CPU Proposal

Effect of Work Environment on Employee Productivity at Wanza Furniture
MASTER OF ART IN PROJECT MANAGEMEN
EFFECT OF WORK ENVIRONMENT ON EMPLOYEE PRODACTIVITY
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
July, 2021
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
CPU Business and Information Technology College

1.1 Background of the study

Now a day we are in a dynamic working environment and the management’s new challenge is to
form an environment that attracts, retains and motivates its workforce. The responsibility to
create conducive work environment lies with managers and supervisors at all levels of the
organization. They have to create a working environment where people enjoy what they do, feel
like they have a purpose, have pride in what they do and can reach their potential.
According to Tripathi (2014) the work environment can be defined as the environment in which
people work that include physical setting, job profile, culture and market condition. Each aspect
is interlinked and impacts on employee’s overall performance and productivity. It is the quality
of the employees’ workplace environment that most impacts on their level of motivation
subsequently performance. Work environment can be thought of simply as the environment in
which people work (Briner, 2000) as such; it is a very broad category that encompasses the
physical setting (e.g., heat, equipment), characteristics of the job itself (e.g., workload, task
complexity). He adds that it also encompasses broader organizational features (e.g., culture,
history) and even aspects of the external organizational setting (e.g., local labor market
conditions, industry sector, work life balance). Opperman (2002) defines working environment is
a composite of three major sub-environments: the technical environment, the human
environment and the organizational environment.
Employees will always be contended when they feel that their immediate environment states are
in tandem with their obligations (Farh, 2012). Chandrasekar (2011) asserts that the type of
workplace environment in which employees operate determines whether or not organizations
will prosper. The workplace environment consists of physical factors which include the office
layout and design among other factors; while the psychosocial factors include working
conditions, role congruity and social support. Other aspects of the workplace environment are the
policies which include employment conditions. A better physical workplace environment boosts
employees’ performance.
Factors of workplace environment play an important role towards the employees’ performance
and productivity. According to Chandrasekar, (2011) the factors of workplace environment give
an immense impact to the employees’ either towards the negative outcomes or the positive
outcomes. To survive in the industry company needs to have work environment that attract and

retain employee. Work environment play a vital role in the employee performance there by to the
organization. Now a day the industry facing in prevailing of shortage of experienced work force,
therefore it is important that the organization are responsible to attract and retain talented
employee to sustain in the industry. Reviews of studies in the area verify that the contributions of
work environment in employee performance as well as organizational performance have long
been accepted all over the world.
An understanding of the effect of work environment on the productivity of employees cannot be

over-emphasized or seen as overstatement in every organization. Experience has shown that
workers are directly influenced by the environment they find themselves or where their
competence will achieve nothing in terms of productivity if the environment is not conducive. In
most of the available literatures, work environment was listed in different ways with connection
to employees’ performance, and employees’ productivity. Many researchers claim that work
environment does have an influence on employee’s productivity. Studies conducted by (Nita
Sukdeo, 2017 and George et al, 2017), found out that work environment have a significant
impact on employee productivity. Then they emphasized the need for management to improve
the work environment of employees.
Even if many researches are done on the concepts of working environment in different part of the
world however there is lack of literatures in Ethiopian cases in furniture company in particular.
Clearly, there is insufficient literature that could help comprehending the relationship of working
environment and employee among furniture company. This study, therefore, investigated the
effect of working environment on employee productivity in the case of Wanza Furnishing
Industries PLC. Wanza Furnishing Industries PLC is a member of Midroc technology Group that
was established in July 2003 and is engaged in manufacturing and selling of wooden and
metallic furniture for building, household, office, hotel and school in Ethiopia.
1.2 Statement of the problem

Every organization is set up for a purpose and such purpose which is generally referred to as the
objective and this cannot be achieved if the environment looks unhealthy. Employees in many

organizations are encountering with working problems related to workplace environmental and
physical factors. The absence of important of work material as a result of non-availability of
some necessary office facilities like air condition, rugs or tiles, good ventilation in some of the
department in the company is a common feature. Some offices or departments look depressing
and un stimulating. Some of them have no louvers, light and some with uncompleted roofs.
Although convenient workplace conditions are requirements for improving productivity and
quality of outcomes, working conditions in many organizations may present lack of safety,
health and comfort issues such as improper lightening and ventilation, excessive noise and
emergency excess. People working under inconvenient conditions may end up with low
performance and face occupational health diseases causing high absenteeism and turnover. There
are many organizations in which employees encounter with working conditions problems related
to environmental and physical factors. Pech and Slade argued that the employee disengagement
is increasing and it becomes more important to make workplaces that positively influence
workforce. According to Pech and Slade (2006) the focus is on symptoms of disengagement such
as distraction, lack of interest, poor decisions and high absence, rather than the root causes.
Currently, there has been a great challenge on the part of managers in Wanza Furnishing
Industries PLC on determining how exactly they can attain maximum benefits from their
employees whom they believe would go a long way to improve on the productivity of the
company. According to the preliminary survey conducted by the researcher, it is known from
workers view point that the work of furniture business needs good quality of environment and
equipment. However, this is not the case for Wanza Furnishing Industries PLC. As a result of
non-availability of good work environment in company, the performance of employees is in a
declining state. Most departmental manager in the company pay no attention in accomplishing
the departmental set objectives, as to be recognized and promoted at the expense of workers or
employees welfare. These acts of negligence by the mangers have gone a long way to reduce
workers performance or morale and motivation. The state of affairs in the company has resulted
to negative attitude by the employees which is inimical to the progress and accomplishment of
the company’s set objective.

Taking the aforementioned problems in to consideration, this study is designed in assessing the
Wanza Furnishing Industries PLC work enviroment condition that will help in improving
employment employee productivity.
1.3. Research Questions

On the basis of the problem, the study was framed to answer the following research questions:
 What are the effects of leadership style on employee productivity at Wanza Furnishing
Industries PLC?
 What are the effects of supervisor support on employee productivity at Wanza Furnishing
Industries PLC?
 What are the effects of job aid on employee productivity at Wanza Furnishing Industries
PLC?
 What are the effects of work place incentives on employee productivity at Wanza
Furnishing Industries PLC?
 What are the effects of discrimination on employee productivity at Wanza Furnishing
Industries PLC?
1.4. Objective of the Study

1.4.1 General Objective
The general objective of this study is to investigate the effect of work environment on employee
productivity at Wanza Furnishing Industries PLC.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study were:
 To assess the effect of leadership style on employee productivity.
 To find out the effect of supervisor support on employee productivity.
 To analyze the effect of job aid on employee productivity.
 To study the effect of work place incentives on employee productivity.
 To examine the effect of discrimination on employee productivity.
1.5 Significance of the study

This study was examined investigate the effect of work environment on employee productivity at
Wanza Furnishing Industries PLC, assess and explore its shortcomings and solutions to mitigate
the problems. In doing so, in addition to fulfilling the academic requirement of the researcher,
the results of the study will have the following benefits. Primarily, the research helps the
management in this company to take corrective measures to improve its working environment.
This study will improve effect of positive and negative work environment on employee
performance and productivity. This study will upgrade the existing practice of work environment
management. Furthermore, the study may serve as information for other researchers who want to
study in this area.
1.6. Scope of the study

The scope of this study was delimited in terms of subject (concept) and area (geography). The
conceptual scope of this study was focus on some selected work enviroment variables. In view of
that, the study comprises five work enviroment components: leadership style, supervisor support,
job aid, work place incentives and discrimination. Regarding the geographical area coverage, the
study was limited to employees of Wanza Furnishing Industries PLC at head office in Addis
Ababa. This is mainly because of limitation of time and resource. More so, for the smooth
conditioning of conducting research the study geographically delineated at head office in Addis
Ababa
1.7. Limitations of the study
Even though the study was design to enable the researcher collect accurate and reliable data that
can be used to make some inferences, it is however not free from limitations. First, the study was
only encompassed the view and opinion of employees in head office in Addis Ababa. Data was
collected from sample employees drawn from the company head office in Addis Ababa. Thus,
those employees outside the head office in Addis Ababa were omitted in this study as finances
and distances are the limiting factors that inhibit collecting the data from all the employees
across the country. Thus, the finding of the study may not be inferred to the whole employees of
the company around the country. More so, the study is also conducted based on cross-sectional
approach and thus, data was collected at single time rather than frequent observation over the

same sample. Accordingly, the method cannot examine changes over time which needs more
strong empirical investigation.
1.8. Organization of the study

The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter one discusses the introduction part. It contains
the background to the research study, presents the statement of problem, and research objectives.
Also, the chapter has the significance, scope, and limitations of the study. Chapter two contains
theoretical review, empirical review of previous studies and conceptual framework of study.
Chapter three outlines the research methodology adopted in this study. Chapter four discusses
about the data analysis and interpretation of the outputs. Chapter five outlines the summary of
the finding, conclusions, recommendations and further research suggestions.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
In this chapter the researcher reviews relevant literature on theoretical, empirical and conceptual
framework issues which are found to be essential to the research inquiry. Thus, the first section
discussed theoretical framework related to the study variables which were considered in order to
lay solid foundation for the research. Then a brief summary of some of the related previous work
on this study were discussed. In the final analysis, the chapter reviewed the literature related to
the key study variables as presented in the conceptual framework.
2.1. Theoretical Review

The precise clarifications of basic concepts and theories make clear how they are utilized in the
study. Many theories have been advanced to explain the link between workplace environment
and employee productivity. The study is grounded on two theories i.e. The Two Factor Theory
and The Affective Events Theory.
2.1.1. Herzberg Two Factor Theory

The Two Factor Theory was advanced by Frederick Herzberg in 1959. This study is grounded on
this theory that has been explored by various scholars to explain the relation between workplace
environment and employee performance. Herzberg defined two sets of factors in deciding
employees’ working attitudes and levels of performance, named motivation and hygiene factors
(Robbins and Judge, 2007). He stated that motivation factors are intrinsic factors that will
increase employees’ job satisfaction; wile hygiene factors are extrinsic factors to prevent any
employees’ dissatisfaction. The theory pointed out that improving the environment in which the
job is performed motivates employees to perform better.
Herzberg’s theory concentrates on the importance of internal job factors as motivating forces for
employees. He wanted to create the opportunity for employees to take part in planning,
performing and evaluating their work (Schultz et al., 2010). The content of the theory has been
widely accepted as relevant in motivating employees to give their best in organizations. Further
research has proved that the employee is more motivated by intrinsic factors as captured by
Herzberg’s motivator needs than anything else.
There are however other schools of thought that share a different opinion from Herzberg’s. One
such scholar is King (2005) who sought to eradicate and evaluate five distinct versions of the
Two Factor theory. He concluded that two versions are invalid as they are not supported by any
empirical studies. However, the two-factor theory can be said to be a truly outstanding specimen
for it to last a long period of time without disapproval. It has been a great influence on the body
knowledge about workplace motivation and performance. It has generated a great amount of
further research by many scholars. It draws its thought from Maslow’s famous hierarchy of
needs theory and human behavior. However due to changes in organizational environment and
the advancement in technology, it is necessary to develop new methods of analysis.
2.1.2. Affective Events Theory

