THE EFFECT OF WORKING CONDITION ON

EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE: IN CASE OF

DEBREBERHANWOODPROCESSINGFACTORY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENTOFMANAGEMENT(MBAPROGRAM)

DEMEKETEFERA

JULY,2021
DEBREBERHAN
ETHIOPIA
 DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY
COLLEGEOFBUSINESSANDECONOMICS
DEPARTMENTMANAGEMENT

(MBA PROGRAM)

THE EFFECT OF WORKING CONDITION ON

EMPLOYEE JOB PERFORMANCE: IN CASE OF
DEBREBERHANWOODPROCESSINGFACTORY

BY: DEMEKE TEFERA

ADVISOR:BEKELEMEAZA(PhD)

ATHESISSUBMITTEDTOCOLLEGEOFBUSINESSANDECONOMICS OF
DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MANGEMENT IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD
OF MASTER OF ART IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA)

JULY,2021
DEBREBERHAN,ETHIOPIA
 DECLARATION

I, the undersigned declare that, this research entitled “The Effect of Working Condition on
Employee Job Performance: In Case of Debre Berhan Wood Processing Factory” is the
outcome of my own effort. All sources of materials used in the study are duly acknowledged. I
have produced it independently except for the guidance and suggestion of the research advisor.
This study has not been submitted for any degree in this university or any other university.It is
offered for the partial fulfillment of the master of art in Business Administration.

Name:DEMEKETEFERA

Signature:

Date:

i|Page
 DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY
COLLEGEOFBUSINESSANDECONOMICS
DEPARTMENTOFMANEGEMENT

ENDORSEMENT

As Thesis Research advisor, I hereby certify that I have read and evaluated this thesis prepared,
under my guidance, by DEMEKE TEFERA entitled “The Effect of Working Condition on
Employee Job Performance: In Case of Debre Berhan Wood Processing Factory”. I
recommended that it besubmittedas fulfilling thethesis requirement forthedegreeofmastersof art
in Business Administration.

Name:BEKELEMEAZA(PhD)

Signature:

Date:

ii | P a g e
 DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY
COLLEGEOFBUSINESSANDECONOMICS
DEPARTMENTOFMANAGEMENT

THESISAPPROVAL

As members of Board examiners of the final master thesis open defense examination, we certify
that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by DEMEKE TEFERA entitled “The
Effect of Work Condition on Employee Job Performance: In Case of Debre Berhan Wood
Processing Factory”. We recommend that thesis be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement
for the degree of masters of art in Business Administration.

BoardofExaminers

ExternalExaminer

N a m eS i g n a t u r e D a t e

InternalExaminer

N a m e Signature D a t e

ChairPerson

N a m e Signature D a t e

iii | P a g e
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and for most I would like to praise the Almighty God his unspeakable gifts throughout my
life to win untold and threatening challenges I had met. My next heartfelt gratitude goes to my
advisor Bekele Meaza (PhD) for all his unreserved support, constructive comments and his
cordiality approach in this thesis.

In addition, I would like to express my deep gratitude and I have no word to express my
appreciation to my wife and all my family and relatives, do not forget to thank for whole
heartedly given limitless support in the realization of my dreams.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and colleagues for their kind encouragement and moral
support in my research undertakings.

ii | P a g e
TABLEOFCONTENTS

ENDORSEMENT.........................................................................................................................................ii
THESIS APPROVAL..................................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...........................................................................................................................ii
LISTOFABREVIATIONSANDACRONYMS..........................................................................................v
LISTOF TABLES........................................................................................................................................vi
LISTOF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................vii
LISTOF APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................viii
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTERONE...........................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................1
BackgroundoftheStudy..............................................................................................................................1
StatementoftheProblem.............................................................................................................................4
ObjectiveoftheStudy...................................................................................................................................6
GeneralObjective.......................................................................................................................................6
SpecificObjective........................................................................................................................................6
ResearchQuestions.....................................................................................................................................6
ResearchHypothesis...................................................................................................................................7
SignificanceoftheStudy..............................................................................................................................7
ScopeoftheStudy.........................................................................................................................................8
LimitationoftheStudy.................................................................................................................................8
DefinitionofKeyTerms...............................................................................................................................8
OrganizationoftheStudy..........................................................................................................9
CHAPTERTWO........................................................................................................................................10
LITERATUREREVIEW...........................................................................................................................10
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................10
DefinitionofBasicConcepts......................................................................................................................10
WorkingCondition...................................................................................................................................10
EmployeePerformance.............................................................................................................................18
EmpiricalLiteratureReview....................................................................................................................19
ConceptualFramework............................................................................................................................21
CHAPTERTHREE....................................................................................................................................23

iii | P a g e
RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................23
ResearchDesign........................................................................................................................................23
ResearchApproach...................................................................................................................................23
TargetPopulationandSamplingTechnique.............................................................................................24
TypeandSourceofData.............................................................................................................................24
DataCollectionInstrument.......................................................................................................................24
MethodofDataAnalysis............................................................................................................................25
DescriptiveAnalysis..................................................................................................................................25
EconometricAnalysis...............................................................................................................................25
DataReliabilityandValidity.....................................................................................................................30
EthicalConsiderations..............................................................................................................................30
CHAPTERFOUR.......................................................................................................................................31
RESULTSANDDISCUSSION..................................................................................................................31
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................31
ResponseRate............................................................................................................................................31
DataValidityandReliability.....................................................................................................................32
DemographicBackgroundoftheRespondents.........................................................................................33
Employees’JobPerformance...................................................................................................................36
Work Condition.......................................................................................................................................39
CorrelationAnalysis.................................................................................................................................42
EconometricAnalysis...............................................................................................................................45
TestforBasicAssumptionsofClassicalLinearRegressionModel (CLRM).............................................45
MultipleLinearRegressionAnalysis........................................................................................................50
CHAPTERFIVE.........................................................................................................................................64
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FURTHERRESEARCH............................................................................................................................64
Summary...................................................................................................................................................64
Recommendation......................................................................................................................................67
SuggestionsforFurtherResearch.............................................................................................................69
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................70
APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................................78

iv | P a g e
 LISTOFABREVIATIONSANDACRONYMS

DBWPF DebreBerhanWoodProcessingFactor y

C L R M C l a s s i c a l L i n e r R e g r e s s i o n M o d e l

O L S O r d i n a r y L e a s t S q u a r e

V I F V a r i a n c e I n f l a t i o n F a c t o r

T o L T o l e r a n c e

S E M S i m u l t a n e o u s E q u a t i o n M o d e l

ANOVA A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e

v|Page
 LISTOFTABLES

Table4.1:ResponseRate................................................................................................................32

Table4.2:DataReliability Test.....................................................................................................33

Table4.3:DemographicCharacteristics.......................................................................................35

Table4.4:SummaryStatisticsonEmployees’JobPerformance...................................................38

Table4.5:SummaryStatisticsonWorkCondition........................................................................39

Table4.6:RangesforCorrelationCoefficientsandStrengthofCorrelations................................43

Table4.7:PearsonCorrelationMatrix..........................................................................................44

Table4.8:CollinearityTestamongIndependentVariables..........................................................48

Table4.9:HeteroscedasticityTest.................................................................................................49

Table4.10:OmittedVariable(SpecificationError) Test..............................................................50

Table4.11:ModelsSummary........................................................................................................50

Table4.12:AnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)...................................................................................51

Table4.13:RegressionCoefficients...............................................................................................53

Table4.14:SummaryofHypothesisTesting..................................................................................63

vi | P a g e
 LISTOFFIGURES

Figure2.1:ConceptualFramework..............................................................................................21

Figure4.1:LinearityTest...............................................................................................................46

Figure4.2:NormalityTest.............................................................................................................47

vii | P a g e
 LISTOFAPPENDIX

Appendix1:Questionnaire............................................................................................................78

Appendix2:DescriptiveStatisticsontheDependentVariables.....................................................84

Appendix3:DescriptiveStatisticsontheIndependentVariables.................................................85

Appendix4:MultipleLinearRegressionAnalysisandDiagnosticTests.......................................87

viii | P a g e
 ABSTRACT

Employees are the most valuable asset in any organization. A successful and highly productive
business can be achieved by improving their working condition.This study was conducted to
investigate the effect of work condition on employee job performance of Debre Berhan Wood
Processing Factory (DBWPF). Descriptive and explanatory research designs were adopted.
Data was analyzed with the help of Stata 13 statistical software based on a sample of 222
employees. The Pearson correlation and the multiple linear regression analysis signify existence
of statistically significant relationship between employee’s performance and working condition.
Explicitly, physical work condition of work, occupational health and safety, internal
organizational communication, work place reward, supervisor support and work time were
positively statistically significant in affecting employees’ task and contextual performance
whereas workload had negative and statistically significant effect on employee task and
contextual performance. The study recommended that physical work condition should be
technically sound and ideal; introduction of innovative ways or systems of working,
disseminating information to employees on the risks and hazards involved concerning work and
arranging and executing health and safety training to employees should be promoted and
employers should ensure open communication and should provide positive performance
direction, including positive feedback in order to improve working condition.

Keywords:TaskPerformance,ContextualPerformance,WorkCondition,DebreBerhanWood
Processing Factory (DBWPF)

ix | P a g e
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

BackgroundoftheStudy

The success or failure of any organization basically depends on employee’s performance (Abbas
and Yaqoob, 2009). Besides bringing success to organizations, securing good track of record in
work performance by an employee also leads to growth of individual workers and allows
organizations to compete in this globalized and ever-changing market (Robins and Judge, 2009).
Additionally, it also creates a sense of belongingness within one organization and it raises the
commitment of workforce, minimizes the level of employee turnover, raises goodcommunication
among employee, minimizes absenteeism and provides opportunities for employee development
(Muda, Rafiki and Harahap, 2014; Robins and Judge, 2009). As such, high employee
performance is very important to the individual, organization, society and nation as a whole,
therefore high employee performance has a paramount importance which includes;
increaseproductivity; raises jobsatisfaction ofworkers;helpto strengththepsychologicalmake- up
of workers; increase workers commitment in meeting duties and responsibilities as per standard;
improve the credibility of the organization in the eye of shareholders and potential investors who
have an interest on the organization; help the organization to exhibit a sustained increase in
revenue; and promote workers to new work position concomitant to increase in salaries and
wages of workers’ (Bright, 2005).

In cognizant of the aforementioned issues, (Kahya, 2007; Borman, 2004) consider job
performance as the most important dependent variable in industrial and organizational
psychology. Accordingly, for all of the main applications of this branch of psychology, such as
employee training and job redesigning, the focus is almost always on improving employee job
performance.As such, employees are the most valuable asset of any organization; a successful
and highly productive business can be realized by improving their performance.

Accordingly, Saeed et al. (2013) define employee performance as the method to carry out a task
based on the recommended description; it is the way to complete a job within the clear
boundaries.EmployeePerformanceisthesuccessfulfinishingoffjobsbyaselectedworkeror

1|Page
workers, as established and agreed by an organization through making efficient and effective use
of available resources to pre-defined acceptable standards within a changing environment(Imran,
et al., 2012). Moreover,jobperformanceis theaction orbehavioritselfand not theresult
ofactionsoraconsequence. Therefore,performanceisnotonlyamatterofwhatpeopleachieves but how
they achieve.Borman and Motowidlo (1993), identified two types of employees’ behavior that
could leads to the employees’ performance namely task performance andcontextual performance.
Task performance involves patterns of behaviors that are directly involved in producing goods or
service or activities that provide indirect support for the organization’s core technical processes.
Such criteria including quantity, and quality of output were widely used task performance criteria
to measure employee job performance in the ergonomic studies. Contextual performance is
defined as individual efforts that are not directly related to their main task function but are
important because they shape the organizational,social, and psychological context that serves as
the critical catalyst for task activities and processes (Werner, 2000). When employees help others
complete a task, cooperative with their supervisors, or suggest ways to improve organizational
processes, they are engaging incontextual performance (Van Scotter et al., 2000). As interest
grows in the type of helpful, cooperative, and innovative job performance behavior, it becomes
more important to understand its influence on organizational and individual outcomes.

Several factors can be posited in affecting employees’ performance, among them working
condition is regarded as the most important one in many studies such as (Moenga, Makomereand
Otiso, 2018; Baba and Ghazali, 2017; Aseanty, 2016; Nduku, Mwenda and Wachira, 2015; Ali,
Ali and Adan, 2013; Bhaga, 2013; Kahya, 2007). In this globalized world, intense competition
between organizations has greatly increased due to major changes in input and output market.
Nowadays, organizations often face immense problems with costs as a result of accidents,
employee turnover, lost productivity and absenteeism which could all be related to challenges in
work condition. Working condition plays a paramount role for employees’ performance in any
organization be it is private or public. Currently working condition becomesa critical factor for
accepting and keeping jobs by job applicants.

Working condition plays indispensable role in employee performance, since, a favorable

workplaceenvironmentminimizestherateofaccidents,stressrelatedsicknesses,absenteeism,

2|Page
and employee turnover (Ali, Ali and Adan, 2013). Working condition can determine the level of
employee’s motivation, subsequent performance and productivity. Organization working
condition influences employees’ error rate, level of innovation collaboration with other
employees, absenteeism and ultimately the time period to stay in the job. Better working
conditions,suchashealthandsafety,adequateremuneration,andworklifebalance,showagood
perception by the employees. If bad perceptions of work conditions relate with in employees
work places, unforeseen stress results regarding their work arise from employees, who further
translate to poor motivation and low job satisfaction and performance. For this reason,convenient
workplace conditions are requirements for improving employee’s job satisfaction, productivity
and quality of outcomes (Leblebici, 2012).

