1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background of the study

This study involved government employees in Putrajaya Malaysia, and it

examined the degree to which they were affected by role stress, and how did those role
stress affect employees job satisfaction. The model was based on Montgomerys (2011)
whereby the independent variables for role stress are role conflict and role ambiguity
which was adopted from the role theory of Katz and Kahn (1966), while the outcome is
employees job satisfaction which was adopted from Herzbergs motivation-hygiene
theory (1959).
Stress is an inevitable part of our life (Dasgupta & Kumar, 2009). Academicians,
practitioners, administrators and researchers have always been interested in studying this
problem as it directly affects the efficiency of the employee (Dasgupta & Kumar, 2009).
An optimum amount of stress is required for an optimum performance (Dasgupta &
Kumar, 2009). At workplace, stress related to the role performed by the employee in the
organization is one of the important determination of successful adjustment and
subsequent performance and satisfaction of an employee (Devi & Sharma, 2011). The

stress induced due to roles performed by individuals as employees has been potent
organizational stressors (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck, & Rosenthal, 1964).
Role stress incorporates the aspects of role conflict and role ambiguity. An
individual experiences role stress when they are overwhelmed with tasks and
responsibilities, they are unsure how to complete some of these tasks, confused by the
inconsistent behaviors of certain organizational members, unclear about the specific
authority boundaries of the role (Tarafdar, Qiang, Ragu-Nathan, & Ragu-Nathan, 2007;
Elovainio & Mivimaki, 2001; Kahn et al., 1964). A considerable amount of research has
documented both role conflict and role ambiguity as sources of job dissatisfaction
(Goulimaris, Koustelios, & Theodorakis, 2004).
According to Bhatti, Hashmi, Raza, Shaikh, and Shafiq (2011), numerous studies
found that job stress influences employees job satisfaction and their overall performance
in their work. Because most of the organizations now are more demanding for the better
job outcomes. In fact, modern times have been called as the age of anxiety and stress
(Coleman, 1976). The stress itself will be affected by number of stressors (Bhatti et al.,
2011).
Considering role stress as a debilitating syndrome (Devi & Sharma, 2011), this
study has been undertaken with an aim to investigate the relationship between role stress
and job satisfaction among treasury employees at the Ministry of Finance Putrajaya.
Ministry of Finance is one of the government agencies that looks after the financial and
economic affairs of the state of Malaysia whereby it formulates the financial and
economic plans that are followed by the Malaysian national government to ensure overall
economic improvement (Official Website of Ministry of Finance Malaysia, 2011).

Usually, when employees are satisfied with their jobs, they will be more
committed to their employer and will be more productive. Job satisfaction impacts
employees productivity, well-being and consequently impacts job quality (Bytyqi,
Hasani, & Reshani, 2010).

Diaz-Serrano and Cabral-Vieira (2005) agreed that job

satisfaction is considered a strong predictor of overall individual well-being and job

quality. Job satisfaction is a result of employees perception of how well their job
provides those things that are considered important from their side (Aluja, Blanch, &
Garcia, 2005).

Statement of the Problem

Job life is one of the important parts of our daily lives which cause a great deal of
stress (Bhatti et al., 2011). Due to the competitive nature of the job environment most of
the people in the world are spending their time for job related work purposes resulting
ignore the stressor those are influencing their work and life. Usually people are more
worry about their outcome of their work that can even affect the way they treat other
people and how they communicate with their peers and customers (Bhatti et al., 2011).
According to Bhatti et al. (2011), usually, people with a higher percentage of
occupational stress may not be satisfied with their job and therefore they will not feel
happy working in the organization. They may feel frustrated or stress when they are
having problems with peers or customers. This may leave a negative impact to the
organization itself (Bhatti et al., 2011).

Stress is associated with impaired individual functioning in the workplace. A

number of aspects of working life have been linked to stress (Devi & Sharma, 2011).
Ivancevich, Matteson, Michael, Preston, and Cynthia (1982) stated that elucidating these
causes has been imperative for it may have direct implications for the assessment of the
demands on the physical, psychological and emotional well-being of the employees as
stressors may lead to ill health, anxiety, dissatisfaction, irritation, and depression among
employees.

Not only health, stress at workplace also impacts capability to solve

problems and subsequent satisfaction with the job (Elfering, 2005; Jonge, Dormann,
Peter, & Maureen, 2001).
One of the approaches explaining the stress of an employee is the role theory (Ay,
Cuhadar, & Karadal, 2008).

According to the role theory, responsibilities of all

employees and positions at work should be defined. Only under these circumstances,
managers can direct employees; and in turn, employees can report on their work and
responsibilities (Jackson & Schuler, 1985). When employees receive inconsistent or
differing information about their role or are unable to obtain enough required information
to complete their daily tasks, the resulting emotional response can be role conflict and/or
role ambiguity (Montgomery, 2011).
Role conflict is a construct based upon the larger organizational role theory
developed in the early 1960s and can be described as the emotional response that occurs
when an individual perceived inconsistent messaging from another individual based upon
expected role behavior (Kahn et al., 1964). While role ambiguity is also a construct of
the broader theory to believe they are capable of acceptable role performance (Kahn et
al., 1964).

Most individuals value role ambiguity and role conflict, respectively in their work
environment. Consequently, one would expect both elements of role stress to be either
positively or negatively associated with job satisfaction (Locke & Latham, 1990).
For a few decades, many researches have been carried out about job satisfaction
and its components. Many researchers and administrators have noticed the importance of
job satisfaction on a variety of organizational variables (Chu, Hsu, Price, & Lee, 2003).
Job satisfaction is the end state of feelings, where the feeling that is experienced after a
task is accomplished (Saiyadain, 2007).

In particular, we know that dissatisfied

employees are likely to leave their jobs (Mrayyan, 2005). Thus, the understanding of
employee job satisfaction and its contributing variables are important for any
organization to exist and prosper (Mrayyan, 2005).
In order to investigate these relationships of role stress and job satisfaction, the
study of relationship between role stress and job satisfaction among treasury employees
at Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya has been conducted by the researcher. According to the
official websites of Ministry of Finance Malaysia, 2011, several functions of treasury
department at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya are to monitor and manage the
government financial resources and assets; formulate and administer policies related to be
the management of government procurement and government housing loan for public
sector employees; formulate financial management and accounting process, procedures
and standards to be implemented by all government; monitor that Minister of Finance
Incorporated companies; also monitor the financial management of Ministries,
Government Departments and statutory Bodies, and so forth.

According to one of the treasury employees who work as a treasury staff at the
Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya; during the researchers interviewed, the employee stated
that they were experiencing stress when it comes to handle and prepared the annual
financial budget for Malaysian and the state. Other than that, several other causes of
stress was job duties of direct negotiation for providing tender and acquisition, GDP
issues, household budget, and monitoring governments construction projects. Thus,
these burden job responsibilities has attracted the researcher to conduct a study on
employees stress which only focus on role stress of role conflict and role ambiguity, and
its relationship with their satisfaction towards their job.

Research Objectives

The objectives of this study are:

1. To analyze the self-reported levels of role conflict and role ambiguity among
treasury employees at Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya as measured by the Role
Conflict and Role Ambiguity Scale.
2. To analyze the self-reported levels of job satisfaction among treasury employees
at Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey.
3. To identify the relationship between overall role stress and job satisfaction among
treasury employees at Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya.
4. To identify the relationship between role conflict and job satisfaction among
treasury employees at Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya.

5. To identify the relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction among
treasury employees at Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya.

Research Questions

The research questions for this study are:

1. What are the self-reported levels of role conflict and role ambiguity among
treasury employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya as measured by the Role
Conflict and Role Ambiguity Scale?
2. What are the self-reported levels of job satisfaction among treasury employees at
the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey?
3. What is the relationship between role stress and job satisfaction?
4. Is there a relationship between role conflict and job satisfaction?
5. Is there a relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction?

Significance of the Study

Top Management
By conducting this study, it can help the top management to have a better
understanding in term of the employees role stress and job satisfaction. This at the same
time can improve the organization performance and effectiveness.
Employees

This study can help to improve employees understanding and awareness of their role
stress and job satisfaction.

Limitations of the Study

The study was subjected of the following limitations:
1. This study only being conducted in selected government agencies which is
Ministry of Finance at Putrajaya.
2. The respondents of the study only among treasury employees from Ministry of
Finance at Putrajaya.
Definition of Terms
Stress
Stress is the physical and emotional response that occurs when the requirements of the
job do not match the capabilities, resources needs of the employee (Di Martino, 2003).
Role Stress
Role stress incorporates the aspects of role conflict and role ambiguity. Specifically, an
individual experiences role stress when they are overwhelmed with tasks and
responsibilities, they are unsure how to complete some of these tasks, confused by the
inconsistent behaviors of certain organizational members, and unclear about the specific
authority boundaries of the role (Tarafdar et al., 2007; Elovainio & Mivimaki, 2001;
Kahn et al., 1964).

Role conflict

Role conflict can be defined as the extent to which employees receive conflicting or
incompatible instructions concerning their role at work (Anton, 2009).
Role ambiguity
Role ambiguity arises when a role is unclear and it has been proposed as the direct
motivation for workers leaving the organization or for their poor performance (Anton,
2009).
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is an evaluative judgment about ones job (a work attitude) which is
sometimes expressed by affective means (feelings) (Spector, 1997; Weiss, 2002).

Chapter Summary
This chapter of introduction describes the background of the study and the objectives of
doing this research. There were five research objectives and five research questions for
this study. This chapter also stated the significance of the study, limitations of the study,
and definition of terms used in this study.

10

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Stress

A number of conceptions of stress have emerged since the 1970s. The theory
underlying this study was Person-Environment Fit (P-E Fit) theory (French & Caplan,
1973; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982; Harrison, 1978). The basic tenet of P-E Fit
theory has stated that stress arises from the fitor, more precisely, misfitbetween an
individual and his or her environment. This misfit can occur at different levels (Edwards,
Caplan, & Harrison, 1998).
For example, according to Edwards et al. (1998), stress can occur if there is a
mismatch between the demands placed on an individual and his or her abilities to meet
those demands. Furthermore, misfit between demands and abilities induces coping and
defense mechanisms, which in turn influence objective and subjective representations of
the environment (Edwards et al., 1998). Misfit between the objective reality of the work
environment and an individuals subjective perceptions of the work environment also can
result in stress (Edwards et al., 1998).
According to Cooper, Dewe, & ODriscoll (2002), the word stress is an
outcome of a Latin language word "Stringere", means to draw tight. Stress is a vibrant

11

condition encouraging individuals to tackle an opportunity, demand or resource related to

the desires of an individual for which the outcome is perceived to be vague and vital
(Cooper et al., 2002). Stress has been a focus of study in medical science (Soleiman,
Tahereh, Masiello, & Brommels, 2007; Chung, & Fong, 1990; Healy, & McKay, 1999;
Pestonjee & Mishra, 1999) and other organizational studies (Chandraiah, Agrawal,
Marimuthu, & Manoharan, 2003; Chaplain, 2001; Ahmadi, & Alireza, 2006; Singh,
2007).
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, stress is denoted as force, pressure,
strain, or strong effort, with reference now also to objects but still primarily to a person
or persons organs on mental power (Hart & Cooper, 2001).
In order to have a better understanding about the definition of stress, James and
Arroba (1999) defined stress as a form of body reaction towards any problem and
pressure. It is the result of an imbalance between our inner resources and skills on one
hand, and pressures we encounter and support received to deal with these (James &
Arroba, 1999).
In other word, stress is not a variable but a rubric consisting of many variables and
processes (Lazarus, 1966). Stress has been classified as a host of potentially unpleasant
or dangerous events that include unavoidable pain, excessive noise and fatigue under
strenuous work conditions as well as more routine life changes (Mclean, 1996).
Beehr and Newman (1978) had defined stress as a situation which will force a
person to deviate from normal functioning due to the change (i.e. disrupt or enhance) in
his/her psychological and/or physiological condition, such that the person is forced to
deviate from normal functioning.

