1

CHAPTER 1

The Problem and Its Scope

An employee is an asset to an organization towards its productivity,

and that is why their health and safety is really important. The working environment

is very significant for every employee. Therefore it must be a guarantee to provide

each one of them a safe place to work, and prevent any dangers and injuries.

Institutions or organizations need to take part in monitoring their employees’ health

to avoid them from anguishing physical and psychological illness (Essays, UK,

2013). There will be a decrease in productivity if an employee is not happy with

their work environment. For the organization to increase their earnings, the

company must provide a better working environment for the employees with the

goal that it can keep up the company production quality (MBA, 2010).

In Malaysia, Naharuddin and Sadegi (2013) stated in their study that the

employees’ performance of Miyazu Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. is the most important

aspect towards maintaining the profit created by the company. Therefore, the

factors of workplace environment mostly in the industry could affect the employees’

health and performance and thus gives a great impact towards the employees’

performance. Employees’ performance is the most important dependent variables

in an industrial and organizational psychology. Some main application preferred to

be applied as to improve the employees’ performance (Borman, 2004). The job

 2

aid, supervisor support, and physical worksite environment are the factors of

worksite environment in an organization that could affect the employees’

performance. Furthermore, as part of the work itself, it consists of the relationship

between work, equipment of work and worksite. The workplace environment can

also lead to the unsafe and unhealthy environment in an organization

(Chandrasekar, 2011). Therefore, based on this issues, a study is needed to be

done to find out whether the factor of worksite environment, i.e. job aid, supervisor

support and physical workplace environment, could affect the employees’

performance.

In De La Salle University-Manila, Philippines, Bayabana, Mendoza, Mayumi

Pentecostesa and Tangsoca(2016) revealed in their study that the physical

environment also plays an important role in the health and safety of staff. Ironically,

healthcare employees’ are at higher risk of having the occupational

musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) compared to other professions. According to their

study, in the Philippines, 40% of Filipinos in the nursing profession experience at

least one injury or illness, and 80% experienced back pain or low back disorders.

Most causes of such injuries are thought to be due to physically demanding manual

handling tasks done by these nurses such as lifting, transferring, and changing the

position of patients, and the incidence with which the nurses are required to move

them. These work-related injuries then resulted in compensation claims of nurses,

which impacts the institution (de Castro, 2009). The design and functionality of

patient rooms directly affect patients, families, hospital staff, and administration

altogether (Cullinan and Wolf, 2010).

 3

The researcher wonders whether the workplace ergonomics, together with

its components are associated with the employees’ performance. This study may

be an additional existing literature of workplace ergonomic and it is relevant to

employees’ performance. The data and information of this study can be used as a

reference and data baseline of future researchers for their studies, particularly

those variables that do not discuss in this study. In addition, it can influence

organizations to put up a better workplace ergonomic with the goal for the

betterment of product quality, good performance and productivity of each

employee and the company.

Rationale of the Study

Workplace ergonomics is often the problem some employees are currently

facing. Ergonomics is something people will need to manage once a day,

regardless of whether it is at home or at work. In spite of the fact that ergonomics

won't appear as a vital factor to think of it as an altogether influence individuals'

working proficiency. Keeping up great ergonomics is imperative for individuals'

wellbeing.

The researcher of this study intent to determine if there is a relationship

between workplace ergonomics and employees’ performance in MSII. This study

will benefit the employees of MSII as well as other organizations. In addition, this

research will lead the MSII alongside with the employees, students, and others to
 4

acquire learning about the significance of having better ergonomics in the

workplace.

The researcher aims to lead and guide many employees to enhance their

work environment with good ergonomics and facilities in the near future. It can

provide a good relationship between the workplace and the employees. Through

this study, it can help every employee to make their works much easier and

efficient. Dohrmann and Danderson (2014) stated that better workplace

ergonomics can benefit every employee; hence, there will be a visibility of a good

performance and productivity.

Statement of the Problem

This research study aims to know if the workplace ergonomics affects the

employees’ performance in Maximus Structural Innovation Inc.

This study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of workplace ergonomic in Maximus Structural Innovation

Inc. in terms of:

1.1 Physical Ergonomic

1.2 Cognitive Ergonomic

1.3 Organizational Ergonomic

2. Is the workplace ergonomics of MSII affects the level of employees’

performance in:
 5

2.1 Absenteeism

2.2 Productivity

3. Is there a significant relationship between workplace ergonomics and

employees performance in MSII?

Hypothesis

The hypothesis will be tested at 0.05 level of significance:

H0: There is no significant relationship between the workplace ergonomic

and employees’ performance in absenteeism.

H1: There is a significant relationship between the workplace ergonomic

and employees’ performance in productivity.

Review of Related Literature

This part consists of chosen materials related to the study that were used and

presented to provide the researchers enough background and framework for the

study. Essentially it provides and includes the subtopics of the dependent and

independent variables. These variables are workplace ergonomic and employees’

performance. Every variable has its own indicators and is deeply discussed in the

following pages.

Workplace Ergonomic. Exposure to adverse working conditions can result

in momentary pain, fatigued, frustrated and hurt workers in a long-term injury.

 6

Moreover, poorly designed working environments contribute to reduced efficiency,

decreased production, loss of income, increased medical claims and permanent

disability (Dohrmann, 2014). Workplace Ergonomic is also known as "fitting the

system to the human" this means that through informed decision, work materials,

environments and the assigned task can be chosen and designed to fit in the

unique human skills and capabilities (Budnick and Michael 2011). When it is in

reality, ergonomics is known and defined as adapting the employees to their

worksite, assure that the most favorable safety and production needs are met

(Levy &Wegman, 2010). Workplace ergonomics encompasses those broad

domains that include the physical environment, cognitive environment, and

organizational environment. Even though the three domains work to gather,

physical ergonomics proceeds to be the main focus of many ergonomic education

models for workers (International Ergonomics Association, 2010).