Various studies asserted the existence of strong relationship between working condition and
employee job performance. Kingsley (2012) undertakes a study on the impact of office
ergonomics on employee performance in Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC) and
found that deficiencies in office ergonomics affected the performance of employees by varying
degrees ranging from 20-80 percent.Leblebici (2012) also undertake a study on the impact of
workplace qualityon employeeproductivityacasestudyof a foreign privatebankin Turkey and his
finding showed that employees felt motivated while working in a modernized office, well
decoratedand well-arrangedand withgoodstoragefacilities. Tesfu (2019) investigatetheeffects of
working environment on employee performance in Bole Lemi Industrial Park and found that
physical work environment, reward and training have positive and statistically significant impact
on employee performance while, workload and discrimination have negative and statistically
significant impact on employee performance while democratic leadership style and work life
balance have showed statistically insignificant impact on employee performance. Berihu (2017)
investigate factors affecting the performance of employees in Ayka Addis Textile andInvestment
Group. Found that occupational health and safety, working time, wage and income, welfare
facilities, work organization, work load, work life balance, association and collective bargaining
have positive and statistically significant effect on employees’ performance while violence,
harassment and discrimination and training were not statistically significant in impacting
employees’ performance.

3|Page
In general, today’s workplace is different, diverse, and constantly changing, a typical employer-
employee relationship of the old days is not similar to that of todays. Workers are living in a
growing economy and have more job opportunities. Hence, this study examined the effect of
work condition on employeejob performance: in caseof DebreBerhan wood processing factory.

StatementoftheProblem

Working conditions are critical issues in every organization regardless of its size, specifics or
location. Depending on their level, work gives the employee a sense of satisfaction or causes
fatigue, and in many cases even discouragement. At the same time inadequate workingconditions
(including excessive noise, poor lighting, temperature, poor health and safety, poor work
organization) have a negative impact on the functioning of the employee. Frequently appearing
harmful factors such as stress, overwork, fatigue, accidents at work place and occupational
diseases impact the human body in the workplace causes many negative effects. Organizations,
which value high-performance of workload, should therefore remember that it could only be
provided by employees who on the one hand, have opportunities to participate in professional
development, and on the other hand, are performing duties in decent working conditions that do
not threaten their health and lives.

Concerning the factors affecting employee’s performance a number studies were undertaken.
Working condition was identified as a critical determinant of employees’ performance in many
studies for instance (Moenga, Makomere and Otiso, 2018; Berihu, 2017; Nduku, Mwenda and
Wachira,2015;Ali,AliandAdan,2013).However,thesestudiesagglutinatethemeasurementof
employee job performance since they failed to account the two employee performance behaviors
i.e., task performance and contextual performance as propagated by (Kahya, 2007; Borman and
Motowidlo, 1993). Thisstudy constructs a separate measure for task and contextual performance
and will run a separate regression model for these employee performance measures. Also, this
study will use as many as constructs of working condition such as physical condition,
occupational health and safety, work load, work place reward, supervisors support, work hour,
internal organizational communication as compared to the aforementioned studies.

Numerous previous studies on employee performance have revealed that, various factors
canleadtoasatisfactoryperformance.Motivation,skillsandorganizationalsupportwereidentified

4|Page
as determinants of performance (Ghorbanpour, 2014; Inayatullah & Palwasha 2012). While
Kakks, Triralle and Fillipan (2010) believe employee performance depends on factors like job
satisfaction, stress and motivation. Muda, Rafiki, and Harahap (2014) identified stress,
motivation, and communication as the three determinants of employee performance. Aseanty
(2016) consider working ability, motivation and working condition as important elements in
impacting employees’ performance. Also, Baba and Ghazali (2017) regard motivation, working
condition and organizational justice as critical variables affecting employee performance.
However, even if the above studies consider many variables as factors affecting employees’
performance, all of these studies failed to capture the effect of each attribute of the respective
determinants of employees’ performance separately. Especially working condition have many
attributes within it but the above studies studied its aggregate effect on employee performance
and failed to answer questions that are raised regarding the effect of each attribute of working
condition on employee job performance.

Studies on the effect of working condition on employees’ performance highly inclined towards
the service sector. For instance, in academic setting (Delgado-Rodriguez, et.al., 2018; Deasy,
2016; Kiberenge & Elizabeth, 2016; Aisha, Pamoedji & Yassierli 2013), in financial sector
(Nduku, Mwenda & Wachira, 2015; Awan & Tahir, 2015) and in hotels (Alice, Julie &Kennedy,
2018) were undertaken. Accordingly, as far as the issue of working condition and its effect on
employees’ performance is concerned, it is highly crucial to study the matter along specific
sector or company case in order to come up with specific sector or company outcomes. This is
because the existing situations in one sector or company may not be compatibly the same with
that of the other. For this reason, some of the policy implications that are drawn for a specific
sector or company that are structurally diverse may not be effective in addressing issue of the
effect of working condition on employees’ performance.

Employee performance is vital in addressing organizational objectives. Literature shows that

working conditions have a crucial impact on employee performance. Organizations ought to be
aware of the influence of working conditions on employee performance in order to capitalize on
it and to create a competitive edge. In this regard this study will designed to examine widely the
effects of working condition on employee performance keeping in mind in addressing the
existing knowledge gap highlighted above.

5|Page
 ObjectiveoftheStudy

General Objective

The general objective of the study was to examine the effect of working conditions on employee
job performance in case of Debre Berhan wood processing factory.

SpecificObjective

Inaddressingthemajorobjectiveofthestudy,thefollowingspecificobjectivesaredeveloped;

 Toassessbothtaskandcontextualperformanceof employees
 Toexaminetheeffectofphysicalconditiononemployee’sperformance
 Toexaminetheeffectof occupationalhealthandsafetyonemployee’sperformance
 Toexaminetheeffectofworkloadonemployee’s performance
 Toexaminetheeffectof workplacerewardonemployee’sperformance
 Toexaminetheeffectof supervisors’supportonemployee’s performance
 Toexaminetheeffectofworkhoursupportonemployee’sperformance
 Toexaminetheeffectofinternalorganizationalcommunicationonemployee’sperformance

ResearchQuestions

Thestudyisdesignedtoaddressthefollowingresearchquestions;

 WhatisthenatureoftaskandcontextualperformanceofemployeesinDebreBerhan wood
processing factory?
 Whatistheeffectofphysicalconditiononemployee’sperformance?
 Whatistheeffectofoccupationalhealthandsafetyonemployee’sperformance?
 Whatistheeffectofinternalorganizationalcommunicationonemployee’s performance?
 Whatistheeffectof workloadonemployee’sperformance?
 Whatistheeffectofworkplacerewardonemployee’sperformance?
 Whatistheeffectofsupervisors’supportonemployee’sperformance?
 Whatistheeffectofworkhouronemployee’sperformance?

6|Page
 ResearchHypothesis

H A 1 : Physicalconditionofworkhaspositiveandsignificanteffectonemployees ’
performance
H A 2 : Occupationalhealthandsafetyhavepositiveandsignificanteffectonemployees ’
performance
H A 3 : Internalorganizationalcommunicationhaspositiveandsignificanteffecto n
employees’performance
H A 4 : Workloadhasnegativeandsignificanteffectonemployees’ performanc e
H A 5 : Workplacerewardhaspositiveandsignificanteffectonemployees’performanc e
H A 6 : Supervisors’supporthaspositiveandsignificanteffecton employees’performance
H A 7 : Workhourhaspositiveandsignificanteffectonemployees’ performanc e

SignificanceoftheStudy

Good working condition is related to organizational commitment and consequent increased

productivityandorganizationaleffectiveness/successes.Theorganizationcannotachieveitsaims and
objectives without having a good working condition as this is a key factor for organizational
successes.

This research scientifically examined the effect of working condition on employees’ job
performancein DebreBerhan woodprocessing factoryso that it will help themanagement ofthe
factory to assess whether the prevailing working condition within the factory is favorable or not.
And also, similar organizations participating in the wood processing sector can use the output of
this study as spring board to learn from the experience of Debre Berhan wood processing factory
concerning the nature of the factory’s working condition. Besides organizations found within the
wood processing sector, the finding of the study also help other organizations to adapt good
working conditions, to adjust and take corrective actions on their working conditions to meet
standards.

In addition, the output of the study could also serve as a guide for other researchers who are
interestedtoundertaketheirstudyonthesametopicarea.Policymakersandorganizations

7|Page
working towards improving working conditions of employees can use the output of this study as
a source of information to see areas needing further improvement.

Scopeof theStudy

This study was targeted to assess the effect of working conditions on employees’ performance in
case of Debre Berhan wood processing factory. In this regard, geographically the study was
limited to consider Debre Berhan wood processing factory found in the city of Debre Berhan.
Data on the study variables ofinterest was collected merely through structured questionnaireand
other data collection instruments were not used. Additionally, the study was delimited to
investigate the effect of working conditions namely physical condition, occupational health and
safety, work load, work place reward, supervisors support, work hour and internal organizational
communication and other control variables i.e., employees experience, salary and education
status on employees’ performance.

LimitationoftheStudy

Limited access to different papers undertaken on the same topic are can be put as one of the
prominent factors that bind the researcher from getting efficient outcome concerning the study.
Besides this, COVID-19 may bind the researcher in approaching and guiding respondents in
filling questionnaires and getting additional information concerning working conditions and
employees’ job performance. But all these limitations did not fade the outcome of the study at
large.

DefinitionofKey Terms

 Working Condition:refers to the working environment and all existing circumstances

affecting labor in the workplace’, including working hours, rest periods, work schedules, to
remuneration as well as physical conditions and mental demands that exist in the work place.
 Employee Performance: refers the successful finishing off jobs by a selected worker or
workers, as established and agreed by an organization through making efficient and effective
useofavailableresourcestopre-definedacceptablestandardswithinachangingenvironment

8|Page
 Task Performance: refers performance that involves patterns of behaviors that are directly
involved in producing goods or service or activities that provide indirect support for the
organization’s core technical processes.
 Contextual Performance: refers individual efforts that are not directly related to their main
task function but are important because they shape the organizational, social, and
psychological context that serves as the critical catalyst for task activities and processes.
 Altruism:refersanemployee’stendencytohelpotherco-workerswithinthefirmwith their work
i.e., helping behaviors.
 Conscientiousness:refersemployee’sdedicationtothejobbycomplianceto organizational
norms and the need to surpass formal requirements

OrganizationoftheStudy

This study was organized in five parts. The first part presented background of the study,
statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research question, research hypothesis,
significance of the study, scope of the study, limitation of the study, definition of key terms and
organization of the study. The second part cover reviews on theoretical and empirical literatures
andconceptual frameworktothesubjectmatter. Partthreedealwith researchmethodologies that were
followed in the study. Part four deal with result and discussion. Finally, the last part of the study
present, summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations.

9|Page
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATUREREVIEW

Introduction

One of the essential preliminary tasks in undertaking a research study is to go through the
existing literature in order to acquaint oneself with the available body of knowledge in the
particular area of interest. Reviewing the literature can be time consuming, daunting and
frustrating, but it is also rewarding. Since literature review is an integral part of the research
process and makes a valuable contribution to almost every operational step, it has value even
before the first step; that is, when we are merely thinking about a research question that we may
want to find answers to through our research journey. In the initial stagesof research, it will help
to establish the theoretical roots of the study, to clarify ideas and to develop research
methodology. Later in the process, the literature review serves to enhance and consolidate the
researchers’ knowledge base and helps to integrate the researcher’s findings with the existing
body of knowledge. Since an important responsibility in research is to compare one’s findings
withthoseofothers,itisherethattheliteraturereviewplaysan extremely importantrole.During the
write-up of report, it helps the researcher to integrate his/her findings with existingknowledge
that is, to either support or contradict earlier research. Therefore, the higher the academic level of
a research, the more important a thorough integration of findings with existing literature
becomes. Keeping in view of this section of the study is devoted for an extensive literature
review concerning the effect of working condition on employee’s performance.

DefinitionofBasicConcepts

WorkingCondition

According to business dictionary, working conditions refers to the working environment and all
existing situations affecting employees in the workplace’, including working hours, rest periods,
work schedules, remuneration as well as physical conditions and mental demands that exist inthe
work place. Working conditions are created says Gerber et al., (1998) states that the
interactionsofemployeeswiththeirorganizationalclimate,includingpsychologicalaswellas

10 | P a g e
thephysical working conditions.Workplaceenvironment is themost critical factorin keeping an
employee satisfied in today’s business world. Today’s workplace is different, diverse, and
constantlychanging.The typicalemployer/employeerelationshipoftheolddaysisnotsimilarto that of
todays. Workers are living in a growing economy and have more job opportunities. This
combination of factors has created an environment where the business needs its employees more
than the employees need the business (Bhawsar, Paharia and Nougriaya, 2014).

The conditions under which a job is performed can be different-from those completely
comfortable to those very difficult and dangerous to employees’ life and health.Difficult working
conditions can be influenced by: External factors: climate-meteorological conditions,
temperature, humidity, lighting in the workplace, noise and interference, gases, radiation, dust,
smoke and other harmful factors; Subjective factors that include gender and age of the worker,
fatigue, monotony, unfavorable posture during work, etc. Factors related to the organization of
production such as duration of the work shift, work schedule, working time, work pace,excessive
strain etc. For employee to be productive they need social support, good working conditions,
good environment, interpersonal relation with management and peers, human resource policies
(Chiang and Birtch, 2010). Different studies tried to examine differentattributes of working
condition to examine its effect on employees’ performance. The most appealing attributes of
working conditions that was used in this study discussed as follows.

PhysicalConditionofWork

The physical environment in which employee performs their work has an impact on their
performance aswellasit limitsthesuccessof the organization Ismailetal., (2010).Thephysical work
environment consists of internal and external office layout, temperature, comfort zone and also
the work setting or arrangement.

Vischer (2007) include the spatial layouts, noise, furniture and lightning under physical working
condition factor. The physical work atmosphere includes comfort level, ventilation and lighting.
This option assists on practical and aesthetic facet, the interior decoration and style of the work
atmosphere that ultimately improves employee expertise and necessitates higher performance.
The comfort level and temperature additionally well influence health of workers. Niemela et al.
(2002) revealed thatif thereishightemperature theperformance of the employee isreduced,and

11 | P a g e
low temperature has relation to performance of manual tasks. Office style encourages staff to
figure in a very bound manner by the way their work stations are designed. Closed workplace
plan, which can carry with it every worker having a separate workplace of their own or some
individuals in each office, permits workers a larger quantity of privacy than open arrange work
place layout. It permits staff to figure in peace and quiet, keeping them centered on their tasks
whilenot plenty ofdistraction.Itadditionallyoffersstaffathinking frame and ability whilenot a lot of
distraction.

