Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management Hotel

Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management Hotel Management Department

Measuring the Relationship between Job Stress and Service Quality in Quick-Service Restaurants Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Hotel Management

By

Mohamed Youssef Ibrahim Helal B.Sc., Hotel Management, 2013

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Dr. Alaa Tantawy Professor Doctor, Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University

Associate Prof. Dr. Tamer Mohamed Abbas Associate Professor, Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University

2017

Approval Sheet

Approval Sheet Thesis Title: Measuring the Relationship between Job Stress and Service Quality in Quick-Service Restaurants Name: Mohamed Youssef Ibrahim Helal This thesis for the Master Degree in Hotel Management has been approved by: Prof. Dr. Mohamed Hany Bahey El-Din Head of Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University Prof. Dr. Alaa Tantawy Professor Doctor, Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University Associate Prof. Dr.Tamer Mohamed Abbas Associate Prof. Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University

Dr. Nour El-Deen Bakr Hotel Expert and Ex. President of Misr Travel Company

Committee in Charge Degree Conferred

/

/ 2017

I

Dedication

Dedication

The work is dedicated to my honorable mother, my respectful father, dear sister and brothers, and my lovely wife who have been a great source of motivation and inspiration.

II

Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would firstly like to praise and thank ALLAH, the most Gracious, the Greatest and the most Merciful who gave me the ability to complete this thesis. In particular, I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Alaa Abd-Elgwad Mohamed El Tantawy for his support, encouragement, motivation, directions and precious comments which helped me complete this work. As well as, my sincere thanks and appreciation go also to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tamer Mohamed Abbas for his patience, professional approach, motivation, valuable advices and guidance in order to finish and submit this thesis. Moreover, special thanks to Prof. Dr. Ahmed Nour EL-Din Elias, Ex. Dean, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University for his kind support, encouragement and continual valuable advices during my undergraduate and postgraduate studies. In addition, I would like also to take this opportunity to extend my deepest appreciation, my heartfelt salutation and gratitude to Prof. Dr. Mohamed Hany Bahey El-Din,

Head of Hotel Management

Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, for his help, support and motivation during my undergraduate and postgraduate studies. Moreover, I would like to present my sincere thanks and appreciation to Dr. Nour El-Deen Bakr, Hotel Expert and Ex. President of Misr Travel Company for accepting to review and discuss this thesis. Further, sincere appreciations and deep regards also goes to all doctors, associate

lecturers

and

demonstrators III

in

Hotel Management

Acknowledgements Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, for their support and encouragement. Finally, I want to express my heartfelt thanks to my family for their endless patience, encouragement and unwavering support to pursue the goal of completing this thesis. Mohamed Y. I. Helal

IV

Abstract

Abstract Job stress is now identified as a major issue in the human resources management arena, for both employees and management. This study aims to measure the relationship between employees’ job stress and service quality in quick-service restaurants (QSRs). This study employed a selfadministered questionnaire as the data collection instrument. The questionnaire consisted of 38 items, and these items divided into eight groups, i.e., role (RO), change (CH), demand (DE), control (CO), relationship (RE), managerial support (MS), staff support (SS), and service quality (SQ). Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the proposed hypotheses using AMOS version 4. In addition, the Mann-Whitney and the Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to test the variance between employees groups. The findings showed significant relationships between employees’ demand, control, staff support and service quality. The findings of the current study offer practical implications for scholars and QSRs practitioners.

V

Table of Contents Table of Contents Content

Page

Approval Sheet…………………………………………………... Dedication………………………………………………………... Acknowledgements……………………………………………… Abstract………………………………………………………….. Table of Contents……………………………………………….. List of Tables…………………………………………………….. List of Figures……………………………………………………. List of Abbreviations……………………………………………. List of Definitions ……………………………………………….. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Overview of the Study ……………………... 1.2 The Research Problem………………………………………… 1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study ……………………….……. 1.4 Thesis Structure ………………………………………………. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………

I II III V VI IX XII XIII XIV VI

2.2 An Overview of Quick Service Restaurants (QSRs)…………. 2.2.1 Quick service restaurants definition…………………...... 2.2.2 Characteristics of quick service restaurants…………...... 2.2.3 Types of quick service restaurants……………………… 2.3 Job Stress………………………………………………………

6 6 7 8 9

2.3.1 Job stress definitions……………………………………..

9

2.3.2 Elements of job stress…………………………..………...

11

2.3.3 Types and levels of job stress …………… ………….......

12

2.3.4 Causes of job stress…………………………………….... 2.3.5 Effects of job stress……………………………………… 2.3.6 Measuring job stress……………………………………... 2.3.7 Techniques to coping with job stress…………………..... Techniques…………………………………… 2.3.8 The benefits of reducing job stress……………………… …..stress………………………………....... 2.4 Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry……………………

12 14 16 17 18 19

1 2 3 3

6

(Continued)

VI

Table of Contents Table of Contents (cont.) Content 2.4.1 Service quality definition……………………….……….. 2.4.2 Importance of service quality…..………………………... 2.4.3 Dimensions of service quality………………….………... 2.4.4 Measuring the service quality ………………….……….. 2.5 Relationship between Job Stress and Service Quality………… 2.6 Job Stress and Employee Demographics……….…………… 2.6.1 Gender and job stress…………….……………………. 2.6.2 Age and job stress………….…………………….…….. Stress……………………………………………………………… …...2.6.3 Level of education and job stress…………..….………. …………………………………………………. 2.6.4 Experience and job stress…………….……….……….. ………………………………………………...…... 2.6.5 Marital status and job stress…………..………………. 2.7 The Conceptual Framework ………..………………………….. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………… 3.2 Research Methods ……………………………………………. 3.2.1 Secondary data sources …………………………..…….. 3.2.2 Primary data sources…….……………………………… 3.3 Research Population and Sampling Techniques……………… 3.4 Data Analysis…………………………………………………. 3.5 Validity and Reliability……………………………………….. 3.6 Ethical Considerations………………………………………. CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………… 4.2 Descriptive Analysis………………………………………….. 4.3 Variance Analysis…………………………………………….. 4.3.1The variance between employees’ gender and scale ……. 4.3.2The variance among QSRs categories and scale………… 4.3.3 The variance among age groups and scale……………… 4.3.4 The variance among education and scale……………….. 4.3.5 The variance among lengths of employment and scale…. 4.3.6 The variance among marital status and scale…………… 4.4 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)………………………… 4.4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)…………………….. 4.4.2 Structural models and hypotheses testing………….……

Page 20 21 22 22 23 Relat 25 ionsh 25 25 ip 25 betw 25 een 25 Job 27 Stres s and Servi 29 ce 29 Quali 29 ty 29 32 33 34 34

36 36 41 41 46 54 62 70 79 87 87 89

(Continued)

VII

Table of Contents Table of Contents (cont.) Content Page 4.5 Discussion…………………………………………………….. 91 4.5.1 Discussion of structural equation modeling…………..… 91 4.5.2 Discussion of variance analysis…………………………. 93 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Introduction…………………………………….……………... 95 5.2 Review of Objectives…………………………………………. 95 5.2.1 Objective one…………………………………………… 95 5.2.2 Objective two…….……………………………………... 95 5.2.3 Objective three…………….……………………………. 96 5.3 Recommendations…………………………………………….. 96 5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research…………….. 98 References…………………………………………………........... 101 .APPENDIX Appendix 1 self-administrated questionnaire.………………….. XVIII ARABIC SUMMARY…………………………………………… ٧-١

VIII

List of Tables List of Tables Table 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18

Title Page Instrument scales and items 31 The selected QSRs 32 Employees’ Profiles 37 A descriptive analysis of job stress and service quality 39 The differences between male and female in job role 41 stressors The differences between male and female in change 42 stressors The differences between male and female demand 42 stressors The differences between male and female control 43 stressors The differences between male and female from 43 managerial support stressors The differences between male and female in colleagues 44 support stressors The differences between male and female in relationship 44 stressors The differences between male and female in service 45 quality factors The differences among employees’ role stressors in 46 QSRs The differences among employees’ change stressors in 47 QSRs The differences among employees’ demand stressors in 48 QSRs The differences among employees’ control stressors in 49 QSRs The differences among employees’ managerial support 50 stressors in QSRs The differences among employees’ in colleagues 51 support stressors in QSRs The differences among employees’ relationship stressors 52 in QSRs The differences among employees’ service quality 53 factors in QSRs (Continued)

IX

List of Tables List of Tables (cont.) Table

Title

4.22

The differences among employees’ role stressors in different age groups The differences among employees’ age groups and change stressors The differences among employees’ age groups and demand stressors The differences among employees’ age groups and control stressors

4.23

The differences among employees’ age and managerial support stressors

4.19 4.20 4.21

4.26

The differences among employees’ age groups and staff support stressors The differences among employees’ age groups and relationship stressors The differences among employees’ age groups and service quality

4.27

The differences among employees’ educational levels and role stressors

4.24 4.25

4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36

Page 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62

The differences among employees’ educational levels 63 and change stressors The differences among employees’ educational levels 64 and demand stressors The differences among employees’ educational levels 65 and control stressors The differences among employees’ educational levels 66 and managerial support stressors The differences among employees’ educational levels 67 and staff support stressors The differences among employees’ educational levels 68 and relationship stressors The differences among employees’ educational levels 69 and service quality The differences among length of employment and role 70 stressors The differences among length of employment and 71 change stressors (Continued) X

List of Tables List of Tables (cont.) Table 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.48 4.49 4.50 4.51 4.52 4.53

Title Page The differences among length of employment and 73 demand stressors The differences among length of employment and 74 control stressors The differences among length of employment and 75 managerial support stressors The differences among length of employment and staff 76 support stressors The differences among length of employment and 77 relationship stressors The differences among length of employment and 78 service quality The differences among employees’ marital status and 79 role stressors The differences among employees’ marital status and 80 change stressors The differences among employees’ marital status and 81 workplace demands stressors The differences among employees’ marital status and 82 control stressors The differences among marital status and managerial 83 support stressors The differences among employees’ marital status and 84 staff support stressors The differences among employees’ marital status and 85 relationship stressors The differences among employees’ marital status and 86 service quality Parameter estimates of the measurement model, validity analysis, and reliability test for job stress and service 88 quality Discriminant validity for the measurement model 89 Standardized parameter estimates of the structural model 90

XI

List of Figures List of Figures Figure

Title

Page 9

2.1

Elements of job stress

2.2

Steps of coping with job stress

17

2.3

The conceptual framework

24

4.1

Final structure equation model

86

XII

List of Abbreviations List of Abbreviations AMOS

Analysis of a Moment Structures

AVE

Average Variance Extracted

CFA

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CMIN/DF

Discrepancy between Sigma(theta) and the Unrestricted /Degrees of Freedom

CR

Composite Reliability

DINESCAPE Instrument used to measure the customer perception of dining environments in the upscale restaurant setting DINESERV

A tool for measuring service quality in restaurants

H

Hypothesis

HSE

Health and Safety Executive

M

Mean Rank Score

NIOSH

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

QSRs

Quick Service Restaurants

SEM

Structural Equation Modeling

SERVPERF

Service quality model covers only performance

SERVQUAL

Service quality model

SPSS

Statistical Package for a Social Sciences

SD

Standard Deviation

TANGSERV

Model only focusing on measuring the tangible dimension in the restaurant industry

XIII

List of Definitions List of Definitions Term

Definition

Emotional

Emotional intelligence is the ability to manage and use

Intelligence

your emotions in positive and constructive ways (Management Training Specialists, 2014).

Empowerment Empowerment as technique of delegation which enables work decisions to be taken as near as possible to the operating units and their customers (Ayupp & Chung, 2010). Job

It is a list that shows the tasks, duties, and

Description

responsibilities of a job (Decenzo & Robbins, 2005).

Job

It is a list of knowledge, skills, and abilities an

Specifications

individual needs to perform a job satisfactorily (Byars & Rue, 2004).

Job Stress

Job stress is thus understood to occur when there is a mismatch between the demands of the job and the resources and capabilities of the individual worker to meet those demands (Health and Safety Executive, 2016).

Quick Service

QSRs as eat in or take out operations with limited

Restaurants

menus, low prices, and fast service (Enz, 2009).

(QSRs) Reliability

It is concerned with evaluations of the degree to which a measurement is free of random or unstable error (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2000).

Sampling

Sampling is a process that involves the selection of some, but not all the members of the larger population (Denscombe, 2003).

XIV

List of Definitions Service

Service quality as a perceived judgment resulting from

Quality

an evaluation process where customers compare their expectations with the service they perceive to have received (Luhende, 2012).

Stress

The personal experience of an individual that is caused by the increased pressure and excessive and inappropriate demands (Ricardo, et al., 2007).

Validity

Validity means to the level of which an empirical measure sufficiently reflects the real meaning of the idea under consideration (Buckingham & Saunders, 2004).

XV

Chapter One Introduction

Chapter One

Introduction

CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1.1 Background and Overview of the Study Nowadays stress has become an important part of jobs in every sector. Competition is rising continuously as a result increasing the levels of stress among employees (Manzoor, Awan & Mariam, 2012). In addition, Kim and Jogaratnam (2010) stated that job stress refers to the relationship between a worker and the work environment. As well as, Bickford (2005) mentioned that job stress has the potential to affect the performance of all levels of staff ranging from senior management to the young and newly employed. Further, job stress can be defined as physical and emotional responses that occur when the requirements of the job do not match the capabilities and resources provided (Lo & Lamm, 2005). Furthermore, Strank (2005) stated that job stress is now known as a major issue in the human resource management arena for both staff and management. Employee job stress is a significant issue in the hospitality industry and it is costly for employers and employees alike. Although addressing and reducing stress is both a noble goal and is capable of resulting in expense reductions for employers (O’Neill & Davis, 2011). Nowadays, job stress becomes more observable within the workplace than in previous times. Therefore, organizations should develop effective measures to reduce their employees’ job stress (Dobrodolac, Markovic, Cubranic-Dobrodolac & Denda, 2014) Low stress levels can affect workplace in a positive way by elevating the care of the employees. But, once the stress level rises then it becomes unsafe. In this case, it has negative effects on employees and their organizations (Leka Griffiths & Cox, 2003; Ross, 2005). Employees’ 1

Chapter One

Introduction

negative impacts include decreased productivity and service quality, high employees’ turnover (Leka et al., 2003; Ricardo, Amy & Rohit, 2007), decreased job performance (Gilboa, Shirom, Fried & Cooper, 2008), decrease in employees’ capability to know new things (Lepine, Lepine, & Jackson, 2004), sleep conflicts, headaches, stomach upset and raised blood pressure (Ivancevich & Ganster, 2014), nervousness and depression, loss of concentration, lack of incentive, difficulty with thought process, loss of memory and poor decision-making, inappropriate display of behaviour, isolation, and unpunctuality (Cranwell-Ward & Abbey, 2005). Furthermore, Ross (2005) as well as Dobrodolac et al. (2014) stated that effects of job stress on the organization may include: high absenteeism, high labour turnover, poor time keeping, poor performance and productivity, increased employee problems, increased ill-health, accidents and incidents reports. 1.2 The Research Problem Despite the negative effects of job stress on employees, little research has been conducted in job stress in the context of the hospitality industry (Dobrodolac et al., 2014). The majority of the studies measured the impact of job stress on employees’ performance (Olaniyi, 2013), turnover and attitude (Kim, I'm, & Hwang, 2015), and satisfaction (Karatepe, 2010). Most of these studies have been conducted on developed countries such as UK (Halkos, & Bousinakis, 2010), and USA (Nakata, Ikeda, Takahashi, Haratani, Hojou, Fujioka, Swanson, & Araki, 2006). To the researched knowledge only one study measured the effects of work stress on employees’ performance and satisfaction in Egypt (Radwan, 2013). The nature of hospitality industry is dichotomous that is massive pressure to deliver high service quality and net profits (Wallace, 2003). Therefore,

2

Chapter One

Introduction

the current study aims to investigate the relationship between job stress and service quality in QSRs. 1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Study This study aims to measure the relationship between job stress and service quality in QSRs. To achieve this aim, this study has three objectives:  To undertake a review of literature on job stress and service quality in the QSRs through books, journals etc.  To measure the relationship between employees job stress and service quality through distribute questionnaire form among employees in QSRs.  To set recommendations in order to reduce employee’s job stress (if possible) and improve service quality in QSRs. 1.4 Thesis Structure This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter one is entitled “Introduction”. This chapter sets out the basic framework for the current study. Its components include: a back ground and overview of the study; Aim and objectives of the study; organization of the study. As well as, chapter two is entitled “Review of Literature” which provides a theoretical framework of the study. It includes an overview of the QSRs, details of job stress and service quality in hospitality industry. In addition, chapter three is entitled “Methodology”. It illustrates the instruments used to achieve the research objectives. It outlines the population, sources of data, methods used to analyze the collected data.

3

Chapter One

Introduction

Further, chapter four is entitled “Results and Discussion”. It sets out the results of the data collected via employees’ questionnaire in the investigated restaurants to illustrate the relationship between employees job stress and service quality. Furthermore, chapter five is entitled “Summary and Recommendations”. It provides a summary based on the interpretations of the results and ends with set of recommendations for restaurants managers to reduce job stress and improve service quality based on the results of the study.

4

Chapter Two Review of Literature

Chapter Two

Review of Literature CHAPTER TWO Review of Literature

2.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to review the related literature and the theoretical foundation used in this study. The chapter begins by explaining what QSRs are and their characteristics. The second part of the chapter reviews the literature on the job stress within the hospitality industry. The third part discusses in details service quality in hospitality industry. 2.2 An Overview of Quick Service Restaurants (QSRs) 2.2.1 Quick service restaurants definitions QSR is a specific type of restaurant considered both by the fast cuisine and by minimal table service. It is known as fast food restaurant which defined as food services establishments having limited service and menu. Food served in fast food restaurants are cooked ahead of time and kept hot, completed and bundled to arrange, generally accessible prepared to take away and despite the fact that seating might be given (Data Monitor, 2005). Further, QSRs have generally been designed to be eaten “on-thego”, often do not require traditional cutlery and eaten as a finger food (Salami & Ajobo, 2012). Furthermore, QSRs defined as “hot food that is served very quickly in a restaurant because it is already made” (Cambridge Dictionaries Online, 2016). In addition, Enz (2009) defined QSRs as eat in or take out operations with limited menus, low prices and fast service. As well as, QSRs are primarily concerned with the preparation and service of food and beverage quickly for immediate sale to the customer. These types of

6

Chapter Two

Review of Literature

restaurants serve foods for which there is minimal or no waiting time, so that more customers could be served in good time, the billions and billions served customers often join a queue to access a counter, make their order, pay for it and within a few seconds their food is ready to be picked. Food is often pre-cooked and pre-packed. As well as, QSRs use unskilled labour, have highly standardized product, offer a high degree of self service and offer highly competitive prices. This type of restaurant may also offer drive-through or delivery services (Mensah & Dei Mensah, 2013). Moreover, Ninemeier (2005) defined QSRs as an operation that provides a limited menu of fast foods and a limited service generally selfservice at counters or through vehicle drive-through at low price also called limited menu. Wade (2006) added that QSRs are designed to serve a basic meal quickly and reasonably. Menus are normally restricted and kitchens are designed to create high volume in brief timeframes. The customer expects quick service, low price and consistency. The QSRs are defined as a place where a customer is served inside five minutes of entering the outlet, even at peak periods. To accomplish this, a constrained product rang will be provided. In order to provide the food quickly and of consistent quality a systemized production process is set up. QSRs normally relies on high volume of customers and this is achieved by building attractive environments offering low prices and supporting the activity with heavy weight advertising and strong branding (Carol, 2000). 2.2.2 Characteristics of quick service restaurants There are a number of characteristics distinguishing QSRs from other types of food service

establishments.

