Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of the investigations, the conclusions arrived at

and the recommendations offered by the researcher based on the findings.

The purpose of the research study is to determine the adjustments of the employees

in the era of COVID-19 and the practices in the Provincial Capitol of Zambales.

Specifically, the study intends to provide answers to the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of respondents in terms of?

1.1 Sex;

1.2 Age;

1.3 Civil Status;

1.4 Educational Attainment

1.5 Employment Status

1.6 Monthly Income;

1.7 Provincial Offices;

2. How the employee perceives on the factors affecting adjustments in terms

of?

2.1 Work Environment

2.2 Social Affiliation

2.3 Family Support

2.4 Organization and Supervisor

3. How do the employees perceived the challenges in the work adjustments

during the pandemic described as to;

 3.1 Shift to remote work environment

3.2 Social shocks – social affiliation

3.3 Demand for work and family roles

4. Is there a significant difference in the perceived factors affecting employee

adjustments when grouped according to profile variables?

5. Is there a significant relationship between the challenges perceived and the

factors affecting employee’s adjustments?

Null Hypotheses

1. There is a significant difference in the perceived factors affecting employee

adjustments when grouped according to profile variables.

2. There is a significant relationship between the challenges perceived and the

factors affecting employee’s adjustments.

Summary of Findings

1. Profile of the Respondents

1.1 Sex. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, there were thirty-eight (38) or

equivalent to 38% male; and sixty-two (62) or equivalent to 62 % female.

1.2 Age. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, there were four (4) or equivalent to

4 % aged 61-65 years old; ten (10) or equivalent to 10 % aged 51-60 and 36- 40

years old; thirteen (13) or equivalent 13% aged 46-50 years old; twenty- two

(22) or equivalent to 22% aged 31-35 years old; seventeen (17) or equivalent to

17% aged 26-30; eight (8) or equivalent to 8% aged 21-25; and five (5) or
 equivalent to 5% aged 21 and below. The computed weighted mean of age of

the respondent is 37.7.

1.3 Civil Status. There were thirty-nine (39) or equivalent to 39% out of one

hundred (100) respondents who were single; four (5) or equivalent to 4 % who

were separated; fifty-four (54) or equivalent to 54% who were married; and

three (3) or equivalent to 3% of the sample population who were

widowed/widower.

1.4 Educational Attainment. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, there were

fifty (50) or equivalent to 50% who took bachelor’s degree; twenty-two (22) or

equivalent to 22% who attained college degree; eight (8) or equivalent to 8%

who reached vocational degree; seven (7) or equivalent to 7% who received a

high school diploma; six (6) or equivalent to 6% who have master’s degree

units; four (4) or equivalent to 4% who accomplished master’s degree; two (2)

or equivalent to 2% who have doctoral units; one (1) or equivalent to 1 % who

gained an elementary diploma. Hence, no respondent obtained a full-pledged

doctorate degree.

1.5 Employment Status. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, there were fifty-two

(52) or equivalent to 52% had regular/ permanent employment status; three (3)

or equivalent to 3% had temporary status; fourteen (14) or equivalent to 14%

had contractual status; ten (10) or equivalent to 10% had job order employment

status; and twenty-one (21) or equivalent to 21% had casual status.

 1.6 Monthly Income. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, there were seventy-

seven (77) or equivalent to 77% who received a salary ranging below 25, 000;

twelve (12) or equivalent to 12% who received a salary ranging 25, 000- 34,

000; three (3) or equivalent to 3% who received a salary ranging from 65,000-

74, 000 and 35,000- 44, 0000 respectively; two (2) or equivalent to 2% who

received a salary ranging 85,000-94,000; and one (1) or equivalent to 1% who

received a salary ranging from (75,000-84,000), (95,000-104,000) and (105,

000 and above) respectively. No respondent received a salary ranging from

55,000- 64, 000 and 45,000- 54, 000 respectively. The computed weighted

mean of monthly income of the respondent is 30, 690. It is evident in the data

that majority of the respondents received a salary ranging below 25,000.

