Relationship Between Psychosocial Work Environement and Stress Level Among Hotel Workers

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Alhamdulillah, I have completed writing this research but of course with the help
and support from fantastic peoples around me. First and foremost, a special thanks to my
family for their continuous support and encouragement especially to Ayah and Ibu. Then, I
wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to my advisor, Miss Nursuhaili Mohd Amin for her
professional guidance and support in academic and in real life. I am very indebted to her
patience and invaluable advices that inspired me to see things positively and felt honoured
with her confidence and trust on my ability.
I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Mohammad Khan Jamal Khan and Mr. Rosli Abdul
Rahman for their belief and generosity in sharing knowledge and experience, Puan
Jazatulikma Zakaria for her guidance in research methodology and all the lecturers and
staffs of Faculty of Occupational Safety and Health for their times and efforts.
I would like to take this opportunity to convey my appreciation to Hotel X for
giving me a chance to conduct this research. A special gratitude to Nurfarhana binti Zainal
Anuar for her willingness to help me out in collecting sample. My sincere thanks to all my
friends and colleagues especially Group BOSH1408 for their cheerfulness and fun. Only
we know the ups and downs in finishing this research.
iv
ABSTRACT
Psychosocial work environment (PWE) and stress level are the common elements
of occupational safety and health (OSH) but often being ignored. Researches on
psychosocial work environment and the stress level among hotel employees in Malaysia
are insufficient, thus this research on working environment and stress level will enhance
the occupational safety and health level in the sector. The aim of this research is to
determine the relationship between PWE and the stress level among hotel employees. This
is a cross-sectional study where a survey is being conducted in Hotel X to collect data on
socio-demography, job decision latitude, job demands and stress level using Job Content
Questionnaire (JCQ) and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale 21 (DASS21) instruments.
First, the data are being analysed using IBM Statistical Package software for Social
Science (SPSS) version 23.0s frequency distribution for descriptive analysis. Then the
data are being analysed again using SPSSs bivariate analysis for inferential analysis.
Results indicated that out of 56 samples collected, 42.9% are males and 57.1% are females
whilst the age majority of the respondents are between 21 and 30. Job decision latitude and
stress level are r = -0.158 and p = 0.245. While the output for job demands and stress level
are r = 0.277 and p = 0.039. The results showed that job decision latitude was not
significantly related to stress level while job demands were significantly related to stress
level among hotel employees which against the Job Demand-Control Model recommended
by (Karasek, 1979). Hence the hotel industry is highly recommended to manage
employees stress level by implementing Stress Management Programme to improve
performance and increase productivity.
v
ABSTRAK
Psikososial persekitaran kerja (PWE) dan tahap tekanan adalah elemen yang biasa
dalam keselamatan dan kesihatan pekerjaan (OSH) tetapi sering diabaikan. Kajian
mengenai psikososial persekitaran kerja dan tahap tekanan di kalangan pekerja hotel tidak
mencukupi di Malaysia, oleh itu kajian mengenai persekitaran kerja dan tekanan kerja
akan meningkatkan tahap keselamatan dan kesihatan pekerjaan dalam sektor ini. Tujuan
kajian ini adalah untuk menentukan hubungan antara PWE dan tahap tekanan di kalangan
pekerja hotel. Ini adalah kajian keratan rentas di mana kajian yang dijalankan di Hotel X
adalah untuk mengumpul data mengenai sosio-demografi, latitud keputusan pekerjaan,
permintaan pekerjaan dan tahap tekanan menggunakan insrumen Job Content
Questionnaire (JCQ) dan Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale 21 (DASS21). Pertama,
data tersebut dianalisis dengan menggunakan perisian IBM Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS) taburan kekerapan versi 23.0 untuk analisis deskriptif. Kemudian data
tersebut dianalisis lagi menggunakan analisis bivariat SPSS untuk analisis inferensi.
Keputusan menunjukkan bahawa daripada 56 sampel yang diambil, 42.9% adalah lelaki
dan 57.1% adalah perempuan manakala majoriti umur responden adalah di antara 21 dan
30 menerusi keputusan latitud dan tahap tekanan adalah r = -0,158 dan p = 0.245.
Walaupun output untuk tuntutan kerja dan tahap tekanan adalah r = 0,277 dan p = 0.039.
Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahawa latitud keputusan kerja tidak signifikan dengan
menekankan tahap manakala permintaan pekerjaan adalah signifikan dengan tahap tekanan
di kalangan pekerja hotel di mana keputusan ini bercanggah dengan Model Job Demand-
Control seperti yang disyorkan oleh (Karasek, 1979). Oleh itu industri perhotelan amat
disyorkan untuk menguruskan tahap tekanan pekerja dengan melaksanakan Program
Pengurusan Tekanan untuk meningkatkan prestasi dan meningkatkan produktiviti.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENT vii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT 2
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 3
1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 5
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH 12
1.7 LIMITATION OF STUDY 13
1.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 14
1.9 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION 14
vii
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 16
2.1 JOB STRESS AMONG HOTEL EMPLOYEE 16
2.2 PSYCHOSOCIAL WORK ENVIRONMENT 18
2.3 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND JOB STRESS 22
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 24
3.1 INTRODUCTION 24
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 24
3.3 RESEARCH POPULATION 25
3.4 SAMPLE 25
3.5 INSTRUMENTATION 26
3.6 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 29
3.7 TECHNIQUES OF DATA ANALYSIS 30
CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS 32
4.1 INTRODUCTION 32
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 32
4.3 BIVARIATE ANALYSIS 40
viii
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
47
5.1 INTRODUCTION 47
5.2 STRESS LEVEL AMONG RESPONDENTS 48
5.3 RELATION OF PWE AND THE STRESS LEVEL 48
5.4 RELATION OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND STRESS LEVEL
49
5.5 CONCLUSION 54
5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS 55
REFERENCES 1
APPENDIX 1: RESPONDENT INFORMATION SHEET 11
APPENDIX 2: CONSENT FORM 13
APPENDIX 3: BORANG MAKLUMAT RESPONDEN 14
APPENDIX 4: BORANG PERSETUJUAN 16
APPENDIX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE 17
QUESTIONNAIRE PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 17
QUESTIONNAIRE PART 2: PSYCHOSOCIAL HAZARDS 19
QUESTIONNAIRE PART 3: STRESS EVALUATION 20
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Population and sample 25
Table 3.2: JCQ Scale Scoring 27
Table 3.3: Stress level scoring range 28
Table 4.1: Demographic characteristic of respondents (n=56) 34
Table 4.2: Lifestyle of respondents (n=56) 35
Table 4.3: Occupational characteristic of respondents (n=56) 37
Table 4.4: Frequency and distribution on JCQ (n=56) 38
Table 4.5: Statistic of job decision latitude and job demands (n=56) 39
Table 4.6: Frequency distribution on stress level (n=56) 39
Table 4.7: Strength of the relationship 40
Table 4.8: Bivariate analysis job decision latitude and the stress level 41
Table 4.9: Bivariate analysis job demands and the stress level 41
Table 4.10: Bivariate analysis types of gender and stress level 42
Table 4.11: : Bivariate analysis age and stress level 42
Table 4.12: Bivariate analysis marital status and stress level 43
Table 4.13: Bivariate analysis ethnicity and stress level 43
Table 4.14: Bivariate analysis education level and stress level 43
Table 4.15: Bivariate analysis monthly income and stress level 44
Table 4.16: Bivariate analysis exercise activity and stress level 44
Table 4.17: Bivariate analysis smoking status and stress level 44
Table 4.18: Bivariate analysis alcohol consumption and stress level 45
Table 4.19: Bivariate duration of sleep and the stress level 45
Table 4.20: Bivariate analysis duration of employment and the stress level 45
Table 4.21: Bivariate analysis working hours per day and the stress level 46
x
Table 4.22: Bivariate analysis working days per week and the stress level 46
Table 4.23: Bivariate analysis working department and the stress level 46
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework 14
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of data collection procedures 29
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
OSH- Occupational Safety and Health
PWE- Psychosocial Work Environment
JDC- Job Demand Control
JCQ- Job Content Questionnaire
DASS21- Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Job stress is very common in hotel industry and it is an important issue in
Occupational Safety and Health (OSH). According to (Occupational Safety and Health
Act, 1994) in Section 15; general duties of employers and self-employed persons to their
employees are including; (2)(e) the provision and maintenance of a working
environment for his employees that is, so far as is practicable, safe, without risks to health,
and adequate as regards facilities for their welfare at work. Based on this legal
requirement, employees working environment is substantial in job stress. PWE is one of
the leading factors of stress as described by (Karasek, 1979) in Job Demand-Control
Model (JDC) where the job demands and employees job decision latitude may leads to
occupational stress. The recent study by (S. S. Kim, Im, & Hwang, 2015) showed that role
stress has a significant effect and can negatively affect the job satisfaction and
organisational commitment. However, the topic of relationship between PWE and stress
level among hotel employees is a gap that has yet to be filled.
1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Travel and tourism industry plays a large role in expanding the economy especially
in Malaysia. According to (WTTC, 2016); the direct contribution of Travel & Tourism to
Growth Domestic Product (GDP) was MYR51.1bn (4.4% of total GDP) in 2015, and is
forecast to rise by 7.9% in 2016, and to rise by 4.5% per annum, from 2016-2026, to
MYR85.4bn (4.8% of total GDP) in 2026. With such a big economic role play by the
industry, it is hard to neglect the stress level of the employees in this industry especially in
hospitality sector. (Misis, Kim, Cheeseman, Hogan, & Lambert, 2013) described from an
employee standpoint, job stress is psychological strain leading to job-related hardness,
tension, anxiety, frustration, and worry arising from work. (Chiang, Birtch, & Kwan, 2010)
also supported that hotel employees typically spend considerable time exposed to job
stress implies that the tension and stress level of being recognized by employees are
different depending on demand and control in job, thereby being judged to likely having
more impactful in employees of hospitality industry.
Considering the nature of work endured by the employees, it is important to
identify the risk factors of job stress that exists. This study will help the employers and
managers in hotel sector reduce the stressors at the work place and increase productivity
indirectly. This is supported by (Hwang, Hyun, & Park, 2013) in a research which
described the hotel industry is a unique workplace setting, it is likely to increase the
occupational stress of hotel employees, hence, it is critical to identify and understand better
on occupational stress in the hotel industry as efforts to learn methods to reduce stressors
and improve employees performance quality. Therefore, the aim of this study is to
determine the relationship between PWE and the stress level of hotel employees.
2
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
i. What is the relationship between decision latitude and the stress level among hotel
employees?
ii. Is there any relationship between job demands and the stress level among hotel
employees?
iii. Is there any relationship between socio-demographic factors and the stress level
among hotel employees?
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.4.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVE
To determine the relationship between associated factors (PWE and socio-demographic
factors) and the stress level among hotel employees.
3
1.4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
i. To determine the relationship between decision latitude and stress level among hotel
employees.
ii. To determine the relationship between job demands and stress level among hotel
employees.
iii. To determine the relationship between socio-demographic factors and stress level
among hotel employees according to:
a. Types of gender
b. Age
c. Marital status
d. Ethnicity
e. Education level
f. Monthly income
g. Exercise activity
h. Smoking status
i. Alcohol consumption
j. Duration of sleep
k. Duration of employment
l. Working hours per day
m. working days per week
n. Working department
4
1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
1.5.1 Hypothesis 1
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between decision latitude and the
stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): Higher level of decision latitude, lower level of stress.
The employees feel unsatisfied or stressed when serving customers because they
were unable to make decisions independently without prior consultation with their
supervisor (Chiang et al., 2010).
1.5.2 Hypothesis 2
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between job demands and the stress
level.
H (alternate hypothesis): Higher level of job demands, higher level of stress
Indeed, research on job stress and burnout has produced a laundry list of job
demands and (lack of) job resources as potential predictors, not only including
high psychological and physical job demands, lack of rewards, and lack of
autonomy, but also emotional demands, low social support, lack of supervisory
support, and lack of performance feedback, to name just a few (Alarcon, 2011).
5
1.5.3 Hypothesis 3
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between socio-demographic factors
and the stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between socio-demographic factors
1.5.3.1
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between types of gender and the
stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between types of gender and the
stress level.
Empirical evidence has shown both higher exposure to stress and lower
perception of coping resources among women, unmarried, less educated, ethnic
minorities or persons in socially disadvantaged situation compared with men,
married, highly educated and wealthier individuals (Thoits, 2010).
1.5.3.2
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between age and the stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between age and the stress level.
Age, gender, and education were included as control variables because these
variables have been identied as possible confounders for the relation between job
characteristics and the stress outcome variables (Van Vegchel, De Jonge, &
Landsbergis, 2005).
6
1.5.3.3
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between marital status and the stress
level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between marital status and the
stress level.
1.5.3.4
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between ethnicity and the stress
level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between ethnicity and the stress
level.
1.5.3.5
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between education level and the
stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between education level and the
stress level.
7
Statistically signicant differences in job stress among casino hotel chefs based
on number of work hours per week, job title, work shifts, number of years as chefs,
and level of education (Chuang & Lei, 2011).
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between monthly income and the
stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between monthly income and the
stress level.
married, highly educated and wealthier individuals (Thoits, 2010)
1.5.3.6
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between exercise activity and the
stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between exercise activity and the
stress level.
Psychosocial stress at work has been shown to be associated with individual
unhealthy lifestyle factors such as smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, physical
inactivity, and obesity (Perdikaris, 2010, Choi, 2010).
1.5.3.7
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between smoking status and the
stress level.
8
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between smoking status and the
stress level.
1.5.3.8
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between alcohol consumption and
the stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between alcohol consumption and
the stress level.
1.5.3.9
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between duration of sleep and the
stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between duration of sleep and the
stress level.
Inadequate sleep and job stress from interpersonal factors were associated with
experienced cardiovascular and gastrointestinal symptoms which lead to
occupational stress (Rameshbabu et al., 2013).
9
1.5.3.10
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between duration of employment and
the stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between duration of employment
1.5.3.11
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between working hours per dayand
the stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between working hours per day
1.5.3.12
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between working days per week and
the stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between working days per week
10
1.5.3.13
H (null hypothesis): There is no relationship between working department and the
stress level.
H (alternate hypothesis): There is relationship between working department and
the stress level.
11
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH
There are elements of stress in hotel industry. (Chuang & Lei, 2011) showed that
casino hotel chefs experienced a moderately high level of job stress, with human resources
identied as the most stressful item and workfamily conicts as the most stressful factor.
While (Hodari, Waldthausen, & Sturman, 2014) showed that 166 hotel spa managers from
spas managed by hotels and those managed by third parties found greater levels of these
role stressors in managers of outsourced hotel spas. These two researches support the
significance of this research. Then, the research study could provide information on the
issue of PWE and job stress among hotel employees. Furthermore, the data collected might
inspire other researchers to look more into the PWE areas among hotel employees in
Malaysia. Finally, this study would be beneficial to the hotel managers and employers in
Malaysia to tackle the issue of psychosocial working environment and the job stress
arousing the hotel employees thus decrease the stress level of employees. This would
heighten the attention of hotel managers and employers towards decision latitude,
psychological demands, social support, physical demands and job security of employees.
To the future researchers, this study can provide baseline information on the recent status
of psychosocial working environment and the stress level among hotel employees.
12
1.7 LIMITATION OF STUDY
There are few research limitations that could be improvised. Firstly, the data
collection method used in this research was self-reported questionnaire; it is incapable to
eliminate the possibility of recall bias. Therefore, respondents may not provide accurate
information regarding their stress level. Then, the respondents may answer the
questionnaire dishonestly because of lack in time. The fast pace and non-stop operations of
hotel lead to lack of time in answering the questionnaire. Finally, cross-sectional research
design is hard to determine the sequence of exposure because the presence of risk factors
and outcomes are measured simultaneously. It may therefore be difficult to work out
whether the disease (job stress) or the exposure (job decision latitude and job demands)
came first.
13
1.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This is the conceptual framework of this research:
Psychosocial work environment
Job decision latitude
Job demands Stress level
Socio-demographic factors
-Types of gender -Duration of employment

