RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Assessing the productivity levels in employees - Pre and Post Covid Outbreak

Symbiosis Centre for Management and Human Resource Development

Abstract

The study aims to understand the impact of remote working on the productivity of the employees.

There have been various notions about various parameters adding or subtracting to employee

productivity. So, when the coronavirus spread, thousands of people were forced to work remotely

for the first time. It is intriguing to know if employee productivity has increased or decreased. The

remote working model has brought in radical changes in employees' lives, like the loss of face-to-

face interaction, increased calls and meetings, and the absence of daily commute. All these factors

contribute to changes in employee motivation, participation, satisfaction, and productivity. The

research will be conducted via quantitative method. A survey questionnaire based on different

parameters that could impact productivity will we shared with the target samples to understand

their perspective on job productivity.

Keywords

Employee Productivity, Employee Participation, Employee Commitment, Job Satisfaction, Output

changes, Work Environment

Introduction

Previous researches have shown that employee productivity can impact the performance of the

company. (O, 2019) It also provides an organization with a strategic edge over its competitors.

Enhancing the productivity of employees has been one of the core concerns in past studies as well.

In 2012, Kien claimed that efficiency is an essential component in establishing and enhancing

organizational productivity, maintaining its growth and profitability output, achieving the

anticipated target, and fulfilling the organization's value proposition and its stakeholders.

(Hanaysha, 2016)

It has always been a conventional perception that working in an office setup was vital to

engagement, productivity, collaboration, learning, building culture. (Sumiyati, 2016) Companies

fought fiercely for coveted infrastructure space in big metropolitan cities around the globe. Most

organizations targeted strategies that helped to foster cooperation, interaction, and harmony. The

office environment has seen drastic changes over the decades, starting from the mainstream cubicle

system to the agile way of sitting and now even the open office culture adopted by Google. But

still working in an office has been the culture for all organizations.

COVID-19 has presented us with an extraordinary humanitarian threat. Almost all organizations

worldwide have shown the agility of shifting hastily to protect their employees and implement the

modern way of operating that even the most progressive business model hadn't anticipated.

As the organizations leaped and bound during the pandemic, they were astonished by how fast and

agile they were to adapt to the unique technologies for video-conferencing and other virtual

collaboration forms as a replacement to team meetings and conferences. What was surprising about

the pandemic was that the outcomes for many organizations were better than anticipated.
According to McKinsey & Company 80 percent of people surveyed claim that they enjoy working

from their home's comfort. At the same time, another 41 percent say that they found themselves

more productive than before, and 28 percent say that they are as productive as before the pandemic.

(Brodie Boland, 2020). Many employees freed themselves from long commute hours. Such people

have found more efficient ways to spend that time. As people enjoyed increased flexibility, some

of them consorted to their hobbies. It also helped them balance their personal and professional

lives and added a feather to their creativity. These surveys' employees suggested that they preferred

to work from home rather than the office.

There might be a possibility that the satisfaction and productivity of the people working from

office are developed due to many social and one-to-one interactions due to the in-office

engagements. (Frank Catteeuw, 2007). But the real question is whether the prolonged work from

home is ultimately going to increase work productivity or not? Therefore, this research paper tries

to capture the difference between employees' productivity levels and post covid outbreak.
Literature Review

The Concept of Work Productivity

Work productivity is the determination, enthusiasm and readiness, to complete a particular task.