1.7 Provincial Office. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, there were sixty-five

(65) or equivalent to 65% who are working in the provincial capitol and thirty-

five (35) or equivalent to 35% who are working under President Ramon

Magsaysay Memorial Hospital.

2. Perception of the Respondents toward the different Factors Affecting Employee’s

Adjustments

2.1. Work Environment. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, perceived

“Strongly Agree” for indicator 1, “The employees are highly connected to the

team as employee work remotely,” with a weighted mean of (3.44). Perceived to

be “Strongly Agree” on indicator 2, “The employees are satisfied with the

adjustments made despite the threat of COVID-19 in the working environment.”

with a weighted mean of (3.30). For indicator 3, “The organization has done a
 great job with internal communication regarding the corona virus” with a

weighted mean of (3.40) and perceived to be “Strongly Agree”. Indicator 4,

“The employees are supported by his team in taking risks with working in a

COVID exposed workplace.” with a weighted mean of (3.38), perceived to be

“Strongly Agree”. Indicator 5, “Health protocols implemented by the

organization makes the employees safe and comfortable,” (3.41) weighted mean

and perceived to be “Strongly Agree”. For indicator 6, “The employee knows

where to raise concerns in relation to their own colleagues’ well-being during

this time,” got a weighted mean of (3.37) with a qualitative interpretation

“Strongly Agree”. Indicator 7, “The employees are having a safe channel to

share concern when returning to work” with a weighted mean of (3.40)

perceived to be “Strongly Agree”. The computed over-all weighted mean

towards the different factors affecting employee’s adjustment as to Work

Environment was (3.36) with qualitative interpretation of “Strongly Agree”.

2.2 Social Affiliation. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, perceived “Agree” for

indicator 1, “The employees are motivated to work even if there is a lack of

social interaction among employees” with a weighted mean of (3.17). Perceived

to be “Agree” on indicator 2, “The current situation does not affect employee

relationship with their co-workers” with a weighted mean of (3.22). For

indicator 3, “The employees are confident that the organization will help them

get through with their social uncertainty” with a weighted mean of (3.27) and

perceived to be “Strongly Agree”. Interpreted as “Strongly Agree” with a

weighted mean of (3.30) for Indicator 4, “The employee feels the sense of
 belongingness with the organization.” Indicator 5, “The employees are highly

connected with others employee despite of the work adjustments” got a weighted

mean of (3.36) and perceived to be “Strongly Agree”. The computed over-all

weighted mean towards the different factors affecting employee’s adjustment as

to Social Affiliation was (3.26) with qualitative interpretation of “Strongly

Agree”.

2.3 Family Support. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, perceived “Strongly

Agree” for indicator 1, “The employees are able to balance work priorities with

their personal life” with a weighted mean of (3.36). Perceived to be “Strongly

Agree” on indicator 2, “The family understands the nature of their work in the

era of COVID-19” with a weighted mean of (3.39). For indicator 3, “The

employee feels the support of their family whenever I am confronted with health

issues” with a weighted mean of (3.37) and perceived to be “Strongly Agree”.

Interpreted as “Strongly Agree” with a weighted mean of (3.34) for Indicator 4,

“The employees are able to satisfy both their job and family or personal

responsibility.” Indicator 5, “Work adjustment does not interfere the time with

their family” got a weighted mean of (3.36) and perceived to be “Strongly

Agree”. The computed over-all weighted mean towards the different factors

affecting employee’s adjustment as to Family Support was (3.36) with

qualitative interpretation of “Strongly Agree”.