-Age -Working hours/day
-Marital status -Working days/week
-Ethnicity -Working department
-Education level Dependent
-Monthly income variables
-Exercise activity
-Smoking status
-Alcohol consumption
Independent
-Duration of sleep
variables
Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework
1.9 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION
These are the operational definitions that would be used throughout this research:
stress level - refer to a physical, mental and emotional factor that causes bodily or mental
tension. Stresses can be external in form of environment, psychological or social situation.
psychosocial refer to the interrelation of social factors and individual thought and
behaviour.
work environment refer to describe the surrounding conditions in which the employees
operate.
14
job decision latitude refer to measurement using questionnaire to assess how freely a
person can make, decisions and exercise control over her or his.
job demands refer to measurement using questionnaire to assess physical and
psychological demands that perceived by employees
relationship - refers to relationship between two or more variables. The strength and
direction are determined by analysis
15
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 JOB STRESS AMONG HOTEL EMPLOYEE
(Cranwell-Ward, 1998) defined stress as the physiological and psychological
reaction, either consciously or subconsciously, to a perceived threat or undesirable
condition beyond ones immediate capacity to cope. However in the occupational setting,
(Karasek, 1979) viewed stress as a reaction to demands (stressors) imposed by a work
condition. Several theories have been developed which link psychosocial risk factors at
work to consequences for the mental health of workers. (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999)
extended model of job demands, control, and support states that high demands, low control
and low social support have the most negative effects on employee wellbeing.
Job stress may cause burnout as a health effect. There are many research have shown
the relation between burnout and job stress. A research by (Maslach & Leiter, 2008)
brought an empirical evidence that burnout can be predicted by two indicator; an early
warning sign of inconsistent scores and the tipping point experience of a job-person
incongruence. Then, (Van Bogaert, Clarke, Roelant, Meulemans, & Van de Heyning,
16
2010) have provided the contention that positive shared ratings of nurse practice
environment factors across units are associated with reduced burnout, improved job
outcomes and higher ratings of quality care. This is supported by (Khamisa, Oldenburg,
Peltzer, & Ilic, 2015) in another research; positive association among nurses between
organisational support and lower level of burnout.
Gender, characteristic and working title may contribute to stress level. (Stansfeld,
Rasul, Head, & Singleton, 2009) showed that, high degrees of mental disorder were found
in sales jobs, especially women. But (Naghieh, Montgomery, Bonell, Thompson, & Aber,
2015) shown in a research; reducing the stress level by changing organisational
characteristics resulted in no significant effects on burnout, emotional ability, anxiety and
depression and another (Kidger et al., 2016) later added, teachers are at risk of poor mental
health and shown symptoms of depressiveness.
(Faulkner & Patiar, 1997) emphasised that hotel employees typically spend
considerable time exposed to occupational stress and (H. J. Kim, Shin, & Umbreit, 2007;
Wildes, 2007) added, such stress is prevalent in the hotel industry. There are several of
researches for the past five years discussing the connection between job stress and hotel
employees.
(Sunny Hu & Cheng, 2010) identified that the major job stress of hotel supervisors
originate from task characteristics and workload while another (Iplik, Kilic, & Yalcin,
2011) found that individual's needs at work may mitigate job strain. Then, (Lee & Ok,
2012) posited high job demands or negative aspects of work may deplete hotel employees'
psychosocial and psychological resource and lead to burnout. In addition, (Bilgin &
Demirer, 2012) found that organisational support has positive effects on affective
commitment and job satisfaction. This is supported in later research; (Hon, 2013)
17
computed that job creativity and job stress shown a positive relationship among hotel
employee. Only then, (Jung & Yoon, 2013) suggested that hotel employees' perception of
stress depends more on the workplace environment than on personal characteristic.
However a contradiction, (Hwang, Lee, Park, Chang, & Kim, 2014) found problem related
to the home stemmed effects the occupational stress and lead to turnover intention. Later,
the focus between job stress and job satisfaction continues with (S. S. Kim et al., 2015)
showed that role stress has a significantly and negatively affect the job satisfaction and
organisational commitment. And (Tongchaiprasit & Ariyabuddhiphongs, 2016) also
predicted the negative relation between job satisfaction and job stress among chefs at
hotel.
2.2 PSYCHOSOCIAL WORK ENVIRONMENT
There are three influential theories have been developed that predict negative
consequences for the mental health of workers when exposed to certain psychosocial risk
factors at work. They are job demandcontrol theory of (Karasek, 1979), the effortreward
imbalance model by (Siegrist, Siegrist, & Weber, 1986) and the concept of organizational
justice (Moorman, 1991). The psychosocial risks described in these models include
psychological job demands (workload, work pressure), work decision latitude (control
over the work tasks), social support from colleagues and supervisors, an experienced
imbalance between high effort spent at work and low reward received, procedural justice
(whether decision-making procedures include input from affected parties, are consistently
applied, accurate and ethical) and relational justice (whether the treatment of workers by
supervisors is fair, polite and considerate)
The first model has been widely used in proving role of psychosocial work
environment and occupational health. The most significant finding of (Hmmig & Bauer,
18
2014) study was that work life conflict was the clearest and strongest health risk factor of
all the associations between physical and psychosocial work factors and various health
outcomes. This is again supported in another research by (Niedhammer, Chastang, &
David, 2008) found that, low decision latitude, high psychological demands and low social
support were associated with poor self-reported health and long sickness absence. Then,
high demands also increased the risk of work injury. This is aligned with model of Job
Demand-Control introduced by (Karasek, 1979).
Then, there are several researches that emphasis on Effort-Reward Model.
(Tsutsumi, Kawanami, & Horie, 2012) found extremely high prevalence of ERI among
currently active private practice physicians and that physicians exposed to ERI were 3.6
times more likely to suffer from depression independently of potential confounding
factors. High prevalence of ERI would reflect the harsh administrative situation against
primary practice physicians. While, (Buddeberg-Fischer, Stamm, Buddeberg, &
Klaghofer, 2010) found in hierarchical regression model, as far as the workplace-related
factors are concerned, the EffortReward Imbalance reveals to be a significant risk factor
for stress experience. This is aligned with a model that described in Siegrists model
(Siegrist et al., 1986).
Finally, the organizational justice concept has been researched in various fields
such as performance appraisal and organizational behaviour. Firstly, (Palaiologos,
Papazekos, & Panayotopoulou, 2011) found that the administrative purpose of personal
appraisal is related to distributive justice and procedural justice. It seems that when
organizations use the data that have been recorded during the personal appraisal process, in
order to take decisions related to payroll, increases fringe benefits, promotion and
employment termination they create a positive impression about both the fairness of the
procedure and its outcomes. Then (Jafari & Bidarian, 2012) obtained findings related to
19
the relation of organizational citizenship behavior with organizational justice have
established a considerable relationship in the mentioned statistical samples and when
employees have a good perception of organizational justice, they have a greater tendency
toward involving and participating in showing organizational citizenship behaviour.
Numerous researches have shown the roles of psychosocial work environment.
(Nieuwenhuijsen, Bruinvels, & Frings-Dresen, 2010) found a strong evidence of high job
demands, low job control, low co-worker support, low supervisor support, low procedural
justice; low relational justice and high effort-reward imbalance predicted the occurrence of
stress-related disorder. Then (Malloy & Penprase, 2010) suggested transformational
leadership and contingent reward effects more positive work environment.
Nevertheless, a research identified that psychosocial work environment likely to
contribute exhaustion among female as well as male employees. Also Plesen et al. (2012)
said that poorer psychosocial work environment perceived by non-nationality employees is
rejected. As well as (Boschman, van der Molen, Sluiter, & Frings-Dresen, 2013) found
high job demands are associated with symptoms of depression. Later (Tuvesson, Eklund,
& Wann-Hansson, 2011) investigated psychosocial work environment variables; role
clarity had the most significant associations with the perceived stress. However, this
research aims to determine the relationship between psychosocial work environment and
stress level among hotel employee which is still lacking.
The first element in psychosocial work environment is decision latitude which
consists of skill discretion and decision making authority. Countless researches have
shown the roles of decision latitude. Firstly, (Bean, Winefield, Sargent, & Hutchinson,
2015) have shown that skill discretion and decision making authority appeared to have
contradictory association with waist circumference and BMI. While (Joensuu et al., 2012)
20
examined the high decision authority and skill discretion associated with increased risk of
cardiovascular and alcohol related mortality. However this is against the theory that
proposed by (Karasek, R., & Theorell, 1992). These researches are insufficient as decision
latitude towards stress level among hotel employee is lacking.
There are various researches on psychological demands in term of role conflict and
role ambiguity. (Rigopoulou, Theodosiou, Katsikea, & Perdikis, 2012) has provided
empirical evidence regarding the correlates of role ambiguity among frontline managers in
financial service industry. Then, (Hodari et al., 2014) confirmed that there is a greater role
conflict associated with management of outsourced hotel spas than with proprietarily
managed hotel. Later, (Akgunduz, 2015) determined that role conflict and role ambiguity
influence job performance among hotel employee. However there are researches that role
overload has influence on employee worker. (Jain & Cooper, 2012) examined that the
relationship between role overload or organisational stress and organisational citizenship
behaviour (OCB) were supportive. Nevertheless, the psychological demands and the stress
level among hotel employee is insufficient thus this research aim to determine the
relationship between psychological demands and the stress level among hotel employee.
Social support is divided into two; supervisor's support and co-worker's support.
(Mauno, Kinnunen, & Ruokolainen, 2007) predicted that lack of social support would
robustly relate to the experiences of work engagement. However, (ngelo & Chambel,
2013) showed that no empirical support is found that supervisory support has positive
cross lagged effect on work engagement. This is supported by (Bowen, Edwards, Lingard,
& Cattell, 2014); only one job support variables (supervisory support) were found to be
significant. Researches regarding social support and job stress are scarce; therefore it is
important to determine the relationship between social support and the stress level among
hotel employee.
21
Psychological demands in job standing point refer to much aspect. (Siegrist et al.,
2004) showed that high level of over commitment among employee observed to be
significantly elevated odds ratios of poor health. This is supported by (Dormann & Zapf,
2004) stated the job demands could be crucial in the assessment of stressors at work during
employee-customer interactions. And later (Chiang, Birtch, & Cai, 2013) demonstrated
that high job demand variability born of serving diverse customer needs may diminish job
satisfaction. However, limited researches have assessed the connection between job
demands and stress level among hotel employee.
Job security may be varied such as turnover intentions, turnover and withdrawal
behaviour. There are various researches have mentioned the topic regarding job security. A
classic (Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989) supported for direct relationship between
satisfaction and turnover intention is not significant. Then, (Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine,
2007) found that hindrance stressors were directly negatively related to job satisfaction and
organisational commitment and, through these factors and the indirect effects of strain
were positively related to turnover intentions, turnover and withdrawal behaviours. Later,
(Hon, Chan, & Lu, 2013) found that among service employees in the hotel industry
frequently faces pressure such as job insecurity. Nevertheless, the research regarding job
security and the stress level among hotel employee is still lacking.
2.3 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND JOB STRESS
The socio-demographic factors have been long associated with job stress. (Van
Vegchel et al., 2005) stated that age, gender, and education have been identied as
possible confounders for the relation between job characteristics and the stress outcome
variables. This is added by (Thoits, 2010), both higher exposure to stress and lower
perception of coping resources among women, unmarried, less educated, ethnic minorities
22
or persons in socially disadvantaged situation compared with men, married, highly
educated and wealthier individuals. Later, Perdikaris (2010) and Choi (2010) suggested
that psychosocial stress at work has been shown to be associated with individual unhealthy
lifestyle factors such as smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, and
obesity. Then the research on socio-demographic and job stress with (Chuang & Lei, 2011)
continues with finding; signicant differences in job stress among casino hotel chefs based
on number of work hours per week, job title, work shifts, number of years as chefs, and
level of education. And finally Rameshbabu, Reddy & Fleming (2013) found that
inadequate sleep and job stress from interpersonal factors were associated with
experienced cardiovascular and gastrointestinal symptoms. However, there are still lacks
of researches regarding the relationship of socio-demographic factors and the stress level
among hotel employee.
23
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter elaborates on the method used to achieve the objective of the research
which includes research design, research population and sample, research instrumentation,
data collection procedures and techniques of data analysis.
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
The research design is cross-sectional study. According to (Hennekens & Buring,
1987), cross-sectional research approach provides a snapshot of the frequency of
independent variables (PWE and socio-demographic factors) and dependent variables
(stress level) in a population at a given point in time.
24
3.3 RESEARCH POPULATION
Based on the formula proposed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970), the sample
respondent for this research is as Table 3.1. Research respondents are based on Hotel X in
Putrajaya. The total respondents are shown in Table 1
Table 3.1: Population and sample