The weather of physical work setting has to be correct so the workers wouldn't be stressed
whereas doing their job McCoy and Evans (2005). Physical components play a vital role in
developing the networkand relationships at work. All in all, the physical workatmosphereought
to support the specified performance.

In addition, Vischer (2008) stressed that on the importance of geographical location since it
provides support to the employees to be close to their jobs. It should be conducive enough to
enable performance of tasks by employees. The following dimensions of physical work
environment including: lighting, ventilation, noise, ergonomics, and spatial layout was
considered in this study.

HA1:Physical work condition has positive and significant effect on employees’ jobperformance.

OccupationalHealthandSafety

Occupational health and safety is one of the main constructs of working condition; and defined
from the occupational hazard perspective as what is caused by or connected with a person’s job.
Occupational hazardis a risk ordanger connected with aparticularjob. Ahazardis anything that can
cause harm (e.g., electricity defective plants, poor-housekeeping) and a risk is the chance, large
or small, of harm actually being done by the hazard (Armstrong, 2006). The World Health
Organization (WHO) has defined health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-
being and not merely the absence of disease or illness or infirmity (Khanka, 2003). The term
health is a positive and dynamic concept. In common parlance health implies absence of disease.
As regards the industrial health, it refers to a system of public health and preventive medicine
whichisapplicabletoindustrialconcerns.ILO/WHOcommitteeonhealthisworthquoting,

12 | P a g e
prevention among workers of ill-health caused by the working conditions.Safety means freedom
from the occurrence or risk of injury or loss. As regards industrial safety means the protection of
employees or workers from the danger or risk of industrial accidents (Khanka, 2003). Thus,
occupational health and safety encompasses the social, mental and physical well-being of
workers that is the “whole person”.

Occupational health and safety therefore aim at protecting workers from health hazards
associated with work and the working environment, promoting their health and providing a safe
and health working environment. Safety is primarily the responsibility of the management. This
responsibility should rest on the shoulders of all cadres of management, such as plant manager,
production manager, chief engineer, personnel manager, maintenance Engineer, individual
foreman, safety officer or director (Rao, 2008). However, occupational health and safety is
everyone’s responsibility i.e., every employee must protect himself or herself and those he/she
works with. It is not just the responsibility of one’s manager or safety officer. He goes ahead to
saysuccessfuloccupationalhealthandsafetypracticerequiresthecollaborationandparticipation of
both employers and workers in health and safety programs i.e., teamwork.

HA2:Occupational health and safety has positive and significant effect on employees’
jobperformance.

InternalOrganizationalCommunication

Communication in organization also plays important role in enhancing employees’ job

performance. When employees have an opportunity to take part in decision making, they willfeel
that they are important persons for the organization. On the other hand, insufficient orlimited
internal organizational communication would result in low level of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, employee performance and finally low organizational performance.
Good communication practices are at the heart of every successful business. Communication
serves two essential functions in every organization. It disseminates the information needed by
employees to get things done and builds relationships of trust and commitment. Without it,
employees end up working in silos with no clear direction, vague goals and little opportunity for
improvement.

13 | P a g e
Good communication is a necessary tool in achieving high quality of performance and
maintaining strong working relationships within the organization. The trust among employees
can be build up if everyone is spending time into delivering clear communication. Effective
communication boosts employee productivity and binds employees together. It builds team and
increases employee performance and at the same time it reduces employee turnover in the
organization. However, weak communication in the organization will lead to loss of confidence
and ineffective operation (Bucker, et.al., 2014). Organizations that are deficient in their
communication do not achieve the same performance as those that communicate well (Thomaz,
2010). Researchers such as Bakar, Walters and Halim (2014) had expressed the importance of
communication in organizations. Yet, they found that the importance of communication among
employees has often being neglected in the organization.

HA3:Internalorganizationalcommunicationhaspositiveandsignificanteffectonemploye
es’ job performance.

WorkLoad

Workload is defined as the extent of the processing capacity that is expected during the
performance of a task and thus involves the interaction between resource supply and taskdemand
(Young et al., 2008). Additionally, DiDomenico and Nassbaum (2008) asserted that workload is
determined by the relationship between task demands, the situations under whichthat 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 a variety of other factors.

More clearly, work overload is happened when employees perceive the time and resource
available as not enough to complete the existing duty. Two types of Work over load areidentified
by researcher: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative overload happens when people feel they
lack the ability required to complete their jobs or that performance standards have been set too
high. On the other hand, quantitative overload results from having too many things to do or
insufficient time to complete a job‖ (Ivancevic et al., 2012).

The above definitions suggest that workload is concerned with the relationship between the task
demandandthesupplyofresources,whichincludeskills,knowledge,behaviorandtask

14 | P a g e
perception (Young et al., 2008; DiDominico and Nussbaum, 2008). Workload can also be
defined the expenditure incurred by a person, given their capacities (resources), while achievinga
particular level of performance on a particular task with certain demands (Hart and 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 and Armets, 1998). According to the points if the workload increased short term
productivity improve, but it can decrease long-term productivity.

HA4:Workloadhasnegativeandsignificanteffectonemployees’jobperformance.

WorkPlaceReward

The work area consists of different interrelated factors. These factors are improving the qualityof
work life that requires understanding those dimensions and factors that related to job satisfaction
(Clifford, 1985). Numerous researches have been conducting on rewards that are significantly
related to job satisfaction. For instance, Lam’s et al. (2001) found that positive relationship
between job satisfaction and rewards exists and rewards areconsidered key factor in determining
job satisfaction of employee. Rewards are divided into two categories intrinsic rewards and
extrinsic rewards and these rewards further divided into subcategories (Clifford, 1985).

Intrinsic rewards are the task significance, task autonomy and task involvement. Task
significance is critical factor in today economy and in which employees doing work that is
beneficial and helpful for others. Task autonomy is the degree of independence and freedom in
scheduling of work and determined procedures that employees carry out at work (Hackman,
1980).

Extrinsic rewards are the social and organizational rewards. Social rewards refer those that
canbederivedfrominteractionwithothersonjob.Luddy(2005)friendlyrelationshipsopportunities on
place of work will increase satisfaction of employees and intention to leave the organization can
be decreased through job involvement and organizational commitment. Supervisor and co-
worker’s relationship are key factors of employee job performance, higher level of job
satisfaction is associated with good supervisor and co-worker relationship. And on the other
hand,organizationalrewardsarethetangiblerewardsthatarevisibleinnaturelikepay,

15 | P a g e
promotions, and other job-related benefits.Extrinsic rewards are external to the task of the job,
including pay, work condition, fringe benefits, security, and promotion, contract of service,
salary, incentives, bonuses, payments and job security the work environment and conditions of
work. Different researcher’s findings show that extrinsic rewards are significantly more
correlated with job satisfaction as compared to intrinsic rewards.

Reward and Recognition is also an important factor to consider in the sense that it is typically
used either to reward an employee for a behavior or recognize and employee for results.

In the current employees' market, employee reward translates to employee retention, as

employees who feel that their company appreciates their work and contributions experience
higher job satisfaction and are less likely to leave.

HA5:Workplacerewardhaspositiveandsignificanteffectonemployees’job performance.

SupervisorsSupport

Supervisor support implies supervisor’s behavior in helping their employees to demonstrate the
skills, knowledge, and attitudes collect from the training program (Rhoades and Eisenberger,
2002). According to Bhatti et al. (2013), supervisor plays an important role in training
effectiveness.Withoutgettingsupportfromthesupervisor,thetransferoftrainingprocesscannot be
successful. This is because the employee will tend to lost focus when they are not monitor or
supervise. It is said to be one of the most powerful tools in enhancing transfer of training and
supported by numerous studies (Ismail et al., 2010).

According to Putter (2013), the support can be in terms of emotional, instrumental, and at the
same time support which are provided before and after the training program. As van der Klink et
al.,(2001)mentionedprovidingfeedbackalsowouldbeoneformof supervisors’support.Thisis
because feedback is relatively seen as part of supervisor support whereby the supervisor identify
which area of their employees needs to be improved, encouraging them to join the training
program, and to helping the employees to apply the learned skills upon completing their job.

The supervisor is responsible for leading and motivates the employees to perform better in the
organization create the environment that brings the positive attitude. The supervisors’ positive
feedbackforcedemployeestojobsatisfaction.Supervisorsupporthelpsemployeestoincrease

16 | P a g e
the commitment and loyalty of employees through job satisfaction and also defined as the extent
to which employees believe their supervisors value their contributions, offer assistance, and care
about their well- being (Kossek et al., 2011). As supervisors are agents of the organization,
measuring supervisor support allows employers to take corrective action to ensure thatemployees
view supervisors favorably and create stronger organizational connections (Eisenberger et al.,
2002).

According to Paterson et al. (2014) that supervisor support helps to foster responsive work
environment. Apart from that, Ismail et al., (2010) stated that supervisor is also responsible for
allocating budget for their employee’s developmental purpose. This is because, each individual
has the rights to increase their knowledge, skills, and abilities, and hence, this can only be
achieved when they undergo the training program provided by the organization.

Further, Goleman (2000) mentioned that good supervisor should be able to develop achievable
targets, spread positive attitudes thorough out the organization, as well as increase the
employees’ awareness on why the training is fundamentally important for them. Congruently,
these objectives are achievable if the supervisor gives full support to their employees. As amatter
of fact, the supervisor themselves must have basic understanding of development concept before
theycanfacilitate theiremployees (Karatepe,2013).Thisisbecause whenthesupervisors have good
understanding about the development concept, it increases the employee confidence that their
supervisor is qualified and can lead them.

If supervisors are reluctant to give support to their employees, most of the time they only give
negative feedback to their employees rather than positive feedback (Nijman et al., 2006). They
only see the negative side of their employees without noticing that their employees have done
great job in performing the task, duties, and responsibilities. As a result, the employees feel
demotivate, stress, and have high intention to leave the organization (Madi et al., 2011).
Nonetheless, supervisor is responsible to give support to their employees as it could eliminate
these negatives behaviors from spreading among employees throughout the organization.

HA6:Supervisorsupporthaspositiveandsignificanteffectonemployees’jobperformance.

17 | P a g e
WorkTime

Kim (2000) categorized work time used as positive and negative, any amount of work time used
to handle personal financial matters, whether positive or negative, may be an indicator of lost
productivity. Most people do not experience serious negative effects after one night of work, but
problems arise following a series of consecutive night shifts. These include fatigue, decreased
productivity and emotional exhaustion (Knauth and Hornberger, 2003). According to a numberof
authors (Golden, 2012; Kelliher and Anderson, 2010; Messenger, 2004), workers’ ability to
choose their working time arrangements has a positive impact on job performance and
productivity. This choice turns out to be a powerful factor in determining an increase in
productivity. It results in a more satisfied workforce who is more committed and productive.
Conversely, ignoring this issue may lead to a situation in which employees act contrary to the
organization’s interests, through increased absenteeism, lateness, reduced focus on the job tasks,
attention being diverted to personal matters, and ultimately searching for alternative jobs and
resigning.

Visser (1989) shows that over half the private firms reduced operating hours in the early 1980’s
and this working hour’s reduction was mainly used to cut unproductive hours, mostly by
interrupting company operations between Christmas and New Year. According to Bosch and
Lehndorff(2001)theworkinghour’sreductionwenthandinhandwithimprovementsinrelative
international competitiveness because of the additional productivity gains by the cuts in working
hours.

HA7:Worktimehaspositiveandsignificanteffectonemployees’jobperformance.

EmployeePerformance

A number of scholars has been defined employee performance based on their understanding
among them is Borman (2004), who states that employees’ performance is the most important
dependent variables in an industrial and organizational psychology. Even though the basic
definition of the term infers to job related activities expected of a worker and how well those
activities were executed, employee performance stands for employee behavior and performance
at work. From this definition we can infer that work performance is the actions
orimplementationoftasksthathavebeencompletedbysomeoneinacertainperiodoftimeand

18 | P a g e
can be measured because it relates to the quality and quantity of work. Saeed et al. (2013) who
define employee performance as the method to carry out a task based on the recommended
description;itistheway tocompleteajob withintheclearboundaries. EmployeePerformanceis
thesuccessful finishing offjobs by aselected workerorworkers,as established and agreed by an
organization through making efficient and effective use of available resources to pre-defined
acceptable standards within a changing environment (Imran, et al., 2012). Employeeperformance
is also seen as the achievement of the desired result of skilled employees in some specific time
and limited resources (Prasetya & Kato, 2011).

EmpiricalLiteratureReview

The working conditions pertaining in the working environment for employees are vital for
productivity growth of the organization. Negative perception of the working conditions of
organization in employees may result in absenteeism, stress related illness, and loss of
productivity and commitment towards the organization. Organizations which have good working
conditions are said to experience greater productivity (Bhawsar et.al, 2014). This part of thestudy
review the empirical finding of various studies on the effect of work condition onemployee
performance.

Zhon, Isfenti & Rulianda (2018) undertake a study on the influence of leadership style, reward
system, working conditions on the work performance of employees at the State Plantation of
Merbau Pagar, Indonesia. Employing a sample 105 employs they get that leadership style,reward
system and working conditions significantly influence work performance and they found that
working condition as the most dominant factor in influencing work performance.

Kahya (2007) conducted a study on the effects of job characteristics (physical efforts and job
grade), and working conditions (environmental conditions and hazards)in addition to experience
and education level on task performance and contextual performance. A total of 154 employees
in 18 teams at a medium-sized metal company participated in this study. Seven criteria for task
performanceand16forcontextualperformancewereusedformeasuringemployeeperformance.
Theresultsshowedthat there weresubstantial relationshipsbetween employeeperformance both job
grade and environmental conditions. Poor workplace conditions (physical efforts,
environmentalconditions,andhazards)resultindecreasingemployeeperformanceconsistedof

19 | P a g e
following organization rules, quality, cooperating with coworkers to solve task problems,
concentrating the tasks, creativity, and absenteeism.