QSRs

characteristics

are

summarized as follows: (1) Efficiency, it is advantageous to customers 7

Chapter Two


who can obtain what they need more quickly and with less effort; (2) Calculability, the ability to produce and obtain large amounts of things very rapidly; (3) Control, it involves the search for the means to exert increasing control over both employees and customers; (4) Predictability, knowing exactly what you are going to eat. Franchising plays on predictability to sell its products; and (5) Familiarity, the customer does not risk much loss of possible physical benefit in rejecting unfamiliar alternatives to the accepted familiar items. All such items tend to be relatively standardized products of consumption, purchased very frequently at relatively low prices. As well as, QSRs offer a limited number of items in the menu and focus around one product, namely, burger, pizza, or chicken. These establishments provide service for lower average spending customers with prices lower than other types of foodservice organizations. There is a few number service staff employed as QSRs mainly depend on self-service method (Davis, Lockwood, Alcott, & Pantelidis, 2008). 2.2.3 Types of quick service restaurants QSRs could be classified into the scope of business and menu specialty. QSRs according to scope of business can be divided into categories: international chains and local chains each have a different approach of operation and management. Firstly, international QSRs these chains are well-equipped restaurants. These chains have a core product (hamburger, chicken, or pizza). They focus on image building through aggressive marketing, having mass production and central distribution and quality control system in preparation reduced labor intensive (King & Ronald, 2006). Secondly, local QSRs are run and owned by individuals and growing through private ownership. Their production is limited and using the 8

Chapter Two


products it self to build their image. Local QSRs operations do not have mass production or central distribution. Therefore, they become labor intensive (Wade, 2006). In addition, Walker and Buck (2007) classified the QSRs segments are according to the menu specialty. That specialty could be hamburger, pizza, chicken, snacks, sandwich, Mexican, or seafood. This research will focus on according to scope of business international QSRs chains and according to menu specialty (burger restaurants, pizza restaurants, chicken restaurants, and limited menu restaurants). 2.3 Job Stress According to Ricardo et al. (2007, p.7), the term “stress” becomes more elusive as the usage of this term increases. It can be defined as “the personal experience of an individual that is caused by the increased pressure and excessive and inappropriate demands”. Stress affects the ability of an individual to cope or rather it would be correct to put forward in this way that it affects the perception of an individual about personal abilities that he or she possesses (Olaniyi, 2013). 2.3.1 Job stress definitions According to Kim and Jogaratnam (2010), job stress known also as work-related stress or occupational stress has been studied for more than 20 years. Job stress is one of the common problems that employees confront with increasing frequency. Recently job stress is becoming an epidemic in the work environment. However, there is no one universal definition of job stress. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (2016) job stress is occurred when there is a mismatch between the demands of the job and the resources and capabilities of the individual worker to meet those demands. In the same way, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2008) explained job stress as an 9

Chapter Two


individual’s emotional and physical response to the demands of a job that is different with his or her abilities, resources or needs. Job stress occurs when job duties, responsibilities, resources and capabilities of employee’s job specification differ (Kim & Jogaratnam, 2010). In some cases, stress can be positive and affects influences work environment decidedly by making employees to completely exploit capabilities of workers and by elevating the care of the employee. If there is a certain level of stress then it can include potential points of interest in the productivity of the organization. But, once the stress becomes extreme and its level rises then it becomes unsafe. In this case, it not only affects the performance of employees but it adds the cost of organization such as healthcare cost and increased turnover (Ricardo et al., 2007). Moreover, job stress is defined as the experiences of an individual with characteristics of their job environment (the demand of a job or an unsatisfactory supply of resources) that are perceived as threatening (Rashid, 2010). In addition, job stress is subjective rather than objective as it is a perception of the individual in a particular situation. Workers who are stressed are also more likely to be unhealthy, poor motivated, increase staff turnover, less productive and less safe at work. Their organizations are less likely to be successful in a competitive market (Wu & Shih, 2010). Further, Bashir (2010) divided job stress to positive and negative termed as Eustress and Distress respectively. Eustress is the form of stress that is positive and beneficial. We may feel challenged but the sources of the stress are opportunities that are meaningful to us. Eustress helps provide us with energy and motivation to meet our responsibilities and achieve our goals. Distress is a continuous experience of feeling overwhelmed, oppressed and behind in our responsibilities.

10

Chapter Two


2.3.2 Elements of job stress Figure 2.1 according to Cranwell-Ward and Abbey (2005), determines the elements of the stress process:

Person

Strategies

Elements of Job Stress

Situation

Stressors/ Pressure

Reaction

Figure 2.1, Elements of job stress, adopted from (Cranwell-Ward & Abbey, 2005)

The elements of job stress can be summarized as follows: (1) The person that the way the situation is perceived, influenced by his/her personality, thought processes and state of well-being / resilience; (2) The situation that provides the context that is perceived by the individual as more or less stressful; (3) The stressors/pressure that the pressure generated both externally and internally; (4) The reaction of the person to the perceived pressures he/she is experiencing; and (5)The strategies used by the person to deal with the situation (Cranwell-Ward and Abbey, 2005). In this research the elements of job stress will be categorized as follows: 1) The person: the QSR employees; 2) The situation: circumstances in the QSR; 3) The stressors/pressure: causes and resources of job stress inside the QSR; 4) The reaction: the response of stressed employees in QSR; and 5) The strategies: ways or methods that employees of QSR will follow in order to cope with job stressors. 11

Chapter Two


2.3.3 Types and levels of job stress According to Kundaragi and Kadakol (2015), the level of job stress is determined based on the level of pressure. Accordingly, there different four job stress levels, i.e., hypo stress, eu stress, hyper stress, and distress. ‘Hypo Stress’ is too little pressure can be a source of stress. ‘Eu Stress’ is at optimum pressure that the individual succeeds and maximizes performance. ‘Hyper stress’ once pressure becomes excessive. ‘Distress’ occurs after extended stress. According to Adamson (2009), all job stress is not created equally, it can be mild and temporary or it can be severe and experienced repeatedly. There are three different types of stress. Stress is considered to be either acute, episodic acute or chronic. Acute stress is the most common form of stress. It comes from demands and pressures of the recent past and anticipated demands and pressures of the near future. Episodic Acute stress that is suffered too frequently is called episodic stress. This type of stress is usually seen in people who make selfinflicted, unrealistic or unreasonable demands which get all clamored up and bring too much stress in their attempt to accomplish these goals (Ivancevich & Ganster, 2014). Chronic stress comes when a person never sees a way out of a miserable situation. It’s the stress of unrelenting demands and pressures for apparently interminable period (Hiriyappa, 2013). 2.3.4 Causes of job stress According to Leka et al. (2003), most causes of job stress concern the work content and work context. The causes related to work content as follows: repetitive in job content, workload and work-pace having too much or too little to do and working under time pressures, long working

12

Chapter Two


hours, lack of participation in decision making and lack of control. However, the causes related to work context as follows: job insecurity, lack of promotion prospects, work of low social value, unclear or unfair performance evaluation systems, being over-skilled or under-skilled for the job, lack of training on workplace changes, unclear role, conflicting roles, continuously dealing with other people and their problems, poor relationship with co-workers, bullying, harassment and violence, isolated, no agreed procedures for dealing with problems or complaints, poor communication , poor leadership, lack of clarity about organizational objectives and structure, conflicting demands of work and home, lack of support for domestic problems at work from managers and lack of support for work problems at home (Stranks, 2005). Similarly, Malik (2011) stated the workplace is an important source of both demands and pressures causing job stress. He continued that workplace factors that have been found to be associated with job stress and health risks can be categorized as those that have to do with the content of work and those that have to do with the social and organizational contexts of work. Moreover, Di Salvo, Lubbers, Rossi, and Lewis (1995) observed that job stress is generally as a result of an imbalance between environmental demands and individual capabilities. In addition, other sources of job stress identified by Ramires, Graham, Richards, Cull and Gregory (1996) include: work feeling badly managed and resourced, managerial responsibilities, political climate of the workplace and dealing with customers. Moreover, in the hospitality industry Pulak (2016) provided some of the stressors that are considered as responsible for workplace stress among hospitality employees. These contributing factors as follows: massive pressure to perform a given a task in a given time, demands, 13

Chapter Two


requirement related to a job, low wages, work in which employees have little control, rude and inappropriate conversation with the customers, unpleasant and hostile environment of the workplace, long hours of duty especially those that require always standing on feet, night shifts may result in lack of sleep, doing a job for which an employee is either under or over qualified, busy and tight schedule, feeling of lack of balance between work and personal life, boring and repetitive nature of job, undefined job description and expectations, lack of communication and coordination among employees and doing jobs without support and guidance. As well as, Schnall (2009) highlighted the factor of interpersonal conflict is of utmost importance in hospitality industry. In a restaurant the main task of employees is to communicate and deal with the customers and co-workers on daily basis. It is essential for employees to provide best services to the customers. In addition, Wallace (2003) affirmed that as the nature of hospitality industry is dichotomous that is massive pressure to deliver high quality service, fluctuations in financial profits and tight margins. Hence, working in this industry can create stress to employees and can raise many concerns and issues. These concerns and issues are linked with the working in shifts and fatigue that occur as a result of long working hours, heavy physical demands, unpredictable shifts and few breaks and mental and emotional demands. 2.3.5 Effects of job stress According to Leka et al. (2003), job stress has adverse effects on productivity, worker turnover and employee health and well-being. In addition Ross (2005) stated that the effects of job stress divided into two broad categories: effects on the employee and the effects on the organization. Moreover, University of Cambridge (2016) mentioned that 14

Chapter Two


effects of job stress on the individuals as follows: (1) physical (sleep conflicts, headaches, stomach upset, and raised blood pressure); (2) emotional (nervousness, depression, and labile emotions); (3) intellectual (loss of concentration, lack of motivation, difficulty with thought process, loss of memory, and poor decision-making); and (4) behavioral (decreased libido, inappropriate display of behavior, isolation, and unpunctuality). According to Dyck (2001), quality of life of an employee can get affected because of job stress. In both the developed and developing countries, one of the most significant health risks with which employees are exposed is job stress. Further, Paula (2010) suggested that there are scores of factors that are job stressors. These job stressors can make the assigned task difficult and stressful for employees no matter whether they work in service industry. In addition, to this there can stressors such as interpersonal relationship at workplace such as conflict with the policies of management, conflict with the supervisor’s behavior, conflict with subordinates and conflict with the colleagues (Paul, 2002). Likewise, Schaufeli (2015) mentioned that employees at workplace are confronted with various kinds of demands which may become ‘stressors’ when they duty or exceed the employee’s adaptive capabilities. Examples of common job stressors include work overload, role problems, poor job control, lack of support from supervisors and coworkers and interpersonal conflicts. However, effects on the organization may include: high absenteeism, high labour turnover, poor time keeping, poor performance and productivity, low morale, poor motivation, increased employee complaints, increased ill-health, accidents and incidents reports (Ross, 2005). This research will focus on the effects of job stress on employees in QSRs.

15

Chapter Two


2.3.6 Measuring job stress In 2006, the UK government’s HSE developed a scale to measure job stress. This scale involves seven stressors, i.e., demands, control, staff support, managerial support, relationships, role and change (Hicks & Caroline, 2007). In demand stressor, employees often become overloaded if they cannot cope with the amount of work or type of work they are asked to do. Control stressor, employees can feel disaffected and perform poorly if they have no say over how and when they do their work. In support stressor, the levels of sick absence often rise if employees feel they cannot talk to managers about issues that are worrying them (Cranwell-Ward & Abbey, 2005). Relationship stressor, a failure to build relationships based on good behaviour and trust can lead to problems related to punishment, grievances and bullying (Stranks, 2005). In role stressor, employees will feel anxious about their work and the organization if they don’t know what is expected of them. In change stressor, change needs to be managed effectively or it can lead to huge uncertainty and insecurity (Booklet, 2009). Spielberger (2010), on the other hand, stated that the Job Stress Survey (JSS) is a 30-item instrument designed to assess the perceived intensity (severity) and frequency of occurrence of working conditions that are likely to adversely affect the psychological well-being of workers who are exposed to them. However, Ratnawat and Jha (2014) illustrated that Occupational Stress Indicators that measure stress; fundamental to the job, organizational role, relationships with others, organizational structure and climate, home/work interface, and career and achievement.

16

Chapter Two


2.3.7 Techniques to coping with job stress According to Schaufeli (2015), stated that coping with job stress is a key concept in understanding people’s adaptation to their work roles. More specially, coping with job stress refers to the mental and behavioral strategies that employees use to handle the stressors they encounter at work. Each stress-provoking situation or event is different as is each individual. Therefore, each situation or event that precipitates stress requires a unique approach. Centre for Good Governance (2016), recommended the following 5-steps framework can be used to help mangers reducing job stress. These steps as follows: Step 1: Identify if the person is stressed. This can be difficult, as some signs and symptoms of job stress are also those of medical problems and absent. Step 2: Identify the stressor(s). Job stress is usually related to change, massive demands, overload, long hours, lack of support and other workplace stressors. Step 3: Determine the reason for this stressor. For an event or situation to be job stress annoying, it must be perceived as demanding or threatening. Step 4: Select and apply an appropriate stress management strategy or skill. There are potentially thousands of stress management strategies like time management and empowerment. Step 5: Evaluate all steps.

17

Chapter Two


Figure 2.2, steps of coping with job stress, adopted from center for good governance (2016).

In addition, Management Training Specialists (2014) mentioned that you can cope with job stress by seven methods as follows: (1) taking care of yourself through get enough sleep and doing a lot of exercises; (2) prioritizing and organizing by Time management; (3) improving emotional intelligence, Emotional intelligence is the ability to manage and use your emotions in positive and constructive ways; (4) breaking bad habits; (5) communicating effectively at work can help improve teamwork, decision making, and problem solving. One of the best ways to improve communication is by learning to listen attentively to an employee. That means not just understanding the words or the information being communicated, but also understanding the emotions the speaker is trying to communicate; (6) Consult your employees; and (7) Provide opportunities for social interaction among employees. 2.3.8 The benefits of reducing job stress According to Bartram and Turley (2009), stated that the benefits of reducing job stress as follows: (1) reducing job stress will keep the 18

Chapter Two


employees healthier by helping them strengthen their resistant system and fight off illnesses; (2) reducing it will decreasing costs to the business from: employee commitment to work, high staff performance and productivity, limited accidents caused by human error, low rate on staff turnover and intention to leave, prevent attendance levels, increase staff recruitment and retention, higher customer satisfaction, save the organizational image and reputation and potential litigation; and (3) reducing the causes of job stress achieving the law requires. Moreover, Booklet (2009) added that there are clear benefits to preventing job stress: Firstly, quality of working life: employees feel happier at work and perform better; secondly, management of change: introducing a new pay system or new patterns of work is easier when job stress is managed effectively; and Finally, employment relations: problems can be resolved at work rather than at an employment panel. 2.4 Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry According to Crick and Spencer (2011), hospitality organizations are in a unique service industry as they try to provide the promised service to the consumer. As described by Crick and Spencer (2011) hospitality is an old profession and although shaped by its history, it continues to change significantly to meet the demands and expectations of customers.

In

addition, Malik, Yaqoob and Aslam (2012) stated that since the service industry provides an intangible product, there are several challenges unique to the service industry. These challenges include management, measurement, and standardization for restaurants and hotels. As well as, Wattanakamolchai (2008) stated that many managers understand the need to maintain a good level of service quality to the customer, but find the task challenging. If the hospitality service manager can devise answers to the problems that arise, a higher probability exists the customer will be 19

Chapter Two


satisfied at the restaurant or hotel experience (Malik et al., 2012). In addition, Tanvir, Hussain and Janjua (2011) stated that improved interaction between the customer and service provider is necessary to improve business in the hospitality industry. 2.4.1 Service quality definitions According to Olsen and Zhao (2008), organizations in many service industries understand the importance of service excellence and its relationship with a competitive advantage. Service quality can be defined by the customer, and a variety of industry segments have reputations for providing service excellence. El Saghier and Nathan (2013) mentioned that nowadays with the increased competition service quality has become a popular area of academic research / restaurant industry and has been acknowledged as an observant competitive advantage and supporting satisfying relationships with customer’s. As well as, service quality has been defined as the overall assessment of a service by the customers (Eshghi, Roy & Ganguli, 2008). Moreover, Dehghan (2006) added that service quality as a fundamental comparison is carried out by the customer between the quality of service they want access to and the actual service they receive. Likewise, Luhende (2012) defined service quality as a perceived judgment resulting from an evaluation process where customers compare their expectations with the service they perceive to have received, also suggested that service quality issue could be divided into technical quality (what is done ) and functional quality (how it is done). Furthermore, Munusamy, Chelliah and Mun (2010) defined service quality as the difference between customer’s expectations for the service encounter and the perceptions of the service received. Customer expectation and perception are the two main ingredients in service quality. Customers judge quality as low if 20

Chapter Two


performance (perception) does not meet up their expectation and quality as high when performance exceeds expectations according to (El Saghier & Nathan 2013). 2.4.2 Importance of service quality According to Abu Alroub, Alsaleem and Daoud (2012), stated that importance of quality of service as follows: (1) achieve returns of material: this is the providing of services characterized by high quality than their counterparts or even their equality by reducing the errors in the work to the greatest extent possible, leading to reduced costs of providing the service, retain customers, attract new customers and contributing to the growth of financial returns achieved; (2) maintain the staff: it is working within the restaurant are the clients internal, so it is of interest to them through their development, training and acquire skills to help them improve the quality of the service and which motivates them to provide their best; and (3) the quality of the service to show the worthy image of the restaurant provided for the service because it is the means of promotional and advertising for the important services they provide. In addition, Jones and Haven (2005) mentioned that the benefits from service quality. Firstly, maintaining customer loyalty towards the restaurant of the service provided. Because that would maintain the agreement in the customer organization and care to their wishes and requirements will contribute to increased loyalty towards this restaurant; Secondly, The quality of service management to encourage interest in the development and improve the technology used and keep pace with this development. Also, to ensure a high level of quality provided to customers; and Finally, Quality of the service is working to achieve the ultimate benefit of quality at the level of society as a whole. Furthermore, Mugassa (2014) added that works to ensure quality of service and the 21

Chapter Two


continued survival of the restaurant. The fact is that quality means continuous improvement, which gives the restaurant continuity and stability in this market. 2.4.3 Dimensions of service quality According to Tan, Oriade and Fallon (2012), there is no general agreement with regard to the content of the dimensions. In the last three decades a great number of service quality dimensions have been published. The number and content of dimensions are quite various and ranges from two to seven. This research will focus only on dimensions related to human interaction. According to Tan et al. (2012) the most service quality dimensions related to human interaction are: interaction quality (Brady & Cronin, 2001); reliability, responsiveness, confidence and communication (Getty & Getty, 2003); and reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and recovery (Qin, Prybutok & Zhao, 2010). 2.4.4 Measuring the service quality According to Walter, Edvardsson, and Ostrom (2010), customer experience should be measured to compare the perceived level of service quality through different predetermined attributes. In addition, Kincaid, Baloglu, Mao and Busser (2010) identified several intangible constructs contained in the SERVQUAL model: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Despite the use of SERVQUAL model in the hospitality industry, it has limited use in specific segments because of its generic context approach (Kincaid et al., 2010). The SERVQUAL tangible construct consists of only four items and is extremely limited in assessing the physical environment, particularly for services, in which the facility plays a major role in the customers' experience (Kincaid et al., 2010). Due to the criticisms and disagreements towards the SERVQUAL