12

There are two categories of stress which is eustress and distress (Rees & Redfern,
2000). The positive stress or known as good stress is the one that inspires and encourages
and this type of stress known as eustress. While, distress is the bad stress, the one that
gets the person irritated, decrease the spirit and eventually shortens the life cycle (Rees &
Redfern, 2000).
Positive stress helps the individual concentrate his/her mind more effectively,
improve physical performance, and achieve an expected goal when faced with a change
or a challenge. Many people are able to do a better job under an optimal level of pressure
(Chen, 2009). Negative stress can have an adverse effect on individuals psychological
and physical health when stress has not been properly coped with over a long period
(Chen, 2009)
Other categorizations of stress are acute stress; it is a short term, immediate stress
that happens on a one-time basis and chronic stress which is a long term, continuous
stress caused by an uninterrupted situation such as job environment (Ornelas & Kleiner,
2003).
According to Di Martino (2003), stress is as a silent killer, stress in normal and
necessary evil. But if stress is intense, continuous or repeated, if the person is unable to
cope or if support is lacking, then stress becomes a negative phenomenon leading to
physical illness and psychological disorders (Di Martino, 2003).
Other than that, according to Chen, Yu, and Wong (2005), at the individual level,
higher levels of stress at work can have a direct impact on the immune system
exacerbating various medical conditions including low bowel syndrome, headaches and
musculoskeletal pain.

13

Stress when imposed on the human body and mind, is a very complicated process
(Chen, 2009). Human behavioral responses rely on perceptions and the neural system in
the brain, so it is very difficult to predict individual response to stress. Stress induced
responses can be constructive or destructive (Chen, 2009).
Lee and Chen (2006) stated that inappropriate management environments that
create job stress also produce negative sequel, such as unhealthy bodies and minds,
diminished motivation to work, decreased pedagogical quality and high turnover among
staff. High levels of occupational stress, when experienced in the long term, can lead to a
state of burnout (Forrest & Jepson, 2006).
However, stress not only can create a negative impact. Rojas and Kleiner (2000)
stated that stress is desirable to generate enthusiasm, creativity, and productivity. Rojas
and Kleiner (2000) believe that if the level of stress is higher than needed in a particular
situation, stress can become counterproductive.
From the definition that has been identified by researchers, we can conclude that it
is truly important for an individual to recognize the stresses that are facing by them in
their career (Bhatti et al., 2011).

Role Theory

There are relevant theories that allow a better understanding of how role stress
which is role conflict and role ambiguity may influence an employees job satisfaction.
These theories include role theory and job satisfaction theory (Biddle, 1986).

The

14

foundational work on an encompassing role theory was introduced in the late 1930s and
defined a functional role as the behaviors that could be anticipated by those who occupied
that specific position or status and that members of society are taught the appropriate
norms in order to perform adequately the occupied role where each individual plays
numerous roles throughout their lifetime including employee, child, sibling, parent,
community member, and others. (Smithson & Stokoe, 2005; George, 1993; Biddle, 1986;
Linton, 1936).
While according to Fichter (2010), that role theory has been discussed since the
early 1960s by researchers including Kahn et al. (1964), and Katz and Khan (1966), as
well as into the 1970s and 1980s by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970), Katz and Kahn
(1978), and Jackson and Schuler (1985).
Biddle (1986) commented that role theory assists in a better understanding of
social behavior by using a set of accepted core ideas, and these encompass certain unique
behaviors, the scripts for those behaviors, which parts are to be performed, and the core
concepts include consensus, conformity, role conflict, and role taking.
Introductory work in the area of organizational role theory was accomplished by
two sets of researcher groups during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Initially, a team led
by Neal Gross focused on analysis an individual role, specifically that of a school
superintendent, while Robert Kahns team spotlighted how employees experience stress
within organizations (Gross, Mason & McEachern, 1958; Kahn etal., 1964).
Gross et al. (1958) suggested that because of inconsistencies among researchers
on role definition, there was a significant need to reexamine role concepts and the focus
of their role study were school superintendents and the expected performance behavior of

15

this role. During the development of their work on organizational role theory, the authors
drew from two principles, the first being the chain of command principle as well as the
unity of command principle for their proposal (Kahn et al., 1964).
They suggested that using previously learned societal expectations individuals
will most often endeavor to demonstrate role consistency with their daily behavior, but
will also value their roles differently based upon which they perceive has a higher
significance or worth in the specific situation (Kahn et al., 1964).
The chain of command principle advances the premise that members of an
organization will be more satisfied if they work in an environment where there is a clear
leadership structure and protocol for decision making flowing from executive leadership
to first line supervisors (Rizzo et al., 1970). Chain of command, at times also referred to
as internal reporting relationships should clearly demonstrate who reports to whom and
the uninterrupted path of authority for decision making which thus acts as a two-way
communication channel (Daft, 1998).
This singular communication and authorization flow aligns with the unity of
command principle, which asserts that in order to minimize confusion, and inconsistency
an employee should only receive direction, feedback, and job specific tasks from one
supervisor (Rizzo et al., 1970). The goal of both of these principles is the systematic and
consistent delivery of information and decision making that is applied equally to all
employees within the organization (Rizzo et al., 1970). However, according to Rizzo et
al. (1970), the principles do not address two relevant issues. First, the consideration that
individuals are unique and some may require addition direction to close identified
performance gaps or brings clarity when a miscommunication occurs (Rizzo et al., 1970).

16

Second, these principles also assume that a singular flow will be the most efficient and
effective process for the organization (Rizzo et al., 1970). When employees experience
incompatible information about role performance or do not receive adequate data to
successfully perform a role, role conflict and role ambiguity can be experienced, resulting
in negative emotional and perhaps behavioral consequences (Rizzo et al., 1970).
Ay et al. (2008) stated that, according to the role theory, responsibilities of all
employees and [their] positions at work should be defined.

Only under these

circumstances, can managers direct employees; and, in turn, employees can report on
their work and responsibilities (Ay et al., 2008). Also, called the organizational role
theory (ORT), Wickham and Parker (2007) state that, the origins and development of
ORT can be traced back to the work of Katz and Kahn (1966) and their follow-up text;
The Social Psychology of Organizations (1978). (Wickham & Parker, 2007)
Katz and Kahn (1978) argue that the division of labor principle necessarily
requires employees to enact specific work roles in order for employees to perform their
tasks efficiently and effectively. They go on to describe an organization as an essential
network of employees that performs specific roles that are expected and required by
others in the institution. If employees perform unexpected tasks, repercussions can be
expected (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

These repercussions may compromise employee

commitment and performance (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Katz & Kahn, 1978).
Fichter (2010) stated that other researchers suggest additional causes for role
ambiguity and role conflict. Ay et al. (2008) state, several factors can cause ambiguity
including the problems arising from determining and defining the process of the role; the
limitation that emerge from the nature of the job and the organization; the differences in
management forms and conflicts amongst the roles of the employees. Role conflict can

17

arise from several different sources (Lenaghan & Sengupta, 2007). For example, it was
possible that requirements for different roles might compete for a persons limited time
resources or it could occur due to various strains associated with multiple roles
(Lenaghan & Sengupta, 2007).
Jackson and Schuler (1985) confirm that many researchers have examined role
conflict and role ambiguity throughout the literature. Furthermore, Katz and Kahn (1978)
define role conflict as the simultaneous occurrence of two or more role expectations such
that compliance with one would make compliance with the other more difficult. Katz and
Khan (1978) also define role ambiguity as uncertainty about what the occupant of a
particular office is supposed to do.
Many empirical studies have been performed based on the theoretical constructs
of role conflict and role ambiguity (Aldag, Brief, & Schuler, 1977). Aldag et al. (1977)
state that in general, the results that role conflict and role ambiguity are valid constructs
in organizational behavior research and are usually associated with negatively valued
states; e.g., tension, absenteeism, low satisfaction, low job involvement, low expectancies
and task characteristics with a low motivating potential.
In addition, Jackson and Schuler (1985) also support the concept that job
satisfaction is negatively related to role conflict and role ambiguity.

Koustelios,

Theodorakis, and Goulimaris (2004) also concluded that both role conflict and role
ambiguity are common characteristics that impact job satisfaction.

Many different

variables have been researched with role conflict and role ambiguity including: job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and various job characteristics (Koutelios et al.,
2004). Some empirical research has combined both constructs under one variable called
role stress or role stressors. Either way, Rizzo et al. (1970) measures of role conflict and
role ambiguity are generally used as the measurement tool.

18

Tracy and Johnson (1981) researched the wording of the scales, contesting that
role conflict was more negatively worded than role ambiguity, and that they are not two
separate constructs.

They still conclude, however, that; the role conflict and role

ambiguity scales developed by Rizzo et al. (1970) are the most commonly used
instruments for measuring these two variables in work settings, and the use of these
scales seems to be growing (Tracy & Johnson, 1981). Other researchers (Smith, Tisak, &
Schmieder, 1993; Jackson & Schuler, 1985) provide support to suggest that researchers
continue to use role conflict and role ambiguity as separate constructs underlying role
theory.
Katz and Kahn (1966) relate the role pressures and the role expectations held by
role senders to the degree of role stress experienced by the focal person. Role stress and
the implied uncertainty felt when role incumbents think that they cannot accomplish all
role demands are of primary concern to role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role stress
comprises two facets: role conflict and role ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964).
According to Kahn et al. (1964), conflict and ambiguity are among the major
characteristics of our society, and we are marked by them. These two phenomena are
paramount to role theory as described by Kahn et al. (1964); Kahn et al. (1966).
It is an integral part of Kahn and his colleagues formulation of role theory that a
focal person who is confronted with role conflict and role ambiguity must respond to it
in some fashion (Kahn et al., 1964). However, authors in the field of role theory have
noted that the theory is fairly unspecific in its description of what these responses may
consist of (Burke & Belcourt, 1974). Furthermore, Kahn et al. (1964) predict that the
responses to role conflict and those to role ambiguity are very similar, which means that,
in the analysis of the consequences of role stress, the two constructs are often not clearly
distinguished from each other. It is generally assumed that responses to role stress can

19

take two forms: behavioral coping efforts and affective symptom formation (Kahn et al.,
1964). A focal person can use these responses singly or in combination (Kahn et al.,
1966).
Behavioral coping efforts include a focal persons attempts to regain clear,
orderly, and meaningful work experiences by compliance with role expectations or if
compliance is not possible by persuading role senders to modify incompatible or
ambiguous demands (Kahn et al., 1964). Coping may also take the form of withdrawal
from role senders and other behaviors avoiding the sources of role stress (Kahn et al.,
1964).

Furthermore, Kahn et al. (2964) mention the possibility of using defense

mechanisms which distort the perceived reality of a conflict or ambiguous situation in

order to relieve the strain of the undistorted experience. Kahn et al. (1964) point out that
most of these behavioral coping efforts tend to decrease organizational effectiveness.
Symptom formation refers to an individuals affective responses when facing role
conflict or role ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964). Again, Kahn et al. (1964) describe a
variety of conceivable consequences on the part of the focal person, ranging from
indecision and job dissatisfaction to tension and anger. Sometimes even more intense and
debilitating emotional reactions may occur. Feelings of futility as well as symptoms of
hysteria and psychosomatic disorders seem to be connected to the tensions engendered by
role stress (Kahn et al., 1964).

The notion that conflicting and ambiguous role

expectations relate to affective states which are predominantly dysfunctional to the

individual can already be found in Mertons (1949) work, where an individuals
frustration is mentioned as typical consequence of role conflict (Merton, 1949).
As a result, Kahn et al. (1964) suppose that role conflict and role ambiguity exact
a price, both in terms of individual well-being and organizational effectiveness: other
scholars in the field of role theory follow the proposition that it is mainly dysfunctional

20

individual and organizational consequences which result from the existence of role
conflict and role ambiguity (Rizzo et al., 1970).

Figure 2.1
The Role Episode Model from the Role Theory of Katz and Kahn (1966)

Personality
factors

Organizati
onal
factors

Experience
Response
Role senders
Role
Role
expectation
pressures

Experience
Response
Focal person
Experience
Coping
role conflict
efforts

Perception
of focal
persons
behavior

Objective
role
conflict

Experience
role
ambiguity

Objective
role
ambiguity

Perceptions
of role and
role senders

Evaluations

Interperso
nal
relations

Complianc
e
Symptom
formation

21

The role episode model was made up of four boxes labeled role senders and focal
persons experience and response (Kahn et al., 1964). These boxes depict the main
events of the role episode which are causally connected. The existence of a set of role
expectations on the part of the role senders represents the starting point of the episode
(Katz & Kahn, 1964). Role senders have certain expectations regarding the way in which
the focal person is actually behaving and performing (Kahn et al., 1964). Altogether, the
role senders initial experience on the basis of which they develop their role expectations
includes perceptual and evaluative components (Kahn et al., 1964).
According to Kahn et al. (1964), role senders correlate their role expectations and
their perceptions of the focal persons performance.

