Stress Among Social Workers in JKMM - Liew Lee Su - Final Submission

STRESS AMONG SOCIAL WORKERS IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE

MALAYSIA
LIEW LEE SU
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT
MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY
FEBRUARY 2021
i
COPYRIGHT PAGE
© 2019 Universiti Telekom Sdn. Bhd. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright of this thesis belongs to Universiti Telekom Sdn. Bhd. as qualified by

Regulation 7.2 (c) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property and
Commercialisation Policy. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or
introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any purpose, without the
express written permission of Universiti Telekom Sdn. Bhd. Due acknowledgement shall
always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
ii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this BRM 7164 Research Project is my original work except
for quotations, statements, explanations and summaries, which I have mentioned their
sources. No portion of this Research Project has been submitted in support of any
application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute
of learning.
Student's Signature: ____________________ Date: 28 February 2021

Student's Name: Liew Lee Su Student ID: 1191400089
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my project supervisor, Dr Arnifa

Binti Semawi @ Asmawi for her guidance, continuous encouragement, constructive
comments and assistance from the start until the completion of this research project,
without which I would not be able to. Secondly, I would like to thank my beloved family
members and friends who have always supported and encouraged me throughout my
study. Finally, I would like to thank my respondents and all those who have directly, or
indirectly helped towards the completion of this project.
iv
ABSTRACT
This research was carried out to study stress and its possible causes among social workers
in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia (JKMM). A total of 235 social workers
from JKMM had participated the surveys via online platform. This study aims to examine
the level of stress perceived by social workers in JKMM and explored the source of stress.
Four sets of surveys were used, namely (1) Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), (2) Job
Demands and Decision Latitude, (3) Supportive and Non-Controlling Supervision; and
(4) Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity that can be referred to in Appendix A. Results from
these surveys showed that the mean stress perceived by social workers is 16.5 out of 40
points of the overall score. This indicate that the social workers of JKMM endured a
moderate stress level. This research also found that job stress among social workers at
JKMM has a significant relationship with employees’ job demand, decision authority,
management style, role ambiguity and role conflict. In addition, based on the results from
multiple regression, only role conflict and role ambiguity had strong relationship with job
stress. It was found that role ambiguity and role conflict have a significant influence on
stress among social workers in JKMM and 41% of stress can be explained by these
variables. Interestingly, based on the findings, role ambiguity demonstrated the strongest
correlation with stress and have the highest influence on stress compared to other factors
of stress. The findings of this study could assist JKMM to understand and identify the
factors that lead to stress in the workplace. Furthermore, this study can aid the human
resource department to improve and support their employees by implementing effective
training and wellness program for their employees and help them to manage work-related
stress and personal life effectively. On top of that, it is suggested that JKMM can delegate
certain jobs to other department or increases the number of staffs in order to reduce the
total workload of the social workers.
Keyword: Job stress, social workers, job demand, skill discretion, decision authority,
management style, role ambiguity and role conflict.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
COPYRIGHT PAGE ii
DECLARATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of Study 1

1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Department of Social Welfare Malaysia in a Brief 4
1.4 Research Questions 9
1.5 Research Objectives 9
1.6 Significance of the Study 10
1.7 Scope of Study 10
1.8 Definition of Term 11
1.9 Organization of Thesis 11
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 14
2.1 Introduction 14
2.2 Job Stress 14
2.3 Social Workers 16
2.4 Measurement of Stress 17
2.5 Factors Leading to Stress 18
Job Demand 18
Skill Discretion 20
Decision Authority 21
Management Style 23
Role Conflict 25
vi
Role Ambiguity 26
2.6 Summary 28
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 29
3.1 Introduction 29
3.2 Theoretical Framework 29
3.3 Hypothesis Statement 30
3.4 Data Collection Method 30
Variable and Data Measurement Scale 31
Questionnaire Design 31
3.5 Sampling Method 36
3.6 Data Analysis Methods 36
3.7 Summary 37
CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS 39
4.1 Introduction 39
4.2 Reliability Analysis 39
4.3 Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample 41
4.4 Descriptive Responses of Demographic Factors 41
4.5 Stress Level of Social Workers of JKMM 44
4.6 Descriptive Characteristics of the Variables 49
4.7 Research Question and Hypotheses 53
Pearson Correlation 54
Multiple Regression 58
4.8 Summary 60
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 62
5.1 Introduction 62
5.2 Summary of the Findings 62
Relationship between Job Stress and Organizational
Effectiveness 66
Organizational Consequences of Occupational Stress (Turnover
Intention) 68
Overall Employee Satisfaction 68
Employee Motivation 69
Work Performance 70
5.3 Organizational Implication for Practice 71
Stress and Career Development 71
Stress and Pressure due to Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict 77
5.4 Conclusion 78
5.5 Suggestion for Future Research 79
vii
APPENDIX A SAMPLE OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS 80
APPENDIX B OUTPUT (CASE PROCESSING SUMMARY) 98
REFERENCES 145
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page

Table 1.1 Positions of JKMM ......................................................................................... 6
Table 1.2 Distribution of Posting .................................................................................... 6
Table 3.1 Variables of Study......................................................................................... 31
Table 3.2 Items Measuring Perceived Stress Level ...................................................... 32
Table 3.3 Item Measuring Job Demand, Skill Discretion and Decision Authority ...... 33
Table 3.4 Items Measuring Management Style ............................................................ 34
Table 3.5 Items Measuring Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict ................................... 35
Table 4.1 Reliability Test of Each Variable .................................................................. 40
Table 4.2 Summary of the Demographic Variables ...................................................... 41
Table 4.3 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Perceived Stress .......................... 44
Table 4.4 Mean and Standard Deviation of Stress Scores of Demographic
Profile............................................................................................................ 46
Table 4.5 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Job Demand.................................. 49
Table 4.6 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Skill Discretion ............................ 50
Table 4.7 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Decision Authority ....................... 50
Table 4.8 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Management Style........................ 51
Table 4.9 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Role Ambiguity ............................ 52
Table 4.10 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Role Conflict ................................ 52
Table 4.11 Pearson Correlation among Psychological Tests .......................................... 54
Table 4.12 Summary of Hypothesis Test Results ........................................................... 57
Table 4.13 Regression Analysis of Perceived Stress on Social Workers of JKMM ...... 58
Table 5.1 Position in JKMM and Percentage Respondents .......................................... 63
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page

Figure 1.1 Organizational Structure ................................................................................. 7
Figure 1.2 Welfare Institutions Distributions ................................................................... 8
Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................. 29
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Terms
COVID-19 : Coronavirus disease 2019
DA : Decision authority
JD : Job demand
JKMM : Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Malaysia
MCO : Movement Control Order
MS : Management Style
PSS : Perceived Stress Scale
PKMD/J/B : Pejabat Kebajikan Masyarakat Daerah/ Jajahan/ Bahagian
PWE : Psychosocial working environment
RA : Role ambiguity
RC : Role conflict
SD : Skill discretion
xi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Organisations today are under greater pressure than ever to remain competitive.
Workers are faced with a growing number of stressors associated with work environment
hence organisations ought to eliminate those stressors for its employees’ well-beings.
Employees suffering from job stress will seek to flee from stressors, invariably causing
high turnover and burn-outs. Should they remain in the organisation, they could cause
management problems such as low productivity, waste of organizational resources, and
counter-productive work behaviours, invariably leading to a worser situation for the
organisation (Goswami, 2015). Since these stressors can have a negative impact on the
job performance of staffs, it is crucial for organisations to be aware of these stressors and
how to address them effectively to avoid further damage towards the organisation (Gilboa,
Shirom, Fried, & Cooper, 2013).
In a social welfare organisation, supervisory and organisational-support work

environment that influence social workers' decision-making and engagement contribute
to the response of social workers to stress. Employee outcomes, such as work
performance, productivity, employee morale and counter-productive work behaviours,
may be negatively impacted by job stress. Such work-related challenges lead to fatigue of
compassion, work overload and role stress that result in burnout. (Travis & Barak, 2010).
Burn-out will therefore have a negative impact on social workers, resulting in service
disruptions to customer care. (Landsman, 2007). For example, burnout has often been
associated with various forms of negative responses to the job in terms of work outcomes,
such as job dissatisfaction, low organizational commitment, and absenteeism, while
burnout has been predictive of depression and other emotional symptoms in terms of
health outcomes, including anxiety and anxiety (Maslach, & Leiter, 2017).
1
Studies also show that as opposed to workers in other industries, social workers
experience a high degree of work-related stressors, anxiety, and trait depression. Job stress
is significantly troublesome for social workers and could result in burn-out; psychological
stress triggered by constant workplace dissatisfaction (Willems, 2014). In addition, there
are consistently high levels of stress among children and family social workers, and this
has also been correlated with burnout and retention concerns in the profession. It has been
asserted that child and family social workers exhibited higher levels of mental fatigue and
depersonalization and lower levels of personal achievement relative to adult social
workers (Hussein 2018). Much of the literature has indicated that social workers could
have higher stress levels than comparable occupational groups (Lloyd, King, &
Chenoweth, 2002).
Social workers are frequently stressed, unhappy and critical of the organisation in
which they operate. The current environment of performance-based budgeting with key
performance measures (KPIs) to achieve, diminishing resources, and inherent job
stressors further aggravate their fatigue and stress (Beer, 2016). Invariably, the well-being
of social workers is also impacted by organizational elements, career prospects and job
satisfaction of practitioners. (Antonopoulou, Killian & Forrester, 2017). Organizational
components such as inefficient organizational structure, weak supervisory and
organizational support, budget cuts, constant change, high caseloads, employee shortages,
media-influenced panics are also seen as contributing factors to the burn-out of social
workers and their subsequent approaches to stress (Travis & Barak, 2010).
Therefore, social welfare organisations experience high turnover or absenteeism

rates that lead to employee shortages, high caseloads, and dependency on less experienced
or temporary workers. As an outcome, it had led to customer service disruptions.
(Landsman, 2007). Turnover also causes organisations to undergo cost changes, including
noticeable costs (training, recruiting, loss of productivity, etc.) and indirect costs (damage
position chain, low morale, reduce enterprise reputation, loss of opportunity and etc.)
(Zhang, 2016). Social workers are often stressed, unhappy, and critical of the organization
2
in which they operate, especially in the current environment of declining resources and
problems with organizational structure, work demands, and procedures (Lloyd, King, &
Chenoweth, 2002).
Child and family social workers are frequently found to have high stress levels,
and this has also been related to issues with burnout and retention in the profession. The
well-being of social workers is affected by organisational elements, conditions in the
workplace and job satisfaction of practitioners (Antonopoulou, Killian & Forrester, 2017).
The objective of this research is to critically assess the level of job stress among social
workers in Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Malaysia (JKKM) and the factors that
contribute to job stress in order to identify recommendations for remedies.
1.2 Problem Statement
The Department of Social Welfare (Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Malaysia,

JKMM) is one of the government agencies providing the Malaysian government with
various social welfare services. (Official Portal of Department of Social Welfare, 2020).
The rate of Malaysian social problems affecting all walks of life is rising over time, in line
with the rapid growth in Malaysia. Poverty, child abuse, delinquency, domestic violence,
and trafficking are social issues that are referred to the Department of Social Services.
(Jamaluddin & Ab. Ghani, 2003).
In addition, 66.2 percent of Malay children were registered are in need of

protection and rehabilitation provided by JKMM, followed by 20.8 percent of Sabahan
natives, 7.7 percent of peninsular natives, 3.8 percent of Indians and 1.5 percent of other
ethnicities, based on statistics provided by the Department of Social Welfare in 2018. In
addition, it was also recorded that there were a total of 217 males and 138 females
identified as destitute individuals among children, while 2, 250 males and 867 females
encountered destitution among adults. These provide varied challenges to JKMM social
workers in term role competencies. The international suggested ratio of social workers to
the population is 1:490 (USA), 1:1,040 (Australia), 1:3,448 (Singapore) and 1:3,025 (UK)
3
for the management of large caseloads of social cases. Sadly, the current population ratio
of social workers in Malaysia, however, is 1:8,576, which is more than double the
workload of those in developed countries. This has resulted in a high overload of social
workers at JKMMM (Won, Sharif & Wan, 2016).
It is not an overstatement to imply that JKMM social workers are facing a

prolonged and disconcerting job-related problem, especially burnout due to stress.
Although the experience of social work clients has focused a considerable amount of
attention, little is understood about the psychological and physical effect of work-related
stress and health well-being on social workers (Barck-Holst, Nilsonne, Åkerstedt, &
Hellgren, 2019). In addition, numerous studies have been carried out to determine just
what the problems are, how they affect service users, and how they might be resolved,
several questions remain unanswered for the most part. Is it due to job demand, skill
discretion, decision authority, management style, role conflict, role ambiguity, or
something else that is causing the job-related stress among social workers at JKKM?
Hence, it is crucial to identify stress among social workers at JKMM, establish a snapshot
of stress levels and factors contributing to stress as the causal effect of this study will
provide the necessary inputs for strategic remedial interventions.
1.3 Department of Social Welfare Malaysia in a Brief
Department of Social Welfare Malaysia (JKMM) is one of the agencies under the
administration of the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development
(Department of Social Welfare Malaysia, 26 December 2019). The role of the department
is to provide prevention and rehabilitation services for social issues and community
development. As a government agency with an important role in social development, its
strategies are as below:
1. Optimizing the capacity and potential of individuals and the well-being of target
groups in the Department;
4
2. Ensuring the integration of welfare components into strategies to achieve holistic
socio-economic growth;
3. Improve the Department's role and capacity as the key collaborator in the national
and international preparation and evaluation of social welfare reform programs;
4. Enhance intelligent and strategic collaborations through collaboration with all
community organisations, NGOs and foreign agencies;
5. Enhancing and improving the provision of welfare services at all levels;
6. Improving the efficiency of management and maximizing the usage of human
capital; and
7. Develop and engage professionally with the standard of financial planning and
management and information technology.
The placement of social workers is conducted by the headquarters of JKMM. The

placement is flexible (multi-skill), and they will be posted into any of the Department or
institution under JKMM as below:
i. Headquarters (HQ) of JKMM in the Federal Territory of Putrajaya; or

ii. 15 State Social Welfare Offices (Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Negeri,
JKMN); or
iii. 105 District Social Welfare Offices (Pejabat Kebajikan Masyarakat
Daerah/ Jajahan/Bahagian, PKMD/J/B); or
iv. 65 Welfare Institutions (37 institutions of children, 10 institutions for the
disabled, 12 institutions for older person, 5 institutions for the homeless
and 1 institution for victims of human trafficking)
Social workers placed at the headquarters are responsible for policymaking for
JKMM, whereas social workers placed at JKMN/PKMD/J/B/welfare institutions are the
front-liners of JKMM in liaising with clients.
5
In this study, Social Workers refer to Social Development Officers whom are
attached to JKMN/PKMD/J/B/welfare institutions as front-liners of JKMM. The details
of social workers are as Table 1.1 below:
Table 1.1 Positions of JKMM

No. Category Total %
1 Manager* 358 10.8
2 Supervisor** 1078 32.7
3 Staff*** 1865 56.5
Total 3301 100.0
Note:
* Entry level with a degree holder in any discipline
**Entry level with a diploma in any discipline or a Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia
(STPM)
***Entry level with a certificate in any discipline or a Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) or
Sijil Pelajaran Vocational Malaysia (SPVM)
SOURCE: Department of Social Welfare Malaysia, 26 December 2019

Table 1.2 Distribution of Posting
No. Category Total %
1 JKMN* 398 12.1
2 PKMD/J/B ** 2104 63.7
3 Welfare Institutions *** 799 24.2
Total 3301 100.0
Note:
*State Social Welfare Offices (Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Negeri, JKMN
6
**District Social Welfare Offices (Pejabat Kebajikan Masyarakat Daerah/
Jajahan/Bahagian, PKMD/J/B
***Institutions of children, institutions for the disabled, institutions for older person,
institutions for the homeless and institution for victims of human trafficking
SOURCE: Department of Social Welfare Malaysia, 26 December 2019
Figure 1.1 Organizational Structure

SOURCE: Official Portal Department of Social Welfare (2020)
7
Figure 1.2 Welfare Institutions Distributions
SOURCE: Official Portal Department of Social Welfare (2020)
The services provided by social workers in JKMD towards clients or target group of
JKMD are as below:
i. Children
• Application Procedure Children Preserve;
• Child Care Centre;
• Child Protection;
• Child Rehabilitation; and
• Child Development.
ii. Older Persons

• Home Help Service Program;
• Activity Centre for the Older Persons (PAWE);
• We Care Unit (Mobile Unit) For Older Persons (Unit Penyayang Warga Emas,
UPWE); and
• Respite Care.
8
iii. Disabled Person (OKU)
• Registration of Persons with Disabilities;
• Facilities and Privileges to Persons with Disabilities;
• Job Coach; and
• Community Rehabilitation Program (PDK).
iv. Family
• Welfare Assistance Scheme; and
• Community Service Order.
v. Destitute Persons
• Destitute Persons; and
• Voluntary admission to the Institute of Desa Bina Diri's.
vi. Disaster Victims

• Evacuation Centre.
1.4 Research Questions
This study aims to address the following questions:

i. What is the level of stress among social workers in the Department of Social
Welfare Malaysia?
ii. What are the factors of stress perceived by social workers in the Department of
Social Welfare Malaysia?
iii. What is the relationship between factors of job stress and the level of job stress
among social workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia?
1.5 Research Objectives
i. To evaluate the level of stress among social workers in the Department of Social
Welfare Malaysia.
9
ii. To identify factors contributing to stress among social workers in the Department
of Social Welfare Malaysia.
iv. To analyze the relationship between factors contributing to stress and level of
stress among social workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia.
1.6 Significance of the Study
Organizations should define and remedy pain points and establish effective
organizational development (OD) structures since stress related to the job is a significant
organizational pain point. In signal areas where organizations can concentrate efforts to
change employee behaviors, attitudes, and results, as well as the performance and
environment of the organization, the frameworks are the goal.
The outcome of this research will allow JKMM's top management to become
aware of the level of stress among social workers and the factors that contribute to
JKMM's job stress. This will allow JKMM to take the requisite strategic corrective steps
to minimize work stress, which will ultimately lead to improved efficiency and service
quality for stakeholders. This research will also provide a framework for building on
current scholarly works and provide an avenue for future research on this subject.
1.7 Scope of Study
The scope of this study is focused on job stress, which has a negative impact on
individual performance and organizational efficiency. The scope provides a model that
defines the causes of job stress explored in this analysis, which illustrates the effect on
work efficiency.
Investigating the relationship between these variables will explain what the causes
of job stress among JKMM social workers are and how these variables correlate with their
demographic variables and other key variables.
10
This study will be limited to identifying the level of stress among JKMM social
workers. The findings of this research cannot be extended into another JKMM service
team, such as the department's information technology (IT) team, administrative team or
counselling team.
1.8 Definition of Term
The study will be focused on social workers in JKMM to find the factors
contributing to job stress. The key terms in this study are as below:
• Job stress can be described as the negative physical and emotional responses that
occur when the job's requirements do not fulfill the employee's skill, resources, or
needs (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1999).
• Job stressors refer to any workplace trait that poses a danger to the employee
(Shikieri, & Musa, 2012); and
• Social workers are a career that encourages social change, problem solving in
human relationships, and people's empowerment and liberation to improve well-
being (International Federation of Social Workers, 2014).
1.9 Organization of Thesis
This thesis is organized in the following sequence:
Chapter 1: Introduction
An overview of the research study is presented in this chapter, including the
background of the study, problem statements, purposes of the study, the scope of study
and a summary. Problem statements further clarified the current challenges faced by social
workers of JKMM. The significance of the results in this study to literature and relevant
organization is described in the significance of study section.
11
Chapter 2: Literature Review
A comprehensive literature review on job stress is provided in this chapter,
together with past studies on specific factors contributing to stress, namely, job demand,
skill discretion, decision authority, management style, role conflict and role ambiguity.
This chapter is necessary to enhance a better understanding of why social workers tend to
have a certain level of stress. The barriers (stress) from spreading further among social
workers in JKMM can be curbed by recognizing these factors and then find effective
solutions to reduce stress in the workplace.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
Chapter Three underlines the information on “stress among social workers in the
Department of Social Welfare Malaysia” obtained through an empirical research survey
by using questionnaires, which cover all aspects of stress among social workers, as well
as addresses the research objective. Subsequently, this chapter also outlines the hypothesis
development and proposes a theoretical framework. Then, this chapter discusses the data
collection, measurement, data analysis methods and lastly a summary is presented.
Chapter 4: Data Analysis
This chapter presents a complete account of results and analyses of the study
investigating the level of stress and the sources of stress perceived by social workers of
JKMM. Therefore, to identify the relationship between the stress level of social workers
and all the variables that cause stress among social workers of JKMM as hypothesized,
significant relationships are analyzed through descriptive analysis, Pearson correlation
analysis and Regression analysis.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to find the stress level of social workers and its
significant correlations among demographic factors and sources of stress perceived by
social workers in JKMM. This chapter is divided into five sections whereby a summary
12
of the research study is provided other than presenting a discussion of the finding and
conclusions of this study. This chapter is also highlighting the limitations of the study,
providing the implication for practice and recommendations for future study.
13
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, a detailed literature review on work stress is given, along with
studies on specific factors that contribute to stress, namely, job demand, ability discretion,
decision-making authority, style of management, role conflict and role uncertainty. To
enhance a better understanding of why social workers, appear to have a certain level of
stress, this chapter is essential. Through understanding these factors, the barriers (stress)
can be curb from spreading further among social workers in JKMM. This may lead to
discover appropriate solutions to reduce stress at the workplace.
2.2 Job Stress
Stress applies to the physiological or emotional reaction to internal or external

stressors. (American Psychological Association, 2020). In the meantime, stressor may be
defined as any "demand made by the internal or external environment that disturbs the
balance of a person and requires restoration" (Oginyi, Mbam, Nwoba, & Nwankwo, 2018).
Job stressors, on the other hand, refer to any workplace trait that poses a danger to the
employee as they negatively impact organizational performance by reducing productivity
and efficiency. (Shikieri & Musa, 2012). In 2,768 scientific papers published during the
1990s, apart from the keywords "occupational stress," work stress and job stress are also
used.(Khatibi, Asadi & Hamidi, 2009). Therefore, the definition of occupational stress,
job stress and work stress may be used interchangeably.
According to Vijayan (2017), job stress is an effect or reaction to certain external

