Chapter I

Introduction

This part of the study presents background of the study, statement of the problem,
objective of the study, significance of the study, scope of the study and definition of
terms which are described as follow.

1.1 Background of the Study

The success of any organization is closely tied to the job productivity of its employees.
The quality of the employees’ workplace environment impacts on their motivation level
and hence performance (Heath, 2006). When employees have the desire, physically and
emotionally to work, then their performance shall be increased (Boles et al., 2004). They
also stated that having a proper workplace environment helps in reducing the number of
absenteeism and as a result can increase the performance in today’s competitive and
dynamic business world.

Today’s work environment is different, diverse and constantly changing. The

combination of factors has created an environment where the business needs its
employees more than the employees need the business. It is the quality of the employee’s
work environment that most impacts on the level of employee’s motivation and
subsequent performance. In today’s competitive business environment, organizations can
no longer afford to waste the potential of their workforce (Kahya, 2007). Therefore, most
government organizations are making all possible efforts to make work environment
more comfortable, safe and healthy. The workplace environment impacts employee
morale, productivity and engagement - both positively and negatively. Comfortable office
design motivates the employees and increases their performance to a large extent.
Management’s new challenge is to form an environment that attracts, retain and motivate
its workforce. The responsibility 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.
The work environment affects employee morale, productivity and engagement- both

1
positively and negatively. In an effort to motivate workers, firms have put into practice a
number of activities such as performance based pay, employee involvement, recruiting
agreements, practices to help balance work and family life as well as various forms of
information sharing, (Chatrchyan, 2011).
Among other organizational resources, human resources are one of the most critical and
valuable resource to achieve organizational objectives. Human resource can be defined as
the most important resource to affect performance in organizations (Stone, 2008).
Effectiveness and efficiency of an organization cannot be achieved without effective
management of human resource.
Performance analysis is an examination of the knowledge, skill, abilities, and attitudes of
employees, their current and future career goals and objectives, and the ‘‘match’’
between employees and organizationalexpectations. Such an analysis also helps
determine how employee performance helps the organization achieve its strategic goals
and objectives (Gilley, 2009).
A satisfied, happy and hardworking employee is biggest asset of any organization.
Effective work environment encourage the happier employee with their job that
ultimately influence the growth of an organization as well as growth of an economic.
The level of salary, promotion, appraisal system, climate management, and relation with
co-workers are the very important factors. Creating better and higher performing
workplace requires an awareness of how workplace impacts behaviour and how
behaviour itself drives workplace performance (Armstrong &Murlis, 2007).
This study is designed to find out the effect of work environment on employee
productivity in Lideta sub city administration Office.
Background of the Study Area
According to the statistical estimation of central statistics agency (C.S.A) the population
of Addis Ababa in 2015 is estimated 3,273,000. And out of this 320,000 people are living
in Lideta sub city.

Addis Ababa city is found in the central part of Ethiopia, and it is the capital of the
country. And Lideta sub city is also found in the center of Addis. According to Addis
Ababa city administration repot, Lideta sub city is located in the central part of Addis
Ababa, where in the northern part Addis Ketema sub city is boundary, whereas in the

2
west KolfeKeraniyo, in the south Nifas Silk Lafto, in south east Kirkos and in the north
west Arada sub cities are boundaries.

The area of Lideta sub city covers, 9.18 kilometer square. It is the second smallest sub
city in Addis Ababa, followed by Addis Ketema sub city, which is also found in the
center of Addis Ababa and its area covers 8.61 kilometer square. And also the second
most densely populated area in the city, followed by Arada sub city. It consists of 23,000
people per kilometer square and 10 woredas. Even if it is the second small sub city in
Addis Ababa, it is the second most populated area, in the city.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
There are many factors that affect the productivity of employees in organizations.
Workplace environment plays an essential role towards workers’ performance and
productivity in any organization (El-Zeiny, 2013). Providing a good workplace
environment increases employee performance in organizations (Shikdar&Shawaqed,
2003). When people are working in situations that suit their physical and mental abilities,
the correct fit between the person and work task is accomplished. Employees are then in
the optimum situation for learning, working and achieving. Work environment comprises
the totality of forces and influential factors that are currently or potentially contending
with the employees’ activities and performance.

According to Chandrasekar (2011), there are key factors in the workplace environment
that could give a great impact towards the motivation and performance level. The
business environment is becoming very competitive, dynamic and complex.

According to Tripathi (2014), stated that 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 inter linked and impacts on employees overall
performance and productivity. It is the quality of the employees’ workplace environment
that most impacts on their level of motivation subsequently performance.
As Opperman (2002), stated that working environment means those processes, systems,
structures, tools or conditions in the workplace that impact favorably or unfavorably
individual performance. The working environment also includes policies, rules, culture,

3
resources, working relationships, work location, internal and external environmental
factors, all of which influence the ways that employee perform their job functions.
Employees use about 50 percent of their existence within work environments, which
extremely affect their status of mind, aptitudes, and actions in addition to their performance
(Sundstrom, 1994).

Others researcher (Hughes, 2007), stated that comprises poor air circulation, poor personal
protective equipment, inappropriate furniture, inadequate security measures in fire
emergencies (absence of fire extinguishers), unnecessary noise, unfitting lighting and poorly
designed workplaces. Employees operating in these environments are susceptible to job-
related ailment and it influences on worker’s productivity negatively. Meanwhile, it is the
value of the work environment that influences greatly on the quality of worker’s inspiration
and productivity.

According to Wilson, (1989; Wright, 2001), government employees have a status for
sluggishness and indolent due to their poor work environment and managers’ cannot do
much to resolve the issue because of the firm civil- service laws. How local managers can
inspire their staff is considered to be one of the big challenges of Public Management”
(Behn, 1995). The above situation can adversely affect the productivity of government
organizations and for that matter needs immediate attention. It requires a completely
diverse method than what was used some years back to retain and motivate workers
currently.

Others researcher (Chatrchyan, 2011) stated that workplace environment of most government
organizations is insecure and harmful to one’s health. These comprises poor air circulation,
poor personal protective equipment, inappropriate furniture, inadequate security measures in
fire emergencies (presence of fire extinguishers), unnecessary noise, unfitting lighting and
poorly designed workplaces Individuals operating in these surroundings are susceptible to
job-related ailment and it influences on worker’s productivity negatively. The above situation
can adversely affect the productivity of government organizations and for that matter needs
immediate attention.The problem identified which made to undergo this research is based
on the general workenvironment which mostly affect employees’ productivity.

4
Therefore, to the researcher’s knowledge, these studies conducted do not establish the
effect of work environment on employee productivity in the Addis Ababa city
administration especial in Ledita Sub-city Administration office. So this seminar
assessment is essential to generate relevant evidence through a detail study on effect of
work environment on employee’s productivity and highlight solution to improving the
productivity of employees in sub-city administration. However, this research will try to
describe the effect of work environment on employee’s productivity inLideta sub city
administration office in Addis Ababa city.
1.3 Research Objective
1.3.1 General Objective
The general objective of this paper is to assess the effect of working environment on
employee productivity in Lideta sub city administration office.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
1. To assess the work environment of Lideta sub city administration.
2. To assess the productivity of workers of Lideta sub city administration.
3. To identify the effect of work environment level on productivity of employees of
Lideta sub city administration.
1.4 Research Questions
The above statements guide the researcher to builds up research questions regarding the
determinant factors which affect the productivity of employees of the sub city, the study
stated the following research questions:
1. What is the work environment of Lideta sub city administration?
2. What is the productivity of workers of Lideta sub city administration?
3. What is the level of work environment effect on productivity of employees of Lideta
sub city administration?
1.5 Scope of the Study
The scope of the study will be delimited methodologically, geographically and
thematically. Geographically, from Addis ababa city administration this study is
delimited selected Lideta sub-city administration office, were Administration Head,
departments dirctorts and experts are selected for this study as respondents. Regarding

5
tothematic area, the main purpose of this study to find outthe effectof working
environment on employee’s productivity in Lideta sub city administration office Addis
Abeba.Finally the methodology of the study will be delimited to uses descriptive research
design and survey method with having a purpose of describing the phenomena under
study.
1.6 Significance of the Study
The study is expected to provide knowledge and measures to improve the working
environment of employees for better productivity in public institution specifically in
Lideta sub city administration. In addition, the research result indicates how the working
environment affects the employee’s productivity for the sub city and also serves as a
reference for those who are interested to do research work in related areas.
Furthermore, the information will be useful to help governments, policy makers, faith
based organizations, non-government organization for intervention based on the findings
stated on existence importance work environment on employees productivity and
forwarding to focus on changing norms that predispose of this study.
1.7 Limitations of the Study
In conduct the study the possible source of the limitations of this study will be include
lack of access to the right data, unexpected condition, lack of up-to date literature in the
study area, financial limitation and sampling restriction. Therefore, those possible
constraints may have affected the quality and quantity of data collects during the study
and analysis. This hampers the researcher to conduct the study more effectively because
the researcher is not able to interview as many respondents.

