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