Physical ergonomics. Cleave (2016) says that physical ergonomics pertains

to the physiological and biomechanical strain related to physical activity. Physical

ergonomics is also concerned with how the physical environment around you might

affect your performance. 'Physical' here means the kinds of things physicists know

and love - heat, light, noise, dust, chemicals, and so on. For example, there's a

thermal comfort range which suits people best - unless they are doing hard

physical work, in which case they might prefer a cooler range. According to Worthy

and Sinclair (n.d), physical ergonomics is about understanding the effects of these

aspects of the environment on people, and in particular, the harmful effects. Then

you can design environments for people which won't harm them, and they might
 7

even enjoy the experience. The process of ergonomics involves studying the user

and studying the job or task, and then designing the work environment (or

processes and products) to optimize the user’s safety, health, comfort, and

performance were stated by Helander (2005).

Cognitive Ergonomics. Cognitive ergonomics relates to the mental

procedure of the workers in the work site (Cleave, 2016). Budrick and Michael

(2011) on the other side, cognitive ergonomics is defined as its focus on the fit

between human cognitive skills and capabilities and the machine, assigned task,

worksite, etc. Example of cognitive ergonomics application that includes design a

software interface to "use it easily," using creativity in a sign so that majority of the

people will understand and act in the right manner. Employees, for example, can

only hold up to seven thoughts in short-term memory, so they off-load important

details onto "cognitive artifacts" for example is the sticky notes, file folder and

stacks of paper. To take the opportunity of this, companies should give ideas and

information to the workers with spaces that allow them to show their visual

reminders, and "create an extension of their minds," (Brand, 2010). They are most

likely experience significantly more cost as a result of employees wrongdoing,

same as the legal costs of product liability issues." The ultimate goal of cognitive

ergonomics is better performance and to lessen the human error (Kramer, 2009)

Organizational ergonomics. Organizational ergonomics is concerned with

the policies and process at the worksite (Cleave, 2016). Organizational

ergonomics center its idea of optimizing socio-technical systems and organizing

design, policies, and processes in form to widen efficiently (Kramer, 2009). The
 8

topic is applicable that includes communication, crew resource management, work

design, work system, the design of working times, teamwork, participatory design,

community ergonomics, cooperative work, new work programs, virtual

organizations, telework, and quality management (Koningsvled and de Looze,

2017). Organizational ergonomics pursue to organize people and the work to best

effect (Worthy and Sinclair, n.d)

Employees’ Performance.According to Clements-Croome, (2016), the idea

of workplace performance explains that the factor of workplace environment that

is being provided by the employer can support the employees’ performance at

work. By having a suitable workplace for employees, it will increase the levels of

productivity and thus will increase the company’s profit. On the other side, the

factors of work environment are related to the effects on work and on health

(Ettner&Grzywacs, 2011). According to Ettner and Grzywacs (2011), they claimed

that most of the respondent rated that the factors of workplace environment give a

big impact on their job. Therefore, it also concludes that workplace environment

factor has a very strong relationship towards the health, facilities, and performance

of each and every employee (Shikdar&Sawaqed, 2013).

Absenteeism.According to Johns (2007), absenteeism is when a worker or

employee neglected to attend or present himself or herself for the scheduled work.

It is one of the cases that the workers commonly violated. It’s a violation of a social

obligation if an employee is not present in a particular place at a particular time.

Usually, absenteeism is another factor that may cause the employee to its poor

individual performance and a breach of an implicit contract between the employee

 9

and its employer. Thus, it is known as a management problem and frame in the

quasi-economic term. In fact, the economic viewed absenteeism most frequently

in labor supply terms. Recently, that happens most of today because absenteeism

has increasingly being seen as a factor of psychology, medical, or social

adjustment to work.

Productivity.Productivity is where people do things for work with the less

amount of effort. Productivity is a ratio to calculate how will an organization or

individual, industry, country, converts input belongings, labor, materials, machine,

etc. into good and services (Nasibov, 2015). Productivity state by (Rouse 2014) is

that employee productivity (somehow known as workforce productivity) is part of

the duty of the capabilities of workers or group of workers. Employee productivity

refers to the outcome of the assigned task to each employee in a given time or

period. Occasionally, the output of the given employee will be determined together

with an average for the workers who do the same thing because most of the

company depends on their success to the productivity of the workers/employee

(Mayhew n.d).

Relationship between Workplace Ergonomic and Employees’ Performance.

Other studies such as Taiwo (2009), states that about 86% of productivity

problems reside in the work environment of organizations. The work environment

has a big impact regarding on the performance of employees. The type of work

environment in which employees operate determines the way in which such

enterprises prosper. Employee efficiency and enhanced productivity are expected

to be the result of the better workplace environment. Superior workplace

 10

environment coupled with the requisite equipment, technology, policies, and

strategies go a long way to boosts employees performance and ultimately improve

their productivity.

Hameed (2009) in the Journal of Public Affair, Administration and

Management (2009) reports of a research carried out in 2006 relating to; worksite

designs, work satisfaction, and productivity. In the said research, 89 percent of the

respondents rated the design from important to very important. Almost 90 percent

of respondents revealed that effective workplace design is important to increase

employees’ productivity. The result of the survey suggested that by improving their

workplace design, the productivity of their business are guaranteed.