Work can be both individual and group (Ichniowski, 1997) . The aim of an optimal work

productivity is to achieve optimal work results such that organizational goals are in inclination

with it. (Haenisch, 2012). The emphasis should be that the work quality of today must be better

than yesterday and tomorrow must be better than today (Y. P. S. Kanwar, 2014)

One way to define employee productivity can be the amount of output versus the amount of time

it takes to do a project (Bartel A. , 1994). Productivity says a lot about the employee engagement,

collaboration, satisfaction and performance. (Qureshi, 2007)

Employee Productivity

Some of the pillars of an Employee’s productivity levels are:

Work Environment: A work environment is defined as a safe and healthy place and has no risks

and hazards, whereas a conducive work environment is one where an employee can learn, discuss,

and grow with the team members (Taiwo, 20009). As stated by Opperman (2002), the work

environment is an amalgamation of three key sub-environments: the technological environment,

the human environment, and the organizational environment (Bakhtiyari, 2020)

In Beer et al. (1994) model of human resource management, it is endorsed that the working

environment disturbs competence, effectiveness, commitment, and cost-efficacy and has a long-

term effect on workers’ physical and mental well-being (Catherine Truss., 1994). There has been
some research to direct that work environment and designs may impact physical health, mental

health, and longevity of life itself. (Bindu Anto Ollukkaran, 2012)

Job satisfaction: Job satisfaction is described as the extent to which a worker demonstrates

optimistic affection towards his or her job (Md. Salamun Rashidin, 2019) In his description, Locke

deliberates job satisfaction to be “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the

appraisal of one’s job or job experiences and as a function of the perceived relationship between

what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it as an offering.” (Locke, 1969)

Job satisfaction is subjective and depends on the people. It can be hygiene factors for some and

challenging work for some.

Employee Engagement: “Engagement is the degree to which employees are satisfied with their

jobs, feel valued, and experience collaboration and Trust. (Ambar Khalid, 2015) Engaged

employees will stay with the company longer and continually find smarter, more effective ways to

add value to the organization. (Ologbo C. Andrew, 2012) The result is a high performing company

where people are flourishing, and productivity is increased and sustained.” (Frank Catteeuw,

2007). Organizations must keep their workforce engaged, productive, and positive in all

circumstances (Xanthopoulou, 2009). With the increase in the competitive business environment

and global outreach, employees have numerous opportunities outside the organization (Solomon

Markos, 2010). Thus, collaboration and Trust plays a crucial role in employee engagement. In

2003, the Gallup Management Journal released in its report that out of the survey sample of 1000

adults, it was found that “19% of employees in organizations are actively disengaged. Another

54% are discreetly engaged, and only 17% are actively engaged”. (Attridge, 2009) Engaged

employees tend to continuously learn and find effective ways to meet organization goals (Erik R.

Eddy, 2005)
Conceptual Model

JOB
SATISFACTION

WORK EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE

ENVIRONMENT MOTIVATION PRODUCTIVITY

EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT

The conceptual model discusses how the pillars of an employee’s productivity impacts employee

motivation and eventually employee productivity.

Post Covid Outbreak

After the last greatest pandemic of 1918 – The Spanish Flu, no one was prepared when Covid-19

hit the world at the end of December 2019, not people and neither organization. The Covid-19

outbreak presented an alarming health crisis around the world and soon the World Health

Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international

concern. (Jebril, 2020). As viruses know no borders, it impacted not only human life but also global

commercial organizations, trade, manufacturing and many other industries (Ashwani, 2020).

Amid the pandemic, organizations worldwide had to take the tough decision of either halting their

units or adapting a work from home model. (Agus Purwanto, 2020). Before the outbreak, many

companies and employees had little experience with remote working style on such a wide scale

and while corporations were content to maintain office-based work norms, people were content

with the separation of work and personal life (Savić, 2020). Work from home, which had

previously been done irregularly by businesses, now became a necessity within days – a matter of

health and monetary existence. (Hernandez, 2020).