1.8 Organization of the Paper

The paper is organized in to five chapters. Chapter one contains introduction, statement
of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, significance, scope and
limitations of the study. Chapter two describes different literatures that were reviewed.
The research design including the methodology adopted, analysis techniques and the
model that were applied in data collection and analysis are presented in chapter three.
The fourth chapter outlines data presentation, analysis and interpretations; and the fifth
chapter deals with summary, conclusion and suggested recommendations.

6
 Chapter II
Literature Review

Introduction
It is sure that there may be many factors increasing the level of employee’s productivity.
As a different aspect, this study analyzed the employee’s productivity from the standpoint
of working environment. The productivity of employees improves by establishment of
strong workplace environment.
Due to the objective of this study, this chapter provides the theoretical framework upon
which this study is grounded. Various factors of the workplace environment that affect
employee productivity have been explored. The chapter also reviews literature from other
scholars on similar studies.

2.1 Theoretical Review

The environment is man’s immediate surrounding which he manipulates for his
existence. Wrongful manipulation introduces hazards that make the environments unsafe
and impede the productivity rate of the worker. Therefore, the workplace entails an
environment in which the worker performs his work (Chapins, 1995) while an effective
workplace is an environment where results can be achieved as expected by management
(Mike, 2010; Shikdar, 2002).

In Adam Smith’s “An inquiry into the Nature and causes of the wealth of nations” from
1776, he writes about how the concept of the division of labor had a positive effect on
productivity. The concept was based on having several people work in different units on
the same product and that it would have an improvement on the productivity. This would
lead to more output in a shorter amount of time, rather than if one person made the whole
product by themselves.

Smith’s view was taken a step further by Fredrick Winslow Taylor, as he used time and
motion studies to find a way of making labor more productive (Schwartz, 2015). Taylor
is considered the father of what is called Scientific Management, which is a way to
manage labor by scientifically studying how to do the job in the most efficient way where

7
the needs of the workers are included, and at the same time get as much as possible done.
These studies showed the optimal way of working, and how much one person that is
scientifically suited to do the job should be able to accomplish in one day’s work.

By being scientifically able to find the optimal amount of one day’s work, it was possible
to make tasks that would give the workers an incentive to complete it without
overworking them. The incentive was that those who completed the task got a higher
salary, and those who didn’t complete would get the normal salary and could also be
placed in a job that they were more scientifically fitted to do. Managers looked at each
worker as an individual and worked on developing them to the highest state of
productivity (Taylor, 2011).

In the 1920’s a reaction to the concept of Scientific Management theory surfaced, this
new management theory, Human Relations, criticized the labor efficiency principles and
the workplace Taylor wanted to develop (Miles, 1965; Calhoun, 2002; Bruce &Nyland,
2011). This new theory was created in the aftermath of the Hawthorne experiments by
Elton Mayo, who claimed that the experiments demonstrated that economic incentives
were inadequate. He argued that most factories were lacking workspace that met the
employee’s social and emotional needs, which was causing an overall inefficiency. The
Human Relations solution to this inefficiency required reversing the severe division of
labor, opening for the possibilities of a closer relationship between management and
employees and teamwork (Calhoun, 2002). According to Miles (1965), the main goal of
the Human Relations solution was to construct a workforce that did not resist formal
authority that cooperates and is ready to work towards finding solutions to organizational
problems. Important components to achieve this was acknowledging individual desires
and needs, having managers discuss organizational problems with the employees, making
employees feel useful and important to the organization.

2.1.1 Working Environment

Kohun (1992), defines working environment as an entirely which comprises the totality
of forces, actions and other influential factors that are currently and, or potentially
contending with the employee’s activities and performance. Working environment is the

8
sum of the interrelationship that exists within the employees and the environment in
which the employees work.

2.1.1.1 Classification of Work Environment

There are many different types of work environment. Several attempts have been made to
put the different types in an organized way, as seen with the Holland Codes proposed by
John Holland (2015), a psychologist with an interest in matching people with work
environments that suit their personalities. Holland’s approach to the types of work
environment looked at the nature of the work done. He identified six different
environments: realistic, social, enterprising, artistic, investigative, and conventional.
In realistic environments, work is more hands on, while investigative environments place
a high priority on thinking and theoretical discussions. Enterprising environments involve
more self-initiative to start and innovate projects. Conventional work environments use
set protocols and routines, such as data basing customer information, while artistic
environments promote creativity and the production of works of art. Social work
environments involve a high degree of interaction, as seen in customer service and
teaching (Dwyer et al, 1991).
Another way to look at work environments is to assess the physical surroundings,
differentiating between offices, warehouses, retail stores, scientific research facilities,
fieldwork sites, and so forth. These work environments may be suited to different kinds
of personalities and career goals. The physical environment can also have an impact on
suitability for work; some people do not enjoy the rigid and controlled climate of a lab,
for instance, or prefer working outdoors. Concerns about conditions in different types of
work environment may be an issue for some job seekers with worries about their ability
to thrive in physically demanding or boring environments (Salin, 2003).

Physical environment as an aspect of the work environment have directly affected the
human sense and subtly changed interpersonal interactions and thus productivity. The
factors that contribute either positively or negatively to employee productivity are
temperature, humidity and air flow, noise, lighting, employee personal aspects,
contaminants and hazards in the working environment, types of sub environment.
According to Yesufu (1984), the nature of the physical condition under which employees

9
work is important to output, Offices and factories that are too hot and ill-ventilated are
debilitating to effort. There should be enough supply of good protective clothing,
drinking water, rest rooms, toilets, first aids facilities etc.

The social and psychological climate can also be a metric to use when distinguishing
between different types of work environment. Some workplaces have very rigid chains of
command, while others may be more flexible and egalitarian. Employees may be
encouraged to participate, offer feedback, and shape their environment, or could be
expected to focus on tasks without criticizing their employers or supervisors. Some
workplace climates can become hostile because of a tolerance for harassment or ferocious
competition, while others are more friendly and relaxed.

Woodward & Psych (2000) classify work environment as physical environment and
social environment and administrative environment. The Physical Environment
includes Work Load, Technology/Equipment, Availability of material supply, Shift
timings, Working hours and etc.

The Social Environment also consist of Interpersonal Relations, Multiple teams,

Management Style / Support, Status at work, Autonomy, Decision Making, Culture and
Climate. The last one which is Administrative Environment comprises Organizational
Structure, Organizational Goals, and Policies for Promotion, Leave, Transfer and
Performance Evaluation.

2.1.1.2 General Effect of Work Environment

The environment has many effects   and opined by the following theorists, Gnaft (1964)
comments on the effect of work environment, in his write up he stated that environmental
factors contributes to employees productivity, quality output, level of wastage and rate of
turnover. He further postulated that unhealthy depressing and unsafe work environment
leads to job dissatisfaction and eventually low productivity. He went further to mention
that when an office is grossly deficient in stimulation, the resultant effects are
absenteeism, lateness, wastage of resources, disobedience and many other negative
attitudes.

10
Hicks (1974), opined that poor working environment expose employees to injuries,
discomfort and helps to reduce productivity, therefore an organization has to provide a
conducive environment that will protect them under emergency conditions.

Flippo (1993), postulated that the physical environment is our greatest material resource
without relatively clean air, pure or clean water and hygienic surroundings, people
become unfit to work and for living. He further stated that air is not polluted and that
safety of employees must be protected for higher productivity by  ensuring that air is
not polluted and that the physical environment should be devoid of any injury or threat to
the life of workers.

Hicks (1974) Discussed that an organization does not exist in a vacuum, it exist in him,
there is nothing a worker can do without the environment being friendly and conducive.
As a result of this, all efforts should be geared towards providing those conditions like
enough space, good ventilated office, adequate light and other materials that will enhance
the productivity of the employees.
Oliver (1975), in his own contribution stated that an unsafe physical condition gives rise
to accident of which employees are bound to sustain injuries in their working place.
Unsafe equipment and tools, polluted air with toxic substance, poor ventilation and
inadequate personal protective equipment pose a great danger to the health and life of
employee. These things drastically help to reduce productivity of the employee. He went
further to urge employers of labour to provide good working environment that is safe
without risk to health and also provide facilities that will ensure the welfare of employees
at work.

the effect of work environment on employee productivity

https://nairaproject.com/projects/204.html

2.1.2 Employee productivity

2.1.2.1 Productivity

11
Generally, productivity refers to the relationship between the input provided and the
output generated by a production or service system. Thus, productivity is defined as the
efficient use of resources such as labour, land, capital, materials, energy and information
in the production of various goods and services (Prokopenko, 1987).
On the other hand, the definition of productivity is the rate of which output, such as
goods or service, are produced compared to the input, such as labor and capital (Hornby,
2010; Heizer& Render, 2014). The focus will be on labor productivity, this to see if
individuals get more productive in different environments. The reason for looking at
labor productivity, is because the more productive the employees are, the more value is
added to the organization (Heizer& Render, 2014).