On this basis, they exert role

pressures on the focal person to make his or her performance congruent with their
expectations (Kahn et al., 1964). Sometimes role senders communicate these pressures
overtly to the focal person, and sometimes they apply more subtle influence attempts
(Katz & Kahn, 1964). It may even be the case that role senders are relatively unaware
that their behavior really is an influence attempt resulting in role pressures for the focal
person (Kahn et al., 1966).

Irrespective of the intensity of the influence attempt,

22

communications about actual and expected role performance usually carry an evaluative
connotation (Kahn et al., 1964). And even though there is no simple correspondence
between role expectations being communicated and the resultant role pressures, the
expectations always represent attempts to influence the behavior of the focal person
(Kahn et al., 1966).
The role pressures generally induce a perceptual experience in the focal person
(Kahn et al., 1964). According to Kahn et al. (1964), it is indispensable to investigate the
total set of all role senders expectations which the focal person is confronted with when
determining the effects of sent role pressures on the focal person.

The degree of

objective role conflict and role ambiguity inherent in the role pressures depend on the
configuration of the pressures actually exerted by role senders on the focal person (Kahn
et al., 1966). The focal persons subjective experience of role conflict and role ambiguity
may diverge from their objective counterparts. The subjective experience depends to a
certain extent on the objective counterparts (Katz & Kahn, 1964).

The subjective

experience depends to a certain extent on the objective magnitude of role conflict and
role ambiguity; however, several conditioning variables are likely to modify the objective
characteristics of the focal persons environment (Kahn et al., 1964). Kahn et al. (1964)
also stated that the experienced degree of role conflict and role ambiguity will thus
always reflect the focal persons objective situation as it interacts with relevant properties
of the person, the organization, and interpersonal relations.
Role conflict and role ambiguity are thereby positioned as intervening variables
that mediate the effects of role pressures on the resultant responses (Rizzo et al., 1970).
According to Kahn et al. (1966), the focal person may try to effectively cope with role

23

pressures in order to regain a gratifying work experience. However again, depending on

the various conditioning variables as well as on the configuration of the role pressures,
the focal person may also react by withdrawal, frustration, and dissatisfaction (Kahn et
al., 1966).
Since the role episode model represents a complete cycle of role sending,
response by the focal person, and the effects of that response on the role sender (Kahn et
al., 1964), it is important to note that Kahn and his colleagues incorporate a feedback
loop in their theory (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Katz & Kahn, 1987). The degree to which the
focal persons responses confront to the expectations initially held by the role senders is
expected to affect the state of these expectations in the next role episode (Katz & Kahn,
1966). The subsequent role sending depends on the role senders evaluation of the
responses to the previous sending, and thus a new role episode begins (Kahn et al., 1966).
The role episode model underlines the interaction of the models core variables of
role expectations, role pressures, role conflict and role ambiguity, and coping efforts; with
its surrounding conditions. Organizational factors, personality factors, and interpersonal
relations substantially influence the consecutive stages of the role episode (Kahn et al.,
1964). However, it is noteworthy that, according to Kahn et al. (1964), the surrounding
conditions not only affect the relationships between the episodes core variables, but are,
conversely, also affected themselves by results of the role process. It was stated that
certain reactions to role experiences may lead to changes in interpersonal relations or
personality (Kahn et al., 1964).

The focal persons continual inability to meet the

environmental demands threatens his or her confidence. The focal persons reactions to

24

role pressures may also include immediate changes in his or her feelings toward the role
senders (Kahn et al., 1966).
Katz and Kahns (1966) and Kahns et al. (1964) formulation of role theory is
supposed to be equally appropriate for investigating dynamic changes in role patterns and
relationships as it is for illustrating stable states of role conflict and role ambiguity.

Role Stress
Management role of an organization is one of the aspects that affect work-related
stress among workers (Alexandros-Stamatios, Cary, & Matilyn, 2003). Workers in an
organization can face occupational stress through the role stress that the management
gave. Role stress means anything about an organizational role that produces adverse
consequences for the individual (Kahn & Quinn, 1970). Management will have their own
role that stands as their related. Role related are concerned with how individuals perceive
the expectations other have of them and includes role ambiguity and role conflict
(Alexandros-Stamatios et al., 2003).
Role stress incorporates the aspects of role conflict and role ambiguity (Tarafdar
et al., 2007; Elovainio & Mivimaki, 2001; Kahn et al., 1964). When employees receive
inconsistent or differing information about their role or are unable to obtain enough
required information to complete their daily tasks, the resulting emotional response can
be role conflict and/or role ambiguity (Montgomery, 2011).

25

While according to Kahn et al. (1964), role stress can be defined as the pressure
experienced by an individual as a result of organizational and job-specific factors in the
form of demands and constraints that have been placed on them. Kahn et al. (1964)
defined role stress as a composite construct consisting of so-called role stressors of the
role conflict and role ambiguity. Role stress is associated with a variety of workers
attitudes and behavior (French & Caplan, 1973).

Role Conflict
As individuals interact with one another, their observations and experiences assist
them in anticipating future behavior based upon what they have learned to expect from
the other person (Rizzo et al., 1970). An individual will experience role conflict when the
other individual does not exhibit the expected behavior or if their behavior becomes
inconsistent (Rizzo et al., 1970).
Role conflict is a construct based upon the larger organizational role theory
developed in the early 1960s and can be described as the emotional response that occurs
when an individual perceives inconsistent messaging from another individual based upon
expected role behavior (Kahn et al, 1964).
Role conflict exists when people find themselves in situations where they are
exposed to conflicting and incompatible expectations (Rizzo et al., 1970; Tubre &
Collins, 2000; Hamilton, 2002; Terrell, 2001).

26

Khan et al. (1964) defined role conflict as the simultaneous occurrence of two (or
more) sets of pressures, such that compliance with one would make it more difficult to
comply with the other.
According to Kahn et al. (1964), role conflict can occur due to three different
source types.

If the individual has differing beliefs than the internal work culture,

conflict can occur. It can also occur when the ability to complete a task necessitates
behavior that is not within the scope of the current role or outside the acceptable
boundaries of the organization, and finally if the employees perceive that their
performance will be judged differently by competing internal organizations or
individuals, they can experience role conflict (Noor, 2004; Bedeian & Armenakis, 1981;
Kahn et al., 1964).
This final source of role conflict could also occur because of the flexibility within
expected role performance (Gross et al., 1958). Perhaps, the employee performs the vital
aspects of the role differently than expected, but still successfully or only performs some
aspects of the role; the differing departmental or individual perceptions of this can result
in role conflict (Gross et al., 1958).
According to Loosemore and Waters (2004), role conflict occurs when an
individual is torn by conflicting job demands, is performing tasks with which he or she is
unhappy, or are perceived to be beyond their authority.
Besides, Schultz and Schultz (1990) and Dipboye, Smith, and Howell (1994)
stated that role conflict can also occur when the demands of the job do not live up to the
employees expectations.
While according to Ward (1995), role conflict occurs when two or more
incompatible expectations for ones behavior exist. Ward (1995) also stated that role

27

conflict may take several forms: intra-sender, where different expectations from a single
person may be incompatible or inconsistent; inter-sender, where expectations from one
person are incompatible or inconsistent with expectations coming from another; interrole, where expectations resulting from membership in one group conflict with those
resulting from membership in another; and person-role, where expectations for ones
behavior are incongruent with ones values, needs, or aspirations.
Khan et al. (1964) stated that a great deal of role conflict comes from poor
communication from supervisors who not clearly elucidate expectations or insufficient
accounts of the needs and abilities of employees.
According to Burke and Greenglass (1993), role conflict mainly focuses on
negative emotions. It arises when a person is required to take on more than one role and
when the adequate performance of one role jeopardizes the adequate performance of the
others (Burke & Greenglass, 1993).
Roberts, Lapidus, and Chonlo (1997) stated that role conflict has been found to
have a positive relationship with job stress. When individuals are required to play two or
more role requirements that work against each other, they are likely to experience job
stress because role conflicts create expectations that may be hard to reconcile (Roberts et
al., 1997).
As organizations continue to evolve and attempt to find the right balance of
employees for the work need, departmental restructures will continue to take place and
during these times of instability, some employees may be asked to fulfill the requirements
of more than one position, which can result in role conflict and issues with role
boundaries (Tarafdar et al., 2007).

28

In contrast, according to Dipboye et al. (1994); and Kuotsai (1995), when

individuals role in an organization is clearly defined, understood and expectations placed
on the individual are also clear and non-conflicting, stress can be kept to a minimum.

Role Ambiguity
During the course of completing daily performance tasks, an employee may
realize they lack information or authority to complete the task satisfactorily. When this
occurs, organizational role theory states that the employee will experience role ambiguity
(Kahn et al., 1964).
Role ambiguity is also a construct of the broader theory but takes place when an
individual is unable to gather enough information to believe they are capable of
acceptable role performance (Kahn et al., 1964).
According to Beehr and Newman (1978); Cordes and Dougherty (1993); Cooper
(1991); and Dyer and Quine (1998), role ambiguity is another aspect that affects job
stress in the workplace, where it exists when an individual lacks information about the
requirements of his or her role, how those role requirements are to be met, and the
evaluative procedures available to ensure that the role is being performed successfully.
Role ambiguity is defined as the lack of clear information about the specific
expectations for a particular role, how to accomplish those expectations, or the likely
outcomes of particular strategies for fulfilling certain role expectations (Rizzo et al.,
1970; Terrell, 2001).

29

Colligan and Higgins (2005) also agreed that role ambiguity occurs when
management has not clearly defined the role of the employee leading to a lack of clarity
about the employees responsibilities and performance expectations. It is easily remedied
by managements creation of job descriptions and communicating priorities (Colligan &
Higgins, 2005).
Other than that, Tummers, Landdeweerd, and Van Merode (2002) stated that role
ambiguity occurs when employees lack information concerning the proper performance
of their task.
Role ambiguity can also occur when an employee is impacted by an unexpected
or unclear organizational change (Katz & Kahn, 1964). With the rapid pace of change in
organizations, customer demands, and the global landscape, role ambiguity could be a
common result when an employee is unable to attain needed information (Kahn et al.,
1966). It can be defined as an individuals perception that they are unable to perform
successfully in their role as a result of uncertainty or confusion regarding the breath of
the organizational role (Kahn et al., 1964)
According to Griffin and Moorhead (2009), in work settings, role ambiguity can
stem from poor job descriptions, vague instructions from a supervisor, or unclear cues
from coworkers. The result is likely to be a subordinate who does not know what to do.
In addition, role ambiguity can be a significant source of stress (Griffin & Moorhead,
2009).
Many studies show that role ambiguity also represents important risk factors for
burnout development (Jackson, Schwab & Schuler, 1986).
Jackson and Schuler (1985) studies found role ambiguity to lead to such negative
outcomes as reduces confidence, a sense of hopelessness, anxiety, and depression.

