An-Najah National University 

Faculty of Graduate Studies 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing the Impact of Work Stress 

on the Performance of the Palestinian 

Transportation Ministry’s Staff in 

West Bank 

 

 
By 

 Mahran I. Quzah 

 

 

Supervisor 

Dr. Yahya Saleh 

 

 

 

This Thesis is Submitted in a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements 

for the Degree of Master of Engineering Management, Faculty of 

Graduate Studies, An-Najah National University, Nablus-Palestine. 

2016 



II 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing the Impact of Work Stress on the 

Performance of the Palestinian Transportation 

Ministry’s Staff in West Bank 

 

By 

 Mahran Ibrahim Quzah 

 

This thesis was defended successfully on 4 / 12 /2016 and approved by: 

 

Defence Committee Members                     Signature 

Dr. Yahya Saleh /Supervisor                       …...……………. 

Dr. Suhail Sultan /External Examiner                         ………………… 

Dr. Ayham Jaaron /Internal Examiner                       ………………… 



III 

Dedication 

To Allah, My Lord and my Creator, 

To Prophet Mohammed (May Allah bless and grant him), My Teacher and 

Messenger, 

To my Palestine, Moreover, all martyrs, prisoners and injured the icon of 

sacrifice, 

To my Parents, Ibrahim and Najah, who raised me to be the person I am 

today. 

To my Parents in law, Mohammed and Siham, who prayed Allah for me to 

be the best. 

To my Love, Salsabeel, who has been a continual source of support, help 

and encouragement over the graduate. 

To my brothers and sisters, 

To my friends and colleagues, 

To my sons, Izz Eldin, Laith and Majd. 

To All people in my life, who touch my heart, encourage and support me. 

I dedicate this research. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



IV 

Acknowledgement 

I would like to express my unlimited appreciation to my thesis advisor 

Dr. Yahya Saleh, for his continual encourage, help, support and his major 

efforts in guidance during his invaluable supervision. Thanks, are also due 

to my thesis committee members, for their comments, notes, cooperation and 

deductive criticism. 

 In addition, I would like to thank the staff of Ministry of 

Transportation. 

In addition, special thanks are due to Directorate of Computer and 

Technology, who helped me in finishing my thesis. 

In addition, special thanks are due to my wife Salsabeel, who helped 

me to check and review my thesis’ English. 

I dedicate this humble work to my father, my mother and my wife and 

to all my family for their unlimited encouragement and support. 

 

Big Thanks for all 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



V 

 تحمل عنوان أنا الموقع أدناه مقدم الرسالة التي

 

 “Assessing the Impact of Work Stress on the 

Performance of the Palestinian Transportation 

Ministry’s Staff in West Bank” 

 

شارة مت اإلأفر بأن ما اشتملت عليه هذه الرسالة إنما هو نتاج جهدي الخاص، باستثناء ما ت

رجة علمية أو دإليه حيثما ورد، وأن هذه الرسالة ككل، أو أي جزء منها لم يقدم من قبل لنيل أية 

 بحث علمي أو بحثي لدى أية مؤسسة تعليمية أو بحثية أخرى.

 

Declaration 

The work provided in this thesis, unless otherwise referenced, is the 

researcher’s own work, and has not been submitted elsewhere for any other 

degree or qualification. 

 

 مهران إبراهيم قوزح :اسم الطالب

 

Student Name: 

 :التوقيع

 

 Signature: 

 :Date 4/12/2016 :التاريخ
 

 

 

 



VI 

Table of Contents 
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................... IV 
Declaration ................................................................................................................................. V 
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... VI 
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... VIII 
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ IX 
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... XI 
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... XII 
Chapter One .............................................................................................................................. 1 
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................ 1 
1.2 Ministry of Transportation (MOT) ................................................................................. 2 
1.3 Problem Definition ............................................................................................................ 4 
1.4 The Research Objectives................................................................................................... 5 
1.5 The Research Questions .................................................................................................... 5 
1.6 The Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 6 
1.7 The Research Variables .................................................................................................... 7 
1.8 The Research Significance ................................................................................................ 7 
1.9 Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................... 8 
1.10 Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................. 8 
Chapter Two ............................................................................................................................ 10 
Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 10 
2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 10 
2.2 Staff Performance............................................................................................................ 10 
2.3 Work Stress ...................................................................................................................... 12 

2.3.1 Theories of Stress ................................................................................................ 17 
2.3.2 Role Ambiguity (Concept) .................................................................................. 20 
2.3.3 Role Conflict ........................................................................................................ 21 
2.3.4 Workload ............................................................................................................. 22 
2.3.5 Work Environment ............................................................................................. 22 
2.3.6 Staff Performance and Work stress .................................................................. 22 

2.4 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................... 24 
2.5 Conceptual Model ........................................................................................................... 27 
Chapter Three ......................................................................................................................... 29 
Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 29 
3.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 29 
3.2 Methodological Framework ........................................................................................... 29 
3.3 The Population and Sample ............................................................................................ 29 
3.4 Design of the Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 31 
3.5 Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................... 32 

3.5.1 Validity ................................................................................................................. 32 
3.5.2 Reliability ............................................................................................................. 34 

3.6 Questionnaires Distribution and Data Processing ........................................................ 35 
3.7 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 36 
Chapter Four ........................................................................................................................... 38 
Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing .................................................................................. 38 
4.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 38 
4.2 Demographics' Characteristics for Respondents ......................................................... 38 
4.3 Analysis the Areas of Research ...................................................................................... 42 

4.3.1 Measuring Correlation Coefficients .................................................................. 42 



VII 
4.3.2 Data analysis and interpretation. ....................................................................... 47 

4.4 Hypotheses testing ........................................................................................................... 80 
4.4.1 First Hypothesis ................................................................................................... 81 
4.4.2 Second Hypotheses .............................................................................................. 91 
4.4.3 Third Hypotheses ................................................................................................ 92 
4.4.4 Fourth Hypotheses .............................................................................................. 93 

4.5 The Results Discussion .................................................................................................. 103 
Chapter Five .......................................................................................................................... 105 
The Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 105 
5.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................ 105 
5.2 The Results and Summary............................................................................................ 105 
5.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 109 
5.4 Research Contribution .................................................................................................. 110 
5.5 Future Research ............................................................................................................ 110 
References .............................................................................................................................. 112 

English References ............................................................................................................ 112 
Web Sites ............................................................................................................................ 126 
Arabic References ............................................................................................................. 128 

Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 130 
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................ 130 
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................ 135 
Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….135 

 ب ......................................................................................................................................... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



VIII 

List of Figures 
Figure 1 the Selye's GAS 1976 (Selye, 1976). ....................................... 18 
Figure 2 Transactional Model of Stress and Coping of Richard Lazarus 

(1976) (Philipp Guttmann, 2015)........................................................... 20 
Figure 3 The Yerkes-Dodson Curve ...................................................... 24 
Figure 4 Conceptual Model (the researcher built this model) ................ 27 
Figure 6 Normality test values of the workload field ........................... 144 
Figure 7 Normality test values of the work environment field ............. 144 
Figure 8 Normality test values of the Role Conflict field ..................... 145 
Figure 9 Normality test values of the Job Role Ambiguity field .......... 145 
Figure 10 Normality test values of the Unsuitable Role field. .............. 146 
Figure 11 Normality test values of the Career Path field ..................... 146 
Figure 12 Normality test values of the Technology field ..................... 147 
Figure 13 Normality test values of the Performance Evaluation field .. 147 
Figure 14 Normality test values of the Internal Work Stress field........ 148 
Figure 15 Normality test values of the External Work Stress field ...... 148 
Figure 16 Normality test values of the Performance field .................... 149 
Figure 17 Gender of respondents ......................................................... 149 
Figure 18 Age Distribution of Respondents ......................................... 150 
Figure 19 Marital Status of Respondents ............................................. 150 
Figure 20 Academic Qualifications of Respondents ............................ 151 
Figure 21 Experience Distribution of Respondents .............................. 151 
Figure 22 Position Distribution of Respondents .................................. 152 
Figure 23 Work Place Distribution of Respondents ............................. 152 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 



IX 

List of Tables 
Table 1 the MOT's staff distributed and the research sample ........................... 30 
Table 2 the questionnaire structure ................................................................... 31 
Table 3  Likert Scale ......................................................................................... 32 
Table 4 Weighted mean of Likert Scale (Izz, 2008) ......................................... 32 
Table 5 the Arbitrators Names .......................................................................... 33 
Table 6 Reliability Statistics ............................................................................. 34 
Table 7the Cronbach's Alpha for the all research fields ................................... 35 
Table 8 the Number of Questionnaires Distributed, Returned, Excluded, and 

Valid ..................................................................................................... 36 
Table 9 Gender distribution of respondents ...................................................... 39 
Table 10 Age Distribution of Respondents ....................................................... 39 
Table 11 Marital Status of Respondents ........................................................... 40 
Table 12 Academic Qualifications of Respondents .......................................... 40 
Table 13 Experience Distribution of Respondents ........................................... 41 
Table 14 Position Distribution of Respondents ................................................ 41 
Table 15 Work Place Distribution of Respondents ........................................... 42 
Table 16 internal work stress fields’ correlation coefficients ........................... 43 
Table 17  external work stress fields’ correlation coefficients ......................... 44 
Table 18 the performance fields’ correlation coefficients ................................ 45 
Table 19 all questionnaire fields’ correlation coefficients ................................ 47 
Table 20 Normality tests of all research fields ................................................. 48 
Table 21 the t-test result value for the workload field statements .................... 49 
Table 22 the t-test result value for the work environment field’s statements ... 52 
Table 23 the t-test result value for the role conflict field’s statements ............. 56 
Table 24 the t-test result value for the job role ambiguity field’s statements ... 59 
Table 25 the t-test result value for the unsuitable role field’s statements ......... 62 
Table 26 the t-test result value for the career path field’s statements ............... 64 
Table 27 the t-test result value for the technology field’s statements ............... 67 
Table 28 the t-test result value for the performance evaluation field’s 

statements ............................................................................................. 69 
Table 29 the t-test result value for the external work stress’s statements ......... 72 
Table 30 the t-test result value for the performance’s statements .................... 76 
Table 31 the t-test result value for all research areas field’s statements ........... 79 
Table 32 the Spearman's test for the workload and MOT’s staff performance. 82 
Table 33 the Spearman's test value for the role conflict and MOT’s staff 

performance. ........................................................................................ 83 
Table 34 the Spearman's test for the Job Role Ambiguity and staff's 

performance. ........................................................................................ 84 
Table 35 the Spearman's test for the Unsuitable role and staff's performance. 85 
Table 36 the Spearman's test for the performance evaluation and staff's 

performance. ........................................................................................ 86 