The concept of productivity, is in this case influenced by the different work environment,
and in this thesis, individual well-being is a factor that is assumed to be connected to
individual productivity through the combination of different work environment.
2.1.2.2 Employee productivity
Employee productivity (sometimes referred to as workforce productivity) is an
assessment of the efficiency of a worker or group of workers.
Productivity may be evaluated in terms of the output of an employee in a specific period
of time. Typically, the productivity of a given worker will be assessed relative to an
average for employees doing similar work. Because much of the success of any
organization relies upon the productivity of its workforce, employee productivity is an
important consideration for businesses. 

What is employee productivity? - Definition from WhatIs.com

https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/employee-productivity
Every employee in an organization has his/her own work psychology, they have their
own style of working, and there are different set of factors, which influence them and
their productivity. As a manager one has to deal with each of them in a different manner

12
and bring the best out of them. Douglas McGregor in his book, "The Human Side of
Enterprise" published in 1960 has examined theories on behavior of individuals at work,
and he has formulated two models which he calls Theory X and Theory Y. According to
McGregory, theory X is for the employees, who are lazy, don’t want to work, but are
talented. Theory Y is for the employees, which want to work for self-fulfillment; given
the right guidance they will perform well. In the first scenario, Theory X, it is very
important for a manager to create a structured environment, so as to get the work done
from the employees. There may be lack of trust in this situation therefore the manager
would keep a close track on the employee’s activity.
However, in the second scenario, Theory Y, a manager just needs to show the right
direction to the employee and they will automatically perform well. This actually boosts
the level of trust between the manager and his team. McGregor proposed that a
manager’s outlook impacts the productivity and performance of an employee. Their
intervention will shape the employee’s working style. The Managers gets access to
individual work visibility in form of objective work facts and employees get a mirror
image of their daily activities. The Managers act upon the data they receive and can
intervene wherever it is required for Y type of employees. Similarly X type of employees
can analyze their daily work and set goals for self-improvement.

The overarching objective of Human Resource Management is to contribute to the

achievement of high levels of organizational performance. The integration of Human
Resource and business strategies should generally focus on this. Intangible assets such as
motivation, skill rewarding, competence, Human Resource approaches, appraisal
systems, employee relations and social interaction between people including team
building forums are increasingly seen as key sources of strength in those organizations
that combine people and processes. This echoes the resource-based view of the firm,
which states that ‘distinctive human resource practices help to create the unique
competencies that determine how firms compete’ (Capelli and Crocker-Hefter, 1996).

Taylor (1998) found that four key principles could be applied to dramatically improve
workplace productivity. Taylor’s principles advised managers to systematically design
each job, scientifically select and train the workers, cooperate closely with the workers

13
and divide the work and responsibility equally between the worker and management.
Other studies focused on the premise that the quality of leadership directly affects
productivity. Productive and performance related HR practices can only work if they
positively induce discretionary behavior once basic staffing requirements have been met.
This discretionary behavior is more likely to occur when they feel motivated to do so
and/or when they gain high levels of job satisfaction. This is to say even if the employees
have been given freedom to make their own decision without any interference; they may
not if their attitude to work is negative.
2.1.2.3 Factors That Influence Employee’s Productivity
Knowing what factors influence productivity is a prerequisite to improving performance.
Over the years, researchers have found that productivity is affected by relatively few
influencers, and workers are generally aware of what those influencers are (Armstrong,
2006; Clawson & Newburg, 2005; Hankin, 2004; Newstrom&Bittel, 2002; Williams,
2003). Identification of the specific productivity limiters operative in a workplace can
yield opportunities for significant productivity gains in the organizations.
In every organization, many contributions in enhancing workers morale to achieve a
particular purpose and such conditions are:
Reward and Motivation
Rewards for employees act as a source of motivation. Motivated employees work harder.
These rewards could be in form of good package, favorable working conditions, review of
wages and salaries to promote efficiency. Employees who lack promotion prospects tend to
feel unvalued by the Organization which leads to frustrations and eventually low output.

According to Armstrong and Murlis (2004) reward management is concerned with the
formulation and implementation of strategies and policies that aim to reward people
fairly, equitably and consistently in accordance with their value to the organisation. It
deals with implementation and Maintenance of reward processes and practices that are
geared to the improvement of Organizational, team and individual performance.
According to Koretz (1995), it is good to create total reward processes that are based on
beliefs about what the organization values and wants to achieve, reward staff for the
value they create, support the development of performance culture, develop a positive
employment of a performance culture and facilitate the attraction and retention of the

14
skilled and competent staff the organization needs, thus develop a positive employment
relationship and psychological contract. Reward does not only mean monetary but also
non-financial rewards like words of affirmation, incentives scheme, recognition,
increased responsibility and the opportunity to achieve and grow.

All organizations are concerned with what should be done to achieve sustained high
levels of performance through the efforts of people.

This means giving close attention to how individuals can best be motivated through such
means as incentives, rewards, leadership and, importantly the work they do and the
organization context within which they carry out that work (working environment). The
aim is to develop motivation processes and a work environment that will help to ensure
that individuals deliver results in accordance with the expectations of management.
Motivation theories explain not only why people behave the way they do in their work
places in terms of their efforts and the directions they are taking but also describes what
organizations can do to encourage people to apply their efforts and abilities in ways that
will further the achievement of the organization’s goals as well as satisfying their own
needs. However, it is absolutely wrong for an organization to assume that one approach
to motivation fits all the staff. This is because people have different needs and establish
different goals to satisfy those needs.

According to Arnold, Robertson and Cooper (1991), there are three components of
motivation. Direction – what a person is trying to do, Effort – how hard a person is trying
and Persistence – how long a person keeps on trying.

Motivating other people is about getting them move in the direction you want them to go
in order to achieve a result. Motivation according to Michael Armstrong (2002), can be
described as goal-directed behavior. According to McGraw (2003) Motivation is a set of
attitudes that predisposes a person to act in an inner state that energizes, channels and
sustains human behavior to achieve goals.

Work motivation is concerned with that attitude that channels a person’s behavior toward
work and away from recreation or other areas of life. The motivation to work is likely to

15
change as other life activities change. A number of theories have attempted to explain
work motivation. The theories differ in their assumptions about how rational people are
and about the degree to which the conscious and the unconscious mind direct behavior.
Most of these memories have received some research support, but none has been
overwhelmingly substantiated.

A manager who can determine what the work motivations of the employees are, will
make more effective human resource management decisions. For employees who appear
to be work oriented and motivated toward working hard, incentive compensation system
will lead to higher productivity and higher quality of work. Those who are consciously
motivated to do a better job benefit from performance evaluation techniques such as
management by objectives. Motivation is within a person and a manager must infer the
individual’s motivation or level of motivation, from his or her behavior. According to
Maslow (1954) hierarchy of needs human needs operate at a number of different levels, from
basic physiology needs such as hunger, to higher-level needs such as self –development and
self-fulfillment. Motivating your staff is an essential part of the job of managing people.
Recognition can be an important element of motivation. How a person performs in the future
will often be influenced by feedback on the way in which they have performed in the past. By
acknowledging the achievements of your staff, and ensuring that they have as much
information as possible about the work they do and what is required to do it better, you
should be able to increase their motivation to perform well. According to Arthur (1990, 1992,
1994) firms with a high commitment strategy have significantly higher levels of both
productivity and quality than those with a control strategy.

Communication
According to McGraw (2003) Communication is the transfer of information from a
sender to a receiver, with the information being understood by the receiver.
Communication is important in the function of leading. The purpose of communication in
an organization is to effect change to influence action toward the welfare of an
organization. Communication is needed to; establish and disseminate the goals of an
organization, to develop plans for their achievements, to develop human and other
resources in the most effective and efficient way , to select, develop, and appraise

16
members of the organization, to lead, direct, motivate, and create a climate in which
people want to contribute and, to control performance.

Managers need information necessary for carrying out management functions and
activities. Good communication seldom happens by chance, selecting the most
appropriate channel, and choosing proper timing can greatly improve understanding and
reduce resistance to change. Organizations are subject to the influence of continuous
change which affects the work employees do, their well-being and their security. Change
can be managed only by ensuring that reasons for and their implications of change are
communicated to those affected in terms which they can understand and accept. After
analyzing the response of 968 US firms to a questionnaire and exploring the use of high
performance work practices, the development of synergies between them and the
alignment of these practices with the competitive strategy, Huselid (1995) concluded that
productivity is influenced by employees’ motivation; financial performance is influenced
by employee skill, motivation and organizational structures. This is true but you may find
that some highly skilled people or workers may fail to be efficient and hence less
productive by lack of motivation in what they are doing. Sometimes it is also important
for the management to effectively communicate with workers so that they hear what
bothers the workers.
According to Michael (2002), good communications are required to achieve coordinated
results. Good two-way communications are required so that management can keep
employees informed of the policies and plans affecting them, and employees can react
promptly with their views about management’s proposals and actions. Change, no matter
how good it is cannot be managed properly without an understanding of the feelings of
those affected by it, and an efficient system of communications is needed to understand
and influence these feelings.
Participation in decision making
An environment that lacks employee ‘voice’ is not very healthy for the workers. This is
when they are given an opportunity to have a say in management decisions that affect
them and their working conditions. A saying goes, ‘if you do it for us without us, then
you are doing it against us’. If you implement some change without the input of the

17
employees, no matter how beneficial it is to them, they are likely to feel that you don’t
mean well of their welfare. Role ambiguity, lack of involvement in decision-making,
Role ambiguity fails to restrict respective employees in their specific assignment
therefore gives birth to abnormal idle time hence low efficiency. Low efficiency
subsequently causes low productivity in the long run. Koretz (1995) cited three key
productivity factors: “inadequate supervision and employee involvement in decision-
making, too much work, and insufficient rewards and chances to advance”. Leonard
(2000) noted surveys indicating that less organizational bureaucracy, a greater sense of
purpose, clear goals, and being able to see results were essential to productivity.

