www.mbainfoline.com

Source: E-mail dt. 13 June 2012

A Study on the Impact of Workplace Environment on Employee’s Productivity in Dindigul District.

 

Mr. K. Rajesh Kumar, B.E., M.B.A., M.Phil., PGDFRM., (Ph.D).,

Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies,

NPR College of Engineering & Technology, Natham, Tamilnadu, India

 

and

 

Ms. G. Radhika, B.Sc., M.B.A.

Final Year M.B.A,

NPR College of Engineering & Technology, Natham, Tamilnadu, India

 

Abstract

In today’s competitive business environment, organizations can no longer afford to waste the potential of their workforce. These are key factors in the employee’s workplace environment that impact greatly on their level of motivation and performance. The workplace environment that is set in place impacts employee morale, productivity and engagement, both positively and negatively. The study is conducted in population pertaining to Dindigul district, Tamilnadu. Convenient Sampling Technique has been used to select the samples for the study and the sample size is 150. Results were obtained through various statistical tools such as Percentage Analysis, Chi-Square Analysis, Mann-Whitney Test and Independent Two Sample T-Test.

Keywords

Positive workplace, physical conditions, job satisfaction, office design

1.      Introduction

Increased personal control and comfort needs of employees triggered the concern among organizations to provide them with an environment and office design, which fulfills the employees’ needs and helps to boost their productivity. The main objective of this study is to find out the relationship between work environment, workplace design and productivity. Workplace design is very vital in terms of increasing employees’ productivity.

 

Be it the shop floor or a corporate office, our workplace environment greatly affects the eagerness and ability to do the job, as well as the overall attitude about work. According to Business Week, several large companies have begun to disregard the age-old belief in ROWE, or "Results-Only Work Environment" and allowing more workplace flexibility, with a positive impact on performance.

2.      Workplace of Today

The management’s tendency to micromanage has increased. The possible explanation for the increased tendency to micromanage is because of the fact that the young workers certainly do not present a picture as serious, dedicated workers in the way they dress, speak and act.

 

The  management  must  take  an active role in not only defining the physical environment of  the workplace and making it conducive for workers but also alter the management  style  to  suit  the  employees. This refers to changing aspects like ethics, behaviour, commitment, professionalism, drive and interpersonal relations in employees for the better.

           

Today’s’  manager  has  to  change  his style of  functioning  in order to bring about effective  changes  in  these  aspects. He has to spend  more  time  on controlling  these  factors of  the  work  environment  rather  than  micromanage. 

 

For this, he has to:

 

• Give adequate authority to employees

• Delegate responsibilities

• Increase their accountability

• Encourage teamwork

Employers Creating a Positive Workplace

The employee must feel comfortable and safe in the workspace, both physically and emotionally. The employer should aware of any employee special needs, and meet these needs as best as possible. Encourage wellness through support for exercise, workplace hygiene and healthy food options. Use rewards and initiatives to encourage engagement and improvement. Workplace celebrations and even contests and competitions can bring rewards for all. From an employer perspective, supporting employee’s results in greater productivity and longevity. A worker is more likely to stay and do her job well if understands why it matters.

Employees Creating a Positive Workplace Environment

Employers are not solely responsible for the quality of the workplace environment, and employees' behavior can greatly affect the environment in which they work. Avoiding negative workplace situations such as talking badly about co-workers or management may be hard to resist but really can make the difference between a toxic workplace and a healthy one. On the other hand, communicating as openly as possible with coworkers and management will help decrease tensions and misunderstandings. Always attempt to communicate in private, taking advantage of email when appropriate.

3.      Statement of the problem

 

The organizations culture is depicted by the workplace environment. This includes the Infrastructural facilities, Physical conditions, Welfare amenities etc., and the intangible aspects like superior, subordinate relationship, sense of belongingness, compensation system and so on.

These all play a major role in enhancing the commitment and loyalty of employees there by resulting in increased productivity and corporate image. Hence this is high time that organization realize the importance of workplace environment. Comfortable and ergonomic office design motivates the employees and increases their performance substantially.

 

4. Objectives of the study

 

Primary Objective:

 

             To determine the impact of workplace environment on employees’ productivity.

 

 Secondary Objectives:

 

Ø   To find out the relationship between office design and productivity.

Ø    To suggest the measures to improve the working conditions for better performance.

Ø    To understand relationship between the employees and their work environment.

5. Research Design

The research is to find out the Impact of workplace environment on employee’s productivity.  The research is carried out with specific objectives and hence it has a definite conclusion.  Thus Descriptive research method is the one to be employed here.

5.1) Period of the study

The study was conducted for a period of 4 months.

      5.2) Sample size

In this study 150 samples were selected to collect the data. The sample was pertaining to Dindigul district. A structured questionnaire was used for collecting data from the employees.

5.4) Sampling technique

The technique for the study is convenient sampling. In this technique samples were selected as per the convenience or accessibility of the researcher and the respondent.