X 

Table 37 the Spearman's test for the career path and staff's performance. ....... 87 
Table 38 the Spearman's test for the work environment and staff's 

performance. ........................................................................................ 88 
Table 39 the Spearman's test for the Technology and staff's performance. ...... 90 
Table 40 the Spearman's test for the External stress and staff's performance. . 91 
Table 41 the Spearman's test for the Work stress and staff's performance. ...... 93 
Table 42 the t- test value - Gender .................................................................... 95 
Table 43 the one-way ANOVA test value - Age. ............................................. 96 
Table 44 the t - test value - marital status ......................................................... 97 
Table 45 the one-way ANOVA test value – Qualification ............................... 98 
Table 46 the one-way ANOVA test value – Experience .................................. 99 
Table 47 the one-way ANOVA test value – Position ..................................... 100 
Table 48 the t - test value - Work Place .......................................................... 102 
Table 50 the workload statements correlation coefficients ............................. 135 
Table 51 the work environment statements correlation coefficients .............. 135 
Table 52 the role conflict statements correlation coefficients ........................ 136 
Table 53 the job role ambiguity statements correlation coefficients .............. 136 
Table 54 the unsuitable role statements correlation coefficients .................... 137 
Table 55 the career path statements correlation coefficients .......................... 137 
Table 56 the technology statements correlation coefficients .......................... 137 
Table 57 the performance evaluation statements correlation coefficients ...... 138 
Table 58 the internal work stress fields’ correlation coefficients ................... 138 
Table 59 the external stress statements correlation coefficients ..................... 138 
Table 60 the performance statements correlation coefficients ....................... 139 
Table 61 Normality test values of the workload field’s statements ................ 139 
Table 62 Normality test values of the work environment fields statements ... 140 
Table 63 Normality tests of Role Conflict field statements ............................ 140 
Table 64 Normality tests of Job Role Ambiguity field statements ................. 141 
Table 65 Normality tests of Unsuitable Role field statements ....................... 141 
Table 66 Normality tests of Career Path field statements ............................... 141 
Table 67 Normality tests of Technology field statements .............................. 142 
Table 68 Normality tests of Performance Evaluation field statements ........... 142 
Table 69 Normality tests of External work stress field statements ................. 142 
Table 70 Normality tests of Performance field statements ............................. 143 

 

 

 

 

 



XI 

Abbreviations 
ANOVA Analysis of Variance. 

CUPE Canadian Union of Public Employees 

GAS General Adaptation Syndrome. 

GDP Gross Domestic Product. 

GPC General Personnel Council. 

IT Information Technology. 

MBI Maslach Burnout Inventory.  

MHPSS Mental Health Professional Scale.  

MOT Ministry of Transportation (Transportation Ministry). 

OSI Occupational Stress Inducers. 

PWSQ Psychosocial Work Environment and Stress  

Questionnaire. 

SAQFHN Stress Assessment Questionnaire for Hospital Nurses. 

Sig Significant. 

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences. 

Std. Dev Standard Deviation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



XII 

Assessing the Impact of Work Stress on the Performance of the 

Palestinian Transportation Ministry’s Staff in West Bank 

By 

 Mahran I. Quzah 

Supervisor 

Dr. Yahya Saleh 

Abstract 

The Ministry of Transportation (MOT) is one of the important and 

dynamic public service ministries in Palestine. Because MOT serves a huge 

number of citizens, whom have high expectations about services quality, it 

is seeking to improve their services quality through studying the factors, 

which affect the staff's performance. Stress seems to be the most important 

factor that affects the performance of staff in workplace. It is defined as a 

natural response during any work or any external situation in life of human 

beings, it is not necessary the worst case; it may have a positive effect when 

it motivates the staff to adapt and improve their performance.   

This research aimed to assess the impact of work stress on the 

performance of the Palestinian Transportation Ministry’s Staff in West 

Bank. For the purpose of this research, descriptive analytic research method 

was used. The research sample was calculated, using Thompson equation, 

(2002). The researcher had distributed 270 questionnaires, which constitutes 

about 56% of all MOT's staff. The 223 questionnaires recovered from total 

distributed questionnaires, which constitutes about 83% of all distributed 

questionnaires.  

This research found that the performance evaluation system, career path, 

work environment, technology and external work stress are stress factors and 

have an impact on the MOT's staff performance. The results show that there 



XIII 

is statistically significant relation between these fields and staff’s 

performance.  

This research recommended that MOT should organize strategies to 

improve work environment, and develop technology, so that will improve 

staff performance. MOT should organize training courses to improve 

knowledge and information about MOT's work procedures, policies and 

rules, so that staff will have clear responsibilities, clear accountabilities and 

clear job tasks. In addition, MOT needs to support and help its staff to avoid 

and isolate external environment from work environment to reduce external 

work stress.  



1 

Chapter One 

 Introduction 

1.1 Overview 

Many researcher have discussed the staff performance and the factors 

affecting it such as stress, many of them talk about work stress impact to 

staff's performance in one way or another such as Gharib et. al., (2016); 

Mansour & Elmorsey, (2016); Gichinga et. al., (2015); Kivimäki & 

Kawachi, (2015); Rizwan et. al., (2014); Ratnawat & Jha, (2014); Nahar et. 

al., (2013) and others.  

According to Folkman & Lazarus (1991), the work stress affect the firms and 

organizations performance. The work stress has impact on any organization 

and staff’s performance and can causes issue when related to health care. 

(Margolis et. al., 1974). Therefore, in the last years, many of the firms, 

organizations and the employers have focused on staff to increase 

performance and to manage and decrease work stress out of practical policies 

and procedures in public sector (Rolfe, 2005). 

Most of organizations find out that the most successful factor is to look after 

the human behavior, which increases organization's attention towards their 

staff and their need. Many researches showed that, the staff's acceptance of 

their work increases their work satisfaction, whereas the uncomfortable work 

environment leads to increase work stress, which affects their performance 

(Gelood, 2008). 



2 

Those researchers interested in studying work stress factors, because the 

work stress has (negative or positive) impact on the human behavior and their 

work performance. There are many different sources of work stress 

internally or externally affecting the staff performance such as missing 

communication between staff, lack of information, workload and work 

environment (Barham, 2006). 

This research has investigated the impact of work stress on the performance 

of Palestinian Ministry of Transportation’s staff working in West Bank. 

More specifically, assessing the impact of work stress on the staff’s 

performance. So, the research focused on that.  

Work stress is one of the most famous factors affecting performance, where 

any work will cause stress; many countries such as USA and Europe try to 

find its cost, and organize many conferences, training, workshops and 

programs to increase understanding of work stress phenomenon (Al-

Darwishee, 2004. Hegan, 1998). 

This research has studied work stress and its effects in behavior and 

performance of the staff generally in organizations and especially in the 

MOT. It has studied the internal work stress in fields of workload, role 

conflict and ambiguity, performance evaluation, career path, work 

environment, technology, and unsuitable role, also the external work stress 

in general and its effects in MOT's staff performance. 

1.2 Ministry of Transportation (MOT) 

The Palestinian ministry of transportation (MOT's headquarters and 13 

Directorates distributed in West Bank) is considered one of the important 



3 

and dynamic ministries that contributes effectively in the GDP, namely, in 

providing job opportunities for a large segment of people. It is also one of 

the important infrastructure sectors. Because of that MOT needs to have an 

effective organizational management that provides a convenient working 

environment for its staff in order to serve and support all Palestinian people. 

The MOT`s vision is "Apply the excellence standards in transportation to 

develop, promote and provide the services with high quality to contribute in 

the development and sustainability of the Palestinian economy ". Moreover, 

the mission of MOT is "We are committed to organize the transport sector, 

to reach advanced, environmental character and secure transfer, by using 

international standards and high quality." (MOT statistics report, 2015). 

In order to work in accordance with its stated vision and mission, the MOT 

should specifically work on achieving the following goals: 

• Access to multimodal transport system according to international 

standards. 

• Improve and update the services provided by the MOT in all areas. 

• Organize the transportation sector. Though, preparing strategic plans for 

the development of transport sector in Palestine. 

• Build database for the MOT to facilitate access to the information 

sources. 

The total ministry staff is about 479 employees as of March 2016, in the 

ministry center and all its’ directorates, distributed in West Bank (GPC 

report, 2011). Moreover, the MOT receives more than 1000 task every day, 

these tasks range from matters concerning renewal, issuance of driver's’ 



4 

licenses, vehicles or workshops transportation and so on. There is internal 

audit to ensure the quality of services provided to customers and ensure the 

implementation of the objectives and the MOT's plan, which causes work 

stress upon MOT's staff (MOT statistics report, 2014). 

1.3 Problem Definition  

The MOT as any other ministry is seeking to improve their services quality 

because their services are very important for the citizens whom deal directly 

with its staff. However, the researcher noticed that most of MOT's staff are 

complaining from working stress all the time, and it has been found that by 

the end of 2014, more than 249800 vehicles had been registered and more 

than 488100 driver’s licenses had been issued. Moreover, hundreds of 

citizens daily visit the offices of MOT`s directorates in all West Bank cities 

to do their works such as issuing or renewing cars licenses (MOT statistics 

report, 2014). 