It is always humanly normal to feel ‘outside’ when implementing something that one has
not been part of or shared in the planning of the same. When employees receive
information of major changes as a surprise, they can resist such changes and in the
process become less productive. Health and safety is an issue that affects the workers’
productivity directly. Healthier workers and/or those who know they are medically covered
will be more efficient than those without any medical insurance cover. This is because they
will live in apprehension of possible sickness or disease. Their safety should be guaranteed
like provision of risk allowance as they walk in unsafe environment like slums during filed
work. Recreational facilities for the workers can work miracles if incorporated in the HR
planning. It can help to give workers an opportunity to interact with the management hence
good employee relations. This will make workers feel valued and also free to say their views
to the management.
Job satisfaction
According to Michael Armstrong (2006), the term ‘job satisfaction’ refers to the attitude
and feelings people have about their work. Positive and favorable attitudes towards the
job indicate job satisfaction. Negative and unfavorable attitudes towards the job indicate
job dissatisfaction. The level of job satisfaction is affected by intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation factors, the quality of supervision, social relationships with the work group
and the degree to which individual succeed or fail in their work.

If the Human Resource department does not fully and clearly decide on the content and
performance and competency requirements of jobs and roles in order to provide a basis

18
for performance, development and reward, then even those who perform well may feel
discouraged due to failure to reward them and so there is no maximizing of intrinsic
motivation and job satisfaction. Health and safety is an issue that affects the workers’
productivity directly. Healthier workers and/or those who know they are covered will be
more efficient than those without any medical insurance cover. This is because they will
live in apprehension of possible sickness or disease. Their safety should be guaranteed
like provision of risk allowance as they walk in unsafe environment like slums during
filed work Purcell et al (2003) believe that discretionary behaviour which helps the firm
to be successful is more likely to happen when employees are well motivated and feel
committed to the organization and when the job gives them high levels of satisfaction.
Their research found out that the key factors affecting job satisfaction were career
opportunities, job influence, team work and job challenge, However according to
Brayfield and Crockett (1955), there was little evidence of any simple or appreciable
relationship between employees attitude and their performance. They concluded that
‘productivity is seldom a goal in its self but a means to goal attainment.

Therefore we might expect high satisfaction and high productivity to occur together when
productivity is perceived a path to certain important goals and when these goals were
achieved. Under such conditions satisfaction and productivity might be unrelated or even
negatively related.

2.1.2.4 Brief highlight of effect of work environment on the productivity of employee

From the different ideas gotten about the effect of work environment on the productivity
of employees, it was observed that on the other whole, the physical work environment
has a far reaching effect on the morale of employees. The literature also revealed that
shabby, depressing and dejected work environment reduces employees’ morale and
promote absenteeism, lateness, low labour turnover, waste of resources and other
negative attitude among employees, while the provision of good working environment
generates interest and increases productivity. From the literature, we noted that each of
the various conditional factors of work environment is important in enhancing the
employees “morale” which is the capacity of group of people to work together
persistently towards the search of a common purpose that can be encouraged by making

19
the place of work an ideal home to enhance employees job satisfaction and work
motivation.

Combining Work Environment Factors, Employees Family and Productivity

The work environment can be a considerable source of strain. An increasingly
competitive market combined with a lack of resources and a shortage of manpower can
create a stressful and even hazardous environment for workers. Although work provides
many great opportunities for self-fulfillment, its accompanying demands and pressures
can lead to increased work interfering with family (WIF), resulting in a number of
physical, mental, and interpersonal outcomes.

Working Conditions and Employees Productivity

According to business dictionary “Working conditions refers to working environment and
all existing circumstance affecting labor in the work place, including: job hours,
physicalaspects, legal rights and responsibility organizational culture work load and
training”. Gerber et al (1998, p.44) Defined working condition as: “working conditions are
created by the interaction of employee with their organizational climate, and includes
psychological as well as physical working conditions’’ Therefore, we adopt the definition of
working conditions as follows: “Working conditions refers to the working environment and
aspects of an employee’s terms and conditions of Employment”. In other side Productivity is
a concept that depends on the context in which it employed. It does not have a singular
definite criterion measure or operational definition (Wasiams et. al, 1996).
These definitions suggest that productivity is the measure of economic performance, as
well as esource used to produce goods and services (Bernardin& Russell, 1998, p. 9,
Ross,1981). But, Wasiamset. al, (1996) says this concept depends the context in which
isemployed and does not have operational definitions.
Firms that derive their productivity advantage from firm-specific knowledge may wish
toprovide better working conditions in the hope that this would reduce worker turnover
andminimize the risk of their productivity advantage spilling over to competing firms
(Fosfuri etal., 2001; Glass and Saggi, 2002).
If non-monetary working conditions are associated with higher productivity, the
employershould pay more for the added productivity of employees in order to not losing

20
theemployees. Work environment includes some factors, which contributes either
positively or negatively to achieving maximum employees’ productivity (Elywood,
1999).The factors that contributeeither positively or negatively to employee productivity
are temperature, humidity and airflow, noise, lighting, employee personal aspects,
contaminants and hazards in the workingenvironment, types of sub environment.
According to Yesufu (1984), the nature of the physical condition under which
employeeswork is important to output, Offices and factories that are too hot and ill
ventilated aredebilitating to effort. There should be enough supply of good protective
clothing, drinkingwater, rest rooms, toilets, first aids facilities etc. Both management and
employees should besafety conscious at all times and minimum of requirement of the
factories act must respect.
This push for more productivity from public sector agencies is not a new phenomenon.
Thesefactors may be important; yet, believing that the attitudes and management styles of
mid-levelmanagers are what really influences employee productivity.
Working Hours and Productivity of Employees
According to a number of authors (Hill et al, 1998; Igbaria et al, 1999: Kelliher&
Anderson, 2010;Messenger, 2004; Golden, 2012), workers’ ability to choose their
working time arrangementshas a positive impact on job performance and productivity.
This choice turns out to be apowerful factor in determining an increase in productivity. It
results in a more satisfiedworkforce who is more committed and productive. Conversely,
ignoring this issue may leadto a situation in which employees act contrary to the
organization’s interests, throughincreased absenteeism, lateness, reduced focus on the job
tasks, attention being diverted topersonal matters, and ultimately searching for alternative
jobs and resigning.

Workload and Productivity of Employees

Workload in generally defined as the extent of the processing capacity that is expended
during the performance of a task and thus involves the interaction between resource
supply and task demand (Young et al., 2008).
According to (DiDomenico and Nassbaum, 2008) support this definition and state that
workload is determined by the relationship between task demands, the circumstances

21
under which that task takes place and the perceptions, actions, skills and knowledge of
the individual performing the task. The task demands may include physical actions,
cognitive tasks and/or a variety of other factors. Workload can also be defined the
expenditure incurred by a person, given their capacities (resources), while achieving a
particular level of performance on a particular task with certain demands (Hart
&Staveland, 1988).
Increased workload can improve short-term productivity, but it can increase long-term
costs, as stress and illness among employees lead to poor judgments and low productivity
(petterson&Armets, 1998).
Excessive work interference with family is also associated with greater stress mostly, job
burnout, increased absenteeism and higher turnover (Allen et al., 2000; Anderson et al.,
2002). Jex and Beehr, (1991) reported that strains associated with being overworked have
been found to be uniformly negative across behavioral, psychological, and physiological
outcome domains.
Workload pressure can be positive leading to increased productivity. Underutilization of
human skills or failing to reach the full potential of the employees is also one cause to
increase stress.
However, when this pressure becomes excessive it has negative impact (Shah et al.
2011). All types of stress including work overload have a definite impact on the
individual and the organization.
Both physical and mental illness renders the employee unlit for work, and combine both
to decrease the satisfaction obtained from work and reduce job performance and
productivity levels. A long - term heavy workload can affect an employee’s physical or
mental health, performance, or productivity. Heavy workloads have been shown to have a
negative impact on turnover (Malik and Ahmad, 2011).
Supervisor support: Immediate supervisors act as advocates for employees, gathering
and distributing the resources needed by the employees for them to be able to do a good
job and providing positive encouragement for a job well done (Kahya, E. ,2007).
Mentoring/coaching: Skilled and respected people are available to employees to help
they perform better in their current role and to assist them develop further into a future
role. Opportunity to apply: Individual workloads and organizational systems and