The theory was advanced by Howard M. Weiss and Russel Cropanzano in 1996 (Phua, 2012).
The Affective Events Theory explains the link between employees’ internal influences and their
reactions to incidents that occur in their work environment that affect their performance,
organizational commitment and job satisfaction. It proposes that positive-inducing as well as
negative emotional incidents at work have significant psychological impact on employees’ job
satisfaction. The impact results into lasting reactions exhibited through job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and job performance.
According to Ashton-James and Ashkanasy (2005) research to date has supported the central
tenets of AET that workplace events trigger affective responses in employees and that these
affective responses influence workplace cognition and behavior. They assert that AET is both
empirically and theoretically, restricted to events that are internal to the organization. The theory
also considers how specific events at work other than job characteristics lead to specific
emotional and behavioral responses (Briner, 2000). He posits that these events or things that
actually happen at work affect the well-being of employees thus affecting their performance.
2.1.3. Expectancy Theory

The most widely accepted explanations of motivation have been propounded by Victor Vroom.
His theory is commonly known as expectancy theory. The theory argues that the strength of a
tendency to act in a specific way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be
followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual to make
this simple. Expectancy theory says that an employee can be motivated to perform better when

there is a belief that the better performance will lead to good performance appraisal and shall
result into realization of personal goal in form of some reward future events. The theory focuses
on three things efforts and performance relationship, performance and reward relationship,
rewards and personal goal relationship (Salaman et al, 2005).
This theory is based on the hypothesis that individuals adjust their behavior in the organization
on the basis of anticipated satisfaction of valued goals set by them. In order for employees to
perform in this theory is by making sure each employee's workplace goals and values are aligned
with the organization's mission and vision is important for creating and maintaining a high level
of motivation. That can lead to higher productivity, improve employee performance, reduce the
chances of low employee morale, encourage teamwork and instill a positive attitude during
challenging times (Salaman et al, 2005).
2.2. Definition of Working Environment

Kohun (1992) defines the working environment as the totality of forces, actions, and alternatives
prestigious factors that are presently and probably competitive with the employee performance
(as cited in Taiwo, 2010). Working environment is the sum of the interrelationship that exists
within the staff and also the environment during which employee work. Brenner (2004) was of
the opinion that ―the ability to share knowledge throughout the organizations depends on how
the working environment is designed to enable organizations to utilize work environment as if it
were an asset. This helps organizations to improve effectiveness and allow employees to benefit
from collective knowledge‖. In addition, he argued that working environment designed to suit
employee’s satisfaction and free flow of exchange of ideas is a better medium of motivating
employees towards higher productivity.
Briner, (2000) Elaborated working environment as awfully broad class that encompasses the
physical setting (e.g. heat, equipment etc.), characteristics of the work itself (e.g. workload, task
complexity),broader structure options (e.g. culture, history) and even aspects of the additional
organizational setting (e.g. native marketplace conditions, trade sector, work life balance) It
means that work environment is the sum of the interrelationship that exists among the employees
and the employers and the environment in which the employees work which includes the
technical, the human and the organizational environment.

Opperman (2002) defines working environment could be a composite of three major sub
environments: the technical environment, the human environment and the organizational
environment. The technical environment refers to tools, equipment, technology, infrastructure,
and alternative physical parts. The technical environment creates elements that enable employees
perform their respective responsibilities and activities. The human environment refers to peers,
others within whom workers relates, team and work teams, mutual problems, the leadership and
management. These environments are meant in such some way that encourages informal
interaction within the work place so the chance to share data and exchange ideas may well be
increased. This can be a basis to achieve the most productivity. Organizational environment
embodies systems, procedures, practices, values, and philosophies. Measurement system
wherever employees are rewarded on amount, therefore employees can have very little interest in
serving to those workers who try to boost quality. Thus, problems with organizational
environment influence employee’s productivity. Management has control over organizational
environment. Measurement system where people are rewarded on quantity, hence workers will
have little interest in helping those workers who are trying to improve quality.
Work environment plays a vital role in motivating employees to perform their assigned job.
Since money is not a sufficient motivator in encouraging the workplace performance. The ability
to attract, keep and motivate high-performance is becoming increasingly important these days.
And an attractive and comfortable work environment provides a condition for employees to
perform their job effectively (Christabella, 2014). Even though the work environment does not
carry out the production process within a company, it has a direct influence on the employees
who carry out the production process (Wilda et. al, 2017).
2.3. Working Environment Factors that Affect Employees Productivity

An attractive and supportive working environment provide conditions that enable employees to
perform effectively, making best use of their knowledge, skills and competences and the
available resources in order to provide high-quality of organization service. The workplace
environment comprises of various factors that are imperative determinants of employee
performance (Lambert, 2001). These factors may positively or negatively contribute to achieving
maximum employee performance.

Work environments have many properties, components or factors that may affect both physical
and psychological well-being of workers (Briner, 2000). How well employees engage with
factors in their working environments influences to a great extent in their error rate, level of
innovation and collaboration with other employees, absenteeism and ultimately, how long they
stay in the job which is a function of their commitment towards work (Chandrasekar, 2011).
Chandrasekar identified twelve factors in workplace environment which either lead to
engagement or disengagement of workers. These factors include: goal-setting, performance
feedback, role congruity, defined processes, workplace incentives, supervisor support,
mentoring/coaching, opportunity to apply new skills, job aids, environmental factors, and
physical factors.
Arsalani et al (2011) also pointed out that factors of working environments are divided in to two
parts physical and psychosocial. The physical includes the lighting, noise and poor ergonomics
while psychosocial includes, influence at work, meaning of work, quality leadership and
insecurity at work. Many other researchers have also showed various factors of working
environment which include two broader dimensions such as work and context. Work includes
different characteristics of the job like job carried out and completed, task activities training, job
autonomy and achievement. Context comprises of physical working condition and social
working conditions (Gazioglu & Tanselb, 2006).
From several working environment factors presented in previous studies, the present study
however, takes; leadership style, work place incentive, job aid, supervisory support and
discrimination as a major working environment factor.
2.3.1. Leadership Style

According to Adair, (2002), “Leadership is the ability to persuade others to seek defined
objectives enthusiastically. It is the human factor which binds a group together and to improve
their performance and to direct them towards goals. Leadership is a process by which an
executive can direct, guide and influence the behavior and work of others toward the
accomplishment of specific goals in a given situation. An effective leader has a responsibility to
provide guidance and share the knowledge to the employee to lead them for better performance
and make them expert for maintaining the quality. And to become a head of all the team
members is such a great responsibility. The introduction of clear standards of leadership

promotes the core values and maturity on their role and responsibility. As the situation affects
which functions the leaders carries out, it would also affect the manner in which the functions are
performed.
Leadership style refers to a type of relationship whereby a person makes use of his methods and
technique to make many people work collectively for a commonplace undertaking (Fiedler,
2012). There are three types of leaders (democratic, autocratic and laissez faire) which is most
widely frequent and used (Tannenbanum and Schmidt, 1958). Dahl (1989) and Fishkin (1991)
proclaimed that democratic leadership influences people in a manner consistent with the basics
of democratic principles and process, such as deliberation, equal participation, inclusiveness and
self-determination.
There are broadly three types of leadership styles according to Coens (2002) and he also explains
the different traits of each style that significantly affect the employee performance. The first is
autocratic/authoritarian leadership that describe the type of leaders who give orders and expect
instant obedient without argument. Plans and policies are made in isolation from the group.
Orders are given without explanation for the reasons or of future intentions. The autocratic
leaders do not become part of them at all, but merely direct it. Traits of autocratic style: All
decision-making power is theirs, unrealistic in demands, uses excessive discipline and
punishment, does not allow others to question decisions or authority, feels he/she is the abilities,
critical of differing opinions, rarely gives recognition, is easily offended is offended, uses others
for his/her benefit, actions oriented, highly competitive, useful in the short-term focus (Coens,
2002).
The second one is participative leader which is a leadership style in which employees takes part
in the decision-making process. Opinions of the group are sought by the participative leader who
uses this information to make decisions. The group is kept informed about the future and are
allowed to debate and proposed Changes to long term policy (Coens, 2002).
The third one is democratic leadership style. Theoretically the best type of leaders. The
democratic leader makes no suggestions but asks for the group’s opinions. Democratic
leadership encourages innovation, team work, creativity and people are often being engaged in
projects that lead to increased performance, job satisfaction and increased productivity (Verba,
2015). Iqbal, et al. (2015) stated that democratic leader makes no suggestions, however they

enquire the opinions of others. This leadership promotes all team members to participate to make
final decision and develop entire process to reach their goals (Trivisonno & Barling, 2016). One
of the major benefits of democratic leadership style is that the process facilitates in development
of some additional leaders who can majorly sere the organization and have active involvement
on the part of everyone in the team (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014). Democratic leaders encourage
and invite team members to play a significant role in the final decision-making process but the
ultimate power relies in the hands of leaders and he/she guides the team on what to do, how to
do, and employees communicate their suggestions, experience and recommendations (Skogstad,
2015).
2.3.2. Supervisory support

A supervisor is also known as a person with an experience leader, a person who can solve
problem and also the role model at the first level of organizational management (Adair, 1988;
Nijman, 2004). Therefore, as an experience leader, the supervisors had always been involved in
conducting a training program. The training program that is being conducted are such as
establishing the objectives, selecting the trainer, developing a lesson plan, selecting the program
method and techniques that is being used, preparing the materials, scheduling the program and
also conduct a training needs analysis (Adair, 1988; Elangovan and Karakowsky,1999). Ramlall,
(2004) stated that, a supervisor could be a trainer to the employees, as the trainer will assist the
employees in getting their job done by guiding employees on the operational process especially
when it comes to a new operational procedure. A supervisor support could lead to the
employees’ performance but there is a case that the supervisor had failed in supporting their
employees. For example, the miscommunication between employees and the supervisor in term
of delivering the information or process on the job to the employees (Harris, 2000).
In order to gain the employees performance, both party in between the employees and supervisor
needs to play their part which is to commit with the relationship. If full commitment is given, it
will lead to positive result to the performance from the employees (Blau, 1964).
2.3.3. Workplace Incentives