factors that arises due to many variables, such as overwork and heavy workload. Job stress
could be both positive and counter-productive, depending on the understanding of friction
between the two forces. Approximately one-third of employees experience high stress
14
levels, with one-quarter of them seeing their careers as the number one stressor in their
lives, while three-quarters agree that staff have more stress on the job than a generation
ago (Sukumar & Kanagarathinam, 2015). It is also necessary to consider stress in the
workplace as job stressors have a significant effect on the mental and psychological health
of people (Rana & Munir, 2011).
Job stress can also be defined as the "harmful physical and emotional responses
that occur when the job requirements do not correspond to the worker's abilities, resources,
or needs" (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1999). Job work is
somewhat fragmented and has progressed across biophysical, psychological,
sociopsychological and sociological approaches. (Macduff, 2007). Job stress can lead to
poor health and even injury, which is worse. (Jick & Payne, 1980). Numerous research
papers have shown that job stress affects the psychological well-being of social workers
at difference countries (Dobreva-Martinova, 2002; Jalagat, 2017) and even lead to family
issues such as divorce among of some of them (Armstrong, Atkin-Plunk, & Wells, 2015).
Researchers have found out that stress is one of the main factor of intention to leave the
organisation and hence lead to high turnover in the organisation (Mor Barak et al., 2001).
Other than that, stress is often related to the conduct of detrimental jobs, such as
negligence (Spector et al., 2006). On the other hand, psychological well-being has been
found to be related to the high retention rate of social workers within the organisation, and
also employees’ loyalty towards the organization (Koesky, 1995).
There are high levels of error-prone jobs, depression, anxiety, heavy smoking and
sleeplessness among stressed workers (Sukumar & Kanagarathinam, 2015). Job stress has
thus become one of humanity's most prevalent 'occupational diseases' of the century, as it
has affected individuals physically and mentally, especially during economic crises or
downturns (Murali, Basit, & Hassan, 2017). For example, this effect can be seen by a rise
in suicide cases of people under 65 years of age by 0.79 percent for every 1 percent
increase in unemployment and around 4.45 percent in deaths due to alcohol abuse among
15
disadvantaged groups such as under- or low-skilled employees, migrants and contractual
workers (ILO, 2016).
Diseases associated with job stress have increased dramatically across developed
countries, especially diseases related to cardiovascular system such as stroke and heart
attack (Åkerstedt et al., 2004). This led to the loss of productivity by both absenteeism
and presentism (Fonarow & Gawlinski, 2000; Sukumar & Kanagarathinam, 2015).
Therefore, stress reduction programs are increasingly important to promote employee
wellbeing, especially given demographic trends towards older employees following
increasing life expectancy of human-being (Silverstein, 2008). In order to assess
workplace stress and assess the efficacy of stress reduction programs, accurate, valid, real-
time interventions are needed (Metzenthin et al., 2009).
In 2004, for the period from 2005 to 2010, the Danish Government committed
itself to a new prioritization of the work climate, with the Psychosocial Working
Environment (PWE) being one of four focus areas. In April 2007, in order to enforce the
goals, the Working Environment Authority (WEA) introduced a new plan. In order to
increase the emphasis on PWE, among others, an organizational shift took place. The
production and implementation of a guidance method aimed at assessing six risk factors
in the PWE to help inspectors evaluate the PWE was part of the strategy: Quantitative
demands (workload, speed of work); emotional demands (customer/customer/citizens
contact); risk of violence and threats; traumatic experiences; night shift work; and sexual
assault and bullying (Rasmussen, Hansen & Nielsen, 2011).
2.3 Social Workers
Social workers are practitioners whose work facilitates social change, problem
solving in human relationships, empowerment of individuals and independence of
individuals to improve well-being (International Federation of Social Workers, 2014).
Social workers around the world need to understand more about the global factors that
impact communities at different levels of economic growth as this career has developed
16
around the world. Social work intervenes at points where individuals engage with their
surroundings with the use of theories of human behavior and social processes. The values
of human rights and social justice are also central to social work. In addition, there are
broad differences in the field of social work, from clinical social work to community
organization, social policy and planning, and social development, often in private practice
settings. They need to expand their perceptions of the possible contributions of social work
to current problems and concerns, acknowledging that social work covers a wide variety
of methodologies, from therapeutic interventions with people, families and small groups
to community-based interventions, policy practice and social development (Hare, 2004).
Beer (2016) remarked that social work is a highly demanding career, with tension
arising from task contradictions between consumer advocacy and fulfilling the needs of
the organization. Social work is extremely customer-based, with staff engaged in
complicated social circumstances. As such, many of the problems that are apparent in
human service work may be encountered. Social workers can experience greater stress
levels and cause burnout. (Wagaman, Geiger, Shockley, & Segal, 2015). The essence of
social work practice, in particular the conflict between theory and work requirements and
the organisation of the work environment, was described as contributing to stress and
burnout. There has been some evidence that management style and team support are
protective considerations (Lloyd, King, & Chenoweth, 2002).
2.4 Measurement of Stress
Individuals vary in their interpretations of external stimuli-related stress and how

their evaluations translate into physiological stress reactions (Fischer et al., 2000).
Therefore, the work-related stress self-report of individuals helped to provide a more valid
representation of the underlying physiological responses (Metzenthin et al., 2009).
Lee (2016) claimed that Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is one of the common
psychological stress assessment instruments used. It is a self-reported questionnaire and
was explicitly developed to assess the degree to which circumstances are considered
17
stressful in one's life. PSS was a short and simple questionnaire generated with suitable
psychometric properties. It was also recorded that 25 languages other than English are
currently being translated into the PSS.
PSS currently is available in three variants and the original instrument is regarded
as a 14-item scale (PSS-14). The second version (PSS-10) appeared five years later
whereby through factor analysis, the original items were shortened to 10 items. The last
version was later adopted as a short four-item version (PSS-4) and is recommended for
use only in circumstances that involve a very short scale, such as telephone interviews. As
PSS-14 and PSS-4 have been shown to be superior, PSS-10 is generally used as a stress
screening method. Hence, PSS-10 is widely used due to more practical and user friendly
(Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983).
2.5 Factors Leading to Stress
According to Hessels, Rietveld and Van der Zwan (2017), employees face
workplace stress when their job expectations surpass their mental and physical
capabilities. On the other hand, Jick and Payne (1980) argued that one of the causes that
can cause workers to encounter stress is management styles and job responsibilities (i.e.
position conflict); while Macduff (2007) emphasized the role of uncertainty as the key
factor in work dissatisfaction, it is recognized as the source of stress.
Job Demand
While Macduff (2007) highlighted the role of ambiguity in the major job demands
identified by Karasek in terms of the workload borne by employees and often calculated
in terms of the amount of work needed by employees and the time pressure they are under
(Baka, 2018). Whereas Nauman, Raja, Haq, and Bilal (2019) referred job demand as any
physical, social or organizational requirement of a job that requires sustained physical or
mental effort associated with physiological and psychological costs. Job demand was
recognised as main workplace stressor. High job demand could be came from long
18
working hours, too high expectation, depletion of resources such as time, energy and
financial. Higher time consumption demanded by the job has also been studied as a
precursor to work-life disputes such as tension and negative spill-over from work to family
(Duxbury et al., 2008). High job demand also impair one's ability to operate outside of
work, such as one's family and community commitments. (Grotto & Lyness, 2010).
Ellison and Caudil (2020) added that previous researchers have found that workers
with higher job demands and workload pressures may have higher levels of work stress
and that those who perceive inadequate staffing or time to complete their job duties have
a higher level of stress. In addition, in many studies, a heavy workload has been identified
as a major source of stress, according to Adeb-Saeedi (2002). Heavy workload combined
with shortages of workers and a lack of resources can contribute to fatigue, injuries and
poor job results. Previous research has also shown that a work environment in which job
demand is high may have a significant impact on the well-being of workers, such as
burnout, mental fatigue and job dissatisfaction (Nauman, Raja, Haq, & Bilal, 2019)
Employment demand was also suggested as the primary predictor of stress, based
on research conducted by Mukosolu et al. (2015). The outcome showed that Universiti
Putra Malaysia (UPM) respondents faced stress because of high job demands, such as not
being free from the competing demands of others, having to learn new things and working
too hard. This outcome was also confirmed by studies conducted in Malaysia (Ahsan et
al. 2009) and Tanzania (Kitilia, 2014) among university workers, which showed a
statistically significant correlation between work stress and job demand. Furthermore,
studies undertaken by United States (US) government agencies and Universities College
Union (UCU), London, documented the same case in which respondents were at high risk
of developing stress due to job demand. (Court & Kinman, 2009). Therefore, the first
hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H1: There is a significant relationship between job demand and stress among social
workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia.
19
Skill Discretion
Theorell et al. (2016) described skill discretion as the opportunity to improve skills
in the workplace so that the person can exercise control in as many unexpected
circumstances as possible. Skill discretion is usually referred to as the opportunity for a
person to learn and apply his or her own skills in the job process (Del Pozo-Antúnez,
Ariza-Montes, Fernández-Navarro, & Molina-Sánchez, 2018). It was also recognized as
part of work tools that enable staff to retain control of their work, allowing them to cope
with job demands. As a result, the skill discretion gained through the process of learning
new things and cultivating innovation has led to work improvement and stress reduction.
(Chiang, Birtch & Kwan, 2010). However, despite its role in stress in occupational health
psychology being labeled as a key factor, skill discretion in the workplace has not yet been
fully understood to date (Viotti & Converso, 2016).
There has been a lot of evidence that emphasizes the high self-perceived demands,
poor skill discretion and decision-making authority can predict the development of poor
mental and somatic health of employees (Theorell et al., 2016). Also, Trousselard et al.
(2015) claimed that Skill discretion; the level of skill needed, the ability to learn and
improve skills, or the innovative use of these skills on the job, as well as the repetitiveness
or selection of skills used on the job, have been seen as a key factor in job stress. Matthers
and Rutherford (2020) also asserted that Discretion of skills has the greatest indirect effect
on work satisfaction and depersonalization. In addition, it has been shown that having the
ability to use a variety of skills at work is a better insurance against the effects of burnout.
Jalonen et al. (2015) stated that people with high discretion were more relaxed
during their off-time jobs, suggesting that after working hours, people with low job skills
experienced less relaxation. Meanwhile, Mark and Smith (2011) noted that people with
poor work autonomy (i.e. skill discretion) are likely to experience depression and anxiety
as their research found that 21.4 percent of the skill discretion component was anxiety
score and 22.4 percent was depression score. In addition, emotional rumination and
emotional inhabitation were said to play a vital role in the work process, so that a job
20
characterized by high skill discretion was likely important to the target of employees and
is able to evoke physiological, experiential and behavioral responses. Findings by Jalonen
et al. (2015) demonstrated that experiencing high emotional rumination due to job skill
discretion might pose a risk factor for employees to contract chronic health problems due
to prolonged stress-related physiological recovery.
In addition, based on a study conducted in New York City, the results showed that
skill discretion was significantly correlated with each dimension of burnout, such as
depersonalization, selfesteem reduction and emotional exhaustion. Employees with higher
emotional fatigue levels have been reported to experience higher job demands and lower
discretionary abilities (Rafferty, Friend & Landsbergis, 2001). In addition, several studies
that have shown a correlation between work overload, a type of psychosocial stress in the
workplace and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have shown that both
high requirements and low control (i.e. skill discretion) are important to express increased
risk. While others have shown that low job control is more critical than high job demand,
low job control is an independent CVD risk indicator itself. Thus, the second hypothesis
is proposed as follows:
H2: There is a significant relationship between skill discretion and stress among social
Decision Authority
Hessels, Rietveld and Van der Zwan (2017) refer to decision-making authority as
one's ability to determine what job to do and when to do it. It is strongly linked to job
control. Cattell, Edwards and Bowen (2016) added that Employment combined with low
levels of authority and high levels of responsibility has robbed workers of the right to
control their jobs and the working environment. Stress is thus triggered. Other than that,
lack of control can also impact relationships with project team members and supervisors
(i.e., arguments), thus affecting stress levels significantly. It is therefore necessary for the
worker to have control over his or her job.
21
In addition, high-level decision-making authority linked to high job control
allowed workers more flexibility to organize or change work circumstances according to
their own needs so that employees have a say about what happens and afford different
levels of decision-making (Chiang, Birtch and Kwan, 2010). This suggested that
employees would choose their own job tasks with high decision, making it less likely that
the work requirements surpassed the mental and physical resources of the employees.
High decision-making authority thus provides workers with the flexibility to cope
efficiently with workplace stressors by providing the flexibility to perform multiple job
tasks in the order of priorities of employees (Hesels, Rietveld & Van der Zwan, 2017).
Without a dispute, it allows workers to escape or minimize work-related stress by having
strong decision-making authority.
Skill discretion and learning opportunities is associated with high work strain in
works associated with high psychological expectations (i.e. stressful and time-critical
tasks) and low control in areas such as decision-making authority. These may causes
workers to experience high job stress (Sara, Prasad, Eleid, Zhang, Widmer, & Lerman,
2018). The 1979 Job Strain Model of Karasek suggests that workers with an unreasonable
workload are less at risk of mental and physical health issues if greater control is given
over the aspects of the decision about how work should be performed (McCormack &
Cotter, 2013). Furthermore, based on studies carried out on the Karasek model, it was
shown that risk factors in psychological stress and cardiovascular stress were highly
demonstrated among workers characterized by a combination of low decision-making
authority and high job demand (Habibi, Poorabdian, & Shakerian, 2015; Westman, 1992).
Decision authority was therefore a factor often used to characterize the authority one had
to make for task-relevant decisions to manage the job in particular. Having greater job
control, decision-making authority and skill discretion, for example, allowed employees
to have and exercise their discretionary power while serving customers, thereby enhancing
their ability to make appropriate decisions on the spot, thereby reducing stress (Chiang,
Birtch and Kwan, 2010). Therefore, the third hypothesis is proposed as follows:
22
H3: There is a significant relationship between decision authority and stress among social
Management Style
Azizi Zavar et al. (2020) described management style as management's attitude

and vision in the performance of tasks, decision-making functions, methods of
motivational and communication patterns. Management style is the key to deciding the
performance levels of employees within the organization, and most management scholars
agree that management practices can affect the motivation of employees to work. By not
creating the right organizational atmosphere and having a bad management style for the
workforce, workers have increased their chances of attrition, demoralization and poor job
performance (Deeb, 2019; Michie, 2002).
Accariya and Khalil (2016) observed that management within an organization

needs to coordinate a set of activities such as planning, monitoring, oversight, ongoing
data transfer and informed decision-making to achieve the objectives of the organizations.
It was the duty of managers or superiors to build a sense of appreciation for their
employees and consumers as their primary function was to accomplish the goals of
organizations in the most successful and productive way through full use of the resources
available to them. In addition, Katić, Knežević, Berber, Ivanišević, and Leber (2019)
noted that top management needs to build a stress-free welcoming atmosphere such that
top management enables employees to slow down and set reasonable tasks, have more
understanding, and steer the organization equally towards tasks and people. Setting clear
responsibilities, providing input, motivation, creating good contact and productive
professional interactions, for example, are some of the things that managers or supervisors
need to provide (Accariya & Khalil, 2016).
Nishanti and Weerasuriya (2014) stated that a supervisor's style of supervisory

conduct was a significant factor contributing to an organization's success or failure.
Supervisory actions varied from highly autocratic (all top-level decisions) to highly
23
democratic (lower-level decisions taken by staff) and it was believed that the efficacy of
a specific style depended on the organizational situation that existed. For example,
concerning the relationship between the actions of the supervisor and the mood of the
employees, it was found that the interaction of the employees with the supervisor was 80%
positive and 20% negative. Yet the percentage of negative interaction influenced the mood
of the employees five times more than the positive mood of the employees (Mathieu, Fabi,
Lacoursière, & Raymond, 2015).
In addition, it was proposed that the management style of a boss has a positive
influence on employee job satisfaction and thus agency efficiency (Alonderiene, &
Majauskaite, 2016; Grasso, 1994). Support from managers, support from co-workers and
substantial support from others significantly interacts with burnout (emotional exhaustion)
among social workers and therefore mitigates the purpose of employee turnover (Fukui,
Wu, & Salyers, 2019; Um & Harrison, 1998). Individuals who consider workload
expectations to surpass personal resources are at risk of burnout. Better interpersonal
interaction, higher levels of self- and role-differentiation may minimize the effect of stress
by offering insight into ways to handle and avoid individual burnout (Beebe, 2007).
Management types with low decision latitude, unequal treatment, effort-reward

disparity, unreasonable expectations, lack of support and openness, however, have been
identified as leading to job stress (Bhui, Dinos, Galant-Miecznikowska, De Jongh, &
Stansfeld, 2016). Furthermore, other research has shown that the lack of employee
involvement in decision-making, poor organizational communication, lack of family-
friendly practices, poor social atmosphere, and lack of help or assistance from co-workers
and supervisors often contribute to job stress for employees (Shikieri & Musa, 2012).
Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H4: There is a significant relationship between management style and stress among social
workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia
24
Role Conflict
Kahn et al. (1964), the first researchers in the organizational field to systematically
examine role conflict, identified role conflict as the contradiction of two or more role
expectations. Adiguzel and Kucukoglu (2019), on the other hand, described role conflict
as a situation faced by an employee who has to play more than one role expectation while
more than the other needs to fulfill one of the role expectations. Akgunduz (2015) believed
that role conflict arises when workers are faced with demands for various positions,
preventing them from fulfilling the other job when performing one role or having to
perform two roles simultaneously. In general, a mismatch between the anticipated role,
the perceived role and the role played is generated by role conflict. It was noted that
workers need to meet the duties of different workplace positions, so the position lender
faces different role requirements in each of these roles (Adiguzel & Kucukoglu, 2019).
For example, because of so many duties at one time, there are many job roles
experienced by social workers, such as contradictory or unclear job requirements, need to
conduct the interface of service delivery with multiple levels of communities and need to
deal with many crisis situations. Hence, The position dispute that often exists in complex
organizational systems has led the employee to fall into conflict (Adiguzel & Kucukoglu,
2019). Collins (2008) claimed that there were higher levels of stress among social workers
dealing with older adults than those involved in child care work; Whereas Hussein (2018)
argued that, compared to adult social workers, children and family social workers showed
higher levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and often experienced lower
levels of personal achievement. Social work is also a highly stressful career, with tension
arising from task contradictions between client advocacy and the needs of the organization
(Lloyd et al., 2002). Many tasks lead to job overload, which plays a major role in the
stressor-strain process. (Jaramillo, Mulki, & Boles, 2011).
Ram et al. (2011) added that one of the most cited histories of job stress in previous
literature was role conflict. In most Western studies, role conflict, which is pressure to
perform in two or more conflicting ways, was also conclusively linked to occupational
25
stress and it was shown that role conflict was considered a factor in the work
dissatisfaction of employees and the intention to turnover. In terms of psychological
distress, poor work performance and mental wellbeing, robust evidence was found based
on meta-analytic reports on the negative effect of position disputes on employees (Mérida-
López, Extremera, & Rey, 2017). Furthermore, Mansour and Elmorsey (2016) also
claimed position conflict as a workplace stressor negatively linked to the job satisfaction
of workers and organizational engagement. Role conflict has also been shown to be
positively and strongly linked to work stress, as the greater the experience of role conflict,
the greater the work stress registered (Ram et al., 2011)
Mansour (2016) and Orgambídez-Ramos, Borrego-Alés, and Mendoza-Sierra

(2014) reported that high-stress workplaces decrease employee engagement. Employees
are therefore less active and have higher rates of absence than people employed under
lower stress conditions. A global survey showed that 90% of workers were detached from
high-stress levels and 57% of employees felt absolutely disconnected from their
supervisor. Furthermore, the study showed the negative link between high-stress levels
and reduced efficiency, thereby impacting the operation of the company (Mansour, 2016).
Therefore, high-stress workplaces have existed without management consideration for the
remedy, decreasing employee morale, staking organizational reputation and loss of trained
employees (Mansour and Elmorsey, 2016). Therefore, the fifth hypothesis is proposed as
follows:
H5: There is a significant relationship between role conflict and stress among social
Role Ambiguity
Role ambiguity is characterized as a condition arising from ambiguous data about

job descriptions of employees (Widyaningrum & Nora, 2020). Position uncertainty arises
when the role of individuals in the company is unclear or when individuals do not
understand what to do or how to fulfill their role (Akgunduz, 2015). This causes the
26
workers to have no sufficient knowledge about their duty and therefore to be unable to
train well for their work. Therefore, as they felt uncertain about their position in doing a
job, this condition causes stress on the employees. Additionally, role ambiguity, based on
a report, has a positive direct role in job stress. The greater the task uncertainty faced by
employees; the greater work stress they feel (Widyaningrum & Nora 2020).
Mukosolu et al. (2015) found that there was a major correlation between
uncertainty of roles and stress. 19.3 percent of respondents who found their position to be
truly understood still identified a lack of specific goals in their work on the basis of their
findings. This shows that role uncertainty is a risk factor for stress. Ahmad et al. (2011)
reported a similar finding in Pakistan that role uncertainty leads to stress factors and
greater workplace ambiguity occurs among workers due to a lack of clarification about
how to juggle different roles. Plus, Kapusuz (2019) also found that role ambiguity, role
conflict and depression were significantly correlated with nurse work stress, where role
ambiguity was negatively associated with stress and depression, and the negative impact
of role ambiguity increased from -0.217 to -0.254 when coupled with role conflict.
Furthermore, previous research showed that role ambiguity was a major predictor
of burnout (Carlotto, & Câmara, 2019; Pratiwi, Ratnadi, Suprasto, & Sujana, 2019)
Increased emotional fatigue among social workers has been associated with unnecessary
task requirements (Evans et al., 2006; Zellars, Perrewé & Hochwarter, 2000). Therefore,
to properly train and assist social workers, knowing those responsibilities will help. The
everyday work of social workers is difficult, and a lack of appreciation and awareness of
the variety of responsibilities of peers further leads to stressors in their workplace. (Craig
& Muskat, 2013). Therefore, the sixth hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H6: There is a significant relationship between role ambiguity and stress among social
27
2.6 Summary
The literature review highlighted the definitions for social workers of stress and
the essence of company, as this is to improve a deeper understanding of why social
workers appear to have a certain amount of stress. Job demand, skill discretion, decision
authority, management style, role conflict and role ambiguity are the basic factors that
lead to stress.
To find the factors leading to occupational stress, the research would concentrate on
social workers at JKMM. Knowing these variables, as mentioned above, will help to
reduce the barriers (stress) from spreading further among JKMM social workers and find
ways to reduce or prevent job stress.
Any of the management approaches in the management of stress among social

workers in other nations may not be acceptable in Malaysia from the literature review.
The goal of this study is to provide results of the key factors that contribute to stress among
JKMM social workers so that JKMM can take the required intervention measures and help
improve the effectiveness and quality of service of the department to stakeholders.
28
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter underlines the information on “stress among social workers in the
Department of Social Welfare Malaysia” obtained through an empirical research survey
by using questionnaires, covering all aspects of stress among social workers, as well as
addressing the research objective. Subsequently, this chapter also outlines the hypothesis
development and then proposes a theoretical framework. Then, this chapter discusses the
data collection, measurement, data analysis methods and lastly summary is presented.
3.2 Theoretical Framework
Figure 3.1 Conceptual Framework

SOURCE: Illustrated by author
29
3.3 Hypothesis Statement
This study seeks to address the following hypotheses:
H2: There is a significant relationship between skill discretion and stress among
social workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia.
H3: There is a significant relationship between decision authority and stress

among social workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia.
H4: There is a significant relationship between management style and stress

among social workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia
H6: There is a significant relationship between role ambiguity and stress among
social workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia.
3.4 Data Collection Method
Before the questionnaire was distributed to the real respondents, the students of
Malaysia Multimedia University pre-tested the questionnaire (MMU). The usage of the
questionnaire statements is focused on the current scenario that indicates what a social
worker thinks or feels like working in JKMM. The purpose of the questionnaire is to assess
the level of job stress among JKMM social workers and to analyze the relationship
between stress and demographic variables and key factors that are considered to contribute
to stress.
30
A questionnaire survey consisting of three parts gathered the primary data for this
report. Permission was sought from JKMM for prior survey distribution among social
workers in JKMM. Due to the implementation of the Movement Control Oder (MCO) in
Malaysia, the surveys were distributed through the internet to JKMM social workers.
Further explanation regarding scale measurement, questionnaire design, sampling and
analysis method are discussed as follows:
Variable and Data Measurement Scale
The variable of this study had three different scales as below:

Table 3.1 Variables of Study
No. Category Detail
1. Nominal Gender – Female, Male
Posting – JKMN, JKPKMD/J/B, Welfare Institutions,
Placement of State - Every state in Malaysia
Job level – Manager, Supervisor, Staff
2. Ordinal Age group – 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60
Period of Service – Less than 1 year, 1 – 5 years, 6 – 10 years,
More than 10 years
3. Interval Likert Scale of perceived job stress level and factors contribute
towards job stress- job demand, skill discretion, decision
authority, management style, role conflict and role ambiguity
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire is divided into three sections. Section A performs the screening
of respondents by limiting the questionnaire to those social workers working with JKMM.
It also consists of the demographic characteristics of respondents such as age, gender,
education levels, years of service, type of posting and rank-level of the job at JKMM.
31
Section B consists of 10 questions of PSS-10 to assess 10 currently or recently
experienced certain feelings and thoughts. This questionnaire requires respondents to
indicate their agreement or disagreement using a 5-point scale (Likert Scale), ranging from
0 (never) to 4 (very often). The results will determine the level of stress among
respondents. The questions are derived from the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), Cohen
(1988) created a revamped version intended to investigate how volatile, uncontrollable
and overwhelmed respondents find their lives. Table 3.2 presents the items measuring the
stress level of respondents.
Table 3.2 Items Measuring Perceived Stress Level

Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often
0 1 2 3 4
No. Perceived Stress
1 Have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?
2 Have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?
3 Have you felt nervous and stressed?
4 Have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems?
5 Have you felt that things were going your way?
6 Have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?
7 Have you been able to control irritations in your life?
8 Have you felt that you were on top of things?
9 Have you been angered because of things that happened that were outside of
your control?
10 Have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome
them?
32
Section C consists of 45 questions to assess specific factors perceived by
respondents that contribute toward stress. This section requires respondents to indicate
their agreement or disagreement using a 5- and 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. These questions are derived from Karasek’s (1979) Demand-
Decision Latitude; Job psychological demands (7 items), skill discretion (4 items) and
decision authority (4 items); Oldham and Cummings’ (1996) Supportive and Non-
controlling Supervision; supportive supervision (8 items), non-controlling supervision (4
items); and House, Schuler and Levanoni’s (1983) Role Conflict and Ambiguity Scales;
role ambiguity (11 items) and role conflict (7 items). These items are presented as follows:
Table 3.3 Item Measuring Job Demand, Skill Discretion and Decision Authority
Never Almost Never Sometimes Fairly Often Very Often
1 2 3 4 5
No. Job Demand
1 Does your job require working fast?
2 Does your job require working hard?
3 Does your job require a great deal of work to be done?
4 Is there not enough time for you to do your job?
5 Is there excessive work in your job?
6 Do you feel there is not enough time for you to finish your work?
7 Are you faced with conflicting demands on your job?
No. Skill Discretion
1 Is high skill level is required?
2 Are you required to learn new things?
3 Is you work non-repetitions?
4 Does your work require creativity?
33
No. Decision Authority
1 Do you have freedom to decide how to organize your work?
2 Do you have control over what happens on your job?
3 Does your job allow you to make a lot of your own decisions?
4 Are you assisted in making your own decision?
Table 3.4 Items Measuring Management Style
Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly

Neutral
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No. Supportive Supervision
1 Helps me to solve work-related problem
2 Encourage me to develop new skills
3 Keeps informed about how employees think and feel about things
4 Encourages employees to participate in important decision
5 Praises good work
6 Encourages employees to speak up when they disagree with a decision
7 Refuses to explain his or her actions
8 Rewards me for good performance
No. Non-Supportive Supervision
1 Always seems to be around checking on my work
2 Tells me what skills be done and how it shall be done
3 Never gives me a chance to make important decisions on my own
4 Leaves it up to me to decide how to go about doing my job
34
Table 3.5 Items Measuring Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict
Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly

Neutral
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No. Role Ambiguity
1 My authority matches the responsibilities assigned to me
2 I don’t know what is expected of me
3 My responsibilities are clearly defined
4 I feel certain about how much authority I have
5 I know what my responsibilities are
6 I have clear planned goals and objectives for my job
7 The planned goals and objectives are not clear
8 I don’t know how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion
9 I know what is expected of me
10 Explanations are clear of what has to be done
11 My boss makes it clear how he will evaluate my performance
No. Role Conflict
1 I often get myself involved in situations in which there are conflicting requirements
2 There are unreasonable pressures for better performance
3 I am often asked to do things that are against my better judgement
4 I received an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it
5 I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment
6 I receive incompatible requests from two or more people
7 I have to do things that should be done differently under different conditions
35
3.5 Sampling Method
The social workers in JKMM will be the unit of study. Sampling methods used in
this research were the cluster sampling and stratified random sampling.
Cluster sampling refers to a form of system for sampling. The investigator divides
the population into different groups, called clusters, by cluster sampling. A simple random
cluster sample is then selected from the population. On the basis of data from the sampled
clusters, the researcher performs analysis. Cluster sampling involves obtaining a random
sample of population clusters, with all members of each chosen cluster invited to
participate. (Sedgwick, 2014). After a discussion with the management of JKMM, the
cluster sampling method was used. PKMN/PKMD/J/B/Institution from each state will be
selected.
Stratified random sampling is a way of collecting data regarding particular target

audience collections or demographics. These surveys are intended to be representative
only of the particular populations being targeted, although a demographic survey can be
representative of the population as a whole. If a homogeneous group is not the population
from which a sample is to be taken, a stratified sampling method is used to obtain a
representative sample. The population is stratified into many non-overlapping
subpopulations or strata, and sample items are chosen from each stratum. If the items
chosen from each stratum are based on simple random sampling, the whole process is
known as stratified random sampling, first stratification and then simple random sampling
(Jawale, 2012).
3.6 Data Analysis Methods
Data processing and statistical analysis was conducted with the aid of the Social
Science Statistical Kit (SPSS). This is a quantitative analysis analyzing the level of stress
among the JKMM workers. The analysis method consisted of a descriptive description
about characteristics of the study sample, including the mean and standard deviation
36
related to the different demographic variables obtained from the PSS-10 scoring. Where
else, hypothesis of this study will be tested using the Pearson Product-Moment
Correlations test. Lastly, Regression Analysis was conducted to test the relationship
between Independent Variables (factors contributing to stress) and Dependent Variable
(level of stress). This study seeks to answer the objective of the study through the analysis
method as below: -
Objective 1: To investigate the level of stress among social workers in the Department of
Social Welfare Malaysia - a descriptive analysis of mean, standard deviation and cross-
tabulations for demographic variables such as age, gender, rank of job, location and years
of service in JKMM.
Objective 2: To investigate factors contributing to job stress among social workers in the
Department of Social Welfare Malaysia - a descriptive analysis of mean, standard
deviation and cross-tabulations for perceived stress and factors contributing to stress
among social workers in JKMM. Based on the mean scores and standard deviation
readings, the relevant results and outcomes were established.
Objective 3: To investigate the relationship between factors contributing to stress with the
level of stress among social workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia-
Correlation test using Pearson Product-Moment Correlations test to test the
relationship between independent variables and dependent variable, which is to text
significant readings of the coefficient of correlations identified as Hypothesis H1 to H6.
Regression Analysis will also be conducted to identify significant influencing factors that
contribute to job stress among social workers in JKMM.
3.7 Summary
This chapter includes a description of the research methods covering the

theoretical context of this report, the nature of the questionnaire, the method of sampling,
the method of data collection and the method of data analysis. Descriptive analysis,
37
Pearson correlation and Regression analysis was performed with the aid of SPSS software
to evaluate the outlined hypotheses and subsequently address the objectives of this report.
Chapter 4 will further evaluate the results and interpretation of data analysis.
38
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a complete account of the study's findings and analyses
exploring the degree of stress and the causes of stress perceived by JKMM social workers.
Therefore, significant relationships were examined to identify the relationship between
the stress level of social workers and all the variables that cause stress among JKMM
social workers as hypothesized.
A reliability analysis was conducted first, followed by a detailed overview of the

demographic characteristics of the respondents in the survey, followed by a descriptive
review of the main variables in the study. Next, the analysis analyzed correlations between
the level of stress variables and the factors of stress to determine whether it is significant
or not significant.
Regression studies were subsequently carried out to predict the impact of factors
that cause stress on the level of stress among JKMM social workers. To establish the
multiple regression analysis, the R squared (R2) method was applied. The analysis
demonstrates how the dependent variable is explained by independent influences. Focused
on the newly established framework, it embodies the level of fit between the independent
variable and the dependent variable. Finally, the result and explanatory analyses are
examined for each proposed research hypothesis.
4.2 Reliability Analysis
Reliability is known as reliability or continuity. It means that the same thing is

replicated or recurred under similar circumstances over time. In science, the reliability test
tests the degree of consistency between several measurements of a variable. There are
39
many types of reliability checks, but internal consistency is the most used measurement
of reliability. It tests the plausibility of data to see whether it forms a cohesive whole,
matches all else that is known about an entity or case, and avoids common forms of
deception. This test typically evaluates the degree to which items on the scale reflect the
concepts or calculate the same construct. (Newman, 2014).
The rationale of the internal consistency test is to ensure that the same construct is
presented or evaluated by individual items on the scale and is strongly correlated. As no
single item is a perfect measure of a construct, the internal consistency evaluation relies
on a series of tests to evaluate the alpha coefficient for items on the scale. Cronbach’s
alpha is based on the average inter-item correlation. Generally, the agreed level of
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is 0.70 and above (Ramasami, 2007). In this study, in order
to measure the reliability of measured variables, Cronbach’s alpha was used.
Table 4.1 Reliability Test of Each Variable

Variables Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items
Stress Level 0.853 10
Job Demand 0.902 7
Skill Discretion 0.671 4
Decision Authority 0.714 4
Management Style 0.711 12
Role Conflict 0.836 7
Role Ambiguity 0.866 11
Table 4.1 indicates the readings of the reliability test based on each variable. It is
noticed that most of the reliability of the scale indicates above the 0.70 of co-efficiency,
which is the above-recommended level. However, there was one scale where the readings
indicate lower ratings compared to the recommended level which is skill discretion. The
40
skill discretion questionnaire had a moderate internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha
0.671, less than the standard of > 0.7 but it is still high and acceptable.
4.3 Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample
236 respondents had completed the online questionnaires. One survey was
eliminated from the final sample as it did not comply with the listed requirements. Thus,
the final sample size achieved for the study was 235 respondents. The location of the
respondents was from JKMM all over Malaysia.
4.4 Descriptive Responses of Demographic Factors
Table 4.2 Summary of the Demographic Variables
Variables Classifications N Percentage
Gender Male 101 43.0

Female 134 57.0
Age Group 21-30 31 13.2

31-40 138 58.7
41-50 57 24.3
51-60 9 3.8
Manager (Pegawai Pembangunan

Position 29 12.3
Masyarakat, S41–S54)
Supervisor (Penolong Pegawai
Pembangunan Masyarakat, 72 30.6
S29 –S40)
Staff (Pembantu Pembangunan
134 57.1
Masyarakat, S19–S28)
41
Variables Classifications N Percentage
Workplace State Social Welfare Office (JKMN) 129 54.9

District Social Welfare Office
29 12.3
(PKMD/J/B)
Welfare Institutions 77 32.8
Placement Johor 7 3.0

Kedah 39 16.6
Kelantan 8 3.4
Melaka 4 1.6
Negeri Sembilan 7 3.0
Pahang 13 5.5
Perak 18 7.7
Perlis 5 2.1
Pulau Pinang 9 3.8
Sabah 15 6.4
Sarawak 14 6.0
Selangor 69 29.4
Terengganu 18 7.7
WP Kuala Lumpur 9 3.8
Service Period < 1 year 8 3.4

1 – 5 years 50 21.3
6 – 10 years 38 16.2
> 10 years 139 59.1
In Table 4.2, a profile of respondents is given. Of the above findings, 43.0 percent
of respondents were male, while 57.0 percent were female respondents. This percentage
42
is more encouraging that the Malaysia labor work force. According to data by Department
of Statistics Malaysia, in year 2017, Malaysian women show a labor force participation
rate of just over 54.0 percent. This 57.0 percent also higher than the women enrolment in
local universities of 55.0 percent (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2017).
This study finds that the highest proportion of respondents is in the 31-40 age
group, forming 58.7 percent, while 24.3 percent of respondents are in the 41-50 age group,
followed by 13.2 percent of respondents between the ages of 21-30 and 3.8 percent of
respondents in the 51-50 age group.
On the other hand, 57.1 percent of respondents worked as JKMM staff or low-skill
workers (Pembantu Pembangunan Masyarakat, S19-S28), while 30.6 percent came from
JKMM supervisors or semi-skilled workers (Penolong Pegawai Pembangunan
Masyarakat, S29-S40) and only 12.3 percent came from JKMM managers or high-skill
workers (Penolong Pegawai Pembangunan Masyarakat, S29-S40) (Pegawai
Pembangunan Masyarakat, S41-S54). This percentage is different with national Labor
Force Survey (LFS) conducted by Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM), 2019.
According to the LFS conducted by DOSM in 2019, Malaysia's share of high-skill

workers (those working in administrative, specialized or technological roles) is 27.5
percent in terms of employment by skill level. Meanwhile, the proportion of semi-skilled
employees is at 60.1 percent and the proportion of low-skill jobs is at 12.4 percent. This
is due to most of Malaysia's low-skilled jobs being filled by foreign workers. However,
since it is a government agency, JKMM only hires Malaysians. The number of employees
or low-skill staff in this sample is also the highest. This aligns with the composition of the
job or position, as seen in chapter one of Table 1.1.
54.9 percent of respondents work for the State Social Welfare Office (JKMN)
based on the overview in Table 4.2, while 32.8 percent of respondents work for welfare
institutions and just 12.3 percent of respondents work for the District Social Welfare
43
Office (PKMD/J/B). This varies slightly from the composition of the postings in Table
1.2. The explanation for this is due to the nature of the work at PKMD that, with COVID-
19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) conditions, has been applied to most of their time spent on
the field or operational work serving JKMM clients. As the result of this survey, the
participation rate among PKMD/J/B employees is poor.
Furthermore, the location of participants varied between states. With 29.4 percent,
the majority of the respondents were from Selangor, followed by 16.6 percent from Kedah.
This is due to strong support for this study from the management of Selangor and Kedah
State. All other states registered a percentage lower than 10%, that is 7.7 percent from
both Terengganu and Perak; 6.4% out of Sabah and 6.0% out of Sarawak. These were
followed by Pahang's 5.5%, Wilayah Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur's 3.8%, and Kelantan's
3.4%. Finally, 3.0 percent from both Johor and Negeri Sembilan. Only 2.1% for Perlis and
1.6% for Melaka. The small proportion of these two states with regard to the smallest state
in Malaysia, so the number of places in these two states is also the smallest.
59.1 percent of respondents have been with their present jobs for more than 10
years in relation to the service period, 21.3 percent between 1-5 years and 16.2 percent
between 6-10 years. For less than 1 year, only 3.4 per cent remained in the present
employment. This is due to the government's ban on the hiring of new workers and the
development of new vacancies since 2015 (Malaysia Trade Union Congress, 2015).
4.5 Stress Level of Social Workers of JKMM
Table 4.3 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Perceived Stress
44
Items of Perceived Stress Mean SD
Have you been upset because of something that happened

2.06 1.013
unexpectedly?
Have you felt that you were unable to control the

1.63 1.072
important things in your life?
Have you felt nervous and stressed? 1.72 1.120
Have you felt confident about your ability to handle your

1.10 1.002
personal problems?
Have you felt that things were going your way? 1.54 .833
Have you found that you could not cope with all the things
1.77 .999
that you had to do?
Have you been able to control irritations in your life? 1.40 .983
Have you felt that you were on top of things? 1.60 .828
Have you been angered because of things that happened

1.90 .960
that were outside of your control?
Have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you

1.78 1.058
could not overcome them?
Overall 1.65 0.9868
The average scores and standard deviations of each component in the dependent
variable, Stress, are shown in Table 4.3. In general, the mean stress perceived by social
workers is 1.65 (SD = 0.9868), which suggests that JKMM employees are perceived to
be moderately stressed, whereby the average stress level of respondents is around 2
points out of a 4-point scale.
Scores ranging from 0-13 would be considered low stress, scores ranging from 14-
26 would be considered moderate stress, according to Cohen, Kamarck, and Mermelstein
(1983), whereas scores ranging from 27-40 would be considered high perceived stress.
Therefore, 16.5 out of 40 points of the overall score of the stress level of the respondents,
45
with an average of the grand total score, the social workers of JKMM certainly endured a
moderate stress level.
Table 4.4 Mean and Standard Deviation of Stress Scores of Demographic Profile
Demographic Classifications Mean SD
Gender Male 15.99 6.84

Female 16.87 6.22
Age Group 21-30 17.29 6.92

31-40 15.91 6.43
41-50 17.89 6.01
51-60 13.89 8.02
Rank Manager 17.76 7.48

Supervisor 17.01 6.34
Staff 15.94 6.35
Service Period < 1 year 17.25 5.44

1 -5 years 17.60 6.44
6 – 10 years 16.24 7.72
>10 years 16.12 6.23
Workplace JKMN 17.02 6.37

PKMD/J/B 15.62 7.29
Welfare Institutions 15.93 6.41
Placement State Johor 15.86 5.43
46
Demographic Classifications Mean SD
Kedah 17.28 6.14

Kelantan 18.00 6.32
Melaka 19.25 9.43
Negeri Sembilan 21.43 6.95
Pahang 17.92 6.05
Perak 14.17 7.36
Perlis 16.20 4.50
Pulau Pinang 16.56 7.11
Sabah 17.00 7.46
Sarawak 16.00 5.08
Selangor 15.94 6.43
Terengganu 16.00 5.50
WP Kuala Lumpur 15.00 9.50
Female respondents have a higher mean stress level (M = 16.87, SD = 6.22)

compared to male respondents (M = 15.99, SD = 6.84), according to Table 4.4 shown
above. This is well illustrated by Gurvich et al. (2020) that women have more depression,
anxiety, and stress levels than men.
As far as the age group is concerned, respondents aged 41-50 have the highest
mean stress level score (M = 17.89, SD = 6.01), followed by respondents aged 21-30 (M
= 17.29, SD = 6.92), 31-40 (M = 15.91, SD = 6.43) and finally 51-60 (M = 13.89, SD =
8.02). This is consistent with Deschamps et al. (2003), which recorded a higher level of
stress among groups of French policemen between the ages of 40 to 50 years.
Furthermore, the mean stress level score for manager Pegawai Pembangunan
Masyarakat (M = 17.76, SD = 7.48) is marginally higher than for other ranks, supervisor
Penolong Pegawai Pembangunan Masyarakat (M = 17.01, SD = 6.34) and staff Pembantu
47
Pembangunan Masyarakat (M = 15.94, SD = 6.35). This is because the management level
has a strong stressor on the operational, management and organizational dimensions to
deal with. (Deschamps et al., 2003).
In addition, the mean stress level of respondents working 1-5 years is the highest
(M = 17.60, SD = 6.44), while respondents who have worked for more than 10 years with
an average of 16.12 and a standard deviation of 6.234 are the lowest. Respondents who
worked for less than 1 year and 6-10 years respectively have a mean of 17.25 and 16.24
with a standard deviation of 5.44 and 7.72. Balloch, Pahl, & McLean (1998) reported that
the risk of stress is higher for younger workers with less work experience.
On the other hand, the mean stress score level for respondents posted at JKMN is
highest (mean = 17.02, standard deviation = 6.41); compared to respondents posted at
PKMD/J/B (mean = 15.62, standard deviation = 7.29) and Welfare Institutions (mean =
15.93, standard deviation = 6.41). This is because JKMN's job demand is high and not
only fixes the operational position of serving customers, but JKMN also has a state-level
management role and organizational stressor to deal with the headquarters in Putrajaya.
Finally, respondents who worked in Negeri Sembilan reported the highest mean
score level of stress (mean = 21.43, standard deviation = 6.95) followed by Melaka (mean
= 19.25, standard deviation = 9.43), Kelantan (mean = 18.00, standard deviation = 6.32),
Pahang (mean = 17.92, standard deviation = 6.05), Kedah (mean = 17.28, standard
deviation = 6.14), Sabah (mean = 17.00, standard deviation = 7.46), Pulau Pinang (mean
=16.56, standard deviation =7.11), Perlis (mean = 16.20, standard deviation = 4.50),
Sarawak (mean = 16.00, standard deviation = 5.08), Terengganu (mean = 16.00, standard
deviation = 5.50), Selangor (mean = 15.94, standard deviation =6.43), Johor (mean =
15.86, standard deviation = 5.43) and Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (mean = 15.00,
standard deviation = 9.50). Plus, respondents who worked at Perak has the lowest mean
score of stress level (mean = 14.17, standard deviation = 7.36) compared to other state.
48
Negeri Sembilan reported the highest mean stress score level since Negeri
Sembilan reported a substantial increase in the number of COVID-19 cases during the
data collection period. On 7 December 2020, Negeri Sembilan reported 541 new cases out
of a total of 1,600 new cases across the country. This unprecedented pandemic could
therefore increase the workload of JKMM social workers in Negeri Sembilan, such as
long working hours, an uncertain job situation and ad hoc tasks in providing relief to
unfortunate individuals affected by COVID-199 (Berita Harian on 7 December 2020).
4.6 Descriptive Characteristics of the Variables
Working represents associate their experience of stress with each of these

constructs, composite variables (job demand, skill discretion, decision authority,
management style, role ambiguity and role conflict) were created. The proposed
composition of these variables as outlined in Chapter 3 and is reported in Appendix B.
The mean scores and standard deviations of these composite variables are crucial to find
out what are the significant sources of stress and to understand how these JKMM’s social
workers experience stress.
Table 4.5 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Job Demand
Items of Job Demand Mean SD
Does your job require working fast? 4.11 0.852
Does your job require working hard? 3.93 0.862
Does your job require a great deal of work to be done? 4.07 0.905
Is there not enough time for you to do your job? 3.49 1.182
Is there excessive work in your job? 3.60 1.129
Do you feel there is not enough time for you to finish your
3.37 1.225
work?
Are you faced with conflicting demands on your job? 2.91 1.237
Overall 3.64 1.056
49
In this study, the respondents responded to the job demands’ items using a 5-point
Likert scale. Based on Table 4.5, the average value for the scale is 3.64 (SD = 1.056). Any
mean value response for the variable less than 3 would indicate low-level disagreement
whereas any means higher than 3 indicates high-level agreement of that variable. Thus,
the result indicates that the respondents experience a moderate level of job demand.
Table 4.6 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Skill Discretion
Items of Skill Discretion Mean SD
Is high skill level is required? 3.94 0.811
Are you required to learn new things? 4.02 0.814
Is you work non-repetitions? 2.89 0.994
Does your work require creativity? 3.95 0.912
Overall 3.70 0.8828
According to Table 4.6, the average score of the skill discretion variable with the
same 5-point Likert scale is 3.70 (SD = 0.8828). Similarly, the mean value of skill
discretion is also indicating that the respondents experienced a moderate skill level to
perform tasks.
Table 4.7 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Decision Authority
Items of Decision Authority Mean SD
Do you have freedom to decide how to organize your work? 3.40 0.997
Do you have control over what happens on your job? 3.40 0.921
Does your job allow you to make a lot of your own

3.13 1.058
decisions?
Are you assisted in making your own decision? 3.33 0.939
Overall 3.32 0.9788
50
The decision authority variable has an average value of 3.32 with a standard
deviation of 0.9788. This indicates that the respondents expressed a moderate agreement
towards this variable. Simultaneously, this shows the importance role of this factor in
influencing the stress level experienced by respondents.
Table 4.8 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Management Style
Items of Management Style Mean SD
Helps me to solve work-related problem 4.91 1.447
Encourage me to develop new skills 5.02 1.373
Keeps informed about how employees think and feel about

4.79 1.383
things
Encourages employees to participate in important decision 4.95 1.406
Praises good work 4.91 1.529
Encourages employees to speak up when they disagree with a