Hotel Population Sample
Hotel X 80 66
3.4 SAMPLE
3.4.1 Inclusion Criteria
In this research, the data were collected from Hotel X which consists of 80
employees. This research has included all the non-managerial and full-time employees.
3.4.2 Exclusion Criteria
In this research, the sample excluded:
i. Pregnant women
ii. Employees with Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI)
iii. Disables
iv. Chronic diseases patients
v. Foreign workers
25
3.5 INSTRUMENTATION
Data in this research were collected through questionnaire. The questionnaire is
divided into three parts which are socio-demography, the JCQ and the DASS21 (Stress
items).
Part 1 of the socio-demographic information compromised of 14 items which
include
i. types of gender
ii. age
iii. marital status
iv. ethnicity
v. education level
vi. monthly income
vii. exercise activity
viii. smoking status
ix. alcohol consumption
x. duration of sleep
xi. duration of employment
xii. working hours per day
xiii. working days per week
xiv. job position
xv. working hours per day
xvi. working days per week
xvii. Working department.
Respondents are asked to complete the questions.
26
Part 2 of the questionnaire which is called JCQ consist of questions related to the
PWE of the respondent. Items are used to measure the PWE were adopted Karasek et
al.(1998) and adapted into Malaysian version which validated by University Malaya.14
items would be used to measure the respondents PWE. This study focused on two
elements; decision latitude and job demands. All 14 items would use 4-points likert scale.
Respondent PWE is categorized into two elements; job demands and job decision
latitude. The score range for level of commitment was determined by using the procedures
below:-
Table 3.2: JCQ Scale Scoring

FORMULA JCQ SCALE SCORES POSSIBLE RANGE
Job skill discretion = [Q1+Q3+Q5+Q7+Q9+5-Q2]*2. 12-48
Job decision-making authority = [2(Q4+Q6+Q8)]*2. 12-48
Job demands = 3(Q10+Q11) +2(15-Q13-Q14-Q15). 12-48
Job decision latitude = skill discretion + decision-making authority. 24-96
Combine skill discretion scale and decision-making authority scale to create a new
scale - Job decision latitude (range 24-96). Q12 would not be included in the analysis as is
measure about physical work load.
Psychological work exposure" can be defined as:
A score above the sample median on job demands
A score below the sample median on job decision latitude.
Part 3 of the questionnaire consist of seven items questions related to stress level of
each respondent. Items used to measure the stress level were adapted from DASS21. The
27
respondents would be asked to choose whether they (0) did not apply to me at all
NEVER, (1) applied to me to some degree, or some of the time SOMETIMES (2)
applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of time OFTEN (3) applied to me
very much, or most of the time - ALMOST ALWAYS.
Stress level is categorized as normal, mild, moderate, severe and extremely severe.
The score range for stress level was determined by using the procedures below:-
Table 3.3: Stress level scoring range

Level Stress Score
Normal 0-7
Mild 8-9
Moderate 10-12
Severe 13-16
Extremely Severe 17+
28
3.6 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
1. Trivago website
(list of hotels in 7. Analysis
Putrajaya)
Maximum
variation
sampling
2. One 4-stars hotel 6. Questionnaire
Yes
3. List of non-
managerial employee 5. Fulfilled inclusion
and simple random and exclusion criteria
sampling of employee
Simple random sampling