According to the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries

(2012), ergonomics improvements to the workplace are primarily used to create a

secure and more healthful workplace, and that a company may experience other

benefits including increased productivity, increased work quality, reduced turnover,

minimized absenteeism, and increased morale. On the other hand, according to

the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (2007), if workers are

required to adapt to a job that exceeds their body's physical limitations, they can

become injured, especially with Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders

(WMSD’s)

Related literature in this review has a variety of explanations about

workplace ergonomic and employees’ performance but researchers have

separated their studies between the two variables. Hence, their studies are
 11

noteworthy to this research. There are researchers in this review who pointed out

that workplace ergonomic plays a vital role in the employees’ performance. Some

studies also highlighted the importance of ergonomic and that it can reduce risk

towards employees’ health. Studies about workplace ergonomic and employees’

performance were highlighted in this review in order to help the researchers of this

study of which components of each variable are dominated and may find evidence

on the significant relationship between the two variables involved in this study.

Theoretical Framework

As defined above, ergonomics is the fit between people, the things they do,

the objects they use and the environments they work in (Budnick and Michael

2011). If good fit is achieved, stress is reduced. Everyone is more comfortable and

can do things more quickly and easily, and will also make fewer mistakes. On the

other hand,FengShui is the ancient Chinese art of placement (Bo, 2013). Bo

(2012) also stated that FengShui is used to facilitate the flow of Ch’i in the home,

garden, office, etc. FengShui is working with things as they are to try to enhance

your life by bringing it into harmony and balance with its surroundings.

This study is related to FengShuiPhilosophy. Ergonomics andFengShui

both aim to create a living office space (Kuen, 2010). While ergonomics

contributesto employees’ productivity and efficiency, FengShuibringstogether

ergonomic office planning and furniture design, modern Baubiology (Building

Biology) and a traditional way of performance-enhancing interior design and

 12

decoration(Tchi, 2018). Turning to Feng Shui, the practice of placement can help

create an office and work space that provides the flow of energy (chi) necessary

to foster productivity, health, and creativitythe same as the effects of ergonomics.

So, if a wokplace has an essence of Feng Shui philosopy, there is also an essence

of ergonomics.

The high level of workplace ergonomics inMaximus indicates that there is a

nature of FengShui Philosophy in the workplace. Therefore, having a good

workplace ergonomics is like having the essence of FengShui in the workplace..In

other words, ergonomics is directly proportional to FengShui Philosophy. Both

techniques has been applied and thus provide employees anambiance to work

effectively, efficiently and happy.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 indicates the research model of the study on workplace ergonomic

to employees’ performance. The X variable is the workplace ergonomic which is

identified as physical ergonomic, cognitive ergonomic and organizational

ergonomic the use of it. Physical ergonomics pertains to the physiological and

biomechanical strain related to physical activity. Cognitive ergonomics relates to

the mental procedure of the workers in the work site. While organizational

ergonomics is concerned with the policies and process at the worksite (Cleave,

2016)
 13

On the other hand, the Y variable is the employees’ performance in terms of

absenteeism and productivity towards the workplace ergonomic.Dohrmann

(2014), stated that exposure to adverse working conditions can result in

momentary pain, fatigued, frustrated and hurt workers in a long-term injury that will

lead to absenteeism and low productivity of an employee. In addition, poorly

designed working environments contribute to reduced efficiency, decreased

production, loss of income, increased medical claims and permanent disability.

The arrow indicates the relationship of the X variable to the Y variable or

the relationship between the independent variable to dependent variable.

X Y

Workplace Ergonomic Employees’ Performance

 Physical Ergonomic  Absenteeism

 Cognitive Ergonomic  Productivity

 Organizational Ergonomic
 14

Figure 1. Conceptual Paradigm

Definition of terms

The following terms were operationally defined for the purpose of getting a

clear understanding of this study;

Workplace Ergonomic. Ergonomics applies information about human

behavior, abilities and limitations and other characteristics to the design of tools,

machines, tasks, jobs, and environments for productive, safe, comfortable and

effective human use (McCornick and Saunders 2013). In addition, it is the science
 15

of designing the workplace keeping in mind the capabilities and limitations of the

worker.

Physical Ergonomic. It is concerned with human anatomical,

anthropometric, physiological and biochemical characteristics as they relate to

physical activity.

Cognitive Ergonomic. It is concerned with the mental processes, such as

perception, memory, reasoning, and motor response, as they affect interactions

among humans and other elements of a system.

Organizational Ergonomic. It is concerned with the optimization of

sociotechnical systems, including their organizational structures, policies, and

processes.

Employees’ performance. Employees’ performance is defined as whether a

person executes their job duties and responsibilities well.

Absenteeism. It is what happens when an employee begins to miss work

due to illness, family issues, and others.

Productivity. Doing things right at the least possible cost in the least possible

time with the highest possible quality and to the maximum level satisfaction of

clients and employees (Chen, 2001)

 16

CHAPTER 2

Method

The presented in this chapter are methods that have been used in the

collection of data. It explainsthe research design, research respondents,

researchinstruments, data gathering procedures and data analysis. Quantitative

 17

research has been used in carrying out this research. Quantitative methods allow

the researcher to identify the level of workplace ergonomics and employees

performance in MSII also to determine the relationship between the two variables.

The evaluation has been carried out using survey questionnaires as research

instrument, data collection techniques and data analysis. The

surveyquestionnaires are used to collect quantitative data.

Research Design

The researcher used the descriptive-correlational quantitative design using

survey method. This design was used to establish the relationship between the

two variables through quantitative results. Descriptive study is a non-experimental

research that describes the characteristics of a particular individual, or a group. It

deals with the relationship between variables, testing of hypothesis and

development generalizations and use of theories that have universal validity. The

information that will be gathered from the responses can be statistically presented

in this type of research method for the easy interpretation of the report users. Since

the researcher is pursuing to analyze the employees’ idea, attitude, behavior, and

satisfaction level in relation to the worksite ergonomic hence the researcher should

effectively use the descriptive-correlational method in able for them to statistically

analyze the data.

 18

This portion includes the research flow – properly introduced and is

presented in 5 separate boxes connected by arrows.