30

Role ambiguity is relates to amount of stress experienced by an individual due to

vague specifications, duties, responsibility and constraints that define the individuals job
(Cartwright & Cooper, 1997; Coetzer & Rothmann, 2007; De Bruin & Taylor, 2006;
Labuschagne, Bosman, & Buitendach, 2005; Martin, 2005; Rollinson, 2005).
Kahn et al. (1964) suggested sources of role ambiguity could be internal or
external and could be categorized by two types, task and socio-emotional. When an
individual perceive task ambiguity, they are unable to determine role scope boundaries,
how to complete all the aspects of a specific role, and/or perceive the receipt of
conflicting messages from other organizational members (Kahn et al., 1964). Socio
emotional ambiguity addresses the result of perceived uncertainty and anxiety. The
emotional result of role ambiguity includes less job satisfaction, tension, and anxiety
(MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Ahearne, 1998; Howard, Cunningham & Rechnitzer, 1986).
Role ambiguity can also damage interpersonal relationships, as the employees
perceive they are unable to perform satisfactorily their role and they may seek to distance
themselves from peers due to this increasing level of anxiety and self-doubt (Kahn et al.,
1964).
Job Satisfaction Theory
Job satisfaction research began in the 1950s, as monetary incentives were
believed to be one of the largest motivating factors among workers (Fichter, 2010).
According to Fichter (2010), during this time, two types of human nature were identified
as a basis for job satisfaction research. The first type reflected aspects of Taylorism, and
viewed people as basically lazy and work-shy, and held that motivating them is a matter

31

of external stimulation (Fichter, 2010). The other view, with its echoes of the Hawthorn
findings, suggested that people are motivated to work well for its own sake, as well as for
the social and monetary benefits they received, and that their motivation is internally
stimulated (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005).
Many theories of job satisfaction have been proposed, but one of the most widely
utilized in educational settings has been that of Herzberg and his associates (Derlin &
Schneider, 1994; Dinham & Scott, 1996; Dinham & Scott, 1998; Dinham & Scott, 2000;
Lester, 1987; Mercer, 1993; Scott, Cox, & Dinham, 1999). Herzbergs two-factor theory
posits that job satisfaction comes from one set of job variables (called motivator needs or
satisfiers) and job dissatisfaction from another set of variables (hygiene factors or
dissatisfies) (Herzberg, 1968). Satisfiers include, for example, recognition, responsibility
for ones work, personal growth, achievement and advancement, while dissatisfies include
many aspects of work external to the self such as pay, relationships with colleagues and
supervisors, work conditions and security (Herzberg, 1968).
Herzberg (1959) developed the motivation-hygiene factor theory, as an alternative
to the current job attitudes, proposing a different type of motivation and job satisfaction
of employees (Fichter, 2010).
The mechanisms of the two-factor theory has been described in more detail
elsewhere (Gruneberg, 1979; Herzberg, 1968), but it is important to note that, according
to this theory, job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction were considered separate constructs.
The absence of hygiene factors was believed to lead to job dissatisfaction, but their
fulfillment did not lead to job satisfaction (Herzberg, 1968). Similarly, the presence of

32

motivator needs led to job satisfaction, but their absence did not lead to dissatisfaction
(Herzberg, 1968).
Leach and Westbrook (2000) state that, Frederick Herzbergs motivation-hygiene
factor theory, although considered nontraditional when it was introduced in 1959, has
become one of the most used, known, and widely respected theories for explaining
motivation and job satisfaction
Melvin (1993) describes Herzbergs theory, suggesting that work is the dominant
influence in human life, and he identifies two categories of factors, causes of satisfaction
and of dissatisfaction, which influence job attitude. Melvin (1993) also stated that one
set of factors is referred to as hygiene, referencing external circumstances that affect job
satisfaction, and the other set is motivational, referring to internal factors within a worker.
According to Ruthankoon and Ogunlana (2003), there are six motivations, or job
content variables as stated by Herzberg. They include: achievement, recognition, work
itself, responsibility, advancement, and the possibility of growth (Ruthankoon &
Ogunlana, 2003).

Hygiene variables, or job context variables, include: company

policy, supervision, relationship with supervisors, work conditions, relationship with

peers, salary, personal life, relationship with subordinates, status, and job security
(Ruthankoon & Ogunlana, 2003).
Herzberg (1959) describes how hygiene, job context, variables reflect job
dissatisfaction, whereas motivation, job content, variables are responsible for job
satisfaction. Herzberg goes on to clarify that even if positive levels of hygiene factors
exist, job satisfaction does not occur (Herzberg, 1959). The motivation, job content,
variables are responsible for the job satisfaction that employees can experience on the job
(Herzberg, 1968). Although negative hygiene factors lead to dissatisfaction, negative
motivation does not (Herzberg, 1968).

33

Herzberg (1959) used over two hundred engineers and accountants to test the
theory by using critical incident analysis, which was a new method of data collection at
the time. The used of this type of measurement sparked replication of motivationhygiene research, and a pattern emerged (Herzberg, 1968). Those using the critical
incident framework showed a remarkable consistency with the original results, while
research using other methods, principally surveys, supported the uniscalar model of job
satisfaction (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005), (p. 933).
Herzberg (1968) continued to defend his theory providing the distinction between
movement and motivation. Bassett-Jones and Lloyd (2005) observed that;
He [Herzberg] argued that managers confuse the two. Movement
stems from humankinds animal nature the built-in drove to avoid pain
from environment, plus all the learned needs that become conditioned as a
result of the need to serve basic biological needs[while he] suggested
that motivation is like an internal self-charging battery (p. 933).

Figure 2.2
Model of Herzbergs Motivation-Hygiene Theory (1959)
Achievement
The work itself

Responsibility
Recognition
Advancement
Status

Relations with peers

Supervisory relations
Subordinate relations
Technical supervision

Motivational Factors

Possibility of growth

34

Maintenance or Hygiene Factors

Company policy and

administration
Job security
Working conditions
Salary
Only comparative earnings
are motivational

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction has been the most frequently investigated variable in

organizational behavior (Spector, 1997).

Job satisfaction is termed by some

organizational researchers as the pivotal construct in organizational behavior (Heller,

Judge, & Watson, 2002). Job satisfaction is simply defined as the affective orientation
that an employee has towards his or her work (Price, 2001). In other words, it is an
affective reaction to a job that results from the comparison of perceived outcomes with
those that are desired (Kam, 1998). Shortly, job satisfaction describes the feelings,
attitudes or preferences of individuals regarding work (Chen, 2008). While according to
McCloskey and McCain, (1987), it is the degree to which employees enjoy their jobs.

35

Job satisfaction is defined more specifically in the literature, and several theorists
have generated their own workable definitions (Spector, 1997). Of those researchers,
Robert Hoppock (1935) is perhaps the most widely cited, although others have emerged
with definitions reflecting more current theoretical underpinnings of job satisfaction.
Some of the versions use the terms job attitudes, work satisfaction, and job morale
interchangeably, which may explain the lack of a standardized job satisfaction definition
(Worrell, 2004).
According to Worrell (2004), within the literature, Hoppock (1935) offered one of
the earliest definitions of job satisfaction when he described the construct as being any
number of psychological, physiological, and environmental circumstances which leads a
person to express satisfaction with their job (Hoppock, 1935).
Locke (1969) suggested that job satisfaction was a positive or pleasurable reaction
resulting from the appraisal of ones job, job achievement, or job experiences. Vroom
(1982) defined job satisfaction as workers emotional orientation toward their current job
roles. Similarly, Schultz (1982) stated that job satisfaction is essentially the psychological
disposition of people toward their work. While Lofquist and Davis (1991), defined job
satisfaction as an individuals positive affective reaction of the target environment...as a
result of the individuals appraisal of the extent to which his or her needs are fulfilled by
the environment.
Job satisfaction has been defined by De Nobile (2003) as the extent to which a
staff member has favorable or positive feelings about work or the work environment. It
refers to the positive attitudes or emotional dispositions people may gain from work or
through aspects of work (Furnham, 1997; Locke, 1976). Conversely, job dissatisfaction

36

refers to unhappy or negative feelings about work or the work environment (Furnham,
1997).
Other than that, Curry, Wakefield, Price, and Mueller (1986) define job
satisfaction as the overall satisfaction and as a facet-specific concept referring to various
aspects of work, such as pay, supervision, or workload. While Mowday, Lyman, Porter
and Steers (1982) defined job satisfaction as affective outcome or attitude that is affected
by the job situation and work experience.
However, Hulin and Judge (2003) define job satisfaction as a multidimensional
psychological response to ones job. These responses have cognitive (evaluative),
affective (emotional), and behavioral components, thus job satisfaction refers to internal
cognitive and affective states (Hulin & Judge, 2003).
The definition of job satisfaction has visibly evolved through the decades, but
most versions share the belief that job satisfaction is a work-related positive affective
reaction (Worrell, 2004). There seems to be less consistency when talking about the
causes of job satisfaction (Worrell, 2004).

Wexley and Yukl (1984) stated that job

satisfaction is influenced by many factors, including personal traits and characteristics of

the job.

To better understand these employee and job characteristics and their

relationship to job satisfaction, various theories have emerged and provided the vital
framework for future job satisfaction studies (Wexley & Yukl, 1984).
According to Broome, Knight, Edwards & Flynn (2009), job satisfaction is
dependent on many factors, such as salary, workplace community, and the individuals
themselves.

37

Job satisfaction influences numerous aspects of an individuals overall

performance (Cohrs, Abele, & Dette, 2006). It can lower turnover, increase morale, add
in development of peer relationships, and increase performance to name just some of the
consequences (Cohrs et al., 2006).
In addition, it also has been found to affect job attitudes and work behavior
(Heller, Judge & Watson, 2002) such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB),
absenteeism, and turnover (Feather & Rauter, 2004; Fisher, 2004).
On the other hand, Porter and Lawler (1968) collect the influences on job
satisfaction in two groups of internal and external satisfactory factors. According to
Porter and Lawler (1968), internal satisfactory factors are related the work itself (such as
feeling of independence, feeling of achievement, feeling of victory, self-esteem, feeling
of control and other similar feeling obtained from work), whereas external satisfactory
factors are not directly related to work itself (such as good relationships with colleagues,
high salary, good welfare and utilities). So, the influences on job satisfaction can be also
divided into work-related and employee-related factors (Glisson & Durick, 1988).
Consequently, numerous researches have been going on job satisfaction for many
years (Poulin, 1994).

And it is common thought that job satisfaction influences

organizational behavior, namely it positively affects employee working performance and

organizational commitment, and negatively influences employee turnover (Agarwal and
Ferrat, 2001; Poulin, 1994; Chen, 2008).
Arvey and Dewhirst (1976), took 271 scientists as a study sample, and found that
the degree of job-satisfaction of the workers with high achievement motivation exceeded
that of workers with low achievement motivation. Also autonomy is an important concern
for employees job satisfaction (Arvey & Dewhirst, 1976).
Another example is from a study of Abdel-Halim (1983), which investigated 229
supervisory and non-supervisory employees in a large retail-drug company and

38

concluded that individuals who have high need-for-independence performed better and
were more satisfied with high participation for non-repetitive tasks.

Additionally,

administrative styles, professional status and pay are known as important factors
influencing job satisfaction (Abdel-Halim, 1983). For example, Carr and Kazanowsky
(1994) successfully showed that inadequate salary was much related to employees
dissatisfaction. And recent studies showed that a participative (democratic) management
style was mostly preferred by todays managers to increase their employees job
satisfaction (Knoop, 1991).
Several studies have tried to determine the link between stress and job
satisfaction. Job satisfaction and job stress are the two hot focuses in human resource
management researches (Bhatti et al., 2011). Job satisfaction has been found significant
relationship with job stress (Bhatti et al., 2011). Fletcher and Payne (1971) identified that
a lack of satisfaction can be a source of stress, while high satisfaction can alleviate the
effects of stress. The study of Fletcher and Payne (1971) reveals that, both of job stress
and job satisfaction were found to be interrelated.
The study of Cummins (1990) showed that high levels of work stress are
associated with low levels of job satisfaction.

Moreover, Cummins (1990) have

emphasized that job stressors are predictive of job dissatisfaction and greater propensity
to leave the organization.
Maier and Brunstein (2001) conducted a study that suggested new employees
achieved a higher level of job satisfaction after they were able to accomplish personal
work goals when entering new organization, which provided favorable conditions

39

including adequate resources, effective managerial communication and clarity regarding

organizational role.
Job dissatisfaction and reduced job satisfaction have been associated with several
outcomes for employees and, in turn, organizations (Rosenblatt & Shirom, 2005).
Among the most costly of these to organizations are absenteeism and turnover (which
together can be classed as withdrawal), lowered commitment, lowered productivity (often
a result of the preceding outcomes) and diminished health of staff members (Rosenblatt
& Shirom, 2005).
According to Malik, Safwan, and Sindhu (2011), job satisfaction or job
dissatisfaction is often included in stress research as a consequence of stress and a
negative relationship between stress and job satisfaction is frequently reported. Sheena,
Cary, Sue, Ian, Paul and Clare (2005), considered a sample from UK and examined
factors like physical health, psychological well-being, and job satisfaction. Sheena et al.
(2005) revealed that there are some professions that are reporting not as good scores as
others. The relationship between variables can be very essential to academician and if a
clear-cut connection exists between two variables (stress and job satisfaction) (Sheena et
al., 2005).

40

Conceptual Framework

The model for this study was based on Montgomerys (2011) model.

The

independent variables (IV) for this study are role stress. This role stress model was
adopted from the role theory of Katz and Kahn (1966). However, the researcher only
adopted two types of role stress from the role model of role theory which are role conflict
and role ambiguity. Katz and Kahn (1966) suggested the importance of having clearly
defined roles and responsibilities among employees, so they can be efficient, productive,
and easily measured by management.
The dependent variable (DV) is job satisfaction which was adopted from
Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory (1959).