Samuel, Lilian & Anita (2015) in their study on the effects of working conditions onperformance
of employees of Kenya Commercial Bank assess the effect of physical conditions, explore the
effect of occupational health an organizational communication on performance of employees of
Kenya Commercial Bank. A sample of 172 employees was subjected to stratified random
sampling and data was collected through questionnaires. The result of their regression model
showed that physical conditions had imposed great effect on the performance of employees while
occupational health and safety had the least positive effect on performance of employees. The
study recommend that Kenya Commercial Bank should put more effort in ensuring favorable
working conditions and should focus more on the physical work conditions which had shown a
great effect on performance of employees.

Atya, Pamoedji & Yassierli (2013) tried empirically to prove the effects of working ability,
working condition, motivation, and incentives on employee’s multi-dimensional performance. A
questionnaire was designed and disseminated randomly to 150 staff of a famous university in
Indonesia and their result showed that working conditions, incentives and motivation had a
statistically significant effect on employee performance. Furthermore, the findings also revealed
that workload, facilities, and expectancy had a negative effect on employee performance.
Meanwhile, working group, salary, job security, achievement, fairness, and goals had a positive
effect on employee performance.

Abdul& Tafique (2015) investigated the impact of working environment on productivity of

employees. Banks and insurance companies were selected for conducting this study. It was
observed that the factors like supervisor support, relation with co-workers, training and
development, attractive and fast incentives and recognition plans, adequate work load at work
place are helpful in developing a working environment that has positive impact on employee’s
level of productivity in the organizations.

20 | P a g e
 ConceptualFramework

The conceptual framework of this study was constructed from available literature based on the
purpose and constructs adopted in this study. The study bases seven working condition attributes
namely, physical condition of work, occupational health and safety, internal organizational
communication, work load, work place reward, supervisors support and work time. These
attributes of working condition are interrelated and reflect the independent variables in thisstudy.
Employee job performance, the dependent variable is captured through the perceived response of
the employees of Debre Berhan wood processing factory who are going to take part in this study.

Figure2.1:ConceptualFramework

PhysicalConditionofWork

OccupationalHealthandSafety

InternalOrganizational
Communication EmployeeJobPerformance
TaskPerformance
ContextualPerformance
WorkPlaceReward

SupervisorsSupport

WorkTime

WorkLoad

Source:ResearcherBasedonLiteratureReview,2020

21 | P a g e
The above conceptual framework depicts the positive linkage between physical condition of
work,occupationalhealthandsafety, internalorganizationalcommunication, workplace reward,
supervisors support and work time and employee job performance. However, work load is
negatively related to employee job performance. From the figure, the boxes with dash line type
signify working condition attributes. The thick arrow from left to right reflects the influence of
working condition attributes on employee job performance.

22 | P a g e
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

ResearchDesign

Aresearch design is that thearrangement ofconditions forthegathering and analysis ofdatain a

manner that aims to mix relevance to the research purpose with the economy throughout a
procedure (Kothari, 2004). The researcher used a descriptive and explanatory research design.
Explanatory research designs help to identify cause-effect relationships between the dependent
variable and independent variables. On the other hand, descriptive research sets to describe
andtointerpretwhat's.Itlooksatindividuals,institutions,methods,andmaterialstodescribeclassify and
analyses interpret entities. That means the subject of this study will be appropriate to study the
effect of working condition on employee job performance of Debre Berhan wood processing
factory. The objective of descriptive research is to explain a phenomenon and its characteristics.
This research is more concerned with what rather than how or why something has happened.
Therefore, observation and survey tools are often used to gather data (Gall, 2007). In such
research, the data is also collected qualitatively; but it is often analyzed quantitatively, using
frequencies, percentages, averages, or other statistical analyses to determine the link.

ResearchApproach

According to Creswell (2009), there are three approaches in conducting scientific research, i.e.,
qualitative, quantitative and mixed approach. Best and Kahn (2006) stated that research can be
qualitative if it describes events and persons scientifically without the use of numerical datawhile
quantitative research consists of researches in which data can be analyzed in terms of numbers. A
mixed approach is an approach that combines both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Therefore, the mixed approach was used in this study as both qualitative and quantitative data
was collected and analyzed.

23 | P a g e
 TargetPopulationandSamplingTechnique

The population is defined as the entire collection of an individual from that the researchers
collect data. It is the entire group that the researcher is interested in (Jackson, 2008).The total
targetpopulationofthis study wasemployees workinginDebreBerhan woodprocessingfactory
located in Debre Berhan city. As a result, the target population of the study was 468 (Debre
Berhan Wood Processing Factory HR Department, 2021).

Following Yamane (1973) sample size determination, the total number of respondents of the
study will be determined. Using 5% sampling error the sample size for this particular study was
determined as;

= = =.≈
+() +∗( .)
Where:
n=samplesize
N=Populationsize(N=468) e =
Sampling error (e = 0.05)

10%allowancefornon-responserate=n*0.1=216*0.1=21

Allowing 10% non-response rate a total of 237 employees of Debre Berhan Wood Processing
Factor were involved as a respondent in this particular study. The total sample size was
proportionally distributed across each working unit found within the factory.

TypeandSourceofData

The study merely relies on primary data source. Primary data areoriginated by the researcher for
the specific purpose of addressing the problem at hand.The primary data needed to address the
studyobjectivewas collectedfrom employeesof DebreBerhanwood processingfactory through
questionnaire.

DataCollectionInstrument

Data collection is the process of gathering and measuring information on variables of interest, in
anestablishedsystematicapproachthatallowsonetoanswerstatedresearchquestions,test

24 | P a g e
hypotheses, and evaluate outcomes. There are different methods for data collection identified in
different kinds of literature, including questionnaire, interview, focus group discussion,
observation etc. A questionnaire is a form that is prepared and distributed to secure responses
(Singh, 2006).

The researcher used close-ended questionnaires to collect primary data from employees of the
factory. This study used a questionnaire to collect primary data because the questionnaire is
considered as the most feasible tool to reach respondents in the given period. Questionnaire
proves to be the most common data collection instrument, appropriate enough to help the
researcher askquestions andobtaindatawith ease. Inall,thequestionnaire was organizedintwo parts
the first part related to respondents' demographics, and the second part related to the working
condition and employees’ job performance.

MethodofDataAnalysis

The raw data that was obtained by questionnaire was checked for any inconsistencies with the
help of statistical software i.e., STATA (version 13). Both descriptive and econometric analysis
were employed as a means to analyze collected data.

DescriptiveAnalysis

Descriptive analysis used for interpreting and presenting the data in this research. This analysis
tool is important because it enables the researcher to meaningfully describe the distribution of
scores using different statistical measures (Mugenda, 2008). Tables also used to present the
results. A correlation analysis used to see the closeness of working condition attributes and
employee job performance. The correlation between the variables was performed using the
Pearson correlation coefficient, which was computed to establish the strength of the relationship
between the dependent variable (employee job performance) and the independent variable
(attributes of working condition).

EconometricAnalysis

Econometric analysis using multiple linear regression analysis was employed in this study to
showtheeffectofworkingconditiononemployeejobperformance.Oncetheregressionmodel

25 | P a g e
is specified corresponding model diagnostic tests like linearity test, normality test,
multicollinearity test, heteroscedasticity test and omitted variable test was performed. Then,
hypothesis testing in line with interpretation of the regression coefficients was take part.

ModelSpecification

In order to show the effect of working condition on employee job performance, the Ordinary
Least Squares (OLS)regression model was employed. As the existingliteratures imply, thereare
many explanatory variables which are capable of determining employee job performance.
However, since it is not possible to address all the variables that influence employee job
performance because of technical and economic reasons and difficulty in measuring certain
variables, this study adopt the regression model considering only the attributes of working
condition to predict employee job performance. But since employee performance constitute two
employee behaviors i.e., Task performance and contextual performance, the researcherdeveloped
two regression models. Following Gujarati (2004), the general multiple regression model was
specified as follows:

:=++++++++
:=++++++++

Where, FP=TaskPerformance
CP=ContextualPerformance
PCW = Physical Condition of Work
OHS=OccupationalHealthandSafety WL
= Work Load
WPR=WorkPlaceReward SS
= Supervisors Support WT =
Work Time
IOC=InternalOrganizationalCommunication
= Errorterms
, , , , , , ,,,,,,reunknownparameter.
0123456

26 | P a g e
VariablesMeasurement

In order to address the objective of the study, a structured questionnaire was developed. The
questionnairewasarrangedinthreepartsi.e.,part one concerning demographiccharacteristicsof
respondents, part two concerning employees’ task and contextual performance and part three
concerning constructs/attributes/dimensions of work condition

The second part of the questionnaire was used to measure the dependent variable employee job
performance using 23 items adapted from Borman and Motowidlo (1993), Van Scotter et.al.,
(2000) and Kahya (20007). Further, the 23 items were arranged in to task performance and
contextual performance has 9 and 14 items respectively. Items within contextual performance
further arranged in two constructs namely altruism and conscientiousness consisting 6 and 8
items respectively. Therating scoreused was 5-point Likert scalein which 1 =strongly disagree, 2
= disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree.

The third part of the questionnaire was used to measure the seven constructs of workingcondition
adapted from (Ndudu, Mwenda & Wachira, 2015; Kahya, 2007). The questionnaire contains a
total of consists of 38 items related to work condition, in order to evaluate the perception of
employees working condition in Debre Berhan Wood Processing Factory (DBWPF). Further the
38 items or questions were arranged in to seven constructs/attributes/dimensions of work
condition (5 for physical work condition; 5 for occupational health and safety; 6 for internal
organizational communication; 5 for workload; 8 for work place reward; 5 for supervisor support
and 4 for work time). The rating score used was 5-pointLikerscale inwhich
1=stronglydisagree,2= disagree,3=neitherdisagreenoragree,4
=agreeand 5=strongly agree.

TestsforClassicalLinearRegressionModel(CLRM)Assumptions

Classical linear regression models i.e., the multiple linear regression models to be used in this
study need to fulfill the basic assumptions. Before regression analysis, the basic assumptions of
classical linear regression model like linearity test, normality test, multicollinearity test,
heteroscedasticity test and omitted variable test was performed.

27 | P a g e
(a) Linearity

In order to test for linearity between the dependent variable and the independent variables
involved in the regression model P-P plot was made on the regression model standardized
residuals to see the linearity of the residuals.

(b) NormalityTest

A normal distribution or a Gaussian distribution assumes that the populations from which the
samples are taken are normally distributed. Normal distributions take the form of a bell-shaped
curve. (Liao et al., 2004) Kurtosis, skewness and their standard errors are common descriptive
statistics that measuretheshapeofthedistribution. Skewness refersto the skewofadistribution.
Kurtosis refers to the peakiness of a distribution and measures the relationship between a
distribution’s tails and its most numerous values. (Everitt, 2006) Even though kurtosis can
leadtoanunderestimationofvariance,withbiggersamples(200+)thisriskisreduced(Tabachnick&
Fidell,2007).Acommonlyusedrule-of-thumbtestfornormalityistorun descriptivestatisticsto obtain
skewness and kurtosis. The results are then divided by the standard errors. Skewness and kurtosis
should be within the +2 to -2 range when the data are normally distributed (Liao et al, 2004).

(c) TestforMulticollinearity

Multicollinearity referred to the existence of more than one exact linear relationship, and
collinearity refers to the existence of a single linear relationship. But this distinction is rarely
maintained in practice, and multicollinearity refers to both cases (Gujarati, 2004). Before taking
the selected variables into the logit model, it is necessary to check for the existence of
multicollinearity among the continuous variables and verify the associations among discrete
variables. The reason for this is that the existence of multicollinearity will affect seriously the
parameter estimates. If multicollinearity turns out to be significant, the simultaneous presence of
the two variables will attenuate or reinforce the individual effects of these variables. In short, the
coefficients of the interaction of the variables indicate whether or not one of the two associated
variables should be eliminated from model analysis. In this study following (Gujarati, 2004) a
VarianceInflationFactors(VIF)andTolerance(ToL)techniqueswereemployedtodetectthe

28 | P a g e
problem of multicollinearity. The mean Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for the independent
variables also confirms the absence of multi-collinearity problem since mean VIF < 10.

(d) TestforHeteroscedasticity

Homoscedasticity means that the conditional variances of each error term of the identical across
all observations. The opposite of homoscedasticity is heteroscedasticity.When the variances of
the error term become variable; this condition is known as heteroscedasticity. The problem of
heteroscedasticity is more likely to be present in the case of cross-sectional data than time-series
data (Gujarati, 2004). There are several tests available for identifying the problem of
heteroscedasticity, among them Brush-Pagan and White’s test were used in this study to check
whether heteroscedasticity problems exist or not.

(e) AutocorrelationTest

When the error term in one time period is positively correlated with the error term in theprevious
time period, we face the problem of (positive first-order) autocorrelation. This is common in
time-series analysis and leads to downward-biased standard errors (and, thus, to incorrect
statistical tests and confidence intervals) (Salvator and Reagle, 2002). Both the Brush- Godfrey
and Durbin-Watson tests were employed to check autocorrelation.

(f) OmittedVariableTest

Although theoretical considerations should be your primary guide to functional form selection,
there are many instances when economic theory or common sense isn’t enough. This is wherethe
RESET test is useful. RESET can be used as a crude check to determine whether you’ve made an
obvious error in specifying the functional form. It is NOT really a test for omitted variables
instead it is a test of the adequacy of your functional form. Ramsey has proposed a general test of
specification error called RESET (regression specification error test) (Gujarati, 2004).

29 | P a g e
 DataReliabilityandValidity

Validity is important because it determines what survey questions to use, and helps ensure that
researchers are using questions that truly measure the issues of importance. The validity of a
survey is considered to be the degree to which it measures what it claims to measure. Validity
refers to the extent to which an empirical measure adequately reflects the real meaning of the
concept under consideration (Babbie, 2013). On the other, reliability is the quality of
measurement method that suggests that the same data would have been collected each time in
repeated observations of the same phenomenon (Babbie, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha was used to
examine the reliability of the measurement scale. The validity of the data was checked throughan
intense communication with the research advisor, colleagues and industry operators before
handing to the respective potential respondents.