22

Chapter Two


model, Cronin and Taylor (1992) develop a performance-based model to measure service quality, which is called SERVPERF. However, Stevens, Knutson, and Patton devolved DINESERV as a method to assess customers’ perceptions of quality in restaurants (Heung, Wong & Qu, 2000). DINESERV is a combination of SERVQUAL and LODGSERV and in its final form contained 29 statements that consumer’s rate based on their dining experience (Heung et al., 2000). The survey was designed to help restaurateurs measure, assess, and manage the overall quality of their guest experiences (Heung et al., 2000). The DINESERV model uses the same five dimensions of SERVQUAL, but places more emphasis on the 10 dimensions of tangibility, with more focus on aesthetic and functional dimensions (Barber & Scarcelli, 2010). The survey is flexible as it is designed to allow restaurant managers to survey customers with an abbreviated version of the DINESERV instrument to comprise critical attributes deemed important by the manager to determine if the level of service provided is exceeding, meeting, or falling below customer expectations (Heung et al., 2000). Therefore, Ryu and Jang (2008) referred to DINESCAPE as man-made physical and human surroundings in the dining area of restaurants. DINESCAPE is considered to be an instrument used to measure the customer perception of dining environments in the upscale restaurant setting. However, this instrument does not deal with external environments (e.g., parking and external building design) and non-dining internal environments (e.g., restroom and waiting area) in order to provide customers with more useful information exclusively for dining space (Ryu & Jang, 2008). 2.5 Relationship between Job Stress and Service Quality

23

Chapter Two


According to Cranwell-Ward and Abbey (2005), with increasing competition customer satisfaction and retention is a critical issue. Early signs of hyper-stress in people are irritability and the desire to withdraw from situations. Consequently, these people are less likely to interact as effectively as their less stressed colleagues. In addition, Varca (2009) mentioned that there is a negative correlation between quality of services delivered to customers and work related stress in engineering sector. That is highly stressed employees have failed to provide high quality services as compared to less stressed ones. Moreover, Beehr, Jex, Stacy and Murray (2000) stated that employees who responsible for customer services report constant stress and they perform poorly in their jobs. Further, job stress has been shown as a major factor which leads to declining job performance of employees (Gilboa et al., 2008). High level of exhaustion leads to decline in employees’ capability to learn new things which leads to withdrawal, more depressive symptoms, and hostility (Lepine et al., 2004). Based on reviewing the literature, below are the main hypotheses of the study: H1: There is a relationship between role and service quality. H2: There is a relationship between change and service quality. H3: There is a relationship between demands and service quality. H4: There is a relationship between control and service quality. H5: There is a relationship between relationship and service quality. H6: There is a relationship between managerial support and service quality. H7: There is a relationship between staff support and service quality.

24

Chapter Two


2.6 Job Stress and Employee Demographics 2.6.1 Gender and job stress According to Necsoi (2011), women reported high level of anxiety and depression in a research aimed at investigating the relationship between job stress and job satisfaction. In contrast Al-Mohannadi and Caple (2007) stated that male employees showed higher levels of job stress than female. Another related study found no significant different in sex with regard to job stress among employees in the service sector (Kumasey, Delle & Ofei, 2014). 2.6.2 Age and job stress Age has been found to be related with job stress. A study on job stress among employees age found a significant relationship between age and the level of job stress (Jeyaraj, 2013). In a similar study on the scale of job stress Smith, Brice, Collins, McNamara and Matthews (2000) found out that those within the age range of 45 to 54 are most likely to report relatively high level of perceived work stress. Affum-Osei, Agyekum, Addo, and Asante (2014) found a negative significant correlation between job stress and age. They reported the level of stress increases with age. In addition, a study by Kamper and Steyn (2006) revealed that increased age was related to increased work demands. This increased the likelihood of their experience of stress. Barkhuizen and Rothman (2008) in contrast, believed that stress usually declines with chronological age. 2.6.3 Level of education and job stress According to Hunnur and Bagali (2014) revealed that the stress causing dimensions do not differ radically for the graduates and undergraduates.

In addition,

employees

with lower

qualification

experience high level of job stress and higher education employees are able to handle job stress (Chand & Monga, 2007; Affum-Osei et al., 2014). 25

Chapter Two


2.6.4 Experience and job stress In a study conducted by Jeyaraj (2013) found an association between the years of experience and the level of job stress. Moreover, the employees with less experience are exposed to high level of job stress compared with employees with longer years of working (Bearschank, 2010). However, Emmanuel and Collins (2016) found that the number of years the individual has worked did not determine significant difference in the experience of job stress. 2.6.5 Marital status and job stress A study by Jeyaraj (2013), found the unmarried employees experienced less level of job stress. In a related study by Affum-Osei et al. (2014) showed that, 50% of married respondents experienced high level of job stress. According to Lingard and Francis (2009), work-family conflict may lead to job stress and strain and inability to balance the demands of work and home is a source of stress (Donaldson-Feilder, Lewis & Yarker, 2011). In addition, job stress is found to be more among the married people (Kamper & Steyn, 2006). The hypotheses related to the Job Stress and Employee Demographics H8: Female employees experience higher levels of job stress than male employees. H9: Chicken restaurant employees experience higher levels of job stress than burger restaurant employees. H10: Older employees experience higher levels of job stress than younger employees. H11: Employees with lower qualification experience high levels of job stress than higher education employees. H12: Employees with less experience are exposed to high level of stress than employees with longer years. 26

Chapter Two


H13: Married employees experience higher levels of job stress than single employees. 2.7 The Conceptual Framework In addition, this section constructs a conceptual framework to explore the employees’ relationship between job stress and service quality (Figure 2.3). The framework comprises two parts, namely the job stress and the service quality.

Figure 2.3 the conceptual framework

27

Chapter Three Methodology

Methodology

Chapter Three CHAPTER THREE Methodology 3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents an overview of the research approach and it provides a justification of choosing the appropriate methodology that explores the suitable methods applied to achieve the research objectives. Section 3.2 gives a presentation for research methods, whether secondary or primary data resources and methodology adopted. Moreover, section 3.3 illustrates the sampling techniques and data collection that used to measure the relationship between job stress and service quality in QSRs. As well as, section 3.4 displays the data analysis techniques. 3.2 Research Methods 3.2.1 Secondary data sources In this study secondary data is gathered from several sources including a wide range of relevant textbooks, journals, and online databases. Searching in databases is done through using a number of keywords such as job stress, job stress definitions, kinds of job stress, causes of job stress, QSRs, and service quality. In addition, number of relevant journals act as an important source of secondary data such as Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Human Resources Management Journal, International Journal of Hospitality Management, International Journal of marketing Studies and Organizational Behavior, and Human Performance. 3.2.2 Primary data sources The study employed a questionnaire as the data-gathering instrument. The stress scale was adapted and revised from the management standard indicator tool for measuring job stress developed by the UK government’s HSE in 2006 (Hicks & Caroline, 2007). The service quality 29

Methodology

Chapter Three

scale was adapted and revised from DINESERV scale (Heung, et al., 2000). The questionnaire was fine-tuned through discussions with various QSR employees. The final version of the questionnaire was divided into two sections. In the first section, employees were asked to rate 38 items on a five-point Likert type scale: ‘strongly disagree’; ‘disagree’; ‘neutral’; ‘agree’; and ‘strongly agree’. The second section asked employees for profiling information (e.g., gender, age, and length of employment).The 38 items are divided into eight variables: role (5 items), change (3 items), demand (7 items), control (5 items), relationship (3 items), managerial support (4 items), staff support (4 items), and service quality (7 items). Moreover, the final questionnaire items are listed in Table 3.1. The questionnaire

was

fine-tuned

through

employees.

30

discussions

with

various

Methodology

Chapter Three Table 3.1: Instrument scales and items Construct

Code

Measure

Role

RO1 RO2 RO3 RO4 RO5

I am aware of what is expected of me at work I know how to go about getting my job done I am clear what my duties and responsibilities are I am clear about the goals and objectives for my department I understand how my work fits into the overall aim of the organization I have sufficient opportunities to question managers about change at work Staffs are always consulted about change at work When changes are made at work, I am clear how they will work out in practice

CH1 Change

CH2 CH3 DE1

Different groups at work demand things from me that are hard to combine DE2 I have unachievable deadlines Demand DE3 I have to neglect some tasks because I have too much to do DE4 I am unable to take sufficient breaks DE5 I am pressured to work long hours DE6 I have to work very fast DE7 I have unrealistic time pressures CO2 I have a say in my own work speed Control CO3 I have a choice in deciding how I do my work CO4 I have a choice in deciding what I do at work CO5 My working time can be flexible MS1 I am given supportive feedback on the work I do Managerial MS2 I can rely on my line manager to help me out with a work MS3 I can talk to my line manager about something that has upset Support problem or annoyed me about work MS4 My line manager encourages me at work SS1 If work gets difficult, my colleagues will help me Staff SS2 I get help and support I need from colleagues Support SS3 I receive the respect at work I deserve from my colleagues SS4 My colleagues are willing to listen to my work-related I am subject to personal harassment in the form of unkind Relationship RE1 problems RE2 There is friction or anger between colleagues words or behavior RE3 Relationships at work are strained SQ1 I have a good attitude and willing to talk to the customers SQ2 I make customers feel special when I dealing with them. Service SQ3 I can answer the customers’ questions completely. SQ4 I provide the service exactly as the customers’ ordered it Quality SQ5 I provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised SQ6 I have to provide prompt and quick service. SQ7 I am courteous and friendly with the customers. Source: Heung et al. (2000); Hicks and Caroline (2007)

31

Methodology

Chapter Three 3.3 Research Population and Sampling Techniques

Research population is a large group of elements, whether individuals, objects, or events. This group is also referred to as the target population or universe. The specification of the population begins with the research problem and review of literature (McMillan, 2012). The target population for this study was all QSRs employees in the greater Cairo.

According to Denscombe (2003), sampling is a process that

involves the selection of some, but not all the members of the larger population. Moreover, convenience sampling technique was used to select the QSRs employees who participated in questionnaire forms (see Table 3.2). The investigated QSRs were classified based on restaurant category (chicken, pizza, burger, and limited menus) then restaurants were selected. Convenience sample is a group of subjects selected because of availability. There is no precise way of generalizing from a convenience sample to a population (McMillan, 2012). Table 3.2: the selected QSRs QSRs category

QSRs chains International

Chicken

Pizza

Burger

Limited Menus

Total valid

97

62

78

44

281

The target population for this study was all QSRs employees who may have an interest and/or influence. In summary, the questionnaire was designed in this study to measure the relationship between job stress and service quality in QSRs (see Appendix 1). The minimal sample size requirement to use SEM should be 10 times the number of variables being analyzed (Floyd & Widaman 1995). Accordingly, in this research three hundred questionnaires distributed, two hundred and eighty-one (n 281) valid questionnaires were completed and returned, thus achieving a response rate of 93.6 percent. The questionnaire was consisted of two main sections as follows: (1) The first section focused on some questions 32

Methodology

Chapter Three

which related to employees’ job stress and relationship with service quality in QSRs; and (2) The second section dealt with employees’ groups’ data such as gender, age, restaurant category, marital status, education, and length of employment. 3.4 Data Analysis For data analysis, Powell and Renner (2003) discussed some steps for analyzing the data that were adopted in this study as follows: (1) getting to know your data, focus the analysis; (2) categorizing information; and (3) identifying patterns and connections within and between categories and interpretation or bringing all together. In this research all these steps have been adopted. For the descriptive analysis, SPSS version 20 was used to analyze the relationship between job stress and service quality scale (38-item) descriptively. The items divided into eight groups as RO = role; CH= change; DE = demand; CO = control; RE = relationship; MS = managerial support; SS = staff support and SQ = service quality. Furthermore, the Mann-Whitney U test was used in this study to measure the variance of employees’ gender to job stress and service quality scale in order to determine if there is a significant difference between them. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used in this study to measure the variance between age, restaurants categories, marital status, education, and length of employment in to job stress and service quality scale in order to determine if there is a significant difference among them. Structural equation modeling (SEM), on the other hand, was used to test the measurement model job stress and service quality using AMOS 4. Moreover, goodness-of-fit measures were utilized to assess the structural fit of the hypothesized model. Theory suggests that if the chi-square ( 2) is not significant the model is regarded as acceptable, nevertheless many disregard this since chi-square ( 2) is often reported as significant mainly due to sample size restrictions and its sensitivity to the likelihood test ratio. 33

Methodology

Chapter Three 3.5 Validity and Reliability

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first used to measure the reliability and validity of the seven stressor and service quality scale. The initial model was not a satisfactory fit and so some modification indices were suggested to improve the model fit. More specifically, one item was removed from control subscale (i.e., I can decide when to take a break). Moreover, Composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s α for each latent variable were used to test the construct reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) was used to test the construct convergent and discriminant validity (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2010). 3.6 Ethical Considerations Social research is a process which involves investigation of people’s experiences and motivations and therefore, it often depends on a successful relationship between the researcher and the participants which is often centered on ethical considerations. Moreover, the ethical responsibility is essential and it starts in the early stages of a research study when a researcher develops the research plan, in addition, it continues to have a significant role in identifying the key research participants, the way they should be treated and the outcomes of their participation in the research (Miller & Brewer, 2003). In this examination, all members were volunteers and they were informed by exact data which secured all the exploration angles in connection to the point, techniques received and the conceivable research results. The data, which was displayed, was straightforward and simple to be caught on. A standout amongst the most essential aspects in this exploration is the insurance of the members' personality. All members were informed that their personal information, for example, gender, ages, and years of experience, and they would be dealt with namelessly and secretly. 34

Chapter Four Results and Discussion

Chapter Four

Results and Discussion CHAPTER FOUR Results and Discussion

4.1 Introduction This chapter addresses the objective two of the study that presents the relationship between job stress and service quality. Furthermore, it measures the relationship between job stress and service quality in QSRs. Section 4.2 illustrates the descriptive analysis of employees’ survey by using SPSS (v. 20). Moreover, section 4.3 explores the analysis of variance that compares job stress and service quality scale with employees’ gender, age, education, length of employment, restaurant categories and marital status by using different tests such as MannWhitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test. On the other hand, the chapter ends with section 4.4 that emphasizes with the utilization of AMOS (v.20) software, structural equation modeling (SEM), a multivariate statistical analysis method that can explore hypothesized relationships in an integrated manner, was conducted with a convenience sample of 281 QSRs full-time employees. 4.2 Descriptive Analysis of Survey The survey was designed in this study to measures the relationship between job stress and service quality in QSRs (see Appendix 1). 300 questionnaires distributed, two hundred and eighty-one (n 281) valid questionnaires were completed and returned, thus achieving a response rate of 93.7 percent. The survey was consisted of two main sections. The first section focused on some questions which related to job stress and service quality scale. Meanwhile, the second section dealt with employees’ demographic data such as gender, age, education, length of employment, restaurant categories and marital status.

36

Chapter Four

Results and Discussion

Table 4.1: Employees’ Profiles Variables Gender

Age

Marital status

Education

Length of Employment

Restaurant Categories

Male Female Less than 21 21 up to 30 30 up to 40 More than 40 Single Married Married with children Secondary school or below University degree others (please specify) Less than 1 year Year up to 3 years 3 years up to 5 years More than 5 years Pizza restaurant Chicken restaurant Burger restaurant others (please specify)

Freq.

%

186 95 119 115 40 6 209 49 23 53 220 8 118 63 28 71 62 97 78 44

66.2 33.8 42.3 40.9 14.2 2.1 74.4 17.4 8.2 18.9 78.3 2.8 42.0 22.4 10.0 25.3 22.1 34.5 27.8 15.7

Table 4.1 revealed the profile of the employees working in the investigated QSRs. The employees comprised 66.2 percent males and 33.8 percent females. They were from various age groups, with the largest group (i.e., 42.3 percent) aged less than 21 years old. For marital status, the highest percentage was single employees (i.e., 78.3 percent), and the lowest percentage was married employees with children (i.e., 8.2 percent). In terms of education, the majority of employees had a university degree (i.e., 78.3 percent). With regards to length of employment, the majority of employees had a less than one year of work experience (i.e., 42 percent), compared to only 10 percent of employees who had from three to five years of work experience. The majority of the investigated QSRs were chicken restaurants (i.e., 34.5 percent), followed

37

Chapter Four


by burger restaurants (i.e., 27.8), pizza restaurants (i.e., 22.1) and limited menu restaurants (i.e., 15.7). SPSS version 20 was used to analyze the job stress and service quality scale (38-item, eight-factor) descriptively in table 4.2. It showed that 33 items (86.8%) had mean scores above 3.00 and median scores 29 items (76.3%) above 3.00. On the other hand, only 5 items (13.2%) and 9 items (23.7%) had mean, median scores respectively below 3.00. The highest standard deviation belongs to question “I am subject to personal harassment in the form of unkind words or behavior” by (SD = 1.496) but the lowest standard deviation belongs to question “I can answer the customers’ questions completely” by (SD = .814).

38

Chapter Four


Table 4.2: A descriptive analysis of job stress and service quality (38 items) No.

Construct

Measurement

Mean

Median

Mode

Std. Deviation

1.

I am clear what is expected of me at work

4.12

4.00

5

1.077

2.

I know how to go about getting my job done

4.27

5.00

5

1.031

3.

I am clear what my duties and responsibilities are

3.93

4.00

5

1.146

4.

I am clear about the goals and objectives for my department

3.58

4.00

4

1.184

5.

I understand how my work fits into the overall aim of the organization

3.84

4.00

4

1.07

1.

I have sufficient opportunities to question managers about change at work

3.47

4.00

4

1.276

Staffs are always consulted about change at work

3

3.00

3

1.41

3.

When changes are made at work, I am clear how they will work out in practice

3.77

4.00

4

1.152

1.

Different groups at work demand things from me that are hard to combine

3.25

3.00

4

1.3

2.

I have unachievable deadlines

3.18

3.00

3

1.325

3.

I have to neglect some tasks because I have too much to do

2.77

3.00

2

1.315

4.

I am unable to take sufficient breaks

3.96

4.00

5

1.231

5.

I am pressured to work long hours

3.93

4.00

5

1.265

6.

I have to work very fast

4.15

4.00

5

1.022

7.

I have unrealistic time pressures

3.91

4.00

5

1.269

1.

I can decide when to take a break

2.96

3.00

1

1.444

2.

I have a say in my own work speed

3.56

4.00

4

1.314

I have a choice in deciding how I do my work

3.8

4.00

4

1.136

4.

I have a choice in deciding what I do at work

3.87

4.00

4

1.123

5.

My working time can be flexible

3.26

3.00

4

1.365

1.

I am given supportive feedback on the work I do

3.37

4.00

4

1.411

2.

