1 29.1 female 56 70.9 70.9 100.0 Total 79 100.0 100.

0      Age Table 4.1.2 Age  From Table 4.

1.2,the age range gains the highest percentage is between 26-35 years old which is60.8% (48 respondents).  In comparison,the age range between 21-26 years old gains the lowest percentage which is only20.3% (16 respondents), follow with the age range between 36-45 which is 15.2%(12 respondents) and the age range between 46-55 years old which is only 3.8%(3 respondents) that have involved in this survey. Age   Frequency (n) Percent (%) Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 21-26 16 20.

3 20.3 20.3 26-35 48 60.8 60.8 81.

0 36-45 12 15.2 15.2 96.2 46-55 3 3.8 3.8 100.

0 Total 79 100.0 100.0      Table 4.1.

3 MaritalTable 4.1.3shows the percentage according to respondent’s marital status.  From the survey, it shows 55.7% (44respondents) is married, 1.

3% (1 respondent) is in others status and 43% (34respondents) is single that have involved in this survey. Marital   Frequency (n) Percent (%) Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid married 44 55.7 55.7 55.7 Others 1 1.3 1.3 57.0 single 34 43.

0 43.0 100.0 Total 79 100.0 100.0            Table 4.1.4 Education Based on table 4.1.

4, it indicates thepercentage according to respondent’s education level where the highestpercentage of respondent comes from Diploma level which 41.8% (33 respondents).In contrast, the lowest percentage comesfrom the others educational level where The Degree level gains the secondhighest respond which are 35.4% (28 respondents) and follow by The SPM/STPMwith 20.3% (16 respondents), The Master level with 2.5% (2 respondents)   Education   Frequency (n) Percent (%) Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid master 2 2.

5 2.5 2.5 degree 28 35.4 35.4 38.0 diploma 33 41.8 41.

8 79.7 spm/stpm 16 20.3 20.3 100.0 Total 79 100.

0 100.0       Table 4.1.5 PositionTable 4.5 shows the percentage accordingto respondent’s position at KPJ Rawang Specialist Hospital which is from thesurvey it represents 51.9% (41 respondents) non-executive level and 48.1%% (38respondents) for executive level.

Position   Frequency (n) Percent (%) Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid non-executive 41 51.9 51.9 51.9 executive 38 48.1 48.

1 100.0 Total 79 100.0 100.0              Table 4.1.

6 ExperienceThe table showsthat the figure year of working experiences of the respondents. From the data collected,it shows that 41.8% (33 respondents) have work more than 7-10 years. It hasbeen follow by the respondents that work for 4-6 years which 25.3% (20 respondents).Next, there are 19% (15 respondents) that experienced working from 0-3 years. Nevertheless,there is the least working experience duration by the respondents which is 8.

9%(8 respondents) and 5.1% (4 respondents)  Experience   Frequency (n) Percent (%) Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0-3 15 19.0 19.0 19.0 4-6 20 25.3 25.3 44.

3 7-10 33 41.8 41.8 86.1 11-20 7 8.

9 8.9 94.9 21-30 4 5.1 5.

1 100.0 Total 79 100.0 100.0       2 ReliabilityTest The reliability analysisthat being used by this SPSS software is to evaluate the independent variableof workload, poor working condition, role ambiguity and inadequate monetaryreward. For this research, the reliability analysis consists of 79 respondentsat KPJ Rawang Specialist Hospital. Table 4.2.1 Reliability Statistics Variables Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items Workload .

882 10 Poor Working condition .849 10 Role Ambiguity .852 20 Inadequate Monetary Reward .935 5  Based on thetable above, it shows that all the independent variables are reliable becauseall the scored that being obtain has exceed the minimum alpha value which isabove 0.