This Herzbergs (1959) theory

distinguishing between internal, motivating factors, and external hygiene factors was
used as the conceptual framework for job satisfaction.

41

Figure 2.3
Conceptual Framework on The Relationship between Role Stress and Job Satisfaction
among Treasury Employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya.

Role Stress

Job Satisfaction

Role Conflict
Role Ambiguity

Independent Variables (IV)

Dependent Variable (DV)

Research Hypotheses
The research hypotheses for this study are:
H1:

There is a significant relationship between overall role stress and job satisfaction.

H2:

There is a significant relationship between role conflict and job satisfaction.

H3:

There is a significant relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction.

42

Chapter Summary
This chapter covers the literature on role theory and job satisfaction theory. It also
includes literature reviews and critiques on stress, role stress (role conflict and role
ambiguity) and job satisfaction. Conceptual framework along with Research Hypothesis
also has been included in this chapter.

43

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This chapter represent research design, sampling frame, population, sampling

technique, sample size, unit of analysis, data collection procedures, instrument, validity
of instrument and plan for data analysis. This methodology is related to the topic of this
study; The Relationship between Role Stress and Job Satisfaction among Treasury
Employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya.

Research Design

Research design involved a series of rational decision making choices and

decision have to be made as to the type sample to be used (sample design), how the data
is collected (data collection methods), how variables will measured (measurement), and
how they will be analyzed to test the hypothesis (data analysis) (Sekaran, 2007). The

44

type of research for this study is non-experimental research, which is specifically a

correlational research. This type of research design investigates the relationship between
role stress and job satisfaction among employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya.

Sampling Frame
The sampling frame for this study is only among the treasury employees at the
Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya.

The respondents are divided according to the total

number of employees from grade in their service, which is Support Group I, Support
Group II, Management & Professional Group, and Top Management.
Population
Population refers to the entire group of people, events, or things of interest that
researches wish to investigate (Sekaran, 2007). The population for this study is divided
into four different grades in service, which is Support Group I (1419 employees), Support
Group II (381 employees), Management and Professional Group (684 employees), and
Top Management (57 employees). So the total number of population for this study is
2541 employees of treasury at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya.
Table 3.1
Population
Grade in Service

Total Number of Employees

Support Group I

1419

45

Support Group II

381

Management & Professional Group

684

Top Management

57

TOTAL

2541
Sampling Technique

According to Sekaran (2007), sampling is the act, process, or technique of

selecting a suitable sample, or a representative part of a population for the purpose of
determining parameters or characteristics of the whole population.
Krejcie and Morgans (1970) Sample Size Table
The researcher used the sample size table of Krejcie and Morgan (1970) in order
to have the exact number of sample. From the total number of population; (2541), the
sample sizes that were stated from Krejcie and Morgans (1970) sample size table was
331.
Table 3.2
Table
for
sample size
given
by Krejcie
(1970)

N
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95

S
10
14
19
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
59
63
66
70
73
76

N
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
270

S
80
86
92
97
103
108
113
118
123
127
132
136
140
144
148
152
155
159

N
280
290
300
320
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
500
550
600
650
700
750

S
162
165
169
175
181
186
181
196
201
205
210
214
217
225
234
242
248
256

N
800
850
900
950
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2200
2400
2600

S
260
265
269
274
278
285
291
297
302
306
310
313
317
320
322
327
331
335

N
2800
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
15000
20000
30000
40000
50000
75000
100000

S
338
341
246
351
351
357
361
364
367
368
373
375
377
379
380
381
382
384

determining
from
a
population
and Morgan

46

Note: N is population size

S is sample size.
Quota Sampling Technique
Quota sampling is a type of non-probability sampling technique that is based on
the judgment of the researcher. The quota sample involves by dividing the population
into two or more strata (groups) (Lund & Lund, 2010). The number of units that should
be included in each stratum will vary depending on the make-up of each stratum within
the population. Quota sampling is particularly useful when the researchers are unable to
obtain a probability sample, but still trying to create a sample that is as representative as
possible of the population being studied (Lund & Lund, 2010). Table 3.3 below shows
the quota sampling technique used as the sampling technique in order to get a number of
sample size for this study.
Table 3.3
Quota Sampling Technique
Grade in Service

Total Number
of Employees

Percentage
(%)

Total Number
of Employees

47

(N)

(S)

Support Group I

1419

55.7

182

Support Group II

381

15.1

53

Management & Professional

Group

684

27.1

92

Top Management

57

2.1

2541

100

331

TOTAL

Sample Size
According to Sekaran (2007), sample is subset of the population and it comprises
some members selected from it. The appropriate sample size should be more than 30 or
less than 500. Samples should be small enough to provide a convenience amount of data
and it must accurately represent the population if any valid inferences are to be drawn
from the sample results (Sekaran, 2007). The sample size for this study was referred to
the table of Krejcie and Morgan (1970) in order to have the exact number of sample, and
then the researcher used quota sampling technique in order to get the number of
employees according to grade in service. Therefore, the total sample size for this study
was 331 respondents from 2541 treasury employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya.
Table 3.4
Sample size

48

Grade in Service

Total Number of
Employees

Support Group I

182

Support Group II

53

Management & Professional Group

92

Top Management

TOTAL

331

Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis refers to the level of aggregation of the data collected during
the subsequent data analysis stage (Sekaran, 2007). Therefore, the unit of analysis for
this study was the treasury employees at the Ministry of Finance, Piutrajaya.

Data Collection Procedures

The researcher used a set of questionnaire with cover letter to collect respondents
data for this study. The purpose of the cover letter was to explain the objective of the
study to the respondents. The process of these data collection took about a month and a
half before the researcher was able to analyze the data.

The Human Resource

Management or PSM Unit is the one who responsible to distribute and collect the

49

questionnaires for the researcher. Before the researcher gave the questionnaires to the
responsible staff for distribution, the researcher has done some correspondence process to
obtain respondents data from the PSM Unit. Table 3.5 below shows the procedures
involved before, during and after the processes of data collection for this study.

Table 3.5
Data Collection Procedures
DATE
09/11/2011

ACTIVITIES

Send letter to the head of Human Resource

Management (PSM) at the MoF to inquire
information about the total number of population at
treasury personnel, Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya,
Malaysia.

17/11/2011

Got responds from the letter before through email;

about the total population of employees at treasury
personnel,
Malaysia.

Ministry

of

Finance,

Putrajaya,

50

21/11/2011

Send letter to MoF, about the total sample size for

surveys, along with a set of 331 questionnaires.

29/11/2011

Distribution of questionnaires with cover letter by

the PSM staff of MoF.

07/12/2011

Questionnaires collection and first follow up

reminder.

13/12/2011

Questionnaire collection and second follow up

reminder.

16/12/2011

Questionnaire collection.

Cut-off date to collect questionnaires and analyzed

the data
Instrument

Survey questionnaires are used for data collection for this study whereby the
questionnaires are distributed by hand to the respondents. The questionnaire consists of
three sections, which are:
SECTION A : Demographic Information
SECTION B : Research Analysis Role Stress (Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity)
SECTION C : Research Analysis Job Satisfaction
In section A, there were six demographic information that need to be answered by
the respondents which contains gender, age, marital status, education level, grade in
service, and length of service. The researcher chooses these characteristics based upon a
review of related literature.

51

Section B consists of seven questions of role conflict and six questions of role
ambiguity which was adopted from Rizzo, House, and Lirtzmans (1970) Role Conflict
and Role Ambiguity Scale while Section C consists of thirty five questions of employees
job satisfaction which was adopted from Spectors (1994) Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).
Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) was used to measure job satisfaction. The JSS consists of
36 items comprising nine facets: (a) pay, (b) promotion, (c) supervision, (d) fringe
benefits, (e) contingent rewards, (f) operating conditions, (g) coworkers, (h) nature of
work, and (i) communication (Spector, 1994).
The questions from both Section B and Section C are using seven-point LikertScale Type from strongly disagree to strongly agree; (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 =
Disagree, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 4 = Undecided, 5 = Slightly Agree, 6 = Agree, and 7 =
Strongly Agree).
Validity of Instrument
Validity refers to the evidence that the instrument, technique, or process used to
measure a concept does indeed measure the intended concept (Sekaran, 2007). Validity is
important because it can help all the data collected by the researchers are valuable and
can be trust (Sekaran, 2007). For the purpose of content validity, a set of questionnaire
were given to a lecturer of Office Management and Technology in UiTM Puncak Alam.
The questionnaires contain dual language, which is in English and Bahasa
Malaysia. The translation from English to Bahasa Malaysia has been translated from the
website software translation and has been checked by the researchers supervisor through
direct translation.

52

Pilot Test
The researcher conducted a pilot test to ensure the questionnaire was relevant to
the respondent before the researcher distribute it for actual feedback (Salkind, 2006).
Salkind (2006) also stated that pilot test was intentionally conducted to find out any
ambiguity or unnecessary questions in the questionnaire as well as to know the time
required from the lecturers to answer the questionnaire. A total of 30 of questionnaires
were distributed to the respondents who are not related to the population in this actual
research as a pilot test before the researcher can proceed with the actual study. Pilot test
was conducted to measure the reliability of the questionnaires.
Reliability of Instrument
Table 3.6 below shows the reliability statistic for role conflict, role ambiguity,
overall role stress, and job satisfaction for this study. The results were conducted by
computing the Cronbachs Alpha using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 17.0 to test for reliability. The results show that the value of Cronbachs Alpha
for role conflict, role ambiguity, and overall role stress has an acceptable internal
consistency with the range of 0.715 (role conflict), 0.742 (role ambiguity), and 0.793
(overall role stress). Job satisfaction has an excellent internal consistency with the value
of 0.885. The values for internal consistency were referred to the rules of thumb by;
Gliem and Gliem (2003), where the rules stated that Cronbachs Alpha value of 0.715,
0.742, and 0.793 were acceptable, while the value of 0.885 were good. It means that the
scale for this study was reliable.
Table 3.6

53

Reliability Statistic (N = 30)

Scales

Cronbachs Alpha

Number of Items

Role Conflict

0.715

Role Ambiguity

0.742

Overall Role Stress

0.793

13

Job Satisfaction

0.885

36

Data Analysis
The data collected for this study was analyzed using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences Software (SPSS) version 17.0.

The analysis involved descriptive

statistics that include standard deviation, mean, and correlation coefficients. Table 3.7
below shows plans for data analysis for this study.
Table 3.7
Data analysis
Research

Concept /

objectives

Construct

To analyze the

Level of role

Measurement

RQ1:
What are the

self-reported levels conflict and role

Scale

Statistical

Interval

Descriptive
Statistic,

self-reported
of role conflict and ambiguity among

Mean,
levels of role

role ambiguity

treasury employees

Standard
conflict and role

among treasury

at Ministry of

Deviation
ambiguity

employees at

Finance, Putrajaya

54

Ministry of

as measured by the

among

Finance, Putrajaya

Role Conflict and

employees at the

as measured by the

Role Ambiguity

Ministry of

Role Conflict and

Scale (Rizzo,

Finance,

Role Ambiguity

House, & Lirtzman,

Putrajaya as

Scale.

1970).

measured by the
Role Conflict
and Role
Ambiguity
Scale?

To analyze the

Level of job

RQ2:
What are the

self-reported levels satisfaction among

Interval

Descriptive
Statistic,

self-reported
of job satisfaction

treasury employees

Mean,
levels of job

among treasury

at Ministry of

Standard
satisfaction

employees at

Finance, Putrajaya

Deviation
among

Ministry of

as measured by the
employees at the

Finance, Putrajaya

Job Satisfaction

as measured by the

Survey (Spector,

Job Satisfaction

1994).

Ministry of
Finance,
Putrajaya as
Survey?
measured by the
Job Satisfaction
Survey?

55

To identify the

The relationship

relationship

between overall

between overall

role stress and job

role stress and job

satisfaction among

satisfaction among

treasury employees

RQ3:
What is the

Interval

Pearsons
product-

relationship
moment
between role
correlation
stress and job
coefficient,
satisfaction?
treasury

at Ministry of

Multiple

employees at

Finance, Putrajaya.

Regression

Ministry of
Finance, Putrajaya.
To identify the

The relationship

relationship

between role

between role

conflict and job

RQ4:
Is there a

Interval

Pearsons
product-

relationship
moment
between role
conflict and job

satisfaction among

correlation
conflict and job

satisfaction among

treasury employees

coefficient,
satisfaction?

treasury

at Ministry of

Multiple

employees at

Finance, Putrajaya.