EthicalConsiderations

In the process of the study, the following ethical issues were considered. Before starting to
undertake the study a letter of cooperation from Debre Berhan University to DebreBerhan wood
processing factory was written and a permit to collect the necessary data required for this study
was obtained from Debre Berhan wood processing factory. Furthermore, in order to get an
informed consent from the respondents, the purpose of the study was explained clearly to
employees of the factory. They were asked to give their informed consent orally before fillingout
the questionnaire. Moreover, they were informed that any information obtained from them is
promised to be kept confidential and they were informed that the data going to be used only for
academic purpose, and in case a need arises to use it for any other purposes itwould done soonly
after they have given their consent.

30 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTSANDDISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter deals with result and discussion concerning the data collected to address theresearch
objectives that were proposed in the introduction part of the study. On the basis of the response
obtained from employees of Debre Berhan wood processing factory, the data were presented in
the form of tables and figures. Meanwhile, before immersing in to the data analysis process, data
management (editing, coding, classifying) were undertaken. A total of 222 respondents were take
part in this study and data was checked for its validity using Cronbach’s alpha. Data collected on
different variables of interest were analyzed using frequency and percentage for socio-
demographic characteristics of respondents and summary statistics (mean and standard
deviation) were employed to analyze the response obtained on employee’s performance score
(both task and contextual performance) and factors affecting employees performance i.e.
physical work condition occupational health and safety internal organizational communication
workload work place reward, work place reward, supervisor support and work time. Further
correlation and regression analysis were employed to examine the effect of independent variables
on the dependent variable i.e., employee performance. But, before interpreting the regression
result, a diagnostic test was undertaken to check whether the basic assumptions of the Classical
Linear Regression Model (CLRM) were satisfied or not. In this regard, linearity, normality,
multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity and omitted variable tests were undertaken. Following these
diagnostic tests, the regression model goodness of fit was checked using the coefficient of
determination (R square) and the regression model adequacy waschecked using F-test. Finally,
the regression result was discussed for both task and contextual employee performance models in
lieu of the study objectives.

ResponseRate

Out of a total of 237 questionnaires distributed to respondents i.e., employees of DBWPF, 229
questionnaireswerereturned.Aftercheckingthereturnedquestionnaires,222questionnaires

31 | P a g e
were found valid for statistical analysis. Then the valid questionnaires were entered in statistical
software called STATA for the purpose of the statistical analysis.

Table4.1:ResponseRate
I t e m Responserate
F r e q u e n c yP e r c e n t
S a m p l e s i z e 2 3 7 1 0 0 . 0 0
C o l l e c t e d a n d f o u n d v a l i d 2 2 2 9 3 . 6 7
Remainuncollectedandfound invalid 15 6 . 3 3

DataValidityandReliability

Validity refers to the extent to which an empirical measure adequately reflects the real meaning
of the concept under consideration (Babbie, 2013). Before data was collected, the validity of the
questionnaire going to be used in this study was validated first by the advisor of this study.
Secondly, the researcher colleagues were also taking part in reviewing the questionnaire during
tea time. Thirdly, working unit supervisors, team leaders and managers were also consulted to
reviewthequestionnaireto beused to collect dataon thestudy variables. Ontheother, reliability is
thequality ofmeasurement method that suggests that thesame data would havebeen collected each
time in repeated observations of the same phenomenon (Babbie, 2013). Cronbach‘s alpha was
used to examine the reliability, consistency and stability of the measurement scale used for each
variable involved in this study. The summary of the Cronbach alpha result as a measure of data
reliability is presented in the following table.

Following Pallant (2013) a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient higher than 0.7 shows greater level of
internal consistency of the instrument used to measure the specific variable. For all the study
variables the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were higher than 0.7 i.e., 0.8780, suggesting thateach
variable considered within the study had very good internal consistency and hence reliable in
measuring what they were intended to measure.

32 | P a g e
Table4.2:DataReliability Test
V a r i a b l e s No.ofItems S i g n Alpha Internal
Consistency
T a s k P e r f o r m a n c e 9 + 0.8550 VeryGood
ContextualPerformance 1 4 + 0.8549 VeryGood
A l t r u i s m 6 + 0.8639 VeryGood

Conscientiousness 8 + 0.8546 VeryGood

W o r k C o n d i t i o n 3 8 + 0.8735 VeryGood

PhysicalWorkCondition 5 + 0.8665 VeryGood

OccupationalHealthand Safety 5 + 0.8535 VeryGood

InternalOrg.Communicatio n 6 + 0.8699 VeryGood

W o r k l o a d 5 - 0.8606 VeryGood

W o r k P l a c e R e w a r d 8 + 0.8840 VeryGood

SupervisorSupport 5 + 0.8861 VeryGood

W o r k T i m e 4 + 0.8881 VeryGood

T e s t S c a l e 0.8780 VeryGood

Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

DemographicBackgroundoftheRespondents

This part of the study highlights the characteristics of the respondents participated in this study.
mainly frequency and percentage were used to analyze the data. According Table 4.3, 117
(52.70%) of the respondents in this study constitute male and the remaining 105(47.50%)
constitutefemalerespondents.ThedatarevealsthatthereispronouncedgendergapwithinDebre Berhan
wood processing factory.

Concerning the age distribution of respondents within Debre Berhan wood processing factory,
40(18.20%) of the employees found within the age range below 25 years. The rest 66(29.73%),
43(19.37%), 52(23.42%) and 21(9.46%) of the respondents found within the age range of 26-30
years, 31-35 years, 36-40 years and above 40 years respectively. The result showed that more
than90%oftherespondentsfoundwithintheagerangeofbelow40yearswhichinturnimplies

33 | P a g e
that employees whotake partin this study areyoung and adult. In thelong runhaving young and
adult employees has many-fold positive effects on Debre Berhan wood processing FACTORY.
Having young and adult employees can bring fresh perspective and a different way of thinking
within one organization. This is because young and adult employees are eager to learn, buildtheir
experience and apply their skills in the workforce. This enthusiasm is great for team building,
productivity and workplace moral. Young and adult employees have a natural affinity for
technology and their ability to apply and understand different technologies quickly sets them
apart from other generations in the workforce. Therefore, having young and adult employees has
a positive and important impact in driving an organization forward in the adoption and use of
new software and technology that will lessen work load and improves employee’s performance.
Additionally, with economic, social and political boundaries in a state of change, having young
and adult employee’s is advantageous in a work environment that is more changeable. Onthe
otherhand,olderemployeeshaveworkplaceexperiencethatcomesfromyearsof experience in a
working environment, have better attendance records, have better customer service, and are
loyal, reliable and dependable. In general, Debre Berhan wood processingfactory have greater
opportunity to reap the potential of its young and adult employees in thenear future since the
majority of its employees tend to serve the factory for more years before retiring.

With regard to work experience of the respondents, 59(26.58) of the respondents serve for ≤ 5
years. The other 53(23.87%) of the respondents serve Debre Berhan wood processing factory
(DBWPF) for 6-10 years. The rest 54(24.32%) and 56(25.23%) of the respondents serve for 11to
15 years and for more than years respectively. Almost 50% of the respondents have a work
experience greater than 10 years. Having experienced employees will benefit DBWPF in a
situation where there are fresh graduates since it paves the way to connect new graduates with
employees who can guide them when required. Additionally, having more experienced
employees will benefit DBWPF since experienced employees are motivated to work differently
andsmartly.Withinthecurrenteducationsystem,havingagooddegree,manycertifications may not
help as much as work experience can do to an organization. Therefore, DBWPF should develop a
culture of retaining experienced employees to reduce the additional cost involved in training and
mentoring newly recruited employees.

34 | P a g e
Table4.3:DemographicCharacteristics
V a r i a b l e C a t e g o r y Frequency Percent Cumulative
S e x M a l e1 1 7 5 2 . 7 0 5 2 . 7 0
F e m a l e1 0 5 4 7 . 3 0 1 0 0 . 0 0
A g e ( y e a r s ) < = 2 5 Y e a r s4 0 1 8 . 0 2 1 8 . 0 2
2 6 - 3 0 Y e a r s6 6 2 9 . 7 3 4 7 . 7 5
3 1 - 3 5 Y e a r s4 3 1 9 . 3 7 6 7 . 1 2
3 6 - 4 0 Y e a r s5 2 2 3 . 4 2 9 0 . 5 4
> 4 0 Y e a r s2 1 9 . 4 6 1 0 0 . 0 0
Work Experience < = 5 Y e a r s5 9 2 6 . 5 8 2 6 . 5 8
(years) 6 - 1 0 Y e a r s5 3 2 3 . 8 7 5 0 . 4 5
1 1 - 1 5 Y e a r s5 4 2 4 . 3 2 7 4 . 7 7
> 1 5 Y e a r s5 6 2 5 . 2 3 1 0 0 . 0 0
Educationallevel D i p l o m a9 3 4 1 . 8 9 4 1 . 8 9
F i r s t D e g r e e1 2 4 5 5 . 8 6 9 7 . 7 5
Mastersandabove 5 2 . 2 5 1 0 0 . 0 0
MaritalStatus S i n g l e7 3 3 2 . 8 8 3 2 . 8 8
M a r r i e d1 3 7 6 1 . 7 1 9 4 . 5 9
D i v o r c e1 0 4 . 5 0 9 9 . 1 0
W i d o w 2 0 . 9 0 1 0 0 . 0 0
Salary(inBirr) < = 4 5 0 0 B i r r4 0 1 8 . 0 2 1 8 . 0 2
4501-6000Birr7 1 3 1 . 9 8 5 0 . 0 0
6001-7500Birr6 2 2 7 . 9 3 7 7 . 9 3
7501-9000Birr2 2 9 . 9 1 8 7 . 8 4
> 9 0 0 0 B i r r2 7 1 2 . 1 6 1 0 0 . 0 0
Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

AccordingtoTable4.3above,majorityoftherespondentsi.e.,124(55.86%)ofthe respondents have a

first-degree educational status followed by diploma holders constituting 93(41.89%) of the
respondents. The rest 5(2.25%) of the respondents have masters and above
educationalstatus.Merelyitisknownthateducationstatusofemployee’sincreasingly

35 | P a g e
determine employees job performance since the employee has the basics in learning. Better
employee job performance is highly possible when an employee has strong basic education in
undertaking the tasks given to him/her. The education status acquired by the employee allows
him/her to work, innovate, and communicate effectively in work place. As such, education status
of the employee increasingly determines employee job performance. Accordingly, education
promotes core task performance by providing individuals with more declarative and procedural
knowledgeandskillswithwhichtheycan completetheirtaskssuccessfully withlesstime.Since,
education status was strongly related to task completion and was an important contributor to
completionofeveryjob attherighttimeDBWPFshouldemploytheappropriateemployeetothe
appropriate job specification.

Table 4.3 above also showed the distribution of respondents according to marital status of
employees. Accordingly, majority of the respondents accounting 137(61.71%) were married
followed by respondents whose marital status is single accounting 73(32.88%). The remaining
10(4.50%) and 2(0.90%) have divorce and widow marital status. From this we can imply that
since married employees have emotional and mental support from their partners, and have the
capability to manage work life balance effectively, they may exhibit high level of performance
within one organization.

Table 4.3 above also shows that 40(18.02%) of the respondents earned less than 4500 birr per
month and 71(31.98%) of the respondents earn between 4501 and 6000 birr per month and
62(27.93%) of the respondents earned 6001-7500 birr per month. The rest 22(9.91%) and
27(12.16%) of the respondents earn a monthly salary ranging between 7501-9000 birr and more
than 9000 birr respectively.

Employees’JobPerformance

Employee’s performance is one of the factors that play an indispensable role in determining the
success of an organization especially in situation where employees take a great part in the
productionorserviceprovisionprocess.Employeejobperformancehasbecomethefocalof the
organizations as employees are the source of organizational growth and competitive
advantage.Organizationstodaypayacuriousattentiontofactorsenhancingemployees’

36 | P a g e
effectiveness on their job. Performance as the behavioral outcome of employee largely depends
on the role of the organization where proper care and recognition of their contributions are
essential.Capturingandpredictingperformanceatworkisnotrivialpursuit.Task performance and
contextual performance are generally important performance dimensions that are relevant for all
kinds of jobs (Motowidlo, Borman,& Schmit, 1997).

Task performance includes two classes of behavior. One consists of activities that directly
transform raw materials into the goods and services that the organization produces. It includes
such activities as selling merchandise in a retail store, operating a production machine in a
manufacturing plant, teaching in a school, performing surgery in a hospital, and cashing checks
in a bank. The other class consists of activities that service and maintain the technical core by
replenishing its supply of raw materials; distributing its finished products; and providing
important planning, coordination, supervising, and staff functions that enable it to function
effectively and efficiently. Thus, task performance behaviors bear a direct relation to the
organization's technical core, either by executing its technical processes or by maintaining and
servicing its technical requirements.

On the contrary, contextual performance behaviors do not support the technical core itself as
much as they support the broader organizational, social, and psychological environmentinwhich
thetechnical coremustfunction.BormanandMotowidlo(1993) identifiedfive categories of
contextual performance. The categories are (a) volunteering to carry out task activities that are
not formally part of the job; (b) persisting with extra enthusiasm when
necessarytocompleteowntaskactivitiessuccessfully;(c)helpingandcooperatingwithothers;
(d)followingorganizationalrulesandproceduresevenwhenitispersonallyinconvenient;and
(e) endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives. The summary statistics onthe
dependent variables is made in order to assess the level of task and contextual performanceof
employees with in DBWPF. Table 4.4 below indicates the self-rated score of employees
concerning their performance in DBWPF.