The unexpected demand for remote work propelled technological changes in the workforce and

the evolution of the workplace at an unprecedented rate (Antonio de Lucas Ancillo., 2021). Going

completely home-centric meant changes in the work environment, almost no peer-to-peer

interaction, team collaboration, and employee engagement (Savić, 2020) Amidst all these

employees seemed happier during remote work, having fewer traffic problems, consuming cleaner

air, and far more content with their private life (Christian Wiradendi Wolor, 2020). According to

McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) study, year on year productivity growth may be accelerated by

roughly 1 percentage point between now and 2024. That would be a welcome improvement of

double the productivity growth overhead the pre-pandemic rate (Jan Mischke., 2021)
The Covid scenario has left the world with many questions. This research aims to determine if the

work from home model or the hybrid model positively or negatively impacts work productivity

compared to the in-office model. (Ellen Baker, 2007)

Theory

Continuous efforts are required to recruit, train, and retain the appropriate sort of talent, which

serves as the primary source of difference. Failure to do so leads in the loss of employees to

competitors and, as a result, the firm's market position. (M. A. Sanjeev., 2016). Motivational

elements are seen as more essential than hygiene aspects in determining job happiness. The drive

to avoid unpleasantness is linked to hygiene factors. Because of the individual's need for personal

growth motivation factors lead to job satisfaction (Stello, 2011)

Two-Factor Theory - Frederick Herzberg

In the 1950s, psychologist Frederic k Herzberg proposed the Two-Factor Theory of Motivation

also popularly known as motivation-hygiene theory (Alshmemri Mohammed., 2017) which is

based on two factors discussed below.

1. Motivator factors - Those factors that are intrinsic in nature and are called satisfiers. These

factors lead to satisfaction and motivate a person to work more efficiently in the workplace.

Examples might include recognition in workplace, taking responsibility, achievement, and career

development and growth. (Hur, 2017)

2. Hygiene factors – Are extrinsic in nature and are called non-satisfiers or dissatisfiers. These

elements are connected to the workplace and if they are not there, they can lead to discontentment

and a lack of drive. Salary, business regulations, perks, job protection, conditions of employment,

and dealings with supervisors and coworkers are just a few examples. (Hur, 2017)
Merging the hygiene and motivator factors can have the below outcome in some circumstances:

Employees that are constantly highly motivated and have few grievances are regarded to be in an

ideal scenario with excellent hygiene and high motivation factors.

When employees have few complaints yet aren't highly driven, they are said to have high hygiene

and low motivation.

When an organization's personnel are highly driven yet have a lot of objections, it's called low

hygiene and high motivation. This occurs when a job is exciting and thought-provoking, but the

pay and working conditions are not.

Low hygiene and low motivation are the worst conditions for any company where employees are

constantly demotivated and have many complains. (Kwasi Dartey-Baah, 2011)

While both motivational and hygienic variables affected motives, according to Herzberg's

results, they seemed to function independently of one another. (Alonso, 2001)

Research Gap

The research gap found in previous studies is that only one parameter was used to study employee

productivity at one time. The previous research papers have indicated that various parameters

determine an employee's productivity at the workplace. Therefore, this study will focus on multiple

parameters that can positively and negatively impact an employee's productivity.

To further add, several studies have been conducted in the western framework on the work from

home productivity but very few in the Indian outline. (Milan, 2020) Therefore, a study specific to

the Indian context will deliver more accurate results. However, there has been no significant study

in the field of employee productivity post covid outbreak. Thus, the research also tries to determine

the changes in the pattern of an employee's productivity levels while he or she is working from

home. This research will help employers determine which factors are more imperative for their

employees, so that they can work on improving those factors.

Methodology

The management plays a crucial role in accomplishing goals, (Moynihan, 2005) it is imperative to

keep the employees well motivated at work. The research methodology to be used was a

quantitative one. A questionnaire was created and shared with the employee for their feedback. It

contained some basic questions about their work experience at home. Further processing of the

data was done to determine a pattern.

Sampling

The sample comprised entry - level position and medium level IT experts from several IT

companies in India (such as Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, and Infosys, Accenture, IBM, etc.).

According to previous research, 100-150 participants are sufficient for a quantitative study. In any

study article, the best method is to assess the problem across the entire population. However, in

practice it is never possible to investigate the entire population. Conversely, we could investigate

a reasonable "sample” that represents the population as a whole. (Anita S Acharya., 2013).