5.5) Data collection

The data collection is one of the crucial works in any project work. In this research both the primary and secondary data are collected.

5.5.1) Primary data

           Primary data are those which are collected for the first time and they are original in character. It is collected by the investigator for the purpose of a specific inquiry or study. These are first hand information collected through various methods such as Questionnaire, Surveys etc.

5.5.2) Secondary data

       Secondary data are those which are already collected by someone for some purpose and are available for the present study. Secondary data collected for this project are through websites, journals, textbooks, treatises and articles.

5.6) Tools used for Data Analysis:

      A brief description on the various tools and techniques used in the study are given below.

*      SIMPLE PERCENTAGE METHOD.

*      CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS.

*      MANN-WHITNEY U TEST.

*      INDEPENDENT SAMPLE T- TEST.

 

6) Data analysis and interpretation

6.1 Percentage Analysis

 

TABLE 6.1.1

Satisfactory Position of the Respondents

 

 

S.NO

 

 

OPTIONS

FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

1

 

Very Satisfied

46

30.7

2

 

Somewhat Satisfied

71

47.3

3

 

Not Satisfied or Dissatisfied

29

19.3

4

 

Somewhat dissatisfied

3

2

5

 

Very Dissatisfied

1

0.7

 

 

Total

150

100

 


             Source: Primary data

The above table states that  47.3% of the respondents are somewhat satisfied with their position in the organization, 30.7% of the respondents are Very satisfied with their position, 19.3% of them are not satisfied or dissatisfied with their position, 2% of them are somewhat dissatisfied and 0.7% of the respondents are Very Dissatisfied with their position in the organization.

TABLE  6.1.2

Influence of Physical Condition on productivity of the respondents

 

S.NO

OPTIONS

FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

1

Not at all

18

12

2

To some extent

48

32

3

Often

27

18

4

Mostly

38

25.3

5

Always

19

12.7

 

Total

150

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       Source: Primary data

The  Table  shows  that  32%  of  the  respondents  accept  that  their  Physical  conditions at the workplace  influence the productivity to some extent, 25.3% of the respondents accepts their  physical conditions mostly affect their productivity, 18% says often, 12.7%  says always and  12%  of  the  respondents  says  that their physical condition does not have any effect on productivity.

 

TABLE 6.1.3

Satisfactory level of the respondents on the Safe Working Environment

 

S.No

    

OPTIONS

FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

1

 

Very satisfied

64

42.7

2

 

Somewhat satisfied

66

44

3

 

Not satisfied or dissatisfied

17

11.3

4

 

Somewhat dissatisfied

3

2

5

 

Very dissatisfied

0

0

 

 

Total

150

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Primary data

The  Table shows  that  44%  of  the respondents are somewhat satisfied that their work environment is safe, 42.7% of the respondents are Very satisfied, 11.3% of the respondents are not satisfied or dissatisfied   and 2% of the respondents are somewhat dissatisfied with their safe working environment.

 

TABLE 6.1.4

 The Satisfactory level of the respondents on their Job

 

S.No

 

OPTIONS

FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

1

 

Very satisfied

45

30

2

 

Somewhat satisfied

74

49.3

3

 

Not satisfied or dissatisfied

29

19.3

4

 

Somewhat dissatisfied

1

0.7

5

 

Very dissatisfied

1

0.7

 

 

Total

150

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Primary Data

 

The Table shows that 49.3% of the respondents are somewhat satisfied with the Job on the workplace, 30% of the respondents are very satisfied, 19.3% of the respondents are Not satisfied or dissatisfied  and 0.7% of the respondents are very dissatisfied with their job.

 

TABLE 6.1.5

 Motivation level of the Superiors

 

S.NO

 

OPTIONS

FREQUENCY

PERCENTAGE

1

 

Strongly agree

46

30.7

2

 

Somewhat agree

64

42.7

3

 

Neither agree nor disagree

31

20.7

4

 

Somewhat disagree

5

3.3

5

 

Strongly disagree

4

2.7

 

 

Total

150

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Source: Primary Data

 

From the above table it is known that 42.7% of the respondents somewhat agree that they are motivated by their superiors, 30.7% of the respondents strongly agree, 20.7 % of the respondents Neither agree or disagree 3.3% Somewhat disagree and 2.7% of the respondents Strongly disagree that they are motivated by their superiors.

 

6.2 Chi-Square Analysis

6.2.1 Relationship between Daily task and Physical condition

           

H0: There is no significant relationship between Daily Task and Physical Condition.

H1: There is significant relationship between Daily Task and Physical Condition.