The organization determines what motivates its employees and sets up formal and informal
structures for rewarding employees behaving in the way required. Rewards may consist of a mix
of internal rewards, such as challenging assignments, and external rewards, such as higher

compensation and peer recognition (Chandrasekar, 2011). Performance of professional

employees is poor not only due to working environment factors but also due to lack of human
resource management aspect such as recognition of employees who performs well, poor working
condition, absence of performance appraisal system and poor feedback on performance outcome.
Therefore, significant changes in promotions, compensation and benefits helps in keeping
employees satisfied and in turn increases production.
2.3.4. Job Aid

Rossett and Gauier (1991) stated that, the purpose of job aid is to direct and guide as to enlighten the
employee’s performance. Job aid also helps in order to support the employees’ performance. An
example of a military performance had been reviewed by (Duncan 1985) regarding the military
reliance on job aids between 1958 and 1972 which is significant and positive contribution toward the
military performance. He also stated that based on the results of military analysis, job aid saved
money without jeopardizing employees work performance. There are three ways to increase
performance based on the job aid (Cavanaugh, 2004). The first way is through the external support
which means that the employees need to take leave from work and look for the source as for their
reference to their job. The second way is through the extrinsic support. An extrinsic support means
that the job aid is being given within the system itself. As for the third way, it is called the intrinsic
support. An intrinsic support is an insider or software that is being used as for the efficiency of
workflow.
2.3.5. Discrimination
The United Nations’ International Labor Organization (2015) defines Work place discrimination
refers to a working environment that exhibits bias in the treatment of employees based on
gender, ethnicity, religion, age, disability and belief. It occurs. It occurs in hiring, promotion, job
assignment, and composition. This conceptualization reflects world recognition of the
persistence of unfair employment experience of individuals from spread of social group.
Workplace discrimination not only hurts those who are discriminated against, it can also damage
the entire organization. Companies may have trouble retaining employees, and those who stay
may be dissatisfied with their jobs and distrustful of each other and of company management.
Discrimination in workplace could be direct or indirect. It is direct discrimination when an

employer treats an employee less favorably than someone else. But indirect discrimination

happens when a working conditions or rule disadvantages one group of people more than
another. According to Hassan and Ali (2014); and Fatima and Omar (2014), the different
dimensions of workplace discrimination are; gender discrimination, religion discrimination and
ethnic discrimination. Other scholars identified six main types of discrimination which are;
disabilities discrimination, sexual harassment, ethnic discrimination, age discrimination, sexual
orientation discrimination and gender discrimination (Hemphill and Haines 1997). For the
purpose of this study the researcher identified four dimensions of discrimination such as; age,
gender, religion and ethnicity discrimination.
2.4. Empirical Review

There are many empirical studies and literature focused on the topic of working environment
which has impact on employee productivity. This section contented the researched papers which
are done by other researchers about working environment which has impact on employee
productivity in different countries are discussed below.
In his study, Tamessek (2009) analyzed the extent to which employees perceive their workplace
environment as fulfilling their intrinsic, extrinsic, and social needs and their need to stay in the
organization. He also analyzed the impact of perception of workplace environments on employee
commitment and turnover in the organization, he concluded that if the employees are provided
with enabling workplace environmental support, they will be highly satisfied and show high
level of commitment towards their organization and hence low turnover rate.
Research by Roelofsen (2002) indicates that improving the working environment reduces
complains and absenteeism while increasing productivity. Better physical workplace
environment will boost the employee and ultimately their performance. A study done by
Chevalier (2004) revealed that when environmental supports are sound, employees are better
equipped to do what is expected of them. Chandrasekar (2003) in her study found out that
workplace environment plays a big role in increasing employees’ performance. Findings by
Ajala (2012) indicated that workplace environmental elements such as sufficient light, absence
of noise, proper ventilation and layout arrangement substantially increase employees’
productivity. Khan et al. (2011) investigated the impact of workplace environment and
infrastructure on employees’ performance from the education in Pakistan and concluded that
incentives at workplace had a positive impact on employees’ performance.

Hameed and Amjad (2009) in a survey of 31 bank branches showed that comfortable and
ergonomic office design motivates the employees and increased their performance substantially.
Aisha et al. (2013) in their study “Effects of Working Ability, Working Condition, Motivation
and Incentive on Employees Multi-Dimensional Performance” found that the variables
incentives, motivation and working conditions have a significant effect on employee
performance in an Indonesian university. It is evident from these studies that a good workplace
environment plays a very vital towards increasing performance of employees in general.
The study by Gitah, (2014) Investigate the effect of work environment on the performance of
Bank employees in Nakuru Town. The study showed that physical work environment and
psychosocial work environment had strong influence on the employee’s performance. Sharman,
(2000) in his study stated that the purpose of work environments was to improve job
performance. The study revealed that performance will improve with environment if a
correlation is exist. Astri, (2011) also stated that joint effort facilitates the meeting of partner
desires within the workplace and has been honestly linked to employee’s performance.
The recent study Awan, (2015), studied about the impact of working environment on employee’s
performance and he observed that the factors like supervisor support, relation with co-workers,
training and development, attractive and fast incentives and recognition plans, adequate work
load at work place are helpful in developing a working environment that has positive impact on
employee’s level performance in the organizations. Taiwo, (2010) found that the performance of
employees would increase by keeping working conditions and working environment up to
certain threshold level. Waweru, (2010) found that the psychosocial work environment factors
had an impact on to increase level of performance and commitment. Noah and Steven, (2011)
studied about the influence of working environment on employee’s performance and found
strong relationship between the two. Ajala, (2015) studied about influence of workplace
environment on workers welfare and productivity and the results showed that workplace
environment at workplace have effect on productivity.
2.4 Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework is a set of broad ideas and principles taken from relevant fields of
enquiry and used to structure a subsequent presentation (Gill & Johnson, 2002). It is a research
instrument that helps a researcher to develop awareness and understanding of the situation under
inquiry and to communicate it. Unlike theory, a concept is an abstract or overall impression
inferred or deduced from specific instance. From the theoretical and empirical literature reviews,
the following conceptual framework of the study is developed by the researcher.
Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework
Independent variables Dependent variable
 Leadership style
 Supervisor support
Employee
 Job aid Productivity
 Work place incentives
 Discrimination
Source: Compiled by the researcher
In this framework, work enviroment is independent variable and employee productivity is

dependent variable. The independent variable work enviroment is operationalized through:
leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place incentives and discrimination.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the researcher describes the procedures to ensure a methodical and well-informed
investigation, focusing on sampling procedure, data collection and analysis methods. Data
collection instruments and procedures are discussed as well as the target population and
sampling procedures. Research methodology is described as method of illuminating scientific
procedures in a way suitable for the purpose. It is the general standard which direct the
description of the methods applied in conducting the research study, how to and what analysis to
be done to the data so collected (Akinyele, 2016). These are realized in address research methods
that will be used for the study, the data collection and how the field work for the study is
conducted.
3.2 Research Design and Approach

Newing (2011) defined research design as the arrangement of conditions for collection and
analysis of data in a way that intend to combine importance to the research purpose with
economy in procedure. Kothari (2004) further emphasizes that research design assist the smooth
performance that carrying out the various research operations, thus enabling the exercise as
efficient as possible, comprehending utmost outcome with minimum resources.
The choice of research design depends on objectives that the researchers want to achieve
(Newing, 2011). The primary aim of this study is to examine the effect of work environment on
employee productivity at WANZA furniture. To achieve this objective, the researcher was
employed explanatory type of research design through survey questionnaire. Explanatory
research design is focus on an analysis of a situation or a specific problem to explain the patterns
of relationships between variables. It helps to understand the nature of the relationship between
the independent and dependent variables. The purpose of using explanatory research was to know
the cause and effect of the human resource management practice on organizational performance.
More so, survey design was used for its economy, ease of data collection and interpretation
through structured questionnaire, and ability to understand the characteristics of the population

under study. It was therefore justified in view of the above definitions, descriptions and strengths
that explanatory survey was the most suited and appropriate design for this study.
Regarding the research approach, the research project was followed quantitative approach. The
relationships among variables statistically tested, which required a quantitative approach to
determine the relationship among the study variables.
3.3 Target Population

Target population of survey is the entire set of units for which the survey data are used to make
inferences (Smyth, 2004). It is the population that a researcher wants to generalize the results of
the study. The target population of the study consisted of all employees of WANZA furniture as
they appear in the company Human Resource Department database. Currently, there around 380
employees are currently employed in the company workshops in Addis Ababa.
3.4 Sample Size

Lavrakas (2008) explains a sample in survey research as a subset of elements drawn from a
larger population. Obviously, such a sample should be typically identical with the population
thus provide adequate representation. If a sample is not precise and inadequate both in
characteristic and size, it may lead to rejection of false null hypothesis, wrong result and
therefore a waste of resources (Gerstman, 2003). Likewise, a study that collects too much data is
wasteful. Therefore, it is essential to establish adequate sample size before going on data
collection for a study. In recognition of this fact, to determine sample size of the study, the
researcher uses a method developed by Taro Yamane’s formula. Therefore, the following
formula is used to determine the sample size.
That is n= N/1+N(e)²
Where: n is the sample size, N is the population size and e is the error of sampling. For this study
the error of sampling is set at 0.05.
N = 380/1+ 380(0.05)²= 380/1.95 = 195 respondents

We can see from the result above that the sample size was 195 from the total study population of
380 to maintain a 95% confident interval. In order make important adjustments for unresponsive
questionnaires and to make the finding all-embracing, the respondents were enlarged to 200.
3.5. Sampling Technique

For the purpose of this study, the researcher was used probability sampling technique to select
sample participants. Specifically, the selection and distribution of questionnaires among
employees will be made based on simple random sampling. Simple random sampling was used
because of the fact that it allowed researched to make statistical inference. As Shadish et al
(2002), stated random sampling ensures that the result obtained from the sample should
approximate what would have been obtained if the entire population had been measured.
Besides, the method is used as it is easy to use and its accurate representation of the larger
population.
3.6. Data Collection Instrument