4.64 1.566
decision
Refuses to explain his or her actions 4.26 1.461
Rewards me for good performance 4.66 1.537
Always seems to be around checking on my work 3.31 1.442
Tells me what skills be done and how it shall be done 3.13 1.497
Never gives me a chance to make important decisions on my

4.83 1.489
own
Leaves it up to me to decide how to go about doing my job 4.77 1.340
Overall 4.52 1.456
Table 4.8 demonstrates the management style variable, with a 7-point Likert scale,
has a mean of 4.52 and a standard deviation of 1.456. Any mean value response for the
variable less than 4 would indicate low-level disagreement whereas any means higher than
4 indicates strong agreement of that variable. The average value of this variable therefore
51
suggests that respondents have demonstrated a high degree of satisfaction with the
organization's current management style.
Table 4.9 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Role Ambiguity
Role Ambiguity Mean SD
My authority matches the responsibilities assigned to me 3.23 1.387
I don’t know what is expected of me 3.20 1.471
My responsibilities are clearly defined 2.92 1.363
I feel certain about how much authority I have 3.30 1.336
I know what my responsibilities are 2.18 1.115
I have clear planned goals and objectives for my job 2.27 1.191
The planned goals and objectives are not clear 3.44 1.684
I don’t know how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion 3.90 1.778
I know what is expected of me 2.85 1.421
Explanations are clear of what has to be done 2.92 1.398
My boss makes it clear how he will evaluate my performance 3.38 1.671
Overall 3.06 1.438
The respondents also responded to the items of role ambiguity using a 7-point
Likert scale. Table 4.9 shows that the average value for the scale is 3.06 (SD = 1.438).
Similarly, for the variable less than 4, any means value answer will imply low level
disagreement, while any means greater than 4 indicates strong agreement with that
variable. The mean value of role ambiguity therefore suggests that the respondents
encounter a low degree of disagreement in the workplace about role ambiguity.
Table 4.10 Mean and Standard Deviation Scores of Role Conflict
52
Role Conflict Mean SD
I often get myself involved in situations in which there are

4.09 1.566
conflicting requirements
There are unreasonable pressures for better performance 4.11 1.699
I am often asked to do things that are against my better judgement 3.46 1.599
I received an assignment without adequate resources and

4.09 1.759
materials to execute it
I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment 5.67 1.258
I receive incompatible requests from two or more people 3.97 1.612
I have to do things that should be done differently under different

4.67 1.485
conditions
Overall 4.30 1.568
The role conflict variable, like the management style variable, has a high average value
(M = 4.30, SD = 1.568). This suggests that a clear consensus was expressed by the
respondents on this variable. At the same time, this illustrates the significant role of this
factor in affecting the level of stress encountered by respondents.
4.7 Research Question and Hypotheses
A review of the literature on job stressors highlighted the fact that little is actually
understood about the impact of the stress levels of social workers in JKMM. The level of
stress measurement was collected from job incumbents in order to resolve this gap in the
literature and to solve model variance issues, whereas measurements of stress factors were
obtained from a variety of sources.
In addition, answers to the following research questions and hypotheses will

provide researchers with insight into the effects of job stress on organizational
performance. This will help professionals, leaders and companies in human resource
development as a whole as they aim to build a balanced workforce while confronting the
53
complexities of assessing and maximizing organizational effectiveness. In determining
the major sources of stress perceived by respondents, the mean scores and standard
deviation readings were taken into account.
Pearson Correlation
Using Pearson Correlation Analysis, the correlation or relationship between the

dependent variable (level of stress) and the independent variables was tested as described
above. In this research, the significance level was set at p < .05. If the constructs score less
than .05, i.e. p < .05, it means that the constructs are significant and have
interrelationships. However, if the constructs score higher than .05, i.e. p >.05, it stipulates
that the constructs are insignificant and do not have any connection with each other.
Looking at the coefficient of correlation, the result would show +1 if the variables
have a positive relationship with each other. If the result indicates a value of -1, on the
other hand, it means that the variables have a negative relationship with each other, while
a score of 0 means that there is no relationship between the variables (Cohen, 1988).
The Pearson Correlation Analysis was conducted to examine the level of stress
among JKMM social workers and their relationship with the independent variables
consisting of job demand, skill discretion, decision authority, management style, role
ambiguity and role conflict factors. Out of six independent variables, five of them have
been found to have a significant relationship with stress, except skill discretion has no
relationship with stress.
Table 4.11 Pearson Correlation among Psychological Tests

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perceived
-
Stress
Job Demand .337** -
54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Perceived
-
Stress
Skill
.053 .436** -
Discretion
Decision
-.325** -.021 .230** -
Authority
Management
-.341** -.110 .095 .431** -
Style
Role Conflict .421** .560** .308** -.069 -.201** -
Role
.615** .262** -.081 -.523** -.650** .409** -
Ambiguity
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Hypothesis 1
Table 4.11 shows r = .337, p <.05 which indicates that the job demand has a positive
significant relationship with stress. Thus, hypothesis 1 is not rejected. According to Cohen
(1988), there is moderate relationship between job demand and stress among social
Hypothesis 2
H2: There is a significant relationship between skill discretion and stress among social
Table 4.11 shows that the skill discretion has no relationship with stress (r = 0.053, p
>.05). Hence, hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Hypothesis 3
55
H3: There is a significant relationship between decision authority and stress among social
There is a negative significant relationship between decision authority and level of stress
(r = -.325, p <.05). Hypothesis 3 is not rejected. According to Cohen (1988), there is a
moderate relationship between decision authority and stress among social workers in the
Department of Social Welfare Malaysia.
Hypothesis 4
H4: There is a significant relationship between management style and stress among social
Table 4.11 demonstrates r = -.341, p <.05 which indicates that the management style has
a negative significant relationship with stress. Thus, hypothesis 4 is not rejected.
According to Cohen (1988), there is a moderate relationship between management style
and stress among social workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia.
Hypothesis 5
There is a positive significant relationship between role conflict and job stress (r = .421,
p <.05). Hypothesis 5 is not rejected. According to Cohen (1988), there is a moderate
relationship between role conflict and stress among social workers in the Department of
Social Welfare Malaysia.
Hypothesis 6
H6: There is a significant relationship between role ambiguity and job stress among social
56
Table 4.11 indicates that role ambiguity has a positive relationship with job stress (r =
0.615, p <.05). Hence, hypothesis 6 is not rejected. According to Cohen (1988), there is a
strong relationship between role ambiguity and stress among social workers in the
Based on the previous correlational analysis, the results are summarized as follow:
Table 4.12 Summary of Hypothesis Test Results

Hypotheses Results
H1: There is a significant relationship between job demand and stress Supported
H2: There is a significant relationship between skill discretion and Not Supported
stress among social workers in the Department of Social Welfare
Malaysia.
H3: There is a significant relationship between decision authority and Supported

Malaysia.
H4: There is a significant relationship between management style and Supported

Malaysia
H5: There is a significant relationship between role conflict and stress Supported
H6: There is a significant relationship between role ambiguity and Supported

Malaysia.
57
Multiple Regression
Multiple regression analysis is used in order to predict the job stress faced by social
workers in JKMM. Analysis procedures for multiple regression (MLR) are used to create
a relationship pattern between a collection of predictors on the outcome variable. The
independent variables are also called the predictor variables and the dependent variable is
also called the outcome variable. On a continuous or discrete scale, both the predictor and
outcome variable variables are evaluated. R-squared (R2 or R2) was introduced because it
embodies the consistency of fit between the variables. In this study, MLR can be used to
address the third research questions in chapter one:
• How well a set of variables/predictors can predict/explain a particular outcome

(dependent variable)
• Which variable in a set of variables is the best predictor of an outcome
• Whether a predictor variable is still able to predict an outcome when the effects of
another variable are controlled for.
Table 4.13 Regression Analysis of Perceived Stress on Social Workers of JKMM
Model Summary
Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate
1 .655 .429 .414 4.97689
Predictors: Job demand, skill discretion, decision authority, management style, role
ambiguity, role conflict
Dependent: Stress
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 4235.300 6 705.883 28.498 .000
Residual 5647.440 228 24.769
Total 9882.740 234
Coefficients
58
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) -3.588 4.476 -.802 .424
Job demand .131 .071 .120 1.848 .066
Skill discretion .025 .152 .010 .165 .869
Decision authority -.148 .138 -.065 -1.070 .286
Management style .063 .051 .083 1.240 .216
Role ambiguity .340 .049 .546 7.001 .000
Role conflict .116 .054 .140 2.135 .034
Dependent Variable: Stress
The outcome for this framework showed that R2 equals 0.41 (F= 28.50, p <.05).
This means that the independent variables which consist of role conflict and role
ambiguity can influence 41% of the job stress among social workers in JKMM.
Nonetheless, other factors such as job demand, skill discretion, decision authority and
management style do not contribute significantly to predict job stress among social
workers in JKMM as the achieved p-value exceeds the significant p-value (p =.05).
Based on Table 4.13 above, it was found that there are two independent variables
that contributed to the prediction score of level of stress among social workers in JKMM
which are role conflict and role ambiguity. The strength of each variable is measured using
Beta Coefficient (β). The highest beta belongs to role ambiguity with a score of 0.34
(t=7.0, p <.05) which means that it is the strongest predictor compared to role conflict
0.116 (t =.21, p <.05). Therefore, H5 and H6 are not rejected and have a significant impact
on job stress among social workers in JKMM.
Nevertheless, the other independent variables such as job demand, skills

discretion, decision authority and management style (H1, H2, H3 and H4) have no
significant influence on job stress among social workers in JKMM because the results are
exceeding than 5 percent significant level (p >.05). Thus, these four independent variables
59
do not contribute significantly to predict job stress when the other variables are
statistically controlled.
Regression equation for the model

Stress Level = β0 + β1 Job Demand + β2 Skill Discretion + β3 Decision Authority + β4
Management Skill + β5 Role Conflict + β6 Role Ambiguity + ε
SL = -3.59 + (.131JD) + (.025SD) + (-.148DA) + (.063MS) + (.34RC) + (.116RA)
From the equation, the beta value for the constant term in the equation is -3.59
which shows that it is insignificant (t =.802, p >.05). This means that the constant term is
equal to zero and the β0 ≠ 0.41% is rejected for the independent variables to be able to
explain the job stress among social workers in JKMM. Additionally, with every one-point
increase in the level of stress, there will an increase of 0.131 points of job demand when
the other independent variables are controlled. Similarly, with every one-point increase of
job stress, there will be an increase of 0.025 points of skill discretion when the other five
variables are controlled. This is followed by increasing of 0.063 points of management
style, 0.34 points of role conflict and 0.116 points of role ambiguity will increase one-
point of the level of stress except for decision authority, for with every one-point increase
of job stress there will be a decrease of 0.148 points of decision authority when the other
five variables are controlled.
4.8 Summary
According to the results produced, the highest score was obtained by role
ambiguity, which also represents the strongest relationship among other variables with the
level of stress among social workers in JKMM. Overall, all the suggested hypotheses, with
the exception of H2, are not rejected and that independent variables have a significant
relationship with the level of stress.
In addition, this study showed that the level of stress among social workers in
JKMM would only have the most precise prediction through role conflict and role
60
ambiguity factor using multiple regression analysis. It can be summarized by indicating
that role conflict and role ambiguity variables can affect 41 percent of job stress.
61
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study is to find the significant sources of stress and its
correlations among demographic factors and sources of stress perceived by social workers
in JKMM. This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section will provide a
summary of the research study. The second section will discuss the finding from this
study. The third section will detail the conclusions from this study, and the fourth section
will highlight the limitations of this study. Finally, section five will discuss the implication
for practice and recommendations for future study.
5.2 Summary of the Findings

In many jobs, stress is a concern, especially those involving high stakes, multiple
interactions and emotional investment. Stress can lead to a lot of psychological disorders,
such as heart and stomach diseases (Hirokawa et al., 2016). Similarly, Mather et al. (2015)
also highlighted that stress is one of the risk factors for illness and disease. Occupational
or job stress has been proven to have a detrimental effect on the functioning of individuals
in organisations, such as lost hours of absenteeism, decreased productivity, and morals for
workers. Stress was also declared by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
as a workplace threat that stress is closely linked to the rise in injury rates, relationship
issues, drug addiction and alcohol abuse.
Moreover, since 18 Mac 2020, Movement Control Order (MCO) has been
implemented by the government of Malaysia with the current threat of COVID-19
pandemic. For months, the lockdown between states caused employees to be confused by
the new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Employees were uncertain about where and
how to work, especially with limited infrastructure and no clear direction for the new
62
expectations for their work (Anderson & Kelliher, 2020). Therefore, workers need to
adjust to a new working atmosphere with little notice and little preparation time. The threat
of safety and social distancing for the need of personal protection against COVID-19
infection would also cause tension among employees..
The companies have requested their workers to "Work from Home" (WFH) during
the lockout period due to the government's mandate, and this policy has now become a
popular practice due to advances in digital technology (ICTs). However, during lockdown,
the situation at home was very different, whereby all family members were trapped inside
the home together. Indeed, this situation had given an opportunity for family bonding.
However, on the contrary, it created problems for employees to juggle their job as they
need to fulfill their family responsibilities and also an employees at the same time.
Employees may have felt mental fatigue and emotional exhaustion due to this conflict
between work and family demands (Bhumika, 2020).
The literature suggesting that among social workers, there is a strong perception
pertaining to stress as a problem associated with job demand, decision authority, skill
discretion, management style, role ambiguity and role conflict. Therefore, this study is
conducted to examine the level of stress among social workers and the association of
factors of stress using Pearson Product Moment Correlation design and regression
analysis. This research included 235 JKMM social workers in Malaysia. The participants
ranged from 21 to 60 years of age, including both males and females. The percentage of
the respondents' positions is also close to the percentage of JKMM positions as seen
below:
Table 5.1 Position in JKMM and Percentage Respondents

No. Category Total % Number of respondents %
1 Manager 358 10.8 29 12.3

2 Supervisor 1078 32.7 72 30.6
63
3 Staff 1865 56.5 134 57.1
Total 3301 100.0 235 100.0
Based on demographic background analysis, the sample reported a relatively

moderate level of stress experienced by social workers of JKMM. However, when the
analysis is broken down by rank of social workers, respondents at the level of manager
reported the highest mean score of stress level on the PSS scale compared to supervisor
and staff. This is likely due to their disparity in stress factors studied, such as work demand,
decision-making authority and role conflict. As a manager, their duties are even greater
because they are fully involved in overseeing the department's overall operations,
planning, assessing and maximizing the effectiveness of programs to achieve the
organisational mission.
For instance, according to the Official Portal of Public Services of Commission of

Malaysia (2020), the social workers of management and professional services (i.e. Grade
41) are responsible for the implementation of department-level policies, administrative
matters and the implementation of the training programs designed by the Ministry. So,
depending on the rank of social workers and the needs they have to contribute when they
hold the position, the job demand, decision authority and role conflict can differ. Therefore,
the higher the rank of an employee, the greater the degree of difficulties in their scope of
work.
Besides, when it comes to the years of service of social workers, the findings
indicate that respondents who had worked for 1 to 5 years have the highest mean score of
stress. They are in the learning mill to adapt and familiarize themselves with their current
work environment, particularly in terms of job structure, workload, organizational role,
engagement, and control of their work environment. Usually, the younger staff are
apportioned with varying tasks with limited time to close their cases. So, the longer an
employee serves in JKMM , the lower the level of stress encountered by that employee as
they are already familiar and comfortable with their duties. Experince allows them to
64
manage workload, organizing capacity, engagement and the ability to manage and control
their work environment. Therefore, workers are able to reduce the risk of job stress by
defining and recognizing their work and environmental design. Employees who are clear
and experienced with their organizational structure, policies and job descriptions will keep
them from feeling work stress
Therefore, workers are able to reduce the risk of job stress by defining and
recognizing their work and environmental design. Employees who are clear about their
organizational structure, policies and job descriptions will keep them from feeling work
stress (Leka, Griffiths & Cox, 2004).
Lastly, when the analysis is broken down into posting, the respondents of JKMN
in Negeri Sembilan reported a higher mean score level of stress, contrary to other groups.
This may be attributed to the recent global pandemic problem that has led to a rise in the
workload of social workers due to the rising incidence of victims of COVID-19 over time.
For example, Sulaiman (2020) reported in Berita Harian that over time, Negeri Sembilan
reported a large rise in the number of cases of COVID-19, with the highest number of new
cases of COVID-19 reported on 7 December, with 541 cases out of a total of 1,600 cases
reported. This unprecedented COVID-19 could also impact the increased burden of
JKMM social workers in Negeri Sembilan, such as long working hours, an uncertain job
situation and ad hoc tasks involved in providing relief to unfortunate individuals affected
by COVID-19, especially people with household income less than RM2,500 (B40), single-
parent family and disabled people.
The main finding of this study pertaining to the relationship of stress level with
the core variables revealed that: -
i. There is a strong positive relationship between role ambiguity (H6) with stress
among social workers in the Department of Social Welfare Malaysia;
65
ii. There is a moderate positive relationship between job demand (H1) and role
conflict (H5) with stress among social workers in the Department of Social
Welfare Malaysia;
iii. There is a moderate negative relationship between decision authority (H3) and
management style (H4) with stress among social workers in the Department of
Social Welfare Malaysia;
iv. Independent variables which consist of role conflict and role ambiguity can
influence 41% of the level of stress. Therefore, H5 and H6 are not rejected and
have a significant impact on stress among social workers in the Department of
Social Welfare Malaysia;
v. Role ambiguity has the strongest predictor compared to role conflict; and
vi. Skill discretion (H2) has no relationship with stress among social workers in the
According to Kassim, Ismail and Ismail (2018), at an unprecedented rate, the

incidence of job stress has risen. The prevalence of work stress was recorded from as low
as 6.0 percent to up to 71.7 percent on the basis of a systematic search of articles carried
out in multiple databases published between 2008 and 2017. For each work group, job
stress predictors were often varied, but they share the same effects that job stress cost
companies literally billions of dollars through increased health care expenses,
absenteeism, turnover, decreased efficiency or productivity (Munich Personal RePEc
Archive, 2008; Judge & Larsen, 2001; Liaudanskiene & Ustinovichius, 2010). Therefore,
it is necessary for organizations to address the levels of work or job stress among their
employees and factors that trigger stress in order to maintain organizational functioning
and thus reduce the risk of being lost.
Relationship between Job Stress and Organizational Effectiveness

In the case of individuals' negative perceptions about their workplace, job stress
and job dissatisfaction are the most common outcomes (Kalliath & Kalliath, 2013). A key
factor in work dissatisfaction is job stress. Job immediate and extended in productivity
66
and happiness as job stress acts as a motivator, thereby reducing mundanity and boredom.
However, when job stress acts as a negative factor, there is violence and low job
satisfaction and therefore the turnover intention rate among employees increases. In reality,
job stress accounted for 50 to 60% of all missed working days, and this figure was
troubling as it demonstrated that stress not only affected the well-being of workers, but
also weakened the productivity of an organization. (Hoboubi et al., 2017). Hence, it is
very important to address the level of stress among employees in the organizations.
In addition, role ambiguity and role conflict are among the stress factors that have
the greatest effect on the rising level of stress among employees. This can be linked to the
organization's position, as the organization itself generates various types of risks. A
successful employer structures and handles jobs in a way that eliminates common stress
risk factors and avoids foreseeable issues as far as possible. The organization's
effectiveness is therefore determined by clearly identifying job scope, position and
responsibilities by the employee. This minimizes the potential for role conflict and role
ambiguity faced by employees, thus reducing the level of job stress. (Leka, Griffiths &
Cox, 2004).
Finally, the literature highlighted that work stress can threaten organizational
performance as workers are at risk of burnout as a result of high stress. Although work is
not an uncommon occurrence for workers for too long, the reality remains that excessive
workload and strain are recognized as prime burnout correlates. Burnout is a major
concern as it has been correlated with substantial costs, such as vulnerability to somatic
complaints, cardiovascular disease, reduced work satisfaction, and diminished creativity
and innovation for both individuals and organizations (Fernet, Torrès, Austin & St-Pierre,
2016).
In addition, there was a strong correlation between the work stress score of
employees and their intentions to stay with the organization through past research, their
overall job satisfaction, employee motivation to help the organization succeed, and
67
employee performance evaluation ratings (Ismail et al., 2015; Ainer, Subramaniam &
Arokiasamy, 2018). These relations are further discussed in the next sub-topics.
Organizational Consequences of Occupational Stress (Turnover

Intention)
The current study discovered that the overall job stress, as evidenced by scores on
the Perceived Stress Score (PSS-10) was relatively moderate (M = 16.5) among social
workers of JKMM. Plus, this study also reveals that role conflict and role ambiguity
contribute 41% towards the level of stress among those employees and majority of
investigated core variables (i.e. job demand and management style) were significantly
correlated with employees’ stress levels.
These statistics reflect the need for employees to worry about the shortage of staff,
role conflict and role ambiguity, as well as the management style of the organization, as
the above factors may adversely affect the decision of the staff to withdraw from practice.
This is to stop employees from finding another job that results in the loss of the company
and reduces its organisational performance. In addition, the company must pay attention
to the importance of job stress and job dissatisfaction, as these lead to other unwanted
consequences in the workplace, such as low efficiency, absenteeism and significant
turnover of employees (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Islam & Ahmed, 2018; Nisar
& Rasheed, 2019).
Overall Employee Satisfaction

Studies show that job stress is directly associated to job satisfaction and the
physical and mental health of workers. Job satisfaction is said to increase the role of social
workers within the organization and decrease absenteeism, increase retention and improve
the quality of services provided to society, while dissatisfaction could lead to the opposite
(Calitz, Roux & Strydom, 2014).
68
In addition, it was found that greater employee perceived stress was associated
with lower levels of satisfaction and greater intentions to leave the organization
(Zunaidah, Nengyanti & Hadjri, 2019). For example, law enforcement personnel such as
the police and military are primarily responsible for the functioning of society, and this
job is very important as it concerns the safety of a nation and the well-being of society.
Nevertheless, it is only possible for society to run efficiently when the workforce is
incredibly satisfied with their jobs. The tension and frustration of workers is therefore
worth considering by the company.
Collins (2008) concluded that most social workers lack job satisfaction and have
a low level of work morale because of stress. Mitchell (2000) (in Ramasami, 2007) Job
satisfaction and job stress have shown the strongest relationship among all levels of the
organization. Similarly, a study conducted by Moses, Walters and Fisher (2016) showed
that job satisfaction was significantly linked to job stressors and supports, and these
variables explained 44% of the variability in employee satisfaction. The findings of this
study therefore further emphasize the importance of paying attention to lower the levels
of occupational stress and also control the factors that lead to stress, in order to minimize
work dissatisfaction or burnout among employees.
Employee Motivation
A study conducted by Ramasami (2007) found that the morale of employees was
the attitude variable that had the strongest link with occupational stress. A lower degree
of motivation or intensity to help their employer was stated to be associated with higher
levels of job stress and thus higher employee turnover. George and K. A. (2015) remarked
that employees will be motivated to perform their job when they perceived their job as
meaningful, enjoyable and appreciated. Compare to those with low stress, high motivation
and high satisfaction staffs; those working under stressful, low-motivated and dissatisfied
organisation, unable to perform well and subsequently lead to lower quality of work and
less productivity. Ultimately, these victims of job stress will be exposed to loss of trust,
demotivation, elevated blood pressure, and high intention to turnover.
69
Likewise, Khuong & Linh (2020) conducted a study investigating the effects of
job stressors on the morale, job satisfaction and loyalty of employees in the hospitality
industry. They find that motivation has a huge effect on both companies and individuals
as motivation contributes to positive behaviors and employee enthusiasm behavior at
work. In addition, motivated workers will inspire their teams who may have contributed
significantly to collaboration, organizational effectiveness and productivity activities.
Motivation also helps promote and enhance the capacity of workers to complete their tasks
with their best efforts. Job stress, however, definitely has a detrimental effect because it
can reduce employee motivation and morale. Thus, reducing the stress of employees
would significantly lead to the increase in the commitment of employees to perform their
jobs.
In the current study, chapter 4 revealed positive significant relationships among

stress and job demand (r = .337), role conflict (r = .421) and role ambiguity (r = .615) and
negative significant relationships among stress and decision authority (r = -.325) and
management style (r = -.341). Overall, as evidenced by scores on the PSS-10, job stress
levels among employees demonstrated the strongest relationship with role ambiguity.
Therefore, stressors mainly role ambiguity greatly demotivate the employees. By
controlling variable stressors that pressure employees to their minimum level, employees
would be encouraged and willing to bring their best to the organisation. It will benefit
JKMM by improved operational productivity.
Work Performance
Studies revealed that stress has a negative relationship with work performance.
Moorthy et al. (2013) found that in Malaysia, 383 bankers indicate that job ambiguity and
job conflict had a positive relationship with job stress. This finding echoes with the current
findings of this study. Celik (2013) added that role ambiguity and role conflict are
considered problems that impact worker motivation and consequently burnout for
employees. He found that the effects of role ambiguity and role conflict on work
performance were important, either directly or indirectly.
70
In line with the previous studies, Azmi, Md. Shahid and Alwi (2016) found that
any raise in role ambiguity, role conflict or workload problems would lead to lower job
performance for Malaysian front-liners and ultimately reduce the quality of services. A
greater presence of role conflict and role ambiguity experienced by employees will
pressure them to raise their current job doubtfulness and confusion. The workers will
begin to maintain their status quo at the next stage and become less committed to doing
more. In the end, the higher the employees' stress level, the lower their job performance.
In conclusion, managers need to fix this problem by creating a desirable work environment
that is free of work-related stressors in order to improve the efficiency and productivity of
employees.
5.3 Organizational Implication for Practice
Stress and Career Development