Take a specific example, the directorate of Ramallah has done in average 

about 500 requests daily (MOT statistics report, 2014), some tasks need 

different approvals and move between departments to be completed. This 

creates ambiguity in some procedures of required requests. As well as the 

auditing of the ministry that continues all the time in order to ensure the 

quality of services and safety procedures. All of these increase the work 

stress upon the staff's performance, which usually leads to slowness of the 

proceedings and the accumulation of requests. 

From all those previous statistics, the research problem came which is 

assessing the impact of work stress on the MOT's staff performance. 



5 

1.4 The Research Objectives 

The main goal of this research is to assess the impact of work stress on the 

staff performance in the Palestinian MOT in The West Bank, to limit the 

impact of work stress and to improve performance, which will help MOT's 

directors and managements achieving the ministry goals and reach its service 

target level.  

Moreover, the staff's performance has direct effect with cost and service 

times, quality and re-work tasks. Therefore, this research aims to achieve the 

following objectives: - 

a) Finding the relationship between MOT’s staff performance and the work 

stress. 

b) Identifying the level of work stress upon MOT’s staff. 

c) Identifying the most affecting factors of work stress on the level of staff 

performance. 

d) Suggesting the suitable strategies, which could be applied by top 

management in MOT to decrease the negative effects of work stress. 

1.5 The Research Questions 

Based on the research objectives, the research is presumed to answer the 

following questions 

A. What are the levels of work stress on the MOT’s staff? 

B. What are the most important factors affecting work stress? 

C. What strategies adopted and/or to be adopted by MOT to reduce the work 

stress in MOT work environment? 



6 

D. Does the work stress level differ depending on the demographic 

characteristics?  

1.6 The Research Hypotheses 

In accordance with research objectives and questions, the research tries to 

test the following hypotheses: 

H1- There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between staff's 

performance and internal work stress factors (role conflict, workload, 

job role ambiguity, performance evaluation, career path, work 

environment, technology, and unsuitable role). 

H1-1  There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between role 

conflict and staff's performance. 

H1-2  There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between workload 

and staff's performance. 

H1-3  There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between job role 

ambiguity (concept) and staff's performance. 

H1-4  There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between 

performance evaluation and staff's performance.  

H1-5  There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between the career 

path and staff's performance.  

H1-6  There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between the work 

environment and staff's performance. 

H1-7  There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between 

Technology and staff's performance. 



7 

H1-8  There is a negative relationship (at 5% significance level) between 

unsuitable role and staff's performance. 

H2- There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between staff's 

performance and external work stress. 

H3- There is no relationship (at 5% significance level) between 

performance and work stress (internal and external work stress). 

H4- There is difference (at 5% significance level) about performance and 

work stress according to the demographic characteristics (gender, age, 

marital status, qualification, experience, position, work place.). 

1.7 The Research Variables 

Based on the research background, there is independent and dependent 

variables for this research as the following: 

a. Independent Variables: Work stress which has been included in this 

research 

1. Internal work stress (role conflict, workload, job role ambiguity, 

performance evaluation, career path, work environment, technology 

and unsuitable role). 

2. External work stress. 

b. Dependent Variable: Staff’s Performance.  

1.8 The Research Significance 

The significance of the research emerges from the government strategy, 

especially for MOT which wants to improve the quality of its services for 

citizens and to develop staff`s skills and experiences to increase their 



8 

performance. In particular, MOT needs to care about staff behavior which 

lead it to focus on the factors that affect the staff such as work stress. This 

has pushed it to manage the work stress to avoid its side effects upon the 

staff, their behaviors and actions. 

This research is one of few researches in Palestine that has treated with work 

stress in governmental ministries such as MOT because most of the previous 

research which dealt with subjects like this was in fields of health and 

education. Therefore, it will be very useful for other researchers and for those 

whom will be interested in government staff performance such as ministries, 

staff, donors and academics. The result of the research will be one of the 

important inputs for strategic plans of the government and MOT. In addition, 

it will help GPC in order to protect staff rights and duties. 

1.9 Limitations of the Study 

This research has some limitations, which could be summarized mainly in 

the study population and sample, more specifically, the population was 

limited to the staff of MOT and its directorates in West Bank; it did not 

include the staff of MOT in Gaza strip. Moreover, it dealt with the problem 

in a specific time. 

1.10 Thesis Structure  

The thesis consists of five chapters.  Chapter one introduces the research, 

problem definition, research objectives, significance, questions and 

hypotheses. Chapter Two presents literature review in work stress and staff 

performance and the relations between them. Chapter Three summarizes the 



9 

research methodology and the used research tools. Chapter Four presents 

data analysis and hypotheses testing results. Chapter Five provides 

conclusions and recommendations of the research. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



10 

Chapter Two 

 Literature Review 

2.1 Overview 

This chapter presents the literature review related to the staff performance 

and work stress. 

2.2 Staff Performance 

Performance is the result of activity (Wheelen & Hunger, 2012). Staff 

performance is considered as an important factor in the growing and success 

of any organization (Khan & Imtiaz, 2012; and Borman, 2004). According 

to Otley (1999), any organization in order to achieve the success and target 

productivity needs to focus on the staff performance. Also, according to 

Sinha (2001), staff’ performance is depending on the willingness and the 

openness of the staff itself on doing their work. Moreover, the author also 

said that by having this willingness and openness of the staff in doing their 

work, it could increase the staff productivity that also leads to the 

performance. On the other hand, the capability of staff to achieve 

organization goals and targets as well as satisfying the expectations of his 

management or achieving the organizational objectives (Gloet, 2006; Lewis, 

1999; Mathis & Jackson, 2011). 

According to Eysenck (1998) staff’s performance is a staff’s ability to the 

performance also including the opportunity and willingness to complete 

tasks as well, which means that the staff will do all effort to complete their 

tasks. 



11 

However, Howell & Hall-Merenda (1999) and Greenberg & Baron (2007), 

defined staff's performance as all about social standing, that it gives a 

positive impact on the relationship in between of the staff's performance and 

also the work position. From these definitions and descriptions, we can say 

that the staff performance is defined as completely doing all tasks and 

responsibilities by staff. also, it is the staff ability to achieve organization's 

goals and satisfy the expectations. 

The staff's performance affected by several factors (Stup, 2003), such as 

work environment, equipment, workload, performance expectation, 

feedback on performance, evaluation system, procedures, policies, 

knowledge, skills and experiences. The author also explained that to get a 

standard performance, the mangers need to guarantee the achieving of 

organization goals by staff through doing their tasks and responsibilities 

completely; mangers need to be able to monitor their staff and help them to 

improve their performance. Moreover, a reward and evaluation system 

should be implemented based on the performance of the staff. This is to 

motivate the staff in order to perform more on their tasks. 

Also, the process of improving staff skills and training them to understand 

and deal with the work stress in order to improve staff's performance. 

According to Bilal et. al., (2014), who studied the level of job stress among 

governmental staffs; it was found that most of the respondents were 

moderately stressful and staff need better understanding about stress to 

improve their performance. So, the government sector needs to plan special 



12 

training courses for staff; it aimed to increase the awareness of stress between 

staff, which help staff to do their best at work positively and optimistically. 

According to Haenisch (2012), who studied the factors affecting the 

performance of state government employees in the United States; it was 

found that the most frequently noted factors limiting performance were 

related to management, poor communications, role conflict, ambiguity, work 

environment, workplace factors and the job itself. 

The staff's performance could be produced with two types of behavior 

(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). The two types of behavior are the task 

performance and the contextual performance (Kiker & Motowidlo, 1999). 

Task performance was pointing to staff activities and behaviors which 

support the goals of the organization. The contextual performance was 

pointing to that performance measures used in selection research and practice 

ignored activities such as persisting, helping, and endorsing organizational 

objectives. The criterion domain consists of task performance as well as 

contextual performance, or behaviors that support the broader psychological 

and social environment in which that technical core must function. (Borman 

& Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo, et. al., 1997). 

2.3 Work Stress  

The social relationship cause stress, so that an individual may afford stress 

because of his social circle, especially when he assumes a danger to his social 

respect (Sohail, 2015).  

Stress has both negative and positive results. Stress is normally a reaction to 

danger. When an individual senses danger, automatically signals are 



13 

transferred to the mind and reaction to that danger is generated. In positive 

sense, stress pulls us towards a necessary reaction and solution against the 

threat posed to us. While in negative sense, stress is a barrier which reduces 

productivity and plays a major role in creating hurdles to achieve our targets 

(Sohail, 2015). In an organization, stress brings behavioral changes which 

ultimately decrease the staff's behavior and performance. 

Work stress is an old problem, but in the last decades it has been given more 

importance than any other time before. It is generally believed that work 

stress has adverse effects on the health of an employee and on the 

organizational health in every sector of employment (Sohail, 2015). The first 

term of stress in biological area was coined by Selye in the 1930s. Selye 

describes stress as the body’s non-specific response to any demand (Selye, 

1976). 

According to Mark (2008), Sohail (2015), and “Workplace Stress” (2016). 

The stress becomes more complex at work environment in several industrial 

countries. With the sizable rise in stress issues, there is large loss in cost, and 

staff are affected personally, such as absentee because of disease, 

psychological health issues, and many other are the results of the work stress. 

The negative results of work stress are pushing the governments to making 

policies, procedures and rules in support the staff because of an increase 

number of the studies and researches spoken about this field. The problems 

created because of work stress are not limited to a particular profession or a 

particular country; it has caused long-term effects everywhere in the world. 



14 

According to Kawakami & Haratani (1999), the impact of work stress on 

physical and growth status of workers is a main issue in the developed 

nations, the experts from the developed countries like European Union, 

Japan and America and even from the developing nations focused on work 

stress and its impact on health of staff. People have views about stress. Some 

of them view that stress is negative feelings which causes depression 

antagonism and hostility. However other people view that stress is a negative 

feelings outcome. The reaction to negative feelings is physiological get 

emotional and behavioral changes such as blood pressure and muscular 

strain. 

Also, some people have positive reaction under stress, and can do different 

tasks in the same time, when they feel that tasks are under their control. The 

boring tasks or no deadlines for tasks will be negative stressed for these 

people, while other people may get enjoyed with that type of tasks, and they 

may have negative stressed by doing different tasks in the same time 

(“Workplace Stress”, 2016). 