Members of the target population who satisfy specific practical requirements, such as working in

the IT industry, wide availability, high flexibility, geographical closeness, and desire to engage in

research, were chosen using the convenience sampling approach. Bearing in mind the major worry

that the respondents have encountered and gone through the scenarios linked to factors affecting

job productivity (Ilker Etikan., 2016). A total of 182 respondents have participated in the survey.

Data Collection

As per one qualitative survey conducted among 20 IT employees during October and November

2020, the following variables were found to be affecting the Work-From-Home productivity:
 1. Stress

2. Growth and Development

3. Supervision

4. Working Hours

5. Learning and Development

6. Work Flexibility

7. Flexible Working Hours

8. Team Dynamics

9. Home Office Setup

10. Team Communication

11. Work Burnout

12. Work Quality

13. Engagement Activities

14. Physical and Emotional Wellbeing

15. Work Load

After analyzing the above factors, I worked on primary data that is gathered through the use of

well-structured survey questions that include pertinent questions. The questionnaire was designed

to allow respondents to respond in an unbiased, and an objective manner. The use of a

questionnaire allows research to be conducted numerically (Mohammed Raja., 2016). The survey

questionnaire was floated to understand the respondent’s diverse views on changing work

scenarios post the outbreak of Coronavirus pandemic (Joffe., 1992). The Structured questionnaire

was comprehensive, and consisted of 17 questions.

It was carefully drafted into the four key components mentioned below, taking into mind the

importance of aligning the participants' knowledge with research.

Component 1: Comprising 5 Questions designed to gather information on the respondent's job

satisfaction.

Component 2: Comprising 5 Questions which sought to collect information about the Work

Environment while remote working.

Component 3: Comprising 5 Questions which sought to collect information about the Employee

Engagement activities.

Component 4: Comprising 2 Questions on employees’ productivity pre and post covid outbreak.

(Mohammed Raja., 2016)

Any personal data like the actual names, phone number or email Ids of the respondents were not

recorded to ensure confidentiality (Ilker Etikan., 2016).

Pilot Testing

The validation process began when the conceptual model of the instrument was established. An

instrument's validity is directly tied to how well it evaluates what it claims to measure. As a result,

when an instrument's architecture and applicability allow it to measure its goal, it is said to be

legitimate.

Content validity was the first step in determining relevance, and it was used to determine the

coherence of language, conceptual significance, and practical applicability. Survey was sent to

four HR managers, who evaluated each of 17 questions. Following a few changes proposed by

industry leaders, the questionnaire was rated good to exceptional in terms of content reliability.
Following content validation, a pilot test was conducted with 25 IT personnel from various firms

to determine their understanding of questionnaires. The poll yielded a promising outcome with a

95-percent dependability level and a 5-percent margin of error.

Data Analysis

The employee productivity scale used here is self-evaluation scale and is used by many

organizations in their employee engagement surveys, pulse surveys to name a few. On a scale of

1 to 5, 1 signifies extremely low and 5 denotes very high, questions were created and assessed.

Similar approach has been built based on works from few previous research papers (Michael P.

Brady, 2008)

The study targeted a sample size of 182 respondents. Following, data collection and cleaning,

regression analysis was performed on the framework.

It was imperative to have responses from different genders in order to get more detail-oriented

results without any biases to any gender. The gender distribution resulted from the survey is

depicted below –

Male Female

32.42%

67.58%

TABLE A – Graphical representation of gender distribution

The industry is filled with all types of generations co-working together in order to achieve

organizational goal. To get a precise result and to understand the various designations and roles

impact on their job productivity, the sample size's age ranged from 21 to 46 years, and was

separated into four primary groups: 21-25 years, 26-30 years, 31-40 years, and 41+ years.

21-25 Years 26-30 Years 31-40 years 41+ Years

14

37
73

58

TABLE B – Graphical representation of age distribution of the sample size

Reliability Test

To determine the instrument's internal consistency in terms of reliability, Cronbach's alpha was

calculated for the predominant correlation between each test element and the outstanding elements

or their sum (total score).