22
processes do not hinder employees from applying established skills or from practicing
newly learned skills. Job aids: Their work is to be made easier and help minimize error
rates and customer dissatisfaction by supplying job aids. These can include templates,
guides, models and checklists. Environmental factors: Environmental factors such as
temperature, lighting and ventilation can have a direct impact on health - for example
very high temperatures can lead to heat stress and heat exhaustion.
2.2 Empirical Review
This empirical analysis attempts to discuss various studies on working environment
which has impact on employee productivity. These studies will be categorized as
empirical analysis in the world, empirical analysis in Africa and empirical analysis in
Ethiopia.
Brenner (2004) asserted that the ability of employees within an organization to share
knowledge throughout the system depends on the conditions of their work environment.
Some employees tend to be more productive in a well facilitated work environment.
More so, the quality of comfort variable from work environment determines the level of
satisfaction and productivity of workers. Worker productivity cannot be optimal, if the
conditions of work environment are not favorable. Improved work environment enhances
employee’s productivity.
Africa’s incapacitation or lack of capacity to address the needs of her people or affect
desired and appropriate urban and rural management practices is indicative of the
criticality of capacity and capacity enhancement defined by the right work habits of the
working actors. Poor work habits’ adverse impaction productivity and growth is not a
new discovery (Pritchett,2005).The argument has been made that effective development
requires high standards of ethical and performance behaviors, particularly in relation to
national governance and major development projects (World Bank, 1999).
It is evident in the research findings of Patterson et al., (1997) that the more satisfied
workers are with their jobs the better the company is likely to perform in terms of
subsequent profitability and particularly productivity. Sekar (2011) argues that the
relationship between work, the workplace and the tools of work, workplace becomes an
integral part of work itself. The management that dictate how, exactly, to maximize

23
employee productivity center around two major areas of focus: personal motivation and
the infrastructure of the work environment.

 2.3 Conceptual Framework

Based on the literature review, the relationship between working environment and
employee productivity can be conceptualized and depicted.
Working Environment Factors

Physical work Environment

Psychological Work Environment

Employees Productivity

Social Work Environment

Administrative Work Environment

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Figure 2.1. Conceptual Framework

Source: Researcher

24
 Chapter III
Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction
This chapter is discussing the research design, the research approaches and the methods
adopted to carry out the study. All the components of this design are discuses broadly and
later narrowed down into context and the justification for adopting them.
According to Creswell (2008), defines methodology as the systematic theoretical analysis
of the methods applied to a field of study. This chapter therefore discusses various
components of methodology that was used in the study. These include the research
design, target population, data collection procedures and data analysis.

3.2 Research Design

According to (Mouton 2001:55), depicts a research design as a plan or blueprint of how
one intends to conduct the research. The statement of a research design includes the
reasons for adopting a particular design and not others. Other researcher (Blaikie
2009:15), stated that a research design is an integrated statement of and justification for
the technical decisions involved in planning a research project. Therefore, a research
design can be defined as a plan of how the research process is to be conducted, including
aspects of the methods to be used in sampling, data collection and analysis.

Therefore, in order to explore the effect of work environment on employer’s productivity

descriptive methods was used to analysis both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Because a descriptive study was carefully designed to ensure complete description of the
situation, making sure that there was minimum bias in the collection of data and reduce
errors in the interpretation of the data.

25
3.3. Research Approach
The research was conducted by descriptive survey type in which all data relevant to the
case has be gathered and analyzed. The researcher used both qualitative and quantitative
methods of data approach and analysis so as to capture the detailed and adequate
information. The used of both approach also ensured that the data could be effectively
interpreted using the numbers, figures as well as the narrative. Therefore, both qualitative
and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis were triangulation techniques
(cross checking) techniques from data collection and analysis.

3.4. Sampling Technique and Sample Size

In order to obtain adequate sample respondents for this seminar paper study the
researcher was used both probability and non- probability sampling technique. However,
the selection of administration office employers of respondents the researcher used
simple random sapmling method whereas purposive techniques used to selected
interviewers of Administration head and Department directors . Purposive sampling is a
non-probability sampling technique which is a non-representative subset of some larger
population constructed to serve a very specific need or purpose (Tongco, 2008).
Additionally this study, purposive selected Lideta sub-city administration office for this
seminar study.

Therefore, to determine the sample size the researcher considered 10% of the total
number of sample of employees in the administration office. This is in conformity with
Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) who postulated that at least 10% of the accessible total
target population of sampling is appropriate for statistical reporting. Then, the target
population of this study was all employees of Lideta Sub City Administration office were
with manager, subordinates and experts a total 1053 population employed in the office ,
when from total population 105 respondents were used in this seminar study. Finally, in
this seminar paper study the researcher used 5 respondents of interviewees, were selected
purposively from sub-city administration office.

26
3.5. Data sources and Data collection Methods
The study was used cross-sectional data collection system. Therefore, the researcher was
used both primary and secondary data as a source of information. The primary source of
date collected through questionnaires and interviews and secondary information obtained
from public sectors like report, journal, brushers and others document that helped the
research to have more insight concerning the effect of work environment on employee’s
productivity in the study area.

Questionnaire: Questionnaires have both open-ended and close-ended question items

had been prepared in English and then translate into Amharic and collected information
from microfinance credit users and non-users

Interview: both structured and un-structured manner of face to face (personal) interview
will be conducted to obtain accurate information from microfinance sub-branch office
manager, credit users and non-users.

3.6. Method of Data analysis

Data from questionnaires was analyzed through both descriptive and inferential statistics
using SPSS software version 21 (Statistical Package for Social Science). The descriptive
statistics (frequency distribution, percentile, minimum, maximum, mean and standard
deviation) which helped the researcher to assess the general level of work environment
and employee’s productivity of the Lideta sub city administration. This was the further
transformation of the processed data to look for patterns and relationship between and/or
among data groups by using descriptive and inferential (statistical) analysis. The SPSS
was used to analyze the data obtained from primary sources. Specifically, descriptive
statistics (mean, standard and deviation) and inferential statistics (correlation and
regression analysis) was employed in this study.

3.7 Ethical Consideration

According to Creswell (2012) “as the researchers’ anticipate data collectors, they need to
respect the participants and sites for the research’’. In the study the researcher maintained
objectivity, courtesy and high professional standards through scientific process and no
falsification, alteration or miss representation of data for biased or other purposes.

27
The study was conducted by considering ethical responsibility. This includes providing
information to the respondents the purpose of the study and the use of the information as
well. Information obtained was held in strict confidentiality by the researcher.
Respondents’ anonymity was kept so that participants would feel free and safe to express
their ideas.

Chapter IV
Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation

4.1. Introduction
This chapter deals with the data presentation and analysis. The data collected from Lideta
sub city administration staff through questionnaire and interview are analyzed in both
qualitative and quantitative forms. The data collected through questionnaire 88
respondents from administrative staff and 5 interviewees from managers/department head
have been analyzed and presented as follows.

4.2Descriptive Statistics
In this section various statistical data analysis tools such as mean, standard deviation,
frequency and percentile are used to analyze the collected data. The summary of
descriptive statistics of all variables that are evaluated based on a 5-point Likert scale
(“SA” being “strongly agreed” to “SD” being “strongly disagreed”). According to
Zaidaton&Bagheri (2009) the mean score below 3.39 was considered as low, the mean
score from 3.40 up to 3.79 was considered as moderate and mean score above 3.8 was
considers as high as illustrated by Comparison bases of mean of score of five point Likert
scale instrument. Thus, detail of the analysis is presented as follows:

4.2.1 Background of Employees

A response rate of 88% was achieved for the 100 questionnaires administered to the
employees of the sub city administration.
Table 4.1. Background of employees

28
No Item Frequency Percentage
1 Gender Male 53 60.2%
Female 35 39.8%
Total 88 100%
2 Age Below 25 14 15.9%
25-35 9 10.2%
36-45 48 54.5%
Above 45 17 19.3%
Total 88 100%
3 Marital Status Married 53 60.2%
Single 35 39.8%
Total 88 100%
4 Education level Certificate 5 5.7%
Diploma 25 28.4%
BA degree 58 65.9%
Master degree & 0 0
Above
Total 88 100%
5 Work Experiance Less than 2 year 9 10.2%
2-5 year 23 26.1%
6-10 year 27 30.7%
Above 10 year 29 33%
Total 88 100%
Source: Field survey, December 2018

From the above table 53 of the respondents were males and 35 were females representing
60.2% and 39.8% respectively. When we see the age list we can observe that 54.5% within
the 36 up to 45 age group and 19.3% above 45. From this it can be observed that the
work force of Lideta sub city administration is more comprised with adult and
experienced employees. In terms of marital status, 53 of the employees are married and
the remaining 35 are single with their respective percentage share of 60.2% and 39.8%.