Krejcie and Morgan (1970)
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of data collection procedures
The sample for this research was taken from Hotel X, which employees whom were
working. The questionnaire was sent to hotel employee by hand. The details and the
confidentiality of the questionnaire were described in the Informed Consent Sheet. The
questionnaire would be collected instantly after the respondents answered the question
with given time. The returned questionnaires were checked for its completeness and any
incompleteness questionnaire would be excluded from the analysis.
29
3.7 TECHNIQUES OF DATA ANALYSIS
IBM Statistical Package software for Social Science (SPSS) version 23.0is used to
analyse the collected data. The descriptive analysis was used to analyse respondents job
decision latitude, job demands and socio-demographic information. The research objective
to determine the relationship between the PWE and stress level is analysed using
inferential analysis.
3.4.3 Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive analysis is used to assess the frequency and distribution of the socio-
demographic factors, PWE elements and the stress level among hotel employees.
3.4.4 Inferential Analysis
Inferential analysis is used to investigate the relationship between independent
variables (job decision latitude, job demands and socio-demographic factors) and the stress
level among hotel employees. The relationship between independent variables and
dependent variables is analysed using bivariate analysis.
In this research design all variables (independent variables and dependent variables)
are measured simultaneously. The main outcome measure obtained from a cross-sectional
study is prevalence.
The stress level is categorized as normal, mild, moderate, severe and extremely
severe.
All information related to the job stress, PWE and hotel employees were generated
through internet, books, journals, previous thesis and etc. All information related to the
30
socio-demographic factors, job decision latitude, job demands and stress level among hotel
employee were generated through the distributed questionnaire.
31
CHAPTER 4
RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
A total of 66 questionnaires were distributed among the hotel employees with 85%
response rate (24 male employees and 32 female employees).
4.2 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Description analysis of demography, lifestyle characteristics and occupational
characteristics are based on table 4.1, table 4.2 and table 4.3. While, the description of job
decision latitude and job demands are based on table 4.4. Then, descriptions of stress level
of the respondents are based on table 4.5.
32
4.2.1 Demographic characteristic of the respondents
The description on demographic characteristic starts with gender of the
respondents. 42.9% of the respondents are male and the remaining 57.1% are female. Age
group of 21 to 30 years old consists of the majority of the respondents with 67.9% (38
respondents) and followed by 31-40 years old (16.1%, nine respondents), 41 years old and
older (14.3%, eight respondents) and under 20 (1.8%, one respondent) respectively. The
marital status of the respondents shows that 75% of the respondents are single (42
respondents) while married respondents are 25% (14 respondents). Majority of
respondents are Malay ethnics with 66.1% (37 respondents) while both Chinese and
Indians ethnics are 12.5% (7 respondents) and the rest are Other ethnics such as
Kadazan, Dusun and Arab consist of 8.9% (5 respondents). The majority of educational
level of the respondents are Diploma with 37.5% (21 respondents) followed by high school
with 30.4% (17 respondents), degree holders with 21.4% (12 respondents), technical
certificate holders with 5.4% (3 respondents) and Master/PhD holders with 5.4% (3
respondents) respectively. The majority of the respondents also earn between RM 1000.00
to RM 1500.00 per month with 62.5% (35 respondents) whilst only 17.9% of the
respondents (10 respondents) earn more than RM 2000.00 per month.
33
Table 4.1: Demographic characteristic of respondents (n=56)
Std.
Mean Frequency Percentage
Deviation
Gender 1.57 0.499
Male - - 24 42.9
Female - - 32 57.1
Age Groups 2.43 0.759
Under 20 - - 1 1.8
21-30 - - 38 67.9
31-40 - - 9 16.1
41 and older 8 14.3
Marital Status 1.25 0.437
Single - - 42 75
Married - - 14 25
Ethnicity 1.64 1.017
Malay - - 37 66.1
Chinese - - 7 12.5
Indian - - 7 12.5
Others 5 8.9
Education
3.66 1.269
level
High School - - 17 30.4
Technical
- - 3 5.4
Certificate
Diploma - - 21 37.5
Degree - - 12 21.4
Master/ PhD - - 3 5.4
Monthly
2.25 0.66742
income
1,000-1,500 - - 35 62.5
1,501-2000 - - 11 19.6
>2000 - - 10 17.9
34
4.2.2 Lifestyle characteristics of the respondents
Majority of the respondents do not exercise regularly where only 33.9% of the
respondents do exercise activity (19 respondents) while the rest do not. Majority of the
respondent also do not smoke where 64.3% of the respondents do not smoke (36
respondents). The majority of the respondents also do not consume alcohol with 98.2% of
the respondents do not consume alcohol (55 respondents). The data also shows that
majority of the respondents sleep less than 8 hours daily with 80.4% of the respondents (45
respondents).
Table 4.2: Lifestyle of respondents (n=56)
Std.
Deviation
Exercise
1.6607 0.47775
activity
Yes - - 19 33.9
No - - 37 66.1
Smoking
1.6429 0.48349
status
Yes - - 20 35.7
No - - 36 64.3
Alcohol
1.9821 0.13363
Consumption
Yes - - 1 1.8
No - - 55 98.2
Duration of
Sleep daily 6 1.32116
(hours)
Less than 8
- - 45 80.4
hours
8 hours and
- - 11 19.6
more
35
4.2.3 Occupational characteristics of the respondents
Most of the respondents have duration of employment of more than a year with
66.1% (41 respondents). Half of the respondents have 8 hours per day of working hours
per day while another half of the respondents work more than 8 hours per day. Majority of
the respondents work more than 5 days per week with 75% (42 respondents) while another
21.4% (12 respondents) work for normal 5 days per week. Lastly, the majority of the
working department of the respondents are from the front desk and office with 44.6% (25
respondents) and least respondents of working department are from maintenance with
3.6% (3 respondents).
36
Table 4.3: Occupational characteristic of respondents (n=56)
Std.
Deviation
Duration of
employment 1.375 1.87386
(years)
< 1 year - - 19 33.9
1 year or more - - 37 66.1
Working
9.875 2.36691
hours per day
8 hours/day - - 28 50
> 8 hours/day - - 28 50
Working days
5.9643 0.83043
per week
< 5 days/week - - 2 3.6
5 days/week - - 12 21.4
> 5 days/week - - 42 75
Working
- -
department
Customer
- - 3 5.4
Service
Front desk/
- - 25 44.6
Office
Housekeeping - - 12 21.4
Kitchen - - 8 14.3
Maintenance - - 2 3.6
Operation - - 6 10.7
37
4.2.4 Job decision latitude and job demands of the respondents
Table 4.4 showed frequency and percentage of each JCQ items according to the
answer. Mostly, respondents are agreed with the questions by answering Agree and
Strongly Disagree. However, there are few questions are answered Strongly disagree and
Disagree.
Table 4.4: Frequency and distribution on JCQ (n=56)
Response n (%)
JCQ Items Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
disagree agree
My job requires that I - 4 (6.1) 26 (39.4) 26 (39.4)
learn new things
My job involves a lot of 3 (4.5) 12 (18.2) 24 (36.4) 17 (25.8)
repetitive work
My job requires me to be - 6 (9.1) 36 (54.5) 14 (21.2)
creative
My job allows me to make 5 (7.6) 9 (13.6) 18 (27.3) 24 (36.4)
a lot of decisions on my
own
My job requires a high 2 (3.0) 11 (16.7) 32 (48.5) 11 (16.7)
level of skill
On my job, I am given a 4 (6.1) 6 (9.1) 33 (50.0) 13 (19.7)
lot of freedom to decide
how I do my work
I get to do a variety of - 4 (6.1) 39 (59.1) 13 (19.7)
things on my job
I have a lot to say about 5 (7.6) 6 (9.1) 30 (45.5) 15 (22.7)
what happens on my job
I have an opportunity to - 11 (16.7) 15 (22.7) 30 (45.5)
develop my own special
abilities
My job requires working - 9 (13.6) 32 (48.5) 15 (22.7)
very fast
My job requires working - 2 (3.0) 28 (42.4) 26 (39.4)
very hard
I am not asked to do an 4 (6.1) 13 (19.7) 34 (51.5) 5 (7.6)
excessive amount of work
I have enough time to get - 9 (13.6) 30 (45.5) 17 (25.8)
the job done
I am free from conflicting 8 (12.1) 14 (21.2) 30 (45.5) 4 (6.1)
demands others make
38
Table 4.5 showed the psychosocial work exposure defined as (1) the score mean of
job demands is above the sample median and (2) the mean score of job decision latitude is
below the sample median. Job decision latitude showed that the respondents mean score
(72.1786) is below the sample median (76).Job demands showed that the respondents
mean score (32.2857) is above the sample median (31).
Table 4.5: Statistic of job decision latitude and job demands (n=56)
Job decision Job

latitude demands
Mean 72.1786 32.2857
Median 76 31
Mode 76 30
Std.
10.93636 4.4013
Deviation
4.2.5 Stress level of respondents
Majority of the respondents show normal range of stress level with 66.1% (37
respondents) however there are 2 respondents ranged as severe with 3.6% of the
respondents.
Table 4.6: Frequency distribution on stress level (n=56)
Std.
Frequency Percentage Mean
Deviation
Stress level 1.6071 0.92792
Normal 37 66.1
Mild 6 10.7
Moderate 11 19.6
Severe 2 3.6
Total 56 100
39
4.3 BIVARIATE ANALYSIS
Bivariate analysis was conducted to the variables to determine empirical
relationship between variables. The types of analysis executed in this research were
Pearsons Correlation. The data that would be evaluated are the Pearsons correlation
coefficient, r value, the direction of the relationship and the strength of the relationship,
and the significant value, p value. According to (Noruis, 2008), the strength of the
relationship is determined by Table 4.6.
Table 4.7: Strength of the relationship
Value of r Strength of relationship
-1.0 to -0.5 or 1.0 to 0.5 Strong
-0.5 to -0.3 or 0.3 to 0.5 Moderate
-0.3 to -0.1 or 0.1 to 0.3 Weak
-0.1 to 0.1 None or very weak
40
4.3.1 Relationship between job decision latitude and stress level
The Pearsons correlation coefficient, r= -0.158 indicates the relationship is
negative and the strength is weak. The significant value, p= 0.245; not significant.
Therefore the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected.
Table 4.8: Bivariate analysis job decision latitude and the stress level
Stress Level
r p
Job decision latitude -0.158 0.245
4.3.2 Relationship between job demands and stress level
The Pearsons correlation coefficient, r= 0.277 indicates the relationship is positive
and the strength is weak. The significant value, p= 0.039; significant. Therefore the null
hypothesis is rejected.
Table 4.9: Bivariate analysis job demands and the stress level
Stress Level
r p
Job Demands 0.277 0.039
41
4.3.3 Relationship between socio-demographic factors and stress level
The objective of this research is to determine the relationship between socio-
demographic factors and the stress level among respondents. Based on the Table 4.1, the
relationships between socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents are varied. The
hypotheses are;
4.3.3.1 Types of gender and stress level
negative and the strength is weak. The significant value, p=0.323; not significant.
Therefore the null hypothesis is failed to reject.
Table 4.10: Bivariate analysis types of gender and stress level

Stress Level
r p
Types of gender -0.135 0.323
4.3.3.2 Age and stress level
The Pearsons correlation coefficient, r= -0.114 indicates the relationship is positive
and the strength is moderate. The significant value, p=0.402; not significant. Therefore the
null hypothesis is failed to reject.
Table 4.11: : Bivariate analysis age and stress level

Stress Level
r p
Age 0.114 0.402
42
4.3.3.3 Marital status and stress level
and the strength is moderate. The significant value, p= 0.001; significant. Therefore the
null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 4.12: Bivariate analysis marital status and stress level