I can rely on my line manager to help me out with a work problem

3.6

4.00

5

1.375

I can talk to my line manager about something that has upset or annoyed me about work

3.63

4.00

4

1.317

My line manager encourages me at work If work gets difficult, my colleagues will help me

3.36

4.00

5

1.38

3.71

4.00

4

1.15

I get help and support I need from colleagues

3.74

4.00

4

1.114

I receive the respect at work I deserve from my colleagues

3.98

4.00

5

1.145

4.

My colleagues are willing to listen to my workrelated problems

3.46

4.00

4

1.309

1.

I am subject to personal harassment in the form of unkind words or behavior

2.57

2.00

1

1.496

There is friction or anger between colleagues

2.78

3.00

3

1.374

2.

Role

Change

Demand

3.

Control

Managerial Support 3. 4. 1. 2. 3.

2.

Staff Support

Relationship

Note: Bolded items indicate means above 3

(Continued)

39

Chapter Four


Table 4.2: A descriptive analysis of job stress and service quality (38-item) (cont.)

3.

Relationships at work are strained

2.98

3.00

3

Std. Deviation 1.403

1.

I have a good attitude and willing to talk to the customers

4.22

5.00

5

1.22

2.

I make customers feel special when I dealing with them.

4.41

5.00

5

0.925

3.

I can answer the customers’ questions completely.

4.41

5.00

5

0.814

I provide the service exactly as the customers’ ordered it

4.28

5.00

5

0.949

5.

I provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised

4.12

4.00

5

0.985

6.

I have to provide prompt and quick service.

4.28

5.00

5

0.954

7.

I am courteous and friendly with the customers.

4.4

5.00

5

1.002

No.

4.

Construct

Service Quality

Measurement

Note: Bolded items indicate means above 3

40

Mean

Median

Mode

Chapter Four


4.3 Variance Analysis 4.3.1 The variance between male and female employees in terms of job stress and service quality Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for differences between employees’ gender. Table 4.3 showed no statistically significant difference between male and female in job role stressors, except for how they getting their job done. Male employees showed higher scores than female employees in their abilities to go about getting their job done (M=147.2). This is consistent with previous study by (Necsoi, 2011). Table 4.3: The differences between male and female in job role stressors No.

Construct

Measurement

gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Male

186

143.1

26621.5

Female

95

136.8

12999.5

Male

186

147.2

27372.5

Female

95

128.9

12248.5

Male

186

143.1

26611.5

Role

I am clear what is expected of me at work I know how to go about getting my job done I am clear what my duties and responsibilities are I am clear about the goals and objectives for my department I understand how my work fits into the overall aim of the organization

Female

95

136.9

13009.5

Male

186

141.3

26283.5

Female

95

140.4

13337.5

Male

186

142.4

26485.5

Female

95

138.3

13135.5

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

* Significant (p≤ .05)

41

MannWhitney U

Z

Asymp. Sig. (2tailed)

8439.5

-0.663

0.507

7688.5

-1.975

.048*

8449.5

-0.633

0.527

8777.5

-0.092

0.926

8575.5

-0.425

0.671

Chapter Four


Table 4.4 showed no statistically significant difference between male and female change stressors at workplace. Table 4.4: The differences between male and female in change stressors No.

Construct

Measurement

Change

I have sufficient opportunities to question managers about change at work Staffs are always consulted about change at work When changes are made at work, I am clear how they will work out in practice

1.

2.

3.

gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Male

186

141.1

26247

Female

95

140.8

13374

Male

186

139.2

25895.5

Female

95

144.5

13725.5

Male

186

144.8

26928.5

Female

95

133.6

MannWhitney U

Z


8814

-0.034

0.973

8504.5

-0.524

0.601

8132.5

-1.139

0.255

12692.5

Table 4.5 showed no statistically significant difference between male and female demand stressors at workplace. Table 4.5: The differences between male and female demand stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.


3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Measurement

Demand

I am unable to take sufficient breaks I am pressured to work long hours I have to work very fast I have unrealistic time pressures

gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Male

186

144.9

26948

Female

95

133.4

12673

Male

186

145.2

26997

Female

95

132.9

12624

Male

186

145.7

27106.5

Female

95

131.7

12514.5

Male

186

147

27348

Female

95

Male

186

143.6

26709.5

Female

95

135.9

12911.5

Male

186

140.2

26082.5

Female

95

142.5

13538.5

Male

186

140.1

26056.5

Female

95

142.8

13564.5

42

MannWhitney U

Z


8113

-1.147

0.251

8064

-1.224

0.221

7954.5

-1.399

0.162

7713

-1.853

0.064

8351.5

-0.798

0.425

8691.5

-0.241

0.809

8665.5

-0.278

0.781

Chapter Four


Table 4.6 showed no statistically significant difference between male and female control stressors at workplace. Table 4.6: The differences between male and female control stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.

3.

Measurement

Control

4.

I have a choice in deciding how I do my work I have a choice in deciding what I do at work My working time can be flexible

5.

gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Male

186

138.2

25709

Female

95

146.4

13912

Male

186

145

26969

Female

95

133.2

12652

Male

186

140.5

26136.5

Female

95

141.9

13484.5

Male

186

138.8

25815

Female

95

145.3

13806

Male

186

143.3

26646.5

Female

95

136.6

12974.5

MannWhitney U

Z


8318

-0.819

0.413

8092

-1.196

0.232

8745.5

-0.146

0.884

8424

-0.671

0.502

8414.5

-0.668

0.504

Table 4.7 showed no statistically significant difference between male and female in managerial support stressors at workplace. Table 4.7: The differences between male and female from managerial support stressors No.

Construct

Measurement

gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Male

186

140.2

26069.5

Female

95

142.7

13551.5

Male

186

143.7

26732

Female

95

135.7

12889

Managerial Support

I am given supportive feedback on the work I do I can rely on my line manager to help me out with a work problem I can talk to my line manager about something that has upset or annoyed me about work My line manager encourages me at work

Male

186

139.6

25963.5

Female

95

143.8

13657.5

Male

186

145.4

27035

Female

95

132.5

12586

1.

2.

3.

4.

43

MannWhitney U

Z


8678.5

-0.25

0.803

8329

-0.813

0.416

8572.5

-0.423

0.672

8026

-1.287

0.198

Chapter Four


Table 4.8 showed no statistically significant difference between male and female in colleagues support stressors at workplace. Table 4.8: The differences between male and female in colleagues support stressors No.

Construct

1.

2. Staff Support 3.

4.

Measurement

gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

If work gets difficult, my colleagues will help me

Male

186

144.7

26917

Female

95

133.7

12704

Male

186

146.8

27302

Female

95

129.7

12319

Male

186

145.9

27136.5

Female

95

131.4

12484.5

Male

186

145.1

26992

Female

95

132.9

12629

I get help and support I need from colleagues I receive the respect at work I deserve from my colleagues My colleagues are willing to listen to my work-related problems

MannWhitney U

Z


8144

-1.122

0.262

7759

-1.746

0.081

7924.5

-1.495

0.135

8069

-1.229

0.219

Table 4.9 showed no statistically significant difference between male and female relationship stressors at workplace. Table 4.9: The differences between male and female in relationship stressors No.

Construct

1.

Relationship 2.

3.

Measurement I am subject to personal harassment in the form of unkind words or behavior There is friction or anger between colleagues Relationships at work are strained

gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Male

186

138.3

25720.5

Female

95

146.3

13900.5

Male

186

138.5

25764.5

Female

95

145.9

13856.5

Male

186

137.1

25498.5

Female

95

148.7

14122.5

44

MannWhitney U

Z


8329.5

-0.812

0.417

8373.5

-0.734

0.463

8107.5

-1.153

0.249

Chapter Four


Table 4.10 showed no statistically significant difference between male and female in service quality factors. Table 4.10: The differences between male and female in service quality factors No.

Construct

1.

3.

5.

6.

7.

gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks


Male

186

139.6

25964

Female

95

143.8

13657

Male

186

139.3

25908.5

Female

95

144.3

13712.5

Male

186

139.8

26007.5

Female

95

143.3

13613.5

Male

186

139.9

26023

Female

95

143.1

13598

Male

186

135.9

25282

Female

95

150.9

14339

Male

186

139.2

25886.5

Female

95

144.6

13734.5

Male

186

137.7

25610.5

Female

95

147.5

14010.5


2.

4.

Measurement

Service Quality

I can answer the customers’ questions completely. I provide the service exactly as the customers’ ordered it I provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised I have to provide prompt and quick service. I am courteous and friendly with the customers.

45

MannWhitney U

Z


8573

-0.46

0.645

8517.5

-0.566

0.571

8616.5

-0.382

0.702

8632

-0.346

0.729

7891

-1.566

0.117

8495.5

-0.58

0.562

8219.5

-1.114

0.265

Chapter Four


4.3.2 The variance among restaurant categories and job stress and service quality Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for differences between the four QSRs categories (chicken, pizza, burger, limited menus). Table 4.11showed the significant difference between restaurant categories and employees’ role stressors. The results revealed that employees who are working in limited menus restaurant had a greater information about how employees getting their job done (M=160.9), knowing their duties and responsibilities (M=179.4), informed about goals and objectives for their department (M=165.6) and they understand how their work fits into the overall aim of the organization (M=167.06) than employees in pizza restaurant, chicken restaurant and burger restaurant. Table 4.11: The differences among employees’ role stressors in QSRs No.

Construct


1.


2.

3.

4.

5.

Measurement

Role





N

Mean Rank

Pizza restaurant

62

146.48

Chicken restaurant

97

126.96

Burger restaurant

78

151.08

limited menus

44

146.38

Pizza restaurant

62

152.18

Chicken restaurant

97

124.72

Burger restaurant

78

141.13

limited menus

44

160.9

Pizza restaurant

62

132.94

Chicken restaurant

97

117.96

Burger restaurant

78

154.39

limited menus

44

179.4

Pizza restaurant

62

133.6

Chicken restaurant

97

120.85

Burger restaurant

78

158.07

limited menus

44

165.6

Pizza restaurant

62

131.87

Chicken restaurant

97

118.94

Burger restaurant

78

160.99

limited menus

44

167.06


46

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

5.331

3

0.149

9.493

3

.023*

22.775

3

.000*

14.964

3

.002*

19.09

3

.000*

Chapter Four


Table 4.12 showed the significant difference between restaurant categories and employees’ change stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are working in burger restaurant had greater sufficient opportunities to question managers about change at work (M=166.94), always consulted about change at work (M=164.71) and when changes are made at work the employees know how they will work out in practice (M=162.24) than employees in pizza restaurant, chicken restaurant and limited menus restaurant. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the over workload in pizza and chicken restaurants compared to burger restaurants. Table 4.12: The differences among employees’ change stressors in QSRs No.

Construct


1.

2.

3.

Measurement

Change




N

Mean Rank

Pizza restaurant

62

130.81

Chicken restaurant

97

116.62

Burger restaurant

78

166.94

limited menus

44

163.11

Pizza restaurant

62

131.9

Chicken restaurant

97

118.22

Burger restaurant

78

164.71

limited menus

44

162.01

Pizza restaurant

62

122.5

Chicken restaurant

97

127.51

Burger restaurant

78

162.24

limited menus

44

159.16


47

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

22.275

3

.000*

18.748

3

.000*

14.647

3

.002*

Chapter Four


Table 4.13 showed no statistically significant difference between QSRs employees’ demand stressors. Table 4.13: The differences among employees’ demand stressors in QSRs No.

Construct


1.


2.


3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Measurement

Demand






N

Mean Rank

Pizza restaurant

62

135.72

Chicken restaurant

97

142.74

Burger restaurant

78

145.19

limited menus

44

137.18

Pizza restaurant

62

128.32

Chicken restaurant

97

145.54

Burger restaurant

78

147.67

limited menus

44

137.05

Pizza restaurant

62

145.81

Chicken restaurant

97

142.32

Burger restaurant

78

138.88

limited menus

44

135.07

Pizza restaurant

62

137.77

Chicken restaurant

97

144.86

Burger restaurant

78

129.12

limited menus

44

158.11

Pizza restaurant

62

132.84

Chicken restaurant

97

148.36

Burger restaurant

78

129.97

limited menus

44

155.84

Pizza restaurant

62

138.1

Chicken restaurant

97

130.09

Burger restaurant

78

147.16

limited menus

44

158.2

Pizza restaurant

62

140.09

Chicken restaurant

97

140.86

Burger restaurant

78

142.03

limited menus

44

140.77

48

ChiSquare

Df

Asym p. Sig.

0.641

3

0.887

2.554

3

0.466

0.555

3

0.907

4.456

3

0.216

4.896

3

0.18

4.978

3

0.173

0.023

3

0.999

Chapter Four


Table 4.14 showed the significant difference between restaurant categories and employees’ control stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are working in burger restaurant and limited menus restaurant had greater decide when to take a break (M=168.4), they have a say in their own work speed (M=158.59), they have a choice in deciding how them do their work (M=159.65), they have a choice in deciding what their do at work (159.37), they working time can be flexible (M=134.18), and they have a say in their own work speed (171.39) than employees in pizza restaurant, and chicken restaurant. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the over workload in pizza and chicken restaurants compared to burger restaurants and limited menus restaurants. Table 4.14: The differences among employees’ control stressors in QSRs No.

Construct


1.


2.

3.

4.

5.

Measurement

Control





N

Mean Rank

Pizza restaurant

62

134.18

Chicken restaurant

97

129.85

Burger restaurant

78

168.4

limited menus

44

126.64

Pizza restaurant

62

146.67

Chicken restaurant

97

119.97

Burger restaurant

78

152.72

limited menus

44

158.59

Pizza restaurant

62

128.45

Chicken restaurant

97

128.31

Burger restaurant

78

159.65

limited menus

44

153.6

Pizza restaurant

62

137.27

Chicken restaurant

97

121.61

Burger restaurant

78

159.37

limited menus

44

156.43

Pizza restaurant

62

137.02

Chicken restaurant

97

116.58

Burger restaurant

78

171.39

limited menus

44

146.56


49

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

13.035

3

.005*

11.284

3

.010*

9.943

3

.019*

12.419

3

.006*

21.005

3

.000*

Chapter Four


Table 4.15 showed the significant difference between restaurant categories and employees’ managerial support stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are working in burger restaurant they are given supportive feedback on the work them do (M= 167.08), they can rely on their line manager to help them out with a work problem (M=159.24), they can talk to their line manager about something that has upset or annoyed them about work (M=154.65) and their line manager encourages them at work (M=172) than employees in pizza restaurant, chicken restaurant, and limited menus restaurant. Table 4.15: The differences among employees’ managerial support stressors in QSRs No.

Construct

Measurement


1.


2.


N

Mean Rank

Pizza restaurant

62

129.7

Chicken restaurant

97

123.99

Burger restaurant

78

167.08

limited menus

44

148.18

Pizza restaurant

62

142.4

Chicken restaurant

97

118.97

Burger restaurant

78

159.24

limited menus

44

155.25

Pizza restaurant

62

145.88

Chicken restaurant

97

121.73

Burger restaurant

78

154.65

limited menus

44

152.4

Pizza restaurant

62

140.07

Chicken restaurant

97

112.72

Burger restaurant

78

172

limited menus

44

149.7

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

14.636

3

.002*

13.342

3

.004*

9.448

3

.024*

24.828

3

.000*

Managerial Support

3.

4.


My line manager encourages me at work


50

Chapter Four


Table 4.16 sowed the significant difference between restaurant categories and employees’ staff support stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are working in burger restaurant and limited menus restaurant if they work gets difficult their colleagues will help them (M= 161.47), they get help and support their need from colleagues (M=162.39), they receive the respect at work them deserve from their colleagues (M=162.32), and their colleagues are willing to listen to them work-related problems (M=162.88) than employees in pizza restaurant, and chicken restaurant. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the massive pressure in pizza and chicken restaurants compared to burger restaurants and limited menus restaurants. Table 4.16: The differences among employees’ in colleagues support stressors in QSRs No.

Construct

Measurement


1.


2.

Staff Support

3.

4.


My colleagues are willing to listen to my work-related problems


N

Mean Rank

Pizza restaurant

62

125.48

Chicken restaurant

97

128.94

Burger restaurant

78

161.47

limited menus

44

153.18

Pizza restaurant

62

119.54

Chicken restaurant

97

133.1

Burger restaurant

78

155.82

limited menus

44

162.39

Pizza restaurant

62

129.78

Chicken restaurant

97

126.98

Burger restaurant

78

155.33

limited menus

44

162.32

Pizza restaurant

62

115.19

Chicken restaurant

97

131.81

Burger restaurant

78

162.88

limited menus

44

158.82


51

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

11.318

3

.010*

11.898

3

.008*

10.665

3

.014*

16.318

3

.001*

Chapter Four


Table 4.17 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ relationship stressors at workplace. Table 4.17: The differences among employees’ relationship stressors in QSRs No.

Construct


1.

2.

3.

Measurement

Relationship




N

Mean Rank

Pizza restaurant

62

145.86

Chicken restaurant

97

139.93

Burger restaurant

78

140.38

limited menus

44

137.59

Pizza restaurant

62

147.17

Chicken restaurant

97

141.27

Burger restaurant

78

142

limited menus

44

129.93

Pizza restaurant

62

151.84

Chicken restaurant

97

144.65

Burger restaurant

78

126.12

limited menus

44

144.07

52

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

0.343

3

0.952

1.246

3

0.742

4.153

3

0.245

Chapter Four


Table 4.18 showed the significant difference between restaurant categories and employees service quality at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are working in limited menus restaurant they provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised (M= 165.25), they have to provide prompt and quick service (M=167.86) and they are courteous and friendly with the customers (M=154.88) than employees in pizza restaurant, chicken restaurant and burger restaurant. A possible explanation for this difference may due to there are a long service sequence in limited menus restaurant compared to pizza, chicken restaurants and burger restaurants. Table 4.18: The differences among employees’ service quality factors in QSRs No.

Construct

Measurement

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.

Service Quality


6.


7.



N

Mean Rank

Pizza restaurant

62

139.48

Chicken restaurant Burger restaurant limited menus Pizza restaurant Chicken restaurant

97 78 44 62 97

141.25 145.97 133.77 150.54 126.66

Burger restaurant limited menus Pizza restaurant

78 44 62

148.26 146.28 144.29

Chicken restaurant Burger restaurant limited menus

97 78 44

129.27 140.61 162.92

Pizza restaurant

62

137.69

Chicken restaurant

97

129.38

Burger restaurant

78

145.88

limited menus

44

162.63

Pizza restaurant

62

143.31

Chicken restaurant

97

126.8

Burger restaurant

78

143.13

limited menus

44

165.25

Pizza restaurant

62

140.18

Chicken restaurant

97

128.99

Burger restaurant limited menus Pizza restaurant Chicken restaurant

78 44 62 97

141.43 167.86 150.44 124.45

Burger restaurant

78

146.26

limited menus

44

154.88


53

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

0.849

3

0.838

6.18

3

0.103

6.766

3

0.08

6.628

3

0.085

7.984

3

.046*

8.41

3

.038*

8.794

3

.032*

Chapter Four


3.3 The variance among employees’ age groups in terms of job stress and service quality Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for differences between employees’ age groups. Table 4.19 showed the significant difference between employees’ age group and role stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are more than 40 knowing what is expected of them at work (M=218), they know how to go about getting their job done (M=205.5), they are clear what their duties and responsibilities are (M=228), they are clear about the goals and objectives for their department (M=210) and they understand how their work fits into the overall aim of the organization (M=239) than employees less than 21, 21 up to 30 and 30 up to 40. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the employees who are more than 40 knowing how to adapt with the work tasks compared to other employees age groups. Table 4.19: The differences among employees’ role stressors in different age groups No.