Data to be Tools to Techniques to Output of

gathered Respondents gather data analyze data the study

 Workplace  28 Office-  Researcher-  Mean  Baseline

ergonomic Employees of made data for
levels of MSII Maximus Questionnaire  Standard improving
Structural Deviation workplace
 Employees’ Innovation Inc. ergonomics.
performance Davao City  Pearson (r.)
level of MSS in branch  Seminars for
absenteeism employers and
and productivity employees
about the
 The relationship of
relationship of workplace
workplace ergonomics
ergonomic and and employees’
employees’ performance.
performance in
MSII.

Research Locale/Environment

This study focused on the main office of Maximus Structural Innovation Inc.

in Gen. Douglas MacArthur HighwayTalomo, Davao City. Maximus Structural

Innovations, Inc. (MSII) is a Davao-grown company which started last July 2012.

MSII is a construction company that focuses on driving pre-stressed concrete piles

through both traditional and modern method; and building structures that ensure a
 19

balance of quality, cost efficiency, and timeliness, using construction management,

technological skills, and a skilled and professional workforce.

Respondents

The researchers previously had their work immersion in MSII in Davao City.

Since their study is all about workplace ergonomics and employees’ performance,

they found that MSII’s employees are well suited for the study as respondents; It

also an advantage to the researchers because the employees’ of MSII is easy to

contact. MSII has a total of 28 office-employees specifically the employees who

are in the Engineering Office and Head Office of MSII;the researchers invited all

the 28 total of office-employees to cooperate in the survey since MSII has a small

population size.

Research Instrument

The researcher presents a researcher-made questionnaire-checklist to

therespondents. The questionnaire was constructed based on further readings of

different kinds of literature from the internet. The instrument was validated by few

consultant and teachers before it was laid on to the study. The questionnaire

covers the following: workplace ergonomics and employees’ performance. The

workplace ergonomics has physical ergonomics, cognitive ergonomics and

organizational ergonomics parts while employees’ performance has absenteeism

and productivity as its part. Every indicator of each variable has 5 items. Each item
 20

contains statements or questions that will determine the level and relationship

between workplace ergonomics and employee performance a MSII in Davao City

has a total of 28 office-employees. The researcher invited all of the total employees

to cooperate in the survey since the population size is small. The respondents will

specifically include the employees who are in the Engineering Office and Head

Office of MSII.

Data Gathering Procedures

The researchers observed the following steps in conducting the study: A

letter of validation was sent to the validator to validate the survey-questionnaire

after it has been consulted. A letter of permission was signed by the researchers,

the research subject teacher, the Assistant IBED Principal and the IBED Principal

of Assumption College of Davao to prove its legitimacy, thereafter, the letter was

submitted to the assigned personnel or administrators of Maximus Structural

Innovation Inc. to allow the researchers to conduct a survey to their office-

employees. Upon the approval, the questionnaire was administered to the

respondents. The researchers personally retrieved the questionnaires that had

been administered to respondents. The gathered data through the questionnaires

with the help of statistician were tabulated and tallied. The result would hopefully

be the basis to find out the relationship between the two variables included in the

study.
 21

Data Analysis

The following were statistical tools used for data treatment:

Mean. This was used to describe the level workplace ergonomic and

employees’ performance.

Standard Deviation. This is used to measure the spread of scores in the set

of data.

Pearson (r.) or Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient.This was

used to determine the significant relationship between the variables under study.

The following scale is used to determine the level of workplace ergonomics and

employees’ performance.

Workplace Ergonomics (Physical, Cognitive and Organizational Ergonomics)

Level Descriptive Rating Description/Interpretation

4.50 - 5.00 Very High very good

3.50 - 4. 49 High good

2.50 – 3.39 Moderate average

1.50 - 2.49 Low poor

1.00 - 1.49 Very Low very poor `

Employees’ Performance in Absenteeism

 22

Level Descriptive Rating Description/Interpretation

4.50 - 5.00 Very High Always manifested.

3.50 - 4. 49 High Oftentimes manifested.

2.50 – 3.39 Moderate Sometimes manifested.

1.50 - 2.49 Low Rarely manifested.

1.00 - 1.49 Very Low Not manifested at all.

Employees’ Performance in Productivity

Level Descriptive Rating Description/Interpretation

4.50 - 5.00 Very High Always manifested.

3.50 - 4. 49 High Oftentimes manifested.

2.50 – 3.39 Moderate Sometimes manifested.

1.50 - 2.49 Low Rarely manifested.

CHAPTER 3

Results and Discussion

 23

This section seeks to answer the statement of the problem in the study, the

interpretation of analysis, findings, and results regarding workplace ergonomics

and employees’ performance in Maximus Structural Innovation Incorporated.

Workplace Ergonomics

The table below presents the results of the level workplace ergonomics

physical ergonomics, cognitive ergonomics and organizational ergonomics in MSII

after its data has been tallied and computed.

Table 1. Levels of Workplace Ergonomics

Indicators Mean Descriptive Equivalent

Physical Ergonomic 3.89 High

Cognitive Ergonomic 3.89 High

Organizational Ergonomic 3.79 High

Overall 3.85 High

Shown in table 1 is the level of workplace ergonomics. Specifically, it shows

that the first and second indicator, the physical ergonomics and cognitive

ergonomic gained the same mean score of 3.89 which is interpreted as good.

Meanwhile, the third indicator, organizational ergonomic is 3.79 of its mean score

which is also interpreted as good. It could be noted from the data that the indicators

of this variable which is the physical ergonomic, cognitive ergonomic and

organizational ergonomic, has earned an overall mean score of 3.85, which can

be qualitatively interpreted as good. This means that the Maximus Structural

Innovation Inc. has good workplace ergonomics.