Even though chapter 4 reveals that skill discretion (H2) has no significant
relationship with stress among social workers in JKMM, but respondents do reveal that
JKMM lacks career development for social workers and this will affect their motivation
and work performance. Thus, it is important for the organization to focus on an action
plan pertaining to career development for social workers in JKMM.
First and foremost, the introduction of career advancement among social

workers, such as the execution of additional warrants for promotional roles, should be
addressed by JKMM. A time-based promotion policy should be enforced. This policy
rewards workers who achieve exceptional results for a certain span with career
advancement opportunities. Without a doubt, this policy would serve as a morale booster
for workers who are already working and become an inspiration to those who think of
entering this career.
Secondly, JKMM can also plan or educate social workers at a higher level, such
as offering study leave and scholarships for further study at institutions of higher learning.
71
In order to enhance the technical skills of workers, additional training seminars, learning
programs or short-term courses should be held. Training programs encourage workers to
learn new knowledge or skills to enhance their job performance, while advancement
programs introduce employees to a higher level, focusing on the growth and potential
performance of employees rather than their immediate position in the job.
Other than that, JKMM should be able to identify talents within the organization
and encourage employees to develop further with the talent that they possessed. For
instance, if a person has the potential to be a trainer or counsellor, utilize the talent by
developing further particular employee or cultivate additional unique employees.
However, it is important to regulate their unique contribution toward organizations’
objectives. Acknowledge individual employees for specific achievements will also
encourage or enable them to contribute towards the organization’s goals. With this, the
employees not only able to add meaning to their role but also increase their motivation to
expand their responsibilities and able to add value towards the organisation.
Some extensive action plan pertaining to promoting employees career

development will be further discussed:
(i) Focused Training and Development Programs
A transactional review session should be conducted during the orientation time

of new social workers in order to be aware of the stress and stressors that need to be
handled at the preliminary step. Training workshops should be held on a regular basis to
encourage the enhancement of soft skills such as good communication skills, time
management skills and counseling skills, as this would be beneficial for social workers in
coping with social problems with stakeholders and counterparts from different
government departments, as most of the job scope of social workers is mainly dealt with
by individual people.
72
Moreover, training among social workers to foster creativity and innovation also
helps to enhance the organization's existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). A
work may be monotonous or exciting because it depends on the perception and state of
mind of the person. A creative and innovative social worker is also able to search for
enthusiasm in the work process when addressing service problems and generating value
for the job and JKMMM. Furthermore, JKMM's allocation of a dedicated space for
reflection or deep breath exercises will help social workers build a new motivating
paradigm shift and a place for them to organize their thoughts in the face of strenuous
work.
In addition, in creating more creative and knowledgeable employee programs, the

JKMM human resources strategist can be more constructive. Social workers of JKMM
should have clear pictures of what is expected from them in everyday works. Changing
norms keep people on the verge and generates unhealthy tension. A lack of clarification
about expectations, lack of clarity about performance-based compensation benefits, lack
of performance input, inability to include a performance appraisal process ultimately
causes uncertainty and makes the employee feel inadequate. Therefore, the job
deliverables of an employee must be explicitly and thoroughly communicated to him, as
well as the consistency of the supervision that an employee receives is crucial for
employee retention.
Another environmental element that employees are looking for in the

organisation is the recognition and use of talent and skills. Therefore, JKMM needs to
consider their abilities, talent and experience, and then take the initiative to tap into their
talent for their career advancement. Finally, the perception of being reasonable and fair to
all workers should also be taken into account. Via a meeting or dinner once a month, the
employer can have a forum to express the vision and mission of the organization. THis
also allow the employee the ability to openly speak his or her mind within the
organization. Thus, establishing a working atmosphere that is pleasant and harmonious.
73
(ii) Participation Level
Senior personnel should be active participants in the process of hiring new social
workers. This is important for prospective applicants to be recognized and culturally fit
into JKMM. Senior staff involvement will allow JKMM to choose the right individual for
the right position. Via deliberate preparation and continuous assessment, a successful
recruiting process enables the organization to accurately and effectively identify suitable
candidates. This can be accomplished by first choosing the right individuals by behavior-
based assessment and competency screening. although recruiting may seem easy, however
recruiting the right talent at the right position and at the right time requires skill and
experience, but more importantly, proper strategic planning is required. Senior employees
should therefore be engaged in recruiting, since senior employees understand more about
the job market and experts evaluate the organization's operations in deciding which
departments will benefit from additional employees.
Organizations may conduct recruitment processes with a framework or set

standards in place for its conduct and execution to minimize the risk that the organization
may incur more costs than expected for recruitment. If the wrong or unqualified individual
was eventually recruited, the company would end up wasting its resources. This not only
will create problems for the organizations in the long run but also had wasted the
organization’s resources in training that particular employee. With the presence of senior
recruiters who have more recruiting experience, the recruitment process would ensure
smooth sailing and compliance with policies and laws.
In addition, positive input from senior employees can enhance the current hiring
process. This happens when the senior employees have a deeper knowledge on how to
conduct effective and efficient recruiting. So, with the participation of senior employees
in recruitment not only to ensure the recruitment runs smoothly but also to give guidance
to junior employees. In addition, the person employed for the job will be the best possible
74
candidate for particular a job, have equal opportunity and non-discrimination for hiring
and indirectly tighten bond between colleagues.
(iii) Rewards and Recognitions
Employees usually respond to work appreciation, especially when it is conveyed

by recognizing their efforts as it confirms that their job is appreciated. By recognizing an
employees’ efforts, the employees will feel that their hard work is worth it, and they are
making a difference. In general, workers will be more productive, feel satisfied with their
jobs and become loyal to the current company when employees feel rewarded, respected
and appreciated. Saying thank you always goes a long way, will make workers feel good
and make the thank you more valued with the inclusion of monetary incentives,
promotions and promotional opportunities. In addition, comprehensible increases, related
to milestones and successes, help retain employees in an organisation.
In addition, letting workers know that the level of management understood that
he/she existed is one of the ways employees can be respected. Minor thing, such as
recognizing the first names of all workers and thinking about the well-being of family
members, makes a huge difference. An additional effort needs to be taken to meet with
new employees to learn about their talents, abilities and skills. This creates a positive
participation level between the staff and managerial level people. They will have more
useful information and a better sense of belongings. It’s critical to make the employee feel
welcomed, acknowledged and loyal which eliminates stress.
JKMM should aim to incorporate work-life-balance programs for the welfare of

its social workers. Creating innovative and implementing policies pertaining to flexible
working schemes, providing healthcare like group insurance for self and family members
will create positive impact such as attracting high calibre recruits, retaining skilled
employees, reduce attrition rate, boost employee morale, able maintain a competitive edge
as the work-life-balance policy could offer better benefits. Listening to the ideas of staff,
75
providing input on success and celebrating positive efforts and outcomes would make a
difference.
Therefore, a happy and fulfilled employee can be motivated to perform better due
to the positive feeling they have towards the organization. If an employer treats their
employee with respect and gratitude, without a doubt, the employees will want to do a
good job in return. Thus, appropriate rewards and recognition system can create a happy
working environment that people will want to be a part of.
(iv) Communications
JKMM should promote more active two-way communication as it provides a more

egalitarian atmosphere in which individuals, regardless of their corporate hierarchy, can
express their thoughts, ideas and opinions. Two-way communication does not generally
involve the presence of both the sender and the recipient in one location while the data is
exchanged. Two-way communication is possible without the person being close to us. The
most important factor is that, when talking, all parties should be on the same platform.
Therefore, the employees able to communicate effectively while working at home as there
is plenty of online platforms can be utilized as a medium for communication such as
Google Meet, Zoom and Cisco Webex. Active interaction between employees about social
workers’ goals, roles and responsibilities enables them to know what is expected from
them and feel a part of the crowd. This helps everyone better understand the goals of the
organisation and builds better partnerships within the organization by ensuring that
everyone has common goals.
Additionally, communication is integral to a healthy work environment. When the

employees are still new to the job, they can expect that their stress levels will be higher as
they need to learn how to accomplish new tasks and familiarize themselves with the work
environment. Nonetheless, if the employees had been working at a job for a long time and
their supervisor had unrealistic expectations, it may be time to have effective two-way
76
communication. A good communicative relationship with a supervisor is not always
possible, but it is better to try than to suffer from tremendous stress.. The supervisor does
not reduce the load of the workers, but they may have innovative solutions to help
employees excel.
A research published in PLOS ONE showed that friendships can minimize

stressful circumstances, as this study found that the degree of solidarity between friends
had a positive effect on the level of stress at work (Shin & Lee, 2016). Employees are also
encouraged to have a good or best friend at work, as this will eventually minimize their
level of stress. Yet, the need to find friends outside of the work environment would not
arise; as the employees have more friends at work since they spent almost half of their day
interacting with colleagues. It is also not a burden to spend more than 8 hours a day doing
the job because he or she is still surrounded by friends. Implementation of theory Y at
work will make difference. Theory Y defines that work is regarded as natural as play.
Therefore, promoting a good sense of humor and fun in the workplace to cope with stress
would ensure that staff are comfortable, which is particularly critical in high-stress work
in their service. On the other hand, feeling valued by their manager in the workplace is a
key to boost employee motivation and morale.
Stress and Pressure due to Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict

In this report, 41% of social workers' stress comes from role ambiguity and role
conflicts. By diverting the attention on one factor causing stress, this stress can be
minimized. First, JKMM should give the social workers an opportunity to share their
opinion or knowledge through a platform such as via training session, a presentation like
Speakers Corner, mentoring others like a junior officer and team assignments such as team
building. Therefore, the employees will feel that their concern, knowledge, and ideas had
been valued.
Secondly, employers always demonstrate respect for employees. Treat the

employees well and provide dignity of the job. Stress also can be eliminated if the
77
employee were appraised with attractive rewards such as Best Employees of the Months,
sharing positive stories on social media such as Facebook or Twitter about the job.
Lastly, JKMM should relook again certain job which might be able to pass over to
another department or increased the number of staffs in JKMM to reduce the workload of
the social worker which are a part of the frontline of public service in Malaysia. This will
ease the burden of employees and prevents a workload mismatch.
5.4 Conclusion
The findings of this study revealed that stress does occur in social workers in
JKMM. Moreover, the understanding of the core variables correlations between its
variables revealed the importance of paying attention to the main cause of stress among
social workers in JKMM - role ambiguity and role conflict.
This study has produced a framework of job stress among social workers and this
may assist JKMM to understand and identify the root cause of job stress in the
workplaceGiven the very important role played in society by social workers, it is
important for JKMM management to take serious account of alternative job redesign
strategies and organizational changes (Kirkcaldy, Cooper & Ruffalo, 1995).
In practice, organizational factors such as role ambiguity, role conflict, work

overload, bureaucratic barriers to the functioning of JKMM can potentially harm social
workers' well-being. Moreover, being a social worker with high-stress level could
adversely affect the social life by not having the ability to plan one’s private life.
Furthermore, this study can aid the human resource department to improve and
support their employees by implementing an effective training program, a wellness
program for their employees and help them to manage work-related stress and personal
life effectively. On top of that, it is suggested that JKMM to relook again at certain job
which might be able to pass over to another department, or increased the number of staffs
78
in JKMM to reduce the workload of the social worker that is the frontline of public service
in Malaysia.
5.5 Suggestion for Future Research

This study is conducted during a period of Movement Control Order (MCO) in
Malaysia. Hence, the researcher unable to collect data via face-to-face interviews. The
online data collection conducted by the researcher might have a bias. So, to ensure the
respondents really understand the question and answer sincerely, a face-to-face interview
is necessary.
Future research is needed to further explore the relationship and to determine the
extent to which certain aspects of stress influence indicators of organizational
effectiveness. The employee turnover intention, employee satisfaction, employee
motivation, performance appraisal rating and the organizational outcome are necessary to
attribute these outcomes to occupational stress levels. Without such studies, it is difficult
to determine causation for the variance found in these measures.
It is crucial that future research investigate the relationship between occupational

or job stress and organizational effectiveness found in social workers, and compare the
level of stress with another high-stress government job such as government care provider
(doctor, nurses), enforcement workers (police, health inspector) and security workers
(army, course guard).
79
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS
PENGENALAN
Saya, Liew Lee Su merupakan mahasiswa Kursus Sarjana Pentabiran Perniagaan,

Universiti Multimedia Malaysia. Saya sedang menjalankan kajian berjudul “TAHAP
TEKANAN KERJA DI KALANGAN PEKERJA SOSIAL DI JABATAN KEBAJIKAN
MALAYSIA (JKMM)”, untuk memenuhi syarat bergraduasi. Oleh itu, saya memohon
jasa baik tuan/puan untuk melengkapkan borang kaji selidik dwi-bahasa ini.
Segala maklumat yang diberikan akan dirahsiakan mengikut Akta Perlindungan Data
Peribadi 2010 dan hanya akan digunakan untuk tujuan analisis agregat dan semata-mata
untuk tujuan ilmiah.Tiada pihak yang akan mengetahui keterlibatan atau respon yang akan
diberikan. Sebarang pertanyaan berkenaan dengan kajian ini bolehlah terus diemelkan
kepada saya (1191400089@student.mmu.edu.my).
Kerjasama anda amat kami hargai.

Sekian, terima kasih.
Yang Benar,
(LIEW LEE SU)

Penyelidik
Penyelia Projek:
Dr. Arnifa bt. Semawi@Asmawi
Emel: arnifa.asmawi@mmu.edu.my
80
INTRODUCTION
Dear Sir/Madam
My name is Liew Lee Su, a student of the Master of Business Administration, Multimedia
University Malaysia. I am conducting a study on "STRESS AMONG SOCIAL WORKERS IN
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE MALAYSIA (JKMM)", to meet the graduation
requirements. I am humbly requesting your kindness to complete this bilingual survey form.
All information provided will be kept confidential in accordance with the Personal Data Protection
Act 2010 and will only be used for the purpose of aggregate analysis and solely for scientific
purposes. No party will know the involvement or response that will be given. Any questions
regarding this study can be emailed directly to me (1191400089@student.mmu.edu.my).
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Thank you.
Yours Sincerely,
(LIEW LEE SU)

Researcher
Project Supervisor:
Dr Arnifa Binti Semawi @ Asmawi

arnifa.asmawi@mmu.edu.my
81
PERSETUJUAN PENYERTAAN
Tajuk:
Tekanan di Kalangan Pekerja Sosial di Jabatan Kebajikan Malaysia (JKMM)
Penerangan:
Kajian ini dijalankan adalah untuk mengenal pasti hubungan antara tahap tekanan pekerja
dan faktor yang menyumbang tekanan. Pembantu/ Penolong Pegawai/ Pegawai
Pembangunan Masyarakat diminta untuk melengkapkan borang kaji selidik. Borang kaji
selidik ini merangkumi 3 bahagian dimana pertamanya, butiran demografik digunakan
untuk membantu pemahaman penyelidik, keduanya adalah untuk mengenal pasti tahap
tekanan yang dirasai oleh pekerja dalam organisasi dan ketiganya adalah untuk mengenal
pasti faktor tekanan yang dirasai para pekerja
Risiko dan Kebaikan:

Terdapat risiko minima yang berkait dengan kajian ini. Responden mungkin berasa letih
ketika menjawab soal selidik ini. Berdasarkan soal selidik ini, responden bukan sahaja
sedar akan kecenderungan mereka terhadap tahap tekanan yang dirasai sewaktu bekerja
malah sedar akan faktor-faktor yang menyumbang kepada tekanan yang dirasai.
Komitmen Masa:
Kaji selidik ini hanya mengambil masa 10 hingga 20 minit sahaja.
Kerahsiaan:
Maklumat peribadi responden seperti nama (jika ada) tidak akan diselitkan di dalam
dokumen. Maklumat demografi hanyalah untuk pemahaman penyelidik sahaja. Borang
kaji selidik ini akan dihapuskan sebaik sahaja tamatnya penyelidikan.
Hak Menarik Diri:

Penyertaan kaji selidik ini adalah sukarela. Dengan mengisi borang ini, anda telah
bersetuju untuk menyertai kaji selidik ini. Anda tidak akan dikenakan sebarang hukuman
sekiranya anda menarik diri daripada kajian ini dan anda boleh menarik diri pada bila-bila
masa.
Kenyataan Persetujuan:
Dengan menghantar borang ini, anda bersetuju untuk menyertai kajian, “Tekanan di
Kalangan Pekerja Sosial di Jabatan Kebajikan Malaysia (JKMM)”. Ini menandakan anda
telah membaca dekripsi kajian dan menyertai kajian ini secara sukarela.
82
CONSENT LETTER TO PARTICIPATE
Project Title:
Stress among Social Workers in Department of Social Welfare Malaysia (JKMM)
Description:
This research study will examine the relationship between stress level and factors of stress
experienced by employees. A set of survey composed of three section is used for: firstly,
the demographic information is merely for researcher better understanding, second is to
measure the level of stress among the employees in work setting, third is to assess the
factors that contributed towards the stress experienced by employees.
Risks and Benefits:

There is minimal risk associated with this research. The respondents might fatigue from
answering this survey form. Based on this survey, the respondents may not only become
aware of their current level of stress, but also on factors that contributed to the stress they
had experienced.
Time Commitment:
This survey will last about 10-20 minutes.
Confidentiality:
The information about the respondents (if exist) will not be included on any document.
No names will be used in report and the demographic information is merely for researcher
better understanding. The completed surveys will be destroyed upon the completion of the
project.
Right to Withdraw:
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. By filling out the survey, you are
providing your consent to participate. You will not be penalized in any way should you
decide not to participate and you are able to withdraw from this study at any time.
Statement of Consent:
By submitting this survey form, you agree to participate in this study, “Stress among
Social Workers in Department of Social Welfare Malaysia (JKMM)”. This indicate you
have read the description of the study and willingly to participate.
83
BAHAGIAN A: MAKLUMAT DEMOGRAFI / DEMOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION
Sila isi butiran dan tandakan (X) di ruang yang disediakan.

Fill in the blank and tick (X) in the boxes.
Emel/ E-mail:
1. Jantina/ Gender:
Lelaki
Male
Perempuan
Female
2. Umur/Age:
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
3. Pangkat/ Rank:
Pengurus (S41 – S54)

Manager
Penyelia (S29 – S38)
Supervisor
Staff (S1 – S28)
Kakitangan
84
4. Tempat Bekerja/ Workplace:
Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Negeri, JKMN

State Social Welfare Office
Pejabat Kebajikan Masyarakat Daerah/ Jajahan/ Bahagian,
PKMD/J/B District Social Welfare Office
Institusi Kebajikan
Welfare Institutions
5. Negeri Penempatan/ Placement State:
Johor Sabah
Kedah Perak
Kelantan Sarawak
Melaka Selangor
Negeri Sembilan Terengganu
Pahang WP Kuala Lumpur
Perak WP Putrajaya
Perlis WP Labuan
Pulau Pinang
6. Tempoh Berkhidmat/ Service Period:
Kurang daripada 1 tahun

Less than 1 year
1 – 5 tahun / years
6 – 10 tahun / years
Lebih daripada 10 tahun

More than 10 years
85
BAHAGIAN B: SKALA TEKANAN / PERCEIVED SCALE STRESS
Soalan-soalan pada skala ini bertanya tentang perasaan dan fikiran anda sejak bulan lalu.
Dalam setiap kes, anda akan diminta untuk menunjukkan dengan membulatkan seberapa
kerapkah yang anda merasa atau berfikir dengan cara tertentu.
Questions on this scale mainly about your feelings and thoughts since last month. In
each case, you will be asked and need to indicate by circling how often you feel or think
in a certain way.
Hampir Tidak
Kadang- Agak Kerap/ Sangat Kerap /
Tidak Pernah/ Pernah/
kadang/ Fairly Often Very Often
Never (N) Almost Never
Sometimes (S) (FO) (VO)
(AN)
0 1 2 3 4
Pada bulan lalu, berapa kerapkah…

N AN S FO VO
In the last month, how often...
Anda merasa kecewa kerana sesuatu yang terjadi

di luar jangkaan anda?
1 0 1 2 3 4
Have you been upset because of something that
happened unexpectedly?
Anda merasa bahawa anda tidak mampu

mengawal isu-isu penting dalam hidup anda?
2 0 1 2 3 4
Have you felt that you were unable to control the
important things in your life?
Anda merasa gugup dan tertekan ("stres")?

0 1 2 3 4
3 Have you felt nervous and stressed?
4 Anda merasa yakin tentang kemampuan anda

untuk menangani masalah-masalah peribadi
anda? 0 1 2 3 4
Have you felt confident about your ability to handle
your personal problems?
86
5 Anda merasa bahawa semuanya berjalan
mengikut rancangan anda? 0 1 2 3 4
Have you felt that things were going your way?
6 Anda mendapati bahawa anda tidak mampu

mengatasi semua perkara yang anda perlu
lakukan? 0 1 2 3 4
Have you found that you could not cope with all the
things that you had to do?
7 Anda mampu mengawal perasaan marah dalam

hidup anda?
0 1 2 3 4
Have you been able to control irritations in your
life?
8 Anda merasa bahawa anda berjaya di atas segala

sesuatu? 0 1 2 3 4
Have you felt that you were on top of things?
9 Anda menjadi marah kerana hal-hal yang

berada di luar kawalan anda?
0 1 2 3 4
Have you been angered because of things that
happened that were outside of your control?
10 Anda merasa kesulitan yang menimbun begitu

tinggi sehingga anda tidak mampu
menanganinya? 0 1 2 3 4
Have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that
you could not overcome them?
87
BAHAGIAN C: FAKTOR TEKANAN DI TEMPAT KERJA / STRESS
FACTORS AT WORKPLACE
Seksyen ini mengandungi enam bahagian. Bagi setiap bahagian, sila baca setiap
pernyataan dengan teliti dan tentukan bagaimana perasaan anda mengenai penjelasan
pekerjaan anda seperti pernyataan berikut dengan skala yang disediakan.
This section consists of six parts. For each part, please read each statement carefully and
decide how you feel about your occupation described by the following statements with
scale provided.
BAHAGIAN C(I): PERMINTAAN KERJA / JOB DEMANDS
Hampir Tidak
(AN)
1 2 3 4 5
Sejauh manakah…
N AN S FO VO
To what extent...
Adakah pekerjaan anda memerlukan kerja

pantas? 1 2 3 4 5
1
Does your job require working fast?
Adakah pekerjaan anda memerlukan kerja keras?