Stress Level
r p
Marital status 0.426 0.001
4.3.3.4 Ethnicity and stress level
and the strength is weak. The significant value, p= 0.312; not significant. Therefore the
null hypothesis is failed to be rejected.
Table 4.13: Bivariate analysis ethnicity and stress level

Stress Level
r p
Ethnicity 0.138 0.312
4.3.3.5 Education level and stress level
Table 4.14: Bivariate analysis education level and stress level

Stress Level
r p
Education level 0.271 0.004
43
4.3.3.6 Monthly income and stress level
and the strength is strong. The significant value, p= 0.000; significant. Therefore the null
Table 4.15: Bivariate analysis monthly income and stress level

Stress Level
r p
Monthly income 0.579 0.000
4.3.3.7 Exercise activity and stress level
and the strength is moderate. The significant value, p= 0.025; significant. Therefore the
null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 4.16: Bivariate analysis exercise activity and stress level

Stress Level
r p
Exercise activity 0.300 0.025
4.3.3.8 Smoking status and stress level
negative and the strength is weak. The significant value, p= 0.038; significant. Therefore
the null hypothesis is rejected.
Table 4.17: Bivariate analysis smoking status and stress level

Stress Level
r p
Smoking status -0.278 0.038
44
4.3.3.9 Alcohol consumption and stress level
and the strength is strong. The significant value, p= 0.514; not significant. Therefore the
null hypothesis is failed to reject.
Table 4.18: Bivariate analysis alcohol consumption and stress level

Stress Level
r p
Alcohol consumption 0.089 0.514
4.3.3.10 Duration of sleep and stress level
negative and the strength is weak. The significant value, p= 0.090; not significant.
Table 4.19: Bivariate duration of sleep and the stress level