Construct


1.


2.

3.

Measurement

Role

4.

5.




Mean Rank 131.36

Age

N

Less than 21

119

21 up to 30

115

139.8

30 up to 40

40

158.08

More than 40

6

218

Less than 21

119

129.05

21 up to 30

115

143.96

30 up to 40

40

154.88

More than 40

6

205.5

Less than 21

119

122.35

21 up to 30

115

144.35

30 up to 40

40

170.31

More than 40

6

228

Less than 21

119

121.98

21 up to 30

115

145.3

30 up to 40 More than 40 Less than 21

40 6 119

171.38 210 122.79

21 up to 30

115

140.48

30 up to 40

40

178.48

More than 40

6

239


54

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

10.389

3

.016*

9.498

3

.023*

20.887

3

.000*

18.073

3

.000*

25.949

3

.000*

Chapter Four


Table 4.20 showed the significant difference between employees’ age group and change stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are more than 40 have sufficient opportunities to question managers about change at work (M=208.08) and employees are always consulted about change at work (M=225.25) than employees less than 21, 21 up to 30, and 30 up to 40. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the employees who are more than 40 knowing how to adapt with the work changes compared to other employees age groups. Table 4.20: The differences among employees’ age groups and change stressors No.

Construct


1.

2.

Measurement

Change

3.



Age

N

Mean Rank

Less than 21

119

124.39

21 up to 30

115

142.56

30 up to 40

40

172.36

More than 40

6

208.08

Less than 21

119

124.31

21 up to 30

115

145.49

30 up to 40

40

161.63

More than 40

6

225.25

Less than 21

119

140.84

21 up to 30

115

132.2

30 up to 40

40

155.43

More than 40

6

193.25


55

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

16.146

3

.001*

15.105

3

.002*

5.588

3

0.133

Chapter Four


Table 4.21 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ age groups and demand stressors. Table 4.21: The differences among employees’ age groups and demand stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.


3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Measurement

Demand





Age

N

Mean Rank

Less than 21

119

142.16

21 up to 30

115

138.56

30 up to 40

40

138.48

More than 40

6

158.25

Less than 21

119

145.73

21 up to 30

115

130.52

30 up to 40

40

147.85

More than 40

6

179

Less than 21

119

146.92

21 up to 30

115

134.65

30 up to 40

40

136.7

More than 40

6

150.5

Less than 21

119

144.75

21 up to 30

115

137.22

30 up to 40

40

133.54

More than 40

6

165.5

Less than 21

119

128.3

21 up to 30

115

154.46

30 up to 40

40

135.45

More than 40

6

148.67

Less than 21

119

139.57

21 up to 30

115

140.02

30 up to 40

40

135.88

More than 40

6

199.08

Less than 21

119

145.81

21 up to 30

115

138.73

30 up to 40

40

127.53

More than 40

6

155.67

56

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

0.45

3

0.93

4.111

3

0.25

1.601

3

0.659

1.565

3

0.667

7.162

3

0.067

3.857

3

0.277

2.021

3

0.568

Chapter Four


Table 4.22 showed the significant difference between employees’ age group and control stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are more than 40 have a say in their own work speed (M=199), they have a choice in deciding how them do their work (M=206.33), they have a choice in deciding what them do at work (M=200.33) and their working time can be flexible (M=177.58) than employees less than 21, 21 up to 30 and 30 up to 40. Table 4.22: The differences among employees’ age groups and control stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.

3.

Measurement

Control

4.

5.




Age

N

Mean Rank

Less than 21

119

142.18

21 up to 30

115

131.69

30 up to 40

40

159.13

More than 40

6

151.83

Less than 21

119

125.56

21 up to 30

115

145.4

30 up to 40

40

162.06

More than 40

6

199

Less than 21

119

137.61

21 up to 30

115

129.79

30 up to 40

40

170.03

More than 40

6

206.33

Less than 21

119

130.95

21 up to 30

115

139.06

30 up to 40

40

164.08

More than 40

6

200.33

Less than 21

119

137.25

21 up to 30

115

130.72

30 up to 40

40

172.73

More than 40

6

177.58


57

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

3.801

3

0.284

11.228

3

.011*

12.625

3

.006*

9.242

3

.026*

9.926

3

.019*

Chapter Four


Table 4.23 showed the significant difference between employees’ age group and managerial support stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are more than 40 their line manager encourage them at work (M=193.25) than employees less than 21, 21 up to 30 and 30 up to 40. Table 4.23: The differences among employees’ age and managerial support stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.

Managerial support 3.

4.

Age

N

Mean Rank

Less than 21

119

133.44

21 up to 30

115

138.67

30 up to 40

40

158.71

More than 40

6

194.17

Less than 21

119

129.73

21 up to 30

115

142.39

30 up to 40

40

159.98

More than 40

6

188.08

Less than 21

119

135.57

21 up to 30

115

139.28

30 up to 40

40

150.29

More than 40

6

196.33

Less than 21

119

132.53

21 up to 30

115

136.76

30 up to 40

40

167.04

More than 40

6

193.25

Measurement

I can talk to my line manager about something that has upset or annoyed me about work My line manager encourages me at work


58

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

5.951

3

0.114

7.032

3

0.071

4.216

3

.239

8.663

3

.034*

Chapter Four


Table 4.24 showed the significant difference between employees’ age group and staff support stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are more than 40 they receive the respect at work they deserve from their colleagues (M=205.83) and their colleagues are willing to listen to them work-related problems (M=233.5) than employees less than 21, 21 up to 30, and 30 up to 40. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the employees who are more than 40 knowing how to communicate with their colleagues. This result is consistent with the study by (Barkhuizen & Rothman, 2008) Table 4.24: The differences among employees’ age groups and staff support stressors No.

Construct

Measurement If work gets difficult, my colleagues will help me

1.


2. Staff Support 3.

4.



Age

N

Mean Rank

Less than 21

119

139.04

21 up to 30

115

133.13

30 up to 40

40

157.34

More than 40

6

198.42

Less than 21

119

141.16

21 up to 30

115

132.31

30 up to 40

40

153.79

More than 40

6

195.75

Less than 21

119

126.96

21 up to 30

115

145.37

30 up to 40

40

156.96

More than 40

6

205.83

Less than 21

119

133.69

21 up to 30

115

136.66

30 up to 40

40

157.85

More than 40

6

233.5


59

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

6.345

3

.096*

5.531

3

.137*

10.43

3

.015*

11.603

3

.009*

Chapter Four


Table 4.25 showed the significant difference between employees’ age group and relationship stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are 21 years old up to 30 years old have friction or anger between colleagues at workplace (M=153.68) than employees less than 21, 30 up to 40 and More than 40. Table 4.25: The differences among employees’ age groups and relationship stressors No.

Construct


1.

2.

Measurement

Relationship

3.



Age

N

Mean Rank

Less than 21

119

138.89

21 up to 30

115

148.06

30 up to 40

40

125.68

More than 40

6

126.5

Less than 21

119

130.64

21 up to 30

115

153.68

30 up to 40

40

141.6

More than 40

6

76

Less than 21

119

137.6

21 up to 30

115

152.47

30 up to 40

40

115.79

More than 40

6

133.42


60

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

2.753

3

0.431

9.059

3

.029*

6.719

3

0.081

Chapter Four


Table 4.26 showed the significant difference between employees’ age group and service quality factors. The results revealed that employees who are more than 40 they provide the service exactly as the customers’ ordered it (M=208) and they provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised (M=183.17) than employees less than 21, 21 up to 30 and 30 up to 40. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the employees who are more than 40 had more experience than other employees age groups. Table 4.26: The differences among employees’ age groups and service quality No.

Construct


1.


2.


3.

4.

Service Quality

5.

6.

7.

Age

N

Mean Rank

Less than 21

119

144.93

21 up to 30

115

131.81

30 up to 40

40

149.46

More than 40

6

159.33

Less than 21

119

138.07

21 up to 30

115

139.31

30 up to 40

40

148.96

More than 40

6

155

Less than 21

119

131.07

21 up to 30

115

143.07

30 up to 40

40

158.19

Measurement





More than 40

6

160.5

Less than 21

119

128.95

21 up to 30

115

145.87

30 up to 40

40

149.33

More than 40

6

208

Less than 21

119

128.09

21 up to 30

115

144.67

30 up to 40

40

159.05

More than 40

6

183.17

Less than 21

119

135.05

21 up to 30

115

141.15

30 up to 40

40

147.8

More than 40

6

187.5

Less than 21

119

130.85

21 up to 30

115

146.22

30 up to 40

40

144.96

More than 40

6

192.5


61

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

3.191

3

0.363

1.003

3

0.801

5.079

3

0.166

9.163

3

.027*

7.852

3

.049*

3.512

3

0.319

6.595

3

0.086

Chapter Four


4.3.4 The variance among employees’ level of education in terms of job stress and service quality Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for differences between the three educational groups. Table 4.27 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ education levels in role stressors at workplace. Table 4.27: The differences among employees’ educational levels and role stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.

3.

4.

5.

Measurement

Role

I am clear what my duties and responsibilities are I am clear about the goals and objectives for my department I understand how my work fits into the overall aim of the organization

Education

N

Mean Rank

Secondary school or below

53

147.76

University degree

220

139.37

others

8

141.13


53

137.95

University degree

220

141.01

others

8

160.81


53

136.52

University degree

220

140.38

others

8

187.81


53

143.6

University degree

220

140.05

others

8

149.94


53

155.71

University degree

220

136.19

8

175.81

others

62

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

0.532

22

0.766

0.678

2

0.713

3.167

2

0.205

0.194

2

0.907

4.417

2

0.11

Chapter Four


Table 4.28 showed the significant differences between employees’ education levels and workplace change stressors. The results revealed that employees who have a master degree had greater information when changes are made at work they are clear how they will work out in practice (M=193.56) than employees had secondary school or below and employees had university degree. Table 4.28: The differences among employees’ educational levels and change stressors No.

Construct

1.

2.

Change

3.

Measurement

Education


Secondary school or below University degree others






63

N

Mean Rank

53

155.64

220

136.61

8

164.75

53

152.57

220

136.9

8

177.25

53

154.12

220

135.93

8

193.56

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

3.244

2

0.197

3.364

2

0.186

6.099

2

.047*

Chapter Four


Table 4.29 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ education levels and workplace demand stressors. Table 4.29: The differences among employees’ educational levels and demand stressors No.

Construct

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Demand

Measurement

Education

N

Mean Rank



53

140.66

220

139.92

8

172.94

53

148.48

220

138.15

8

169.88

53

128.02

220

144.86

8

120.94

53

128

220

142.99

8

172.5

53

120.97

220

144.66

8

172.94

53

145.06

220

138.54

8

181.75

53

131.3

220

143.21

8

144.5

University degree others













64

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

1.337

2

0.512

1.811

2

0.404

2.447

2

0.294

3.045

2

0.218

5.549

2

0.062

2.749

2

0.253

1.045

2

0.593

Chapter Four


Table 4.30 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ education levels and control stressors. Table 4.30: The differences among employees’ educational levels and control stressors No.

Construct

1.

4.

5.

Education




2.

3.

Measurement

Control








65

N

Mean Rank

53

148.21

220

137.94

8

177.38

53

137.81

220

140.26

8

182.56

53

144.01

220

138.39

8

192.94

53

147.21

220

137.38

8

199.5

53

153.25

220

138.03

8

141.56

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

2.43

2

0.297

2.36

2

0.307

3.938

2

0.14

5.412

2

0.067

1.571

2

0.456

Chapter Four


Table 4.31 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ education levels and managerial support stressors. Table 4.31: The differences among employees’ educational levels and managerial support stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.

Managerial Support

3.

4.

Measurement



Education Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others

66

N

Mean Rank

53

150.75

220

137.89

8

162.06

53

152.08

220

138.39

8

139.5

53

142.41

220

140.26

8

152

53

150.02

220

138.4

8

152.81

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

1.717

2

0.424

1.304

2

0.521

0.195

2

0.907

1.101

2

0.577

Chapter Four


Table 4.32 showed the significant differences between employees’ education levels and colleagues support stressors. The results revealed that employees who had secondary school or below had greater support if work gets difficult, their colleagues will help them (M=168.35) than employees in other section and employees had university degree. Table 4.32: The differences among employees’ educational levels and staff support stressors No.

Construct

Measurement If work gets difficult, my colleagues will help me

1.


2.

Staff Support

3.

4.



Education Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others


67

N

Mean Rank

53

168.35

220

133.9

8

155.06

53

154.78

220

136.83

8

164.31

53

156.34

220

135.66

8

186.13

53

145.92

220

138.11

8

187.75

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

8.674

2

.013*

3.02

2

0.221

5.941

2

0.051

3.335

2

0.189

Chapter Four


Table 4.33 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ education levels and relationship stressors. Table 4.33: The differences among employees’ educational levels and relationship stressors No.

Construct


1.

2.

3.

Measurement

Relationship



N

Mean Rank


53

138.25

University degree

220

140.44

others

8

174.69


53

131.2

University degree

220

143.97

others

8

124.19


53

131.91

University degree

220

142.87

8

149.75

Education

others

68

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

1.549

2

0.461

1.479

2

0.477

0.912

2

0.634

Chapter Four


Table 4.34 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ educational levels and service quality. Table 4.34: The differences among employees’ educational levels and service quality No.

Construct


1.


2.


3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Measurement

Service Quality





Education Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others Secondary school or below University degree others

69

N

Mean Rank

53

155.04

220

139

8

103

53

151.93

220

137.91

8

153.5

53

151.8

220

137.56

8

164

53

139.41

220

139.45

8

194.25

53

142

220

138.7

8

197.63

53

144.78

220

139

8

171.06

53

134.41

220

141.45

8

172.38

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

4.438

2

0.109

1.936

2

0.38

2.504

2

0.286

4.275

2

0.118

4.652

2

0.098

1.63

2

0.443

2.105

2

0.349

Chapter Four


4.3.5 The variance among employees’ length of employment in terms of job stress and service quality Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for differences between the four Lengths of employment in terms of job stress and service quality scale. Table 4.35 showed the significant difference between employees’ length of employment and role stressors. The results revealed that employees who had 3 years up to 5 years of experience and employees had more than 5 years of experience they know how to go about getting their job done (M=155.02), they are clear what their duties and responsibilities are (M=162.33), they are clear about the goals and objectives for their department (M=162.68) and they understand how their work fits into the overall aim of the organization (M=162) than employees less than 1 year of experience and year up to 3 years of experience. Table 4.35: The differences among length of employment and role stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.

3.

Measurement

Role

4.

5.


I am clear about the goals and objectives for my department I understand how my work fits into the overall aim of the organization


N

Mean Rank

Less than 1 year

118

129.22

Year up to 3 years 3 years up to 5 years More than 5 years Less than 1 year Year up to 3 years 3 years up to 5 years More than 5 years

63

156.25

28

139

71 118 63

145.87 123.25 153.55

28

155.02

71

151.87

Less than 1 year

118

121.11

Year up to 3 years 3 years up to 5 years More than 5 years

63

147.65

28

150.75

71

162.33

Less than 1 year

118

125.13

Year up to 3 years 3 years up to 5 years More than 5 years Less than 1 year

63

138.14

28

154.32

71 118

162.68 121.56

63

147

28

162

71

157.73



70

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

5.826

3

0.12

11.46

3

.009*

14.393

3

.002*

11.199

3

.011*

13.396

3

.004*

Chapter Four


Table 4.36 showed the significant difference between employees’ length of employment and changes stressors. The results revealed that employees who had more than 5 years of experience always consulted about change at work (M=158.45) than employees less than 1 year of experience, year up to 3 years of experience and 3 years up to 5 years of experience. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the younger employees have not enough information about the workplace changes compared to other colleagues. This result consistent study made before which showed that the employees with less experience are exposed to high level of job stress compared with employees with longer years of working (Bearschank, 2010). Table 4.36: The differences among length of employment and change stressors No.

Construct


1.

2.

3.

Measurement

Change

Staffs are always consulted about change at work When changes are made at work, I am clear how they will work out in practice


N

Mean Rank

Less than 1 year

118

131.18

Year up to 3 years

63

135.59

3 years up to 5 years

28

136.96

More than 5 years

71

161.75

Less than 1 year

118

123.29

Year up to 3 years

63

153.58


28

138.09

More than 5 years

71

158.45

Less than 1 year

118

135.56

Year up to 3 years

63

146.79


28

131.29

More than 5 years

71

146.75


71

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

7.178

3

0.066

10.934

3

.012*

1.753

3

0.625

Chapter Four


Table 4.37 showed the significant difference between employees’ length of employment and workplace demand stressors. The results revealed that employees who had 3 years up to 5 years of experience they are unable to take sufficient breaks (M=178.52) than employees less than 1 year of experience, year up to 3 years of experience and more than 5 years of experience.

72

Chapter Four


Table 4.37: The differences among length of employment and demand stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.


3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Measurement

Demand






N

Mean Rank

Less than 1 year

118

138.24


63

137.78

28

154.59

71

141.11

Less than 1 year

118

146.31


63

122.29

28

149.29

71

143.54

Less than 1 year

118

150.79


63

130.67

28

136.82

71

133.57

Less than 1 year

118

146.43


63

128.72

28

178.52

71

126.11

Less than 1 year

118

133.56


63

145.63

28

171.29

71

135.35

Less than 1 year

118

140.74


63

145.44

28

152.91

71

130.83

Less than 1 year

118

141.75


63

142.25

28

159.46

71

129.39


73

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

1.064

3

0.786

4.421

3

0.219

3.576

3

0.311

11.74

3

.008*

6.167

3

0.104

2.232

3

0.526

3.279

3

0.351

Chapter Four


Table 4.38 showed the significant difference between employees’ length of employment and workplace demand stressors. The results revealed that employees who had more than 5 years of experience they have a say in their own work speed (M=161.23) than employees less than 1 year of experience, year up to 3 years of experience and 3 years up to 5 years of experience. This result consistent study made before which showed that the employees with less experience are exposed to high level of job stress compared with employees with longer years of working (Bearschank, 2010). Table 4.38: The differences among length of employment and control stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.

3.

4.

5.

Measurement

Control





N

Mean Rank

Less than 1 year

118

143.48

Year up to 3 years

63

140.35


28

112.63

More than 5 years

71

146.68

Less than 1 year

118

127.94

Year up to 3 years

63

141.51


28

138.63

More than 5 years

71

161.23

Less than 1 year

118

134.62

Year up to 3 years

63

141.5


28

131.52

More than 5 years

71

152.93

Less than 1 year

118

134.8

Year up to 3 years

63

137.48


28

155.64

More than 5 years

71

146.68

Less than 1 year

118

131.66

Year up to 3 years

63

148.15


28

122.61

More than 5 years

71

155.46


74

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

4.056

3

0.256

8.085

3

.044*

2.924

3

0.403

2.285

3

0.515

6.045

3

0.109

Chapter Four


Table 4.39 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ length of employment and managerial support stressors. Table 4.39: The differences among length of employment and managerial support stressors No.

Construct


1.