29
 This infers that the number of married employees is more than the number of single
employees. Educational level of the employees showed that 65.9% of the employees had
educational level BA degree. 28.4% had Diploma and the remaining 5.7% were
certificate holders and there is no above BA degree employee from the respondent. This
shows that most of the employees are BA degree holder it mean we can say most of the
sub city employees are educated and expert position. Regarding their years of experience
10.2% had less than two years of experience, 26.1% had two to five years of experience,
another 30.7% had six to ten years of experience and 33% had above ten years of
experience. This shows that most of the employees are experienced.

4.2.2 Examining the Work Environment of Lideta Sub City Administration

4.2.2.1 Physical Work Environment
Table: 4.2. Employees response to Physical Work Environment
Item SA(Strong A(Agree) N(Neutral) D(Disagree SD(Strongl Mea St.Dev Min Max
ly Agree) y Disagree) n
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %

Q1.1 22 25 36 40.9 4 4.5 26 29.5 0 0 2.39 1.159 1 4

Q1.2 0 0 22 25 10 11.4 46 52.3 10 11.4 3.50 .994 2 5

Q1.3 0 0 14 15.9 0 0 43 48.9 31 35.2 4.03 .999 2 5

Q1.4 0 0 32 36. 9 10.2 47 53.4 0 0 3.17 .937 2 4

Q1.5 4 4.5 36 40.9 9 10.9 35 39.8 4 4.5 2.99 1.088 1 5

Q1.6 14 15.9 39 44.3 13 14.8 17 19.3 5 5.7 2.55 1.144 1 5

Q1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 68.2 28 31.8 4.32 .468 4 5

Q1.8 0 0 29 33 12 13.6 39 44.3 8 9.1 3.30 1.030 2 5

Q1.9 0 0 50 56.8 4 4.5 30 34.1 4 4.5 2.86 1.041 2 5

Q1.10 0 0 59 67 0 0 29 33 0 0 2.66 .945 2 4

Q1.11 4 4.5 63 71.6 0 0 13 14.8 8 9.1 2.52 1.093 1 5

Average 4.5 39.22 6.35 39.78 10.11 3.12

Over All Average Mean=3.12 , Agree=43.72%, Neutral=6.35%, Disagree=49.89%
Source: Sample Survey December, 2018

30
 According to the above table 2. a majority 49.89 %of the respondents disagreed that
physical work environment which is provided by the sub city uncomfortable and less
acceptable while 43.72% are agreed it is conductive and adequate the remaining 6.35%
are undecided (neutral). These indicate that the physical work environment in the sub city
is unacceptable and insufficient by the half side on the other half side it is acceptable.

4.2.2.2 Psychological Work Environment

Table: 4.3. Employees response to Psychological Work Environment
Item SA(Strong A(Agree) N(Neutral) D(Disagree SD(Strongl Mea St.Dev Min Max
ly Agree) y Disagree) n
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Q2.1 0 0 4 4.5 4 4.5 45 51.1 35 39.8 4.26 .750 2 5

Q2.2 0 0 14 15.9 9 10.2 34 38.6 31 35.2 3.93 1.048 2 5

Q2.3 5 5.7 22 25 23 26.1 34 38.6 4 4.5 3.11 1.022 1 5

Q2.4 10 11.4 35 39.8 21 23.9 18 20.5 4 4.5 2.67 1.069 1 5

Q2.5 5 5.7 37 42 34 38.6 4 4.5 8 9.1 2.69 .987 1 5

Average 4.56 25.44 20.66 30.66 18.62 3.33
Over All Average Mean=3.33 , Agree=30%, Neutral=20.66%, Disagree=49.28%
Source: Sample Survey December, 2018

In the above table 3. Shows that the majority of the respondents i.e. 49.28% is disagree
on the psychological work environment in the sub city it indicate it is conductive but 30%
are agreed and the remaining20.66% are neutral it shows there is uncomfortable
psychological work environment and to some extent unwilling to told . On the other side
we can also observe from the mean average score 3.33 which is above the average likert
scale 3.This implies that the existing psychological situations was warranted.

4.2.2.3 Social Work Environment

Table: 4.4. Employees response to Social Work Environment

Item SA(Strongl A(Agree) N(Neutral) D(Disagre SD(Strongly Mea St.D Mi Ma

31
 y Agree) e Disagree) n ev n x
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Q3.1 0 0 44 50 14 15.9 17 19.3 13 14.8 2.99 1.140 2 5

Q3.2 0 0 66 75 9 10.2 4 4.5 9 10.2 2.50 .983 2 5

Q3.3 0 0 70 79.5 9 10.2 9 10.2 0 0 2.31 .650 2 4

Q3.4 10 11.4 52 59.1 5 5.7 21 23.9 0 0 2.42 .979 1 4

Q3.5 0 0 45 51.1 14 15.9 25 28.4 4 4.5 2.86 .985 2 5

Q3.6 0 0 45 51.1 18 20.5 25 28.4 0 0 2.77 .867 2 4

Q3.7 0 0 40 45.5 23 26.1 21 23.9 4 4.5 2..88 .932 2 5

Average 1.63 58.76 14.93 19.8 4.85 2.26

Over All Average Mean=2.26 , Agree=60.38%, Neutral=14.93%, Disagree=24.65%

Source: Sample Survey December, 2018

We can see table 3 that the social work environment in Lideta sub city60.38% of the
respondents are agreed, 24.65% are agree and the remaining 14.93% are neutral on this
issue.From this data we can infer that most of employees of the sub city has good attitude
towards the social working environment. For the reason that, there is good co-worker
relationship, effective communication of between employees and supervisors, team
culture and they have opportunity to balance work and their personal life.

4.2.2.4 Administration Work Environment

Table: 4.5. Employee’s response to Administration Work Environment

Item SA(Strong A(Agree) N(Neutral) D(Disagree SD(Strongl Mea St.De Min Max
ly Agree) y Disagree) n v
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Q4.1 4 4.5 29 33 5 5.7 50 56.8 0 0 3.15 1.034 1 4

Q4.2 5 5.7 32 36.4 4 4.5 39 44.3 8 9.1 3.15 1.180 1 5

Q4.3 0 0 26 29.5 10 11.4 38 43.2 14 15.9 3.45 1.082 2 5

Q4.4 0 0 43 48.9 18 20.5 27 30.7 0 0 2.82 .878 2 4

Q4.5 0 0 30 34.1 15 17 34 38.6 9 10.2 3.25 1.042 2 5

Q4.6 0 0 28 31.8 9 10.2 46 52.3 5 5.7 3.32 .989 2 5

32
Q4.7 0 0 18 20.5 10 11.4 55 62.5 5 5.7 3.53 .883 2 5

Q4.8 0 0 34 38.6 24 27.3 30 34.1 0 0 2.95 .856 2 4

Q4.9 0 0 9 10.2 5 5.7 74 84.1 0 0 3.74 .634 2 4

Q4.10 0 0 25 28.4 10 11.4 49 55.7 4 4.5 3.36 .949 2 5

Q4.11 0 0 79 89.8 0 0 4 4.5 5 5.7 2.26 .795 2 5

Average .93 36.47 11.37 46.07 5.16 3.18
Over All Average Mean=3.18 , Agree=37.4%, Neutral=11.37%, Disagree=51.23%
Source: Sample Survey December, 2018

In the above table 4 shows that the majority of the respondents i.e,51.23% have not good
attitude towards the existing administrative work environment but 37.4% are agreed and
the remaining 11.37% are neutral. This implies that the existing administrative work
environment are not exercised well in which the employees are not satisfied on their
concerned issues.

4.2.3 Assessing Employees Productivity of Lideta sub city administration

Table: 4.6. Employees response to Employees Productivity

Item SA(Strong A(Agree) N(Neutral) D(Disagree SD(Strongl Mea St.Dev Min Max
ly Agree) y Disagree) n
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Q.1 0 0 45 51.1 21 23.9 18 20.5 4 4.5 2.78 .928 2 5

Q.2 0 0 0 0 21 23.9 41 46.6 26 29.5 4.06 .733 3 5

Q.3 0 0 0 0 30 34.1 31 35.2 27 30.7 3.97 .809 3 5

Q.4 0 0 5 5.7 26 29.5 41 46.6 16 18.2 3.77 .813 2 5

Q.5 0 0 21 23.9 22 25 28 31.8 17 19.3 3.47 1.061 2 5

Q.6 0 0 5 5.7 39 44.3 13 14.8 31 35.2 3.80 .996 2 5

Average 0 14.4 30.11 32.58 22.9 3.64
Over All Average Mean=3.64, Agree=14.4%, Neutral=30.11%, Disagree=55.48%
Source: Sample Survey December, 2018

The above table 5 show that a result of the good work environment in the Lideta sub
citythe employees in the sub city were committed to their employer. But, they were as not

33
much satisfied with their job with the sub city, they are not always happy, they are not
proud of what they do in the sub city and there is some evidence of absenteeism. This
may be explained by the productivity level of the employees that was not high at the time
of the study in the sub city.