Regression

Ministry of
Finance, Putrajaya.
To identify the

The relationship

relationship

between role

RQ5:
Is there a

Interval

Pearsons
product-

relationship
between role

ambiguity and job

moment
between role

ambiguity and job

satisfaction among

correlation
ambiguity and

satisfaction among

treasury employees

coefficient,
job satisfaction?

56

treasury

at Ministry of

Multiple

employees at

Finance, Putrajaya.

Regression

Ministry of
Finance, Putrajaya.
Chapter Summary
This chapter discusses the methodology used for this study. Research design for this
study was correlation research where it was used to examine the relationship between
role stress of role conflict and role ambiguity with job satisfaction. Other discussions that
included in this chapter is sampling frame, population, sampling technique, sample size,
unit of analysis, data collection procedures, instrument, validity of instrument and plan
for data analysis.

57

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents and discusses the research findings regarding the
relationship between role stress and job satisfaction among treasury employees at the
Ministry of Finance Putrajaya, Malaysia, consist of several sections which begin with the
response rate of the survey, demographic profile of respondents and analysis of findings
to all the research questions.

Response rate
For this study, a total of 331 questionnaires were distributed by the Human
Resource Units (PSM) staff at the MOF Putrajaya, Malaysia. Out of 331 questionnaires
distributed, a total of 210 questionnaires were returned, and with a response rate of 63%.
According to Johnson (2010) and McMillan (2004), there is at least 60% response rate to
survey. Therefore, this indicated that the researcher had obtained suggested response

58

rate. All of the returned questionnaires were regarded as valid because there are no
missing information and skipped questions. Table 4.1 shows the rate of survey returned.

Table 4.1
Rate of survey return (n = 210)
n

Response Rate

Number of responses

210

63%

Number of valid questionnaires

210

63%

Demographic Information of the Respondents

Demographic information of the respondents in Section A contains data such as gender,
age, marital status, education level, grade in service, and length of service. Descriptive
statistics were used for the presentation for each of the demographic variable in the study.
1. Gender
Table 4.2
Gender of the respondent (n=210)
Gender
Male

Frequency

Percentage

69

32.9

59

Female

141

67.1

Total

210

100.0

Table 4.2 illustrates the gender of the respondents in this study. It shows that the
majority of respondents for this study are female by the results of 67.1% (n=141), while
32.9% (n=69) are male. Thus, it means that the number of female respondents is slightly
higher than the male respondents.
2. Age
Table 4.3
Age of the respondents (n=210)
Age

Frequency

Percentage

25 and below

25

11.9

26-30

91

43.3

31-35

36

17.1

36-40

18

8.6

41-45

16

7.6

46 and above

24

11.4

Total

210

100.0

Table 4.3 illustrates the age of the respondents in this study. It shows that the
majority of respondents are between 26-30 years old with 43.3% (n=91), followed by the

60

respondents with the age 31 35 years old with 17.1% (n=36), 25 years old and below
are 11.9% (n=25), 46 years old and above are 11.4% (n=24), and 36-40 years old with
8.6% (n=18). The lowest percentage are respondents between 41-45 years old with 7.6%
(n=16).
3. Marital Status
Table 4.4
Marital status of the respondents (n=210)
Marital Status

Frequency

Percentage

Single

57

27.1

Married

152

72.4

Others

0.5

Total

210

100.0

Table 4.4 above illustrates the marital status of the respondents in this study.
Married respondents has the highest percentage of 72.4% (n=152), followed by single
respondents with 27.1% (n=57). While 0.5% (n=1) are others, which is single mother.

61

4. Education level
Table 4.5
Education level of the respondents (n=210)
Education Level

Frequency

Percentage

SPM

70

33.3

STPM/Diploma

65

31.0

Bachelor's Degree

55

26.2

Master's Degree

17

8.1

PhD

0.5

Others

1.0

Total

210

100.0

Table 4.5 above shows the education level of the respondents where it divided
into six categories which are SPM (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia), STPM (Sijil Tinggi
Pelajaran Malaysia) or Diploma, Bachelors Degree, Masters Degree, PhD, and others.
From the table, most of the respondents hold SPM certificate with 33.3% (n=70),

62

followed by respondents who hold STPM/Diploma, with 31.0% (n=65), Bachelors

Degree, with 26.2% (n=55), Masters Degree, with 8.1% (n=17), others with 1.0% (n=2),
and PhD with 0.5% (n=1). The respondents who have other education level hold other
certificates.
5. Grade in Service
Table 4.6
Grade in Service of the respondents (n=210)
Grade in Service

Frequency

Percentage

Support Group I

17

8.1

Support Group II

129

61.4

Management & Professional Group

63

30.0

Top Management

0.5

210

100.0

Total

Table 4.6 above shows the grade in service of the respondents where it divided
into four categories which are Support Group I, Support Group II, Management &
Professional Group, and Top Management.

From 210 sets of questionnaires being

analyzed, the majority of the respondents are from Support Group II, with 61.4%
(n=129), followed by the Management & Professional Group, with 30% (n=63), Support

63

Group I 8.1% (n=17), and the minority of the respondents are from Top Management,
with 0.5% (n=1).

6. Length of Service
Table 4.7
Length of service of the respondents (n=210)
Length of Service (years)

Frequency

Percentage

2.9

1-5 years

102

48.6

6-10 years

48

22.9

11-15 years

17

8.1

More than 16 years

37

17.6

Total

210

100.0

Less than a year

Table 4.7 illustrates length of service by years of the respondents where it divided
by five categories. The highest percentage of the respondents length of service is 1-5
years, which is 48.6% (n=102). Followed by 6-10 years length of service, with 22.9%

64

(n=48), more than 16 years with 17.6% (n=37), 11-15 years with 8.1% (n=17), and less
than a year with 2.9% (n=6).

Normality Analysis
Researcher has observed the Skewness and kurtosis values in order to measure
normality. However, several of the Skewness and kurtosis values (table 4.8) for research
variables are not within range 2 and 3 respectively. The researcher tried to delete the
outliers; however the Skewness and Kurtosis values increased. Therefore, researcher
proceeded with factor analysis. (Refer to appendices D3: Normality Analysis)
Factor Analysis
Principal Component Factor Analyses with varimax rotation were utilized
to identify the underlying structure or dimensions in the independent and dependent
variables in this study. Factor analysis can recognize whether a common factor or more
than a single factor is present in the responses to the items. In essence, factor analysis
was used to understand the underlying structure in the data matrix, to identify the most
parsimonious set of variables, and to establish the goodness of measures for testing the
hypotheses (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2006).
Conducting factor analysis, several statistical values are observed to establish
whether the items are suitable to be factor analyzed. This is accomplished by examining

65

the values of Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA), Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and

the Bartletts test of Sphericity. The MSA value for the individual items was set to be
above .50 and the KMO (overall items) value to be above .60. The Bartletts test of
Sphericity is observed to detect the presence of significant correlations among variables.
It is appropriate to proceed with the factor analysis if the value of the test is large and
significant (p<.05) (Hair et al., 2006). Anti-image is to see the correlation and must be
>0.5 while cumunalities extraction must be >0.5, otherwise; item is deleted.
In general, two factors analyses were performed independently for each scale
concerning role conflict and role ambiguity. The criteria used to determine the number of
factors to be extracted is the absolute magnitude of the eigenvalues of factors (eigenvalue
greater than one criterion (Hair et al., 2006). The eigenvalue of a factor represents the
amount of total variance accounted by the factor (Hair et al., 2006). The total amount of
variance explained by the factor(s) was set at 60.0% and above (Hair et al., 2006). In
interpreting the factors, only items with a loading of .50 or greater on one factor were
considered. In the case of cross-loadings (an item that loads at .32 or higher on two or
more factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) or the difference between and among factors is
less than .10 (Youndt, Snell, Dean & Lepak, 1996), the items were considered for
deletion. The clean factors were then interpreted or named by examining the largest
values linking the factors to the items in the rotated factor matrix. Reliability tests were
subsequently carried out after factor analyses. Assessing the validity of the factors,
Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted. There were initially 13 items for the factors
scale:
Table 4.8

66

Dimension (Independent Variables) and Number of Items

Dimension

Number of items

Role Conflict

Role Ambiguity

Principal Components Factor Analysis with direct varimax was used to determine
factors dimensionality. The final results of the analysis revealed that only 10 items
formed 3 structures that are not equivalent to the original structures. Some items has
been deleted due to the cross-loadings (an item that loads at .32 or higher on two or more
factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) or the difference between and among factors is less
than .10 (Youndt et al., 1996)).
Table 4.9
Rotated Component Matrix
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1

RC9

.404

RA15

.783

RA16

.852

RA17

.822

RA19

.703

3
.613

.375

RC_8

.838

RC_10

.778

RC_11

.659

RC_12

.793

67

Rotated Component Matrixa

RC_13

.757

Initial Eigenvalues

3.146

2.244

1.137

% of Variance
Explained (after
rotation)

27.384

25.622

12.264

Total Variance
Explained

31.458

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
.768
Measure of Sampling
Adequacy.
MSA
Bartlett'
s Test of
Spherici
ty

.568-.816
Approx.
655.814
Chi-Square
Df

45

Sig.

.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

As can be seen from Table 4.9, the KMO measure of sampling adequacy for the
adoption factor scale is .794 indicating that the items were related to each other. Bartletts
Test of Sphericity shows a significant value (Approx. Chi-Square = 829.720, p<.001)
indicating the significance of the correlation matrix and appropriateness for factor
analysis. Moreover, the individual MSA values range from .612-.868, indicating that the
data matrix was suitable to be factor analyzed.

68

Initially there were two factors, however, after conducting the factor analysis,
there were three factors found for the factors or dimensions. This is because some of the
items fell under another factor and the item loading contradicted with the original
concept; therefore, the researcher add the new third factor as a factor or dimension. For
the first factor, this factor accounted for 27.384% of the total variance in the data with
loading ranged from .703 to .852. This factor which consisted of 4 items of Role
Ambiguity (RA), thus the name of Role Ambiguity (RA) was upheld. The second factor
comprised second items were related to the Role Conflict (RC). This factor accounted for
25.622% of the total variance in the data with loadings ranged from .659 to .793;
therefore the researcher maintained the original name of Role Conflict (RC). The third
factor accounted for 12.264% of the total variance in the data with loadings ranged from .
613 to .838. This factor which consisted of two items was a new factor found from these
dimension. The researcher named this new factor as Role Limitation (RL).
Table 4.10 below indicates the new dimension for Independent Variables with its
number of items. The results shows that both Role Conflict (RC) and Role Ambiguity
(RA) has four number of items for each dimensions, while the new dimension for this
study was namely by the researcher as Role Limitation (RL); with two items.
Table 4.10
New Dimension (Independent Variables) and Number of Items
Dimension
Role Conflict

Number of items
4

69

Role Ambiguity

Role Limitation

Reliability Analysis
The reliability analysis was conducted by computing the Cronbachs Alpha for
each measure where it indicates the stability and reliability of the instruments. According
to Sekaran (2003), Cronbachs Alpha is a reliability coefficient that indicates how well
the items in a set are positively correlated to one another.