 24

Dohrmann (2014) stated that if there are poorly designed environments it

will contribute to reduced efficiency, decreased production, loss of income,

increased medical claims and permanent disability, however, the survey resulted

to a high level of workplace ergonomic in MSII. Alongside, each specific skills and

capabilities of employees are fit to their workplace ergonomics and support

Budnick and Michael (2011) description of ergonomic as “fitting the system to

human”. There is also an assurance of safety and productivity among employees

(Levy and Wegman, 2010).

Cleave (2016) says that physical ergonomics pertains to the physiological

and biomechanical strain related to physical activity The physical ergonomic as the

first indicator of workplace ergonomics is high. This means that the MSII

possesses good physical ergonomic wherein employees can move and work

around in their workplace without feeling any joints, bones, muscles and back

pains due to using of inappropriate working furniture and equipment. Hence, the

employees do not feel any hesitations, risks and injuries whilst working and thus

optimizes employees’ safety, health, comfort, and performance (Helander 2005).

Cognitive ergonomics yielded a high mean score. This means that

employees in MSII possess skills and mental abilities to deal with workloads,

decision making, work pressures and technical jobs. The employees have enough

knowledge to handle complex machines and equipment used for production, this

is aligned to Budrick and Michael’ s (2011) statement that cognitive ergonomic is

focused of on the fit of human cognitive skills and capabilities to handle technical

and critical jobs. Therefore, there is a good relationship between employees and
 25

work materials and thus justify Kramer’s (2009) statement that having a good

cognitive ergonomics in the workplace there is a less of human error.

Organizational ergonomics as the third indicator of workplace ergonomic

yielded a high score in the mean. This means that there is a good and proper

organizational ergonomic in MSII. According to the result, MSII’s policies and work

processes are actively obeyed and optimized by the employees to increase

efficiency (Cleave 2016, Kramer 2009). There is a good communication system in

the company by which the information is passed between the managers and

employees within a business or between business itself and outsiders. The

company has a good work schedule fairly and suited for every employee. The

employees also maintain a good relationship between their boss and other

employees where they are open to work as collaborative. Basically, there is pursue

of organization among employees to work for the best effect (Worthy and Sinclair,

n.d).

Mainly, the workplace ergonomics of MSII were at the high level specified

in the survey result. This indicates that MSII possesses a good workplace

ergonomics. This states that there is a well and suited physical environment for the

employees to make them feel comfortable and safe while working. Moreover, the

employees possess skills and mental ability to actively, participate and handle

workloads. There is also good organizational structure, policies that are timely

followed and high performance work systems. By all means, the respondents

recognize their good workplace ergonomics.

Employees’ Performance
 26

The table below presents the results of the level employees’ performance

in absenteeism and productivity in MSII after its data has been tallied and

computed.

Table 2. Levels of Employees’ Performance

Indicators Mean Descriptive Equivalent

Absenteeism 3.34 Moderate

Productivity 4.00 High

As indicated in table 2, the two indicators, absenteeism, was rated as

moderate, and productivity was rated as high. The second indicator, the

productivity, gained the highest mean score which is 4.00. This means that the

employees’ performance in productivity is oftentimes manifested. On the other

hand, the mean score of absenteeism is 3.34 which is interpreted that the

employees’ performance in absenteeism is sometimes manifested.

The absenteeism of employees is rated as moderate level. As defined by

Johns (2007), absenteeism is when a worker or employee neglected to attend or

present himself or herself for the scheduled work. The survey result shows that

employees sometimes take a leave or absent. Most reasons of this are due to their

important appointments outside the work and acquiring seasonal illness.Therefore

the level of their absenteeism is not because ofthe influence of their workplace

ergonomics. Furthermore, the employees are not experiencing any other accidents

that lead to injuries and may cause them to file an absent or leave at work.
 27

Specifically, their workplace ergonomics’ does not affect employees’ times of

absences.

Productivity resulted in a descriptive equivalent of high which means it

isoftentimes manifested. There is a high productivity of performance among

employees. The work environment is oftentimes affect their productivity. The

employees always get a sense of accomplishments from work. They always use

their skill and abilities on their job. They always understand how their works directly

contribute to the overall success of the company. Also, the ambiance of their

workplace helps them perform very well.

In general, it is revealed in the study that there is a moderate level of

manifestation of absenteeism and high level manifestation of productivity among

employees. The level of absenteeism only implies that absenteeism is not a huge

issue for them. On the other side, the level of productivity only means that

productivity is visible to each and every employee.

Correlation between Workplace Ergonomics and Employees’ Performance

of MSII.

The independent variable which is the workplace ergonomics with

indicators: physical ergonomics, cognitive ergonomics and organizational

ergonomics are not correlated to the employees’ performance in absenteeism but

correlated to employees'productivity.
 28

The table below presents the results of workplace ergonomics and its

relationship towards employees’ performance in absenteeism and productivity as

its indicators.

Table 3.Correlation between Workplace Ergonomics and Employees’

Performance of MSII.

Workplace Employees’ Employees’

Performance Performance
Ergonomics
Decision Decision
Absenteeism On Ho Productivity On Ho

Physical .151 -.042

Ergonomics .444 Accept .832 Accept

Cognitive -0.31 .562

Ergonomics .874 Accept .002 Reject

Organizational .078 Reject .533

Ergonomics .639 Accept .004 Reject

.088 .473
Overall .655 Accept .011 Reject

Significant at  .05 Level of Significance

Exhibited in table 3 is the correlation between workplace ergonomics and

employees’ performance in absenteeism with an overall computed r-value of .088

and p-value of .655and productivity with an overall computed r-value of .473 and

p-value of .011. The result for the correlation of workplace ergonomics and

employees' performance in absenteeism failed to reject the null hypothesis. On the

other hand, the result for the correlation of workplace ergonomics and employees'

performance in productivity failed to supportthe null hypothesis. It is stated

 29

therefore that there is no significant relationship between workplace ergonomics

and employees’ performance in absenteeism while there is significant relationship

between workplace ergonomics and employees’ performance in productivity.