Stress Level
r p
Duration of sleep -0.229 0.090
4.3.3.11 Duration of employment and stress level
negative and the strength is none or very weak. The significant value, p= 0.889; not
significant. Therefore the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected.
Table 4.20: Bivariate analysis duration of employment and the stress level
Stress Level
r p
Duration of employment -0.019 0.889
45
4.3.3.12 Working hours per day and stress level
negative and the strength is none or very weak. The significant value, p= 0.590; not
significant. Therefore the null hypothesis is failed to be rejected.
Table 4.21: Bivariate analysis working hours per day and the stress level
Stress Level
r p
Working hours per day -0.073 0.590
4.3.3.13 Working days per week and stress level
and the strength is none or very weak. The significant value, p= 0.642; not significant.
Table 4.22: Bivariate analysis working days per week and the stress level
Stress Level
r p
Working days per week 0.063 0.642
4.3.3.14 Working department and stress level
Table 4.23: Bivariate analysis working department and the stress level
Stress Level
r p
Working department 0.276 0.039
46
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents and discusses the summary of the discussion, conclusion and
recommendations regarding the data in the previous chapter. In particular, the relationship
between PWE (job decision latitude and job demands) and the stress level among hotel
employees. This chapter will also discuss, conclude and recommend referring to the data
presented in relationship between socio-demographic factors (gender, age, marital status,
ethnicity, education level, monthly income, exercise activity, smoking status, alcohol
consumption, duration of sleep, duration of employment, working hours per day, working
days per week, job position, working hours per day, working days per week and working
department) and the stress level.
47
5.2 STRESS LEVEL AMONG RESPONDENTS
The stress level of respondents is at the normal. This is seen in Table 4.5 with
majority of the respondents show normal range of stress level with 66.1% (37 respondents)
however there are 2 respondents ranged as severe with 3.6% of the respondents. This is
aligned with a research by (Beiter et al., 2015) stated that, most of the college students
have stress level of normal. However, this is against a research by (D., J., & J., 2013a)
stated that stress is significant with employees. The possible reasons are the respondents
understood the objectives of the organisation and have clear job descriptions. This is
contradicting with earlier hypotheses.
5.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PWE AND THE STRESS LEVEL
5.3.1 Correlation of job decision latitude and the stress level
This research showed that there was no significant relationship between job
decision latitude and the stress level among hotel employee with p= 0.245. The direction
of the relationship is negative but the strength is weak, r= -0.158. This research is
inconsistent with a (Bean et al., 2015) found that the perception of too much decision
latitude may lead to increased stress. Moreover, the results was opposite to the effects that
proposed by (Karasek, 1979); higher level of job decision latitude, lower level of stress.
The possible explanation for the result is the employees know their job role very well. All
of the respondents are non-managerial employees therefore they know very well the
boundary of their job scope leading to low decision latitude and low level of stress.
Another possible explanation is the pay grade factors; most of the respondents have
monthly income that less than RM 1500.00 therefore high level of job decision may
exceeds their pay grades. Thus, the null hypothesis is failed to reject.
48
5.3.2 Correlation of job demands and the stress level
This research showed that there was significant relationship between job demands
and the stress level among hotel employee with p= 0.039. The direction of the relationship
is positive but the strength is weak, r= -0.277. This result is predictable as (Alarcon, 2011)
stated that the job demands, psychological demands and physical demands are few from
the laundry list of job stress in hotel industry. The result is also consistent with (Boschman
et al., 2013) which found that high job demands are associated with symptoms of
depression. As hotel employees are known with workload and work pressure, the fast
works and quick pace resulting in high job demands. The mean score of job demands is
above the sample median; the respondents exposed to high job demands work environment
which leads to high level of stress. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected.
5.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND STRESS
LEVEL
5.4.1 Respondents characteristics and the stress level
The relationship between gender and the stress level has shown that the Pearsons
correlation coefficient, r= -0.135 indicates the relationship is negative and the strength is
weak. The significant value, p= 0.323 which is not significant. This is consistent with a
research by (Jung & Yoon, 2013) which found that only one in four hotels have a
significant relationship between gender and the stress level which the female employees
showed a slightly higher level of stress than males. However this is inconsistent with
(Thoits, 2010) in empirical evidence which showed that high relationship between gender
and stress level. The possible explanation of this situation is the numbers of female
49
employees are bigger than males which may create the ambient of feminism at the work
place thus; the level of stress is low.
The relationship between age and the stress level has shown that the Pearsons
correlation coefficient, r= -0.114 indicates the relationship is positive and the strength is
moderate. The significant value, p= 0.402 which is not significant. This is inconsistent
with (Van Vegchel et al., 2005) finding; the age is possible factors between the
characteristics and the stress level. Moreover the research conducted by (Bowen et al.,
2014) stated that age has made statistically significant unique contribution to predicting
job stress. The possible explanation for this situation is majority of the respondents are
younger than 50 years old; therefore the data shown is incompatible with hypothesis.
The relationship between marital status and the stress level has shown that the
Pearsons correlation coefficient, r= 0.426 indicates the relationship is positive and the
strength is moderate. The significant value, p= 0.001; significant. Therefore the null
hypothesis is rejected. This is consistent with (Thoits, 2010) that showed empirical
evidence of relationship between marital status and the stress level. This is supported by
(D. et al., 2013a) stated that marital status is related with job stress significantly. The
reason for this result is the imbalance between work and life leads to uncertain level of
stress. Majority of the respondents are single which incompatible with family-work
imbalances. Thus, hypothesis that suggests marital status has a no significant relation with
stress level is failed to reject.
The relationship between ethnicity and the stress level has shown that the Pearsons
correlation coefficient, r= 0.138 indicates the relationship is positive and the strength is
weak. The significant value, p= 0.312; not significant. This result is supported by (Olesen
et al., 2012) stated that there is no relationship between native Danish cleaners or non-
50
western cleaners towards the job stress. Furthermore this result is supported by (Bowen et
al., 2014) found that ethnicity is not significantly related to stress. The argument for this
result is that the respondents are consisting of Malaysian where the ethnicity issue among
different nationality is none and the majority of the respondents are Malay where the
ethnicity differences are small.
The relationship between education level and the stress level has shown that the
strength is weak. The significant value, p= 0.044 which is significant. This is supported by
(Chuang & Lei, 2011) said that there is statistically significant relation in job stress based
on level of education among hotel chefs. However, (Shukla, Srivastava, & Nisar, 2016)
found that education was not having any significant relationship. The possible explanation
on this result is although the respondents educational level are varied, the majority of
them are at least possessed a diploma which gives them better understanding the
responsibilities on having higher educational background which may lead to job stress.
The relationship between monthly income and the stress level of the respondents
are showed by the Pearsons correlation coefficient, r= 0.579 which indicates the
relationship is positive and the strength is strong. The significant value, p= 0.000;
significant. This is supported by (Thoits, 2010) in empirical evidence of research found
that individuals income has significant relationship with stress level. In addition, (Shukla
et al., 2016) stated that increasing in income may overcome the stress level which showed
the relationship between monthly income and the stress level. This showed that most of the
respondents have income that closes to minimum wage. The current economic factors have
drawn a stress line among the hotel employees thus null hypothesis is rejected.
51
5.4.2 Respondentslifestyle relation with stress level
The relationship between exercise activity and the stress level showed that the
Pearsons correlation coefficient, r= 0.3, indicates the relationship is positive and the
strength is moderate. The significant value, p= 0.025; which is significant. Then, the
relationship between smoking status and the stress level showed that the Pearsons
weak. The significant value, p= 0.038; significant. However, alcohol consumption and
stress level has showed that The Pearsons correlation coefficient, r= 0.89 indicates the
relationship is positive and the strength is strong. The significant value, p= 0.514; not
significant. According to Perdikaris (2010) and Choi (2010) that stress at work is
associated with unhealthy lifestyle such as physical inactivity, smoking and alcohol
consumption. Other than that (Joensuu et al., 2012) also stated that low physical activity,
smoking and high alcohol consumption is prevalent to hypertension which initiated from
job stress. The possible reasons for the results are (1) vast majority of the respondents
answered No to exercise activity which cultivates the level of stress. Then, (2) smoking
and alcohol are considered a short escape in order to release stress. However, because of
the majority of the respondents do not consume alcohol compared to smoking status, the
smoking showed more relative with stress level among hotel employees.
Then, the relationship of duration and sleep and stress level is showed in Pearsons
weak. The significant value, p= 0.090; not significant. According to Rameshbabu et al.
(2013) inadequate sleep and job stress from lifestyle demographic were associated.
However in supporting the hypothesis, (Cho et al., 2013) found that the depression rate
was significantly high related to sleep quality. The explanation for this situation is duration
52
of sleep is not the main factor of stress level of the respondents but the quality of sleep
plays more roles contributing to the stress level. The hotel employee may have good
quality of sleep even though they involved in long working hours as jobs condition.
5.4.3 Occupational characteristics with stress level
Relationship between duration of employment and the stress level showed that
Pearsons correlation coefficient, r= -0.019 indicates the relationship is negative and the
strength is none or very weak. The significant value, p= 0.889 which is not significant.
Then, the relationship between working hours per week and the stress level showed that
Pearsons correlation coefficient, r= -0.073 and indicates the relationship is negative and
the strength is none or very weak. The significant value, p= 0.590; again, not significant.
While the relationship between working days per week and the stress level showed
strength is none or very weak. The significant value, p= 0.642; not significant.
These are inconsistent with (Chuang & Lei, 2011) that found statistically significant
relationship in job stress among hotel chefs on number of work hours per week and the
number of years as chefs. Moreover (D., J., & J., 2013b) the shift work system is
significant to job stress. Again, inconsistent with (Shukla et al., 2016) revealed that there
was significant negative but moderate relationship between work experience and job
stress.
The reason for missing significance between duration of employment and the stress
level are the low income, low position and low job authority among the respondents. The
employees are not elevated by working experience but other factors as well such as
educational level and Key Performance Index (KPI) which the employees might not
achieved that. Other than that, low job authority influences the respondents insignificance
53
between working hours per days/ working days per week and the stress level. Low job
authority indicates that the employees obey the orders of the management, to the extend
working more than normal hours. Other possible explanation is the overtime payment is
worthy which leads to low stress level even though half of the respondents are working
more than 8 hours per day and working more than 5 days per week.
The relationship between working departments and the stress level showed that
strength is weak. The significant value, p= 0.039; which is significant. This is consistent
with (Chuang & Lei, 2011) which stated that statistically there is significant difference in
job stress among casino hotel employees based on the work department. However, the
result showed that inconsistency with (Kawada & Otsuka, 2011) which found that there
were no significant relation between job stress and work division. The possible reason is
the respondents have different workload and degree of job control according to each
working department. The working department at office and front desk may have better job
control and less job demands however the situation in the kitchen was different. Each of
the departments showed different level of stress and make the relation is significant.
5.5 CONCLUSION
There are few factors that related to the stress level among hotel employee. The
general objective of this research is to determine the relationship between PWE and the
stress level among hotel employees. The result showed; between the job decision latitude
and the job demands, job demands has significant relationship with the stress level of hotel
employee while the other did not. Another objective of this research is to determine the
relationship between socio-demographic factors and the stress level among hotel
employees. Result showed that; marital status, monthly income, educational level, exercise
54
activity, smoking status and working department showed significant relation with stress
level among hotel employees. While other factors failed to find the significant relationship
with the stress level. The research were tested and analysed between the 16 independent
variables and dependent variable using Pearsons correlation. In conclusion, the research
achieved the objectives stated in the chapter 1.
5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
Job stress is an important issues and commonly known but often being neglected by
organisation. Thus, several recommendations are suggested to tackle the issue with
primarily focused on the findings. To curb the problems of job decision latitude is to give
control to the hotel employees. By give employees as much control as possible, since
control directly impacts reactions to high stress situations. Employees should be allowed,
within reason, to control their workflow will be much more able to handle job stress. Then,
to tackle the issue of job demands and stress level among hotel employees, it is
recommended that the employees are given time planning training. By having a proper
time management skills, the employees will be able to manage their time accordingly even
in hectic and non-stop hotel operation time. High stress level is considered significant to
hotel employees because of its nature of work therefore, several interventions are
recommended to curb the issue such as psychosocial management program, healthy
lifestyle programs and stress management training.The intervention and training programs
are mostly relevant in reducing the risk of stress level and minimize the accident at
workplace.
Then, to improve the research, it is recommended that larger sample size can be
collected to determine more accurate result. Other than that, researches among hotel
employees are still lacking despites the importance of the sector to economy. Then, various
55
research designs, data collection methods and data analysis can be used to measure the
stress level among hotel employees to determine the exposure accurately. Future
researchers are also encouraged to determine the related factors of stress level among hotel
employees for larger database on the PWE and stress level of this sector.
56
REFERENCES
Akgunduz, Y. (2015). The influence of self-esteem and role stress on job performance in
hotel businesses. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
27(6), 10821099. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-09-2013-0421
Alarcon, G. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and
attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 549562.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.007
ngelo, R. P., & Chambel, M. J. (2013). The Reciprocal Relationship Between Work
Characteristics and Employee Burnout and Engagement: A Longitudinal Study of
Firefighters. Stress and Health. http://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2532
Bean, C. G., Winefield, H. R., Sargent, C., & Hutchinson, A. D. (2015). Differential
associations of job control components with both waist circumference and body mass
index. Social Science and Medicine, 143, 18.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.08.034
Beiter, R., Nash, R., McCrady, M., Rhoades, D., Linscomb, M., Clarahan, M., & Sammut,
S. (2015). The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample
of college students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 173, 9096.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054
Bilgin, N., & Demirer, H. (2012). The Examination of the Relationship Among
Organizational Support, Affective Commitment and Job Satisfaction of Hotel
Employees. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 470473.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.191
Boschman, J. S., van der Molen, H. F., Sluiter, J. K., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2013).
1
Psychosocial work environment and mental health among construction workers.
Applied Ergonomics, 44(5), 748755. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.01.004
Bowen, P., Edwards, P., Lingard, H., & Cattell, K. (2014). Occupational stress and job
demand, control and support factors among construction project consultants.
International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 12731284.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.008
Buddeberg-Fischer, B., Stamm, M., Buddeberg, C., & Klaghofer, R. (2010). Chronic stress
experience in young physicians: Impact of person- and workplace-related factors.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 83(4), 373379.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-009-0467-9
Chiang, F. F. T., Birtch, T. a., & Cai, Z. (2013). Front-line Service Employees Job
Satisfaction in the Hospitality Industry The Influence of Job Demand Variability and
the Moderating Roles of Job Content and Job Context Factors. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, 1938965513514628. http://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513514628
Chiang, F. F. T., Birtch, T. A., & Kwan, H. K. (2010). The moderating roles of job control
and work-life balance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 2532.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.04.005
Cho, H. S., Kim, Y. W., Park, H. W., Lee, K. H., Jeong, B. G., Kang, Y. S., & Park, K. S.
(2013). The relationship between depressive symptoms among female workers and
job stress and sleep quality. Ann Occup Environ Med, 25(1), 12.
http://doi.org/10.1186/2052-4374-25-12
Chuang, N.-K., & Lei, S. A. (2011). Job stress among casino hotel chefs in a top-tier
2
tourism city. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(5), 551574.
http://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2011.570642
Cranwell-Ward, J. (1998). Stress. In Poole, M., Warner, M. (Eds.). The Handbook of
Human Resource Management , 285.
D., W., J., D., & J., P. (2013a). Factor structure of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in
individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 27(12), 13771382.
http://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2013.823662
D., W., J., D., & J., P. (2013b). Factor structure of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in
individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 27(12), 13771382.
http://doi.org/10.3109/02699052.2013.823662
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2004). Customer-related social stressors and burnout. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 6182. http://doi.org/10.1037/1076-
8998.9.1.61
Faulkner, B., & Patiar, A. (1997). Workplace induced stress among operational staff in the
hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 16(1), 99117.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4319(96)00053-9
Hmmig, O., & Bauer, G. F. (2014). Work, work-life conflict and health in an industrial
work environment. Occupational Medicine, 64(1), 3438.
http://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqt127
Hennekens, C., & Buring, J. (1987). Epidemiology in Medicine. Epidemiology in
Medicine. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=T3fx6XPm6DIC&printsec=frontcover\npapers://6
d7233c7-0c7f-43d7-b776-a2bbe7398ece/Paper/p1531
3
Hodari, D., Waldthausen, V., & Sturman, M. (2014). Outsourcing and role stress: An
empirical study of hotel spa managers. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 37, 190199. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.11.006
Hon, A. H. Y. (2013). Does job creativity requirement improve service performance? A
multilevel analysis of work stress and service environment. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 35, 161170. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.06.003
Hon, A. H. Y., Chan, W. W. H., & Lu, L. (2013). Overcoming work-related stress and
promoting employee creativity in hotel industry: The role of task feedback from
supervisor. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33(1), 416424.
Hwang, J., Hyun, S. S., & Park, J. (2013). Segmentation of Hotel Employees by
Occupational Stress and Differences in Demographic Characteristics. Asia Pacific
Journal of Tourism Research, 18(3), 241261.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.647040
Hwang, J., Lee, J. J., Park, S., Chang, H., & Kim, S. S. (2014). The Impact of
Occupational Stress on Employees Turnover Intention in the Luxury Hotel Segment.
International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 15(1), 6077.
http://doi.org/doi:10.1080/15256480.2014.872898
Iplik, F. N., Kilic, K. C., & Yalcin, A. (2011). The simultaneous effects of person-
organization and person-job fit on Turkish hotel managers. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(5), 644661.
http://doi.org/10.1108/09596111111143386
Jafari, P., & Bidarian, S. (2012). The Relationship Between Organizational Justice and
4
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47,
18151820. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.905
Jain, A. K., & Cooper, C. L. (2012). Stress and organisational citizenship behaviours in
Indian business process outsourcing organisations. IIMB Management Review, 24(3),
155163. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2012.06.004
Joensuu, M., Kivimki, M., Koskinen, A., Kouvonen, A., Pulkki-Rback, L., Vahtera, J.,
Vnnen, A. (2012). Differential associations of job control components with
mortality: A cohort study, 1986-2005. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(7),
609619. http://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws028
Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2013). Is the individual or the organization the cause of hotel
employees stress? A longitudinal study on differences in role stress between
subjects. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33(1), 494499.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1992). Healthy work: stress, productivity, and the
reconstruction of working life. Applied Ergonomics. http://doi.org/10.1016/0003-
6870(92)90320-U
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain:
Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285308.
http://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
Kawada, T., & Otsuka, T. (2011). Relationship between job stress, occupational position
and job satisfaction using a brief job stress questionnaire (BJSQ). Work, 40(4), 393
399. http://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2011-1251
Khamisa, N., Oldenburg, B., Peltzer, K., & Ilic, D. (2015). Work related stress, burnout,
5
job satisfaction and general health of nurses. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 12(1), 652666. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120100652
Kidger, J., Brockman, R., Tilling, K., Campbell, R., Ford, T., Araya, R., Gunnell, D.
(2016). Teachers wellbeing and depressive symptoms, and associated risk factors: A
large cross sectional study in English secondary schools. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 192, 7682. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.11.054
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Umbreit, W. T. (2007). Hotel job burnout: The role of
personality characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2),
421434. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.03.006
Kim, S. S., Im, J., & Hwang, J. (2015). The effects of mentoring on role stress, job
attitude, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 48, 6882. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.04.006
Lee, J. J., & Ok, C. (2012). Reducing burnout and enhancing job satisfaction: Critical role
of hotel employees emotional intelligence and emotional labor. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 11011112.
Malloy, T., & Penprase, B. (2010). Nursing leadership style and psychosocial work
environment. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(6), 715725.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01094.x
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early Predictors of Job Burnout and Engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498512. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.93.3.498
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as
6
antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70(1), 149171. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.09.002
Misis, M., Kim, B., Cheeseman, K., Hogan, N. L., & Lambert, E. G. (2013). The Impact of
Correctional Officer Perceptions of Inmates on Job Stress. SAGE Open, 3, 113.
http://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013489695
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845855. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.76.6.845
Naghieh, A., Montgomery, P., Bonell, C. P., Thompson, M., & Aber, J. L. (2015).
Organisational interventions for improving wellbeing and reducing work-related
stress in teachers. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
http://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010306.pub2
Niedhammer, I., Chastang, J. F., & David, S. (2008). Importance of psychosocial work
factors on general health outcomes in the national French SUMER survey.
Occupational Medicine, 58(1), 1524. http://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqm115
Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Bruinvels, D., & Frings-Dresen, M. (2010). Psychosocial work
environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occupational Medicine
(Oxford, England), 60(4), 27786. http://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqq081
Noruis, M. (2008). SPSS 16.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Occupational Safety and Health Act. (1994).
7
Olesen, K., Carneiro, I. G., Jorgensen, M. B., Flyvholm, M. A., Rugulies, R., Rasmussen,
C. D. N., Holtermann, A. (2012). Psychosocial work environment among
immigrant and Danish cleaners. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 85(1), 8995. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-011-0642-7
Palaiologos, A., Papazekos, P., & Panayotopoulou, L. (2011). Organizational justice and
employee satisfaction in performance appraisal. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 35(8), 826840. http://doi.org/10.1108/03090591111168348
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. a, & LePine, M. a. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-
hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and
withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2),
43854. http://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438
Rigopoulou, I., Theodosiou, M., Katsikea, E., & Perdikis, N. (2012). Information control,
role perceptions, and work outcomes of boundary-spanning frontline managers.
Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 626633.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.001
Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1989). Antecedents and consequences of
role stress: A covariance structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
10(June 1987), 3558. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030100104
Shukla, A., Srivastava, R., & Nisar, T. (2016). Examining the effect of emotional
intelligence on socio-demographic variable and job stress among retail employees.
Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1201905.
http://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1201905
Siegrist, J., Siegrist, K., & Weber, I. (1986). Sociological concepts in the etiology of
8
chronic disease: The case of ischemic heart disease. Social Science and Medicine,
22(2), 247253. http://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(86)90073-0
Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I., & Peter, R.
(2004). The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons.
Social Science and Medicine, 58(8), 14831499. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-
9536(03)00351-4
Stansfeld, S. A., Rasul, F. R., Head, J., & Singleton, N. (2009). Occupation and mental
health in a national UK survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
46(2), 101110. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0173-7
Sunny Hu, H.-H., & Cheng, C.-W. (2010). Job stress, coping strategies, and burnout
among hotel industry supervisors in Taiwan. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21(8), 13371350.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.483867
Thoits, P. A. (2010). Stress and Health: Major Findings and Policy Implications. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1 Suppl), S41S53.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383499
Tongchaiprasit, P., & Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. (2016). Creativity and turnover intention
among hotel chefs: The mediating effects of job satisfaction and job stress.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 3340.
Tsutsumi, A., Kawanami, S., & Horie, S. (2012). Effort-reward imbalance and depression
among private practice physicians. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 85(2), 153161. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-011-0656-1
9
Tuvesson, H., Eklund, M., & Wann-Hansson, C. (2011). Perceived stress among nursing
staff in psychiatric inpatient care: the influence of perceptions of the ward atmosphere
and the psychosocial work environment. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 32(7),
441448. http://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2011.564344
Van Bogaert, P., Clarke, S., Roelant, E., Meulemans, H., & Van de Heyning, P. (2010).
Impacts of unit-level nurse practice environment and burnout on nurse-reported
outcomes: A multilevel modelling approach. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(1112),
16641674. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.03128.x
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The Job Demand-Control (-Support) Model and
psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work & Stress,
13(2), 87114. http://doi.org/10.1080/026783799296084
Van Vegchel, N., De Jonge, J., & Landsbergis, P. A. (2005). Occupational stress in
(inter)action: The interplay between job demands and job resources. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 535560. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.327
Wildes, V. J. (2007). Attracting and retaining food servers: How internal service quality
moderates occupational stigma. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
26(1), 419. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.08.003
WTTC, W. T. (2016). Economic Impact 2016 Annual Update Summary.
10
APPENDIX 1: RESPONDENT INFORMATION SHEET
Please read the following information carefully. Do not hesitate to ask any questions
regarding the research topic.
Research Title:
Relationship between Psychosocial Work Environment and the Stress Level among Hotel
Employees.
Introduction:
Hotel employees are exposed to many levels of job stress and many factors contribute to
the situation include socio-demographic factors and psychosocial work environment. This
research will help to find the connection between the factors and the job stress. This
questionnaire aims to collect data regarding the relationship between psychosocial work
environment and the stress level among hotel employees.
What is the purpose of this study?
The objective of this research is to determine the relationship between psychosocial work
environment and the stress level among hotel employee.
What does participation in this research involve?
1. Respondents will be given the Respondent Information Sheet and Consent