7. Referring to the rules of Cronbach ‘s Alpha coefficient size, thehigher the Cronbach ‘s Alpha means the higher the reliability coefficient.Based on the result obtained from the SPSS, the independent variables forWorkload, Poor Working Condition, Role Ambiguity and Inadequate Monetary Rewardare strong and good reliability because it’s fall under the Cronbach ‘s Alpharange of 0.7-0.8.  On the otherhand, Inadequate Reward Monetary is categorized as an excellent reliability dueto its Cronbach ‘s Alpha range of 0.9. Thus, all independent variable on thisresearch can be conclude as reliable.

         Research Objective 1To identify the level of the employee’s jobperformancesWorkload  Item SD f (%) D f (%) F f (%) A f (%) SA f (%) Mean Std. Deviation I gain personal accomplishment through my work 23 (29.1%) – 4 (5.1%) 52 (65.8%) – 4.24 .536 I have the tools and resources to do my job well 2 (2.

5%) – 3 (3.8%) 55 (69.6%) 18 (22.8%) 4.

09 .737 I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways of doing things – 1 (1.3%) 3 (3.8%) 55 (69.6%) 20 (25.3%) 4.

19 .556 I could clearly define quality goals in my work – – 4 (5.1%) 58 (73.4%) 17 (21.5%) 4.16 .492 My skills and abilities are put into good use in my work 14 (17.7%) – 5 (6.

3%) 60 (75.9%) – 4.11 .480 The company does an excellent job in keeping employees informed about matters affecting us 1 (1.3%) – 10 (12.

7%) 56 (70.9%) 12 (15.2%) 3.99 .630 I am satisfied with the information given by the management on what is going on in my division 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.3%) 8 (10.1%) 57 (72.

2%) 12 (15.2%) 3.99 .650 I am satisfied with my involvement in decisions that affect my work – – 8 (10.1%) 60 (75.9%) 11 (13.

9%) 4.04 .492 I feel safe sharing my plans, programs and policies with my management 5 (6.

3%) 2 (2.5%) 7 (8.9%) 53 (67.1%) 12 (15.2%) 3.

82 .944 My manager is committed to finding win win solutions to problems at work 1 (1.3%) – 8 (10.1%) 49 (62%) 21 (26.6%) 4.

13 .686 OVERALL                    Poor WorkingCondition  Item SD f (%) D f (%) F f (%) A f (%) SA f (%) Mean Std. Deviation I gain personal growth by learning various skills in my work 1 (1.3%) – 6 (7.

6%) 50 (63.3%) 22 (27.8%) 4.16 .

669 The management appreciates my leadership and suggestions 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.3%) 14 (17.

7%) 44 (55.7%) 19 (24.1%) 4.00 .

768 Supervisors encourage me to do well in my work 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.3%) 7 (8.9%) 49 (62%) 21 (26.6%) 4.11 .716 I am rewarded for the quality of my efforts 1 (1.3%) 2 (2.

5%) 11 (13.9%) 49 (62%) 16 (20.3%) 3.97 .751 I am valued by my supervisor 1 (1.

3%) 1 (1.3%) 11 (13.9%) 51 (64.6%) 15 (19%) 3.99 .

707 The company has a positive image towards my friends and family 1 (1.3%) 2 (2.5%) 33 (41.

8%) 35 (44.3%) 8 (10.1%) 3.

59 .760 My job brings positive changes to me – 4 (5.1%) 36 (45.

6%) 30 (38%) 9 (11.4%) 3.56 .

764 I am able to solve problems immediately to satisfy my manager – – 37 (46.8%) 33 (41.8%) 9 (11.

4%) 3.65 .680 I understand the importance to value and respect my colleagues – – 15 (19%) 50 (63.3%) 14 (17..

7%) 3.99 .610 I am happy with my job. – 1 (1.3%) 14 (17.7%) 43 (54.

4%) 21 (26.6%) 4.06 .704 OVERALL                Role Ambiguity Item SD f (%) D f (%) F f (%) A f (%) SA f (%) Mean Std.

Deviation I have to do things that should be done in a different way 9 (11.4%) 32 (40.5%) 10 (12.7%) 7  (8.9%) 21 (26.6%) 2.99 1.428 I receive tasks without having the human resources necessary for completing them 34 (43%) 25 (31.