2. Managerial Support 3.

4.

Measurement




N

Mean Rank

Less than 1 year

118

136.61


63

142.43

28

134.32

71

147.69

Less than 1 year

118

135.56


63

146.43

28

127.25

71

148.68

Less than 1 year

118

135.97


63

153.08

28

115.05

71

146.9

Less than 1 year

118

134.51


63

139.11

28

140.14

71

151.82

75

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

1.091

3

0.779

2.416

3

0.491

5.512

3

0.138

2.158

3

0.54

Chapter Four


Table 4.40 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ length of employment and colleagues support stressors. Table 4.40: The differences among length of employment and staff support stressors No.

Construct

Measurement


1.


2. Staff Support 3.

4.




N

Mean Rank

Less than 1 year

118

138.87


63

128.11

28

139.34

71

154.65

Less than 1 year

118

138.54


63

137.15

28

133.14

71

149.63

Less than 1 year

118

133.56


63

136.96

28

146.79

71

152.7

Less than 1 year

118

136.69


63

132.65

28

143.5

71

152.61

76

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

4.05

3

0.256

1.431

3

0.698

3.103

3

0.376

2.649

3

0.449

Chapter Four


Table 4.41 revealed no statistically significant difference between employees’ length of employment and relationship stressors. Table 4.41: The differences among length of employment and relationship stressors No.

Construct

1.

2.

3.

Relationship

Measurement


N

Mean Rank


Less than 1 year Year up to 3 years 3 years up to 5 years More than 5 years

118

141.78

63

140.75

28

161.88

71

129.71

118

134.87



63

150.44

28

151.57

71

136.67

118

136.96



63

137.67

28

169.27

71

137.56

77

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

3.474

3

0.324

2.312

3

0.51

4.103

3

0.251

Chapter Four


Table 4.42 showed the significant difference between employees’ length of employment and employees service quality. The results revealed that employees who had year up to 3 years of experience they provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised (M=154.43) than employees had less than 1 year of experience 3 years up to 5 years of experience and more than 5 years of experience. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the younger employees have not enough experience about the workplace compared to colleagues. Table 4.42: The differences among length of employment and service quality No.

Construct


1.


2.


3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Measurement

Service Quality

I provide the service exactly as the customers’ ordered it I provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised




N

Mean Rank

Less than 1 year

118

145.12

Year up to 3 years

63

138.81


28

136.54

More than 5 years

71

135.89

Less than 1 year

118

134.6

Year up to 3 years

63

146.58


28

138.89

More than 5 years

71

145.54

Less than 1 year

118

131.11

Year up to 3 years

63

147.55


28

148.64

More than 5 years

71

146.65

Less than 1 year

118

129.87

Year up to 3 years

63

153.31


28

144.73

More than 5 years

71

145.13

Less than 1 year

118

127.69

Year up to 3 years

63

154.43


28

131.34

More than 5 years

71

153.05

Less than 1 year

118

130.63

Year up to 3 years

63

152.13


28

135.38

More than 5 years

71

148.6

Less than 1 year

118

131.85

Year up to 3 years

63

150.2


28

127.48

More than 5 years

71

151.41


78

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

0.91

3

0.823

1.677

3

0.642

3.508

3

0.32

4.743

3

0.192

7.864

3

.049*

4.695

3

0.196

5.785

3

0.123

Chapter Four


4.3.6 The variance among employees’ marital status in terms of job stress and service quality Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for differences between the three marital statuses in terms of job stress and service quality scale. Table 4.43 showed the significant difference between employees’ marital status and role stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are married and married with children clear what their duties and responsibilities are (M=169.71), they are clear about the goals and objectives for their department (M=167.85) and they understand how their work fits into the overall aim of the organization (M=177.28) than single employees. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the married employees have enough experience about the workplace compared to single employees. Table 4.43: The differences among employee’s marital status and role stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.

3.

4.

5.

Measurement

Role

I am clear what my duties and responsibilities are I am clear about the goals and objectives for my department I understand how my work fits into the overall aim of the organization

Marital status

N

Mean Rank

Single

209

137.05

Married Married with children Single

49

159.97

23

136.52

209

135.32

49

159.84

23

152.48

Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children


79

209

131.6

49

169.71

23

165.22

209

132.61

49

164.19

23

167.85

209

132.08

49

177.28

23

144.78

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

3.774

2

0.152

5.068

2

0.079

12.263

2

0.002

9.362

2

0.009

13.706

2

0.001

Chapter Four


Table 4.44 showed the significant difference between employees’ marital status and role stressors at workplace. The results revealed that employees who are married and married with children have sufficient opportunities to question managers about change at work (M=161.67) and staffs are always consulted about change at work (M=168.2) than single employees. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the married and married with children employees have enough information about changes at the workplace compared to single employees. Table 4.44: The differences among employee’s marital status and change stressors No.

1.

2.

3.

Measurement

Marital status

N

Mean Rank


Single

209

134.18


49

161.67

23

158.96

209

132.27

49

165.49

23

168.2

209

138.74

49

144.86

23

153.28

Construct

Change

Staffs are always consulted about change at work When changes are made at work, I am clear how they will work out in practice

Married Married with children Single Married Married with children


80

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

6.143

2

0.046

9.842

2

0.007

0.87

2

0.647

Chapter Four


Table 4.45 showed no significant differences between employees’ marital status and workplace demand stressors in terms of job stress and service quality scale. Table 4.45: The differences among employee’s marital status and workplace demands stressors No.

Construct


1.


2.


3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Measurement

Demand





Mean Rank

Marital status

N

Single

209

146.1


49

123.22

23

132.5

209

140.45

49

139.07

23

150.07

209

142.89

49

132.3

23

142.37

209

142.92

49

132.59

23

141.43

209

140.05

49

146.77

23

137.37

209

141.49

49

139.39

23

139.98

209

143.15

49

135.57

23

133.02

Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children

81

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

3.586

2

0.166

0.338

2

0.844

0.714

2

0.7

0.727

2

0.695

0.364

2

0.834

0.036

2

0.982

0.657

2

0.72

Chapter Four


Table 4.46 showed no significant differences between employees’ marital status and control stressors at workplace in terms of job stress and service quality scale. Table 4.46: The differences among employee’s marital status and control stressors No.

Construct

1.

4.

5.

Marital status

N

Mean Rank

Single

209

139.28



49

151.92

23

133.39

209

137.59

49

153.03

23

146.39

209

137.99

49

145.08

23

159.65

209

139.21

49

136.33

23

167.24

209

137.07

49

144.61

23

169.04


2.

3.

Measurement

Control

I have a choice in deciding how I do my work I have a choice in deciding what I do at work


Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children

82

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

1.23

2

0.541

1.662

2

0.436

1.79

2

0.409

2.944

2

0.229

3.489

2

0.175

Chapter Four


Table 4.47 showed the significant differences between employees’ marital status and managerial supports stressors at workplace in terms of job stress and service quality scale. The results revealed that employees who are married and have children had a greater support from their line managers at work (M=180.67) than single employees and married employees. Table 4.47: The differences among employee’s marital status and managerial support stressors No.

Construct

Measurement I am given supportive feedback on the work I do

1.


2. Managerial Support 3.

4.

I can talk to my line manager about something that has upset or annoyed me about work My line manager encourages me at work

Marital status

N

Mean Rank

Single

209

137.41


49

140.61

23

174.43

209

137.2

49

146.63

23

163.52

209

137.34

49

153.54

23

147.52

209

135.04

49

147.79

23

180.67

Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children


83

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

4.554

2

0.103

2.639

2

0.267

1.879

2

0.391

7.304

2

0.026

Chapter Four


Table 4.48 showed the significant differences between employees’ marital status and colleagues supports stressors at workplace in terms of job stress and service quality. The results revealed that employees who are married their colleagues are willing to listen to their work-related problems (M=169.27) than single employees and married employees. Table 4.48: The differences among employee’s marital status and staff support stressors No.

Construct

Measurement


1.


2. Staff Support 3.

4.

I receive the respect at work I deserve from my colleagues My colleagues are willing to listen to my work-related problems

Marital status

N

Mean Rank

Single

209

134.99


49

159.29

23

156.63

209

136.34

49

158.16

23

146.8

209

133.43

49

156.52

23

176.76

209

131.32

49

169.27

23

168.74

Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children


84

ChiSquare

Df

Asymp. Sig.

4.899

2

0.086

3.27

2

0.195

9.025

2

0.011

12.372

2

0.002

Chapter Four


Table 4.49 showed the significant differences between employees’ marital status and relationship stressors at workplace in terms of job stress and service quality. The results revealed that employees who are single found personal harassment in the form of unkind words or behavior in their workplace (M=147.34) than married employees and married with children employees. Table 4.49: The differences among employee’s marital status and relationship stressors No.

Construct


1.

2.

Measurement

Relationship

3.



Marital status

N

Mean Rank

Single

209

147.34


49

136.47

23

93.02

209

142.81

49

139.62

23

127.52

209

144.5

49

140.81

23

109.63

Married Married with children Single Married Married with children


85

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

10.114

2

0.006

0.788

2

0.674

3.982

2

0.137

Chapter Four


Table 4.50 showed the significant differences between employees’ marital status and service quality. The results revealed that employees who are married they provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised (M=163.58) than single employees and married with children employees. A possible explanation for this difference may due to the married and married with children employees have enough experience compared to single employees. Table 4.50: The differences among employee’s marital status and service quality No.

Construct


1.


2.


3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Measurement

Service Quality

I provide the service exactly as the customers’ ordered it I provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised



Marital status

N

Mean Rank

Single

209

141.37


49

132.14

23

156.48

209

137.49

49

149.56

23

154.7

209

135.8

49

160.9

23

145.83

209

137.96

49

153.96

23

141.02

209

134.2

49

163.58

23

154.65

209

135.64

49

163.53

23

141.74

209

135.19

49

158.83

23

155.85

Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children Single Married Married with children


86

ChiSquare

df

Asymp. Sig.

1.82

2

0.402

2.096

2

0.351

4.92

2

0.085

1.86

2

0.394

6.741

2

0.034

5.675

2

0.059

5.703

2

0.058

Chapter Four


4.4 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 4.4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first used to measure the reliability and validity of the seven stressor scales and service quality scale. The initial model was not a satisfactory fit and so some modification indices were suggested to improve the model fit. More specifically, one item was removed from control scale (i.e., I can decide when to take a break). As a result, a good model fit was achieved for the measurement model:

2 (601) = 868.838; p < .0001,

2/df = 1.45,

goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.90, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = 0.91, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.93, relative fit index (RFI) = 0.91, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.93, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.94, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95, which were all greater than the recommended level of 0.90 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.025, lower than the cut off value of 0.05. (Arbuckle, 2011). The results of CFA (see Table 4.9) show that the lowest value of CR and Cronbach’s α for all of the constructs was 0.81, which exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.70, indicating a good reliability level. Additionally, the values of AVE for all constructs exceeded the minimum acceptable value of 0.50 indicating good convergent validity (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2010). Furthermore, the results of CFA (see Table 4:51) show that the AVE of each construct was greater than the squared correlation for each pair of constructs, indicating good discriminant validity (Hair, et al., 2010).

87

Chapter Four


Table 4.51: Parameter estimates of the measurement model, validity analysis, and reliability test for job stress and service quality Constructs

ß

Role ( RO ) RO1

0.73

RO2

0.80

RO3

0.69

RO4

0.69

RO5

0.66

Change (CH) CH1

0.71

CH2

0.75

CH3

0.67

Demand (DE) DE1

0.72

DE2

0.68

DE3

0.75

DE4

0.72

DE5

0.76

DE6

0.67

DE7

0.65

Control (CO) CO2

0.70

CO3

0.74

CO4

0.70

CO5

0.77

Managerial Support(MS) MS1

0.68

MS2

0.77

MS3

0.65

MS4

0.77

Staff Support (SS) SS1

0.83

SS2

0.90

SS3

0.76

SS4

0.63

Relationship (RE) RE1

0.78

RE2

0.77

RE3

0.69

Service Quality (SQ) SQ1

0.56

SQ2

0.76

CR

α

AVE

0.84

0.84

0.51

0.67

0.71

0.51

0.83

0.77

0.50

0.69

0.73

0.53

0.81

0.84

0.52

0.86

0.85

0.62

0.79

0.78

0.56

0.89

0.86

0.53

(Continued)

88

Chapter Four


Table 4.51: Parameter estimates of the measurement model, validity analysis, and reliability test for job stress and service quality (cont.) Constructs

ß

α

CR

SQ3

0.74

SQ4

0.75

SQ5

0.74

SQ6

0.83

SQ7

0.69

AVE

Note: All factor loadings were significant at ≤ .001; CR = Composite reliability; α = Alpha reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 4.52: Discriminant validity for the measurement model Variance for job stress and service quality scale

Constructs RO RO CH DE CO RE MS SS SQ

CH

DE

CO

RE

MS

SS

SQ

0.51

0.33 0.05 0.21 0.00 0.23 0.08 0.16

0.51

0.00 0.21 0.00 0.41 0.13 0.08

0.50 0.53

0.06 0.13 0.01 0.02 0.04

0.01 0.35 0.09 0.26

0.56

0.00 0.01 0.01

0.52

0.24 0.22

0.62

0.24

0.53

Note: The bold values along the diagonal line are the AVE values for the constructs, and the other values are the squared correlations for each pair of constructs. RO = Role; CH= Change; DE = Demand; CO = Control; RE = Relationship; MS = Managerial Support; SS = Staff Support; SQ = Service Quality.

4.4.2 Structural models and hypotheses testing Standardized path coefficients (ß) were utilized to test the postulated hypotheses in a causal diagrammatic as shown in Table 5. The findings revealed no relationship between role and service quality, rejected H1 ((ß= -0.09, p < 0.001). The findings revealed no relationship between change and service quality, rejected H2 (ß= -0.09, p < 0.001). The findings revealed relationship between demand and service quality, supported H3 (ß= 0.15, p < 0.001). The findings revealed relationship between control and service quality, supported H4 (ß= 0.25, p < 0.001). The findings revealed relationship between relationship and service quality, rejected H5 (ß= -0.06, p < 0.001). The findings revealed

89

Chapter Four


relationship between managerial support and service quality, rejected H6 (ß= 0.07, p < 0.001). The findings revealed relationship between staff support and service quality, supported H7 (ß= 0.20, p < 0.001). Table 4.53: Standardized parameter estimates of the structural model Hypotheses

Path

H1

Role

Service Quality

H2

Change

H3

Demand

H4

Control

H5

Relationship

H6

Managerial Support

H7

Staff Support

Service Quality Service Quality Service Quality Service Quality Service Quality

Service Quality

Beta coefficients (ß)

t-values

Results

0.09

1.49

Rejected

-0.09

1.37

Rejected

0.15

2.72*** Supported

0.25

3.70*** Supported

-0.06

-1.09

Rejected

0.07

0.96

Rejected

0.20

3.25*** Supported

*Absolute t-value > 1.96, p< 0.05; **Absolute t-value > 2.58, p< 0.01; ***Absolute t-value > 3.29, p< 0.001.

90

Chapter Four


Figure 4.1: Final structure equation model Note: The arrows denote significant paths; dotted arrows denote nonsignicant paths

4.5 Discussion 4.5.1 Discussion of structural equation modeling The current study contributed to the limited literature on job stress and service quality in QSRs (Dobrodolac et al., 2014). The results of this study revealed that high demand levels had negative impacts on service quality. In other words, high demands such as workload, work patterns and the work environment had negative impacts on service quality. This 91

Chapter Four


is consistent with previous studies (i.e., Beehr et al., 2000; Varca, 2009) which showed that there is a negative correlation between quality of services delivered to customers and job stress. A possible explanation of this result that working in QSRs had both the long hours of work and different orders at the same times (Walker & Lundberg, 2000). Therefore, the current study suggests that QSR managers should pay more attention to the way the job is designed. For example, managers should design the job in a way that gives employees more flexible working hours (Booklet, 2009). Moreover, the results of this study revealed that high employees’ control levels had positive impacts on service quality. If employees are involved in designing the way they do their work, this in turns would improve the service quality. This is consistent with previous studies (i.e., Beehr et al., 2000; Varca, 2009). This is really important in QSRs since there a gap in involving employees in decision making. Therefore, the current study suggest that think about how employees are actively involved in decision making, the contribution made by teams and how reviewing performance can help identify strengths and weaknesses (Booklet, 2009). In addition, the results of this study revealed that receiving support from colleagues had positive impacts on service quality. In other words, staff support such as the encouragement, sponsorship and resources provided by colleagues had positive impacts on service quality. This is consistent with previous studies (i.e., Beehr et al., 2000; Varca, 2009). This is really important in QSRs where employees need help from their colleagues such as listening to their work-related problems (Booklet, 2009).Therefore, the current study suggest that QSR managers should

92

Chapter Four


give their employees the opportunity to talk about the issues causing stress, provide a sympathetic ear and keep them informed. 4.5.2 Discussion of variance analysis The Mann-Whitney test results showed that female employees reported high levels of job stress compared to their male colleagues supported H8. The Kruskal-Wallis test results showed that the employees, working in chicken restaurants and pizza restaurants reported high levels of job stress compared to employees working in burger restaurants supported H9.

The employees within the ages of less than one year

reported high levels of stress, compared to older employees, rejected H10. The employees who held university degree reported high levels of job stress compared to other education levels, rejected H11. In addition, the employees with low level of experience showed high level of job stress, supported H12.

Moreover, the single employees reported high

level of stress compared to married employees, rejected H13. The results of this study revealed that female employees reported high levels of job stress compared to their male colleagues. This is consistent with previous studies Necsoi (2011), and it is contrast with previous study by Al-Mohannadi and Caple (2007) in assessing employees’ job stress. Further, the younger employees reported high level of job stress. This is contrast with a study on the scale of job stress by HSE Smith et al. (2000). But this is consistent with previous study by Barkhuizen and Rothman (2008), which that stress usually, declines with chronological age. Furthermore, employees who hold university degree reported high level of job stress compared to other education levels. This result is contrast with the finding of Affum-Osei, et al. (2014). The findings further revealed that individuals with high levels of experience tend to experience high levels of job stress. This result is consistent with the 93

Chapter Four


finding of Emmanuel and Collins (2016). Moreover, the results of the study showed that single employees reported high levels of job stress compared to the other marital status. This result contrasts the finding of Jeyaraj (2013) and Affum-Osei et al. (2014).

94

Chapter Five Summary and Recommendations

Chapter Five

Summary and Recommendations CHAPTER FIVE Summary and Recommendations

5.1 Introduction This chapter summarizes this study on measuring the relationship between job stress and service quality in QSRs. It starts with a review of the research objectives and then it transfers to conclusion and the significant recommendations. Furthermore, it ends with the further research. 5.2 Review of objectives In this research, three research objectives were set to achieve the research main aim that to measuring the relationship between job stress and service quality in QSRs. More specifically, these objectives were categorized into one theoretical objective and other two practical objectives. The two practical objectives of this study were achieved using a survey method. 5.2.1 Objective one To undertake a review of literature on job stress and service quality in the QSRs. The first objective was achieved through undertaking a critical analysis of relevantliterature on job stress and service quality.As well as, it explores types of job stress with various definitions, causes and effects. 5.2.2 Objective two To develop and distribute questionnaire form among employees in QSRs in order to measure the relationship between job stress and service quality.