For this study both primary and secondary sources of data were used. Kothari (2004) describes
primary data as those which are collected a fresh and for the first time and thus happen to be
original in character. Dawson (2009) states that secondary research data involves the data
collected using information from studies that other researchers have made of a subject. Both sets
of data were used in this study.
The study was utilized questionnaire as major instrument for collecting primary data. Schwab
(2005) defined questionnaire as measuring instruments that ask individuals to answer a set of
questions or respond to a set of statement. A questionnaire is research instrument that is used in
data collection when dealing with a large sample (Kombo, et a1, 2002). A questionnaire was
preferred because of its convenience and ease of administration. Kothari (2004) stated that
questionnaires have various advantages, like; it is free from the bias of the interviewer; it is low
cost even when the universe is large and is widely spread geographically; respondents have
adequate time to give well thought out answers; respondents who are not easily approachable can
also be reached conveniently; large samples can be made use of and thus the results can be made
more dependable and reliable. In view of the advantages and the need to gather more

information, questionnaires was administered to employees and to solicit their views concerning
the effect of work environment on employee productivity at WANZA furniture.
The study was use closed-ended questions. This is due to the fact that closed-ended questions are
often good for surveys, because one can get higher response rates. Besides, answers to closed-
ended questions can easily be coded and analyzed makes them particularly useful when trying to
prove the statistical significance of a survey’s results. Sample copy of questionnaire is provided
in appendix I.
The questionnaire was carefully designed and was tested with a few members of the population
for further improvements. Each item was cautiously created so as to collect the target
information, address research objectives and tied into the overall research problem. The
questionnaire was structured into 3 sections. Section A of the questionnaire is about general
information of the respondents. Section B of the questionnaire is design to measures the
independent variables i.e. work environment (leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work
place incentives and discrimination). Section C is the last section of the questionnaire and it
measured the dependent variables i.e. employee productivity.
3.7. Pilot Test

For primary data, a pilot test was carried out before the main data collection, in order to fix the
validity and reliability of the questionnaire, vagueness and clarity of items. Babble (2002),
indicated that pilot testing is a trial run of procedure and instruments that someone plans to use in
undertaking a research. The purpose is to get feedback on the clarity, simplicity and adequacy of
the questions in collecting the target information. The rule of the thumb suggests that 5% to 10%
of the target sample should constitute the pilot test (Cooper & Schilder, 2011). The pilot test
therefore was performed using five (5) employees of the company at summit workshop and due
care was given to exclude these piloted respondents from the main study. The results of pilot
questionnaires were used to make validity and reliability test.
There is always more than one way to measure any variable, a researcher has to attempt to
construct the best measure or measures for each variable. Considering this, data should first
analyze to ensure instrument quality. Reliability and validity were used as the major criteria used

to evaluate measurement. Reliability was used to ensure consistence of data whereas validity was
used to test the accuracy of the measurement process (Cooper & Schilder, 2011).
3.7.1 Instrument Validity

Validity refers to the extent to which the scores from a measure represent the variable they are
intended (Gakure, 2010). It is the extent to which the scores from a measure signify the variable
they are intended to.Weber (1990) indicated that in order to draw valid inference from a test, it is
important that the classification procedure be reliable and consistent. As errors are likely to
occur, whether intentionally or not, therefore every measurement result should include
measurement error to ensure the validity of such measurement.
In recognition of this fact, therefore, a validity test of the questionnaires was done on its content.
Content validity measures the extent to which a test acts to measure a concept analysis of the
items so as to confirm adequate coverage of the scope of the study by the measuring instrument
(Oyerinde, 2011). In order to ascertain the relevance of each question to variables being
measured and to ensure that the content of the instrument provide answers to the objectives of
the study, content validity of the pilot questionnaire was tested. The response of the pilot
administration of the questionnaire was used to improve the content values of the questions used
in the main administration.
3.7.2 Instrument reliability

In addition, reliability test will be carried out in order to ensure the consistency of the
instruments used in main administration. The reliability is consistency of the measurement; that
is, to what extent a measuring device will produce the same results when applied multiple times
to the same person under similar conditions (Gakure & Ngumi, 2010). The most straightforward
method of testing reliability is to replicate; either by asking the same questions to the same
respondents at different times and evaluating the degree of correlation, or by asking the same
question in different ways at different points in the questionnaire (Johnson & Turner, 2003).
The study was employed Cronbachs’ alpha to assess reliability of the questionnaire. Cronbachs’
co-efficient alpha is the most common way of measuring internal consistency. Cronbachs’
coefficient (alpha) may range between 0 to 1, with 0 indicating an instrument full of errors and 1

indicating total absence of error. The closer Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1, the higher the
internal consistency reliability (Oyerinde, 2011). A reliability coefficient (alpha) of 0.70 is
considered acceptable, reliable and recommended for new questionnaire. The reliability of the
questionnaire was tested using the Cronbach’s alpha correlation coefficient with the aid of
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The descriptive analysis of primary data
showed that a high reliability was attained by questionnaire instrument with acceptable range of
reliability coefficients.
Table3.1: Reliability Test Result

No. of
Variables Cronbach
Alpha Items
Leadership style 0.789 6

Supervisor support .826 5
Job aid 0.776 3
Work place incentives 0.781 3
Discrimination 0.87 6
Employee Productivity 0.76 6
Source: SPSS Output
As Tavakol (2001) stated that, there are different reports about the acceptable values of alpha,
Hence, the Cronbach ‘s alpha coefficient of all the above variables was fall within the stated
range and concluded that there is consistency among each question in the questionnaire
3.8. Data Processing and Analyzing

In this study, the primary data was collected from distributed questionnaire. Once the
questionnaires were gathered, the next step was to edit, clean, encode and look for errors in the
data. This was the question of data processing. Data processing is a series of actions or steps
performed on data to verify, organize, transform, integrate, and extract data in an appropriate
output form for subsequent use. In recognition of this fact, therefore, the data processing of
collected questionnaires was rigorously done. This helped in compressing and arranging the data
into small sets for easy examination and analysis.

Next, the collected and processed primary data from the questionnaire was analyzed by
descriptive statistics, and multiple linear regression analysis. Descriptive statistics such as mean
scores, percentages, frequency distribution and standard deviations will be computed to describe
the characteristics of the variables of interest in the study. Besides, inferential statistics such as
multiple linear regression analysis was used to test the hypothesized relationships and to
determine the relative importance of each independent variable in explaining the variation firm
performance of the case company.
3.9. Statistical Model

Regression analysis is a statistical tool for the investigation of relationships between variables.
Regression analysis is also important for quantifying the impact of various simultaneous
variables upon a single dependent variable. Multiple linear regression model was used to assess
whether selected human resource dimensions are a function of the variables indicated on the
specific objectives. In order to address the objectives of research inquires; the study used the
regression equations to test the significance of the study hypotheses.
The generic objective of the study is to examine if selected work environment dimensions
influence employee productivity at WANZA furniture. The following multiple linear regression
equation was used to examine the effect of work environment on employee productivity at
WANZA furniture.
Y=β0 +β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 +β4X4 + β5X5 + e

Where Y represents employee productivity, while X1, X2, X3, X4 and X5 represent the
independent variables: leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place incentives and
discrimination respectively. β0 is the constant, while β1, β2, β3 β4 and β5 represent

corresponding coefficients or parameters for the respective independent variables to be estimated
and e represent the error term that captures all relevant variables not included in the model.

3.10. Ethical Consideration

The researcher was made his best to address ethical consideration of confidentiality, privacy, and
informed consent. Consent was obtained from the administrative of the enterprise after
explaining the relevance of the study. All the study participants were informed about the purpose
of the study and verbal consent of all study subjects was obtained before data collection.
Participants were also be informed that they have full right to discontinue or refuse to participate
in the study. To ensure confidentiality, the name of interviewee was not written on the
questionnaire.

Chapter Four
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Introduction
This chapter deals with organization, analysis and presentation of data collected from
respondents using questionnaires. The data collected was analyzed and interpreted in line with
the objective of the study which was; to assess the effect of work environment on employee
productivity at WANZA furniture. It gives the empirical findings and results following the
application of these variables using the techniques indicated in the third chapter.
4.1 Response Rate

The researcher distributed two hundred questionnaires (200). Out of these one hundred and sixty-
five questionnaires (165) were completed and returned. This represents a response rate of 82.5%
and none response rate of 17.5%. According to Mugenda (2003), a response rate of 50% is
considered good and response rate greater than 70% is considered to be very good. The 82.5%
response rate is thus considered a very good representative of respondents to provide enough
information for analysis and to derive conclusions.
Table 4.1: Response Rate

Response rate Sample size Percentage (%)
Returned questionnaires 165 82.5

Un-returned questionnaires 35 17.5
Total 200 100
Source, survey data, 2021
4.2 General information of respondents

This section assesses general information of respondents. Respondents were asked about their
gender, age, level of education attained, passion and tenure in present organization. This
information is not necessarily important for addressing research objectives but they provided
important information that helps the researcher to determine the ability of the respondent to
contribute meaningfully to the investigation. The result is presented in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 General Information of the respondent

Main factor Factor level Frequency Percentage
Male 129 76.4
Gender Female 39 23.6
Total 165 100
18 – 25 years 36 21.8
26 - 40 years 74 44.8
Age 41-55 years 43 26.1
Over 50 years 12 7.3
Total 165 100
Primary 12 7.3
Secondary 57 34.5
Educational Diploma 38 23.0
qualification Degree 44 26.7
Master and above 14 8.5
Total 165 100.0
Under 5 years 43 26.1
For how long have you 5 - 10 years 82 49.7
been employed in this 10 - 14 years 28 17.0
company?
above 15 years 12 7.3
Total 165 100.0
Clerical 83 50.3
Position in the Professional 74 44.8
Organization? Managerial 8 4.8
Total 165 100.0
Table 4.2 above shows the gender distribution of the respondents who participated in the study.
From table 4.2 show that 76.4% were males while 23.6 % were females. The findings showed
that male respondents were more than with female a representation and this finding indicate that
males were dominated in the company.
Respondents represented respondents from a range of ages. The age distribution was 74
respondents (44.8%) age between 26 - 40 years, 43 respondents (26.1%) were age between 41 -