Cronbachs Alpha was

computed in terms of the average intercorrelations among the items measuring the
concept and the closer Cronbachs Alpha is to 1, the higher the internal consistency
reliability (Sekaran, 2003).
Sekaran and Bougie (2010) stated that the closer Cronbachs Alpha coefficient is
to 1.0 the larger the internal consistency of the items in the scale. As cited in Gliem and
Gliems (2003) rules of thumb were as below:
Table 4.11

70

Reliability analysis rules of thumb (Gliem & Gliem, 2003)

>.9 = Excellent
>.8 = Good
>.7 = Acceptable
>.6 = Questionable
>.5 = Poor
<.5 = Unacceptable

Based from the table 4.13 below, the Cronbachs Alpha for role conflict was in the
range of 0.762; role ambiguity was 0.809; role limitation was 0.251; and overall role
stress was 0.736, while for job satisfaction was 0.918. From the results, the reliability
coefficient indicated that the dimension of role conflict and overall role stress has an
acceptable internal consistency; role ambiguity has a good internal consistency, while job
satisfaction has an excellent internal consistency. However, Cronbachs Alpha value for
role limitation was below 0.5, meaning to say that the value has an unacceptable internal
consistency. Therefore, the researcher has to delete the scale of role limitation because its
value of Cronbachs Alpha was not reliable for this study, but other scales in table 4.12
were considered valid and reliable.
Table 4.12
Cronbachs Alpha scores for role conflict, role ambiguity, role limitation, overall role
stress, and job satisfaction (n = 210)

71

Scales

Cronbachs Alpha

Number of Items

Role Conflict

0.762

Role Ambiguity

0.809

Role Limitation

0.251

Overall Role Stress

0.727

10

Job Satisfaction

0.918

36

Table 4.13 below indicates the new Cronbachs Alpha scores for role conflict, role
ambiguity, overall role stress, and job satisfaction after the scale of role limitation has
been deleted. The Cronbachs Alphas value for role conflict was in the range of 0.762;
role ambiguity was 0.809; overall role stress was 0.748, and job satisfaction was 0.918.
The values of Cronbachs Alpha for this study were valid and reliable because the
reliability coefficient indicated that the dimension of role conflict and overall role stress
has an acceptable internal consistency; role ambiguity has a good internal consistency,
while job satisfaction has an excellent internal consistency. As a result, all of the scales
are valid and reliable.
Table 4.13
New Cronbachs Alpha scores for role conflict, role ambiguity, overall role stress, and job
satisfaction (n = 210)
Scales

Cronbachs Alpha

Number of Items

Role Conflict

0.762

Role Ambiguity

0.809

72

Overall Role Stress

0.748

Job Satisfaction

0.918

36

Analysis of Findings
This section consists of the result of statistical analysis applied to answer all the
research questions and discussion of the research findings. Several of the findings were
used to find out whether the research hypothesis was supported or not.

Testing of Research Questions 1 & 2

Mean and standard deviation was used to analyze the findings for research questions 1
and 2.
Research Question 1
What are the self-reported levels of role conflict and role ambiguity among
treasury employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya as measured by the
Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Scale?

Table 4.14
Mean and Standard Deviation for role conflict and role ambiguity

73

Instrument

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Role Conflict

210

4.47

1.336

1.00

7.00

Role Ambiguity

210

5.75

0.883

2.00

7.00

Table 4.14 above shows mean and standard deviation for both role conflict and
role ambiguity and this table has answered the above question. In order to analyze the
finding for this research question, role conflict and role ambiguity will be reported
separately with possible range of scores of 1.00 7.00 for both role conflict and role
ambiguity. The higher the scores of the mean means that levels of role conflict and role
ambiguity were greater respectfully.
In this study, role conflict has a mean score of 4.47 with a standard deviation of
1.336 and a range of 1.00 7.00. The sample study for this role conflict was moderate to
high. Role ambiguity has a mean score of 5.75 with a standard deviation of 0.883 and a
range of 2.00 7.00. The result shows that the sample study for role ambiguity was high.

74

Research Question 2

What is the self-reported level of job satisfaction among treasury employees

at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya as measured by the Job Satisfaction
Survey?

Table 4.15
Mean and Standard Deviation for job satisfaction
Instrument
Job Satisfaction

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

210

4.56

0.809

2.14

6.61

Table 4.15 above shows mean and standard deviation for job satisfaction and this
table has answered the above question. The possible range of job satisfaction scores with
the tool used was 1.00 7.00 and the higher the number indicating, the higher the rate of
job satisfaction.

75

Job satisfaction scores for the sample studied were calculated to be mean of 4.56
with a standard deviation of 0.809 and a range of 2.14 6.61. The sample study for this
job satisfaction was moderate to high.

Testing of Research Questions 3, 4, & 5, and Research Hypothesis 1, 2, & 3

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to analyze the findings for
research questions 3, 4, & 5, and also for research hypothesis 1, 2, & 3 that relate with
each research questions in this study.
The researcher used the guidelines provided by Cohen (1988) in order to
understand the relationship between independent variable (IV) and dependent variable
(DV). Other than that, it can be useful for the explanation on the strength of the
relationship in terms of the value of Pearson Correlation (r) and the direction of the
relationship for the variable used in this study. The correlation coefficient has a range of
possible values from -1 to +1, and the value indicates the strength of the relationship
while the sign (- or +) indicates the direction. A positive correlation indicates a direct
relationship between variables while negative correlations indicate indirect relationship.
The guidelines on the Interpretation of Correlation Coefficient are illustrated in the table
below.

Table 4.16

76

Guidelines on the Interpretation of Correlation Coefficient (Cohen, 1988)

Degree of Correlation

Pearson Correlation (r) Values

Small

-0.10 to -0.29 and +0,10 to +0.29

Medium

-0.30 to -0.49 and +0.30 to +0.49

Large

-0.50 to -1.00 and +0.50 to +1.00

Research Question 3

What is the relationship between overall role stress and job satisfaction?

H1:

There is a significant relationship between overall role stress and job satisfaction.

Table 4.17
Correlation between overall role stress and job satisfaction, (n = 210)
Overall Role Stress
Job Satisfaction
Pearson Correlation

.583**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

210

77

Table 4.17 shows that there was a positive, large, and significant relationship
between overall role stress and job satisfaction (r = 0.583, p < 0.01, n = 210). The p
value has to be less than 0.01 for correlation significant. Therefore, the result shows that
overall role stress has a positive relationship with job satisfaction.

Research Question 4

Is there a relationship between role conflict and job satisfaction?

H2:

There is a significant relationship between role conflict and job satisfaction.

Table 4.18
Correlation between role conflict and job satisfaction, (n = 210)
Role Conflict
Job Satisfaction
Pearson Correlation

.529**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

210

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

78

Table 4.18 shows that there was a positive, large, and significant relationship
between role stress and job satisfaction (r = 0.529, p < 0.01, n = 210). The p value has to
be less than 0.01 for correlation significant. Therefore, the result shows that role conflict
has a positive relationship with job satisfaction.

Research Question 5

Is there a relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction?

H3:

There is a significant relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction

Table 4.19
Correlation between role ambiguity and job satisfaction, (n = 210)
Role Ambiguity
Job Satisfaction
Pearson Correlation

.363**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

210

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

79

Table 4.19 shows that there was a positive, medium, and significant relationship
between role stress and job satisfaction (r = 0.363, p < 0.01, n = 210). The p value has to
be less than 0.01 for correlation significant.

Therefore, the result shows that role

ambiguity has a positive relationship with job satisfaction.

Discussion on Research Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3

Based on the result of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, there
was a significant relationship between overall role stress and job satisfaction. This study
is supported by Cotton and Jennings (1989), where job dissatisfaction has repeatedly
been demonstrated as correlates of role stress.
Yousef (2000) has conducted the role stress study. However, Yousefs (2000)
study does not support the researchers study because Yousef (2000) has observing that
role stress of role conflict and role ambiguity together do not effect job satisfaction. But
role conflict and role ambiguity however affect job satisfaction when they are considered
separately. From the researchers study, it was stated that role stress of role conflict and
role ambiguity together do effect job satisfaction.
In findings for research hypothesis 2 and 3, it shows that both role conflict and
role stress has significant relationship with job satisfaction; when they are considered
separately. Cotton and Jennings (1989); and Bedeian and Armenakis (1981), agreed that
role conflict and job satisfaction is directly affected job satisfaction.
these three hypotheses were accepted.

Therefore, all of

80

All of these hypotheses findings show that the relationship between overall role
stress, role conflict, and role ambiguity was positively significant with job satisfaction.
The study has different results with other researchers study because many studies related
to the topic indicate that many negative results related to the relationship between role
conflict, role ambiguity and job satisfaction.
Babakus, Cravens, Johnston, and Moncrief, (1999); and Weatherly and Tansik
(1992) stated that role conflict effect employees job satisfaction in a negative way.
Jackon and Schuler (1985) also agree that there is a strong negative correlation between
role conflict and role ambiguity and job satisfaction.
The reasons that might influence the findings was; according to Nash (1985), job
satisfaction is attributed not only to one but many factors and varies in its impact on
individuals satisfaction with life because work varies is importance from individual to
individual. Nash (1985) found that people who take their job as prime interest experience
high level of job satisfaction. Their job satisfaction will be further enhanced if they are
doing work that is utilizing their skills (Nash, 1985).
Nash (1985) also found that job satisfaction is an indicator of employees
motivation to come to work and it changes with age and employment cycle. Certain
organizational characteristics influence job satisfaction, and one of the major factors is
the intrinsic nature of the job itself (Nash, 1985). It shows that individual who likes the
content of their job will be more satisfied with the job itself even though they were
experiencing stress (Nash, 1985).
In addition, according to Nash (1985), employees will think in terms of
preferences, where workers usually want job with high pay, high security, promotional

81

opportunities, fewer hours of work and friendly supervision. Nash (1985) also stated that
if it demands considerable effort to get a job (through education, experience or
achievement), if one can make a lot of money at it, if one can not think of an alternative,
then one should be highly satisfied with the job. All of these benefits have become major
preferences by the respondents for this study in order to influence their job satisfaction
(Nash, 1985).

Multiple Regressions
According to Hair et al. (2010), multiple regressions are a multivariate analysis
which used statistical tool for understanding the relationship between two or more
variables.

While according to Coakes et al. (2010), Coakes claimed that multiple

regressions is an extension of bivariate correlation.

The main purpose of multiple

regressions is to find out more about the relationship between several independent and
dependent variables as well as the relationship as a whole (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010).
In this study, the standard multiple regression were used to discover the best
predictor or most significant factors in role stress that influence job satisfaction among
the treasury employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Table 4.20

82

Model Summaryb
Model

.584a

Std. Error of the

R Square Adjusted R Square
Estimate
.342

.335

Durbin-Watson

.66044

1.448

a. Predictors: (Constant), Role Conflict (RC), Role Ambiguity (RA)

b. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction (JS)
The multiple regressions from the table 4.20 of model summary indicate that a
strong relationship existed as hypothesized. In this model, the R value indicates strong
association between the independent and dependent variable.

While value of R

represents the proportion of variation of the dependent variable which accounted for by
the independent variables in the regression model. R value for this study was 0.584;
which means that both role conflict and role ambiguity has positive relationship with job
satisfaction; while R square was 03425. The model suggested that the predictors which
are Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity are able to explain about 34.2% of the variance in
the dependent variable which is Job Satisfaction. Durbin-Watson showed that there was
no dependency between independent and dependent variable.

Table 4.21
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized
Coefficients

Beta

Collinearity
Statistics

Model

1.941

.314

6.188

.000

RC

.234

.053

.255 4.405

.000

.948 1.055

RA

.285

.035

.470 8.120

.000

.948 1.055

(Constant)

Std. Error

Standardized
Coefficients

a. Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction (JS)

Sig.

Tolerance

VIF

83

Table 4.21 indicates a multicollinearity assumption in multiple regression.

According to Coakes et al. (2010), multicollinearity referred to high correlations among
the independent variables. It occurs when some independent variables in the model are
correlated with other predictor variable. The variance inflation factors (VIF) should be
below 10 to show there is no collinearity problem.

However, very low values of

Tolerance (near 0) indicates that the multiple correlation with other variable is high,
which suggested that the possibility of multicollinearity. According to Coakes et al.
(2010), Tolerance value should be high in order to represent a small degree of
multicollinearity. For this study, there was no collinearity problem occurred because the
value variance inflation factor (VIF) was less then 10, which are both Role Conflict (RC)
and Role Ambiguity (RA) has VIF of 1.055, with the Tolerance value of below 1.
The significance of beta coefficients provides support for the alternate hypotheses
in the regression model whereby role conflict (RC) has more influence towards job
satisfaction (JS) than role ambiguity (RA). The result also indicates that, Role Conflict
and Role Ambiguity have significant impact on the Job Satisfaction (p < 0.05), therefore,
H1 and H2 and H3 were accepted.

84

Table 4.22
Hypothesis Testing Summary
Item
H1

Hypothesis

Direction

Results

There is a significant

Positive, large, and

Accepted

relationship between

significant relationship

role stress and job

satisfaction

H2

(r = 0.583, p < 0.01, n =210)

Significant Value (p < 0.05)

There is a significant

Positive, medium, and

relationship between

significant relationship

role conflict and job

(r = 0.529, p < 0.01, n =210)

Accepted

85

satisfaction
H3

Significant Value (p < 0.05)

There is a significant

Positive, medium, and

relationship between

significant relationship

role ambiguity and job

satisfaction

Accepted

(r = 0.363, p < 0.01, n =210)

Significant Value (p < 0.05)

Chapter Summary
This chapter presents the findings of the study that include the finding results for
demographic information of respondents, research questions, and research hypothesis.
The results obtained were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
Software (SPSS) version 17.0

86

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter consists of the summary of findings for every research questions
obtained from the questionnaires answered by the respondents of the study. This chapter
also includes suggestions or recommendations for role stress and job satisfaction and
future recommendations for other researchers who are interested to conduct their studies
in the same area.