Work stress is defined as the physical and mental reactions that show when 

demands don't match with staff abilities, skills, or requirements. The health 

problems and injury can cause from work stress. 

The word stress is being daily used by most of the people but the meaning of 

stress is not clear to them. All the current definitions of stress state that 

people experience stress because of the demands or pressure (Sohail, 2015).   

The work stress in general is something happened naturally in human life 

and normally happens during any work or mission, it depends on the 



15 

individual experience and the ability of the individual to deal with its effects. 

Work stress arises when there is imbalance between the job demands and 

abilities and skills of an employee to deal with these job demands (Blaug et. 

al., 2007). 

According to CUPE (2003), stress is physical and psychological reactions 

for cases that challenge us. these reactions have positive effect which allows 

us to deal with sudden changes, or it may have negative effect that leads us 

to serious negative health outcomes.   

According to Robbins (2004) and Attiyah (2003), stress is a dynamic 

condition in which an individual is confronted with opportunity, constraint 

or demand related to what he desires and for which the outcome is perceived 

to be both uncertain and important.  

In addition, Topper (2007) and Campbell (2006), stated one common 

definition of stress and explained the aspect of stress like an occurrence of 

feelings out of pressure, which happens to a person.  

Whereas Shbeir (2009), defined work stress as a bad feeling that comes as a 

result from a work environment and workload that affects the work 

environment. While Luthans (1992), defined work stress as “an adaptive 

response to an external situation that results in physical, psychological, 

and/or behavioral deviations for organizational participants”. 

Also, Hobfoll (1988), defined stress as a “substantial imbalance between 

environmental demand and the response capability of the focal organism” 

(McGrath, 1970). And Kaplan (1993), used another definition of 

psychological stress “reflects the subject’s inability to forestall or diminish 



16 

perception, recall, anticipation, or imagination of disvalued circumstances, 

those that in reality or fantasy signify great and / or increased distance from 

desirable (valued) experiential states, and consequently, evoke a need to 

approximate the valued states” (Kaplan, 1993). 

Moorhead and Griffen (1998), also defined stress as a person’s adaptive 

response to a stimulus that places physical and psychological demands on a 

person. Similarly, Sherman, Bahlander and Snell (1996), also defined stress 

as any an adjective demand on an individual caused by physical, emotional 

or mental factors that requires coping behavior. Moreover, Bennett (1994), 

defines stress as a wide collection of physical and psychological symptoms 

that results from difficulties experienced by an individual while attempting 

to adopt to an environment. This means that the potential for stress exists 

when an environmental situation presents a demand threatening to exceed a 

person’s capabilities and resources. 

In addition, Taylor Shelley (1995), describes stress as a negative emotional 

experience accompanied by predictable biochemical, physiological, 

cognitive and behavioral changes that are directed toward either altering the 

events or accommodating its effects. 

From these definitions and descriptions, we cannot neglect or avoid the 

impact of work stress in the workplace or even in our life. Some research 

populations have low work stress and some have high work stress which 

negatively effects of their health. There is negative relationship between 

work stress and health of staff (Rahman, 2013). Role conflict, workload, job 

role ambiguity, performance evaluation, career path, work environment, 



17 

technology, unsuitable role and external work stress are observed the most 

important factors work stress in this research.  

Also, we can say that although stress is considered as a natural response 

during any work or any external situation in the life of human beings, it is 

not necessarily a worst case; it may have a positive effect when it motivates 

the staff to adapt and improve his performance.   

Therefore, the definition of stress to be adopted in this research represents 

stress in the situation that affects staff (physically and psychologically). 

Based on the previous researches, work stress comes as a result of many 

factors such as excessive job demands, work environment and the ability of 

staff to adapt with it or because work does not match between staff need of 

resources and capabilities. In other words, stress is the situation of 

relationship between MOT’s staff performance and their environment, 

whether the effect is positive or negative in MOT’s services quality. 

2.3.1 Theories of Stress 

According to El.Baseouney et. al., (2013), the stress theories based on the 

relation between demands (the stressor) and bodily processes (the stress) and 

can be divided into two groups "systemic stress" and "psychological stress". 

Selye (1976), is the pioneer of the first group, which based on physiology 

and psychobiology, and the other group based on cognitive psychology, 

Lazarus (1966 & 1991), Lazarus & Folkman (1984), and McGrath (1982), 

are the pioneers of this group. 



18 

Systemic Stress 

Selye (1976), presented the stress concept in science based on series of 

animal experiments, to observe the stimulus events such as heat, cold, and 

others. According to Selye (1976), the stress is defined as a situation shown 

by a syndrome that consists of all the non-specifically induced changes in a 

biological system. He clarified stress model based on physiology and 

psychology as General Adaptation Syndrome. Selye’s model based on the 

states that any event effects on person's comfort by stressors would go throw 

three steps; Alarm, Resistance and Exhaustion, as depicted in Figure (1). 

 

Figure 1: the Selye's GAS 1976 (Selye, 1976). 
 

Step 1: Alarm 

The alarm or shock step will cause autonomic irritability, the body 

reacts normally upon stress, where in reacts the chemical compounds 

and activates sympathetic nervous system, such as increasing 

adrenaline discharge, and gastro-intestinal ulcerations, to meet the 

changes (threat or danger). 



19 

Step2: Resistance 

Here the organism appears normally, but the chemical compounds 

levels still high in the blood such as glucose, cortisol and adrenalin. 

Which seemingly indicate the organism's adaptation to the stressor. 

Step 3: Exhaustion 

In this step if stresses continue, the exhaustion will start, and body 

drains the resources, with no possible resistance. Then tissue 

damages will appear, until the organism dies. (Thanos et. al., 2010). 

Psychological Stress 

Psychological stress theory is based on two concepts: the appraisal, which 

means the person evaluation of the importance of the changes are happening 

for their well-being (Lazarus, 1993). The appraisal is based on the idea that 

stress as an emotional process depend on actual expectancies that persons 

clear with regard to the importance and outcome of a specific meeting. Also, 

it is very important to explain person characteristics (Krohnea, 2002). 

Moreover, the second is coping which means the persons efforts and actions 

to organize and manage the demands (El.baseouney et. al., 2013). Generality 

coping research build on Folkman and Lazarus (1980), where coping is 

defined as "the cognitive and behavioral efforts which are made to master, 

tolerate, or reduce external and internal demands and conflicts among them." 

According to Lazarus (1991), who defined stress as a relational concept. 

From this definition, we can notice that the stress is presented as a 



20 

relationship between the employees and their environment "cognitive 

appraisal and coping", as shown in Figure (2). 

 

Figure 2: Transactional Model of Stress and Coping of Richard Lazarus (1976) (Philipp 

Guttmann, 2015) 

2.3.2 Role Ambiguity (Concept) 

Role ambiguity is defined in general the case that an employee does not have 

clear definition about his /her role expectations (Rizzo et. al., 1970). 

With this definition, the role ambiguity will happen because of the confusing 

or misunderstanding of job requirements, norms, rules, and procedures 

(Judah, 2011). 

According to Slatterya et. al., (2008), role ambiguity is defined as "the 

existence of the lack of clarity in the roles an employee is expected to fulfill". 



21 

As an employee needs to understand clearly his /her role, not clearly 

knowing may lead to work stress and decrease the job satisfaction. 

Role ambiguity happens when an employee's job, responsibility and 

authority are not clearly known, which will lead to afraid the employee to 

work or carry responsibility for any working (Jones, 2007). To avoid the role 

ambiguity, the organizations are needed to build a clear job position with 

clear task requirements and descriptions, responsibility and authority. That 

need organized workshop and training to distribute information and 

knowledge to do the work. In general, task requirements are ambiguous 

(Hamilton, 2002). 

2.3.3 Role Conflict 

Role conflict occurs when two or more employees have several opinions 

related to their work, which leads to conflicting expectations and demands, 

then making incompatible decisions (Judah, 2011). Where Rizzo, et. al., 

(1970), defined it as "the incompatibility of requirements and expectations 

from the role, where compatibility is judged based on a set of conditions that 

impact role performance. According to Onyemah (2008), Role conflict is a 

feeling of lost in various ways, with incapable to find a way to make every 

role partner satisfied. 

In general, role conflict is happened in misunderstanding case for the work 

role when employee play multiple roles in the same time. the employee needs 

to reread work description, discuss with their manager, and note what their 

colleagues do (Judah, 2011).  



22 

2.3.4 Workload 

According to Cambridge Business English Dictionary workload defined as 

“the amount of work to be done, especially by a particular person or machine 

in a period of time". Where the work overload is defined as "the situation in 

which someone has too much work to do" (Dictionary.cambridge.org, 2016). 

In addition, according to Cook and Hunsaker (2001), workload defined as 

increase of employee tasks and responsibilities, and some of these tasks need 

high skills and capacities. 

2.3.5 Work Environment 

Work environment is defined as generally all the factors which surrounding 

the employees, it can be composed of physical and moral conditions (Maher, 

2002). 

2.3.6 Staff Performance and Work stress 

A review of the literature reveals the importance of staff behavior and 

performance, where many studies have discussed staff performance, work 

stress and the relation between them. 

According to Rubina et. al., (2008), presented performance as the outcome 

of three factors working together: skill, effort and the nature of work 

environments. Skills include knowledge, abilities, experiences and 

competencies of the staff; effort is the degree of motivation the staff towards 

completing their work; and the nature of work environments is the degree of 

accommodation of these conditions in facilitating the staff's performance.  



23 

Staff under stress cannot exceed or meet the work expectations, because 

stress has hard effects of facing physical, psychological and organizational 

(Khattak et. al., 2011). In service- organizations, the staff in public service 

ministries or organizations are exposed for high level of work stress, which 

affects the staff's performance (Ismail & Hong, 2011). The female staff are 

affected negatively with work stress, which causes negative emotions for 

work and low performance level (Tsaur & Tang, 2012). The generality of 

staff feel that their work is stressful, that in return decreases their 

performance (Shahid, 2012).  