2.4 Organization and Supervisor Out of one-hundred (100) respondents, perceived

“Strongly Agree” for indicator 1, “The HR department is mindful of the pressure

the current situation is putting on the workforce” with a weighted mean of

 (3.31). Perceived to be “Agree” on indicator 2, “My organization communicate

effectively with the teams to define their performance expectation” with a

weighted mean of (3.19). For indicator 3, “The employees are confident that

organization will manage to cope with the current situation ensuring the safety

and well – being of the employees” with a weighted mean of (3.38) and

perceived to be “Strongly Agree”. Interpreted as “Strongly Agree” with a

weighted mean of (3.27) for Indicator 4, “The organization recognizes the need

for leave in order to give employees off-time to relax and attend to personal

issues.” Indicator 5, “The employees are confident that the leaders of my

organization will take effort in making the office comfortable and safe on our

returning to work processes.” got a weighted mean of (3.35) and perceived to be

“Strongly Agree”. Perceived to be “Strongly Agree” on Indicator 6,

“Organization observes best practices as a result of benchmarking through

virtual strategies and/or experiences in getting back to work amid the ongoing

pandemic” with a weighted mean of (3.37). The computed over-all weighted

mean towards the different factors affecting employee’s adjustment as to

Organization and Supervisor was (3.31) with qualitative interpretation of

“Strongly Agree”.

3. Perception of the Respondents toward the different Challenges in the Work

Adjustments during the Pandemic

3.1. Shift to Remote Work Environment. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents,

perceived “Agree” for indicator 1, “The previous office routines throughout the

day have change because of the adjustments made by the organization during
 pandemic” with a weighted mean of (2.83). Perceived to be “Agree” on indicator

2, “The employee experiences a lot of obstacles when working as mandated such

us work from home versus working at the office normally” with a weighted

mean of (2.59). For indicator 3, “The organization does not discuss the change

with the employees before and after the start of working remotely” with a

weighted mean of (2.38) and perceived to be “Disagree”. Indicator 4, “The

management does not ensure that the employees have the tools they need in

order for them to work remotely” with a weighted mean of (2.29), perceived to

be “Disagree”. Indicator 5, “The employees in the organization are

uncomfortable to work in a separate space,” (2.27) weighted mean and perceived

to be “Disagree”. The computed over-all weighted mean towards the different

challenges in the work adjustments during the pandemic as to Shift to Remote

Work Environment was (2.47) with a qualitative interpretation of “Disagree”.

3.2 Social Shocks- Social Affiliation. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents,

perceived “Agree” for indicator 1, “It is really hard to communicate during this

time of pandemic” with a weighted mean of (2.64). Perceived to be “Agree” on

indicator 2, “Online miscommunication leads to tension inside the organization”

with a weighted mean of (2.55). For indicator 3, “The management experiencing

difficulties with the employee’s social abilities because of the changes brought

by pandemic” with a weighted mean of (2.38) and perceived to be “Disagree”.

Indicator 4, “The employees are confused with the social changes made by the

organization” with a weighted mean of (2.43), perceived to be “Disagree”.

Indicator 5, “We do not have enough time to talk about our personal issues,”
 (2.38) weighted mean and perceived to be “Disagree”. The computed over-all

weighted mean towards the different challenges in the work adjustments during

the pandemic as to Social Shocks- Social Affiliation was (2.48) with a

qualitative interpretation of “Disagree”.

3.3 Demand for Work and Family Roles. Out of one-hundred (100) respondents,

perceived “Disagree” for indicator 1, “The employees forced to work more than

8 hours due to unfinished workloads” with a weighted mean of (2.16). Perceived

to be “Disagree” on indicator 2, “The employees experience difficulties on

focusing to work because of responsibility to the family” with a weighted mean

of (2.21). For indicator 3, “The employees are anxious because of the demand

and attention needed by the family during pandemic” with a weighted mean of

(2.37) and perceived to be “Disagree”. Indicator 4, “4. Job demands

significantly increase my work-family conflict overtime” with a weighted mean

of (2.27), perceived to be “Disagree”. Indicator 5, “Difficulty in managing time

for work and family leads to conflict” (2.28) weighted mean and perceived to be

“Disagree”. The computed over-all weighted mean towards the different

challenges in the work adjustments during the pandemic as to Demand for Work

and Family Roles was (2.26) with a qualitative interpretation of “Disagree”.