Form.
2. Consent form will be signed prior to any study assessments being
performed.
3. Respondents will answer the questionnaires by themselves and the
assistance will be provided if needed.
4. Respondents will submit the questionnaires to the researchers.
Instruments used
Questionnaires
All of the respondents will be given a set of questionnaires and all of the information is
confidential. All the information obtained in the study will be used for educational
purposes only and considered confidential. Respondents' name will not be disclosed in the
final report.
Who are should not involve in this research?

1. Pregnant women
2. Employees with Traumatic Brain Damages (TBI)
3. Disables
4. Chronic disease patients
5. Foreign workers
What are the possible benefits of taking part?
All the information and data from this study will contribute to the information on the issue
of psychological working environment and job stress among hotel employees.
11
Furthermore, the data collected might inspire other researchers to look more into the
psychological work environment areas among hotel employees in Malaysia. Although
participation will not directly benefit you, we believe that information which you provide
will be useful in improving the psychosocial environment and the stress level among hotel
employee.
What are the possible risks of taking part?
No risk involve in this study

What if I withdraw the respondent from this research project?
The participation into this study is voluntary. If you prefer not to take part, you do not have
to give reason and your decision will not affect the treatment given.
If I have any questions, whom can I ask at any time point of the research?
Shahril Amir bin Muhamad,

Student
Bachelor in Occupational Safety and Health
Faculty of Safety and Health,
Cyberjaya University College of Medical Sciences
Postal Address: No 12, Jalan Padi Huma, Bandar Baru Uda, 81200, Johor Bahru, Johor.
Email: sung.muhd@gmail.com H/P: +6018-2980561
----------------------------THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION-----------------------
12
APPENDIX 2: CONSENT FORM
Relationship between Psychosocial Work Environment and the Stress Level among
Hotel Employees.
_________________________________________________________________________
1. I declare that I have gone through, read and fully understood the respondent
information sheet for this research. This study has been thoroughly explained to
me and I was also given the opportunity to inquire for questions.
2. I consent voluntarily to participate as a respondent in this research and
understand that I have the right to withdraw from the research at any time
without in any way affecting my medical care. I understand that I will not be
charged or fined due to my reluctance to participate in this study as it is my
right.
3. I understand that the information provided by me will be kept at its strictest
confidentiality and will only be used for its research purposes.
4. I also understand that the interviewer/ researchers shall not be held liable
for any untoward incidence arose from this study (i.e. medical, psychological,
mental and physical impact).
5. I fully agree to participate in this research/study.
Respondent:
Name:
I/C No.:
Signature: Date:
13
APPENDIX 3: BORANG MAKLUMAT RESPONDEN
Sila baca maklumat berikut dengan teliti. Jangan teragak-agak untuk bertanya apa-apa
soalan berkenaan topik penyelidikan.
Tajuk Kajian:
Kaitan antara Psikososial Persekitaran Kerja terhadap Tahap Stres di Kalangan Pekerja
Hotel.
Pengenalan:
Pekerja-pekerja hotel terdedah kepada banyak tahap tekanan kerja dan banyak faktor
menyumbang kepada keadaan termasuk faktor-faktor sosio -demografi dan persekitaran
kerja psikososial. Kajian ini akan membantu untuk mencari hubungan antara faktor-faktor
yang diatas dan tekanan kerja. Soal selidik ini bertujuan untuk mengumpul data mengenai
hubungan antara psikososial persekitaran kerja dan tahap stres di kalangan pekerja hotel.
Apakah tujuan kajian ini?
Objektif kajian ini adalah untuk menentukan hubungan di antara psikososial persekitaran
kerja dan tahap stres di kalangan pekerja hotel.
Apakah penyertaan dalam kajian?
1. Peserta akan diberi Borang Maklumat Responden dan Borang Keizinan.

2. Borang Persetujuan akan ditandatangani sebelum apa-apa penilaian kajian
yang dilakukan.
3. Peserta akan menjawab soal selidik oleh diri mereka sendiri dan bantuan
akan disediakan jika diperlukan.
4. Peserta akan mengemukakan soal selidik kepada penyelidik.
Instrumen yang digunakan
Boring soal selidik

Semua peserta akan diberikan satu set soal selidik dan semua maklumat adalah sulit.
Semua maklumat yang diperolehi dalam kajian ini akan digunakan untuk tujuan
pendidikan sahaja dan dianggap sulit. Nama peserta tidak akan didedahkan dalam laporan
akhir .
Siapa yang tidak terlibat dalam kajian ini?
1. Wanita hamil.
2. Pekerja yang menghidap Kecederaan Otak Traumatik (TBI)
3. Orang Kurang Upaya
4. Pesakit Penyakit Kronik
5. Bukan Warganegara
Apakah faedah kemungkinan mengambil bahagian?

Semua maklumat dan data daripada kajian ini akan menyumbang kepada pengumpulan
data mengenai isu Psikososial Persekitaran Kerja dan tekanan kerja di kalangan pekerja
14
hotel. Tambahan pula, data yang dikumpul mungkin memberi inspirasi kepada penyelidik
lain untuk mengkaji lebih mengenai topik Psikososial Persekitaran Kerja di kalangan
pekerja hotel di Malaysia. Walaupun penyertaan tidak akan secara langsung memberi
manfaat kepada anda , kami percaya bahawa maklumat yang anda berikan akan menjadi
berguna dalam meningkatkan persekitaran psikososial dan tahap stres di kalangan pekerja
hotel.
Apakah risiko kemungkinan mengambil bahagian?
Tiada risiko terlibat dalam kajian ini.
Bagaimana jika saya menarik diri daripada projek penyelidikan ini?