1 2 3 4 5
2 Does your job require working hard?
Adakah pekerjaan anda memerlukan banyak

kerja yang perlu diselesaikan?
3
1 2 3 4 5
Does your job require a great deal of
work to be done?
4 Adakah anda tidak cukup masa melakukan tugas

anda? 1 2 3 4 5
Is there not enough time for you to do your job?
88
5 Adakah terdapat kerja berlebihan dalam
pekerjaan anda? 1 2 3 4 5
Is there excessive work in your job?
6 Adakah anda merasakan tidak ada cukup masa

untuk anda menyelesaikan kerja anda?
1 2 3 4 5
Do you feel there is not enough time for you to finish
your work?
7 Adakah anda menghadapi tuntutan yang

bertentangan dalam pekerjaan anda? 1 2 3 4 5
Are you faced with conflicting demands on your job?
89
BAHAGIAN C(II): KEMAHIRAN KERJA / SKILL DISCRETION
Hampir Tidak
(AN)
1 2 3 4 5
Sejauh manakah…
N AN S FO VO
To what extent...
1 Adakah tahap kemahiran tinggi diperlukan?

1 2 3 4 5
Is high skill level is required?
2 Adakah anda dikehendaki mempelajari perkara

baru? 1 2 3 4 5
Are you required to learn new things?
3 Adakah anda bekerja tanpa pengulangan?

1 2 3 4 5
Is you work non-repetitions?
4 Adakah kerja anda memerlukan kreativiti?

1 2 3 4 5
Does your work require creativity?
90
BAHAGIAN C(III): KUASA MEMBUAT KEPUTUSAN / DECISION
AUTHORITY
Hampir Tidak
(AN)
1 2 3 4 5
Sejauh manakah…
N AN S FO VO
To what extent...
1 Adakah anda mempunyai kebebasan untuk

memutuskan bagaimana mengatur kerja anda?
1 2 3 4 5
Do you have freedom to decide how to organize
your work?
2 Adakah anda mempunyai kawalan terhadap apa

yang berlaku dalam pekerjaan anda? 1 2 3 4 5
Do you have control over what happens on your job?
3 Adakah tugas anda membolehkan anda membuat

banyak keputusan sendiri?
1 2 3 4 5
Does your job allow you to make a lot of your own
decisions?
4 Adakah anda dibantu dalam membuat keputusan

anda sendiri? 1 2 3 4 5
Are you assisted in making your own decision?
91
BAHAGIAN C(IV): GAYA PENGURUSAN / MANAGEMENT STYLE
Sangat
Sedikit Sedikit Sangat
Tidak Tidak
Bersetuju/ Berkecuali Bersetuju/ Bersetuju/ Bersetuju/
Bersetuju/ Bersetuju/
Slightly /Neutral Slightly Agree Strongly
Strongly Disagree
Disagree (N) Agree (A) Agree
Disagree (D)
(SD) (SA) (STA)
(STD)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Penyelia saya...
STD D SD N SA A STA
My supervisor...
Membantu saya menyelesaikan

masalah berkaitan kerja Helps me to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
solve work-related problem
Mendorong saya untuk

mengembangkan kemahiran baru 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2
Encourage me to develop new skills
Sentiasa dimaklumkan mengenai

bagaimana pekerja berfikir dan
3
merasakan tentang perkara itu 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Keeps informed about how employees
think and feel about things
4 Mendorong pekerja untuk mengambil

bahagian dalam keputusan penting
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Encourages employees to participate in
important decision
5 Memuji kerja yang baik

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Praises good work
6 Mendorong pekerja untuk bersuara

apabila mereka tidak bersetuju dengan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
keputusan
92
Encourages employees to speak up when
they disagree with a decision
7 Enggan menjelaskan tindakannya

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Refuses to explain his or her actions
8 Memberi penghargaan kepada saya

kerana prestasi yang baik 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Rewards me for good performance
9 Nampaknya selalu memeriksa kerja

saya
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Always seems to be around checking on
my work
10 Memberitahu saya apa kemahiran yang

harus dilakukan dan bagaimana ia
harus dilakukan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Tells me what skills be done and how it
shall be done
11 Tidak pernah memberi saya peluang

untuk membuat keputusan penting
sendiri 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Never gives me a chance to make
important decisions on my own
12 Menyerahkan kepada saya untuk

memutuskan bagaimana menjalankan
tugas saya 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Leaves it up to me to decide how to go
about doing my job
93
BAHAGIAN C(V): KEKABURAN PERANAN / ROLE AMBIGUITY
Sangat
Tidak Tidak
Strongly Disagree
Disagree (D)
(SD) (SA) (STA)
(STD)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sejauh manakah…
STD D SD N SA A STA
To what extent...
Kuasa saya sesuai dengan tanggungjawab

yang diberikan kepada saya
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My authority matches the responsibilities
assigned to me
Saya tidak tahu apa yang diharapkan

daripada saya 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2
I don’t know what is expected of me
Tanggungjawab saya ditentukan dengan

jelas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3
My responsibilities are clearly defined
4 Saya merasa yakin dengan seberapa

banyak kuasa yang saya ada
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I feel certain about how much authority I
have
5 Saya tahu apa tanggungjawab saya

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I know what my responsibilities are
6 Saya mempunyai tujuan dan objektif yang

jelas untuk tugas saya 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
94
I have clear planned goals and objectives for
my job
7 Matlamat dan objektif yang dirancang

tidak jelas
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The planned goals and objectives are not
clear
8 Saya tidak tahu bagaimana saya akan

dinilai untuk kenaikan gaji atau kenaikan
pangkat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I don’t know how I will be evaluated for a
raise or promotion
9 Saya tahu apa yang diharapkan daripada

saya 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I know what is expected of me
10 Penjelasan adalah jelas mengenai apa

yang harus dilakukan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Explanations are clear of what has to be done
11 Bos saya menjelaskan bagaimana dia

akan menilai prestasi saya
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My boss makes it clear how he will evaluate
my performance
95
BAHAGIAN C(VI): KONFLIK PERANAN / ROLE CONFLICT
Sangat
Tidak Tidak
Strongly Disagree
Disagree (D)
(SD) (SA) (STA)
(STD)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sejauh manakah…
STD D SD N SA A STA
To what extent...
1 Saya sering terlibat dalam situasi di

mana terdapat keperluan yang
bertentangan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I often get myself involved in situations in
which there are conflicting requirements
2 Terdapat tekanan yang tidak masuk

akal untuk prestasi yang lebih baik
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
There are unreasonable pressures for better
performance
3 Saya sering diminta melakukan

perkara-perkara yang bertentangan
dengan penilaian saya yang lebih baik 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am often asked to do things that are
against my better judgement
4 Saya menerima tugasan tanpa sumber

dan bahan yang mencukupi untuk
melaksanakannya 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I received an assignment without adequate
resources and materials to execute it
96
5 Saya harus menggunakan peraturan
atau polisi untuk melaksanakan tugas
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I have to buck a rule or policy in order to
carry out an assignment
6 Saya menerima permintaan yang tidak

serasi dari dua orang atau lebih
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I receive incompatible requests from two
or more people
7 Saya harus melakukan perkara-perkara

yang harus dilakukan secara berbeza
dalam keadaan yang berbeza 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I have to do things that should be done
differently under different conditions
CATATAN / REMARKS
ULASAN TAMBAHAN ATAU CADANGAN PENAMBAHBAIKAN /
ADDITIONAL REMARKS OR SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVEMENT
TERIMA KASIH /THANK YOU
97
APPENDIX B
OUTPUT (CASE PROCESSING SUMMARY)
Table of Frequency
Table of Mean Scores
Table of Correlations among all variables
Table of Multiple Regression among all variables
98
Reliability
Scale: PERCEIVED_STRESS_SCALE
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.853 .851 10
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
B1 2.06 1.013 235

B2 1.63 1.072 235
B3 1.72 1.120 235
B4 1.10 1.002 235
B5 1.54 .833 235
B6 1.77 .999 235
B7 1.40 .983 235
B8 1.60 .828 235
B9 1.90 .960 235
B10 1.78 1.058 235
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8
B1 1.000 .553 .626 .272 .349 .488 .228 .275

B2 .553 1.000 .671 .233 .254 .559 .119 .197
B3 .626 .671 1.000 .303 .342 .568 .129 .273
B4 .272 .233 .303 1.000 .500 .155 .447 .470
B5 .349 .254 .342 .500 1.000 .232 .353 .528

B6 .488 .559 .568 .155 .232 1.000 .084 .171
B7 .228 .119 .129 .447 .353 .084 1.000 .428
B8 .275 .197 .273 .470 .528 .171 .428 1.000

B9 .530 .516 .550 .157 .272 .488 .102 .125
B10 .579 .521 .619 .270 .352 .575 .140 .177
B9 B10
B1 .530 .579
99
B2 .516 .521
B3 .550 .619
B4 .157 .270
B5 .272 .352
B6 .488 .575
B7 .102 .140
B8 .125 .177
B9 1.000 .555
B10 .555 1.000
Summary Item Statistics
Maximum /
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Minimum Variance
Item Means 1.649 1.098 2.064 .966 1.880 .073

Inter-Item Correlations .363 .084 .671 .587 7.967 .030
N of Items
Item Means 10
Inter-Item Correlations 10
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple Cronbach's Alpha if
Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation Item Deleted
B1 14.43 33.272 .679 .509 .828
B2 14.86 33.281 .631 .524 .832

B3 14.77 31.919 .716 .616 .823
B4 15.40 35.821 .451 .382 .848
B5 14.95 36.276 .525 .414 .842
B6 14.72 34.483 .575 .454 .837
B7 15.10 37.473 .315 .280 .859
B8 14.90 37.229 .427 .391 .849
B9 14.60 34.849 .570 .433 .838
B10 14.71 33.087 .660 .534 .829
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
100
16.49 42.234 6.499 10
Scale: JOB_DEMAND_SCALE
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.902 .906 7
Item Statistics
CI1 4.11 .852 235

CI2 3.93 .862 235
CI3 4.07 .905 235
CI4 3.49 1.182 235
CI5 3.60 1.129 235
CI6 3.37 1.225 235
CI7 2.91 1.237 235
CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 CI5 CI6 CI7
CI1 1.000 .716 .715 .492 .505 .470 .248

CI2 .716 1.000 .691 .500 .572 .516 .343
CI3 .715 .691 1.000 .634 .634 .584 .421
CI4 .492 .500 .634 1.000 .708 .819 .557
CI5 .505 .572 .634 .708 1.000 .744 .637
CI6 .470 .516 .584 .819 .744 1.000 .633
CI7 .248 .343 .421 .557 .637 .633 1.000
Maximum /
Item Means 3.642 2.915 4.115 1.200 1.412 .186

101
N of Items
Item Means 7
CI1 21.38 28.835 .614 .616 .898

CI2 21.57 28.358 .663 .602 .893
CI3 21.42 27.288 .748 .663 .885
CI4 22.01 24.530 .791 .716 .877

CI5 21.89 24.800 .810 .671 .875
CI6 22.12 23.969 .810 .744 .875
CI7 22.58 26.125 .595 .481 .903
Scale Statistics
25.49 35.183 5.931 7
Scale: SKILL_DISCRETION_SCALE
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.671 .688 4
Item Statistics
CII1 3.94 .811 235

CII2 4.02 .814 235
CII3 2.89 .994 235
CII4 3.95 .912 235
102
CII1 CII2 CII3 CII4
CII1 1.000 .611 .193 .487

CII2 .611 1.000 .193 .474
CII3 .193 .193 1.000 .178
CII4 .487 .474 .178 1.000
Maximum /
Item Means 3.700 2.889 4.021 1.132 1.392 .293
N of Items
Item Means 4
CII1 10.86 3.819 .579 .426 .526

CII2 10.78 3.831 .572 .417 .530
CII3 11.91 4.381 .227 .052 .763

CII4 10.85 3.737 .495 .291 .574
Scale Statistics
14.80 6.315 2.513 4
Scale: DECISION_AUTHORITY_SCALE
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
103
.714 .714 4
Item Statistics
CIII1 3.40 .997 235

CIII2 3.40 .921 235
CIII3 3.13 1.058 235
CIII4 3.33 .939 235
CIII1 CIII2 CIII3 CIII4
CIII1 1.000 .512 .458 .328

CIII2 .512 1.000 .403 .279
CIII3 .458 .403 1.000 .323
CIII4 .328 .279 .323 1.000
Maximum /
Item Means 3.316 3.128 3.404 .277 1.088 .017
N of Items
Item Means 4
CIII1 9.86 4.759 .579 .355 .602

CIII2 9.86 5.215 .525 .304 .639
CIII3 10.14 4.759 .518 .273 .642
CIII4 9.93 5.653 .389 .153 .714
104
Scale Statistics
13.26 8.272 2.876 4
Scale: MANAGEMENT_STYLE_SCALE
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.711 .714 12
Item Statistics
CIV1 4.91 1.447 235

CIV2 5.02 1.373 235
CIV3 4.79 1.383 235
CIV4 4.95 1.406 235

CIV5 4.91 1.529 235
CIV6 4.64 1.566 235
CIV7 4.26 1.461 235

CIV8 4.66 1.537 235
CIV9 3.31 1.442 235
CIV10 3.13 1.497 235
CIV11 4.83 1.489 235
CIV12 4.77 1.340 235
CIV1 CIV2 CIV3 CIV4 CIV5 CIV6 CIV7 CIV8
CIV1 1.000 .793 .787 .636 .666 .604 .074 .666

CIV2 .793 1.000 .822 .762 .720 .606 .082 .706
CIV3 .787 .822 1.000 .747 .721 .620 .091 .708
CIV4 .636 .762 .747 1.000 .720 .606 .191 .616
CIV5 .666 .720 .721 .720 1.000 .690 .110 .782
CIV6 .604 .606 .620 .606 .690 1.000 .112 .643
CIV7 .074 .082 .091 .191 .110 .112 1.000 .095
CIV8 .666 .706 .708 .616 .782 .643 .095 1.000
105
CIV9 -.451 -.396 -.479 -.396 -.414 -.386 -.079 -.554
CIV10 -.705 -.657 -.753 -.600 -.650 -.668 .008 -.711

CIV11 .058 .138 .120 .301 .228 .169 .307 .134
CIV12 .337 .330 .331 .398 .394 .318 -.076 .422
CIV9 CIV10 CIV11 CIV12
CIV1 -.451 -.705 .058 .337
CIV2 -.396 -.657 .138 .330

CIV3 -.479 -.753 .120 .331
CIV4 -.396 -.600 .301 .398
CIV5 -.414 -.650 .228 .394

CIV6 -.386 -.668 .169 .318
CIV7 -.079 .008 .307 -.076
CIV8 -.554 -.711 .134 .422

CIV9 1.000 .588 .064 -.256
CIV10 .588 1.000 -.088 -.315
CIV11 .064 -.088 1.000 .000

CIV12 -.256 -.315 .000 1.000
Maximum /
Item Means 4.515 3.128 5.021 1.894 1.605 .407

Inter-Item Correlations .172 -.753 .822 1.575 -1.092 .226
N of Items
Item Means 12
CIV1 49.27 56.567 .665 .717 .645
CIV2 49.16 55.586 .765 .789 .633

CIV3 49.39 56.248 .722 .791 .639
106
CIV4 49.23 54.885 .781 .719 .629
CIV5 49.27 53.359 .780 .736 .623

CIV6 49.54 55.822 .635 .576 .646
CIV7 49.92 67.032 .166 .171 .717
CIV8 49.52 55.336 .675 .735 .640
CIV9 50.87 82.551 -.439 .431 .788
CIV10 51.05 90.750 -.696 .717 .818
CIV11 49.34 64.697 .260 .235 .704
CIV12 49.41 63.953 .344 .255 .693
Scale Statistics
54.18 73.130 8.552 12
Scale: ROLE_AMBIGUITY_SCALE
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.866 .875 11
Item Statistics
CV1 3.23 1.387 235

CV2 3.20 1.471 235
CV3 2.92 1.363 235
CV4 3.30 1.336 235
CV5 2.18 1.115 235
CV6 2.27 1.191 235
CV7 3.44 1.684 235
CV8 3.90 1.778 235
CV9 2.85 1.421 235
CV10 2.92 1.398 235
CV11 3.38 1.671 235
107
CV1 CV2 CV3 CV4 CV5 CV6 CV7 CV8
CV1 1.000 .333 .638 .610 .376 .394 .226 .148

CV2 .333 1.000 .451 .336 .399 .442 .545 .441
CV3 .638 .451 1.000 .686 .538 .481 .350 .223
CV4 .610 .336 .686 1.000 .482 .513 .265 .188
CV5 .376 .399 .538 .482 1.000 .715 .180 .124
CV6 .394 .442 .481 .513 .715 1.000 .275 .158
CV7 .226 .545 .350 .265 .180 .275 1.000 .361
CV8 .148 .441 .223 .188 .124 .158 .361 1.000
CV9 .441 .352 .471 .500 .368 .448 .202 .188
CV10 .519 .447 .616 .537 .377 .434 .356 .294
CV11 .407 .231 .420 .394 .224 .339 .289 .252
CV9 CV10 CV11
CV1 .441 .519 .407

CV2 .352 .447 .231
CV3 .471 .616 .420
CV4 .500 .537 .394

CV5 .368 .377 .224
CV6 .448 .434 .339
CV7 .202 .356 .289

CV8 .188 .294 .252
CV9 1.000 .529 .421
CV10 .529 1.000 .489

CV11 .421 .489 1.000
Maximum /
Item Means 3.055 2.183 3.898 1.715 1.786 .254

N of Items
Item Means 11
108
CV1 30.37 91.003 .602 .491 .852

CV2 30.40 89.891 .602 .501 .852
CV3 30.68 88.304 .730 .646 .843
CV4 30.30 90.169 .666 .573 .848
CV5 31.42 95.817 .540 .579 .857
CV6 31.34 93.395 .609 .595 .852
CV7 30.16 91.247 .459 .361 .864
CV8 29.71 93.448 .356 .247 .873

CV9 30.76 91.193 .576 .400 .854
CV10 30.69 88.541 .697 .523 .845
CV11 30.22 89.771 .514 .343 .859
Scale Statistics
33.60 108.847 10.433 11
Scale: ROLE_CONFLICT_SCALE
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
.836 .823 7
Item Statistics
CVI1 4.09 1.566 235

CVI2 4.11 1.699 235
CVI3 3.46 1.599 235
CVI4 4.09 1.759 235
CVI5 5.67 1.258 235
CVI6 3.97 1.612 235
109
CVI7 4.67 1.485 235
CVI1 CVI2 CVI3 CVI4 CVI5 CVI6 CVI7
CVI1 1.000 .688 .648 .456 .016 .538 .346

CVI2 .688 1.000 .694 .576 -.041 .601 .394
CVI3 .648 .694 1.000 .557 .019 .618 .372
CVI4 .456 .576 .557 1.000 .099 .619 .498
CVI5 .016 -.041 .019 .099 1.000 .011 .154
CVI6 .538 .601 .618 .619 .011 1.000 .520
CVI7 .346 .394 .372 .498 .154 .520 1.000
Maximum /
Item Means 4.295 3.460 5.668 2.209 1.638 .492

Inter-Item Correlations .399 -.041 .694 .735 -17.028 .062
N of Items
Item Means 7
CVI1 25.97 45.055 .657 .538 .803

CVI2 25.95 42.455 .722 .626 .791
CVI3 26.60 43.582 .719 .589 .792
CVI4 25.97 42.585 .681 .496 .798

CVI5 24.40 58.710 .053 .050 .877
CVI6 26.10 43.482 .717 .555 .792
CVI7 25.39 48.085 .536 .339 .821
110
Scale Statistics
30.06 61.316 7.830 7
Frequencies of Demographic Factors
Statistics
Service Placement
Gender Age Rank Period Workplace State
N Valid 235 235 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frequency Table
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Lelaki/Male 101 43.0 43.0 43.0
Perempuan/Female 134 57.0 57.0 100.0
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Age
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 21 -30 31 13.2 13.2 13.2
31 - 40 138 58.7 58.7 71.9
41 - 50 57 24.3 24.3 96.2
51 - 60 9 3.8 3.8 100.0
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Rank
Cumulative
Valid Manager/ Pegawai Pembangunan Masyarakat

29 12.3 12.3 12.3
(S41 - S54)
Supervisor / Penolong Pegawai Pembangunan

72 30.6 30.6 43.0
Masyarakat (S29 - S40)
Staff / Pembantu Pembangunan Masyarakat (S19

134 57.0 57.0 100.0
- S28)
111
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Service Period
Cumulative
Valid Less than 1 year / Kurang daripada 1 tahun 8 3.4 3.4 3.4
1 - 5 years / tahun 50 21.3 21.3 24.7
6 – 10years / tahun 38 16.2 16.2 40.9
More than 10 years / Lebih daripada 10 tahun 139 59.1 59.1 100.0
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Workplace
Cumulativ
Frequency Percent Valid Percent e Percent
Valid PKMD/J/B/D, Headquarters / Pejabat

129 54.9 54.9 54.9
Kebajikan Masyarakat, PKMD/J/B/D
JKMN, Social District Welfare Office/

Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Negeri, 29 12.3 12.3 67.2
JKMN
Welfare Institutions / Institusi Kebajikan 77 32.8 32.8 100.0
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Placement State
Cumulative
Valid Johor 7 3.0 3.0 3.0
Sabah 15 6.4 6.4 9.4
Sarawak 14 6.0 6.0 15.3
Selangor 69 29.4 29.4 44.7
Terengganu 18 7.7 7.7 52.3
WP Kuala Lumpur 9 3.8 3.8 56.2
Kedah 39 16.6 16.6 72.8
Kelantan 8 3.4 3.4 76.2
Melaka 4 1.7 1.7 77.9
112
Negeri Sembilan 7 3.0 3.0 80.9
Pahang 13 5.5 5.5 86.4
Perak 18 7.7 7.7 94.0
Perlis 5 2.1 2.1 96.2
Pulau Pinang 9 3.8 3.8 100.0
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Frequency of Perceived Stress Scale
Statistics
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7
N Valid 235 235 235 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 2.06 1.63 1.72 1.10 1.54 1.77 1.40
Median 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
Mode 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Std. Deviation 1.013 1.072 1.120 1.002 .833 .999 .983
Variance 1.026 1.149 1.254 1.003 .694 .998 .967
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Statistics
B8 B9 B10
N Valid 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 1.60 1.90 1.78
Median 2.00 2.00 2.00
Mode 2 2 1
Std. Deviation .828 .960 1.058
Variance .686 .921 1.119

Minimum 0 0 0
Maximum 4 4 4
113
Frequency Table of Perceived Stress Scale
Have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?
Cumulative
Valid Tidak Pernah/ Never 11 4.7 4.7 4.7
Hampir Tidak Pernah/ Almost

61 26.0 26.0 30.6
Never
Kadang-kadang/Sometimes 84 35.7 35.7 66.4
Agak Kerap/ Fairly Often 60 25.5 25.5 91.9
Sangat Kerap / Very Often 19 8.1 8.1 100.0
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?
Cumulative

77 32.8 32.8 47.7
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Have you felt nervous and stressed?
Cumulative