Cronbach Alpha is a commonly used metric for assessing questionnaire internal consistency.

Reliability of nearby values of 0.6 is required for the pilot study before the use of instruments to
continue the research, in this case Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.587 which is around 0.6, so the constructs

were reliable.

TABLE C – Exhibits Reliability Statistics having Cronbach’s Alpha value

Variable Cronbach's Alpha if

Item Deleted
Stress 0.540
Growth_and_Development 0.616
Supervision 0.536
Working_Hours 0.579
Learning_and_Development 0.602
Work_Flexibility 0.539
Flexible_Working_Hours 0.623
Team_Dynamics 0.600
Home_Office_Setup 0.585
Team_Communication 0.536
Work_Burnout 0.518
Work_Quality 0.555
Engagement_Activities 0.584
0.548
Physical_and_Emotional_Wellbeing
Work_Load 0.540
Dependent_Variables 0.593
Pre_Pandemic_JP 0.593
 TABLE D – Depicts Cronbach’s alpha values

Therefore, it can be concluded from Table D, the lowest value if any item is discarded is 0.518,

which is above acceptable range. Therefore, it can be concluded that the variables are reliable.

Validity Test

The validity test has been performed on the independent variable data collected using Pearson’s

correlation coefficient adopting a significance level of 0.1.

Variable Pearson Correlation

Growth_and_Development 0.084
Flexible_Working_Hours 0.102
Pre_Pandemic_JP .177**
Dependent_Variables .186**
Learning_and_Development .209**
Team_Dynamics .240**
Engagement_Activities .295**
Home_Office_Setup .304**
Working_Hours .309**
Work_Quality .450**
Physical_and_Emotional_Wellbeing .490**
Work_Load .530**
Stress .531**
Work_Flexibility .543**
Team_Communication .549**
Supervision .555**
Work_Burnout .629**
 Table E – Exhibits values of Pearson’s correlation coefficient

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

From the table of critical values, Pearson’s correlation for 182 items is 0.147 and from the initial

survey, except 2 questions for all other constructs the Pearson’s Correlation coefficient value is

greater than critical value. Despite the fact that the three questions had a modest correlation, they

were strongly linked.

Data Analysis –

Despite the fact that all work domains were highly correlated with job productivity, the regression

analysis revealed that some weren't statistically relevant. As stated previously, utterly trivial

variables were eliminated (Westover, 2009). Table F includes regression analysis of job

satisfaction, work environment and employee engagement in 15 work domains. Table F depicts a

strong relationship between the three components and job productivity. The p-value for 13 sub-

components were less than 0.05. which is considered statistically significant (Rabia Imran., 2015)

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value

Intercept 3.102291 0.308860 10.044334 1.01543E-20
Stress 0.290614 0.046508 6.248626 1.37603E-09
Growth and Development 0.125547 0.038510 3.260122 0.0012384
Supervision 0.299673 0.117722 2.545587 0.0113966
Working Hours 0.274498 0.042252 6.496694 3.29518E-10
Learning and Development 0.285031 0.085094 3.349601 0.0009099
Work Flexibility -0.466169 0.124816 -3.734847 0.0002237
Flexible Working Hours -0.091174 0.041417 -2.201385 0.0284502
Team Dynamics -0.188277 0.083132 -2.264794 0.0242200
 Home Office Setup -0.042597 0.034911 -1.220157 0.2233389
Team Communication 0.009027 0.036996 0.243999 0.8073937
Work Burnout 0.133804 0.043034 3.109288 0.0020506
Work Quality -0.173376 0.040305 -4.301578 2.27972E-05
Engagement Activities -0.159551 0.035011 -4.557126 7.48619E-06
Physical and Emotional
Wellbeing -0.114945 0.038567 -2.980366 0.0031084
Work Load 0.033249 0.040328 0.824457 0.4103179