Penyertaan ke dalam kajian ini adalah secara sukarela. Jika anda memilih untuk tidak
mengambil bahagian, anda tidak perlu memberi alasan dan keputusan anda tidak akan
menjejaskan rawatan yang diberikan.
Siapakah yang boleh saya hubungi untuk pertanyaan lanjut mengenai kajian ini?
Shahril Amir bin Muhamad,

Pelajar
Sarjana Muda Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerja
Fakulti Keselamtan dan Kesihatan Pekerja,
Kolej Universiti Sains Kesihatan Cyberjaya
Alamat surat-menyurat: No 12, Jalan Padi Huma, Bandar Baru Uda, 81200, Johor Bahru,
Johor.
Emel: sung.muhd@gmail.com H/P: +6018-2980561
-----------------------TERIMA KASIH ATAS KERJASAMA ANDA-------------------------
15
APPENDIX 4: BORANG PERSETUJUAN
Kaitan antara Psikososial Persekitaran Kerja dan Tahap Stres di Kalangan Pekerja
Hotel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Saya akui bahawa saya melalui, membaca dan memahami sepenuhnya
Borang Maklumat Responden kajian ini. Kajian ini telah teliti menjelaskan kepada
saya dan saya juga telah diberi peluang untuk bertanya untuk soalan.
2. Saya bersetuju secara sukarela untuk mengambil bahagian sebagai
responden dalam kajian ini dan memahami bahawa saya mempunyai hak untuk
menarik diri daripada kajian ini pada bila-bila tanpa menjejaskan rawatan
perubatan saya dalam apa-apa cara. Saya faham bahawa saya tidak akan dikenakan
bayaran atau denda kerana keengganan saya untuk mengambil bahagian dalam
kajian ini kerana ia adalah hak saya .
3. Saya faham bahawa maklumat yang diberikan oleh saya akan disimpan di
kerahsiaannya ketat dan hanya akan digunakan untuk tujuan penyelidikan.
4. Saya juga memahami bahawa penemuduga / penyelidik hendaklah tidak
akan bertanggungjawab atas sebarang insiden yang tidak diingini timbul daripada
kajian ini (iaitu perubatan, psikologi , mental dan kesan fizikal).
5. Saya amat bersetuju untuk mengambil bahagian dalam kajian ini / kajian .
Peserta/ Responden:
Nama
I/C No.:
Tandatangan: Tarikh:
16
APPENDIX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE
QUESTIONNAIRE PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
BAHAGIAN 1: MAKLUMAT LATAR BELAKANG
Instruction: Please circle the correct answer.

Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan yang betul.
1) Gender 2) Age 3) Marital status

Jantina. Umur Status perkahwinan
____ years old
a. Male ____ tahun a. Single
Lelaki Bujang
b. Female b. Married
Wanita Sudah berkahwin
c. Divorced
Sudah bercerai
4) Ethnicity 5) Highest educational level 6) Monthly income
Bangsa Tahap pendidikan tertinggi Pendapatan bulanan
RM _________
a. Malay a. Primary school
Melayu Sekolah rendah
b. Chinese b. High school
Cina Sekolah menengah
c. Indian c. Technical certificate
d. India Sijil kemahiran
e. Others. Please d. Diploma
state: _________ Diploma
Lain-lain. Sila e. Degree
nyatakan: _______ Sarjana muda
f. Master/ phD
Sarjana/ falsafah
kedoktoran
g. None
Tiada
h. Others. Please state:
_________
Lain-lain. Sila nyatakan:
_______
7) Do you exercise 8) Do you smoke? 9) Do you consume
actively? Adakah anda merokok? alcohol regularly?
Adakah anda bersenam Adakah anda mengambil
secara aktif? a. Yes alcohol secara tetap?
Ya
a. Yes b. No a. Yes
Ya Tidak Ya
b. No b. No
Tidak Tidak
10) How many hours do 11) Duration of employment 12) How many hours do
you sleep daily? (current workplace) you work per day?
Berapa jam anda tidur Tempoh tahun berkerja (tempat Berapa jam anda
17
dalam sehari? kerja sekarang) berkerja dalam sehari?
_____ hours per day _____ years _____ hours per day
_____ jam sehari _____ tahun _____ jam sehari
13) How many days do you 14) Which department do you

work per week? belong
Berapa hari anda berkerja Jabatan manakah anda
dalam seminggu? bertugas?
_____ days per week _____________department

_____ hari seminggu Jabatan ______________
18
QUESTIONNAIRE PART 2: PSYCHOSOCIAL HAZARDS
ASSESSMENT
BAHAGIAN 2: PENAKSIRAN TERHADAP HAZARD PSIKOSOSIAL
Instruction: Please circle the correct answer.

Arahan: Sila bulatkan jawapan yang betul.
strongly Disagree Agree strongly

disagree Tidak Setuju agree
Sangat setuju Sangat
tidak setuju
setuju
1. My job requires that I learn new things 1 2 3 4
Pekerjaan saya memerlukan saya mempelajari perkara baru.
2. My job involves a lot of repetitive work 1 2 3 4
Pekerjaan saya melibatkan kerja yang berulang-ulang.
3. My job requires me to be creative 1 2 3 4
Pekerjaan saya memerlukan kreativiti.
4. My job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own 1 2 3 4
Pekerjaan saya membenarkan saya membuat keputusan
sendiri.
5. My job requires a high level of skill 1 2 3 4
Pekerjaan saya memerlukan kemahiran yang tinggi.
6. On my job, I am given a lot of freedom to decide how I 1 2 3 4
do my work
Semasa bekerja, saya diberi banyak kebebasan untuk
membuat keputusan sendiri.
7. I get to do a variety of things on my job 1 2 3 4
Semasa bekerja, saya berupaya melakukan berbagai perkara
yang berbeza-beza.
8. I have a lot to say about what happens on my job 1 2 3 4
Saya mempunyai banyak hak untuk menentukan pekerjaan
saya.
9. I have an opportunity to develop my own special abilities 1 2 3 4
Saya berpeluang untuk mengembangkan kebolehan saya.
10. My job requires working very fast 1 2 3 4
Pekerjaan saya memerlukan saya untuk bekerja dengan
sangat pantas.
11. My job requires working very hard 1 2 3 4
Pekerjaan saya memerlukan saya bekerja bersungguh-
sungguh.
12. I am not asked to do an excessive amount of work 1 2 3 4
Saya tidak diminta / disuruh untuk melakukan kerja-kerja
secara berlebihan.
13. I have enough time to get the job done 1 2 3 4
Saya mempunyai masa yang cukup untuk menyiapkan kerja
saya.
14. I am free from conflicting demands others make 1 2 3 4
Saya bebas daripada tekanan-tekanan yang dibuat oleh
orang lain.
19
QUESTIONNAIRE PART 3: STRESS EVALUATION
BAHAGIAN 3: PENILAIAN TERHADAP TEKANAN

Instruction: Please read each statement and circle a number 0, 1, 2 or 3 which indicates
how much the statement applied to you over the past week. There are no right or wrong
answers. Do not spend too much time on any statement.
Arahan: Sila baca setiap kenyataan di bawah dan bulatkan pada nombor 0,1,2 atau 3 bagi
menggambarkan keadaan anda sepanjang minggu yang lalu. Tiada jawapan yang betul
atau salah.Jangan mengambil masa yang terlalu lama untuk menjawab mana-mana
kenyataan.
The rating scale is as follows:
Skala pemarkahan adalah seperti berikut:
0. Did not apply to me at all NEVER
Tidak langsung menggambarkan keadaan saya
1. Applied to me to some degree, or some of the time SOMETIME
Sedikit atau jarang-jarang menggambarkan keadaan saya.
2. Applied to me to a considerable degree, or a good part of time- OFTEN
Banyak atau kerapkali menggambarkan keadaan saya.
3. Applied to me very much, or most of the time - ALMOST ALWAYS
Sangat banyak atau sangat kerap menggambarkan keadaan saya
1 I found it hard to wind down 0 1 2 3

Saya dapati diri saya sukar ditenteramkan
2 I tended to over-react to situations 0 1 2 3
Saya cenderung untuk bertindak keterlaluan dalam sesuatu keadaan
3 I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy 0 1 2 3
Saya rasa saya menggunakan banyak tenaga dalam keadaan cemas
4 I found myself getting agitated 0 1 2 3
Saya dapati diri saya semakin gelisah
5 I found it difficult to relax 0 1 2 3
Saya rasa sukar untuk relaks
6 I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with what I was 0 1 2 3
doing
Saya tidak dapat menahan sabar dengan perkara yang menghalang saya
meneruskan apa yang saya lakukan
7 I felt that I was rather touchy 0 1 2 3
Saya rasa yang saya mudah tersentuh
20

Relationship Between Psychosocial Work Environement and Stress Level Among Hotel Workers

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Relationship Between Psychosocial Work Environement and Stress Level Among Hotel Workers

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

with her confidence and trust on my ability.

I would like to take this opportunity to convey my appreciation to Hotel X for

we know the ups and downs in finishing this research.

TABLE OF CONTENT vii

LIST OF FIGURES xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATION xiii

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT 2

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 3

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 3

1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 5

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH 12

1.7 LIMITATION OF STUDY 13

1.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 14

1.9 OPERATIONAL DEFINITION 14

2.1 JOB STRESS AMONG HOTEL EMPLOYEE 16

2.2 PSYCHOSOCIAL WORK ENVIRONMENT 18

2.3 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND JOB STRESS 22

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 24

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 24

3.3 RESEARCH POPULATION 25

3.6 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 29

3.7 TECHNIQUES OF DATA ANALYSIS 30

CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DATA ANALYSIS 32

4.2 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 32

4.3 BIVARIATE ANALYSIS 40

5.2 STRESS LEVEL AMONG RESPONDENTS 48

5.3 RELATION OF PWE AND THE STRESS LEVEL 48

5.4 RELATION OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AND STRESS LEVEL

APPENDIX 1: RESPONDENT INFORMATION SHEET 11

APPENDIX 2: CONSENT FORM 13

APPENDIX 3: BORANG MAKLUMAT RESPONDEN 14

APPENDIX 4: BORANG PERSETUJUAN 16

QUESTIONNAIRE PART 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 17

QUESTIONNAIRE PART 2: PSYCHOSOCIAL HAZARDS 19

QUESTIONNAIRE PART 3: STRESS EVALUATION 20

Table 3.1: Population and sample 25

Table 3.2: JCQ Scale Scoring 27

Table 3.3: Stress level scoring range 28

Table 4.1: Demographic characteristic of respondents (n=56) 34

Table 4.2: Lifestyle of respondents (n=56) 35

Table 4.3: Occupational characteristic of respondents (n=56) 37

Table 4.4: Frequency and distribution on JCQ (n=56) 38

Table 4.6: Frequency distribution on stress level (n=56) 39

Table 4.7: Strength of the relationship 40

Table 4.10: Bivariate analysis types of gender and stress level 42

Table 4.11: : Bivariate analysis age and stress level 42

Table 4.12: Bivariate analysis marital status and stress level 43

Table 4.13: Bivariate analysis ethnicity and stress level 43

Table 4.14: Bivariate analysis education level and stress level 43

Table 4.15: Bivariate analysis monthly income and stress level 44

Table 4.16: Bivariate analysis exercise activity and stress level 44

Table 4.17: Bivariate analysis smoking status and stress level 44

Table 4.18: Bivariate analysis alcohol consumption and stress level 45

Table 4.19: Bivariate duration of sleep and the stress level 45

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework 14

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of data collection procedures 29

OSH- Occupational Safety and Health

PWE- Psychosocial Work Environment

JDC- Job Demand Control

JCQ- Job Content Questionnaire

DASS21- Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale

Job stress is very common in hotel industry and it is an important issue in