34
4.3 Inferential (statistical) analysis
4.3.1 Effect of Work Environment on Employees Productivity at Lideta sub city
Administration
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) reports the significance of the work environment of
Lideta sub city administration at .000b. This denotes that work environment at Lideta sub
city administration has significant impact on the productivity of its employees. (This
makes the model a very good model). At the end of the analysis we had a statistically
significant model (F(11, 76 = 18.030, p < 0.05). This means that, work environment at
Lideta sub city administration was statistically significant to the productivity of
employees at sub city administration. The Adjusted R Square value was 0.683. This tells
us that work environment at Lideta sub city administration accounts for 68.3% of the
variance in the productivity of their employees. This implies that the proportion of the
variance in productivity of the employees can be explained by the variables that that
make up work environment. The relationship between work environment and the
productivity of the employees of Lideta sub city administration is very strong (strong
positive). Please, read the table below for the details of the analysis.
Table4.7: Model Summary
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .850 a
.723 .683 .523
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work and personal skill well matched, Office and
workspace well designed, Frist aid and fire emergencies facility, Working
environment (lighting,noise,temperature...), mandatory extra overtime, Support of
my supervisor all the time, Workload can be finished in given time, Annual pay
leave, Toilet and hand wash facility, Coaching or on the job training is available,
Office layout and work material
Table 4.8: ANOVA
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
1 Regression 54.148 11 4.923 18.030 .000b

Residual 20.749 76 .273

35
 Total 74.898 87
a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity
b. Predictors: (Constant), Work and personal skill well matched, Office and
workspace well designed, Frist aid and fire emergencies facility, Working
environment (lighting,noise,temperature...), mandatory extra overtime, Support of
my supervisor all the time, Workload can be finished in given time, Annual pay
leave, Toilet and hand wash facility, Coaching or on the job training is available,
Office layout and work material

4.3.2 Significant Variables of Work Environment and their Coefficient

The significant variables are shown below. All the beta coefficients of the predictor
variables reported in the regression co-efficient tables were statistically significant. The
Standardized Beta Coefficients gives a measure of the contribution of each variable to the
productivity of the employees at Lideta sub city administration. The correlation
coefficients were calculated individually and that the result of one has no effect on the
other. A large value of standardized beta coefficient indicates that a unit change in a
given variable has a large effect on the productivity of employees. The Significant (p)
values associated with the beta give a rough indication of the impact of each variable – a
small p value suggests that a variable is having a large impact on the productivity of the
employees. The beta as well indicates the degree of relationship between the variables
and the productivity of the employees. Thus, the negative beta figures indicate a negative
relationship and the positive beta indicates positive relationship between the variables
and the productivity of the employees. The beta coefficient can take on any value
between -1 and +1. It can be observed from the coefficient tables below that some of the
relationships of the betas ofthe variables have positive relationship with the productivity
of the employees while others have negative relationship.

36
Table 4.9: Significant variables and their Coefficients
Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.

Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) -1.065 .871 -1.223 .225

Working environment .261 .069 .326 3.787 .000

(lighting,noise,temperature...
)

Office and workspace well .018 .075 .019 .237 .813

designed

Frist aid and fire .089 .068 .096 1.312 .193

emergencies facility

Office layout and work .129 .102 .130 1.262 .211

material

1 Toilet and hand wash facility .217 .081 .254 2.668 .009

Annual pay leave -.281 .073 -.347 -3.865 .000

mandatory extra overtime .249 .179 .126 1.388 .169

Support of my supervisor all .116 .074 .128 1.561 .123

the time

Coaching or on the job -.298 .091 -.334 -3.256 .002

training is available

Workload can be finished in .465 .106 .474 4.411 .000

given time

Work and personal skill well .248 .076 .292 3.270 .002
matched

a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity

4.3.3 Effect of Physical Work Environment on Employee Productivity at Lideta sub city
administration

Physical Work Environment was statistically significant to the productivity of ofLideta

sub city administration employees that were studied, that is (F(3,84) = 7.894, p < 0.05).
In this case, the Adjusted R Square value of 0.220 tells us that Physical Work
Environment accounts for 22% of the variance in the productivity of Lideta sub city

37
administration employees. The adjusted R square is an indication of the proportion of the
variance in productivity of Lideta sub city administration employees that can be
explained by the variables that define Physical Work Environment. The analysis of
variance (ANOVA) reports the significance of the Physical Work Environment at 0.000b.
This means that Physical Work Environment as a constituent of work environment of
Lideta sub city administration has impact on the productivity of Lideta sub city
administration employees. The relationship between Physical Work Environment and the
productivity of Lideta sub city administration employees is not very strong (weak
positive), though perhaps it could be improved by adding other instrumental variables.
Refer to the tables below for the relevant regression result in respect of Physical Work
Environment.

Table 4.10: Model Summary

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .469a .220 .192 .834

a. Predictors: (Constant), Office and workspace well designed, Work and personal skill
well matched, Frist aid and fire emergencies facility
Table 4.11: ANOVA
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 16.471 3 5.490 7.894 .000b
1 Residual 58.427 84 .696
Total 74.898 87
a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity
b. Predictors: (Constant), Office and workspace well designed, Work and personal skill
well matched, Frist aid and fire emergencies facility

38
Table 4.12: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .834 .539 1.547 .126
Frist aid and fire .095 .092 .103 1.039 .302
emergencies facility
1 Work and personal skill .364 .083 .428 4.367 .000
well matched
Office and workspace .186 .090 .199 2.051 .043
well designed
a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity

4.3.4 Effect of Psychological Work Environment on Employee Productivity at

Lideta sub city administration
Psychological Work Environment was statistically significant to the productivity of
Lideta sub city administration employees that were studied, that is (F(4,83) = 20.188, p <
0.05). In this case, the Adjusted R Square value of 0.181 tells us that Psychological Work
Environment accounts for 46.9% of the variance in the productivity of Lideta sub city
administration employees. The adjusted R square is an indication of the proportion of the
variance in productivity of Lideta sub city administration employees that can be
explained by the variables that define Psychological Work Environment. The analysis of
variance (ANOVA) reports the significance of the Psychological Work Environment at
0.000b. This means that Psychological Work Environment as a component of work
environment of Lideta sub city administration has impact on the productivity of Lideta
sub city administration employees. The relationship between Psychological Work
Environment and the productivity of Lideta sub city administration employees is not
verystrong (weak positive). Refer to the tables below for the relevant regression result in
respect of Psychological Work Environment.

39
Table 4.13: Model Summary
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .702a .493 .469 .676
a. Predictors: (Constant), Violence in workplace, Adequate payement for annual rest
time and overtime working, Discrimination in workplace, Feeling about payment
Table 4.14: ANOVA
ANOVAa

Model Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
Regression 36.935 4 9.234 20.188 .000b

1 Residual 37.963 83 .457

Total 74.898 87

a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity

b. Predictors: (Constant), Violence in workplace, Adequate payement for annual rest
time and overtime working, Discrimination in workplace, Feeling about payment
Table 4.15: Coefficientsa
Model Un standardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 3.588 .562 6.390 .000
Feeling about payment -.478 .139 -.386 -3.434 .001
Adequate payement for .036 .096 .040 .373 .710
annual rest time and
1
overtime working
Discrimination in .716 .086 .762 8.316 .000
workplace
Violence in workplace -.269 .094 -.296 -2.877 .005

40
a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity
4.3.5 Effect of Social Work Environment on Employee Productivity at Lideta sub
city administration
Social Work Environment was statistically significant to the productivity of Lideta sub
city administration employees that were studied, that is (F(4,83) = 38.857, p < 0.05). In
this case, the Adjusted R Square value of 0.635 tells us that Social Work Environment
accounts for 63.5% of the variance in the productivity of Lideta sub city administration
employees. The adjusted R square is an indication of the proportion of the variance in
productivity of Lideta sub city administration employees that can be explained by the
variables that define Social Work Environment. The analysis of variance (ANOVA)
reports the significance of the Social Work Environment at 0.000b. This means that
Social Work Environment as a subset of work environment of Lideta sub city
administration has impact on the productivity of Lideta sub city administration
employees. The relationship between Social Work Environment and the productivity of
Lideta sub city administration employees is strong (strong positive). Refer to the tables
below for the relevant regression result in respect of Social Work Environment.
Table 4.16: Model Summary
Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .807a .652 .635 .560

a. Predictors: (Constant), good team culture in the workplace, Co-workers relationship

in the workplace, Support to balance work and personal life, effective communication
Table 4.17: ANOVA
ANOVAa

Model Sum ofDf Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
Regression 48.825 4 12.206 38.857 .000b