TABLE F – Regression Analysis on sub-components to understand their relation with Job

Productivity

The response rate was satisfactory to make conclusions such that 78.72% of the respondents agreed

that remote working has allowed them to develop more skills, whereas 71.56% respondents agreed

that there is high opportunity for individual career growth and development within the company

post the outbreak, which resulted in increased job satisfaction (Niazi, 2011). Team dynamics also

played a huge role in balancing the job productivity of people. 76.88% respondents reposted to

increase in team dynamics which helped them to work more efficiently on their day-to-day tasks

and activities. Respondents also reported an increase in stress, burnout and work load negatively

effecting their work. On the contrary work flexibility added to a positive increase in job

productivity.
 80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

TABLE G – Graphical representation of sub-components

As relevant from Table H of regression analysis, R square came out to be 0.756244 which is

remarkably high and provides evidence that the hypothesis assumed previously holds true. The

three components play a crucial role in contributing to job productivity (Annu Haapakangasa,

2018).

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.869623228
R Square 0.756244559
Adjusted R Square 0.741136126
Standard Error 0.264111147

Observations 182

TABLE H – Statistical Regression Analysis.

The fourth component had asked the respondents to rate their productivity levels before and after

the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic. The results were almost as shocking and as expected.

The respondents rated their post pandemic productivity levels more when compared previously.

As evident from Table I – previously the productivity rate appeared to be 62.39% and post the

pandemic outbreak it went up to 77.98%.

JOB PRODUCTIVITY

77.98%
80.00%

70.00% 62.39%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
Pre Covid-19 Outbreak Post Covid-19 Outbreak

TABLE I – Depicts the Job productivity level Pre and Post Covid-19 outbreak based on
Responses
 Age-w ise Job Productivity Changes

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00% 71.43%
60.27%
30.00% 53.45%
48.65%
20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
21-25 Years 26-30 Years 31-40 years 41+ Years

TABLE J – Depicts the Age-wise Job productivity level Pre and Post Covid-19 outbreak based
on Responses

From the above Table J, it can be concluded that in the age group 21-25 years, 60.27% of the

respondents marked post covid-19 outbreak productivity higher compared to pre-covid. Similarly,

the percentage for other age groups are 53.45% for 26-30 years, 48.65% for 31-40 years and

71.43% for 41+ years.

 Gender Distribution of Job Productivity

42.37%
55.28%

Male Female

TABLE K – Depicts the gender Job productivity level Pre and Post Covid-19 outbreak based on
Responses

From the above Table K, it can be concluded that males were more benefitted by working from

home, 55.28% of the male respondents marked post covid-19 outbreak productivity higher

compared to pre-covid. Similarly, the 42.37% female respondents marked post covid-19 outbreak

productivity higher compared to pre-covid.

Discussion

The study tries to analyze the impact of various components of job productivity. In the study it

was observed that keeping a workforce engaged, positive, and productive even in prosperous times

can be a challenge for any well-managed organization. When the intense market environment

shocks a company for a variety of reasons, some of which can be managed and others of which

cannot, engaging people and enhancing productivity becomes more challenging. At the same time,

these responsibilities are much more critical to the mission's success. (Frank Catteeuw, 2007) The

current Covid-19 circumstances comes with a higher level of challenges for an organization where

they are subjected to maintain the productivity levels of the employees (Frank Catteeuw, 2007).

The adaptability levels of the organization are at tests in such unprecedented scenarios. However,

research suggests that the organizations’ contribution towards employee engagement activities

have helped in increasing the employee’s motivation. “The respondents agreed that employee

engagement activities helped boost their morale in increasing their job productivity. Also, the

respondents rated their organizations efforts towards their physical and mental wellbeing at

68.62% resulting in a happier work environment even at home.” (Annu Haapakangasa, 2018).