4. Test of Significant Difference in the Perceived Factors affecting Employee

Adjustments when grouped according to Profile Variables

4.1 Work Environment. When grouped according to profile variables as to sex, age,

civil status, educational attainment, employment status and monthly income with a

computed significant value of (0.14), (0.42), (0.76), (0.75), (0.34) and (0.15)
respectively are higher than (>) 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null

Hypothesis is Accepted. Hence, there is no significant difference in Working

Environment as a factor affecting employee adjustments when grouped according to

sex, age, civil status, educational attainment, employment status, and monthly income.

For profile variable as to provincial offices, the computed Significant Value is

(0.008) which is lower than (<) 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null

Hypothesis is rejected. Hence, there is significant difference in Working Environment

as a factor affecting employee adjustments when grouped according to provincial

offices as part of profile variables.

4.2 Social Affiliation. When grouped according to profile variables as to Age, Civil

Status and Employment Status with a statistically calculated significant value of

(0.92), (0.97) and (0.21) respectively are higher than (>) 0.05 Alpha Level of

Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted. Hence, there is no significant

difference in Social Affiliation as a factor affecting employee adjustments when

grouped according to Age, Civil Stats and Employment Status.

In contrast, the computed significant value of sex profile variable (0.008),

Educational Attainment (0.015), Monthly Income (0.031) and Provincial Offices

(0.001) respectively are lower than (<) 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the

Null Hypothesis is rejected. Hence, there is a significant difference in Social Affiliation

as a factor affecting employee adjustments when grouped according to profile variables

as to sex, educational attainment, monthly income and provincial offices.

4.3 Family Support. When grouped according to profile variables as to Age, Civil

Status, Employment Status and Monthly Income with a statistically calculated

significant value of (0.70), (0.85), (0.21) and (0.197) respectively are higher than (>)

0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is accepted. Hence,

there is no significant difference in Family Support as a factor affecting employee

adjustments when grouped according to Age, Civil Stats, Employment Status and

Monthly Income.

However, the computed significant value of sex profile variable (0.043),

Educational Attainment (0.03) and Provincial Offices (0.001) respectively are lower

than (<) 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is rejected.

Hence, there is a significant difference in Family Support as a factor affecting

employee adjustments when grouped according to profile variables as to sex,

educational attainment and provincial offices.

4.3 Organization and Supervisors. When grouped according to profile variables as to

Age, Civil Status, Educational Attainment, and Employment Status with a

statistically calculated significant value of (0.868), (0.782), (0.11) and (0.26)

respectively are higher than (>) 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null

Hypothesis is accepted. Hence, there is no significant difference in Organization and

Supervisors as a factor affecting employee adjustments when grouped according to

Age, Civil Stats, Educational Attainment, and Employment Status.

However, the computed significant value of sex profile variable (0.012), Monthly

Income (0.051) and Provincial Offices (0.001) respectively are lower than (<) 0.05

Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is rejected. Hence, there is

a significant difference in Organization and Supervisors as a factor affecting employee

 adjustments when grouped according to profile variables as to sex, monthly income and

provincial offices.

5. Test Significant Relationship between Perceived Challenges and the Factors

Affecting Employee’s Adjustments. The computed Pearson-r value between the

factors affecting Employee’s Adjustments and the perceived challenges as to Shift to

Remote Work Environment was (0.10) which denotes negligible correlation. . The

computed significant value of (0.33) which is higher than (>) 0.05 Alpha Level of

Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, hence there is no significant

relationship.

Based on the computed Pearson-r correlation, there is negligible correlation

between the perceived challenges as to Social Shock- Social Affiliation and the factors

affecting employee’s adjustments, r (98) = 0.10, p< 0.05. Also, the obtained significant

value (0.34) is higher than the 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null

Hypothesis is Accepted, and hence there is no significant relationship.

In addition, there is also negligible correlation between the perceived challenges

as to Demand for Work and Family Roles and the factors affecting employee’s

adjustments, r (98) = 0.08, p< 0.05. Its obtained significant value (0.41) is higher than

the 0.05 Alpha Level of Significance, therefore the Null Hypothesis is Accepted, and

hence there is no significant relationship.