55 years, 36 respondents (21.8%) were age between 18-25 years and 12 respondents (7.3%) were
above 50 years. The different age groups were therefore well represented in the study.
Regarding the educational qualification, 34.5% of the respondents were having secondary
education and 26.7% respondents were having first Degree, 23% of the respondents were having
Diploma while 8.5% were having Master or above. This therefore means that the respondents
who participated in this study are well informed about the work environment of the company.
These respondents were therefore able to give their perceptions of the effect of work
environment on employee productivity at WANZA furniture by answering the questionnaire.
4.3 Descriptive analysis of study variables

Descriptive statistics were used to explain the basic features of the data that was collected from
the field. They present simple summaries about the sample and the measures together with
simple graphic illustrations. This section discusses the descriptive statistics of measures of the
five dimensions of work environment (leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place
incentives and discrimination) and employee productivity that were collected by the
questionnaire
In line with the objectives articulated under chapter three here effort was made to analyze
respondents view on the provided a five scale likert types of questions. Respondents’ feedbacks
were captured along the 29 items were introduced to measure the study area under each of the
five dimensions of work environment (leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place
incentives and discrimination) and employee productivity. In this regard the descriptive parts of
this study were analyzed based on using a descriptive statistic of mean and standard deviation.
Accordingly, the composite mean value shows the average of all respondents’ perceptions on
each question. While, standard deviation shows how diverse are the perceptions of respondents
for a given questions.
4.3.1. Leadership style

The study assesses the perception of employees towards leadership style of the Wanza Furniture
company. To find out the company work environment in terms of leadership style the study
made an attempt to develop a six scale Likert types of questions and employees were invited to
indicate their views for each of the questions. Based on these, respondent were asked about

leadership style, the result mean score value and standard deviation implied below 4.3 in the
table.
Table 4.3: Respondents view on the leadership style

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agre
disagree
(%) (%)
agree Mean SD
Indicators (%) e (%) (%)
1 2 3 4 5
Leadership style of Wanza furniture is

3.6 52.1 9.1 33.3 1.8 2.78 1.0
suitable to employee.
The leadership style of the company
makes many people work collectively 0 26.7 37.6 31.5 4.2 3.13 .85
for a common place undertaking.

Managers & supervisors are comfortable
with working with the whole range of
1.8 43.6 21.2 30.9 2.4 2.88 .95
work place factors that influence
employee productivity.
The leadership style of the company is
democratic principles such as
1.8 63.0 4.8 29.1 1.2 2.65 .96
deliberation, equal participation,
inclusiveness and self-determination.
encourages innovation, teamwork,
1.2 33.9 35.8 27.9 2.4 2.99 .84
creativity that leads to increased
productivity of the employee.
invites team members to play a
1.2 55.2 14.5 28.5 .6 2.72 .91
significant role in the final decision-
making process.
Average 2.85 0.91

Question was asked on whether Leadership style of Wanza furniture is suitable to employee. The
finding showed that 52.1% were disagreed, while only 33.3% were agreed. Mean response was
2.78 with a scattered standard deviation of 1.0 implied that most of respondents were less
agreement regarding the suitability of the company leadership style to employee. Question was
also asked whether the leadership style of the company makes many people work collectively for
a common place undertaking. The finding showed that 31.65 were agreed and 26.7% were
disagreed, while 37.6% were neutral. Mean response was 3.13 indicating that respondents were
indifferent view on the statement.
On whether the managers & supervisors are comfortable with working with the whole range of
work place factors that influence employee productivity, the finding showed that 43.6% were
disagreed and 33.3% were either agreed or strongly agree, while little above one-fifth (21.2%)
were neutral. Mean response was 2.88 with standard deviation of 0.95 implied that most of
respondents were less agreement regarding managers & supervisors are comfortable with
working with the whole range of work place factors that influence employee productivity.
Question was also asked whether the leadership style of the company is democratic principles
such as deliberation, equal participation, inclusiveness and self-determination. The finding
showed that 63 were disagreed, while 29.3% were agreed. Mean response was 2.72 indicating
that respondents were less agreement on the statement that the leadership style of the company is
democratic principles such as deliberation, equal participation, inclusiveness and self-
determination.
Over all, the grand mean response on the company leadership style is 2.85 which is below
average that indicate there are lots of gaps concerning leadership practices that need further
improvement and attention. Specifically, there is gap in terms adopting the leadership style that
promote democratic principles such as deliberation, equal participation, inclusiveness and self-
determination. More so, it was observed from the finding that the leadership style of the
company does not promote team members to play a significant role in the final decision-making
process. Thus, the company need to consider these issues and improved them in its leadership
practices in the future.

4.3.2. Respondents view on Supervisor support

Supervisor support is an important element of work environment that has its own role in
employee productivity. In premise to this concept the survey was provided related questions to
assess respondent view on their supervisor support. The survey results were presented in table
4.4.
Table 4.4: Respondents view on supervisor support

Strongly Strongly
disagree
(%) (%)
agree Mean SD
1 2 3 4 5
The supervisors of the company are

highly experienced leaders and he/she 21.8 37.0 9.1 23.6 8.5 2.60 1.2
can be employee role model.

The supervisors of the company train
and assist the employee when the new 8.5 45.5 12.1 27.3 6.7 2.78 1.1
project starts.
The supervisors of the company guide
employees properly to do jobs and 1.2 55.2 14.5 28.5 .6 2.72 .94
increase employee productivity.

There is good communication between
the employee & the supervisor in terms 2.4 45.5 19.4 27.3 5.5 2.88 1.0
of delivering the information.

If full commitment is given from
supervisors, it will lead to positive 0 6.1 20.0 59.4
14.5
3.82 .74
result to the productivity from the
employee.
Average 2.96 .99
The study was assessed respondents view the supervisors of the company are highly experienced
leaders and he/she can be employee role model. The finding showed that 58.8% were either
disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 23.6% were agreed. Mean response was 2.6 with a

scattered standard deviation of 1.22 which indicated that there was less agreement on the
statement that the supervisors of the company are highly experienced leaders and he/she can be
employee role model. Question was also asked whether the supervisors of the company train and
assist the employee when the new project starts. The finding showed that little above half of
respondents were disagreed, while little above one-fourth (27.3%) were agreed. This is an
indication that the supervisors of the company do not properly train and assist the employee
when the new project starts.
Question was also asked whether the supervisors of the company guide employees properly to do
jobs and increase employee productivity. Similar to the above finding majority (56.4%) was
disagreed, while around 30%were agreed. Mean response was 2.72 with a standard deviation of
0.94. When respondents were asked whether there is good communication between the employee
& the supervisor in terms of delivering the information, around half (47.9%) were disagreed,
while around one-third were disagreed with the statement. This is an indication that there is lack
of good communication between the employee & the supervisor in terms of delivering the
information.
When respondents were asked their level agreement with statement “If full commitment is given
from supervisors, it will lead to positive result to the productivity from the employee”, they are
also relatively more agreement on it. Accordingly, the finding showed that around three-fourth
(73.9%) were agreed, while 6.1% were disagreed and the remaining 20% were neutral. Mean
response was 3.82 with standard deviation of 0.74. The result the signal for the company
management if full commitment is given from supervisors, it will lead to positive result to the
productivity from the employee.
Over all, respondent view on the supervisor support were showed that there are lots of gaps
concerning the supervisor support that need further improvement and attention. Specifically,
there is gap in terms of the supervisors of the company guiding employees properly to do jobs
and increase employee productivity. There is lack of good communication between the employee
& the supervisor in terms of delivering the information. Thus, the company need to consider
these issues and improved them in its supervisor support practices in the future.

4.3.3. Respondents view on Job Aid

Job aid is an important element of work environment that has its own role in employee
productivity. With regards to this the study were assessed the job aid as one dimension of work
environment through five likert scale question. Accordingly, below the table 4.5 implied
respondents’ respective view regarding the job aid situation of the company.
Table 4.5: Respondents view on the job aid

Strongly Strongly
disagree
(%) (%)
agree Mean SD
1 2 3 4 5
Job aid from the company is helps in
order to support the employee 0 16.4 26.7 44.8 12.1 3.53 .90
productivity.
The compensation system currently
implemented initiate employees to
strive for the success of their 1.2 15.8 38.8 41.8 2.4 3.28 .80
organization and to achieve great
performance.
The company properly guide 8.5 45.5 12.1 27.3 6.7 2.78 .92
employees to do the job.
Average 3.20 0.87
Question was asked on whether job aid from the company is helps in order to support the
employee productivity. The finding showed that 56.9% of respondents were agreed; while only
16.4% of respondents were disagree with the statement. Mean response was 3.53 with a standard
deviation of 0.9 implied that most of respondents were an agreement with preposition that Job
aid from the company is helps in order to support the employee productivity.
On whether the compensation system currently implemented initiate employees to strive for the
success of their organization and to achieve great performance, the finding showed that 41.8%
were agreed, while only 15.8 % were disagreed. Mean response was 3.28 with standard deviation
of 0.8. This indicated that the compensation system currently implemented in some extent
initiate employees to strive for the success of their organization and to achieve great
performance.