The stress at the work may produce several issues such as social, health, 

mental, and physical, these issues cause bad work performance (Sohail, 

2015). Many factors such as role conflict, workload, role ambiguity, 

unsuitable role, performance evaluation, career path, technology and work 

environment are causing stress at the work. Heavy work stress leads to 

physical and hysterical problems produce bad performance (“Workplace 

Stress”, 2016; Sohail, 2015 & Bakker et. al., 2012). 

According to Salami et. al., (2010) stress directly affects staff performance 

and both of them are mutually related to each other, but there is no life 

without stress. Role conflict, workload, role ambiguity, unsuitable role, 

performance evaluation, career path, technology and work environment are 

the key factors of creating work stress. Because of these factors, staff`s 

belonging to the work will decreases, so it negatively affects the staff's 

performance (Coetzee & Devillier, 2010). 



24 

Many researchers said that the relation between work stress and staff 

performance is negative (Salami el. at., 2010; Imtiaz & Ahmad, 2009). Most 

of the previous researches said that the work stress has negative effect on 

performance (Bashir & Ramay, 2010; Dar et. al., 2011; Kazmi et. al., 2008).  

Other researchers said that the work stress is not always bad for the staff. In 

contrast, they support concept of "good stress", that defined as some level of 

stress may be good for the staff's performance. also, they support that work 

stress doesn’t always have negative effect for organizational performance as 

well as at individual level. So, sometime low work stress is useful for staff's 

performance, but high work stress may harm staff's performance (Khan & 

Imtiaz, 2012; Munir, 2011; Parker & DeCotiis, 1983; Weiss, 1983; Selye, 

1976), as shown in Figure (3).  

 

Figure 3: The Yerkes-Dodson Curve 

2.4 Previous Studies 

A review of the literature reveals the importance of staff behavior and 

performance, where many studies have discussed staff performance, work 



25 

stress and the relation between them Gharib et. al., (2016), Mansour & 

Elmorsey, (2016), Kivimäki & Kawachi, (2015), Ratnawat & Jha, (2014), 

Nahar et. al., (2013), Abdeen, (2010), Abdalkader & Hayajneh, (2008) and 

MIZUNO et. at., (2007). 

Work stress significant has impacts on organization and staff's performance 

and it affects staff's health Gharib et. al., (2016), Mansour & Elmorsey, 

(2016), Gichinga et. at., (2015), Kivimäki & Kawachi, (2015) and Shah et. 

al., (2012). According to Shah et. al., (2012) the impact of stress on staff's 

performance among teaching faculty found a negative relationship between 

organizational structure and staff efficiency while rewards were found to be 

positively correlated to employee efficiency as expected. And Rubina et. al., 

(2008), also found a negative relationship between work stress and staff's 

performance.  

However, the male employees are found to be affected more highly than their 

female counter parts. In other hand, Gharib et. al., (2016), found that the 

research population did not suffering with work stress, where they have 

normal average of workload, role conflict and role ambiguity factors, also 

the result presented that the staff performance was around the average a bit 

high.  

According to Munir (2011), who studied the relationship between work 

stress (such as role ambiguity, workload, homework interface, performance 

evaluation, personal relationship and role conflicts factors) and staff's 

performance; it was found that "role conflict" and "role ambiguity" factors 

have a positive relation with work stress, while the relationship is found to 



26 

be negative between other work stress factors and staff's performance. 

Gharib et. al., (2016), found that workload factor has positive statistical 

effect on staff's performance. While role conflict factor has negative 

statistical effect on staff's performance. Finally, role ambiguity factor does 

not significantly effect on staff's performance.  

Moreover, Imrab et. al., (2013), found that work stress is responsible for 

decreasing the staff's performance for banks. Ahmed & Ramzan (2013), also 

found a negative correlation between work stress and staff's performance i.e. 

as the staff's performance increases the stress should be decreases. According 

to Rizwan et. al., (2014), who found that role conflict and role ambiguity 

have negative association with job satisfaction, and staff's performance.  

According to Anwar (2013), who found that the level of work stress 

experienced by members of the study sample was high in general as a result 

of the nature of work or the ambiguity of the role conflict or the workload. 

Also, the sub-dimensions of work stress (the nature of work, role conflict, 

role ambiguity, workload) on the responding variable (work performance) 

was found to be significant. 

Also, Gharib et. at., (2016); Mansour & Elmorsey, (2016); Ratnawat & Jha, 

(2014); Nahar et. al., (2013); Abdeen (2010); Abdalkader & Hayajneh 

(2008) and MIZUNO et. at., (2007) focused on the sources of work stress 

and its impact on employees, and they have addressed the effects of the 

various work stress factors (such as role conflict, workload, job role 

ambiguity, performance evaluation, career path, work environment, 

technology, and unsuitable role) on the level of staff performance. 

Kivimäki & Kawachi, (2015); Ratnawat & Jha, (2014); Rizwan et. al., 

(2014); Nahar et. al., (2013); Abdeen (2010); Abushaikha & Saca-Hazbou, 



27 

(2009); Kamla-Raj, (2008) and Abdalkader & Hayajneh, (2008), discussed 

the work stress effects on health, burnout, psychological stress and personal 

behavior, more studies also have compared between job stresses on different 

categories of individuals and discussed the difference about personal 

behavior and work stress according to the demographic characteristics 

(gender, age, marital status, qualification, experience, position, work place). 

As appeared in the previous studies, it showed the importance of studying 

work stress, where most of the researchers agreed that there is a relationship 

between work performance and work stress. Moreover, they agreed that any 

work has an effect on the work stress; but they disagreed about the effects of 

work stress level on the performance. Therefore, this research tries to 

identify work stress on MOT’s staff and its effects on their performance.  

2.5 Conceptual Model 

The researcher draws a theoretical framework for the relationship between 

work stress and staff's performance, based on the previous study survey as 

shown in Figure (4). 

 

Figure 4: Conceptual Model (the researcher built this model) 



28 

The model has been developed according to the previous theories that 

estimate the effects of work stress on MOT's staff performance. The 

researcher divided the work stress into internal (role conflict, workload, job 

role ambiguity, performance evaluation, career path, work environment, 

technology, and unsuitable role) and external factors. And demographic 

characteristics. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 



29 

Chapter Three 

 Methodology 

3.1 Overview 

This chapter presents description of the methods and procedures used in the 

research. It discusses the research tools, population, sample and sample 

determination as well as the procedure for data collection and data analysis. 

3.2 Methodological Framework 

This is a descriptive analytic research design, which aimed to answer the 

research questions about the work stress and staff performance level among 

MOT's staff working in West Bank. 

3.3 The Population and Sample 

The research population consists of MOT's staff working in West Bank. The 

staff totals to about 479 employees as of March 2016; distributed in 13 

directorates distributed in West Bank besides the ministry headquarter.  

The research sample was calculated, using equation (1) in Thompson (2002), 

where the sample should be more or equal 214 (n ≥ 214), and it distributed 

to the ministry and MOT's directorates (table 1). As it appeared in Table 1. 

The researcher had distributed 270 questionnaires, which constitutes about 

56% of all MOT's staff. The 223 questionnaires recovered from total 

distributed questionnaires, which constitutes about 83% of all distributed 

questionnaires.  

 



30 

𝑛 =
𝑁 ×  𝑝(1 − 𝑝)

[[𝑁 − 1 × (𝑑2 ÷ 𝑧2)] + 𝑝(1 − 𝑝)]
                    (1) 

 

Where: 

n = the sample size. 

N = the Population size. 

p = percentage picking a choice, expressed as decimal  

(0.5 used for sample size needed). 

z = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level). 

d = is acceptable standard error of the mean (0.05). 

Table 1: the MOT's staff distributed and the research sample 
Distributed of 

Location Population Sample Location Population Sample 

1 Ministry 232 103 8 Ramallah 33 15 

2 Abu Dis 9 4 9 Salfit 11 5 

3 Jericho 10 4 10 Tubas 15 7 

4 Hebron 23 10 11 Tulkarm 26 12 

5 Bethlehem 13 6 12 Qalqilya 15 7 

6 Jenin 25 11 13 Nablus 47 21 

7 Dura 12 5 14 Yatta 8 4 

Total Population 479 Sample 214 

In this research, random sampling method was used in collecting data. The 

aim is to achieve a sample that is representative of the MOT's population. 

Random sampling method was adopted in getting the respondents to answer 

the questionnaires. 



31 

3.4 Design of the Questionnaire 

Based on the overall literature review of previous studies; most of them used 

classical questionnaire or web-based besides focus groups and interviews. 

As it mentioned in Table 2 about the questionnaire structure. 

The questionnaire of this research was designed and was divided into two 

main parts, which are 

First Part: - The demographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status, 

qualification, experience, position and workplace). 

Second Part: - The research areas, which summarized in this research in 

three sections as follows: - 

i. Internal work stress  

ii. External work stress  

iii. Performance   

The first and second parts have 92 statements distributed as shown in table 2: - 

Table 2: the questionnaire structure 
Parts Sub parts Number of 

statements 

1. The demographic 

characteristics 

gender, age, marital status, 

qualification, experience, 

position and workplace 

7 

 

 

 

2. Internal work stress 

2.1 Workload 7 

2.2 Work Environment 13 

2.3 Role Conflict 7 

2.4 Job Role Ambiguity 7 

2.5 Unsuitable Role 4 

2.6 Career Path 9 

2.7 Technology 5 

2.8 Performance Evaluation 5 

3. External work stress 11 

4. Performance 17 

Total 92 



32 

Likert scale (Likert, 1932) was used to measure the responses of the 

respondents to the questionnaire questions (Mustafa, 2007). The class 

selected here “1” to strongly disagree and “5” to strongly agree, show in table 

3-Likert Scale, so the relative weight is 20% for each option, which is 

proportionate with this research. 