It could be viewed from the data that the correlation with a significant

relationship between indicators of workplace ergonomics and employees’

performance are the following: physical ergonomic, cognitive ergonomics,

organizational ergonomic, absenteeism and productivity.

Absenteeism due to physical ergonomics attained a computed r-value of

.151 and p-value of .444(No Significant). Then, physical ergonomic is not

correlated to the productivity of employees with the r-value of -.042 and p-value of

.832(No Significant). Cognitive ergonomics is also not correlated to absenteeism

with the computed r-value of -.031 and p-value of .874(No Significant). However,

cognitive ergonomic is correlated to productivity with a computed r-value of .562

and p-value of .002(Significant). Besides, organizational ergonomic is also not

correlated to absenteeism with a computed r-value of .078 and p-value of .693(No

Significant). However, it is correlated to productivity with a computed r-value of

.533 and p-value of .004(Significant).

Therefore, the indicators of workplace ergonomics and absenteeism as an

indicator in employees’ performance, gained with an overall p-value of .655 which

is greater than .05 level of significance. This simply means that there is no

significant relationship between workplace ergonomics and employees’

performance in absenteeism in MSII. The indicators of workplace ergonomics and

productivity as an indicator in employees’ performance, gained with an overall p-

 30

value of .011 which is lesser than .05 level of significance. This simply means that

there is a significant relationship between workplace ergonomics and employees’

performance in productivity in MSII.

Correlation with the variables. Workplace ergonomics do not have a

significant relationship to employees’ performance in absenteeism in Maximus

Structural Innovation Inc. Basically, the employees’ performance on absenteeism

does not depend on the workplace ergonomics. Workplace ergonomics have a

significant relationship to employees’ performance in productivity. Hence, the high

level of productivity of employees’ performance is mostly an influenced by their

workplace ergonomics.

The high level of workplace ergonomics inMaximus indicates that there is a

nature of FengShui Philosophy in the workplace. Therefore, having a good

workplace ergonomics is like having the essence of FengShui in the workplace..

In other words, ergonomics is directly proportional to FengShui Philosophy. Both

techniques has been applied and thus provide employees anambiance to work

effectively, efficiently and happy.

 31

CHAPTER 4

Conclusions and Recommendations

The purpose of this study is to determine the significance of the relationship

between workplace ergonomics and employees’ performance in MSII. The

researchers would like to contribute to the existing variables especially on the

workplace ergonomic at this moment is very limited, more so in the local setting.
 32

The preceding results and findings above are the baseline data in the formulations

of the following conclusions.

The researchers used the descriptive- correlational non-experimental

quantitative design to carry out the study. The people involved in this study were

office-employees of MSII. To gauge the following data needed for the succession

of this research, the researchers disseminated the researcher-made

questionnaires then retrieved and were tallied manually.

The researchers used the Pearson (r.) since the study aims to determine

the significance of the relationship of the two variables which are workplace

ergonomics and employees’ performance in MSII.

Based on the data presented on the previous chapter, it can be viewed that

there is no significant relationship between workplace ergonomics and employees’

performance in absenteeism; this was rated in moderate level which means that it

is sometimes manifested by employees. This indicates that the overall workplace

ergonomics does not affect the employees’ absenteeism. On the other hand, it can

be viewed that there is a significant relationship between workplace ergonomics

and employees’ performance in productivity that was rated in high level which

means that it is oftentimes manifested by employees.

Even though most employees are not very familiar to the term “ergonomics”

alongside with its domains, the workplace ergonomics still affects their

performance in many ways not just only in absenteeism and productivity. It is

 33

revealed in the study that workplace ergonomics is a great factor that affects the

employees’ performance in productivity.

Through this study, a realization will be unraveled.Employees will be able

to now understand the value of workplace ergonomics towards their productivity.

Basically, this study is about helping each employee to stay healthy and perform

better.

Conclusions

The preceding results and findings above are the baseline data in the

formulation of the following conclusions: The level of workplace ergonomic of

Maximus Structural Innovation Inc. is high. This means that the workplace

ergonomic of MSII is good in terms of physical ergonomic, cognitive ergonomics

and organizational ergonomic domains. On the other hand, the level of employees’

performance in terms of absenteeism is moderate and productivity is high. This

means that employees’ absenteeism is sometimes manifested and the productivity

which is oftentimes manifested. Generally, there is no significant relationship

between the workplace ergonomics and the employees’ performance in

absenteeism in MSII while there is significant relationship between workplace

ergonomics and employees’ performance in productivity. Additionally, the result

indicates that the employees claimed to have proper workplace ergonomics,

however, it does not affect employees’ absenteeism contrary on how it affects

employees’ productivity.
 34

Recommendation

Based on the finding and conclusion, the following recommendations are

crafted for consideration of beneficiaries of the study.

As the overall result of workplace ergonomic is high, the employer or

manager of the MSII may show an appreciation to this good response of the

employees through their working. The study found out that the workplace

ergonomics is not solely the factor that affects employees’ performance. It is

recommended to have other factors involved to gather a much deeper insight that

will help in improving employees’ performance.

Students and future researchers can conduct another research in line with

this study and use this as a reference to formulate another findings and conclusion

regarding the relationship between workplace ergonomics and employees’

performance.

Through the findings and conclusion of this study, it is better to have good

ergonomics at home or at work since it is another way of valuing each and

everyone’s well- beings.

 35

Reference List

Bayabana, Medoza, Pentecotesa, Tangsoca. (2016). An Ergonomic Assessment

of aPhilippine Hospital Patient Room. Presented at the DLSU Research
Congress.http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/conferences/dlsuresearchcongressproce
edings/2016/SEE/SEE-II-10.pdf. Retrieved December 2017.