Due to work from home, the employees were given more work flexibility and therefore there was

less micro management, which reflected in increased team dynamics. The organizations also saw

new employees starting their career in the mid of the pandemic. Therefore, an encouraging culture

driven with purpose that resonated well with the employees along with integrating their well-being

resulted in a positive work environment. Organizations embraced potential of their employees by

giving them quality work, learning and development opportunities to maximize their capabilities

and their long-term growth and development.

In the survey, the participants were asked about the level of productivity before and post covid-19

outbreak and it was found that there was an overall increase of 24.988% in job productivity while

working remotely. This clearly indicated that people centric strategies helped the employers to

enhance the potential of each and every employee despite being located in different geographies.

The findings also support the Hertzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. The motivation factors like career

progression, growth and development contributed to the job productivity of the respondents. Also,

hygiene factors like the working conditions, team dynamics, policies and administration, and

engagement activities also motivated the employees in order to enhance their productivity while

working from home (Mohammed Raja., 2016). Although there are quite a few blockades owing to

working from home like stress and work load but there was still an overall increase in job

productivity was observed. But still there is scope of improvement as virtual-work culture is

becoming the new normal.

References

1. Agus Purwanto, M. A. (2020). Impact of Work From Home (WFH) on Indonesian

Teachers Performance During the Covid-19 Pandemic : An Exploratory Study.
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology.
2. Alonso, P. &. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance evidence from the
federal sector. The American Review of Public Administration.
3. Alshmemri Mohammed., L. S.-A. (2017). Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. Life Science
Journal.
4. Ambar Khalid, S. K. (2015). Relationship Between Organizational Commitments,
Employee Engagement and Career Satisfaction a Case of University of Gujrat, Pakistan.
Esciencepress.
5. Anita S Acharya., A. P. (2013). Sampling: Why and How of it? Indian Journal Of
Medical Specialities.
6. Annu Haapakangasa, b. D. (2018). Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in
activity-based offices: The role of environmental perceptions and workspace use.
Building and Environment.
7. Antonio de Lucas Ancillo., M. T. (2021). Workplace change within the COVID-19
context: a grounded theory approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja.
8. Ashwani, P. S. (2020). COVID-19 and Indian Economy: Impact on Growth,
Manufacturing, Trade and MSME Sector. Sage pub.
9. Attridge, M. (2009). Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review
of the Research and Business Literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health.
10. Bakhtiyari, M. (2020). Work environment and employee performance: a brief literature.
11. Bartel, A. (1994). Productivity gains from the implementation of employee training
programs. Industrial Relations.
12. Bartel, A. (1994). Productivity gains from the implementation of employee training
programs. Industrial Relations.
13. Bindu Anto Ollukkaran, R. G. (2012). A Study on the Impact of Work Environment on
Employee Performance. Namex International Journal of Management Research.
14. Brodie Boland, A. D. (2020). Reimagining the office and work life after COVID-19.
McKinsey & Company.
15. Catherine Truss., L. G. (1994). Strategic human resource management: a conceptual
approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management.
16. Christian Wiradendi Wolor, S. D. (2020). How to Manage Stress Experienced by
Employees When Working from Home Due to the Covid-19 Virus Outbreak.
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology.
17. Ellen Baker, G. C. (2007). Satisfaction and Perceived Productivity when Professionals
Work From Home. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 15(1), 37-
62.
18. Erik R. Eddy, S. I. (2005). The Influence of a Continuous Learning Environment on Peer
Mentoring Behaviors. Journal of Managerial Issues.
19. Frank Catteeuw, E. F. (2007). Employee Engagement: Boosting Productivity In
Turbulent Times. Organization Development Journal.
20. Haenisch, J. P. (2012). Factors Affecting the Productivity of Government Workers. SAGE
Open.
