CHAPTER FOUR

 

FINDINGS
AND DISCUSSION

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

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 0.05)

 

Conclusion:

 

Hypothesis 1 and
2 is not supported

Hypothesis 3 and
4 is supported.