Table 3 : Likert Scale 
Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree 

1 2 3 4 5 

Then researcher adopted the weighted mean, and attitude the value as show 

in table 4.  Table 4 presented the range scale, which was calculated based on 

the 4/5 (0.80%). Likert Scale (1- 5 range) has four ranges distributed to five 

scales (Izz, 2008). 

Table 4: Weighted mean of Likert Scale (Izz, 2008) 
Level Strongly 

Disagree 

Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly 

Agree 

weighted 

mean 

from 1.00 to 

1.79 

from 1.80 

to 2.59 

from 2.60 to 

3.39 

from 3.40 

to 4.19 

from 4.20 to 

5.00 

3.5 Validity and Reliability 

3.5.1 Validity 

 The validity is the ability of research tool to measure what it is prepared to 

measure. According to Smith (1991), it is the degree to which the researcher 

has measured what he has set out to measure. 

The researcher has based on the overall literature review of previous studies 

such as Gharib et. at., (2016); Mansour & Elmorsey, (2016); Gichinga et. al., 

(2015); Kivimäki & Kawachi, (2015); Anwar et. al., (2015); Bilal et. al., 



33 

(2014); Ratnawat & Jha, (2014); Rizwan et. al., (2014); Anwar (2013); El-

Baseouney et. al., (2013); Banat, (2009); Mouasher, (2009) and others to 

build the thesis questionnaire. And he has presented the questionnaire to six 

arbitrators of Professors from An-Najah National University (table 5) to 

check the questionnaire, where they checked  

 The clarity of questions. 

 Ease of responding. 

 The optimum length of the questionnaires. 

 General content. 

 Content validity. 

 Construct validity. 

 Moreover, thoroughness. 

The researcher merged the comments and modifications by the professors on 

the final questionnaire, after that the thesis supervisor checked the final 

questionnaire before it was distributed in its final form. 

Table 5: the Arbitrators Names 
Arbitrators Position 

Dr. Ahmad Ramahi Dean of Faculty of Graduate Studies 

Dr. Ayham Jaaron Director of Quality Assurance Unit 

Dr. Khaled Al-Sahili Dean of Faculty of Engineering and Information 

Technology 

Dr. Mohammed Othman Coordinator of Engineering Management Master 

Program  

Dr. Rabeh Morrar Head of Economic Department 

Dr. Yahya Saleh Thesis Supervisor 

Prof. Sameer Abu-

Eisheh 

Civil Eng. Department 



34 

3.5.2 Reliability 

The reliability is defined as the point which estimate research’s tool and 

makes stable and consistent results (Phelan and Wren, 2005). 

Reliability can be found out of four kinds based on research sample and tool, 

where inter-rater reliability is used with different people and same test, while 

test-retest reliability is used with same people and different times, but 

parallel-forms reliability is used with different people at same times but 

different test, and internal consistency reliability is used with different 

questions and same construct (Gabrenya, 1980). 

In this research, questionnaire’s reliability was measured by using internal 

consistency reliability. The Cronbach's alpha test was used to measure the 

questionnaire reliability, where it is the suitable test for Likert scale 

questionnaires according to Alhamdani et. al., (2006). The Cronbach's alpha 

test result was equal to (93.7%) and it is an excellent result and satisfies the 

purpose of the study based on the rule of George and Mallery (2003), table 

6 show the reliability statistics, and table 7 showed the Cronbach's Alpha test 

result was between 0.697 to 0.937 for the research fields. this values is an 

excellent result. 

Table 6: Reliability Statistics 
 Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized 

Items 

Total 0.937 0.939 

 

 



35 

Table 7: the Cronbach's Alpha for the all research fields 
no. Questionnaire 

Fields 

Cronbach's 

Alpha 

Cronbach's Alpha Based on 

Standardized Items 

1 Performance 0.930 0.937 

2 External Stress 0.852 0.858 

3 Internal Stress 0.928 0.930 

4 Workload 0.845 0.846 

5 Work Environment 0.877 0.881 

6 Role Conflict 0.852 0.855 

7 Job Role Ambiguity 0.873 0.879 

8 Unsuitable Role 0.880 0.879 

9 Career Path 0.877 0.885 

10 Technology 0.886 0.890 

11 Evaluation 0.697 0.725 

12 All fields 0.937 0.939 

3.6 Questionnaires Distribution and Data Processing 

Data for the research was collected using questionnaire distributed in the 

MOT (The ministry's headquarters and 13 Directorates distributed in West 

Bank), where the research tool divided to cover the demographic data, 

internal and external work stress and performance. The data were collected 

during 24 days (from in 28 March 2016 until 20 April 2016). 

The researcher was careful to present and follow up filling the questionnaires 

by MOT's staff, and was always ready to answer or clarify any ambiguities 

for the respondents. The filled questionnaires were processed and distributed 

into groups (valid and invalid) to discard the invalid or incomplete 

questionnaires. Table 7 Shown the Number of Questionnaires Distributed, 

Returned, Excluded, and Valid. 

The researcher used SPSS software (Statistical Package of Social Science) 

to analyze the data by using the statistical methods (such as Cronbach Alpha 



36 

Test.) to analyze the significant relations between work stress and the MOT's 

staff performance.  

Table 7 summarizes the number of questionnaires distributed, returned, 

excluded, and valid questionnaires per respondent group in all of the 

ministry's headquarters and directorates: 

Table 8: the Number of Questionnaires Distributed, Returned, 

Excluded, and Valid 
  Distributed Returned Excluded Valid Response 

Headquarters 120 110 4 106 0.88 

Directorates 150 135 18 117 0.78 

 Total 270 245 22 223 0.83 

3.7 Data Analysis  

The SPSS program was used to store and analyze the valid questionnaires 

data. The researcher used descriptive and inferential analyses by using this 

tests: 

1. Cronbach's Alpha coefficient is an appropriate method to analyze the 

reliability of questionnaires that use Likert scales (Lewis, 1999). 

2. Descriptive test (Frequencies and percentile.) to describe the research 

data (Sample size, mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, 

variance …). 

3. Pearson’s correlation test to measure correlation between the research 

areas (internal work stress, external work stress and performance). 

4. Spearman correlation test to examine the strength and direction of 

association between the research hypotheses. 

5. Normality test to apply the appropriate tests to the research data. 



37 

6. T- Test to examine the mean of response with the neutrality value (3). 

And the t-test is used to compare differences between two independent 

groups (in this research are gender, marital status, and work place). 

7. One-way ANOVA used to compare differences between more than two 

independent groups (which are age, qualification, experience and 

position). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



38 

Chapter Four 

 Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing 

4.1 Overview 

According to Sivia & Skilling (2006), data analysis is known as the process 

of analyzing all the data and information, and evaluating the relevant relation 

that can be helpful in better findings research.  

This chapter presents data analysis and discussion of the results that have 

been collected from the questionnaire. As mentioned in the previous chapter, 

the researcher collected data based on the questionnaires distributed to 

MOT's staff. Also, the researcher used SPSS to analyze the data.  

Also, this chapter provides discussion and comprehensive analysis of the 

questionnaires’ results, such as the research data from the demographic 

characteristics descriptions and relations of staff performance and work 

stress based on questionnaire data. 

4.2 Demographics' Characteristics for Respondents 

This section contains personal profiles of the respondents of MOT's staff 

such as gender, age, marital status, qualification, experience, position and 

work place. These profiles may affect the respondent answers. 

Respondents Distribution by Gender 

The number and percentages of gender distribution of respondents is 

presented in table 9 and in figure 15 in the Appendix B.  

It can be noticed that out of the 233 of respondents, 143 males, which 

corresponded percentage 64.1% and 80 of respondents, are females, which 



39 

corresponded percentage 35.9%. This result has shown that the general staff 

in MOT are males.  

Table 9: Gender distribution of respondents 
Gender 

 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 

Male 143 64.1% 64.1 

Female 80 35.9% 100.0 

Total 223 100.0%   

Respondents Distribution by Age 

Table 10 presents the specifics of age respondents’ distribution, the 

questionnaire identified five ranges of age as shown in the Table below, the 

second range (31 - 40 years) was the most of the respondents with percentage 

43% and the fourth range (51 - 60 years) was the lowest of the respondents 

with percentage 10.3 %. (See figure 16 in the Appendix B). 

Table 10: Age Distribution of Respondents 

Age 

 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 

30 or less 37 16.6 % 16.6 

31-40 years 96 43.0 % 59.6 

41-50 years 67 30.0 % 89.7 

51-60 years 23 10.3 % 100.0 

Total 223 100.0 %  

Respondents Distribution by Marital status 

Table 11 summarizes the frequencies of marital status for respondents, as it 

has been shown in Table 11 and in figure 17 in the Appendix B the major 

percentage of respondents were married with percentage 84.8%, where the 

single status was percentage 15.2%. 



40 

Table 11: Marital Status of Respondents 

Marital Status 

 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 

Single 34 15.2 % 15.2 

Married 189 84.8 % 100.0 

Total 223 100.0 %  

Respondents Distribution by Qualification Education 

Table 12 presents the specifics of qualification education respondents 

distribution, the questionnaire identified six groups of education 

qualification as it has been shown in Table 12 and in figure 18 in the 

Appendix B, the third group (Bachelor) was the most of the respondents with 

percentage 59.2% and the graduate (Master and PhD) with percentage 6.7%, 

and whom lower or Tawjihi with percentage 10.8%. 

Table 12: Academic Qualifications of Respondents 
Qualification 

 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 

Tawjihi 22 9.9 % 9.9 

Diploma 52 23.3 % 33.2 

Bachelor 132 59.2 % 92.4 

Master 14 6.3 % 98.7 

PhD 1 0.4 % 99.1 

Other 2 0.9 % 100.0 

Total 223 100.0 %  

Respondents Distribution by Years of Experience 

Table 13 presents the distribution of respondents according to the years of 

experiences, the questionnaire identified five groups of experience as it has 

been shown in Table below, the fourth group (14 - 19 years) was the most of 

the respondents with percentage 34.1%, and the first group (3 or less) is the 

lowest frequencies with percentage 8.1%, which show the low employment 



41 

rate. In general, more than 51% of respondents with 13 or less years’ 

experiences. (See figure 19 in the Appendix B). 