95

Chapter Five

Summary and Recommendations

The second objective was achieved through questionnaire that designed and distributed to a conveniencesample of QSRs employees. It was done also by using SPSS (v.20) in employees’ data analysis, using Mann-Whitney U test between employees’ gender, and using KruskalWallis test in employees’ age, education, length of employment, restaurants categories, and marital status to find out if there is a significant difference between job stress and service quality scale. This objective was completed also by emphasizing the utilization of AMOS (v.20) software, structural equation modeling (SEM), a multivariate statistical analysis method that can explore hypothesized relationships in an integrated manner, was conducted with a convinces sample of 281 hospitality full-time employees. 5.2.3 Objective three To set recommendations in order to reduce job stress and improve service quality in QSRs. To achieve the last objective of the study, a good practice model was developed from the employees’ perspectives. This model implied a number of recommendations to better understanding the relationship betweenemployees job stress and service quality to achieve a high level of employees’ service quality. These recommendations will be clarified more in the following section. 5.3 Recommendations Reducing job stress is largely a matter of common sense and good management practice. Simply requires employers and employees to work together for the common good. Both share a joint responsibility for reducing job stress. When reducing it successfully help employees to enjoy their work more and improving their service quality and businesses 96

Chapter Five


to succeed as a result. Restaurants need to work towards the creation of a healthy work culture. In simple words, effective stress management is the key towards reducing job stressors. This study suggested some recommendations to QSRs managers in order to manage and reduce job stress for their employees in an attempt to improve service quality:  In order to reduce demand stressor, especially for younger employees, QSR managers should provide adequate and achievable demands in relation to the agreed hours of work, employee’s skills and abilities. As well as, QSR managers should hire a suitable number of employees according to job demands.  QSR managers, especially in pizza restaurants and chicken restaurants, should encourage their younger employees to develop new skills to help them undertake new and challenging pieces of work. For example, employees should have a say over when breaks can be taken and employees should be consulted over their work patterns.  QSR managers should design systems to encourage their staff. In particular, restaurants managers should educate their employees how to access the required resources to do their job and should give them regular and constructive feedback. Moreover, QSR managers should design systems to support their staff such as financially, morally and health insurance.  QSR managers should promote positive behaviors at work to avoid conflict and ensure fairness with a special focus on the needs of younger employees. This could be achieved through having agreed

97

Chapter Five


policies and procedures to prevent or resolve unacceptable behavior as well as to report and deal with unacceptable behavior.  QSR managers should provide information to enable employees to understand their role and responsibilities, especially for female and younger employees.  QSR managers should provide employees, especially younger employees, with timely information to enable them to understand the reasons for proposed changes, and the probable impact of any changes to their jobs. In addition, QSR managers should conduct training to support any changes in their employees’ jobs.  QSR managers should improve the relationship between the employees

through

recreational

activities,

inter

and

intra

departmental competitions, group outings, giving regular breaks to employees

between

work

hours,

discussions,

and

stress

management.  QSR managers should empower and involve their employees to participate in the decision making process of the restaurant.  QSR managers should motivate employees financially and morally. 5.4 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research The study was measured the relationship between seven job stressors (i.e., role, change, demand, control, managerial support, staff support and relationship) and service quality in QSRs. Absolutely, it was too difficult to sample all QSRs in Egypt because it is enhanced in terms of cost, time and accessibility. Hence, the investigated QSRs were limited to those located in Greater Cairo. In addition, further research could measure the 98

Chapter Five


impact of job stress on service quality on other hospitality establishments, such as casual dining and gourmet restaurants, hotel restaurants. Also, further research could measure the employee’s relationship between job stress and service quality in other governorates such as Sharm El-Sheikh, Hurghada, or Luxor. One of the methodological limitations of this study is the use of self-report questionnaires. Future studies using qualitative methods, including interviews and focus groups, should provide a broader understanding of the impacts of job stress on service quality.

99

References

References References Abu Alroub, A., Alsaleem, A. and Daoud, A. (2012). Service quality and its impact on customer satisfaction tourist restaurants: a field study on the tourist restaurants / amman. Interdisciplinary Journal of contemporary Research in Business, Vol 4, No 1, p.360. Adamson, E. (2009). 365 ways to reduce stress: everyday tips to help you relax, rejuvenate, and refresh, 1st Edition. USA, Adams Media. Affum-Osei, E., Agyekum, B., Addo, Y. and Asante, E. (2014). Occupational stress and job performance in small and medium scale enterprises. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, Vol 2, No 11, pp.1–17. Al–Mohannadi, A. and Capel, S. (2007). Stress in physical education teachers in Qatar. Social Psychology of Education, Vol 10, No1, P. 2007. Amaratunga, D. and Baldry, D. (2000). Theory building in facilities management research: case study methodology. Proceeding of the Bizarre Fruit Postgraduate Conference. University of Salford, pp. 107– 123. Ayupp, K., and Chung, H. (2010). Empowerment: hotel employees’ perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol 3, No 3, pp. 561–575. Barber, N. and Scarcelli, J. (2010). Enhancing the assessment of tangible service quality through the creation of a cleanliness measurement scale. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol 20, No1, pp.70–88. Barkhuizen, N. and Rothmann, S. (2008). Occupational stress of academic staff in South African higher education institutions. South African Journal of Psychology, Vol 38, No 2, pp. 321–336. Bartram, D. and Turley, G. (2009). Managing the causes of job stress. In Practice,Vol 31, No 8. Bashir, U. (2010). Impact of stress on employees job performance a study on banking sector of Pakistan. International Journal of marketing Studies, Vol. 2, No 122, pp. 122–126. Bearschank, D. (2010). Sources of stress for teachers at high risk secondary schools in the Western Cape. Doctoral dissertation, University of the Western Cape. 101

References Beehr, T., Jex, S., Stacy, B. and Murray, M. (2000). Work stressors and co–worker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, pp. 391–403. Booklet, S.A.W. (2009). Stress at work: work, stress. Brady, M. and Cronin Jr. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: a hierarchical approach. Journal of marketing, Vol. 65, No.3, pp.34–49. Buckingham, A. and Saunders, P. (2004). The survey methods workbook: from design to analysis. 1stEdition. UK: Cambridge, pp. 79–85. Byars, L. and Rue, L. (2004). Human resource management. Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw–Hill, pp. 4–79. Cambridge Dictionaries Online (2016). Definition of fast food. Available at:http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english–arabic/fast food?q=fast+food [accessed June 1, 2016]. Cambridge University (2016). Effects of job stress. Available at: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/hr/policy/stress/effects.html [accessed June 8, 2016]. Carol. A. (2000). Opportunities in food service careers. Chicago, p. 2. Centre for Good Governance (2016). Handbook on stress managemnet skills.Availableat:http://www.cgg.gov.in/publicationdownloads2a/Stress %20Management%20Skill.pdf [accessed June 8, 2016]. Chand, P. and Monga, O. (2007). Correlates of job stress and burn out. J. Com. Gui. Res, Vol 24, No 3, pp.243–252. Cranwell–Ward, J. and Abbey, A. (2005). Organizational stress. 1stEdition, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 25–37. Crick, A. P. and Spencer, A. (2011). Hospitality quality: new directions and new challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol 23, No 4, pp. 463–478. Cronin, J., and Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: Are examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, Vol 56, pp. 55-68. Data Monitor (2005). Fast food in Asia–Pacific: industry profile, Available at: www.datamonitor.com [accessed March 22, 2016]

101

References Davis, B., Lockwood, A., Alcott, P. and Pantelidis, I. (2008). Food and beverage management. 4thEdition. London: Butterworth–Heinemann, pp.61–73. Decenzo, D. and Robbins, S. (2005). Fundamentals of human resource management, 8thEdition. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., pp. 150–180. Dehghan, A. (2006). Relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction. Master Thesis, Luella University of Technology. Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide for small–scale social research projects. 2nd Edition. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, pp. 86–90. Di Salvo, V., Lubbers, C., Rossi, A.M. and Lewis, J. (1995). Unstructured perceptions of work-related stress: An exploratory qualitative study. Occupational stress: A handbook, pp.39-50. Dobrodolac, M., Markovic, D., Cubranic–Dobrodolac, M. and Denda, N. (2014). Using work stress measurement to develop and implement a TQM programme: a case of counter clerks in Serbian Post. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol 25, No11, pp.1262–1279. Donaldson–Feilder, E., Lewis, R. and Yarker, J. (2011). Preventing stress in organizations: How to develop positive managers, 1st Edition. UK: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 12–25. Dyck, D. (2001). The toxic workplace, benefits Canada. p. 52 El Saghier, N., and Nathan, D. (2013). Service quality dimensions and customers’ satisfactions of banks in Egypt; Proceedings of 20th International Business Research Conference 4 – 5 April 2013, Dubai, UAE, ISBN: 978–1–922069–22–1. Emmanuel, A., and Collins, A. (2016). Relationship between occupational stress and demographic variables: a study of employees in a commercial bank in Ghana. British Journal of Applied Science and Technology, Vol 12, No 2, p. 1. Enz, C. (2009). Hospitality strategic management: concepts and cases. John Wiley and Sons. Eshghi, A., Roy, S. and Ganguli, S. (2008). Service quality and customer satisfaction: An empirical investigation in Indian mobile Telecommunications services. Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 119–144. 101

References Floyd, F., and Widaman, K. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, Vol 7, pp. 286–299. Getty, J., and Getty, R., (2003). Lodging quality index (LQI): assessing customers perceptions of quality deliver. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 94–104. Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y. and Cooper, C. (2008). A meta–analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects, Personnel Psychology. pp. 227–272. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Halkos, G. and Bousinakis, D. ( 2010). The effect of stress and satisfaction on productivity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol 59, No 5, pp.415–431. Health and Safety Executive (2016). Management standards for tackling work–related stress, Available at: www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards , [accessed June 8, 2016]. Heung, V., Wong, M. and Qu, H. (2000). Airport–restaurant service quality in Hong Kong: An application of SERVQUAL. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol 41, No 3, pp. 86–96. Hicks, T. and Caroline, M. (2007). A Guide to Managing Workplace Stress. Universal–Publishers. Hiriyappa, B. (2013). Stress management: leading to success. 1stEdition. Ebook, Booktango, pp. 19–30. Hunnur, S., and Bagali, M. (2014). A study on relationship between occupation stress index dimensions and demographic variables of police sub inspectors and asst. sub inspectors in police department. psychology, Vol 13, No 3, pp.283–284. Ivancevich, J. and Ganster, D. (2014). Job stress: From theory to suggestion. Routledge. Jeyaraj, S. (2013). Occupational stress among the teachers of the higher secondary schools in Madurai District, Tamil Nadu. IOSR Journal of Business and Management,Vol 7, No 5, pp.63–79. Jones, E. and Haven, C. (2005). Tourism SMEs, service quality, and destination competitiveness. CABI. 101

References Kamper, G., and Steyn, G. (2006). Understanding occupational stress among educators: An overview. African Education Review, Vol 3, No 1, pp. 113–133. Karatepe, O. (2010). Role stress, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction in the hotel industry: the moderating role of supervisory support. Hospitality Review, Vol 28, No 2, p.3. Kim, k. and Jogaratnam, G. (2010). Effects of individual and organizational factors on job satisfaction and intent to stay in the hotel and restaurant industry. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol 9, No 3, pp. 318–339. Kim, S. Im, and Hwang (2015). The effects of mentoring on role stress, job attitude, and turnover intention in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol 48, pp.68–82. Kincaid, C., Baloglu, S., Mao, Z. and Busser, J. (2010). What really brings them back? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol 22, No 2, pp. 209–220. King, J. and Ronald, F. (2006). Managing for quality in the hospitality industry, Person Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, pp, 3–12, and 49–79. Kumasey, A., Delle, E. and Ofei, S. (2014). Occupational stress and organizational commitment: does sex and managerial status matter? International Journal of Business and Social Research, Vol 4, No 5, pp.173–182. Kundaragi, P. and Kadakol, A. (2015). Work stress of employee: a literature review. Leka S., Griffiths A. and Cox T. (2003). Work organization and stress: Systematic problem approaches for employers, managers and trade union representatives. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. Lepine, J., Lepine, M. and Jackson, C. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Living with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance, Journal of Applied Psychology. pp. 883–895. Lingard, H. and Francis, V. (2009). Managing work–life balance in construction. Routledge. Lo, K. and Lamm, F. (2005). Occupational stress in the hospitality industry–an employment relations perspective. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, Vol 30, No 1, pp. 23–25. 101

References Luhende, M. (2012). How organizational wellbeing influences service quality. Bachelor Thesis, University of Applied Sciences. Malik, F., Yaqoob, S. and Aslam, A. (2012). The impact of price perception, service quality, and brand image on customer loyalty (study of hospitality industry in Pakistan). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol 4, No 5, pp. 487–505. Malik, N. (2011). A study on occupational stress experienced by private and public banks employees in Quetta City. African Journal of Business Management,Vol 5, pp. 3063–3070. Manzoor, A., Awan, H. and Mariam, S. (2012). Investigating the impact of work stress on job performance: A study on textile sector of faisalabad. Asian Journal of Business and Management Sciences, Vol 2, No 1, pp.20–28. McMillan, J.H. (2012). Educational research: fundamental for the consumer. 6th Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Mensah, I. and Dei Mensah, R. (2013). Management of tourism and hospitality services. 2nd Edition. UK. Miller, R. and Brewer, J. (2003). The A–Z of social research: A dictionary of key social science research. London, Sage Publication. Management Training Specialists (2014). Managing stress. Bookboon. Mugassa, P. (2014). Standards for sustainable hospitality services in zanzibar. TEAM Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol 11, No 1, pp.55–71. Munusamy, J., Chelliah, S. and Mun, H. (2010). Service quality delivery and its impact on customer satisfaction in the banking sector in Malaysia. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 398–404. Nakata, A., Ikeda, T., Takahashi, M., Haratani, T., Hojou, M., Fujioka, Y., Swanson, N.G. and Araki, S. (2006). Impact of psychosocial job stress on non–fatal occupational injuries in small and medium–sized manufacturing enterprises. American journal of industrial medicine, Vol 49, No 8, pp.658–669. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH (2008). Stress at work, pp. 99–101.

101

References NECSOI, D. (2011). Stress and job satisfaction among university teachers. Anxiety, Vol 20, pp.13–17. Ninemeir, J. (2005). Hospitality operations: Careers in the world's greatest industry, First Edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, pp. 243–255. O’Neill, J. and Davis, K. (2011). Work stress and well–being in the hotel industry. International journal of hospitality management, Vol 30, No 2, pp.385–390. Olaniyi, A. (2013). Effects of job stress and motivation on performance of employees in hotel industry. Doctoral dissertation, Dublin, National College of Ireland. Olsen, M. and Zhao, J. (2008). Handbook of hospitality strategic management. 1st Edition. UK: Butterworth–Heinemann. Paula, D. (2010). Literature reviews made easy: a quick guide to success.p.6 Powell, E. and Renner, M. (2003). Analyzing qualitative data. Available at http://www.uwex.edu [Accessed on 5–11–2016]. Pulak, M. (2016). Beat that stress, express hospitality. Available at: http://hospitality.financialexpress.com/20120615/life01.shtml [accessed June 9, 2016], pp. A–1. Qin, H., Prybutok, V., and Zhao, Q. (2010). Perceived service quality in fast–food restaurants: empirical evidence from China. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 27, No.4, pp.424– 437. Radwan, H., (2013). The effects of work stress on employees’ performance and satisfaction in fast food restaurants. Journal of Association of Arab Universities for Tourism and Hospitality. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 139 –151. Ramires A., Graham J., Richards M., Cull A. and Gregory W. (1996). Mental health of hospital consultants: The effects of stress and satisfaction at work. pp. 724–728. Rashid, A. (2010). Employees motivation: a key for the success of fast food restaurants. Master thesis, Umea School of Business, Sweden, p. 14.

101

References Ratnawat, R. and Jha, P. (2014). Impact of job related stress on employee performance: A review and research agenda. IOSR Journals of Business and Management, Val 16, pp.1–6. Ricardo, B., Amy, K., and Rohit, L. (2007). Stress at work, the work foundation. London, pp. 5–35. Ross, G. (2005). Tourism industry employee job stress: a present and future crisis. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol 19, pp. 133– 147. Ryu, K. and Jang, S. (2008). DINESCAPE: A scale for customers’ perception of dining environments. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol 11, No 1, pp. 2–22. Salami, C. and Ajobo, R. (2012). Consumer perceptions about fast food restaurants in Asaba. Global journal of management and business research, Vol 12, No 1, pp 75–81 Schaufeli, W., (2015). Coping with job stress. International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavorial Sciences. UK, pp.902-904 Schnall, L. (2009). The relationship between job strain workplace diastolic blood pressure, and left ventricular mass index. Journal of American Medical Association. pp. 1929–1935 Smith, A., Brice, C., Collins, A., McNamara, R. and Matthews, V. (2000). Scale of occupational stress: a further analysis of the impact of demographic factors and type of job. UK: Lancaster University. Spielberger, C. (2010). State–trait anxiety inventory. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology,Vol. 1, 4thEdition. UK: Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Strank J. (2005). Stress at work: Management and prevention. Amesterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Stranks, J. (2005). Stress at work. British Library Cataloguing Publication Data. Tan, Q., Oriade, A. and Fallon, P. (2012). Service quality and customer satisfaction in Chinese fast food sector: A Proposal for CFFRSERV. An International Journal of Akdeniz University Tourism Faculty. Advances in Hospitality and Tourism Research (AHTR), Vol 2, No 1, pp. 30–53. Tanvir, M., Hussain, A. and Janjua, S. (2011). A remedy based concept: Impact of encounter service, culture and employees training on customers

101

References satisfaction of hospitality industry. Interdisciplinary Journal Contemporary Research in Business, Vol 3, No 2, pp. 1237–1247.

of

Varca, P. (2009). Work stress and customer service delivery, The Journal of Services Marketing. pp. 229–239. Wade, D. (2006). Successful restaurant management from vision to execution, Thomson Delmar Learning. Walker, J. and Buck, D. (2007). The restaurant: From concept to operation. Wallace, M. (2003). OSH implications of shift work and irregular hours of work: guidelines for managing shift work. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Development, p. 14. Walter, U., Edvardsson, B. and Ostrom, A. (2010). Drivers of customers' service experiences: A study in the restaurant industry. Managing Service Quality, Vol 20, No 3, pp. 236–258. Wattanakamolchai, S. (2008). The evaluation of service quality by socially responsible customers. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Wu, Y., and Shih, K. (2010). The effects of gender role on perceived job stress. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol 6, No 2, p. 74.

101

Appendix

Appendix No. (1): Employees’ Questionnaire Form

Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management Hotel Management Department

Dear employee, This form is a part of the master thesis at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University. The purpose of this form is to measure the relationship between job stress and service quality in QuickService Restaurants in Greater Cairo. Please complete this form and your answers are strictly confidential and will be used for statistical purposes only.

Thank you

XVI


Part 1: Questionnaire form Note: (1) = Strongly disagree; (2) = Disagree; (3) = Neutral; (4) = Agree; (5) = Strongly Agree. Please tick the number that best indicates your response. No. 1. 2. 3.

Construct Role

4. 5. 1.

Change

2. 3. 1.

Demand

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2.

Control

Managerial Support

3. 4. 1. 2. 3.