Bo, S. (2013). Traditional FengShui Architecture as an Inspiration for the

Development of Green
Buildings.https://ejopa.missouristate.edu/index.php/ejournal/article/downlo
ad/40/52. Retreived March 2018
 36

Boles, M., Pelletier, B. & Lynch, W. (2004).The relationship between health risks
and work productivity.Journal of Occupational and Environment Medicine.
Retrieved December 2017.

Borman, W. C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship.Current

Directions in Psychological Science.http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs
/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00316.x. Retrieved December 2017.

Brand, J. (2010). http://ljournal.ru/article/spc-22-12-2017-29.pdf.

Budnick, P. & Michael, R. (2001), What is Cognitive Ergonomics, Ergonomics

Today. http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Cognitive_ergonomics. Retrieved
December 2017

Burri, G. J., &Helander, M. G. (2011).A field study of productivity improvements

in the manufacturing of circuit boards. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomic.(PDF). Retrieved December 2017.

Chandrasekar, K. (2011).Workplace environment and its impact on

organizationalperformance in public sector organizational. International
Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business
Systems.http://www.ijecbs.com /January2011/N4Jan2011.pdf. Retrieved
December 2017

Chen, LH. (2001). Industrial Managementand Data Systems.Using financial

factors to investigate productivity: an empirical study in Taiwan.
https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/EUM0000000005826.
Retreived November 2017

Clements-Croome, D. (2006). Creating the Productive Workplace, (2nd ed).

Oxford, England, Taylor and Francis.(PDF). Retrieved December 2017

Cleave, V. (2016). Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human.Workplace

Ergonomics: A 3-Phase Intervention at the Workplace. http://www.kon.org
/urc/ v11/vancleave.html.Retrieved November 2017

Cullinan, K. & Wolf, M. (2010). The patient room: what is the ideal solution.DEA
4350.from:http://iwsp.human.cornell.edu/file_uploads/IWSP_4530
_2010_DILEMMA_Wolf-Callinan.pdf.Retrieved November 2017.

De Castro, A. (2009). AAOHN journal: official journal of the American Association

of Occupational Health Nurses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC 2797477/. Retrieved
November 2017
 37

Dohrmann, T.(2014). Where comforts meets productivity.The CEO Magazine.

http://www.theceomagazine.com/images/pdf/2014/AUST/10%20October/
CEO%20OCT14_Ergonomics.pdf. Retrieved December 2017

Ettner, S. L., &Grzywacz, J. G. (2001). Workers’ perception of how job affect

health: A social ecological perspective. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology.(PDF).Retrieved December 2017.

XGutnick, L. (2007). A workplace design that reduces employee stress and

increases employee productivity using environmentally responsible
materials. A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the Requirements of
Eastern Michigan University for the Degree of Master of Science and
Doctor of Philosophy. Michigan: Eastern Michigan University. (PDF).
Retrieved December 2017.

Hameed, A. (2009). Impact of Office Design on Employees’ Productivity: a case

study of Banking Organizations of Abbottabad, Abbottabad. Journal of
Public affairs, Administration and Management.(PDF).Retrieved
December 2017.

Helander, M. (2005).Usability Body of Knowledge. Welcome to the Usability

Body of Knowledge. http://www.usabilitybok.org/physical-ergonomics
Retrieved November 2017.
International Ergonomics Assocition.(2016). Definition and Domains of
Ergonomics | IEA.http://www.iea.cc/whats/. Retrived November 2017

Johns, G. (2007). Absenteeism. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of

sociology. Blackwell Publishing.Blackwell Reference Online.
from http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=572/tocnode?id=g
9781405124331_chunk_g9 7814051243317_ss1-3. Retrived December
2017

Kramer, A. (2009). Organizational Ergonomics – Overview.http://old.ask ergowor

kscom/news /20/An-Overview-of-Organizational-Ergonomics.aspx.
Retrieved November 2017
Koningsvled, E. & de Looze, M. (2017).Applied Ergonomics. Applied
Ergonomics | All Special Issues |. https://www.sciencedirect.com/jo urnal/
applied-ergonomics/special-issues.Retrieved November 2017.

Kuen, F. (2010).The Incorporation ofFengShuiPhilosophy Towards the Shape of

Logo Design of Hong Leong Bank Berhad.
http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/8060/6/FoongHockKuen_MasterThesisSub
mission.pdf. RetreivedMarch 2018
 38

Levy &Wegman, (2010).A parallel universe. Chief Learning Officer. (PDF).

Retrieved December 2017

Hasun, F. M. &Makhbul, Z.M. (2005).An overview of workplace environment

and selected demographic factors towards individual health and
performance enhancement.Synergizing OSH for Business Competitive.
(PDF). Retrieved December 2017

McCornick E. & Saunders N. Applied Ergonomics.Science Dire

http://pakacademicsearch.com/pdffiles/ech/4/118140%20Volume%202%2
0,%20Issue%204%20October%202012.pdf Retrieved December 2017

Nasibov, A. (2015). Impact of Employee Motivation on Performance

(Productivity)https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/impact-employee-motivation
performanceproductivity-anar-nesibov. Retrieved December 2017

Naharuddin, N. M., &Sadegi, M. (2013). Factors of Workplace Environment that

Affect Employees Performance: A Case Study of Miyazu Malaysia. htt
p://pakacademicsearch.com/pdffiles/art/68/6678%20Vol.%202,%20o.2%2
0(April,%202013).(PDF). Retreived December 2017
Rouse, W. (2014). Modeling and Visualization of Complex Systems. Google
Books.https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=dsAsCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20
8&lpg=PA208&dq=Rouse%2B2014%2Bproductivity&source=bl&ots=1nH
AMzPyM_&sig=p9pK1purXRqIdxQ55_MtE9XZtxU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ah
UKEwi77OdLZAhXEGZQKHU2rABkQ6AEIUTAH.Retrieved December
2017
Shikdar, A. A., &Sawaqed, N. M. (2003).Worker productivity, and occupational
health and safety issues in selected industries. Computers and Industrial
Engineering.(PDF). Retrieved December 2017

Taiwo, A. S. (2009) The influence of work environment on workers’ productivity: a

case of selected oil and gas industry in Lagos, Nigeria, African Journal of
BusinessManagement.https://www.sciencedirect.com/sciece/article/pii/S
00368701200671. Retrieved December 2017

Tchi, R. (2018). What Is FengShui and How It Can Help You?.The

Spruce.www.thespruce.com/what-is-feng-shui-1275060. RetreivedMarch
2018

UKEssays (2013).Ergonomic Factors in Workplace Accidents.