Table 13: Experience Distribution of Respondents 

Experience 

 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 

3 or less 18 8.1 % 8.1 

4 - 8 year 55 24.7 % 32.7 

9-13 year 42 18.8 % 51.6 

14-19 year 76 34.1 % 85.7 

20 or more 32 14.3 % 100.0 

Total 223 100.0 %  

Respondents Distribution by Job Position 

Table 14 presents the distribution of respondents according to job position, 

the questionnaire identified four groups of job positions as it has been shown 

in Table 14 and figure 20 in the Appendix B. The first, second and third 

groups (Employee, Head of the department and Manager) were the absolute 

majority between the respondents with total percentage 93.7%.  

Table 14: Position Distribution of Respondents 

Position 

 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 

Employee 73 32.7 % 32.7 

Head of the 

Department 

65 29.1 % 61.9 

Manager 71 31.8 % 93.7 

General Manager 14 6.3 % 100.0 

Total 223 100.0 %  

Respondents Distribution by Work place 

Where Table 15 presents the distribution of respondents according to work 

place, the questionnaire distributed the respondents in two main groups: head 

office of the ministry and the directorates offices. However, the percentages 



42 

and frequencies have been shown below in table 15 and figure 20 in the 

Appendix B.  

Table 15: Work Place Distribution of Respondents 

Work Place 

 Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 

Ministry 106 47.5 % 47.5 

Directorate 117 52.5 % 100.0 

Total 223 100.0 %  

4.3 Analysis the Areas of Research 

The research areas, which can be summarized in three sections as mentioned 

before, internal work stress, external work stress and performance. In this 

section, the researcher analyzed and described the collected data by using the 

research tool.    

4.3.1 Measuring Correlation Coefficients  

Correlation coefficients are between each of these research areas (internal 

work stress, external work stress and performance) from one side and the 

whole research areas from the other side, which is measured by using 

Pearson’s correlation test. 

A. Internal work stress with all research fields 

Table 16, showed that Pearson’s correlation presented that the relationship 

between the internal work stress in general and whole research areas (internal 

work stress, external work stress and performance) is positive correlation. 

 



43 

Table 16: internal work stress fields’ correlation coefficients 

no. Questionnaire Fields Internal Stress Pearson 

correlation 

Sig. (2-tailed) 

1 Performance 0.21 0.00 

2 External Stress 0.39 0.00 

3 Workload 0.49 0.00 

4 Work Environment 0.64 0.00 

5 Role Conflict 0.68 0.00 

6 Job Role Ambiguity 0.62 0.00 

7 Unsuitable Role 0.53 0.00 

8 Career Path 0.63 0.00 

9 Technology 0.56 0.00 

10 Evaluation 0.04 0.51* 

11 All Areas 0.75 0.00 

Based on Pearson’s correlation coefficient the value was in range (0.21 to 

0.75), and the p-value was (p = 0.00 < α = 0.05). The results had strong 

indicator that the correlation was statistically significant. Moreover, it was a 

positive and high correlation with whole research areas, except the 

performance evaluation. The performance evaluation result showed that was 

low correlation relationship between it and the internal work stress where the 

(r= 0.04 and p = 0.51> α = 0.05).  

Hence, it can be said that the internal work stress is consistent and valid to 

measure what it was set for. 

Tables from 50 to 57 (see Appendix B), showed that Pearson’s correlation 

presented that the relationship between the internal work stress factors 

(Workload, Work environment, Role conflict, job role ambiguity, unsuitable 

role, career path, technology and performance evaluation) and its statements 

was positive and with high correlation. Based on Pearson’s correlation 

coefficient value, and the p-value was (p = 0.00 < α = 0.05). The results had 



44 

strong indicator that the correlation was statistically significant. Moreover, 

it was a positive and high correlation between the internal work stress factors 

and its statements.  

Hence, it can be said that the internal work stress factors and its statements 

is consistent and valid to measure what it was set for. 

B. Measuring Correlation for External work stress with all research 

fields 

Table 17, showed that Pearson’s correlation presented that the relationship 

between the external works stress in general and whole research areas 

(internal work stress, external work stress and performance) is positive 

correlation. 

Table 17:  external work stress fields’ correlation coefficients 
no. Questionnaire Fields External Stress 

Pearson correlation 

Sig. (2-tailed) 

1 Performance 0.19 0.00 

2 Internal Stress 0.39 0.00 

3 Workload 0.32 0.00 

4 Work Environment 0.30 0.00 

5 Role Conflict 0.24 0.00 

6 Job Role Ambiguity 0.27 0.00 

7 Unsuitable Role 0.26 0.00 

8 Career Path 0.36 0.00 

9 Technology 0.30 0.00 

10 Evaluation 0.16 0.02 

11 All Areas 0.56 0.00 

Based on Pearson’s correlation coefficient value in range (0.19 to 0.56), and 

the p-value was (p = 0.00 < α = 0.05). The results had strong indicator that 

the correlation was statistically significant. Moreover, it was a positive and 

high correlation with whole research areas.  



45 

Hence, it can be said that the external work stress is consistent and valid to 

measure what it was set for. 

Table 59 (see the Appendix B) presented the relationship between the 

external work stress statements and the external work stress field in general, 

which showed that the results had strong indicator that the correlation was 

statistically significant. Moreover, it was a positive and high correlation 

between the external work stress factors and its statements.  

Hence, it can be said that the external work stress factors and its statements 

is consistent and valid to measure what it was set for. 

C. Measuring Correlation for Performance with all research fields 

Table 18, showed that Pearson’s correlation presented that the relationship 

between the performances in general and the whole research areas (internal 

work stress, external work stress and performance) is positive correlation. 

Table 18: the performance fields’ correlation coefficients 

no. Questionnaire Fields Performance Pearson 

correlation 

Sig. (2-tailed) 

1 External Stress 0.19 0.00 

2 Internal Stress 0.21 0.00 

3 Workload 0.08 0.23* 

4 Work Environment 0.20 0.00 

5 Role Conflict 0.09 0.18* 

6 Job Role Ambiguity 0.03 0.65* 

7 Unsuitable Role 0.10 0.12* 

8 Career Path 0.27 0.00 

9 Technology 0.25 0.00 

10 Evaluation 0.15 0.02 

11 All Areas 0.43 0.00 

Based on Pearson’s correlation coefficient value in range (0.03 to 0.43), and 

the p-value approximately 0.00 (p = 0.000 < α = 0.05) for most factors. The 

result showed that there was a strong indicator correlation, statistically 



46 

significant, between performances in general and most of the questionnaire 

fields. Moreover, it had a positive and high correlation with whole research 

areas. 

However, Workload, Role Conflict, Job Role Ambiguity and Unsuitable 

Role factors results showed that was low correlation relationship between 

these factors and the performances in general where the (r= 0.08, 0.09, 0.03 

and 0.10) respectively, and (p = 0.23, 0.18, 0.65 and 0.12 > α =0.05) 

respectively.  

Hence, it can be said that the performance in general is consistent and valid 

to measure what it was set for. 

Table 60 (see the Appendix B) presented the relationship between the 

performance statements and the performance field in general, which showed 

that the results had strong indicator that the correlation was statistically 

significant. Moreover, it was a positive correlation between the performance 

factor and its statements.  

Hence, it can be said that the performance in general and its statements are 

consistent and valid to measure what they were set for. 

D. Measuring Correlation for all research areas in general with all 

research fields  

Table 19, showed that the Pearson’s correlation coefficients presented that 

the relationship between research areas fields and all questionnaire fields’ is 

positive correlation. Table showed that the value was in range (0.08 to 0.75), 

and the p-value was (p = 0.00 < α = 0.05).  

 



47 

Table 19: all questionnaire fields’ correlation coefficients 
no. Questionnaire 

Fields 
All Areas Pearson 

correlation 
Sig. (2-tailed) 

1 Performance 0.43 0.00 
2 External Stress 0.56 0.00 
3 Internal Stress 0.75 0.00 
4 Workload 0.48 0.00 
5 Work Environment 0.65 0.00 
6 Role Conflict 0.63 0.00 
7 Job Role Ambiguity 0.57 0.00 
8 Unsuitable Role 0.48 0.00 
9 Career Path 0.63 0.00 
10 Technology 0.55 0.00 
11 Evaluation 0.08 0.23* 

The result showed that there was a strong indicator correlation, statistically 

significant, between research areas fields and all questionnaire fields. 

Moreover, it was a positive and high correlation with all research areas 

except the performance evaluation.  

However, evaluation field results showed that was low correlation 

relationship between it and all questionnaire fields where the (r= 0.08 and p 

= 0.23 > α = 0.05).  

Hence, it can be said that the research areas fields are consistent and valid to 

measure what it was set for. 

4.3.2 Data analysis and interpretation. 

To interpret data and analysis, the researcher used the one sample t-test and 

One-Way ANOVA, which are called parametric statistics test. Based on the 

sample size (The sample size was greater than 20) and Table 20 result which 

showed the data is normal distribution. 

Table 20 showed the test of normality test values of whole research fields, 

where they had approximately (p = 0.0) which less than α = 0.05, which were 



48 

a strong indicator that were the accept normality of data was statistically 

significant, so the parametric statistics test was used. 

Table 20: Normality tests of all research fields 

Tests of Normality 

  Statistic df Sig. Result 

Workload 0.183 223 0 Normal 

Work 

Environment 
0.231 223 0 Normal 

Role Conflict 0.175 223 0 Normal 

Job Role 

Ambiguity 
0.242 223 0 Normal 

Unsuitable Role 0.161 223 0 Normal 

Career Path 0.217 223 0 Normal 

Technology 0.241 223 0 Normal 

Evaluation 0.247 223 0 Normal 

Internal Stress 0.296 223 0 Normal 

Outside Stress 0.211 223 0 Normal 

Performance 0.335 223 0 Normal 

All terms 0.275 223 0 Normal 

Tables from 61 to 70 and figures from 4 to 14 showed the normality test 

result for whole research field statements and all the results had a strong 

indicator, where acceptance the normality of research data was statistically 

significant, so the parametric statistics test was used. 

