CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

AND DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the results of 79 sets

questionnaires being analyzed. The

objectives are to analyze and interprets the collected data from KPJ Rawang

Specialist Hospital. The data will be

analyzed by SPSS and the result will be evaluated based on the hypothesis. This chapter will present the quantitative

research findings of The Implication of Occupational Stress Toward Employee Job

Performance at KPJ Rawang Specialist Hospital (KPJ RSH)

There are divided into several parts to

analyzing the results obtained. It comprises the analysis of demographic analysis,

reliability test, Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Multiple Regressions. The

demographic analysis include gender, age, marital status, education level, position

level and working experience were discussed under this chapter. The reliability test will be used to examine

the relevant of statements in each variable towards the studies. For the Pearson

Correlation Coefficient, it is used to examine the relationship between the

four independent variables with employees job performance. On the other hand,

multiple regression analysis is being used to examine the effect of the independent

variables on the dependent variables. An

addition, the tables and charts were used to present the clearer results to the

reader.

Profile of Respondents

Gender.

Table 4.1.1

shows the percentage and the number of respondents referring to the gender involved

in 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 respondents

that 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 is

60.8% (48 respondents). In comparison,

the age range between 21-26 years old gains the lowest percentage which is only

20.3% (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 Marital

Table 4.1.3

shows the percentage according to respondent’s marital status. From the survey, it shows 55.7% (44

respondents) is married, 1.3% (1 respondent) is in others status and 43% (34

respondents) 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 the

percentage according to respondent’s education level where the highest

percentage of respondent comes from Diploma level which 41.8% (33 respondents).

In contrast, the lowest percentage comes

from the others educational level where The Degree level gains the second

highest respond which are 35.4% (28 respondents) and follow by The SPM/STPM

with 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 Position

Table 4.5 shows the percentage according

to respondent’s position at KPJ Rawang Specialist Hospital which is from the

survey it represents 51.9% (41 respondents) non-executive level and 48.1%% (38

respondents) 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 Experience

The table shows

that 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 has

been 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 Reliability

Test

The reliability analysis

that being used by this SPSS software is to evaluate the independent variable

of workload, poor working condition, role ambiguity and inadequate monetary

reward. For this research, the reliability analysis consists of 79 respondents

at 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 the

table above, it shows that all the independent variables are reliable because

all the scored that being obtain has exceed the minimum alpha value which is

above 0.7. Referring to the rules of Cronbach ‘s Alpha coefficient size, the

higher the Cronbach ‘s Alpha means the higher the reliability coefficient.

Based on the result obtained from the SPSS, the independent variables for

Workload, Poor Working Condition, Role Ambiguity and Inadequate Monetary Reward

are strong and good reliability because it’s fall under the Cronbach ‘s Alpha

range of 0.7-0.8.

On the other

hand, Inadequate Reward Monetary is categorized as an excellent reliability due

to its Cronbach ‘s Alpha range of 0.9. Thus, all independent variable on this

research can be conclude as reliable.

Research Objective 1

To identify the level of the employee’s job

performances

Workload

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 Working

Condition

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

Inadequate

Monetary 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 Objective

2

To investigate any relationship between IV and DV

Guiding

principle is being used to interpret correlation coefficient based on Cohen

(1988). The hypothesis is as below:

H1 There

is 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

According

to Cohen, 1988, correlation between 0-6 – 1.0 are strong interpretation and

follow 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 between

Independent 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

**. Correlation

is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Discussion

The relationship between IV and DV had

been investigated using Pearson Correlation Coefficient. From the findings, it shows that the

p-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 Employees
Job Performance. The second IV shows
that the p-value is 0.000, which is less than (p<0.01), (r-value) is
0.501. This result indicates that there
is a moderate value between Poor Working Condition and employees job
performance.
From the
analysis, p-value for third IV, role ambiguity is 0.000, which is less than the
significant level of 0.01, (p<0.01), (r-value) is 0.464. the result shows that there is moderate value
between these variables. The fourth IV
which is Inadequate Monetary Reward shows that the p-value is equal to 0.000 and
(r-value) is 0.728. From the result
obtained, it shows that there is positive relationship between inadequate
monetary reward and employees job performance because of the significant value
for 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 Objective
3
To investigate any
significant differences between IV and DV
Multiple 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 Independent
Variable significantly predicts the effectiveness of Employee Job Performance
in KPJ Rawang Specialist Hospital.
Y = 1.841 + -0.164 Workload + 0.019 Poor
Working Condition + 0.117 Role Ambiguity + 0.621 Inadequate Monetary Reward
Based on the table analysis, it indicates
that Inadequate Monetary Reward has higher beta value (b=0.744) compare with
Role ambiguity (b=0.123), Poor Working Condition (b=0.019) and Workload
(b=-0.155). this can conclude that
Inadequate Monetary Reward has the strongest influence on Employee Job Performance
and plays the most important predictor and significant to the other independent
variables.
(p-value > 0.05)

Conclusion:

Hypothesis 1 and

2 is not supported

Hypothesis 3 and

4 is supported.