 

TABLE 6.2.1

 

 

 

Physical condition

Total

 

Not at all

To some extent

Often

Mostly

Always

Daily task

Not at all

4

2

1

1

0

8

To some extent

3

23

9

12

6

53

Often

1

9

5

6

3

24

Mostly

4

11

9

12

3

39

Always

6

3

3

7

7

26

Total

 

18

48

27

38

19

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi-Square Tests

 

Value

Df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

30.074

16

.018

Likelihood Ratio

27.241

16

.039

Linear-by-Linear Association

3.511

1

.061

N of Valid Cases

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pearson Chi-Square value for Daily task and Physical condition of employees is 30.074 and its calculated significance value is 0.018. Since the calculated value is less than  0.05,  the alternative Hypothesis (H1) is accepted and Null Hypothesis(H0) is rejected.

Here, it was concluded that there is a significance relationship between the two variables Daily task and Physical condition.

6.2.2 Relationship between Job satisfaction and Motivation from superiors

 

H0:There is no significant relationship between Job Satisfaction and Motivation from Superiors.

H1: There is significant relationship between Job Satisfaction and Motivation from Superiors.

 

TABLE 6.2.2

                                                                                                                                                                                      

 

 

Motivation from Superiors

Total

 

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

Job satisfaction

Very satisfied

22

15

6

1

1

45

Somewhat satisfied

18

37

14

3

2

74

Not satisfied or dissatisfied

6

11

11

1

0

29

Somewhat dissatisfied

0

0

0

0

1

1

  Very dissatisfied

0

1

0

0

0

1

Total

 

46

64

31

5

4

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chi-Square Tests

 

Value

Df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

53.185

16

.000

Likelihood Ratio

23.898

16

.092

Linear-by-Linear Association

7.829

1

.005

N of Valid Cases

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Pearson chi-square value for Job Satisfaction and Motivation from Superiors is 53.185 and its significance value is 0.000. Since the calculated value is less than 0.05, the Alternative Hypothesis (H1) is accepted and Null Hypothesis(H0) is rejected.

Here, it was concluded that there is a significance relationship between the two variables Job Satisfaction and Motivation from Superiors.

6.3) Mann-Whitney U Test

6.3.1  Gender  &  Job Satisfaction

 

H0 : There  is  no  association  between  Gender  and  Job Satisfaction.

H1 : There  is an  association between  Gender and  Job Satisfaction.

 

TABLE 6.3.1

 

 

Gender

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

Job satisfaction

Male

135

78.25

10563.50

Female

15

50.77

761.50

Total

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Job satisfaction

Mann-Whitney U

641.500

Wilcoxon W

761.500

Z

-2.527

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

.011

 

 

 

 

 

From the above table the Mann-Whitney value for Gender and Job Satisfaction is -2.527 and its significance value is 0.011. Since the calculated value is less than 0.05, the Alternative Hypothesis (H1) is accepted and Null Hypothesis (H0) is rejected.

Here, it was concluded that there is an association between the two variables Gender and Job Satisfaction.

6.4) Independent Two Sample  T-Test

6.4.1 Gender  &  Room temperature

 

H0: There  is  no relationship  between  Gender  and  Room temperature.

H1: There  is  relationship between  Gender and  Room temperature.

 

TABLE 6.4.1

Group Statistics

 

 

 

Gender

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Room temperature

 

Male

135

2.73

1.001

.086

 

Female

15

2.53

.516

.133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Samples Test

 

 

 

 

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

 

 

 

 

F

Sig.

 

 

 

 

 

Room temperature

 

Equal variances assumed

5.362

.022

 

Equal variances not assumed

 

 

 

 

The above table states that the Levene’s Test for equality of variance for F vale is 5.362 and its Significance value is 0.022 which is less than the value 0.05. Hence the Alternative Hypothesis  (H1) is accepted and the Null Hypothesis (H0) is rejected.

 

Here, it was concluded that there is relationship between the two variables Gender and Room temperature.

 

7. Conclusion

 

Workplace environment plays a vital role in motivating employees to perform their assigned work. Since money is not a sufficient motivator in encouraging the workplace performance required in today’s competitive business environment. The study suggests that unfavorable work situations can directly impact employee performance regardless of personality predispositions, whereas the development of supportive work environments can have a direct and positive effect on employees. Managers and supervisors will need to be comfortable with working with the whole gamut of workplace factors that influence employee motivation. Therefore it is important to continue to educate the business community regarding the direct benefits of providing an improved work environment.

8. References

1.      Brill, M. Margulies S, Konar E, BOSTI (1984) Using Office Design to Increase Productivity. Vol. 1, 1984, Pg.No . 155- 175

2.      Luthans, K. W. and S. M. Sommer. 2005. "The Impact of High Performance Work on Industry Level Outcomes." Journal of Managerial Issues 17 (3), Pg.No.40-55

3.      Billings, A.G. and R. H. Moos. 1982. "Work Stress and the Stress-buffering Roles of Work and Family Resources." Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 3, Pg.No. 215-232.

4.      www.citehr.com/job-design-employee-productivity.html

  1. http://www.managementstudyguide.com/job-design.html