The study was also assessed whether the company properly guide employees to do the job.
Accordingly, the finding showed that 54% were either disagreed or strongly disagree, while
32.8% of the respondents were either agreed or strongly agreed and 12.1% were indifferent on
the statement. Mean response was 2.78 with standard deviation of 0.92. The finding showed that
the company properly guide employees to do the job.
Over all, the grand mean response on the company job aid practices 3.2 which is above average
that indicates the company job environment concerning job aid is relatively better in company
when we compare with other dimension of work environment. However, the finding still
revealed that there is still limitation in terms properly guide employees to do the job.
4.3.4. Work place incentives

Work place incentives is a process designed to motivate employees to increase morale,
commitment, productivity, and teamwork, rewards and recognition are often given through both
monetary means. Based on these the study was provided related questions for employees and
their respective response were provided below in the table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Respondents view on work place incentives

Strongly Strongly
disagree
(%) (%)
agree Mean SD
1 2 3 4 5
Productivity of professional employee .6 25.5 26.1 44.8 3.0 3.24 .89
is poor due to salary and let promotion
The company implements good
1.2 55.2 14.5 28.5 .6 2.72 .93
performance appraisal system.
The organization management aspect
such as recognition of employee who 6.7
performs well and give employee 8.5 45.5 12.1 27.3 2.78 .92
health & life insurance is good
Average 2.79 0.86

The study was assessed whether productivity of professional employee is poor due to salary and
let promotion. The finding showed that 47.8% were agreed, while 26.1% were disagreed. Mean
response was 3.24with standard deviation of 0.89. The finding implied relatively more
agreement on the preposition that productivity of professional employee is poor due to salary and
let promotion.
Concerning to the question asked whether the human resource management aspect of the
company is strong according to recognition of employees. The finding showed that 47.9% were
disagreed and 27.3% were agreed, while 19.4% of respondents neutral. Mean response was 2.88
with standard deviation of 0.8. The finding indicating that respondents’ views are not similar,
majority of them implied their disagreement with statement that the human resource management
aspect of the company is strong according to recognition of employees.
On whether the organization management aspect such as recognition of employee who performs
well and give employee health & life insurance is poor, the finding showed that 54% were either
disagreed or strongly disagree, while 32.8% of the respondents were either agreed or strongly
agreed and 12.1% were indifferent on the statement. Mean response was 2.78 with standard
deviation of 0.92. Based on the respondents’ view, there are numerous respondents that, implied
their disagreement on the questions indicated that still there is a gap in terms of recognition of
employee who performs well and provision of employee health & life insurance.
4.3.5. Respondents view on Discrimination

The respondents were also asked to rate their opinion concerning organizational performance of
Rama construction PLC. The summary of their responses to specific questions, as revealed by
the results, will be presented in table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Respondents view on discrimination

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agre ST
disagree
(%) (%)
agree Mean
Indicators (%) e (%) (%) D
1 2 3 4 5
The working environment of WANZA

furnishing exhibits bias in the
1.2 15.8 38.8 41.8 2.4 3.28 .80
treatment of employees based on
Gender, religion, age & disability.
There is also discrimination when

hiring, promotion, job assignment & 0 33.3 22.4 41.8 2.4 3.13 .91
composition of employee.
WANZA furnishing work place
discrimination hurts both
0 16.4 18.7 44.8 20.1 3.63 .95
discriminated against & the entire
organization.
There is direct discrimination in the 1.8 43.6 21.2 30.9 2.4 2.88 .95
company (employer treats an
employee less favorably than Someone
else)
There is indirect discrimination in the
company (working conditions or rule
0 6.1 11.5 58.9 23.5 3.92 .84
disadvantages one group of people
more than others.)
There is no any type of discrimination
30.9 43.6 1.8 21.2 2.4 2.18 .95
in WANZA Furnishing PLC.
On whether the working environment of Wanza furnishing exhibits bias in the treatment of
employees based on gender, religion, age & disability, the finding showed that 41.8% were
agreed, while only 15.8 % were disagreed. Mean response was 3.28 with standard deviation of
0.8. This indicated that the working environment of Wanza furnishing somehow exhibits bias in
the treatment of employees based on Gender, religion, age & disability. The study was also
assessed whether there is also discrimination when hiring, promotion, job assignment &
composition of employee. The finding showed that more 33.6% of respondents were disagreed,
while 44.2 % were disagreed. Mean response was 3.13 with standard deviation of 0.7.

Question was asked on whether the company work place discrimination hurts both discriminated
against & the entire organization. The finding showed that 64.9% of respondents were agreed;
while only 16.4% of respondents were disagree with the statement. Mean response was 3.63 with
a standard deviation of 0.95 implied that most of respondents were an agreement with
preposition that work place discrimination hurts both discriminated against & the entire
organization. On whether there is direct discrimination in the company, the finding showed that
43.6% were disagreed and 33.3% were either agreed or strongly agree, while little above one-
fifth (21.2%) were neutral. Mean response was 2.88 with standard deviation of 0.95 implied that
most of respondents were less agreement regarding there is direct discrimination in the company.
When respondents were asked their level agreement with statement there is indirect
discrimination in the company (working conditions or rule disadvantages one group of people
more than others.), they are also relatively more agreement on it. Accordingly, the finding
showed that 89.3% were agreed, while 6.1% were disagreed and the remaining 11.5% were
neutral. Mean response was 3.92 with standard deviation of 0.74. The result the signal for the
company that there is indirect discrimination in the company. On whether there is no any type of
discrimination in Wanza Furnishing PLC, the finding showed that 71.5% were disagreed and
23.6% were agree. Mean response was 2.18 with standard deviation of 0.95 implied that most of
respondents were believed that there is some sort of discrimination in company.
4.3.5. Respondents view on employee productivity

The respondents were also asked to rate their opinion concerning employee productivity. The
summary of their responses to specific questions, as revealed by the results, will be presented in
table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Respondents view on employee productivity

Strongly Strongly
disagree
(%) (%)
agree Mean SD
1 2 3 4 5
I produce flawless wooden product 0 33.3 22.4 41.8 2.4 3.13 .91
I complete my duty according to the

0 37.0 23.0 37.6 2.4 3.05 .89
company schedule.
I always add my idea to do a better job
0 30.9 20.6 38.8 9.7 3.27 1.0
in the company.
When I work in the company, I always
0 33.3 22.4 41.8 2.4 3.13 .91
respect the organization principles.
When I do my job, I produce the
0 37.0 23.0 37.6 2.4 3.05 .88
furniture without any wastage.
I always strive to achieve the vision of
0 49.7 17.0 32.7 .6 2.84 .93
the company.
Average 3.08 0.92
As indicated in Table 4.8 above, when respondents were asked whether produce flawless
wooden product, around have of respondents were agreed. Furthermore, the finding shows that
around four out of ten of the participants reported that they complete their duty according to the
company schedule. When respondents were asked whether they always add their idea to do a
better job in the company, half of respondents were agreed.
Question was also asked whether when they work in the company, they always respect the
organization principles. The finding showed that 44.3% of respondents were agreed and 33.3 %
were disagreed, while 22.4% were neutral. When the participants were asked to rate to what level
they agreed with statement that “when I do my job I produce the furniture without any wastage”,
40% of respondents were agreed and 37 % were disagreed, while 23% were neutral. More so,
when respondents were asked whether they always strive to achieve the vision of the company,

the finding showed that around half were disagreed (49.7) % were disagreed and 33.3% of
respondents were agreed, while 17% were neutral.
The grand mean score of responses regarding general staffs’ opinion for their employee
productivity was 3.08 on a 5-point scale. This would an indication that the employee productivity
has somehow moderate level. The average standard deviation was 0.92 meaning that at most of
the responses were spread within one standard deviation of the mean.
4.4 Assumptions/diagnostic test for multiple linear regressions

Multiple linear regressions are based on the assumptions of Ordinary Least Square (OLS). When
one decides to analyze data by means of multiple regressions, part of the process involves
checking to make sure that the data need to analyze can in fact be analyzed using multiple
regression. One could do this for the reason that it is only appropriate to use multiple regressions
if the data "passes" those assumptions that are required for multiple regressions to give a valid
result. So, in the following section necessary diagnostic tests were carried out on the variables.
4.4.1. Assumption two: Outlier, leverage and influential points

The second assumption of multiple regressions is that in order to make valid inference on
multiple linear regressions, there should be no significant outliers, high leverage points or highly
influential points. According to Rousseeuw, et al, (1990), outliers, leverage and influential points
are observations in data set that are in some way unusual and can change the output that
statistical software produces and reduce the predictive accuracy of results as well as the
statistical significance. Accordingly, before using a multiple regression analysis, it is essential to
detect possible outliers, high leverage points and highly influential points. This is done by the
residual analysis. Summaries of residual statistics are presented in table 4.9.
Table 4.9. Residuals Statistics a
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

According_to_Wilcox_(2001),_an_outlier_is_a_data_point_whose_response_y_does_not_follow
the_general_trend_of_the_rest_of_the_data._Standardized_residual_(sometimes_referred_to_ass
tudentized_residual)_is_the_value_that_quantifies_the_size_of_the_residuals_in_the_standard_d
eviation_units_and_so_they_can_be_easily_used_to_identify_outliers._It_is_in_principle_morec
orrect_to_use_the_term_"outlier"_for_an_observation_with_a_Standardized_residual_(studentiz
ed_residual)_value_of_greater_than_3_in_absolute_value_(Rousseeuw,_et._al, 1990). The
standardized residual values for all cases of the dependent variable employee productivity range
from 2.22 to 2.244, indicating that the dataset is free of outliers.
According to Wilcox (2001), a data point has high leverage if it has "extreme predictor x values."
The great thing about leverages is that they can help to identify x values that are extreme and
therefore potentially influential on regression analysis (Rousseeuw, et. al, 1990). As stated by
Wilcox (2001), common rule of thumb is to flag any observation whose leverage value, hii, is
more than 3 times larger than the mean leverage value (3(k+1)/n). Based on this formula, in this
study, any observation with a leverage value of greater than 0.109 is considered a high leverage
point. The finding from table 4.9 shows that a leverage value for dependent variable Employee
productivity ranges from 0.001 to 0.085, which are less than cut-off point 0.109.
According to Wilcox (2001), data point is influential if it “unduly influences any part of a
regression analysis, such as the predicted responses, the estimated slope coefficients, or the
hypothesis test results.” Cook's distance is measure of how much the residual of all records
would change if a particular record were excluded from the calculation of the model coefficients
(Rousseeuw, et. al, 1990). As stated by Wilcox (2001), a common rule of thumb is that a cook’s
distance greater than one should be given scrutiny and perhaps removed. The finding from table
4.9 revealed that a cook's distance for a dependent variable employee productivity range from 0
to 0.034 and, which is less than cut-off point 1. This suggests that no data point unduly
influences the estimated regression function.
4.4.2 Assumption three: Multicollinearity

Multicollinearity occurs when there are two or more independent variables that are highly
correlated with each other. This leads to complications with understanding which independent

variable contributes to the variance explained in the dependent variable, as well as technical
issues in calculating a multiple regression model (Simon, 2004). Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
is a method used to test for multicollinearity among study variables. Variance Inflation Factor
was checked for indication of multicollinearity where their numerical values were all well below
the cut-off value of 10 suggested by Neter, et al., (1996). Based on this rule of the thumb, there
was no collinearity among the independent variables.
Table 4.10: Multicollinearity test for the Study Variables

Variable No. of items VIF Tolerance
Leadership style 6 1.293 .774
Supervisor support 4 1.525 .656
Job aid 3 1.447 .691
Work place incentives 3 1.546 .647
Discrimination 6 1.534 .687
4.4.3 Assumption four: Homoscedasticity

Homoscedasticity in a study usually happens when the variance of residuals (error term) would
be same for all predicated (Tabachnic & Fidell, 2007). On the other hand, heteroscedasticity in a
study usually happens when the variance of the errors varies across observation (Long & Ervin,
2000). The most commonly used methods is Breusch-Pagan test which was used to test the null
hypothesis that the error variances are all equal versus the alternative that the error variances area
multiplicative function of one or more variables. Breusch-Pagan tests the null hypothesis that
heteroscedasticity is not present. If sig-value is less than 0.05, reject the null hypothesis. A large
chi-square value greater than 9.22 is an indication of the existence of heteroscedasticity (Sazali,
et al., 2010). In this study, the sig-value for fitted values of dependent variable employee
productivity was 0.1908 and chi-square value of 1.71, which are indicating that
heteroscedasticity was not a concern.