85 36.2 36.2 48.1
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
114
Have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems?
Cumulative

100 42.6 42.6 72.8
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Have you felt that things were going your way?
Cumulative

93 39.6 39.6 48.9
Never
Sangat Kerap / Very Often 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?
Cumulative

82 34.9 34.9 43.4
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
115
Have you been able to control irritations in your life?
Cumulative

97 41.3 41.3 59.1
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Have you felt that you were on top of things?
Cumulative

93 39.6 39.6 46.8
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Have you been angered because of things that happened that were outside of your control?
Cumulative

74 31.5 31.5 37.0
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
116
Have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?
Cumulative

80 34.0 34.0 43.4
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Frequencies of Job Demand
Statistics
CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 CI5 CI6 CI7
N Valid 235 235 235 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.11 3.93 4.07 3.49 3.60 3.37 2.91
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 5 4 5 3 4 3 3
Std. Deviation .852 .862 .905 1.182 1.129 1.225 1.237
Variance .726 .743 .820 1.396 1.274 1.500 1.531
Minimum 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Frequency Table of Job Demand
Does your job require working fast?
Cumulative
Valid Hampir Tidak Pernah/ Almost

7 3.0 3.0 3.0
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
117
Does your job require working hard?
Cumulative
Valid Hampir Tidak Pernah/ Almost

12 5.1 5.1 5.1
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Does your job require a great deal of work to be done?
Cumulative
Valid Tidak Pernah/ Never 1 .4 .4 .4

11 4.7 4.7 5.1
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Is there not enough time for you to do your job?
Cumulative

39 16.6 16.6 21.7
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Is there excessive work in your job?
Cumulative
118

33 14.0 14.0 17.9
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Do you feel there is not enough time for you to finish your work?
Cumulative

42 17.9 17.9 25.1
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Are you faced with conflicting demands on your job?
Cumulative

50 21.3 21.3 37.4
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Frequencies of Skill Discretion
Statistics
CII1 CII2 CII3 CII4
N Valid 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0
119
Mean 3.94 4.02 2.89 3.95
Median 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00

Mode 4 4 3 4
Std. Deviation .811 .814 .994 .912
Variance .658 .662 .988 .831
Minimum 1 1 1 1
Maximum 5 5 5 5
Frequency Table of Skill Discretion
Is high skill level is required?
Cumulative

7 3.0 3.0 3.4
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Are you required to learn new things?
Cumulative

6 2.6 2.6 3.0
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Is you work non-repetitions?
Cumulative
120
51 21.7 21.7 31.1
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Does your work require creativity?
Cumulative

9 3.8 3.8 5.5
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Frequencies of Decision Authority
Statistics
CIII1 CIII2 CIII3 CIII4
N Valid 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.40 3.40 3.13 3.33
Median 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 3 3 3 3
Std. Deviation .997 .921 1.058 .939
Variance .993 .849 1.120 .881

Minimum 1 1 1 1
Maximum 5 5 5 5
Frequency Table of Decision Authority
Do you have freedom to decide how to organize your work?
Cumulative
121
30 12.8 12.8 16.6
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Do you have control over what happens on your job?
Cumulative

29 12.3 12.3 14.5
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Does your job allow you to make a lot of your own decisions?
Cumulative

54 23.0 23.0 28.5
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Are you assisted in making your own decision?
Cumulative
122
29 12.3 12.3 16.2
Never
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Frequencies of Management Style
Statistics
CIV1 CIV2 CIV3 CIV4 CIV5 CIV6 CIV7
N Valid 235 235 235 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.91 5.02 4.79 4.95 4.91 4.64 4.26
Median 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00
Mode 5 5 4 6 6 5 4
Std. Deviation 1.447 1.373 1.383 1.406 1.529 1.566 1.461
Variance 2.094 1.884 1.912 1.976 2.338 2.453 2.133
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Statistics
CIV8 CIV9 CIV10 CIV11 CIV12
N Valid 235 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.66 3.31 3.13 4.83 4.77
Median 5.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 5.00
a
Mode 5 2 2 4 4
Std. Deviation 1.537 1.442 1.497 1.489 1.340
Variance 2.362 2.078 2.240 2.216 1.795
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 7 7 7 7 7
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
123
Frequency Table of Management Style
Helps me to solve work-related problem
Cumulative
Valid Sangat Tidak Bersetuju/ Strongly

6 2.6 2.6 2.6
Disagree
Tidak Bersetuju/ Disagree 10 4.3 4.3 6.8
Sedikit Bersetuju/ Slightly Disagree 19 8.1 8.1 14.9
Berkecuali /Neutral 48 20.4 20.4 35.3
Sedikit Bersetuju/ Slightly Agree 66 28.1 28.1 63.4
Bersetuju/ Agree 54 23.0 23.0 86.4
Sangat Bersetuju/ Strongly Agree 32 13.6 13.6 100.0
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Encourage me to develop new skills
Cumulative

3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Keeps informed about how employees think and feel about things
Cumulative

3 1.3 1.3 1.3
Disagree
124
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Encourages employees to participate in important decision
Cumulative

1 .4 .4 .4
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Praises good work
Cumulative

6 2.6 2.6 2.6
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Encourages employees to speak up when they disagree with a decision
125
Cumulative

12 5.1 5.1 5.1
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Rewards me for good performance
Cumulative

7 3.0 3.0 3.0
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Always seems to be around checking on my work
Cumulative

12 5.1 5.1 5.1
Disagree
126
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Tells me what skills be done and how it shall be done
Cumulative

19 8.1 8.1 8.1
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Tells me what skills be done and how it shall be done
Cumulative

29 12.3 12.3 12.3
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Never gives me a chance to make important decisions on my own
Cumulative
127
5 2.1 2.1 2.1
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Leaves it up to me to decide how to go about doing my job
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Sangat Tidak Bersetuju/ Strongly Disagree 4 1.7 1.7 1.7
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Frequencies of Role Ambiguity
Statistics
CV1 CV2 CV3 CV4 CV5 CV6 CV7
N Valid 235 235 235 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.23 3.20 2.92 3.30 2.18 2.27 3.44
Median 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00

a
Mode 3 4 2 4 2 2 4
Std. Deviation 1.387 1.471 1.363 1.336 1.115 1.191 1.684
Variance 1.924 2.163 1.857 1.784 1.244 1.419 2.837

Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 7 7 7 7 6 7 7
Statistics
128
CV8 CV9 CV10 CV11
N Valid 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 3.90 2.85 2.92 3.38
Median 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Mode 4 2 2 2
Std. Deviation 1.778 1.421 1.398 1.671
Variance 3.160 2.019 1.955 2.793
Minimum 1 1 1 1
Maximum 7 7 7 7
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Frequency Table of Role Ambiguity
My authority matches the responsibilities assigned to me
Cumulative
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I don’t know what is expected of me
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
129
Total 235 100.0 100.0
My responsibilities are clearly defined
Cumulative
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I feel certain about how much authority I have
Cumulative
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I know what my responsibilities are
Cumulative
130
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I have clear planned goals and objectives for my job
Cumulative
Sangat Bersetuju/ Strongly Agree 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 235 100.0 100.0
The planned goals and objectives are not clear
Cumulative
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I don’t know how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion
Cumulative
131
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I know what is expected of me

36 15.3 15.3 15.3
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Explanations are clear of what has to be done

34 14.5 14.5 14.5
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
My boss makes it clear how he will evaluate my performance
132
27 11.5 11.5 11.5
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Frequencies of Role Conflict
Statistics
CVI1 CVI2 CVI3 CVI4 CVI5 CVI6 CVI7
N Valid 235 235 235 235 235 235 235
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.09 4.11 3.46 4.09 5.67 3.97 4.67
Median 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 5.00
Mode 4 4 2 3 6 4 4
Std. Deviation 1.566 1.699 1.599 1.759 1.258 1.612 1.485
Variance 2.453 2.885 2.557 3.094 1.582 2.597 2.204
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Frequency Table of Role Conflict
I often get myself involved in situations in which there are conflicting requirements

14 6.0 6.0 6.0
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
133
There are unreasonable pressures for better performance

12 5.1 5.1 5.1
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I am often asked to do things that are against my better judgement

25 10.6 10.6 10.6
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I received an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it

16 6.8 6.8 6.8
Disagree
134
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment

2 .9 .9 .9
Disagree
Tidak Bersetuju/ Disagree 2 .9 .9 1.7
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment

13 5.5 5.5 5.5
Disagree
Total 235 100.0 100.0
I have to do things that should be done differently under different conditions

6 2.6 2.6 2.6
Disagree
135
Total 235 100.0 100.0
Correlations
Correlations
JOB_STRESS
_LEVEL JOB_DEMAND SKILL_DISCRETION
**
JOB_STRESS_LEVEL Pearson Correlation 1 .337 .053
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .417
N 235 235 235
JOB_DEMAND Pearson Correlation .337** 1 .436**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 235 235 235

**
SKILL_DISCRETION Pearson Correlation .053 .436 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .417 .000
N 235 235 235

**
DECISION_AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation -.325 -.021 .230**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .752 .000
N 235 235 235
MANAGEMENT_STYLE Pearson Correlation -.341** -.110 .095
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .093 .148
N 235 235 235
ROLE_AMBIGUITY Pearson Correlation .615** .262** -.081
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .214
N 235 235 235

** **
ROLE_CONFLICT Pearson Correlation .421 .560 .308**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 235 235 235
Correlations
DECISION_AUTHO MANAGEMENT_
RITY STYLE ROLE_AMBIGUITY
** **
JOB_STRESS_LEVEL Pearson Correlation -.325 -.341 .615**
136
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 235 235 235
JOB_DEMAND Pearson Correlation -.021 -.110 .262**
Sig. (2-tailed) .752 .093 .000
N 235 235 235
SKILL_DISCRETION Pearson Correlation .230** .095 -.081
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .148 .214
N 235 235 235

**
DECISION_AUTHORIT Pearson Correlation 1 .431 -.523**
Y Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 235 235 235

**
MANAGEMENT_STYL Pearson Correlation .431 1 -.650**
E Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 235 235 235
ROLE_AMBIGUITY Pearson Correlation -.523** -.650** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 235 235 235
ROLE_CONFLICT Pearson Correlation -.069 -.201** .409**
Sig. (2-tailed) .294 .002 .000
N 235 235 235
Correlations
ROLE_CONFLICT
JOB_STRESS_LEVEL Pearson Correlation .421**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 235
JOB_DEMAND Pearson Correlation .560**
N 235
SKILL_DISCRETION Pearson Correlation .308**
N 235
DECISION_AUTHORITY Pearson Correlation -.069
N 235
137
MANAGEMENT_STYLE Pearson Correlation -.201**
N 235
ROLE_AMBIGUITY Pearson Correlation .409**
N 235
ROLE_CONFLICT Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N 235
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Regression Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
JOB_STRESS_LEVEL 16.4936 6.49876 235

JOB_DEMAND 25.4936 5.93150 235
SKILL_DISCRETION 14.8000 2.51287 235
DECISION_AUTHORITY 13.2638 2.87610 235

MANAGEMENT_STYLE 54.1787 8.55163 235
ROLE_AMBIGUITY 33.6043 10.43298 235
ROLE_CONFLICT 30.0638 7.83048 235
Correlations
JOB_STRESS_LEVEL JOB_DEMAND SKILL_DISCRETION
Pearson Correlation JOB_STRESS_LEVEL 1.000 .337 .053
JOB_DEMAND .337 1.000 .436
SKILL_DISCRETION .053 .436 1.000
DECISION_AUTHORITY -.325 -.021 .230
MANAGEMENT_STYLE -.341 -.110 .095
ROLE_AMBIGUITY .615 .262 -.081
ROLE_CONFLICT .421 .560 .308
Sig. (1-tailed) JOB_STRESS_LEVEL . .000 .209
JOB_DEMAND .000 . .000
SKILL_DISCRETION .209 .000 .
DECISION_AUTHORITY .000 .376 .000
138
MANAGEMENT_STYLE .000 .046 .074
ROLE_AMBIGUITY .000 .000 .107
N JOB_STRESS_LEVEL 235 235 235
JOB_DEMAND 235 235 235
SKILL_DISCRETION 235 235 235
DECISION_AUTHORITY 235 235 235
MANAGEMENT_STYLE 235 235 235
ROLE_AMBIGUITY 235 235 235
ROLE_CONFLICT 235 235 235
Correlations
DECISION_AUTHORI MANAGEMENT_
TY STYLE ROLE_AMBIGUITY
Pearson Correlation JOB_STRESS_LEVEL -.325 -.341 .615
JOB_DEMAND -.021 -.110 .262
SKILL_DISCRETION .230 .095 -.081
DECISION_AUTHORITY 1.000 .431 -.523
MANAGEMENT_STYLE .431 1.000 -.650
ROLE_AMBIGUITY -.523 -.650 1.000
ROLE_CONFLICT -.069 -.201 .409
Sig. (1-tailed) JOB_STRESS_LEVEL .000 .000 .000
JOB_DEMAND .376 .046 .000
SKILL_DISCRETION .000 .074 .107
DECISION_AUTHORITY . .000 .000
MANAGEMENT_STYLE .000 . .000
ROLE_AMBIGUITY .000 .000 .
N JOB_STRESS_LEVEL 235 235 235
JOB_DEMAND 235 235 235
SKILL_DISCRETION 235 235 235
DECISION_AUTHORITY 235 235 235
MANAGEMENT_STYLE 235 235 235
ROLE_AMBIGUITY 235 235 235
ROLE_CONFLICT 235 235 235
139
Correlations
ROLE_CONFLICT
Pearson Correlation JOB_STRESS_LEVEL .421
JOB_DEMAND .560
SKILL_DISCRETION .308
DECISION_AUTHORITY -.069
MANAGEMENT_STYLE -.201
ROLE_AMBIGUITY .409
ROLE_CONFLICT 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) JOB_STRESS_LEVEL .000
JOB_DEMAND .000
SKILL_DISCRETION .000
DECISION_AUTHORITY .147
MANAGEMENT_STYLE .001
ROLE_AMBIGUITY .000
ROLE_CONFLICT .
N JOB_STRESS_LEVEL 235
JOB_DEMAND 235
SKILL_DISCRETION 235
DECISION_AUTHORITY 235
MANAGEMENT_STYLE 235
ROLE_AMBIGUITY 235
ROLE_CONFLICT 235
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .655a .429 .414 4.97689
a. Predictors: (Constant), ROLE_CONFLICT, DECISION_AUTHORITY,

SKILL_DISCRETION, MANAGEMENT_STYLE, JOB_DEMAND,
ROLE_AMBIGUITY
b. Dependent Variable: JOB_STRESS_LEVEL
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
140
1 Regression 4235.300 6 705.883 28.498 .000b
Residual 5647.440 228 24.769
Total 9882.740 234
a. Dependent Variable: JOB_STRESS_LEVEL

b. Predictors: (Constant), ROLE_CONFLICT, DECISION_AUTHORITY, SKILL_DISCRETION,
MANAGEMENT_STYLE, JOB_DEMAND, ROLE_AMBIGUITY
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t
1 (Constant) -3.588 4.476 -.802
JOB_DEMAND .131 .071 .120 1.848
SKILL_DISCRETION .025 .152 .010 .165
DECISION_AUTHORITY -.148 .138 -.065 -1.070
MANAGEMENT_STYLE .063 .051 .083 1.240
ROLE_AMBIGUITY .340 .049 .546 7.001
ROLE_CONFLICT .116 .054 .140 2.135
Coefficientsa
Collinearity
95.0% Confidence Interval for B Statistics
Model Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Tolerance
1 (Constant) .424 -12.407 5.231
JOB_DEMAND .066 -.009 .271 .598
SKILL_DISCRETION .869 -.274 .324 .727
DECISION_AUTHORITY .286 -.420 .124 .671
MANAGEMENT_STYLE .216 -.037 .163 .563
ROLE_AMBIGUITY .000 .245 .436 .411
ROLE_CONFLICT .034 .009 .223 .586
Coefficientsa
Collinearity Statistics
Model VIF
141
1 (Constant)
JOB_DEMAND 1.673
SKILL_DISCRETION 1.375
DECISION_AUTHORITY 1.489
MANAGEMENT_STYLE 1.777
ROLE_AMBIGUITY 2.430
ROLE_CONFLICT 1.708
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Variance Proportions
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index (Constant) JOB_DEMAND SKILL_DISCRETION
1 1 6.758 1.000 .00 .00 .00
2 .129 7.239 .00 .00 .00
3 .046 12.132 .01 .18 .01
4 .026 16.086 .00 .38 .08
5 .020 18.343 .01 .05 .01
6 .017 19.864 .00 .40 .82
7 .004 41.702 .98 .00 .08
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Variance Proportions
DECISION_ MANAGEMENT_
Model Dimension AUTHORITY STYLE ROLE_AMBIGUITY ROLE_CONFLICT
1 1 .00 .00 .00 .00
2 .06 .02 .14 .02
3 .01 .02 .23 .22
4 .14 .00 .00 .63
5 .66 .28 .04 .11
6 .04 .04 .00 .01
7 .08 .65 .59 .01
Residuals Statisticsa
142
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 6.4371 34.3874 16.4936 4.25436 235

Residual -12.94073 15.40485 .00000 4.91267 235
Std. Predicted Value -2.364 4.206 .000 1.000 235
Std. Residual -2.600 3.095 .000 .987 235
Charts
143
144
REFERENCES
Accariya, Z., & Khalil, M. (2016). The relations between management style, work
motivation and feeling of stress among the Arab School Community. Creative
Education, 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.714201
Adeb-Saeedi, J. (2002). Stress amongst emergency nurses. Australian Emergency Nursing

Journal, 5(2), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1328-2743(02)80015-3
Adiguzel, Z., & Kucukoglu, I. (2019). Examining of the effects of employees on work
stress, role conflict and job insecurity on organizational culture. International
Journal of Economics and Management, 1(4), 37 - 48.
Ahmad, U., Zulfiqar, A., Ishfaq, A., & Zeeshan, A. (2011). Work stress experienced by
the teaching staff of University of the Punjab, Pakistan: Antecedents and
consequence. International Junior Business Social Science, 2(8), 202.
Ahsan, N., Abdullah, Z., Fie, G. Y. D., & Alam, S. S. (2009). A study of job stress on
job satisfaction among university staff in Malaysia: Empirical study. European
Journal Social Science, 8(1), 121-131.
Ainer, C. D., Subramaniam, C., & Arokiasamy, L. (2018). Determinants of turnover

intention in the private universities in Malaysia: A conceptual paper. HS Web of
Conferences, 56. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185603004
Åkerstedt, T., Knutsson, A., Westerholm, P., Theorell, T., Alfredsson, L., & Kecklund,
G. (2004). Mental fatigue, work and sleep. Journal of Psychosomatic Research,
57(5), 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2003.12.001
145
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), 1082–1099. DOI:10.1108/ijchm-09-2013-0421
Alonderiene, R. & Majauskaite, M. (2016). Leadership style and job satisfaction in higher
education institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(1),
140-164. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2014-0106
Armstrong, G. S., Atkin-Plunk, C. A., & Wells, J. (2015). The relationship between work–
family conflict, Correctional Officer job stress, and job satisfaction. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 42(10), 1066–1082. DOI:10.1177/0093854815582221
American Psychological Association. (2020). APA dictionary of psychology. Available

at https://dictionary.apa.org/stress
Anderson, D., & Kelliher, C. (2020). Enforced remote working and the work-life interface
during lockdown. Gender in Management. DOI: 10.1108/GM-07-2020-0224
Antonopoulou, P., Killian, M., & Forrester, D. (2017). Levels of stress and anxiety in child
and family social work: Workers’ perceptions of organizational structure,
professional support and workplace opportunities in Children’s Services in the UK.
Children and Youth Services Review, 76, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.childyouth.2017.02.028
Azizi Zavar, K., Bahrami Heidji, M., & Jomehri, F. (2020). Predicting occupational
burnout based on management style and self-efficacy. Archives of Pharmacy
Practice, 11(1), 135-42.
Azmi, F. S., Md. Shahid, S. A., & Alwi, A. (2016). The relationship between job stress
and front-liners’ job performance in a shared service center in Malaysia. International
146
Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6(7), 510-513. DOI: 10.7763/
IJSSH.2016.V6.701
Baka, L. (2018). Types of job demands make a difference: Testing the job demand-
control-support model among Polish police officers, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1443962
Balloch, S., Pahl, J., & McLean, J. (1998). Working in the social services: Job satisfaction,
stress and violence. The British Journal of Social Work, 28(3), 329-350.
Barck-Holst, P., Nilsonne, A., Åkerstedt, T., & Hellgren, C. (2019): Coping with stressful
situations in social work before and after reduced working hours, a mixed methods
study. European Journal of Social Work, DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2019.1656171
Beebe, R. S. (2007). Predicting burnout, conflict management style, and turnover among
clergy. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1177
/10690727062981 57
Beer, O. W. J. (2016). Predictors of and Causes of Stress among Social Workers: A

National Survey. (October). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/308612639
Bhui, K., Dinos, S., Galant-Miecznikowska, M., De Jongh, B., & Stansfeld, S. (2016).
Perceptions of work stress causes and effective interventions in employees working
in public, private and non-governmental organisations: A qualitative study. BJPsych
Bulletin, 40(6), 318–325. DOI:10.1192/pb.bp.115.050823
Bhumika (2020). Challenges for work–life balance during COVID-19 induced nationwide
lockdown: exploring gender difference in emotional exhaustion in the Indian setting.
Gender Management. DOI 10.1108/GM-06-2020-0163
147
Calitz, T., Roux, A., & Strydom, H. (2014). Factors that affect social workers' job
satisfaction, stress and burnout. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk, 50(2), 153-179.
https://dx.doi.org/10.15270/50-2-393
Carlotto, M. S., & Câmara, S. G. (2019). Prevalence and predictors of Burnout Syndrome
among Public Elementary School Teachers. Análise Psicológica, 37(2), 135-146.
Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10400.12/7104
Cattell, K., Bowen, P., & Edwards, P. (2016). Stress among South African construction
professionals: A job demand-control-support survey. Construction Management and
Economics, 34(10), 700-723. DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2016.1203967
Celik, K. (2013). The effect of role ambigutiy and role conflict on performance of vice
principals: The mediationg role of burnout. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal
of Educational Research, 51, 195-214. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1059818.pdf
Chiang, F., Birtch, T. A., & Kwan, H. K. (2011). 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), 25-32. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.04.005
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Cohen, S. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S.

Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social
Psychology. The Social Psychology of Health (p. 31–67). Sage Publications, Inc.
148
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A Global Measure of Perceived Stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385. doi:10.2307/2136404
Collins, S. (2008). Statutory social workers: Stress, job satisfaction, coping, social support
and individual differences. British Journal of Social Work, 38(6), 1173–1193.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcm047
Court, S., & Kinman, G. (2009). Tackling stress in higher education. London: UCU.
Retrieved from http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/d/0/ucu_hestress_dec08.pdf
Craig, S. L., & Muskat, B. (2013). Bouncers, brokers, and glue: The self-described roles
of social workers in urban hospitals. Health and Social Work, 38(1), 7–16.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hls064
Deeb, C. (2019, January 31). What Happens to an Organization with Bad Management?
Chron. Available at https://smallbusiness.chron.com/happens-organization-bad-
management-34749.html
Del Pozo-Antúnez, J., Ariza-Montes, A., Fernández-Navarro, F., & Molina-Sánchez, H.