Conclusions

Based on findings of the study, the researchers have concluded that:

1. Majority of the respondents were comprised of married female aged 37.7 years

old.

2. Majority of the respondents were bachelor’s degree holder.

3. Majority of the respondents were a permanent/ regular employees working in the

Provincial Capitol of Zambales with an average monthly income Php.30, 690.

4. The respondents perceived “Strongly Agree” for indicator 1, “The employees are

highly connected to the team as employee work remotely,” as to Work

Environment as a factor affecting employee’s adjustment during pandemic.

5. The respondents perceived to be “Strongly Agree” for Indicator 5, “The

employees are highly connected with others employee despite of the work

adjustments” as to Social Affiliation as a factor affecting employee’s adjustment

during pandemic.

6. The respondents perceived to be “Strongly Agree” for Indicator 2, “The family

understands the nature of their work in the era of COVID-19.” as to Family

Support as a factor affecting employee’s adjustment during pandemic.

7. The respondents perceived to be “Strongly Agree” for Indicator 3, “The

employees are confident that organization will manage to cope with the current

situation ensuring the safety and well – being of the employees.” as to

Organization and Supervisor as a factor affecting employee’s adjustment during

pandemic.

8. The respondents perceived to be “Agree” for Indicator 1, “The previous office

routines throughout the day have change because of the adjustments made by the
 organization during pandemic” towards Shift to Remote Work Environment as

challenges experienced during pandemic.

9. The respondents perceived to be “Agree” for Indicator 1, “It is really hard to

communicate during this time of pandemic” towards Social Shocks- Social

Affiliation as challenges experienced during pandemic.

10. The respondents perceived to be “Disagree” for Indicator 3, “The employees are

anxious because of the demand and attention needed by the family during

pandemic” towards Demand for Work and Family Roles as challenges

experienced during pandemic.

11. There is no significant difference in Working Environment as a factor affecting

employee adjustments when grouped according to sex, age, civil status,

educational attainment, employment status, and monthly income.

12. There is significant difference in Working Environment as a factor affecting

employee adjustments when grouped according to provincial offices as part of

profile variables.

13. There is no significant difference in Social Affiliation as a factor affecting

employee adjustments when grouped according to Age, Civil Stats and

Employment Status.

14. There is a significant difference in Social Affiliation as a factor affecting

employee adjustments when grouped according to profile variables as to sex,

educational attainment, monthly income and provincial offices.

 15. There is no significant difference in Family Support as a factor affecting

employee adjustments when grouped according to Age, Civil Stats, Employment

Status and Monthly Income.

16. There is a significant difference in Family Support as a factor affecting employee

adjustments when grouped according to profile variables as to sex, educational

attainment and provincial offices.

17. There is no significant difference in Organization and Supervisors as a factor

affecting employee adjustments when grouped according to Age, Civil Stats,

Educational Attainment, and Employment Status.

18. There is a significant difference in Organization and Supervisors as a factor

affecting employee adjustments when grouped according to profile variables as to

sex, monthly income and provincial offices.

19. There is a negligible correlation between the perceived challenges and the factors

affecting employee’s adjustments.

Recommendations

Based on findings and conclusions obtained in the study, the researcher has offered

the following recommendations to wit:

1. Offices/departments should provide psychosocial support to the employees for

them to be able to fully adjust to the work scenario brought by COVID-19.

2. The department should heighten and empower employees in the use of various

technological platforms as new form of social interaction so they can still be

motivated to work.
 3. The department should provide series of virtual trainings about a balance work

between the role of individual as an employee and as a member of the family.

4. The department should ensure that workplace support measures are available to

all, and that all workers know, understand, and are comfortable with them..

5. Adopt a family-friendly working arrangements to give workers greater freedom

and flexibility to carry out their work.

6. Follow health protocols set by the IATF in crafting work policies

7. Conduct a follow-up and intensive study so as to validate the findings of the

study.