Table 4.11: Breusch-Pagan for Heteroscedasticity

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity
Ho: Constant variance
Variables: fitted values of employee productivity
chi2(1) = 1.71
Prob> chi2 = 0.1908
4.4.4 Assumption five: Linearity

The linearity assumption of multiple regression analysis assumes that there must be a linear
relationship between the dependent variable and each of independent variables, as well as the
dependent variable and the independent variables collectively (Asghar & Saleh, 2012). The most
commonly used way of checking linearity is creating scatter plots and then visually inspecting
these scatter plots to check for linearity. If the figure not has an obvious pattern and the point is
evenly distributed above and below zero on the X-axis, and to the left and right of zero on the Y-
axis, it is an indication of linearity. The figures below show scatter-plot of studentized residual
against linearly predictive value. The figures have a horizontal band of points indicating the
linear relationship.

Figure 4.1: a Studentized residual scatter plot dependent variables
4.4.5 Assumption six: Autocorrelation

The assumption of autocorrelation (serial correlation) is a key assumption in multiple regressions
which assume that the error terms are independent of each other. This is however especially
relevant with time series data where the data are sequenced by time. The most commonly used
methods to determine whether there is autocorrelation, that is where there is a linear correlation
between the error terms for one observation, is Durbin-Watson test. According to Cochrane,
(1997), if a value of d is within the range 1.5 and 2.5 means there is no autocorrelation.
Therefore, the result proved that there is no auto correlation as shown in table 4.12 below.
Table 4.12: Durbin-Watson Test for Autocorrelation

Test Dependent variable Value
Durbin-Watson Employee productivity 1.919
4.4.6 Assumption six: Normality

The other assumption of multiple regressions is normality which assumes that residuals (errors)
are approximately normally distributed. In order to make valid inferences from regression

analysis, the residuals of the regression should follow normal distribution. A simple way to
check this assumption is to plot normal P-P or Q.Q for the dependent variable to confirm the
obtained result (Asghar & Saleh, 2012).
This is a graphical procedure that plots the cumulative probabilities (values range from 0 to 1) on
the X-axis and the expected probabilities given the normal curve on the Y-axis. If the sample
were exactly normally distributed, the points would lie on a straight diagonal line. The diagram
below shows Normal P-P Plots for the dependent variables (employee productivity) in which the
points would lie on a straight line confirming the data was normally distributed.
Figure 4.2: Normal P-P Plot of residual for dependent variables
4.5 Regression Result

The main objective of study was to examine investigate and identify the effect of work
environment on employee productivity at WANZA furniture. This was done through regression
analysis. The independent variable working environment practices are operationalized through:
leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place incentives and discrimination. Thus,
study sought to determine the effect of each of the five the work environment dimension

(leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place incentives and discrimination) on the
employee productivity. The result of the regression analysis is presented in the following section.
4.5.1. The Multiple Coefficient of Determination R²

Coefficient of determination explains the percentage of variation in the dependent variable (the
employee productivity) that is explained by all the four independent variables (leadership style,
supervisor support, job aid, work place incentives and discrimination). The table 4.13 below
preset the model summary.
Table 4.13: Model Summary for working environment and employee productivity b
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the Durbin-Watson

Square Estimate
1 .815a .664 .655 2.60632 1.919
a. Predictors: (Constant), leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place incentives
and discrimination
b. Dependent Variable: employee productivity

The result shows that the five independent variables (leadership style, supervisor support, job
aid, work place incentives and discrimination) that were studied explain 65.5% of variation
employee productivity as represented by the R² value. The remaining 34.5% of the variability in
employee productivity is left unexplained by the explanatory variables used in the study.
4.5.2. ANOVA Interpretation

The result in ANOVA Table 4.14 shows that the sum of squares of the regression is 2143.984 at
5 degrees of freedom and a mean square of 535.996. The residual sum of squares is 1086.865
with 159 degrees of freedom and mean square value of 6.793. The test for the joint significant
which is given by the F statistic is 78.905, it is statistically significant. This imply that the
independent variables, that are leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place
incentives and discrimination, considered were relevant in explaining employee productivity of
Wanza Furniture PLC.

Table 4.14: ANOVA for working environment and employee productivity
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 2143.984 5 535.996 78.905 .000b
1 Residual 1086.865 159 6.793
Total 3230.848 164
a. Dependent Variable: employee productivity
b. Predictors: (Constant), leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place incentives
and discrimination
4.5.3. Regression Coefficients

The findings in Table 4.15 show the coefficients of the regression. According to the findings, the
four out of five-work environment dimension (leadership style, supervisor support, job aid and
work place incentives) are significant in predicting the organizational performance since the p
values were less than 0.05.
Leadership style has also positive and significant effect on employee productivity with a beta
value (beta =.346) and t value of 3.450 which is also statistically significant. Similarly,
supervisor support as one dimension of working environment has also positive and significant
effect on employee productivity with a beta value (beta =.271) and t value of 3.220 which is also
statistically significant. Likewise, job aid has also positive and significant effect on employee
productivity with a beta value (beta =.170) and t value of 2.851 which is also statistically
significant. Work place incentives has positive and significant effect on employee productivity
with a beta value (beta =.744) and t value of 10.004 which is significant. Finally, discrimination
has negative effect on employee productivity with a beta value (beta =-.102) and t value of -
4.240 which is however not statistically significant.

Table 4.15: Coefficients for working environment and employee productivity a
Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig.

Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -4.578 1.976 -2.317 .022
Leadership style .346 .100 .197 3.450 .001
Supervisor support .271 .084 .178 3.220 .002

1
Job aid .170 .060 .161 2.851 .005
Work place incentives .744 .074 .522 10.004 .000
Discrimination -.102 1.073 .165 -4.240 .015
a. Dependent Variable: employee productivity
When these beta coefficients are substituted in the equation, the model becomes
Y = 0.346LD + 0.271SS + 0.170JA + 0.744WI - 0.102D– 4.578
Where: Y is the employee productivity of Wanza furniture PLC, LD is Leadership Style, SS is

Supervisor support, JA is Job Aid and WI is Work place incentives. This means that holding
other factor constant one unit improvement in leadership style result in 0.346 unit increase in
employee productivity; one unit increase in Supervisor support result in 0.271 unit increase in
the employee productivity; one unit increase in job aid result in 0.17 unit increase in employee
productivity one unit increase in work place incentives result in 0.744 unit increases in employee
productivity.

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of work environment on employee
productivity at WANZA furniture with reference to leadership style, supervisor support, job aid,
work place incentives and discrimination. In this chapter, the summary of findings, conclusions
and recommendations of the study were discussed.
5.1 Summary of Findings

The study was conducted with an aim of examining the effect of work environment on employee
productivity at WANZA furniture Plc. The descriptive analysis of primary data showed that a
high reliability was attained by questionnaire instrument with acceptable range of reliability
coefficients. The study sample had 200 questionnaires distributed and 165 were duly completed
and returned for analysis. This represented a response rate of 82.5% which according to
Mugenda (2003) is good response rate. Multiple linear regression was used to test the
significance level using t- tests has indicated varying level of significance amongst the
independent variables as well as when combined, against the dependent variable. To maintain the
data validity and robustness of the regressed result of the research, the most critical regression
diagnostic tests consisting of outliers, leverage and influential points, Normality, linearity,
Multicollinearity, Heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation were tested.
The findings of the study revealed that the combined effect of various work environment
dimension influenced employee productivity significantly. These findings were both supported
by the regression result. The result of regression indicates that four out of five predictor variables
or working environment conditions (leadership style, supervisor support, job aid and work place
incentives) have statistically significant contribution on combined influence the organizational
performance. The adjusted R² of 0.655 indicates 65.5% of the variance in employee productivity

can be predicted by working environment condition by the company. Therefore, working

environment conditions have a positive and significant effect on employee productivity.
5.2 Conclusion
The study was undertaken to examine the effect of the effect of working environment on
employee productivity at WANZA furniture. Accordingly, based on the findings presented in the
above section; the researcher makes some conclusions concerning the relationship between the
working environment and employee productivity.
The first specific objective of the study sought to examine to determine the effect of leadership
style on employee productivity at WANZA furniture. Results revealed that leadership style has
positive and significant effect on employee productivity at WANZA furniture. This was
supported by the test for significance which showed that the effect was statistically significant.
This implies that leadership style as one element of work environment is significantly important
in improving employee productivity at WANZA furniture.
The second specific objective of the study sought to assess the effect of supervisor support on
employee productivity at WANZA furniture. Results revealed that of supervisor support has
significant and positive effect on employee productivity at WANZA furniture. This is supported
by the test for significance that was statistically significant. This means that supervisor support
has a higher potential of improving employee productivity at WANZA furniture so that company
should therefore work to improve the supervisor support and make it a reference point for
improve employee productivity.
The third specific objective of the study aimed to determine the effect of job aid on employee
productivity at WANZA furniture. The finding demonstrated that job aid has significant and
positive effect on employee productivity at WANZA furniture. The test for significance was
showed that the effect was statistically significant. This means that job aid has a higher potential
of improving employee productivity at WANZA furniture so that the company should therefore
provide appropriate job aid to its employees’ and used it as an important tool for improving the
employee productivity.