37 | P a g e
Table4.4:SummaryStatisticsonEmployees’Job Performance
V a r i a b l e sO b s . M e a n Std.Dev. Min. Max.
T a s k P e r f o r m a n c e2 2 2 3.042 0 . 7 6 1 1.778 4.889
ContextualPerformance2 2 2 3.647 0 . 6 6 5 1.357 4.786
A l t r u i s m2 2 2 3.982 0 . 6 3 3 1.667 5.000
C o n s c i o u s n e s s2 2 2 3.396 0 . 7 7 7 1.125 5.000
Where,Min.=Minimum,Max.=Maximum,Std.Dev.=Standard Deviation
Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

AsstatedinTable4.4,taskperformanceofemployeeshavingnineitems/elementsdeveloped by
Goodman and Svyantek (1999) within it have a mean score less than that of contextual
performance. The mean score of task performance was (Mean = 3.042, Std. Dev. = 0.761). In
addition,contextualperformancehavingtwoconstructsnamelyaltruismandconsciousness with a
total of 14 items/elements have a score of (Mean = 3.674, Std. Dev. = 0.665). Altruism dealing
with an employee’s tendency to help other co-workers within the firm with their work i.e.,
helping behaviors as one of the constructs of contextual performance exhibit a score of (Mean =
3.982, Std. Dev. = 0.633). The other construct of contextual performance conscientiousness
dealing withemployee’s dedication to the job by compliance toorganizational norms and the need
to surpass formal requirements have a score of(Mean = 3.674, Std. Dev. = 0.665).Although both
behaviors are regarded as contextual performance,they are conceptually different in the way they
are exhibited by employees. The study revealed that participants labeled tasks that involved
behaviors directed towards people within an organization as altruism and behaviors directed
towards the actual jobs or tasks as job conscientiousness. Therefore, altruism as behaviors
benefiting individuals within anorganization has a pretty much high score as compared to
conscientiousness as behaviors benefiting the job or tasks.

The mean score of the two constructs of contextual performance shows that employees at
DBWPFtend todemonstrate behaviors leading toactivitiesthatarenotformallypartof their
jobi.e.,altruismascomparedtobehaviorsgearedtowardsexercisingdisciplineandself- control in their
jobs,payingattention to important aspects of their jobs, taking initiatives
tosolveworkrelatedissues,takingonextraresponsibilityandcarryingoutchallengingjobs.

38 | P a g e
Thus,withregardtocontextualperformanceemployeesofDBWPFweremostlyconcerned with actions
which increase social interaction between them. These interpersonal facilitation behaviors
directed towards people within DBWPF fulfill the need for affiliation and social participation
among the employees. These interpersonal facilitation behaviorsi.e., altruismfulfill the need for
affiliation and social participationamong the employees.Thus, theemployees are voluntarily
directed more towards behaviors that strength their interpersonal relation than behaviors that
benefit DBWPF.

In general, accordingto Zaidaton & Bagheri(2009)for variables that are evaluated based on a5-
pointLikerscale(from“1”“stronglydisagree”to“5”“stronglyagree”),themeanscorebelow
3.39 was considered as low, the mean score from 3.40 up to 3.79 and above 3.8 were considered
as moderate and high respectively. Based on the above evaluation, employees of DBWPFshowed
a low task performance and a moderate contextual performance scores.

WorkCondition

Before examining the effect of work condition on employees’ job performance, the extent of work
condition in DBWPF was analyzed usingsummary statistics. For thispurpose,seven constructs/attributes
of workconditionnamely physicalworkcondition,occupational healthand safety,internalorganizational
communication, workload, work place reward, supervisor support and work time were computed basedon
employees perceived response.

Table4.5:SummaryStatisticsonWorkCondition
V a r i a b l e s Obs. M e a n Std.Dev. Min. Max.
PhysicalWorkCondition 222 3.586 0 . 8 0 1 1.600 5.000
OccupationalHealthand Safety 222 3.098 0 . 8 5 4 1.200 5.000
InternalOrg.Communication 222 2.854 0 . 7 2 6 1.500 4.500
W o r k l o a d 222 2.394 0 . 8 9 6 1.000 4.600
W o r k P l a c e R e w a r d 222 3.936 0 . 6 2 9 2.250 5.000
Supe rvi sorSuppor t 222 3.805 0 . 7 6 9 1.600 5.000
W o r k T i m e 222 3.014 0 . 6 4 8 1.500 5.000
OverallWorkCondition 222 3.241 0 . 3 1 2 2.506 4.036
Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

39 | P a g e
The seven constructs/attributes of work condition with in DebreBerhan wood processing factory
have a score of (Mean = 3.241, Std. Dev. = 0.312). Among the constructs a lowest score was
recorded for workload (Mean = 2.394, Std. Dev. = 0.896) followed by internal organizational
communication (Mean = 2.854, Std. Dev. = 0.726), work time (Mean = 3.014, Std. Dev. =
0.648), occupational health and safety(Mean = 3.098, Std. Dev. = 0.854), physical work
condition (Mean = 3.586, Std. Dev. = 0.801), supervisor support (Mean = 3.805, Std. Dev. =
0.769) and work place reward (Mean = 3.936, Std. Dev. = 0.629).

The mean score of physical work condition (Mean = 3.586) deemed to be moderate according to
Zaidaton & Bagheri (2009) asserted the need for improvement in the air conditioning facility to
control the heat when the machines are working. Additionally, machines within the organization
should be placed in such a way that is appropriate to operate them and the workplace should
provide an undisturbed environment without any noise that gives employee time to perform
his/her duties. DBWPF should also adjust equipment that suits employees’ posture and that can
be easily adjusted and lighting should be placed in a location where employees can see very well
while working with machines in the organizations.

The mean score of occupational health and safety (Mean = 3.098) was found to be low and the
goals of occupational safety and health programs include fostering a safe and healthy work
environment. Occupational health and safety may also protect co-workers, family members,
employers,customers,and manyothers who might beaffectedby theworkplace environment. In this
regard, working environment such as lighting, noise level, temperature and
ventilationshouldbeacceptable.Additionally,workplaceshouldhave adequatefire-
fightingequipmentand within easy reach of workers; work station and seating facility should be
comfortable to work; workplace should be adequately equipped with staffed clinic; and health
and safety regular checks should be made by DBWPF in order to improve the occupational
health and safety issue within the wood processing factory.

Internal organizational communication having a score of (Mean = 2.854) which low indicating
existence of weak internal communication with in DBWPF. For sure it is known that good
communication is a necessary tool in achieving high quality of performance and maintaining
strongworkingrelationshipswithinoneorganization.Trustamongemployeescanbesecuredif

40 | P a g e
every employee is spending time into delivering clear communication. Effective communication
boosts employee productivity and binds employees together. Furthermore, effective
communication builds team and increases employee performance and at the same time it reduces
employee turnover in one organization. The weak internal organizational communication score
recorded with in DBWPF will lead to loss of confidence, loss of trust and ineffective operation.
Therefore, deficient internal organizational communication will lead to weak employee
performance and organizational performance. For these reasons, team building via social
interaction within DBWPF should be promoted.Urgent announcements via social interaction
andtakingemployeesuggestionsseriouslyshouldbealsoinculcatedasaculturewithinDBWPF. There
should be also a room for participation in decision making process, and opportunities and
freedom to express oneself within DBWPF should be promoted in line to regular staff meetings.

Workload as the other critical construct of work condition within this study have the lowestmean
score (Mean = 2.394) as compared to the other six constructs/attributes of work condition
included in this study. According to Setiawan (2016), excessive workload will have the effect of
physical and mental fatigue and emotional reactions such as headaches, digestive disorders, and
irritability.At the same time low workload will also cause boredom and a sense of monotonous.
Boredom in daily routine work because of too little work or work results in a lack of attention to
work will potentially harms and lowers employee performance.

On the other, work place reward exhibits the highest mean score(Mean = 3.936)among the
constructs or attributes of the working condition and considered as high. But this does not mean
no need of improvement regarding work place reward within DBWPF. Every organization needs
a reward and recognition system which exhaustively addresses four main areas namely
compensation, benefits, recognition and appreciation. The reward system within the organization
shouldalsoaimto reward twotypes ofemployee’s activitiesi.e., performance andbehavior. The
rewarding system can take either extrinsic or intrinsic form. The extrinsic rewards are actually
tangible rewards presented to the employees by the management. They could be in various forms
like pay rises, promotion, bonuses and respective benefits. On the other, the intrinsic reward
system come in the form of verbal rewards such as positive feedback and praise which in turn
enhance employee performance and further organizational performance.

41 | P a g e
Supervisor support is another attribute or construct of working condition have the second highest
mean score (Mean = 3.805). Support from supervisor may influence employees’ experience at
work and their tendency to be loyal and committed to their organization. Since supervisors are
considered as a source of energy for employees provided that supervisors are supportive,
employee feel pride and sense of belongingness in continuing their relationship with the
organization for longer time. By giving regular feedback and recognition for doing a good job
andachievingtasksthroughtakingresponsibilityforshapingtheattitudesandrelationshipwithin
different working divisions, supervisors can boost both employees and organizational
performance.

Lastly, work time has a score of (Mean = 3.014) have a considerable effect on employees’ job
performance. It is believed that appropriate work time enhances productivity, job satisfaction,
reduces stress level of employees, improves quality of lives of employees’, reduce absenteeism
and lessens organizational overtime costs. Flexibility in working hours leads to better work life
balance among employees and improves company performance. Therefore, appropriate working
hours helps to reduce stress level and work burden of employees and enhances engagement level
of employees and ultimately leads to improvement in employee and organizational performance.

CorrelationAnalysis

Correlation coefficient is a measure of closeness of variables, and it ranges between –1 and 1. If

two variables are in perfect linear relationship, the correlation coefficient will be either 1 or –1.
The sign depends on whether the variables are positively or negatively related. The correlation
coefficient is 0 if there is no linear relationship between the variables. The Pearson correlation
coefficient is more widely used in measuring the closeness between variables and we can
describe the strength of the correlation using the guide proposed by Evans (1996).

42 | P a g e
Table4.6:RangesforCorrelationCoefficientsandStrengthofCorrelations
Correlationcoefficients(r) Strengthofcorrelation
r=±0.10uptor=±0.19 V e r y W e a k
r=±0.20uptor=±0.39 W e a k
r=±0.40uptor=±0.59 M o d e r a t e
r=±0.60uptor=±0.79 S t r o n g
r=±0.80uptor=±1.00 V e r y S t r o n g
Source:Evans, 1999

As the Pearson correlation matrix in Table 4.7 indicate below, a very strong and highly
significant positive linear relationships is observed between organizational health and safety and
task performance(r = 0.8523, p-value = 0.0000), followed by physical work condition (r =
0.6900, p-value = 0.0000) and internal organizational communication (r = 0.6101, p-value =
0.0000) which have a strong and significantly positive linear relationship with task performance.
The other attributes of work condition namely work place reward (r = 0.2920, p-value
=0.0000),supervisorsupport(r=0.2977,p-value=0.0000)andworktime(r=0.2773,p-value=
0.0000)haveweakandpositivesignificantrelationwithtaskperformance whileworkload (r= -
0.4380, p-value = 0.0000) have a moderate and negative statistically significant relation with
employee task performance within DBWPF.

With regard to contextual performance, work load with (r = -0.8968, p-value = 0.0000) have a
very strong and negatively statistically significant linear relationship with contextual
performance. Organizational health and safety (r = 0.6849, p-value =0.0000) also foundto have a
strong statistically positive relation with contextual performance. Other two attributes of work
condition namely physical work condition (r = 0.5249, p-value = 0.0000) and internal
organizational communication (r = 0.5249, p-value = 0.0000) have a moderate and positive
statistically significant relation with contextual performance and work place reward (r = 0.3370,
p-value= 0.0000)andsupervisorsupport (r= 0.3604,p-value= 0.0000)haveweakpositiveand
statistically significant relation with contextual performance while work time (r = 0.1492, p-
value = 0.0000) have a very weak positive and statistically significant relation to contextual
performance.

43 | P a g e
 Table4.7:PearsonCorrelationMatrix
T P C P P W C O H S I O C W L W P RS S W T
TaskPerformance (TP) r 1.0000
P-value
Contextual Performance(CP) r 0.5709* 1.0000
P-value 0 . 0 0 0 0
Physical Work r 0.6900* 0.5249* 1 . 0 0 0 0
Condition (PWC) P-value 0 . 0 0 0 0 0.0000
Occupational Health r 0.8523* 0.6849 * 0.6243* 1 . 0 0 0 0
and Safety (OHS) P-value 0 . 0 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000
InternalOrganizational Communication (IOC) r 0.6101* 0.4867 * 0.3911* 0.6190* 1.000 0
P-value 0 . 0 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Workload(WL) r -0.4380* - 0 . 8 9 6 8 * -0.4228* -0.5750* -0.2935* 1 . 0 0 0 0
P-value 0 . 0 0 0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0
Work Place Reward r 0.2920* 0.3370 0.0963 0.1159 0 . 0 2 1 6 -0.1130 1.0000
(WPR) P-value 0 . 0 0 0 0 0.0000 0.1527 0.0850 0.748 9 0.0932
SupervisorSupport(SS) r 0.2977* 0 . 3 6 0 4 0 . 0 8 4 4 0.1450* * 0 . 0 9 1 1 -0.1325** 0.6885* 1.0000
P-value 0 . 0 0 0 0 0.0000 0.2103 0.0308 0.176 2 0.0486 0.0000
WorkTime(WT) r 0.2773* 0.1492** 0 . 0 3 5 0 0 . 0 8 5 9 0 . 0 7 9 6 0.1771* 0.065 4 0.3021* 1.0000
P-value 0 . 0 0 0 0 0.0262 0.6043 0.2023 0.237 6 0.0082 0.3349 0 . 0 0 0 0

Note:*and**representthecorrelationisstatisticallysignificantat1%and5%levelsofsignificancerespectively. Source: Stata 13

Output based on Survey Data, 2021

44 | P a g e
 EconometricAnalysis

To address the major objective of the study econometric analysis was undertaken. The
significance of the model was checked by F-test and the significance of the regression
coefficients (parameter estimates) was checked by using t-test. Additionally, the coefficient of
determination was used to determine how much variation of the dependent variables i.e.,
employee task and contextual performances are explained by the variation in working condition
attributes. But before embarking to interpret the regression results a model diagnostic tests like
linearity test, normality test, multicollinearity test, heteroscedasticity test, and omitted variable
tests were undertaken.