Staff Support

4. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Relationship

Service Quality

Statement

1

2

3

4

5

I am clear what is expected of me at work I know how to go about getting my job done I am clear what my duties and responsibilities are I am clear about the goals and objectives for my department I understand how my work fits into the overall aim of the organization I have sufficient opportunities to question managers about change at work Staffs are always consulted about change at work When changes are made at work, I am clear how they will work out in practice Different groups at work demand things from me that are hard to combine I have unachievable deadlines I have to neglect some tasks because I have too much to do I am unable to take sufficient breaks I am pressured to work long hours I have to work very fast I have unrealistic time pressures I can decide when to take a break I have a say in my own work speed I have a choice in deciding how I do my work I have a choice in deciding what I do at work My working time can be flexible I am given supportive feedback on the work I do I can rely on my line manager to help me out with a work problem I can talk to my line manager about something that has upset or annoyed me about work My line manager encourages me at work If work gets difficult, my colleagues will help me I get help and support I need from colleagues I receive the respect at work I deserve from my colleagues My colleagues are willing to listen to my work-related problems I am subject to personal harassment in the form of unkind words or behavior There is friction or anger between colleagues Relationships at work are strained I have a good attitude and willing to talk to the customers I make customers feel special when I dealing with them. I can answer the customers’ questions completely. I provide the service exactly as the customers’ ordered it I provide the service for the customers’ in the time promised I have to provide prompt and quick service. I am courteous and friendly with the customers.

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

XVII


Part 2: Personal Data 1) Your gender is: [ ] Male

[ ] Female

2) Your age is: [ ] Less than 21

[ ] 21 up to 30

[ ] 30 up to 40

[ ] More than 40

3) Marital status: [

] Single

[

] Married

[

] Married with children

4) Please indicate your level of education: [ ] Secondary school or below

[

] University degree

[ ] others (please specify) …………………………………………………………………………… 5) How long have you been employed by the restaurant? [

] Less than 1 year

[ ] Year up to 3 years

[

] 3 years up to 5 years

[ ] More than 5 years

6) Type of restaurant: ]

[ Pizza restaurant

]

[ Chicken restaurant

]

[ Burger restaurant

[

] others (please specify)

................................................................................................................ ......

XVIII

‫الملخص العربى‬ ‫الملخص العربى‬ ‫قياس العالقة بين الضغط الوظيفى وجودة الخدمة فى مطاعم الخدمة السريعة‬ ‫يقاس نجاح المنظمة فى تحقيق أهدافها بمجموعة من المتغيرات‪ ،‬وتعتبر ضغوط العمل‬ ‫جزءا مهما من هذه المتغيرات‪ .‬ويتسم العصر الحديث بتزايد ضغوط العمل على األفراد‪ ،‬األمر‬ ‫الذي دفع العديد من المنظمات والمؤسسات إلى العمل على مواجهة تلك الضغوط بما يضمن لها‬ ‫البقاء واإلستمرار‪ ،‬مما يساعدعلى تحسين األداء و زيادة الفعالية وتعزيز اإلنتماء للمنظمة‪.‬‬ ‫ومن أهم المؤسسات التى إتجهت نحو الحد من ضغوط العمل فى اآلونة األخيرة هى‬ ‫مؤسسات الضيافة منها الفنادق والمطاعم بوجه عام ومطاعم الخدمة السريعة بوجه خاص والتي‬ ‫إهتمت بتحديد أسباب ضغوط العمل لما له من أثر كبير على تقليل أداء الموظفين وجودة‬ ‫الخدمة واإلنتاجية وغير ذلك‪ ،‬حيث يقضى الموظف معظم وقته فى مطاعم الخدمة السريعة‪ ،‬مما‬ ‫يفرض عليه نوعا من القلق أو الخوف نتيجة العديد من العوامل مثل‪ :‬التعامل مع الفئات‬ ‫المختلفة من العمالء ورؤسائه فى العمل‪ ،‬التأقلم على إستخدام اآلالت الحديثة والمستجدات فى‬ ‫إسلوب العمل وانجاز المهام المكفولة في األوقات المحددة وعدم الشعور باإلستقرار الوظيفي‬ ‫وعدم وضوح التوصيف الوظيفي في بعض األحيان‪ ،‬كل ذلك يخلق لديه ضغط وظيفى يقلل من‬ ‫قدرته على إنجاز العمل‪.‬‬ ‫و قد ال يشعر جميع الموظفين بالضيق والتوتر من ضغوط العمل بل قد يستجيب بعضهم‬ ‫بشكل إيجابي و يشعرون بالتحدي و لكن زيادة التوتر إلى مستويات عالية يؤدي إلى نتائج سلبية‬ ‫مثل إصابات العمل و المرض و التغيب عن العمل مما قد يؤدى الى رفع تكلفة العمالة و تدل‬ ‫البحوث العلمية على أن مستويات التوتر العاليه لها نتائج سلبية على الصحة الجسدية والسعادة‬ ‫النفسية وعلى حسن األداء في العمل‪ .‬وضغوط العمل هي اإلنعكاس السلبي والضار على صحة‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫الملخص العربى‬ ‫اإلنسان النفسية والعضوية نتيجة للمتطلبات المتزايدة في بيئة العمل والتي تفوق قدرة الشخص‬ ‫على العطاء في الكثير من األحيان‪.‬‬

‫أهداف الدراسة‪:‬‬ ‫تهدف‬

‫لدفالةدا لدددا ادعال لدبي ددا غداا لديد و لدد ااخا ة د قد لدفف دا لد ف ددا دا‬

‫ددع‬

‫لدفف ا لدسريبا ا خيل‪:‬‬ ‫‪ ‬قالةا لألقغاعت لد تبل ا غي ط لدب ل ة قد لدفف ا ا‬ ‫‪ ‬تص ا ةت زيع إةتباعن لا لد اخاا ا‬

‫ع‬

‫ع‬

‫لدفف ا لدسريبا‪.‬‬

‫لدفف ا لدسريبا ا أ ل اعال لدبي ا‬

‫غاا ض ط لدب ل ة قد لدفف ا‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬ةضع ج‬

‫ا دا لدت يداعت دت لادل ضد ط لدب دل ةتجسداا د قد لدفف دا دا‬

‫دع‬

‫لدفف ا لدسريبا‪.‬‬ ‫وقد قسمت الدارسة إلى خمس فصول على النحو األتى‪:‬‬ ‫الفصل األول ‪:‬المقدمة‬ ‫فى هذا الفصل تم إستعراض مقدمة عامة عن موضوع الدراسة‪ ،‬أبعادها‪ ،‬هيكلها وأهدافها‪.‬‬ ‫الفصل الثانى ‪:‬الدراسات المرجعیة‬ ‫إستعرض هذا الفصل بعض المراجع المتعلقة بموضوع الدراسة من كتب ودوريات ومقاالت‪ ،‬و‬ ‫قد تضمن هذا الفصل ثالثة أجزاء رئيسية هم على النحو التالى‪:‬‬ ‫الجزء االول‬

‫نظرة عامة عن مطاعم الخدمة السريعة‪.‬‬

‫الجزء الثانى‬

‫نظرة عامة عن الضغط الوظيفي‪.‬‬

‫الجزء الثالث‬

‫نظرة عامة عن جودة الخدمة فى الضيافة‪.‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫الملخص العربى‬ ‫الفصل الثالث ‪:‬اإلطار المنهجى للدراسة‬

‫يحتووى هوذا الفصول علوى تحديود مجتموع الد ارسوة وحجوم العينوة ونووع العينوة عينوة مالئموة‬ ‫‪ ( convenience sample‬ووسوائل البحوث والطورق اإلحصوائية المسوتخدمة مون حيوث الد ارسوة‬ ‫التفصيلية وقد تم إستخدام إستمارات اإلستبيان حيث تم توزيع عدد ‪ 033‬إستمارة علوى العواملين فوى‬ ‫مطاعم الخدمة السريعة‪ ،‬كان من بينهوا ‪ 182‬إسوتمارة فقوط صوالحة للتحليول‪ .‬وكوان الهودف الرئيسوى‬ ‫مون قائموة اإلستقصواء هوو قيواس العالقوة بوين الضوغط الووظيفى وجوودة الخدموة فوى مطواعم الخدموة‬ ‫الس وريعة‪ .‬وقوود تووم معالجووة البيانووات بتسووتخدام أسوواليب اإلحصوواء الوصووفى والتبوواين بواسووطة حزمووة‬ ‫البورامج اإلحصوائية للعلووم األجتماعيوة )‪ (SPSS‬بواسوطة الحاسووب اإلصودار ‪ .13‬أيضوا إسوتخدام‬ ‫النظووام اإلحص ووائى )‪ (AMOS‬األص وودار ‪ 13‬وذلووك إلختب ووار ص ووالحية نموووذل الض ووغط ال وووظيفى‬ ‫وجودة الخدمة‪ ،‬والتحقق من الفرضيات الموضوعة‪.‬‬ ‫الفصل الرابع ‪:‬النتائج والمناقشة‬

‫فى هذا الفصل تم إستعراض وتحليل النتائج التى تم التوصل إليها من الدراسة الميدانية‪ .‬وقد‬ ‫أوضحت مناقشة نتائج إستمارات اإلستقصاء األتى‪:‬‬ ‫أوال‪ :‬من خالل مراجعة اإل ختبارات فى الفصل السابق نجد عند إختبار الفرضية الرئيسية األولى‬ ‫بفروعها السبعة بتستخدام (‪ )AMOS‬اإلصدار ‪ 13‬ودرجة الداللة اإلحصائية ما يلى‪:‬‬ ‫أثار ضغوط العمل ليست سلبية بالضرورة‪ .‬وهى تعتبر أيضا أم ار ضروريا للغاية في مكان‬ ‫العمل‪ .‬وكشفت هذه الدراسة أن زيادة ضغوط العمل من الحد المعقول تؤدي إلى تقليل جودة‬ ‫الخدمة في مطاعم الخدمة السريعة‪ .‬لذا يحتال مديرى المطاعم الحفاظ على المستويات المثلى‬ ‫من ضغوط العمل في مكان العمل‪ .‬ويتم تحديد النتائج الرئيسية لهذه الدراسة على النحو التالي‪:‬‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫الملخص العربى‬ ‫‪ ‬كشفت الدراسة أن هناك عالقة بين متطلبات العمل وجودة الخدمة‪ ،‬فعند زيادة متطلبات‬ ‫العمل عبء العمل) عن الحد المعقول يؤدى ذلك الى تقليل جودة الخدمة‪ .‬وتفسر هذه‬ ‫النتيجة حيث أن العاملين بمطاعم الخدمة السريعة يعملون لفترات طويلة وأيضا يطلب‬ ‫من العاملين أكثر من طلب فى وقت واحد‪ .‬وقد قدمت هذه الدراسة حل لهذه المشكلة من‬ ‫خالل تصميم العمل بطريقة مناسبة للعاملين ومعرفة إحتياجات العاملين من التدريب‬ ‫واأللتزام بعدد ساعات العمل‪ .‬عالوة على ذلك فقد أظهرت الدراسة أن إشراك العاملين‬ ‫وأخذ رأيهم فى كيفية تصميم العمل والق اررات المتعلقة بالعمل يؤدى ذلك إلى رفع جودة‬ ‫الخدمة‪ .‬كذلك فقد أظهرت الدراسة أن مساعدة الزمالء داخل العمل إلى بعضهم البعض‬ ‫وتشجيعهم واألست ماع إلى مشكالتهم المتعلقة بالعمل ومحاولة حلها كل ذلك يؤدى إلى‬ ‫رفع مستوى جودة الخدمة‪.‬‬ ‫ثانيا‪ :‬عند إختبار الفرضية الثانية بفروعها الستة تبين أنه وفقا لقاعدة القرار الخاصة بتختبار‬ ‫‪ )Mann-Whitney‬تم إستنتال ما يلى‪:‬‬ ‫‪ ‬أظهرت النتائج أن العاملين اإلناث يشعرون بمستوى عالى من ضغوط العمل مقارنة مع‬ ‫نظرائهم من الذكور‪ .‬هذه النتيجة جاءت على عكس دراسة سابقة في تقييم ضغوط‬ ‫العمل‪.‬‬ ‫أما فيما يتعلق بباقى الفرضيات من الفرضية الرئيسية الثانية فكانت النتائج وفقا القرار الخاصة‬ ‫بتختبار )‪ )Kruskal Wallis-Test‬ت إةتنتعج ع يلا‪:‬‬ ‫‪ ‬أظهرت النتائج أن الموظفين الذين يعملون في مطاعم الدجال والبيت از يشعرون بمستوى‬ ‫عالى من الضغط الوظيفي‪.‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫الملخص العربى‬ ‫‪ ‬كما أظهرت النتائج أن الموظفين األصغر سنا يشعرون بمستوى عالى من الضغط‬ ‫الوظيفي‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬عالوة على ذلك‪ ،‬أظهرت النتائج أن الموظفين أصحاب المؤهالت العليا يشعرون‬ ‫بمستوى عالى من الضغط الوظيفي بالمقارنة مع زمالئهم من حملة المؤهالت األقل‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬كشفت النتائج أيضا إلى أن األشخاص ذوى الخبرة القليلة يشعرون بمستوى عالى من‬ ‫الضغط الوظيفى أكثر من الموظفين أصحاب الخبرات هذه النتيجة تتعارض مع ما‬ ‫توصلت إليه بعض الدراسات السابقة وتبين أن عدد السنوات ال تعد عامل هام فى تقليل‬ ‫الضغط الوظيفى‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬وأظهرت نتائج الدراسة أن الموظفين العازبين يتعرضون لمستوى عالى من الضغط‬ ‫الوظيفى على عكس الموظفين المتزوجين‪ .‬هذه النتيجة تتعارض مع دراسة سابقة تبين‬ ‫أن الموظفين غير المتزوجين يتعرضون لمستوى أقل من الضغط الوظيفى وأيضا دراسة‬ ‫أظهرت أن المتزوجين يتعرضون لمستوى عالى من الضغوط الوظيفية‪.‬‬ ‫الفصل الخامس ‪:‬الملخص والتوصیات‬ ‫الحد من الضغوط الوظيفيوة هوو مسوألة مهموة لوادارة الجيودة‪ ،‬ويتطلوب ببسواطة اشوتراك اإلدارة‬ ‫والموظفين معا من أجل الصالح العام‪ ،‬وأيضا تساعد الموظفين على التمتوع بعملهوم أكثور وتحسوين‬ ‫جوودة الخودمات المقدمووة للعموالء‪ .‬المطواعم بحاجووة إلوى العمول علووى خلوق بيئوة عموول صوحية خاليووه‬ ‫من الضغوط الوظيفية‪.‬ارتكا از على المراجع التى تم إستعراضها ونتائج البحث الميداني‪ ،‬تم التوصول‬ ‫إلى مجموعة من التوصيات وفيما يلى شرح ألهم التوصيات‪:‬‬ ‫توصيات إلدارة المطاعم‬

‫‪5‬‬

‫الملخص العربى‬ ‫‪ ‬لكووى يووتم الحوود موون الضووغوط المتعلقووة بمطالووب العموول‪ ،‬وخاصووة للعوواملين األصووغر سوونا‪،‬‬ ‫يتعو ووين علو ووى موووديري مطو وواعم الخدموووة الس و وريعة الموازنوووة بو ووين متطلبوووات العمو وول ومهو ووارات‬ ‫الموظف وقدراتة‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬ينبغي على مديري مطاعم الخدمة السوريعة‪ ،‬وخاصوة فوي مطواعم البيتو از ومطواعم الودجال‪،‬‬ ‫إش وراك الموووظفين خصوصووا األصووغر سوونا عنوود إتخوواذ الق و اررات وتشووجيعهم علووى تط وووير‬ ‫مهاراتهم حتى تساعدهم على القيام بهام العمل‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬يتعين على مديري مطاعم الخدمة السريعة تصميم نظام لدعم مووظفيهم‪ .‬السويما‪ ،‬تعلويمهم‬ ‫أساسيات العمل حتى يتثنى لهم القيوام بعمهلوم دون ضوغط‪ ،‬اواعطوائهم تغذيوة مرتودة بصوورة‬ ‫منتظمة لتحسين جودة الخدمات المقدمة للعمالء‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬يجووب علووى مووديري مطوواعم الخدمووة الس وريعة تعزيووز السوولوكيات اإليجابيووة فووي العموول وذلووك‬ ‫لتجنب الخالفات خصوصا للمووظفين األصوغر سونا‪ .‬ويمكون تحقيوق ذلوك مون خوالل وجوود‬ ‫سياسات اواجراءات متفق عليها لمنع السلوكيات الغير مقبوله‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬ينبغى على مديري مطاعم الخدمة السوريعة إعطواء المووظفين التوصويف الووظيفى الخواص‬ ‫بهم‪ ،‬حتى يتمكنوا من فهم ما هو متوقع منهم ومساعدتهم على أن يكونوا أكثر تنظيما‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬يتع ووين عل ووى م ووديري مط وواعم الخدم ووة السو وريعة تزوي وود الم وووظفين‪ ،‬وخاص ووة األص ووغر س وونا‪،‬‬ ‫بالمعلومووات ح ووول التغييو ورات داخ وول العم وول وذل ووك لتعو وريفهم أس ووباب تل ووك التغييو ورات‪ ،‬وأثره ووا‬ ‫المحتموول علوويهم فووي الوقووت المناسووب‪ .‬باإلضووافة إلووى ذلووك‪ ،‬يجووب إج وراء توودريب حووال أى‬ ‫تغييرات داخل العمل‪.‬‬

‫‪6‬‬

‫الملخص العربى‬ ‫‪ ‬ينبغ ووي عل ووى م ووديري مط وواعم الخدم ووة السو وريعة تحس ووين العالق ووة ب ووين الم وووظفين وذل ووك م وون‬ ‫خ ووالل عم وول أنش ووطة ترفيهي ووة ومناقش ووات ومس ووابقات ب ووين اإلدارات اواعط ووائهم فتو ورات ارح ووة‬ ‫منتظمة بين ساعات العمل‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ‬يج ووب عل ووى م ووديري مط وواعم الخدم ووة السو وريعة تمك ووين اواشو وراك م وووظفيهم ف ووي عملي ووة ص وونع‬ ‫الق اررات المتعلقة بعملهم‪.‬‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫كلية السياحة والفنادق‬ ‫قسم اإلدارة الفندقية‬

‫قياس العالقة بين الضغط الوظيفى وجودة الخدمة فى مطاعم الخدمة السريعة‬ ‫رسالة مقدمة الستيفاء متطلبات الحصول على درجة الماجستير فى إدارة الفنادق‬

‫مقدم من‬ ‫محمد يوسف ابراهيم هالل‬ ‫بكالوريوس إدارة الفنادق‪3102 ،‬‬

‫إشراف‬ ‫أ‪.‬د ‪ /‬عالء عبد الجواد محمد الطنطاوى‬ ‫أستاذ دكتور بقسم اإلدارة الفندقية‬ ‫كلية السياحة والفنادق‬ ‫جامعة حلوان‬

‫أ‪.‬م‪.‬د ‪ /‬تامر محمد عباس‬ ‫أستاذ مساعد بقسم اإلدارة الفندقية‬ ‫كلية السياحة والفنادق‬ ‫جامعة حلوان‬

‫‪3107‬‬