The researcher used the one sample t-test to measure if the responses of 

respondents close to value 3 " neutrality value ",  

A. Internal work stress   

1. Workload 

Table 21 showed the t-test result value for the workload field statements. 



49 

Table 21: the t-test result value for the workload field statements 

 Test Value = 3                                        

t-test Sig. (2-tailed) Mean 

Difference 

95% Confidence Interval 

of the Difference 

Mean Std. 

Deviation 

Lower Upper 

My tasks are over my body load and my 

mental energy 

-1.59 0.11 -0.13 -0.29 0.03 2.87 1.23 

The nature of my tasks requires extra time 

more than the plan 

0.56 0.58 0.04 -0.11 0.20 3.04 1.20 

I feel nervous because of the number of tasks 

that I have to do 

-0.44 0.66 -0.04 -0.20 0.13 2.96 1.22 

I feel tired and fatigue because of the heavy 

load of my tasks 

0.38 0.71 0.03 -0.13 0.19 3.03 1.24 

I suffer from a lot of forgetting and inability to 

focus during the work 

-5.34 0.00* -0.43 -0.58 -0.27 2.57 1.19 

My tasks need a lot of focus 15.76 0.00* 1.04 0.91 1.18 4.04 0.99 

I feel bored because of repeating the same 

tasks every day 

2.63 0.01* 0.22 0.05 0.38 3.22 1.22 

Workload 1.41 0.16 0.10 -0.04 0.24 3.10 1.04 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 



50 

Table 21 showed that the workload statements have various t-test values. 

the first and third statements ("My tasks are over my body and mental 

energy" also "I feel nervous because of the number of tasks that I have to 

do") have (p = 0.11& 0.66 > 0.05) and t-test value (-1.59 & -0.44) 

respectively, which showed that was no statistically significant difference 

between means of the first and third statements. So, the respondents 

disagree with these statements, based on the mean values (2.87 & 2.96) 

respectively. 

Also, the second and fourth statements ("The nature of my tasks requires 

extra time more than the plan" also "I feel tired and fatigue because of the 

heavy load of my tasks") have (p =0.58 & 0.71 > .05) and t-test value (0.56 

& 0.38) respectively, which showed that was no statistically significant 

difference between means of the second and fourth statements. So, the 

respondents agree with these statements, based on the mean values (3.04 

& 3.03) respectively. 

Moreover, the fifth to seventh statements ("I suffer from a lot of forgetting 

and inability to focus during the work", "My tasks need a lot of focus" and 

"I feel bored because of repeating the same tasks every day") have (p = 0.0 

< .05) and t-test value (-5.34, 15.76 & 2.63) respectively, which showed 

that was statistically significant difference between means of the fifth to 

seventh statements. So, the respondents disagreed with fifth statement, 

based on the mean values (2.57). While the respondents agree with sixth 

and seventh statements, based on the mean values (4.04 & 3.22) 

respectively. 



51 

Generally, workload field result presented that was no statistically 

significant difference between means (the mean values 3.10, p=0.16 > .05 

& t-test value 1.41). So, the respondents generally agreed on the workload 

field’s statements. The result showed that workload’s levels at MOT staff 

were average and within normal and accepted rates. So, the workload’s 

factor is not cause of work stress at MOT staff. 

2. Work Environment 

Table 22 showed the t-test result value for the Work Environment field 

statements.



52 

Table 22: the t-test result value for the work environment field’s statements 

 Test Value = 03                                       

t-test Sig. (2-

tailed) 

Mean 

Difference 

95% Confidence Interval 

of the Difference 

Mean Std. 

Deviation 

Lower Upper   

The light of the office is bad for 

my focus and attention 

-1.04 0.30 -0.09 -0.25 0.08 2.91 1.23 

I suffer from the noise at the 

workplace 

1.10 0.27 0.09 -0.07 0.24 3.09 1.16 

I suffer from overcrowding of my 

office 

3.04 0.00* 0.26 0.09 0.44 3.26 1.30 

I suffer from overcrowding of 

citizen in my office 

-0.11 0.91 -0.01 -0.17 0.15 2.99 1.20 

The ventilation system is inactive -0.99 0.32 -0.09 -0.27 0.09 2.91 1.35 

I suffer from work breakdown 

because of a lack in the required 

resources. 

7.37 0.00* 0.57 0.41 0.72 3.57 1.14 

I suffer from unsuitability of 

furniture and resources for the 

nature of my tasks 

2.78 0.01* 0.23 0.07 0.39 3.23 1.23 

I suffer from many of the 

instructions and sudden decisions 

during the work 

6.13 0.00* 0.46 0.31 0.61 3.46 1.13 



53 

I suffer from disorder and 

disorganized machines and 

furniture 

1.42 0.16 0.11 -0.04 0.27 3.11 1.18 

Heating and cooling system is 

insufficient 

-2.18 0.03* -0.18 -0.34 -0.02 2.82 1.23 

There is continued disputes with 

the other departments if the tasks 

was done without their procedures, 

wishes and convictions 

3.26 0.00* 0.27 0.11 0.43 3.27 1.23 

My personal and organizational 

relationships depend on my 

manager satisfactions 

7.04 0.00* 0.55 0.39 0.70 3.55 1.16 

There is a discrimination in the 

ministry according to the gender 

2.05 0.04* 0.17 0.01 0.33 3.17 1.24 

Work Environment 4 0.00* 0.23 0.11 0 3.23 0.93 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)



54 

Table 22 showed that the work environment statements have various t-test 

values. The first, fourth and fifth statements ("The light of the office is bad 

for my focus and attention", "I suffer from overcrowding of citizen in my 

office" and "The ventilation system is inactive”) have (p = 0.30, 0.91 & 0.32 

> 0.05) and t-test value (-1.04, -0.11 & -0.99) respectively, which showed 

that was no statistically significant difference between means of the first, 

fourth and fifth statements. So, the respondents disagree with these 

statements, based on the mean values (2.91, 2.99 & 2.91) respectively. 

Also, the second and ninth statements ("I suffer from the noise at the 

workplace" also "I suffer from disorder and disorganized machines and 

furniture") have (p = 0.27 & 0.16 > .05) and t-test value (1.10 & 1.42) 

respectively, which showed that was no statistically significant difference 

between means of the second and fourth statements. So, the respondents 

agree with these statements, based on the mean values (3.09 & 3.11) 

respectively. 

Moreover, the third, sixth to eighth, and tenth to thirteenth statements ("I 

suffer from overcrowding of my office", "I suffer from work breakdown 

because of a lack in the required resources.", "I suffer from unsuitability of 

furniture and resources for the nature of my tasks", "I suffer from many of 

the instructions and sudden decisions during the work", "Heating and cooling 

system is insufficient", "There is continued disputes with the other 

departments if the tasks was done without their procedures, wishes and 

convictions", "My personal and organizational relationships depend on my 

manager satisfactions" and "There is a discrimination in the ministry 



55 

according to the gender") have (p = 0.0 < .05) and t-test value (3.04, 7.37, 

2.78, 6.13, -2.18, 3.26, 7.04 & 2.05) respectively, which showed that was 

statistically significant difference between means of the first, third, fourth, 

sixth and seventh statements. So, the respondents disagreed with tenth 

statement, based on the mean values (2.82). While the respondents agree 

with remnant statements, based on the mean values (3.26, 3.57, 3.23, 3.46, 

3.27, 3.55 & 3.17) respectively. 

Generally, work environment field result presented that was statistically 

significant difference between means (the mean values 3.23), (p= 0.0 < .05) 

and t-test value (4.0). So, the respondents generally agreed on the work 

environment field’s statements. The result showed that work environment ‘s 

factor is a major cause of work stress at MOT staff. 

3. Role Conflict 

Table 23 showed the t-test result value for the Role Conflict field statements.



56 

Table 23 the t-test result value for the role conflict field’s statements 
  Test Value = 3                                        

t Sig. (2-tailed) Mean 
Difference 

95% Confidence Interval 
of the Difference 

Mean Std. 
Deviation 

Lower Upper   
Sometimes, asked me to do tasks 
against values and the general 
principles of the law 

-10.90 0.00* -0.78 -0.92 -0.64 2.22 1.06 

I suffer from frequent interventions 
from others during my tasks with 
affects my performance 

-0.29 0.77 -0.02 -0.18 0.13 2.98 1.16 

Sometimes, asked me to perform 
multiple and contradictory acts 

-3.67 0.00* -0.27 -0.42 -0.13 2.73 1.11 

I deal with multi departments; there is 
a difference between them in the 
responsibilities and requirements 

5.68 0.00* 0.43 0.28 0.58 3.43 1.13 

My line manager intervenes with my 
tasks and responsibilities dramatically 

-1.61 0.11 -0.13 -0.28 0.03 2.87 1.17 

I feel that I need more knowledge and 
skills to complete tasks 

4.50 0.00* 0.35 0.20 0.50 3.35 1.16 

I feel that distribution of department 
tasks and responsibilities are not fair 

6.09 0.00* 0.47 0.32 0.62 3.47 1.15 

Role Conflict 0.07 0.95 0.00 -0.13 0.14 3.00 1.02 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed



57 

Table 23 showed that the role conflict statements have various t-test values. 

The second and fifth statements ("I suffer from frequent interventions from 

others during my tasks which affects my performance" and "My line 

manager intervenes with my tasks and responsibilities dramatically”) have 

(p = 0.77 & 0.11 > 0.05) and t-test value (-0.29 & -1.61) respectively, which 

showed that was no statistically significant difference between means of the 

second and fifth statements. So, the respondents disagree with these 

statements, based on the mean values (2.98 & 2.87) respectively. 

Moreover, the first, third, fourth, sixth and seventh statements ("Sometimes, 

asked me to do tasks against values and the general principles of the law", 

"Sometimes, asked me to perform multiple and contradictory acts",  "I deal 

with multi departments; there is a difference between them in the 

responsibilities and requirements", "I feel that I ne