The fourth specific objective of the study intended to assess the effect the work place incentive
on employee productivity at WANZA furniture. The result illustrated that work place incentive
has significant and positive effect employee productivity at WANZA furniture. The test for
significance also was showed that the effect was statistically significant. This means that work
place incentive is good at predicting employee productivity at WANZA furniture. This implies
that the company should established appropriate incentive mechanism or compensation system in
order to improve its productivity.
The fifth specific objective of the study intended to assess the influence of discrimination on
employee productivity at WANZA furniture. The result illustrated that discrimination has
negative effect employee productivity at WANZA furniture. The test for significance however,
showed that the effect was not statistically significant. This means that discrimination is not good
at predicting employee productivity at WANZA furniture.
Overall, it can be concluded that four out of five work environment dimensions (leadership style,
supervisor support, job aid and work place incentives) influence employee productivity at
WANZA furniture positively and significantly. The improvement of these work environment
condition by company has a higher potential of improving employee productivity at WANZA
furniture. Thus, it can be concluded that improved work environment condition is an increasingly
important tool for improving employee productivity at WANZA furniture.
5.3 Recommendation
Based on the findings and conclusions of the study, the researcher provides the following
recommendations aimed at ensuring that the work environment conditions adopted by the
company play a positive role in ensuring the improved employee productivity and competitive
advantage of the company.
 Management should try as much as possible to build a work environment that attracts,
retain and motivate its employees so that to help them work comfortable and increase
organization productivity
 Regarding work place incentive, the company should revise the incentive and benefit
packages and make a proper adjustment. More so, the reward should be given to the
employees who are performing better than others and such incentives should be kept as a

variable factor. The management should also design a remuneration package Fair salary,
reasonable overtime payment and managers should establish criteria for identifying
employees who are eligible for recognition, then recognize anyone who meets the criteria
by being consistently fair.
 The top management of the company should create favorable work conditions for the
enterprise that guide the employees to communicate effectively and build a good
interpersonal environment within the enterprise to create good work conditions. Most
importantly, the management should value the importance of balancing work and
personal life
 When discrimination prevail in work place employee feel ignored because of their age,
gender, religion and ethnicity and this lead to significant decrease on their performance.
Therefore, the management should enact workplace policy to reduce discrimination and
such policy should be reviewed frequently to ensure that its effectiveness is maintained. It
should be detailed and communicated clearly in what an organization needs and easily
understandable by prospective employees at large so as to avoid favoritism (ethnical/
political/ Nepotism). Additionally, the culture of the organization should inspire
employees irrespective of gender, age, ethnic group or religious belief to participate in
decision making as this will help to reduce discrimination in the workplace.
5.4 Area Further Research

Although this research provides some significant insights into the effect of work environment
condition employee productivity at WANZA furniture. there is still a chance to extend the
findings to gain a more comprehensive understanding. This research was undertaken only in
Wanza furniture found around Addis Ababa; as such the finding of this study may not represent
the other companies in similar industry through Ethiopia. Therefore, using the finding of this
research as a bench mark other researchers need to conduct research in this area in other
companies. Besides, the researcher recommends that this study only included five working
environment variables such as leadership style, supervisor support, job aid, work place incentives
and discrimination. There could be other relevant working environment factors that are more
important for the issue under study but excluded due to different reasons. Therefore, it would be
better if the future researchers consider more factors of working environment that affect

employee productivity like work place violence, job autonomy, harassment, transportation
problem and occupational health and safety. More so, further research in the areas of work
enviroment would be useful in understanding the impact that the work enviroment have on other
indicators like employee motivation and employee job satisfaction.

Work Schedule and Financial Budget

Time schedule
The following table shows that the activity will take time from the beginning to the end.
No Actions Years
2013 E.C
June July August 2 weeks of 2 weeks of October
September September
1 Topic selection and approval

2 Proposal development
3 Data collection
4 Data analysis
5 Report writing
6 Adviser contract
7 Presentation
Cost of the project
No Description Measurement Quantity Unit price Total price

(birr)
1 Computer 1 12,000 12,000
2 Copy paper, A4 Pad 3 200 600
3 Printing and photocopy Peace 200 1.50 300
4 Transportation - - 2000 2000
5 Telephone card Peace 8 100 800
6 E-mail Expense 300
6 Miscellaneous expense - - 10000 10,000
Total 26,000

APPENDIXES I: QUESTIONNAIRES
CPU BUSINESS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE PROGRAM
MASTER OF ART IN PROJECT MANAGEMEN
EFFECT OF WORK ENVIRONMENT ON EMPLOYEE PRODACTIVITY: THE CASE
OF WANZA FURNISHING INDUSTRY PLC.
Questionnaire for Employees
Dear respondents,
This questionnaire is designed to collect information about effect of work environment on
employee productivity at Wanza Furnishing Industry PLC.
The purpose of this study is for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
master of art in project management (MPM). The information you provide is confidential and for
the sole purpose of academic reason. Hence, you are kindly requested to respond to the statement
in the following questionnaire. Your response has a great impact for this study. The main
objective of the study is to assess the effect of work environment on employee productivity at
Wanza furnishing industry PLC.
If you require further clarification, please contact me on my tell phone number +251943955836
or via my email address tigist.yehuala@gmail.com.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation!!!

Part one; General Information

Mark (X) or (√) for the following questions as appropriate.
1. Sex, Male Female
2. Marital status,
Married Single Divorced Widowed
3. Academic qualification,
Below first degree First degree Master’s Degree Other (specify)………
4. Number of years that you stayed in the bank giving service,
Less than 5 years 5 - 10years 10 - 15 Years 15 - 20 Years
More than 20 years
5. Please indicate your position in the company --------------------------------
Manager Division Head Machine operator Supervisor
Forman Sells Other (Specify)…………………
Part two; Main research Questionnaire. Note: - 1= Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree,

3= Neutral, 4= Agree and 5= Strongly Agree
Research Questions 1 2 3 4 5
2. Processes of employee productivity management system in the company
2.1. Performance planning
2.1.1 Organizational, functional and individual goal are
aligned
2.1.2 In the company goal setting is carried out through
discussion between the divisions and managers
2.1.3 I know the company polices and strategic goals of
the office that is used to evaluate my job/duty
2.1.4 I know about what is expected from me and my work
responsibilities.

2.1.5 My work plan is supported by Key Performance

Indicators
2.2 Performance Execution

2.2.1 The company provides necessary resources to
Complete my duty properly
2.2.2 My supervisor gives me full support and feed
back on my performance
2.2.3 My performance plans are regularly updated in line
With the company’s goal changes
2.2.4 My performance progress is properly tracked and
Documented
2.3 Performance assessment

2.3.1 My supervisor utilizes multi-source information to
assess my performance
2.3.2 My supervisor documented my everyday job
2.3.3 I have the opportunity to make self-appraisal
2.3.4 My assessment is always done without bias
2.4 Performance Review

2.4.1. Performance review process is attached with reward
and recognition scheme
2.4.2. I held accountable for my performance.
2.4.3. The performance review process is open, honest &
trust worthy

2.5 Challenges that hinder employee productivity management system in the

company
2.5.1. The company doesn’t provide sufficient resources
to execute the work.
2.5.2. Alignment is not maintaining between company and
individual goals
2.5.3 Employees have less understanding the concepts of
employee performance management system
2.5.4. Insufficient manager support &commitment to improve
the system
2.5.5. Inadequate & irregular feedback on performance progress
2.5.6. There is low capability of managers to manage
performance management system
2.5.7 There is high effect of work location on my work
Performance
2.5.8 There is high impact on my work performance because of
Our work environment culture
2.5.9 The Performance management process is not entail reward
and recognition
2.5.10. There is no clear mechanism to address underperformance

2.6 Prospects of employee productivity management at WANZA furnishing

industry PLC.
2.6.1 It can create role clarity & help me understand my
Capacity
2.6.2. It brings about better differentiation between good and poor
performers through continuous monitoring &evaluation
2.6.3. The continuous feedback is given which enhance employee
competence & increase their desire to excel
2.6.4. Create conducive working environment & encourage improving
performance
2.6.5 It serves as a two-way communication tool about the roles
and expectations of employees
2.6.6. It helps to assess the training & development need of
employees
2.6.7. Employees get opportunities for professional growth &
empowerment chance

Part three: Write your answer shortly

1. What do you think about your work environment?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What kind of challenges you get when you do your activity related to work environment
of your company?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What action you take when you see wrong work environment condition?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What would you recommend about the work environment of the company?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Is there any relation between your performance and work environment? Yes or no
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. If your answer is yes for question no 5 how can they related. If your answer is no, why?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPU Proposal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPU Proposal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CPU Proposal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Work Environment on Employee Productivity at Wanza Furniture

MASTER OF ART IN PROJECT MANAGEMEN

EFFECT OF WORK ENVIRONMENT ON EMPLOYEE PRODACTIVITY

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

CPU Business and Information Technology College

1.1 Background of the study

CPU Business and Information Technology College

An understanding of the effect of work environment on the productivity of employees cannot be

1.2 Statement of the problem

CPU Business and Information Technology College

CPU Business and Information Technology College

1.3. Research Questions

1.4. Objective of the Study

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1.5 Significance of the study

CPU Business and Information Technology College

1.6. Scope of the study

1.7. Limitations of the study

CPU Business and Information Technology College

1.8. Organization of the study

CPU Business and Information Technology College

2.1. Theoretical Review

2.1.1. Herzberg Two Factor Theory

2.1.2. Affective Events Theory

2.1.3. Expectancy Theory

CPU Business and Information Technology College

2.2. Definition of Working Environment

CPU Business and Information Technology College

2.3. Working Environment Factors that Affect Employees Productivity

CPU Business and Information Technology College

2.3.1. Leadership Style

CPU Business and Information Technology College

CPU Business and Information Technology College

2.3.2. Supervisory support

2.3.3. Workplace Incentives

CPU Business and Information Technology College

compensation and peer recognition (Chandrasekar, 2011). Performance of professional

2.3.4. Job Aid

Discrimination in workplace could be direct or indirect. It is direct discrimination when an

CPU Business and Information Technology College

2.4. Empirical Review

CPU Business and Information Technology College

2.4 Conceptual framework

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework

Independent variables Dependent variable

Source: Compiled by the researcher

In this framework, work enviroment is independent variable and employee productivity is

CPU Business and Information Technology College

3.2 Research Design and Approach

CPU Business and Information Technology College

3.3 Target Population

3.4 Sample Size

N = 380/1+ 380(0.05)²= 380/1.95 = 195 respondents

CPU Business and Information Technology College

3.5. Sampling Technique

3.6. Data Collection Instrument

CPU Business and Information Technology College

3.7. Pilot Test

CPU Business and Information Technology College