Demographic Background of Respondents

87

The total respond rates for this study are 210 (63%) out of 331 respondents. In
this study, it was found that the number of female respondents who has involved in this
study was higher than male respondents which are 67.1% (n = 141).

Majority of

respondents are between 26-30 years old with 43.3% (n = 91). Respondents who are
married has the highest percentage of 72.4% (n = 152) from the total of sample and most
of respondents hold SPM certificate with a percentage of 33.3% (n = 70). Other than
that, majority of respondents are from Support Group II, with 61.4% (n = 129), and the
highest percentage of the respondents length of service is 1-5 years, which is 48.6% (n =
102).

Research Question Findings

Research Question 1
What are the self-reported levels of role conflict and role ambiguity among treasury
employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya as measured by the Role Conflict and
Role Ambiguity Scale?
Descriptive statistic of mean and standard deviation were used to analyze this
question. Role conflict has a mean score of 4.47 with a standard deviation of 1.336 and a
range of 1.00 7.00. The sample study for this role conflict was moderate to high.
Role ambiguity has a mean score of 5.75 with a standard deviation of 0.883 and a
range of 2.00 7.00. The result shows that the sample study for role ambiguity was high.

Research Question 2

88

What is the self-reported level of job satisfaction among treasury employees at the
Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey?
Descriptive statistic of mean and standard deviation were used to analyze this
question. Job satisfaction scores for the sample studied were calculated to be mean of
4.56 with a standard deviation of 0.809 and a range of 2.14 6.61. The sample study for
this job satisfaction was moderate to high.

Research Question 3
What is the relationship between overall role stress and job satisfaction?
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to analyze the
relationship between role stress and job satisfaction. Based on the finding, it can be
concluded that there was a positive, large, and significant relationship between role stress
and job satisfaction (r = 0.583, p < 0.01, n = 210). The regression result shows a
significant value (p < 0.05). For that reason, the overall of role stress can influence job
satisfaction.
Research Question 4
Is there a relationship between role conflict and job satisfaction?
In order to analyze the relationship between role conflict and job satisfaction, the
researcher has used Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and the results shows

89

that; role conflict has a positive, large, and significant relationship between role conflict
and job satisfaction; (r = 0.529, p < 0.01, n = 210). The regression result shows a
significant value (p < 0.05); which means that role conflict can influence job satisfaction.
Research Question 5
Is there a relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction?
The finding of Pearson correlation coefficient in analyzing role ambiguity
and job satisfaction among the employees has shows that there was a positive, medium,
and significant relationship between role ambiguity and job satisfaction, with (r = 0.363,
p < 0.01, n = 210). The regression result shows a significant value (p < 0.05); where role
ambiguity can influence job satisfaction.
Research Question Conclusions
From the findings of the research questions 1 and 2, it shows that both selfreported levels of role conflict and role ambiguity as measured by the Role Conflict and
Role Ambiguity Scale and also the self-reported level of job satisfaction as measured by
the Job Satisfaction Survey which was among treasury employees at the Ministry of
Finance, Putrajaya was moderate to high, high, and moderate to high repetitively; where
role conflict (mean = 4.47, SD = 1.336, and range = 1.00 7.00), role ambiguity (mean =
5.75, SD = 0.883, and range = 2.00 7.00), and job satisfaction (mean = 4.56, SD =
0.809, and range = 2.14 6.61).
It means that even though the employees have experienced role stress of role
conflict and role ambiguity, they were satisfied with their job. According to Spector
(1994), there are nine facets which comprising job satisfaction; pay, promotion,

90

supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature

of work, and communication.
In Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory, Herzbergs (1959) stated six
motivations variables, or job content variables which include: achievement, recognition,
work itself, responsibility, advancement, and the possibility of growth.

While the

hygiene variables, or job context variables, include: company policy, supervision,

relationship with supervisors, work conditions, relationship with peers, salary, and
personal life, relationship with subordinates, status, and job security (Herzberg, 1959).
The findings of the research questions 3, 4 and 5 shows that; the relationship
between each overall role stress, role conflict, and role ambiguity with job satisfaction
were highly significant (p < 0.01) which was at 0.000 Sig. (2-tailed) for each factors. As
would be expected, each role stress, role conflict, and role ambiguity has a positive
relationship with job satisfaction.
In order to understand the relationship between independent variables (IV) and
dependent variable (DV), the researcher used the guidelines on the Interpretation of
Correlation Coefficient provided by Cohen (1988) which was useful as a guideline and
explanation on the strength of the relationship in terms of the value of Pearson
Correlation (r) and the direction of the relationship for the variable used in this study.
From the results, we can see that the correlation (r) value for overall of role stress and job
satisfaction was 0.583.

According to the Cohens (1988) correlation coefficient

guidelines, role stress has a large, positive relationship with job satisfaction; where
(values of large correlation = -0.50 to -1.00 and +0.50 to +1.00). It means that as role

91

stress of the treasury employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya was high; their job
satisfaction was also high, and vice versa.
The correlation (r) value for role conflict and job satisfaction was 0.529. While
the correlation (r) value for role ambiguity and job satisfaction was 0.363. Role conflict
has large value with job satisfaction while role ambiguity has medium value of
correlation with job satisfaction; where (values of medium correlation = -0.30 to -0.49
and +0.30 to +0.49). It also shows that as role conflict and role ambiguity of the treasury
employees at the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya was high; their job satisfaction was also
high, and vice versa.
The result from the research questions 3, 4, and 5 has related with the findings
from the research questions 1 and 2. The results shows that the level of employees role
conflict, role ambiguity and job satisfaction was moderate to high while the relationship
between each of overall role stress, role conflict, and role ambiguity with job satisfaction
was a positive relationships. It means that, the treasury employee at the Ministry of
Finance, Putrajaya has experienced moderate to highly positive level of stress in term of
their role conflict and role ambiguity at the workplace such as; inconsistent messaging
from another individual based upon expected role behavior (Kahn et al., 1964); the
demands of the job do not live up to the employees expectations (Schultz and Schultz,
1990; and Dipboye et al., 1994); lack of clear information about the specific expectations
for a particular role, how to accomplish those expectations, or the likely outcomes of
particular strategies for fulfilling certain role expectations (Rizzo et al., 1970; Terrell,
2001); unexpected or unclear organizational change (Kahn et al., 1964); and poor job

92

descriptions, vague instructions from a supervisor, or unclear cues from coworkers

(Griffin & Moorhead, 2009).
However, even though they has experienced positive role stress, they were also
satisfied with their job, such as; a staff member has favorable or positive feelings about
work or the work environment (De Nobile, 2003); and the positive attitudes or emotional
dispositions people may gain from work or through aspects of work (Furnham, 1997;
Locke, 1976). It shows that their role stress has influence their job satisfaction in a
positive ways.
This study has revealed different results from other previous studies.

For

example, in Shepherd and Fines (1994) study on role conflict and job satisfaction,
Shepherd and Fine (1994) has concluded the negative correlation between role conflict
and job satisfaction and indicates this role stress variable has a negative influence in the
individual perception of job satisfaction.
Other than that, Ortqvist and Wincent (2006) has conducted a study on the
relationship between role ambiguity with job satisfaction; and after completing the
statistical analysis of the data, Ortqvist and Wincent (2006) concluded that the negative
correlation between role ambiguity and job satisfaction, and this researchers also
indicates that this role stress variable has a negative influence in the individual perception
of job satisfaction.
In addition, Montgomery (2011) also agreed that these role stresses has a negative
relationship with job satisfaction. The overall study indicated a significant negative
correlation between role conflict and job satisfaction, and also a significant negative
correlation between role ambiguity and job satisfaction (Montgomery, 2011).
However, for this study, the positive relationship between role stress for both role
conflict and role ambiguity with job satisfaction has indicates that even though
employees has experience moderately to high level of stress, they also tend to has

93

moderately to high satisfaction towards their jobs. Even though they were facing stress
of role conflict and role ambiguity at the workplace, they were still satisfied with their job
in term of salary, working benefits such as opportunities for job promotion and bonuses.
Other than that, employees usually would like to prefer to work within the government
sectors because of high job security with fewer working hours. Friendly co-workers in
their working environment also might influence their job satisfaction even though they
were experiencing role stress at the workplace.

Recommendations
Although the findings for this study shows that the employees have experienced
positive job satisfaction, the organization itself should pay close attention to their
employees level of role stress because they have experienced highly positive role stress
of role conflict and role ambiguity. The top management should assist employees in
dealing with their role stress because these role stresses (role conflict and role ambiguity)
should not be taken for granted, but some measures should be employed by the
organization in order to deal with it and at the same time to avoid the negative effect on
job satisfaction.
The organization should provide a clear role of job specification and description
of duties for the employees in order for them to deal with role stress of role conflict and

94

role ambiguity. This is because, employees who experienced these roles stress tend to
have a confusing or uncertain feelings towards their job role in the organization.
Another way that can be taken by the organization in order to reduce stress of the
employees is through organization-initiated stress management activities. According to
Overall (1998), organization that provide stress management and counseling services to
employees had markedly lower staff turnover and absenteeism than those without.
Counseling is a good program where it is not only can help individuals to cope with their
stress but, also it can help them identify the sources of organizational stress that lead to
the problems that they were faced.
Other than that, the organization can also create a formal mentoring system,
whereby each new employees or current employees should be assigned to an experienced
and knowledgeable peer. According to Harris and Arendt (1998), employees mentoring
system play an important role in helping employees accurately assess their task demands
and skills necessary to do their job. This at the same time can help employees to have a
clear picture about their job duties and to whom they should be reported.
Somehow, the role stress issues should not be addressed at the organizational level
alone because the employees themselves have to find solutions to deal with it in order to
minimize the stress negative effect towards them. This can be done by reported to the top
management that the job duties being given to them are not consistent with their job
specification whereas the job duties given are not covered in their job specification. This
situation can create role stress in term of role conflict and role ambiguity towards them.
As an employee, the individual should take a proactive step to talk to the management

95

and let them know their needs and problems. This solution can help the employees to
deals with their role stress and at the same time, the management will know what are the
employees needs and problems.

Recommendations for Future Research

The relationship between role stress of role conflict and role ambiguity as it
relates to job satisfaction has been studied by researchers since 1960s, The impact of
these role stresses and job satisfaction can be either positive or negative correlation and it
depends on the respondents situation or influencing factors at the workplace. This study
was limited to several constraints such as knowledge, time, budget, and resources.
Therefore, some improvements are necessary. The following recommendations are made
for future studies relating to employees stress.
1) The same study should be conducted for the whole employees at the Ministry of
Finance, Putrajaya, in order to get a better finding. Meaning to say that, the

96

population for the study not only among treasury employees, but cover all
employees who are working under the Ministry of Finance, Putrajaya such as
Securities Commision, Bursa Malaysia Berhad, Central Bank of Malaysia,
Langkawi Development Authority, Accountant General, and so forth.
2) The same study should be conducted in two different area of population, which is
in public and private organization in Malaysia, in order to have a different view of
findings.
3) The same study should be expanded by adding the effect of role stress towards the
organization in two different areas of population, which is in public and private
organization in Malaysia.
4) Expanding the study by adding more variables of stress in the independent
variable such as job stress or workplace stress.
5) The same study should be conducted and / or expanded by using different scale or
measurement such as;
i) Job Stress Questionnaire (JSQ); used to measure job stress which proposed by
Caplan et al. (1975)
ii) Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ); used to measure stress and
satisfaction, proposed by Weiss et al. (1967)
iii) Perceived Stress Scale (PSS); used to measure the perception of stress,
proposed by Cohen et al. (1983)

97

iv) Job Satisfaction Index (JDI); used to measure job satisfaction, which proposed
by Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969)
v) Abridged Job Descriptive Index (AJDI); used to measure job satisfaction,
which proposed by Balzer, Kihm, Smith, Irwin, Bachiochi, Robie, Sinar &
Parra (1997), and so forth.

Chapter Summary
This chapter contains conclusions of findings for every research questions for this study
and it also consists of the recommendations for role stress and job satisfaction and future
recommendations for other researchers who are interested to conduct their studies in the
same area.