1 Residual 26.073 83 .314

Total 74.898 87

41
a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity
b. Predictors: (Constant), good team culture in the workplace, Co-workers relationship
in the workplace, Support to balance work and personal life, effective communication
Table 4.18: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -.262 .263 -.995 .323
Support to balance work.263 .055 .322 4.814 .000
and personal life
Co-workers relationship.388 .073 .409 5.343 .000
1
in the workplace
effective communication .303 .088 .284 3.430 .001
good team culture in the.167 .071 .168 2.367 .020
workplace
a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity

4.3.6. Effect of Administrative Work Environment on Employee Productivity at

Lideta sub city administration
Administrative Work Environment was statistically significant to the productivity of
Lideta sub city administration employees that were studied, that is (F(5,82) = 5.511, p <
0.05). In this case, the Adjusted R Square value of 0.206 tells us that Administrative
Work Environment accounts for 20.6% of the variance in the productivity of Lideta sub
city administration employees. The adjusted R square is an indication of the proportion of
the variance in productivity of Lideta sub city administration employees that can be
explained by the variables that define Administrative Work Environment. The analysis of
variance (ANOVA) reports the significance of the Administrative Work Environment at
0.000b. This means that Administrative Work Environment as a subset of work
environment of Lideta sub city administration has no impact on the productivity of Lideta
sub city administrationemployees. The relationship between Administrative Work

42
Environment and the productivity of Lideta sub city administration employees is weak
(Negative). Refer to the tables below for the relevant regression result in respect of
Administrative Work Environment.

Table 4.19: Model Summary

Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .502a .252 .206 .827
a. Predictors: (Constant), get feedback on performance, assigned and transfer based on
employee's profession and experiance, Career development opportunity, Complain
hearing body in the organization, provide training and development to employees
Table 4.20: ANOVA
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 18.838 5 3.768 5.511 .000b
1 Residual 56.059 82 .684
Total 74.898 87
a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity
b. Predictors: (Constant), get feedback on performance, assigned and transfer based on
employee's profession and experiance, Career development opportunity, Complain
hearing body in the organization, provide training and development to employees
Table 4.21: Coefficients
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 6.268 .934 6.709 .000
Complain hearing body -.334 .123 -.286 -2.717 .008
in the organization

43
 assigned and transfer -.512 .127 -.524 -4.030 .000
based on employee's
profession and
experiance
Career development -.172 .098 -.193 -1.752 .083
opportunity
provide training and -.167 .145 -.159 -1.153 .252
development to
employees
get feedback on .007 .088 .008 .083 .934
performance
a. Dependent Variable: employees productivity

4.4 Qualitative Data Analysis

4.4.1 In-depth Interview response:
The interviewees had indicated what they believed that there is closed and significantly
relationbetween work environment and employee’s productivity.
Interviewees had dictated for the question about the presence of work environment that
can be influence on employee’s productivity in the sub city there is some indicators that
can be enhance employees productivity like the organization provide good facility of
toilet and hand wash, office furniture and working material, training, and give a chance to
balance their personal life and their work. On the other hand, there is some indicators that
can be restrict employees cannot perform well in the sub city like poor participation of
employees in decision making, goal setting and preparation of planning and there is no
incentive system, poor performance evaluation system.
The whole interviewees had forwarded their opinion for the question about the
contribution of supervisors on the employee’s productivity, supervisors have good
contribution on employee’s productivity by established good or friendly relationship with
their subordinates and give developerfeedback, coaching also evaluate properly. On the
other hand, they have bad contribution they couldn’t properly evaluate and poor
controlling activity.

44
The interviewees had indicated were asked about the presence of any practice for
improving employee’s productivity in the sub city,the sub city provide on job and off job
training, there is some opportunity for promotion.
The interviewees were asked their opinion about the sub city whole work environment;
they responded that the working environment of the sub city is mostly good to provide
different facility and try to established comfortable work situation but in some extent
there is a limitation like scatter office manner that should be adjust.

45
 Chapter V
Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Introduction
This chapter involves a presentation of the summary of findings from the analysis done
so far. Recommendations based on the findings have been provided to improve the work
environment of Lideta Sub City Administration. The study is concluded and a statement
of the way forward is made.

5.2 Summary of Findings

5.2.1 The Work Environment of Lideta Sub City Administration
The Psychological work environment of employees of Lideta Sub City surfaced as the
most conducive work environment at Lideta Sub City with the highest average mean of
3.33 and an associated standard deviation of 0.975.

Social work environment was the least conducive work environment in Lideta Sub City
with average mean of 2.26 and a standard deviation of 0.933.

The main sub-work-environment that helps the Sub City to create conducive physical
work environment was when employees have offices and workspaces that are well
designed.
Level of salary had very negligible impact on their psychological wellbeing with the
mean of 2.67 and a standard deviation of 1.069.
Employees do not have involvement to decision making, organizational goal setting and
planning and that this makes the administrative work environment unfriendly.

5.2.2 The Productivity of Workers at Lideta Sub City Administration

As a result of the good work environment in the Lideta Sub City Administration the
workers in the Sub City Administration were very much committed to their employer, but
they are not happy and unsatisfied with their job.
There was evidence of absenteeism brought about by the fact that motivational level of
the employees was not high.

46
5.2.3 Effect of Work Environment on Employees Productivity
Work environment at Lideta Sub City was statistically significant to the productivity of
employees at Sub City at 0.000c. The relationship between work environment and the
productivity of the employees of Lideta Sub City is very strong (strong positive).

Physical Work Environment was statistically significant to the productivity of Lideta Sub
City employees at 0.000ba. This means that Physical Work Environment as a constituent
of work environment of Lideta Sub City has impact on the productivity of Lideta Sub
City employees. The relationship between Physical Work Environment and the
productivity of Sub City employees is very strong (positive).

Psychological Work Environment was statistically significant to the productivity of

Lideta Sub City employees at 0.000b. This means that Psychological Work Environment
as a component of work environment of Lideta Sub City has impact on the productivity
of Lideta Sub City employees. The relationship between Psychological Work
Environment and the productivity of Lideta Sub City employees is not very strong (weak
positive). 0

Social Work Environment was statistically significant to the productivity of Lideta Sub
City employees at 0.000b. This means that Social Work Environment as a subset of work
environment of Lideta Sub City has impact on the productivity of Lideta Sub City
employees. The relationship between Social Work Environment and the productivity of
Lideta Sub City employees is strong (strong positive)

Administrative Work Environment was statistically significant to the productivity of

Lideta Sub City employees at 0.000b. This means that Administrative Work Environment
as a subset of work environment of Lideta Sub City has impact on the productivity of
Lideta Sub City employees. The relationship between Administrative Work Environment
and the productivity of Lideta Sub City employees is strong (strong positive).

5.3 Conclusion
The study set out to assess the effects of work environment on employee’s productivity in
government organizations in Addis Ababa City Administration. In an attempt to do this,

47
100 questionnaires were administered to the employees of Lideta Sub City
administration. A response rate of 88% was achieved. The data collected was analyzed
using multiple regression and descriptive statistics.

It was found that, each of the components that define work environment were statistically
significant to productivity of the Sub City administration emmployees. However, the
social work environment of employees of Lideta Sub City was the most conducive work
environment at Lideta Sub City and the psychological environment of the sub city
administration was least conducive. In the end, work environment at Lideta Sub City was
statistically significant to the productivity of employees at the sub city administration.

5.4 Recommendations
5.4.1 The Work Environment of Lideta Sub City Administration
Since the social environment of the Sub City was noted to be conducive, the Sub City
must keep an eagle eye on it so that the working life of the employees could be better to
enhance productivity.

The psychological environment of the Sub City was less conducive so the management of
the Sub City must improve the sub-environment that define psychological environment to
improve the situation. To further solve this problem the level of salary must be improved
to impact positively on their psychological wellbeing since their level of salary was one
of the reasons for poor psychological environment.
Again, employees must be made to have a hand in how much they are paid to help boost
their administrative environment.

5.4.2 The Productivity of Workers at Lideta Sub City Administration

In view of the fact that there was evidence of absenteeism in the Sub City brought about
by low motivational level of the employees. The Lideta Sub City is advised to introduce
reward systems and enhance motivation method to enable the employees feel that they
are being valued by the organization they work for. The reward system would encourage
the staff to be punctual at work and work harder because their well-being is seriously
taken care of by the management of the Sub City.

48
Also the Sub City is advised to take care of their employee’s career and self-development
so as to retain efficient and experience workforce in the organization.

5.4.3 Effect of Work Environment on Employees Productivity

In view of the fact that work Environment was statistically significant to the productivity.
The work environment must be maintained or improved to ensure productivity. In
addition, all the components that define work environment were statistically significant to
productivity of the Lideta Sub City. For this reason the Sub City is advised to invest in
them.
Similarly, the work environment of the Sub City has positive impact on the productivity
of its workers so the current must be maintained for the employees to be continued to be
productive for the Lideta Sub City.

49