6%) 11 (13.9%) 6  (7.6%) 3 (3.8%) 1.97 1.

109 I have to ignore and even break a rule or policy in order to carry out a task 51 (64.6%) 26 (32.9%) 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.

3%) – 1.39 .587 I work with two or more groups of people that act in quite different ways 29 (36.

7%) 31 (39.2%) 8 (10.1%) 4 (5.1%) 7 (8.

9%) 2.10 1.215 I receive incompatible requests from two or more people at the same time 21 (26.

6%) 30 (38%) 10 (12.7%) 4 (5.1%) 14 (17.7%) 2.49 1.404 I do things that are acceptable to one person and unacceptable to others 20 (25.

3%) 31 (39.2%) 12 (15.2%) 3 (3.8%) 13 (16.

5%) 2.47 1.357 I receive a task without the adequate materials to carry it out 30 (38%) 35 (44.3%) 8 (10.

1%) 1 (1.38%) 5 (6.3%) 1.94 1.054 I work on unnecessary things 32 (40.5%) 38 (48.1%) 7 (8.

9%) 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.3%) 1.

75 .776 I am sure of how much authority I have 2 (2.5%) 17 (21.

5%) 32 (40.5%) 11 (13.9%) 17 (21.

5%) 3.30 1.113 It is clear what the objectives of my job are – 10 (12.

7%) 29 (36.7%) 20 (25.3%) 20 (25.

3%) 3.63 1.002 I know that I divide my time adequately in order to carry out different tasks – 9 (11.4%) 32 (40.5%) 18 (22.

8%) 20 (25.3%) 3.62 .991 I know what my responsibilities are – – 33 (41.8%) 26 (32.

9%) 20 3.84 .808 I know exactly what is expected of me.

          3.77 .784 The explanation of what needs to be done is clear           3.80 .774 How satisfied are you with the nature of your work?           3.94 .704 How satisfied are you with the person who supervises you (your hierarchical superior)?           3.

68 .793 How satisfied are you with your relationship with the people in the organization you work for (your colleagues)?           3.85 .769 How satisfied are you with the remuneration you receive for your work?           3.86 .729 How satisfied are you with the opportunities there are for growth or advancement at your organization?           3.85 .

735 Considering items (15 to 19), in conclusion, how satisfied are you with your current situation?           3.97 .716 OVERALL                InadequateMonetary Reward  Item SD f (%) D f (%) F f (%) A f (%) SA f (%) Mean Std.

Deviation The incentives reward those behaviors that are important to this organization     8 (10.1%) 51 (64.6%) 20 (25.3%) 4.

15 .579 The reward matches my work effort   1 (1.3%) 11 (13.9%) 52 (65.8%) 15 (19%) 4.

03 .620 The reward has a positive effect on the work atmosphere   1 (1.3%) 11 (13.9%) 49 (62%) 18 (22.

8%) 4.06 .647 I am satisfied with the quality or quantity of the reward     12 (15.2%) 47 (59.5%) 20 (25.3%) 4.03 .679 I am ready to increase my work effort in order to gain the reward     9 (11.

4%) 46 (58.2%) 24 (30.4%) 4.10 .632 OVERALL                      Research Objective2 To investigate any relationship between IV and DVGuidingprinciple is being used to interpret correlation coefficient based on Cohen(1988).  The hypothesis is as below:H1 Thereis a positive relationship between IV and DV.Interpretation for Correlation Coefficient (Cohen,1988) Correlation between Are said to be 0.

6-1.0 Strong 0.4-0.5 Moderate 0.

1-0.3 Weak  Accordingto Cohen, 1988, correlation between 0-6 – 1.0 are strong interpretation andfollow by 0.4 – 0.