TestforBasicAssumptionsofClassicalLinearRegressionModel(CLRM)

Before analysis was made on the estimated parameters, first the underlying assumptions must be
tested. If these underlying assumptions are met, one can proceed with the regression analysis
whereas proceeding with the regression analysis without meeting the basic assumptions leads to
wrong testing procedure, prediction and policy implication. The following sections present the
test results of these basic assumptions of Classical Linear Regression Model (CLRM).

LinearityTest

In order to test for linearity between the dependent variable and the independent variables
involved in the regression model P-P plot was made on the regression model standardized
residuals to see the linearity of the residuals. The following graph in Figure 4.1 below shows the
distribution of the standardized residuals.

Fromthefourdistributionalplotsi.e.,twodistributionalforeachdependentvariablesinFigure
4.1 we can understand that the standardized residuals were linearly distributed along the
reference line implying task performance and contextual performance and the attributes of
working condition affecting them were linearly distributed. Therefore, the dependent and the
independent variables are linearly related conveying one of the basic assumptions of classical
linear regression model.

45 | P a g e
Figure4.1:LinearityTest

LinearityPlotonTaskPerformance
PlotI:StandardizedNormalProbablityPlotPlotII:QuantilesofNormalDistributionPlot

1
1.

.
0.

Residu

0
0.
0.

-
-
0.

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 0 -1 -.5 0 .5 1

EmpiricalP[i]=i/(N+1) InverseNormal
LinearityPlotonPerceivedPerformance
PlotI:StandardizedNormalProbablityPlotPlotII:QuantilesofNormalDistributionPlot
1
1.

.
0.

0
Residu
0.

-
0.

-
0.

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 0 -.5 0 .5

EmpiricalP[i]=i/(N+1) InverseNormal

Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

NormalityTest

The other basic assumptions for multiple linear regression model is normality. Normality
assumes that the error/residual term within the regression model should be normally distributed
with zero mean and constant variance. Therefore, a histogram with added normal density plot
was used to check the normality of the error/residual within the two employee performance
models. As per Figure 4.2 below, in both models of employee performance, the residuals are
observed bell-shaped implying they are normally distributed.

46 | P a g e
Figure4.2:NormalityTest

NormalityPlot
PlotI:TaskPerformance PlotII:PerceivedPerformance

2
1

1
1

Dens

1
.

.
0

-1 -.5 0 .5 1 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1

Residuals Residuals

Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

MulticollinearityTest

The other critical assumption of the classical linear regression model (CLRM) is that thereshould
be no multicollinearity among the regressors i.e., attributes of work condition included in the
regression model. The term multicollinearity basically meant the existence of a “perfect,” or
exact, linear relationship among some or all explanatory variables of a regression model. With
multicollinearity, the estimated Ordinary Least Square (OLS) coefficients may be statistically
insignificant(andevenhavethewrongsign)even though coefficientofdetermination(R-square) may
be high. Multicollinearity can sometimes overcome or reduced by collecting more data, by
utilizing a priori information, by transforming the functional relationship, or by dropping one of
the highly collinear variables or by introducing additional equations within the model in case of
Simultaneous Equation Models (SEM). Using both Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and
Tolerance (ToL) a means of detecting multicollinearity as a rule of thumb, following Gujarati
(2004), ifthe VIFofavariableexceeds10or ToLofa variablebelow0.1thatvariable issaidbe

47 | P a g e
highly collinear. The collinearity test among the attributes of work condition in Table 4.10below,
entail absence of multicollinearity problem among the attributes of work condition since mean
VIF = 1.82 < 10 and ToL > 0.1.

Table4.8:CollinearityTestamongIndependentVariables
I n d e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e s Collinearity Tests
V I F ToL (1/VIF)
P h y s i c a l W o r k C o n d i t i o n1 . 6 6 0.601291
O c c u p a t i o n a l H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y1 . 9 7 0.361156
InternalOrganizationalCommunication1 . 6 6 0.603784
W o r k l o a d1 . 5 7 0.638411
W o r k P l a c e R e w a r d1 . 9 4 0.514478
S u p e r v i s o r S u p p o r t1 . 9 7 0.506771
W o r k T i m e1 . 1 4 0.874557
M e a n V I F1 . 8 2
Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

HeteroscedasticityTest

In the classical linear regression model, one of the basic assumptions is that the probability
distribution of the disturbance term remains same over all observations of the explanatory
variables; i.e., the variance of each error term is the same for all the values of the explanatory
variable. This feature of homogeneity of variance (or constant variance) of the error term is
knownas homoscedasticity.It may be the case, however, that all of the disturbance terms do not
havethe samevariance. This condition ofnon-constant varianceor non-homogeneity ofvariance is
known as heteroscedasticity.

Heteroscedasticity testing has been extensively studied for classical low-dimensional regressions
in the literature. Many popular tests examine whether the estimated residuals are correlated with
some caveats or any auxiliary variables that would be useful in explaining the departure from
homoscedasticity. In this study both White and Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test for
heteroscedasticitywereemployed.Asper thetestresultinTable4.9, thenullhypothesiswasnot

48 | P a g e
rejected in both tests for both models since p-value > 0.05 i.e., there is no problem of
heteroscedasticity in the two multiple linear regression models.

Table4.9:HeteroscedasticityTest
M o d e l 1 : T a s k P e r f o r m a n c e
HeteroscedasticityTest Chi2 DF P-value
W h i t e ’ s T e s t Heteroscedasticity 35.04 35 0.4662
S k e w n e s s 8.96 7 0.2556
K u r t o s i s 0.22 1 0.6368
T o t a l 44.22 43 0.4197
B r e u s c h - P a g a n T e s t Heteroscedasticity 0.14 1 0.7034
M o d e l 2 : C o n t e x t u a l P e r f o r m a n c e
W h i t e ’ s T e s t Heteroscedasticity 25.00 35 0.4058
S k e w n e s s 10.68 7 0.1532
K u r t o s i s 0.21 1 0.6439
T o t a l 35.89 43 0.2909
B r e u s c h - P a g a n T e s t Heteroscedasticity 2.63 1 0.1050
HO:Homoscedasticityi.e.Theerrortermhasaconstant variance.
HA:Heteroscedasticityi.e.Theerrortermhasno aconstantvariance.
Variables:FittedvaluesofTaskPerformanceandContextualPerformance
Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

OmittedVariableTest

On the basis of theory or self-examination and prior empirical works, we develop a model that
we believe captures the essence of the subject under study. We then subject the model to
empirical testing. After we obtain the results, we begin the examination, keeping in mind the
criteriaof a good model. It is at this stagethat we come to know if the chosen model is adequate.
In determining model adequacy, we look at some broad features of the results, such as the R
square value, the estimated t ratios, the signs of the estimated coefficients in relation to theirprior
expectations, and the like (Gujirati, 2004). However, besides giving a clue, the above ways
donotexactlytellustheexistenceofspecificationerrorinourregressionmodel.Ramseyhas

49 | P a g e
proposed a general test of specification error called RESET (regression specification error test).
According to the test result in Table 4.10 we do not reject the null hypothesis which indicatesthat
the two regression models have no omitted variable since their respective p-value > 0.05.

Table4.10:OmittedVariable(SpecificationError) Test
M o d e l F (3, 211) P - v a l u e
Model1:TaskPerformance 1.59 0 . 1 9 1 8
Model2:ContextualPerformance 2.19 0 . 0 8 9 8
RamseyRESETtestusingpowersoffittedvaluesof TaskPerformanceand ContextualPerformance
HO:Modelhasnoomittedvariables
Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

MultipleLinearRegressionAnalysis

ModelSummary

The multiple correlation coefficients (R) show the correlation between the explanatory variables
and the dependent variable. The model summary table below shows that the explanatory
variables are highly jointly correlated with the dependent variables.

Table4.11:Models Summary
Model R R Square A d j u s t e d Std.error o f
R Square theEstimate
Model1:Task Performance 0.9115 0.8308 0.8257 0.10123
Model2:ContextualPerformance 0.9366 0.8772 0.8732 0.05602
Predictors: (Constant),PhysicalWorkCondition,OccupationalHealthandSafety,Interna l
OrganizationalCommunication,Workload,WorkPlaceReward,SupervisorSupport,Work Time
DependentVariables:TaskPerformanceandContextualPerformance
Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

The overall goodness of fit of the two regression models were measured by the coefficient of
determination R2 (R square) in Table 4.11 above. It tells what proportion of the variation in the
dependent variable is explained by the explanatory variables included in the regression model.
ThisR2liesbetween0 and1;thecloseritis to1,thebetteristhefit.Accordingly,theR 2ispretty highinthe
twomodels implyingthat83.08% ofthevariationin taskperformanceisexplainedby

50 | P a g e
the variation in those work condition attributes included in the regression model and the rest
16.92% of the variation in task performance is explained by other factors which are not included
in the regression model. On the other hand, for the second model R 2is 87.72% and it indicates
that 87.72% of the variation in contextual performance of employees is explained by thevariation
in attributes of work condition included in the model and the rest 12.28% of the variation in
contextual performance is explained by other factors which are not included in the regression
model. The small difference between R square and adjusted R square in both task and contextual
performance models signify the appropriateness or relevance of the explanatory variables i.e.,
attributes of working condition included in the two regression models.

AnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)

The ANOVA table below tells us whether the overall model results in a significantly gooddegree
of the prediction of the outcome variable (Field, 2009). The F-ratios for both task and contextual
performance models confirmed that the overall regression models were a good fit for the data.
The F-ratio is the result of comparing the amount of explained variance to the unexplained
variance of the regression model. The larger the F-ratio the more variance in the dependent
variable that is associated with the independent variables.

Table4.12:AnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)
Model Sourceof S S DF M S S F c a l P-value
Variation
M o d e l 1 : T a s k Regression 106.3911 7 15.1987
Performance R e s i d u a l 21.66381 214 0.10123 150.14 0.0000*
T o t a l 128.0549 221 0.57943
Model2:Contextual Regression 85.6394 7 12.2342
Performance R e s i d u a l 11.9887 214 0.05602 218.38 0.0000*
T o t a l 97.6287 221 1.485024
Predictors:(Constant), PhysicalWorkCondition,OccupationalHealthandSafety,Interna l
OrganizationalCommunication,Workload,WorkPlaceReward,SupervisorSupport,Work Time
DependentVariables:TaskPerformanceandContextualPerformance
Note:*indicatesthemodelsarestatisticallysignificantoradequateat1%levelofsignificance. Source: Stata
13 Output based on Survey Data, 2021

51 | P a g e
According to the test result in Table 4.12 above, the independent variables that is attributes of
work condition had jointly predicted the dependent variables significantly (p-value < 0.01).
Therefore, the two models were statistically significant or adequate.

RegressionCoefficientsandHypothesisTesting

The regression coefficients are the least-squares estimates of the parameters. The regression
coefficients indicate the change in the dependent variable for a unit change in a particular
independent variable when the remaining independent variables are held constant. These
coefficients are often called partial-regression coefficients since the effect of the other
independent variables is removed. Table 4.16, below shows the regression model regression
coefficient for the seven attributes of work condition i.e., physical work condition, occupational
health and safety, internal organizational communication, workload, work place reward,
supervisor support, and work time. The respective p-value of the regression coefficients both in
task and contextual performance models have a p-value less than 0.05(5%). This indicates the
existence of a significant relationship between the dependent and independent variables.

52 | P a g e
Table4.13:RegressionCoefficients
Model1:TaskPerformance
UnstandardizedCoefficient s
T a s k P e r f o r m a n c e Beta Std.Err. t-value P - v a l u e

P h y s i c a l W o r k C o n d i t i o n 0.2479 0.0344 7 . 2 0 0.000*

OccupationalHealthand Safety 0.5646 0.0417 13.53 0.000*
InternalOrganizationalCommunicatio n 0.1435 0.0379 3 . 7 8 0.000*
W o r k l o a d -0.0810 0.0298 -2.71 0.007*
W o r k P l a c e R e w a r d 0.1818 0.0473 3 . 8 4 0.000*
S u p e r v i s o r S u p p o r t 0.0987 0.3908 2 . 5 3 0.012**
W o r k T i m e 0.0751 0.0353 2 . 1 3 0.035**
C o n s t a n t -1.5175 0.2528 -6.00 0.000*

Model2:ContextualPerformance
UnstandardizedCoefficient s
ContextualPerformanc e Beta Std.Err. t-value P - v a l u e

P h y s i c a l W o r k C o n d i t i o n 0.0661 0.0256 2 . 5 8 0.011**

OccupationalHealthand Safety 0.0771 0.0310 2 . 4 8 0.015**
InternalOrganizationalCommunicatio n 0.1600 0.0282 5 . 6 7 0.000*
W o r k l o a d -0.5562 0.0222 -25.47 0.000*
W o r k P l a c e R e w a r d 0.0396 0.0152 2 . 6 1 0.009*
S u p e r v i s o r S u p p o r t 0.0491 0.0190 2 . 5 8 0.011**
W o r k T i m e 0.0167 0.0026 6 . 4 2 0.000*
C o n s t a n t 4.4638 0.1881 23.73 0.000*

Note:*and**indicatestheregressioncoefficientsarestatisticallysignificantat1%and5% level of
significances respectively.
Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

53 | P a g e
Finally,themodelfitthe regressionequationforbothtaskandcontextualperformance became;

Model1:TaskPerformance

=− .+.+.+.−.
+.+.+.

Model2:ContextualPerformance

=.+.+.+.− .
+.+.+.

Where, FP=TaskPerformance
CP=ContextualPerformance
PCW = Physical Condition of Work
OHS=OccupationalHealthandSafety
IOC=InternalOrganizationalCommunication WL
= Work Load
WPR=WorkPlaceReward SS
= Supervisors Support WT =
Work Time

Hypothesis1:

H0:

Physicalworkconditionhasnopositiveandsignificanteffectonemployee’sperfo
rmance.
HA:

Physicalworkconditionhaspositiveandsignificanteffectonemployee’sperf
ormance.