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/health/ergonomic-factors-workplaceac
cidents-3813.php.Retrieved December 2017.

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (2002). Office ergonomics:

 39

Practical solutions for a safer workplace. http://www.lni.wa.gov/IPUB/417-

133-000.pdf. Retrieved December 2017.

WHO (2006). World health report 2006. Working together for health. Geneva,
World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/. Retrieved
December 2017

Worthy, T, &Siclair, M. (n.d).Ergonomics4schools – ergonomics.

http://www.ergonomics4schools.com/lzone/ergonomics.htm. Retrieved
November 2017

Appendix A. Map of Maximus Structural Innovation Inc. Davao City

 40

Appendix B. Survey QuestionnaireOnWorkplace Ergonomic and Employees’

Performance of Maximus Structural Innovation Inc.

Dear Respondents,
 41

We are the STEM Student of Assumption College of Davao under the course of
Civil Engineering are going to conduct a survey in your company. We would like to request
for your cooperation to be one of our respondents. We assure you that any information
that will provide will be respected, kept confidential and will safely be used for the purpose
of this study.

DIRECTIONS: The following items describe statements about Workplace Ergonomic and
Employees’ Performance. Indicate your answer with the following statements by putting a
check as your response using the scale below.

5=Strongly Agree
4=Agree
3=Neutral
2=Disagree
1=Strongly Disagree

WORKPLACE ERGONOMICS
Physical Ergonomic 5 4 3 2 1
1. I am very good at handling materials.
2. The workplace layout suited me very well.
3. I am not having any problems with my working posture.
4. So far, I have never felt any joints, muscles and back
pain while working.
5. I feel safe and do not feel any risks while working.
Cognitive Ergonomic 5 4 3 2 1
1. I can handle mental workloads.
2. I am very good at decision making.
3. I am capable in handling works that require skills.
4. I can handle technical jobs such as computer works.
5. I can handle work pressure.
Organizational Ergonomic 5 4 3 2 1
1. The company has an excellent Communication System
2. The company always make that the vision, mission and
goals are always manifested.
3. The company has an excellent Work Schedule Design.
4. The company makes sure that every employee
maintains a good relationship with each other.
5. The company has employees that work as a team.

EMPLOYEES’ PERFORMANCE
Absenteeism 5 4 3 2 1
1. I oftentimes take a leave or absent.
 42

2. Most reason of my absences is due to an illness.

3. My workplace mostly contributes to my absence.
4. I have already encountered accidents while working.
5. I always get stressed because of work.
Productivity 5 4 3 2 1
1. My work environment affects my productivity.
2. I get a sense of accomplishments from work
3. My job enables me to make use of my skills and abilities.
4. I understand how my work directly contributes to the
overall success of the company.
5. The ambiance of my workplace helps me perform very
well.

Appendix C. Research Instrument Validation Sheet

43
 44

Appendix D. Letter of Permission

 45

Appendix E.Approval Letter

46
 47

Appendix F.

PHYSICAL ERGONOMICS
 48

Appendix G.

COGNITIVE ERGONOMICS
 49

Appendix H.

ORGANIZATIONAL ERGONOMICS
 50

Appendix I.

ABSENTEEISM
 51

Appendix J.

PRODUCTIVITY
52
53
 54

Curriculum Vitae

Name: Eljen Grace M. Colanggo_____________

Address:_312, Saturn St., Victoria Heights, Brgy. Anglionto

Sr., Davao City

Contact No: Mobile Phone 09396114580 Landline: (082) 225-7653

Academic History: (write academic degrees; start with most recent, institution and
address, year, awards conferred)

 Academic Awardee Grade 10 (SY:2015-2016) at Emilio Ramos National

High School, Diamond Village, Brgry. Angliongto Sr., Davao City

 Academic Awardee Grade 11 (SY:2016-2017) at Assumption College of

Davao, J.P. Cabaguio Avenue, Davao City

 Academic Awardee Grade 12 (SY:2017-201) at Assumption College of

Davao, J.P. Cabaguio Avenue, Davao City

Work History: (if there is any)

 Work Immersion at Maximus Structural Innovations Inc. , Matina Davao City

Eligibility/Licensure Exams Passed (if there is any) : ______________________

Areas of Specialization: Academic Track, STEM, Civil Engineering

Name and Signature:ELJEN GRACE M. COLANGGO

 55

Curriculum Vitae

Name:__JhayS. Ubalde_________________________

Address: ___84-6 Leon Garcia Agdao Davao City

Contact No: Mobile Phone09092700850Landline: _______________

Academic History:

 Grade 10 3rd home room honor- Holy Cross of Agdao

Work History: (if there is any)

 Work Immersion at Maximus Structural Innovations Inc. , Matina Davao City

 Sales Associate Gmall of Davao

Eligibility/Licensure Exams Passed (if there is any): ______________________

Areas of Specialization: Academic Track, STEM, Civil Engineering

Name and Signature: JHAY S. UBALDE