21. Hanaysha, J. (2016). Testing the Effects of Employee Empowerment, Teamwork, and
Employee Training on Employee Productivity in Higher Education Sector, Faculty of
Business and Management. (3rd). International Journal of Learning & Development.
22. Hernandez. (2020). Remote Workers During the COVID-19 Lockdown What Are We
Missing and Why Is Important. JOEM.
23. Hur, Y. (2017). Testing Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation in the Public
Sector: Is it Applicable to Public Managers? Public Organiz Rev.
24. Ichniowski, C. K. (1997). The effect of human resources practices on productivity: A
study of steel finishing lines. American Economic Review.
25. Ilker Etikan., S. A. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive
Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics.
26. Jan Mischke., J. W. (2021). Will productivity and growth return after the COVID-19
crisis? McKinsey Global Institute (MGI).
27. Jebril, N. M. (2020). World Health Organization Declared a Pandemic Public Health
Menace: A Systematic Review of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 “COVID-19”.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation.
28. Joffe., M. (1992). Validity of Exposure Data Derived from a Structured Questionnaire.
American Journal of Epidemiology.
29. Kwasi Dartey-Baah, G. K. (2011). Application of Frederick Herzberg Two-Factor theory
in assessing and understanding employee motivation at work... European Journal of
Business and Management.
30. Locke, E. a. (1969). What is Job Satisfaction? Academic Press, Inc.
31. M. A. Sanjeev., A. V. (2016). Two Factor Theory of Motivation and Satisfaction: An
Empirical Verification. Journal of Foodservice Business Research.
32. Md. Salamun Rashidin, S. J. (2019). Empirical Study on Spirituality, Employee’s
Engagement and Job Satisfaction: Evidence from China. International Journal of Public
Administration.
33. Michael P. Brady, H. R. (2008). A Self-Evaluation Instrument for Work Performance and
Support Needs. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. Sage Journals.
34. Milan, P. R. (2020). Pandemic Programming: How COVID-19 affects software
developers and how their organizations can help. Empirical Software Engineering.
35. Mohammed Raja., A. S. (2016). The Impact of Training and Development on Employees
Performance and Productivity. International Journal of Management Sciences and
Business Research.
36. Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by
performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
37. Niazi, A. S. (2011). Training and Development Strategy and Its Role in Organization
Performance. Journal of Public Administration and Governance.
38. O, N. S. (2019). Employee productivity and organizational performance: A theoretical
perspective. Baum Tenpers Research.
39. Ologbo C. Andrew, S. S. (2012). Individual Factors and Work Outcomes of Employee
Engagement. Elsevier Ltd.
40. Qureshi, K. K. (2007). Impact Of Employee Participation On Job Satisfaction, Employee
Commitment And Employee Productivity.
41. Rabia Imran, M. M. (2015). Impact of Organizational Justice, Job Security and Job
satisfaction on Organizational Productivity. Journal of Economics, Business and
Management, Vol. 3, No. 9, September.
42. Rabia Imran., M. M. (2015). Impact of Organizational Justice, Job Security and Job
satisfaction on Organizational Productivity. Journal of Economics, Business and
Management, (Vol. 3).
43. Savić, D. (2020). COVID-19 and Work from Home: Digital Transformation of the
Workforce. The Grey Journal.
44. Solomon Markos, M. S. (2010). Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving
Performance . International Journal of Business and Management.
45. Stello, C. M. (2011). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of job satisfaction: An integrative
literature review. Journal of Education and Human Development.
46. Sumiyati, M. K. (2016). The Effect of Social Work Environment on Employee
Productivity in Manufacturing Company in Indonesia. Advances in Economics, Business
and Management Research, volume 15.
47. Taiwo, A. S. (20009). The influence of work environment on workers productivity: A
case of selected oil and gas industry in Lagos, Nigeria. African Journal of Business
Management.
48. Westover, J. H. (2009). Enhancing long-term worker productivity and performance. .
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management Vol. 59.
49. Xanthopoulou, D. A. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal
resources and work engagement. . J. Vocational Behav.
50. Y. P. S. Kanwar, A. K. (2014). Work Life Balance and Burnout as Predictors of Job
Satisfaction in the IT-ITES Industry. The Journal of Business Perspective.