(2018). Effect of a Job Demand-Control-Social Support Model on Accounting
Professionals’ Health Perception. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 15(11), 2437. doi:10.3390/ijerph15112437
Department of Statistics Malaysia. Principal Statistics of Labour Force, Malaysia, Third

Quarter (Q3) 2017
Deschamps, F., Paganon-Badinier, I., Marchand, A. C., & Merle, C. (2003). Sources and
Assessment of Occupational Stress in the Police. Journal of Occupational Health,
45(6), 358–364. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.45.358
149
Dobreva-Martinova. (2002). Occupational role stress in the Canadian forces: Its
association with individual and organizational well-being. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 34(2), 111–121.
Duxbury, L., Lyons, S., & Higgins, C. (2008). Too Much to do, and Not Enough Time: An
Examination of Role Overload. Handbook of Work-Family Integration, 125–140.
doi:10.1016/b978-012372574-5.50010-7
Ellison, J. M., & Caudill, J. W. (2020). Working on local time: Testing the job-demand-
control-support model of stress with jail officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 70, 1-
11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101717
Evans, S., Huxley, P., Gately, C., Webber, M., Mears, A., Pajak, S., … Katona, C. (2006).
Mental health, burnout and job satisfaction among mental health social workers in
England and Wales. British Journal of Psychiatry, 188(01), 75–80.
doi:10.1192/bjp.188.1.75
Fandiño-Losada, A., Forsell, Y., & Lundberg, I. (2012). Demands, skill discretion,
decision authority and social climate at work as determinants of major depression in
a 3-year follow-up study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, 86(5), 591–605. doi:10.1007/s00420-012-0791-3
Fernet, C., Torrès, O., Austin, S., & St-Pierrre, J. (2016). The psychological costs of
owning and managing an SME: Linking job stressors, occupational loneliness,
entrepreneurial orientation, and burnout. Burnout Research, 3(2), 45-53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2016.03.002
Fischer, J. E., Calame, A., Dettling, A. C., Zeier, H., & Fanconi, S. (2000). Experience
and endocrine stress responses in neonatal and pediatric critical care nurses and
150
physicians. Critical Care Medicine, 28(9), 3281–3288. https://doi.org/10.1097/
00003246-200009000-00027
Fonarow, G. C., & Gawlinski, A. (2000). Rationale and design of the cardiac
hospitalization atherosclerosis management program at the University of California
Los Angeles. American Journal of Cardiology, 85(3 SUPPL. 1), 10–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00933-9
Fukui, S., Wu, W. & Salyers, M.P. (2019). Impact of supervisory support on turnover
intention: The mediating role of burnout and job satisfaction in a longitudinal study.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health Service Research, 46, 488–497.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-019-00927-0
George, E., & K.A., Z. (2015). Job related stress and job satisfaction: A comparative study
among bank employees. Journal of Management Development, 34(3), 316–329.
doi:10.1108/jmd-07-2013-0097
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). A meta-analysis of work
demand stressors and job performance. Stress to Wellbeing, 1, 227–271.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137310651.0017
Goswami, T. G. (2015). Job stress and its effect on employee performance in Banking
Sector. Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, 6(2). Available at
https://aihunjra.com/uploads/Articles%20on%20Behavioral%20Finance.pdf#page=
56
Grasso, A. J. (1994). Management style, job satisfaction, and service effectiveness.

Administration in Social Work, 18(4), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J147v18n04_05
151
Grotto, A. R., & Lyness, K. S. (2010). The Costs of today’s jobs: job characteristics and
organizational supports as antecedents of negative spillover. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 76, 395-405. Available at https://www.ioatwork.com/the-overwhelming-
effect-of-job-demands-on-spillover/
Gurvich, C., Thomas, N., Thomas, E. H. X., Hudaib, A. R., Sood, L., Fabiatos, K., …
Kulkarni, J. (2020). Coping styles and mental health in response to societal changes
during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Social Psychiatry.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020961790
Habibi, E., Poorabdian, S., & Shakerian, M. (2015). Job strain (demands and control
model) as a predictor of cardiovascular risk factors among petrochemical personnel.
Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 4(16). DOI: 10.4103/2277-
9531.154034
Hare, I. (2004). Defining social work for the 21st century: The international Federation of
Social Workers’ revised definition of social work. International Social Work, 47(3),
407-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872804043973
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes?
Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.5465/
AMJ.2006.20786077
Hirokawa, K., Ohira, T., & Nagayoshi. M., (2016). Occupational status and job stress in
relation to cardiovascular stress reactivity in Japanese workers. Preventive Medicine
Report, 4, 61-67. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.05.010
Hessels, J., Rietveld, C. A., & Van Der Zwan, P. (2017) Self-employment and work-
related stress: The mediating role of job control and job demand. Journal of Business
152
Venturing, 32, 178-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.10.007
Hoboubi, N., Choobineh, A., Ghanavati, F. K., Keshavari, S. & Hosseini, A. A. (2017).
The impact of job stress and job satisfaction on workforce productivity in an Iranian
petrochemical. Safety and Health at Work, 8(1),67-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.shaw.2016.07.002
House, R. J., Schuler, R. S., & Levanoni, E. (1983). Role conflict and ambiguity scales:
Reality or artifacts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 334–337.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.2.334
Hussein, S. (2018). Work engagement, burnout and personal accomplishments among

social workers: a comparison between those working in children and adults’ services
in England. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services
Research, 45(6), 911-923. doi:10.1007/s10488-018-0872-z
ILO. (2016). World employment and social outlook: Trends 2016. International Labour
Organization. Available at https://www.ilo.org
International Federation of Social Workers (2014). Global Definition of Social Work.

IFSW Official Portal. Available at https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-
definition-of-social-work/
Islam, T., & Ahmed, I. (2018). Mechanism between perceived organizational support and
transfer of training. Management Research Review, 41(3), 296–313.
DOI:10.1108/mrr-02-2017-0052
Ismail, A., Abdul Ghani, A. B., Muhammad Subhan, Raihan Joader, M. H., & Ridzuan,
A. A. (2015). The Relationship between Stress and Job Satisfaction: An Evidence
from Malaysian Peacekeeping Mission. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,
153
6(4), 647-655. DOI:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s3p647
Jalagat, R. (2017). Determinants of job stress and its relationship on employee job
performance. American Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 2(1), 1-
10. DOI: 10.11648/j.ajmse.20170201.11
Jamaluddin, Z., & Ab. Ghani, K. (2003). Tekanan di kalangan kakitangan agensi
perkhidmatan bantuan: Kes di Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat. Available at
http://repo.uum.edu.my/1361/1/Zakiah_Jamaluddin_%26_Kamaruddin_Ab._Ghani
[2].pdf
Jalonen, N., Kinnunen, M., Pulkkinen, L., & Kokko, K. (2015). Job discretion and
emotional control strategies as antecedents of recovery from work. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(3), 389-401. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.
2014.914923
Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Boles, J. S. (2011). Workplace stressors, job attitude, and job
behaviors: Is interpersonal conflict the missing link? Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 31(3), 339–356. DOI:10.2753/pss0885-3134310310
Jawale, K. V. (2012). Methods of sampling design in the legal research: Advantages and
disadvantages. International Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 2(6), 183–190.
Jick, T. D., & Payne, R. (1980). Stress at work. Journal of Management Education, 5(3),
50 –56. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256298000500315
Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: a review
and theoretical extension. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Process, 86,
67-98. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2973
154
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).
Occupational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley
Kalliath, P., & Kalliath, T. (2013). Work-family conflict and its impact on job satisfaction
of social workers. British Journal of Social Work, 45(1), 241–259.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct125
Kapusuz, A. G. (2019). Explaining stress and depression level of nurses: The effects of
role conflict and role ambiguity. International Journal of Management and
Sustainability, 8(2), 61 - 66. DOI: 10.18488/journal.11.2019.82.61.66
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications
for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
Kassim, M. S. A., Ismail, R., & Ismail, A. (2018). A review of occupational stress
prevalence and its predictors among selected working populations in Malaysia.
Malaysian Journal of Public Health Medicine, 18(2), 1-6. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/
Katić, I., Knežević, T., Berber, N., Ivanišević, A., & Leber, M. (2019). The impact of
stress on life, working, and management styles: How to make an organization
healthier? Sustainability, 11(15). DOI:10.3390/su11154026
Khatibi, A., Asadi, H., & Hamidi, M. (2009). The relationship between job stress and
organizational commitment in national olympic and paralympic academy. World
Journal of Sport Sciences, 2(4), 272–278.
Khuong, M. N., & Linh, U. D. T. (2020). Influence of work-related stress on employee

motivation, job satisfaction and employee loyalty in hospitality industry.
155
Management Science Letters, 10, 3729 – 3290. DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.6.010
Kirkcaldy, B., Cooper, C. L., & Ruffalo, P. (1995). Work stress and health in a sample of
U.S. police. Psychological Reports, 76(2), 700–702. doi:10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.700
Kitila, M. (2014). Prevalence of and factors associated with work stress in academia in
Tanzania. Journal Higher Education, 3(1), 1.
Koesky, G. F. (1995). The Effect of Characteristics of Human Service Workers on

Subsequent Morale and Turnover. Administration in Social Work, 19(1).
Labour Force Survey. (2019). Department of Statistics Malaysia.

https://www.talentcorp.com.my/key-figures/key-figures
Landsman, M. (2007). Supporting child welfare supervisors to improve worker retention.

Child Welfare, 86(2), 105–124. https://doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004.
Lee, E. H. (2016). Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale.
Asian Nursing Research, 6(4), 121-127.
Leka, S., Griffiths, A., & Cox, T. (2004). Work organization and stress: Systematic
problem approaches for employees, managers and trade union representatives.
Protecting Workers' Health Series No 3. Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Available at: https://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/pwh3rev.pdf
Liaudanskiene, R., Varnas, N., & Ustinovichius, L. (2010). Modelling the application of
workplace safety and health act in Lithuanian construction sector. Technology
Economic Developnment, 16(2), 233-253. DOI: 10.3846/tede.2010.15
Lloyd, C., King, R., & Chenoweth, L. (2002). Social work, stress and burnout: A review.
Journal of Mental Health, 11(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/
156
09638230020023642
Macduff, C. (2007). Typologies in nursing: a review of the literature. Nurse Researcher,

14(2), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2007.01.14.2.40.c6020
Malaysia Trade Union Congress. (2015). CUEPACS to send memorandum to protest

freeze for recruitment of new staff. http://www.mtuc.org.my/cuepacs-to-send-
memorandum-to-protest-freeze-for-recruitment-of-new-staff/
Mansour, M. (2016). Quantifying the intangible costs related to non-ergonomic work

conditions and work injuries based on the stress level among employees. Safety
Science, 82, 283–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.09.007
Mansour, R. A. E. G, & Elmorsey, R. M. (2016). Occupational Stress: Measuring its

Impact on Employee Performance and Turnover. European Journal of Business and
Management, 8(21). Available at https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/
article/view/31667/32539
Mark, G., & Smith, A. P. (2011). Occupational stress, job characteristics, coping, and the
mental health of nurses. British Journal of Health Psychology, 17(3), 505-521. DOI:
10.1111/j.2044-8287.2011.02051.x
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2017). Understanding burnout: New models. In C. L. Cooper
& J. C. Quick (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and
practice (p. 36–56). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118993811.ch3
Mather, L., Bergström, G., Blom, V., & Svedberg, P. (2015). High job demands, job strain,
and iso-strain are risk factors for sick leave due to mental disorders: a prospective
Swedish twin study with a 5-year follow-up. Journal of Occupational Environental
Medicine, 57(8), 858-865. DOI: 10.1097/jom.0000000000000504
157
Matthers, L. M., & Rutherford, B. N. (2020) The impact of skill discretion and work
demands on salesperson job satisfaction: The mediating influence of the burnout
facets. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management. DOI:
10.1080/08853134.2020.1815542
Mathieu, C., Fabi, B., Lacoursière, R., & Raymond, L. (2015). The role of supervisory
behavior, job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee turnover.
Journal of Management and Organization, 22(1), 113–129. DOI:10.1017/jmo
.2015.25
McCormack, N., & Cotter, C. (2013). Factors contributing to burnout. Managing Burnout
in the Workplace, 27-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-734-7.50002-5
Mérida-López, S., Extremera, N., & Rey, L. (2017). Contributions of work-related stress
and emotional intelligence to teacher engagement: Additive and interactive effects.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10), 1156.
DOI:10.3390/ijerph14101156
Metzenthin, P., Helfricht, S., Loerbroks, A., Terris, D. D., Haug, H. J., Subramanian, S.
V., & Fischer, J. E. (2009). A one-item subjective work stress assessment tool is
associated with cortisol secretion levels in critical care nurses. Preventive Medicine,
48(5), 462–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.02.001
Michie, S. (2002). Causes and management of stress at work. Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, 59(1), 67–72. DOI:10.1136/oem.59.1.67
Moorthy, M. K., Lee, J. Y., Hon, P. L., Khong, Y. M., Teow, A. N., & Yeong, S. J. (2013).
Determinants of job stress in affecting job performance: A study on the Malaysian
banking sector. International Journal of Business Excellence, 6(4), 21-33. DOI:
158
10.1504/IJBEX.2013.054722
Mor Barak, M. E., Nisly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover
among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we
learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Service Review, 75(4).
Moses, X. J. E., Walters, K. M., & Fisher, G. G. (2016). What factors are associated with
occupational health office staffing, job stress, and job satisfaction? Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(6), 567–574. DOI:10.1097/
jom.0000000000000741
Mukosolu, O., Ibrahim, F., Rampal, L., & Ibrahim, N. (2015). Prevalence of job stress and
its association factors among Universiti Putra Malaysia staff. Malaysian Journal of
Medicine and Health Sciences, 11(1), 27-38. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281234973_Prevalence_of_Job_stress_
and_its_Associated_Factors_among_Universiti_Putra_Malaysia_Staff
Munich Personal RePEc Archive [Internet]. (2008). The influence of stress and
satisfaction on productivity. [cited 2012 Jun 25]. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/39654/.
Murali S. B., Basit, A., & Hassan, Z. (2017). Impact of job stress on employee
performance. International Journal of Accounting and Business Management, 5(2),
13-33. Available https://ssrn.com/abstract=3125336
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1999). Stress….at Work. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/niosh
/docs/99-101/pdfs/99101.pdf?id= 10.26616/NIOSHPUB99101
Nauman, S., Raja, U., Haq, I.U. and Bilal, W. (2019). Job demand and employee well-
159
being: A moderated mediation model of emotional intelligence and surface acting.
Personnel Review, 48(5), 1150-1168. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2018-0127
Newman, W., L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. United States of America: Pearson New International Edition.
Nisar, S. K. & Rasheed, M. I. (2019). Stress and performance: Investigating relationship

between occupational stress, career satisfaction, and job performance of police
employees. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1986
Nishanti, H. M., & Weerasuriya. (2014). Impact of supervisory leadership style on

employee level of stress in Sri Lankan Healthcare Sector. International Conference
on Business and Information (ICBI) 2014, 1-17. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication
Official Portal of Department of Social Welfare. (2020). Available at:

https://www.jkm.gov.my
Official Portal of Public Services Commission of Malaysia. (2020). Available at:

https://www.spa.gov.my
Oginyi, R. C. N., Mbam, O. S., Nwoba, M. O. E., & Nwankwo, O. D. (2018).

Occupational stress, work engagement and work environement as predictors of job
satisfaction among primary scholl teachers in Ebonyi State, Nigeria. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 56(2), 25-36. Available at http://www.european
journalofsocialsciences.com/
Oldham, G. R. & Cumming, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual

factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
160
Orgambídez-Ramos, A., Borrego-Alés, Y., & Mendoza-Sierra, I. (2014). Role stress and
work engagement as antecedents of job satisfaction in Spanish workers. Journal of
Industrial Engineering and Management, 10(1). DOI:10.3926/jiem.992
Özer, M. A. (2008). Yüzyılda yönetim ve yöneticileri. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Pratiwi, I. Y., Ratnadi, N. M. D., Suprasto, H. B., & Sujana, I. K. (2019). The effect of
role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload in burnout government internal
supervisors with Tri Hita Karana culture as moderation. International Research
Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 6(3), 61-69.
https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v6n3.630
Rafferty, Y., Friend, R., & Landsbergis, P. A. (2001). The association between job skill
discretion, decision authority and burnout. Work & Stress, 15(1), 73-58. DOI:
10.1080/02678370110064627
Ram, N., Khoso, I., Ali Shah, A., Chandio, F. R., & Shaikh, F. M. (2011). Role conflict
and role ambiguity as factors in work stress among managers: A case study of
manufacturing sector in Pakistan. Asian Social Science, 7(2), 113-118. DOI:
10.5539/ass.v7n2p113
Ramasami, S. (2007). Stress level among customer service executives in business process
outsourcing industry (BPO) in Malaysia: Factors contributing to stress. Masters
thesis, Multimedia University.
Rana, B., and Munir, K. (2011). Impact of stressors on the performance of employees.
Municipal Personal RePEc Archive. Available at https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/32729/
Rasmussen, M. B., Hansen, T., & Nielsen, K. T. (2011). New tools and strategies for the
161
inspection of the psychosocial working environment: The experience of the Danish
Working Environment Authority. Safety Science, 49(4), 565–574. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssci.2010.06.002
Rizzo, J., R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in
complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163.
https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2391486.
Sara, J. D., Prasad, M., Eleid, M. F., Zhang, M., Widmer, R. J., & Lerman, A. (2018).
Association between work‐related stress and coronary heart disease: a review of
prospective studies through the Job Strain, Effort ‐ Reward Balance, and
Organizational Justice Models. Journal of the American Heart Association, 7(9),
e008073. doi:10.1161/jaha.117.008073
Sedgwick, P. (2014). Cluster sampling. BMJ (Online), 348(January).

https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj .g1215
Seval, H. (2006). Çatışmanın etkileri ve yönetimi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi.
Shikieri, A. B. El, & Musa, H. A. (2012). Factors associated with occupational stress and
their effects on organizational performance in a Sudanese university. Creative
Education, 3(1), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.31022
Shin, S. Y., & Lee, S. G. (2016). Effects of hospital workers’ friendship networks on job
stress. PLOS ONE, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149428
Silverstein, M. (2008). Meeting the challenges of an aging workforce. American Journal

of Industrial Medicine, 51(4), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20569
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The
162
dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created
equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2005.10.005
Sulaiman, N. A. (2020). COVID-19: Negeri Sembilan catat kes baharu tertinggi hari ini
[Online]. Berita Harian. Available: www.bharian.com.my [2020, December 7]
Sukumar, A., & Kanagarathinam, M. (2015). Stress management among the employees
of the nationalised banks in Coimbatore City. International Journal in Management
and Social Science, 3(8), 445-450. Available at http://www.ijmr.net.in
Theorell, T., De Manzano, O., Lennartsson, A., Pedersen, N., L., & Ullen, F. (2016). Self-
reported psychological demands, skill discretion and decision authority at work: A
twin study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 44, 354 - 360. DOI: 10.1177/
1403494815626610
Travis, D. J., & Barak, M. E. M. (2010). Fight or flight? factors influencing child welfare
workers’ propensity to seek positive change or disengage from their jobs. Journal of
Social Service Research, 36(3), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01488371003697905
Trousselard, M., Dutheil, F., Naughton, G., Cosserant, S., Amadon, S., Duale, C., &
Schoeffler, P. (2015). Stress among nurses working in emergency, anesthesiology
and intensive care units depends on qualification: A job demand‑control survey.
International Archives Occupational Environmental Health, 89(2), 221-229. DOI:
10.1007/s00420-015-1065-7
Um, M., & Harrison, D. F. (1998). Outcome Model and an Empirical Test. 22(2).
Vijayan, M. (2017). Impact of job stress on employees’ job performance in Aavin,
163
Coimbatore. Journal of Organisation and Human Behaviour, 6(3). Available at
http://www.publishingindia.com
Viotti, S., & Converso, D. (2016). Relationship between job demands and psychological
outcomes among nurses: Does skill discretion matter? International Journal of
Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 29(3), 439-460.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00520
Wagaman, M. A., Geiger, J. M., Shockley, C., & Segal, E. A. (2015). The role of empathy
in burnout, compassion satisfaction, and secondary traumatic stress among Social
Workers. Social Work, 60(3), 201–209. DOI:10.1093/sw/swv014
Westman, M. (1992). Moderating effect of decision latitude on stress‐strain relationship:

Does organizational level matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(7), 713-
722. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130707
Widyaningrum, S., & Nora, E. (2020). The effect of role ambiguity on job satisfaction
mediated by employee work stress in trading business Barokah, Trenggalek East
Java. International Conference on Islam, Economy and Halal Industry, KnE Social
Sciences, 352–363. DOI: 10.18502/kss.v4i9.7336
Willems, E.A. (2014). Stress among Social Work Professionals in Mental Health Care
Settings. Master of Social Work Clinical Research Papers, Paper 410. Retrieved
from http://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_ papers/410
Won, N. C., Sharif, M. Y., & Wan, C. Y. (2016). Social Welfare Organization in
Malaysia : Issue and Proposed Actions. Journal for Studies in Management and
Planning, 2(8), 422–428.
Zellars, K. L., Perrewé, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2000). Burnout in health care: The
164
role of the five factors of personality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8),
1570–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02456.x
Zhang, Y. (2016) A review of employee turnover influence factor and countermeasure.

Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 4, 85-91. DOI:
10.4236/jhrss.2016.42010.
Zunaidah, Nengyanti, & Hadjri, M. I. (2019). Work stress, job satisfaction, and turnover
intention: Case study on regional development banks in Southern Sumatera.
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 8(7). Available at:
https://www.ijstr.org
165

Stress Among Social Workers in JKMM - Liew Lee Su - Final Submission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Stress Among Social Workers in JKMM - Liew Lee Su - Final Submission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stress Among Social Workers in JKMM - Liew Lee Su - Final Submission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRESS AMONG SOCIAL WORKERS IN

THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

© 2019 Universiti Telekom Sdn. Bhd. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Copyright of this thesis belongs to Universiti Telekom Sdn. Bhd. as qualified by

Student's Signature: ____________________ Date: 28 February 2021

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my project supervisor, Dr Arnifa

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS xi

1.1 Background of Study 1

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 14

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 29

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS 39

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 62

APPENDIX B OUTPUT (CASE PROCESSING SUMMARY) 98

Table No. Page

Figure No. Page

1.1 Background of Study

In a social welfare organisation, supervisory and organisational-support work

Therefore, social welfare organisations experience high turnover or absenteeism

1.2 Problem Statement

The Department of Social Welfare (Jabatan Kebajikan Masyarakat Malaysia,

In addition, 66.2 percent of Malay children were registered are in need of

It is not an overstatement to imply that JKMM social workers are facing a

1.3 Department of Social Welfare Malaysia in a Brief

The placement of social workers is conducted by the headquarters of JKMM. The

i. Headquarters (HQ) of JKMM in the Federal Territory of Putrajaya; or

Table 1.1 Positions of JKMM

1 Manager* 358 10.8

2 Supervisor** 1078 32.7

3 Staff*** 1865 56.5

Total 3301 100.0

SOURCE: Department of Social Welfare Malaysia, 26 December 2019

1 JKMN* 398 12.1

2 PKMD/J/B ** 2104 63.7

3 Welfare Institutions *** 799 24.2

Total 3301 100.0

SOURCE: Department of Social Welfare Malaysia, 26 December 2019

Figure 1.1 Organizational Structure

ii. Older Persons

vi. Disaster Victims

1.4 Research Questions

This study aims to address the following questions:

1.5 Research Objectives

1.6 Significance of the Study

1.7 Scope of Study

1.8 Definition of Term

1.9 Organization of Thesis

This thesis is organized in the following sequence:

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Chapter 4: Data Analysis

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

2.2 Job Stress

Stress applies to the physiological or emotional reaction to internal or external

According to Vijayan (2017), job stress is an effect or reaction to certain external

2.3 Social Workers

2.4 Measurement of Stress

Individuals vary in their interpretations of external stimuli-related stress and how

2.5 Factors Leading to Stress