5 are said to be moderate. The lowest interpretation for correlation coefficient is between 0.1-0.3 are said to be weak indicator to investigate the relationship betweenIndependent Variables and Dependent Variables.Correlation   Workload Poor Working Condition Role Ambiguity Inadequate Monetary Reward Employee Job Performance Pearson Correlation Workload 1.00         Poor Working Condition 7.20** 1.

00       Role Ambiguity .450** .582** 1.00     Inadequate Monetary Reward   .619** .

701** .536** 1.00     Employee Job Performance .375** .501** .464** .728** 1.

00 **. Correlationis significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

  DiscussionThe relationship between IV and DV hadbeen investigated using Pearson Correlation Coefficient. From the findings, it shows that thep-value for workload is 0.001 which is less than the significant level of 0.01,(p<0.01). The result indicates that Pearson Correlation (r-value) is 0.375,this represent that there is a positive value between Workload and EmployeesJob Performance.

  The second IV showsthat the p-value is 0.000, which is less than (p<0.01), (r-value) is0.501.

  This result indicates that thereis a moderate value between Poor Working Condition and employees jobperformance. From theanalysis, p-value for third IV, role ambiguity is 0.000, which is less than thesignificant level of 0.01, (p<0.01), (r-value) is 0.464.  the result shows that there is moderate valuebetween these variables.  The fourth IVwhich is Inadequate Monetary Reward shows that the p-value is equal to 0.

000 and(r-value) is 0.728.  From the resultobtained, it shows that there is positive relationship between inadequatemonetary reward and employees job performance because of the significant valuefor correlation coefficient. Thus, when increasing inadequate monetary reward,employees job performance will be getting higher.           Correlations   B.

i_mean B.ii_mean B.iii_mean B.iv_mean Dv_mean B.i_mean Pearson Correlation 1 .720** .450** .

619** .375** Sig. (2-tailed)   .

000 .000 .000 .001 N 79 79 79 79 79 B.ii_mean Pearson Correlation .720** 1 .

582** .701** .501** Sig. (2-tailed) .000   .000 .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 B.iii_mean Pearson Correlation .450** .582** 1 .536** .464** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000   .000 .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 B.iv_mean Pearson Correlation .619** .701** .536** 1 .728** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000   .000 N 79 79 79 79 79 Dv_mean Pearson Correlation .375** .501** .464** .728** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000   N 79 79 79 79 79 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).               Research Objective3To investigate anysignificant differences between IV and DVMultiple Regression Analysis  Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .742a .551 .527 .323 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inadequate Monetary Reward, Role Ambiguity, Workload, Poor Working Condition    ANOVAa   Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.   1 Regression 9.492 4 2.373 22.697 .000b   Residual 7.737 74 .105       Total 17.228 78         a. Dependent Variable: Employee Job Performance   b. Predictors: (Constant), Inadequate Monetary Reward, Role Ambiguity, Workload, Poor Working Condition   Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 1.841 .356   5.167 .000 Workload -.164 .123 -.155 -1.340 .184 Poor Working Condition .019 .134 .019 .142 .888 Role Ambiguity .117 .092 .124 1.262 .211 Inadequate Monetary Reward .621 .096 .744 6.477 .000 a. Dependent Variable: Employee Job Performance   The regression model consisting of Workload,Poor Working Condition, Role Ambiguity and Inadequate Monetary Reward as the IndependentVariable significantly predicts the effectiveness of Employee Job Performancein KPJ Rawang Specialist Hospital. Y = 1.841 + -0.164 Workload + 0.019 PoorWorking Condition + 0.117 Role Ambiguity + 0.621 Inadequate Monetary Reward Based on the table analysis, it indicatesthat Inadequate Monetary Reward has higher beta value (b=0.744) compare withRole ambiguity (b=0.123), Poor Working Condition (b=0.019) and Workload(b=-0.155).  this can conclude thatInadequate Monetary Reward has the strongest influence on Employee Job Performanceand plays the most important predictor and significant to the other independentvariables. (p-value > 0.05) Conclusion: Hypothesis 1 and2 is not supportedHypothesis 3 and4 is supported.