The first contributor to the variation in task and contextual performance of employees ofDBWPF

54 | P a g e
was Physical work condition and it was positively statistically significant in affecting the level of
employees’ task performance (Beta = 0.247, P-value = 0.000) and employees’
contextualperformance(Beta=0.0661,P-value=0.011)sinceP-value<0.05.Thecoefficient

55 | P a g e
0.247 in task performance model (model 1) indicated that physical work condition had direct
(positive) influence on task performance i.e., keeping other things constant, a 1% improvementin
physical work condition lead DBWPF to an increase in employees’ task performance by 24.7%
and vice versa. The Pearson correlation coefficient between physical work condition and
employees task performance (r = 0.6900, P-value = 0.0000) also supported as there exist a high
significant correlation between them (see Table 4.7). The coefficient of physical work condition
in contextual performance model (model 2) is 0.066 implying that keeping other things constant,
a 1% improvement in physical work condition lead DBWPF to an increase in employees’
contextual performance by 6.6% and vice versa. The Pearson correlation coefficient between
physical work condition and contextual performance (r = 0.5249, P-value = 0.0000) also
supported as there exist a moderate significant correlation between them (see Table 4.7).

A number of factors could be posited in affecting employees’ performance in terms of the

physical work condition. Factors like lightings of the workplace, noise emanating from
machineryoperation,physicalarrangementofmachineryandequipment,airconditioningsystem etc.
Therefore, employee work place should be fit appropriate physical working conditions standards.
Temessek (2009) stated that features assist on the functional and aesthetic side, the décor, and
design of the workplace environment that ultimately helps improve the employees experience
and necessitate better performance. Furthermore, once the employees had become stressors at the
workplace, the employees have the high potential of getting their job done very
slowlyanditwillaffectthe employees’performance.Anemployeescouldbeaffecteddepending on the
task they are given and also the environment of the place they are working. By having a good
environment, the employees could apply their energy and their full attention to perform work.
Other studies such as Gunaseelan and Olluk-karan (2012), Naharuddin and Sadegi (2013)
physical work condition has significant effect on employee performance. This means that
lighting, temperature and the presence of air conditioning facilities can provide comfort andboost
employees performance.Therefore, a well-organized physical work environment can provide
comfort for employees at work. Comfort will be able to lead to the pleasure ofemployees in
working the latter can lead to satisfaction in the employee at work.

56 | P a g e
Hypothesis2:

H0:

Occupationalhealthandsafetyhasnopositiveandsignificanteffectofemployee’sperfo
rmance.
HA: Occupationalhealthandsafety haspositiveandsignificanteffecton
employee’sperformance

The second contributor to the variation in task and contextual performance of employees of
DBWPF was occupational health and safety and it was positively statistically significant in
affecting the level of employees’ task performance (Beta = 0.564, P-value = 0.000) and
employees’ contextual performance (Beta = 0.077, P-value = 0.015) since P-value < 0.05. The
coefficient 0.564 in task performance model (model 1) indicated that occupational health and
safety had direct (positive) influence on task performance i.e., keeping other things constant, a
1% improvement in occupational health and safety lead DBWPF to an increase in employees’
task performance by 56.4% and vice versa. The Pearson correlation coefficient between
occupational health and safety and employees task performance (r = 0.8523, P-value = 0.0000)
also supported as there exist a very high significant correlation between them (see Table
4.7).Thecoefficientofoccupationalhealthandsafetyincontextualperformancemodel(model2)is
0.077 implying that keeping other things constant, a 1% improvement in occupational health and
safety lead DBWPF to an increase in employees’ contextual performance by 7.7% and viceversa.
ThePearson correlation coefficient between occupational health and safety and contextual
performance (r = 0.6849, P-value = 0.0000) also supported as there exist a high and positive
significant correlation between them (see Table 4.7).

Antonelli, Baker, McMahon & Wright, (2006) in their study that found that organizations with
effective health and safety policy tend to have good corporate policy that help in attracting and
maintaining competent and safety-conscious workforce. Their study affirmed that effectivehealth
and safety policy boost competitive position of an organization by way of contribution to
increased performance, quality output and efficiency. Similarly, Akpan (2011) corroborate this
position when he stated that tardiness and absenteeism could be minimized in a firm with
effective health and safety management system, and workplace hazards and accident could be
57 | P a g e
drasticallyreducedandbasedonthat,organizationcanmeetupwithservicesintermsoftime

58 | P a g e
and quality. According to (Wameedh A.Khdair, 2011), fororganization to improvethe quality of
safety and health for all employees, organizations should implement a systematic,comprehensive
safety program and health training program for new employees. To improve the awareness to
hazards and help provide orientation to new and old workers the essence of safety and health
quality systems.

Therefore, in the effort of implementing good safety practices effort should be made to draft out
good production layout, harmful substances should be stored in separate location, staff should be
extrinsically be motivated for adhering to safety practices and equipment, lightening, sound
systems should be properly be installed and placed.

Hypothesis3:

H0: Internal organizational communication has no positive and significant

effecton employee’s performance.
HA:

Internalorganizationalcommunicationhaspositiveandsignificanteffectonempl
oyee’s performance

The third contributor to the variation in task and contextual performance of employees of
DBWPF was internal organizational communication and it was positively statistically significant
in affecting the level of employees’ task performance (Beta = 0.143, P-value = 0.000) and
employees’ contextual performance (Beta = 0.160, P-value = 0.000) since P-value < 0.05. The
coefficient 0.143 in task performance model (model 1) indicated that internal organizational
communication had direct (positive) influence on task performance i.e., keeping other things
constant, a 1% improvement in internal organizational communication lead DBWPF to an
increase in employees’ task performance by 14.3% and vice versa. The Pearson correlation
coefficient between internal organizational communication and employees task performance (r =
0.6101, P-value = 0.0000) also supported as there exist a high significant correlation between
them (see Table 4.7). The coefficient of internal organizational communication in contextual
performance model (model 2) is 0.160 implying that keeping other things constant, a 1%
improvement in internal organizational communication lead DBWPF to an increase in

59 | P a g e
employees’contextualperformanceby16.0%andviceversa.ThePearsoncorrelationcoefficient
betweeninternalorganizationalcommunicationandcontextualperformance(r=0.4867,P-value

60 | P a g e
= 0.0000) also supported as there exist a high and positive significant correlation between them
(see Table 4.7).

Communication in organization also plays important role in enhancing participation of

employees. When employees have an opportunity to participate in decision making, they willfeel
that they are important persons for the organization. On the other hand, insufficient orlimited
employee participation in decision making will result in low level of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, employee engagement. It also leads to high level of intention to quit
(Bonache 2005). Previous studies revealed that internal communication had positive impact on
employee engagement (Ruck 2012). Additionally, the finding of this study is also supported by
Ince and Gil (2011), who exerted that in increasing internal communication among employees, it
would affect employee performance in a positive way. Other researchers such as Kibe (2014),
Sgobbi and Cainarca (2015) also postulated that there is a positive relationship between internal
communication and employee performance. The researchers found that internal communication
encourages learning and decision making at the lower level of hierarchy in the organization. It
enables a higher degree of teamwork among staffs and reflects higher performance in theirworks.

Hypothesis4:

H0: Workloadhasnopositiveandsignificanteffectonemployee’sperformance.HA:
Workload has positive and significant effect on employee’s performance.

The fourth contributor to the variation in task and contextual performance of employees of
DBWPF was workload and it was negatively statistically significant in affecting the level of
employees’ task performance (Beta = -0.081, P-value = 0.007) and employees’ contextual
performance (Beta = -0.566, P-value = 0.000) since P-value< 0.05. The coefficient -0.081 intask
performance model (model 1) indicated that workload had indirect (negative) influence on task
performance i.e., keeping other things constant, a 1% increase in work load lead DBWPF to
decrease in employees’ task performance by 8.1% and vice versa. The Pearson correlation
coefficient between workload and employees task performance (r = -0.4380, P-value = 0.0000)
also supported as there exist a moderate significant correlation between them (see Table
4.7).Thecoefficientofworkloadincontextualperformancemodel(model2)is-0.566implyingthat

61 | P a g e
keeping other things constant, a 1% increase in workload lead DBWPF to decrease
inemployees’contextualperformanceby56.6%andviceversa.ThePearsoncorrelationcoefficient
between workload and contextual performance (r = -0.8968, P-value = 0.0000) also supported as
there exist a very high and negative significant correlation between them (see Table 4.7).

In confirmatory to this study, Shah et.al., (2011) maintained that, high performance achievement
is directly related to employees’ workload when the workload distribution is proportionally
related to their ability to cope with the stress associated with their role. The researchers further
argued that, excessively high workload and extremely low workload correlate to low
performance. Moreover, Shah et.al., (2011) and Musau et.al., (2008) contended that a sudden
increase or decrease in workload both lead to impaired performance, but they also warned that
sudden increase in workload curve is more sensitive and could badly affects the performance of
employees. Workload levels should thereforebe periodically evaluated togetherwith employees’
performance and determined as per their demand and potential but not at the detriment of
organizational priorities and norms.

Therefore, since extremely high workloadlevels arelikely to createasense ofhelplessness and a

feeling of burnout, which could make employees give up on their efforts. On the other hand,
extremely low workload levels breed complacency, which can be a recipe for underperformance.
As such balancing should be maintained in workload assignment within DBWPF.

Hypothesis5:

H0: Rewardhasnopositiveandsignificanteffectonemployee’sperformance.HA:
Reward has positive and significant effect on employee’s performance

The fifth contributor to the variation in task and contextual performance of employees of
DBWPF was work place reward and it was positively statistically significant in affecting the
levelofemployees’taskperformance(Beta=0.181,P-value=0.000)and employees’contextual
performance (Beta = 0.039, P-value = 0.009) since P-value < 0.05. The coefficient 0.181 in task
performancemodel(model1) indicated that work placereward had direct (positive)influenceon
task performance i.e., keeping other things constant, a 1% improvement in work place reward
lead DBWPF to an increase in employees’ task performance by 18.1% and vice versa. The
Pearsoncorrelationcoefficientbetweenworkplacerewardandemployeestaskperformance(r=
62 | P a g e
0.2930, P-value = 0.0000) also supported as there exist a weak significant correlation between
them (see Table 4.7). The coefficient of work place reward in contextual performance model
(model 2) is 0.039 implying that keeping other things constant, a 1% improvement in work place
reward lead DBWPF to an increase in employees’ contextual performance by 3.9% and vice
versa. The Pearson correlation coefficient between work place reward and contextual
performance (r = 0.3370, P-value = 0.0000) also support the existence of positive significant
correlation between them (see Table 4.7).

Rewards and recognition are used either to reward an employee for eliciting desired behavior or
recognize an employee for exemplary results. Subsequently, the purpose of many rewards and
recognition programs are multi-layered but motivation of employees to increase performance is
the key objective in reaching corporate goals since motivated employees perform well. The
finding of this study is in line with the results of Eshak et al (2016) in which they found that
rewards have positive and significant relationship with employees’ performance in an
organization. Rewards which include pay rise, promotion, granting of fringe benefits and
allowances, bonuses, etc., are effective ways of motivating employees for optimal performancein
the organization. Reward is also very important for attracting high talented employees and
retaining them. Competitive salaries and job security as components of reward are very good in
attractingemployeeswithnecessarycompetencieswhichtheorganizationsneedtomaintain their
competitive advantage, particularly in this era of intense business competition.

Therefore, in administering rewards to the employees to achieve effective performance in

DBWPF,managementbodiesshouldbeproperlyguidedandknowwhatmotivateseachcategory of
workers most. Following this appropriate reward system should be laid down with the
organization at most.

Hypothesis6:

H0:Supervisorsupporthasnopositiveandsignificanteffecton employee’sperformance.
HA:Supervisorsupporthaspositiveandsignificanteffectonemployee’sperformance.

The sixth contributor to the variation in task and contextual performance of employees of
DBWPF was supervisor support and it was positively statistically significant in affecting the
levelofemployees’taskperformance(Beta=0.098,P-value=0.012)andemployees’contextual
63 | P a g e
performance (Beta = 0.049, P-value = 0.011) since P-value < 0.05. The coefficient 0.098 in task
performance model (model 1) indicatedthat supervisor support had direct (positive)influenceon
task performance i.e., keeping other things constant, a 1% improvement in work place reward
lead DBWPF to an increase in employees’ task performance by 9.8% and vice versa. ThePearson
correlation coefficient between supervisor support and employees task performance (r = 0.2977,
P-value = 0.0000) also supported as there exist a weak significant correlation between them (see
Table 4.7). The coefficient of supervisor support in contextual performance model (model 2) is
0.049 implying that keeping other things constant, a 1% improvement in supervisor support lead
DBWPF to an increase in employees’ contextual performance by 4.9% and vice versa. The
Pearson correlation coefficient between supervisor support and contextual performance (r =
0.3604, P-value = 0.000) also support the existence of positive significant correlation between
them (see Table 4.7).

Employees who perceive high supervisor support are likely to demonstrate high work-related
performance, since these employees have adequate resources to perform their work (Shanock &
Eisenberger, 2006). Moreover, those employees who receive high supervisor support tend to
increase their efforts to exceed their responsibilities, in return for the benefits provided by their
supervisors. As a result, empirical findings indicate that supervisor support is positively relatedto
in-role and extra-role performance (Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006). Similarly, the study by
Gupta, Kumar, and Singh (2014) examined supervisor support characteristics and concluded that
when an organization creates an atmosphere of supervisor support that organizational
performance improves because of improved levels of employee job satisfaction, employee
performance and meaningful work. In addition, Cropanzano & Mitchell, (2005) also reveal that
perceived support from supervisor increases the felt obligation of employees to attain the
supervisors as well as organizational objectives as reciprocity.

Therefore, employees deserve that their supervisor will provide all the necessary support to
continue their activities and to make them more engaged with the organization. This may be the
feeling of the employee that supervisor can play a vital role to engage the employee which may
enhance their belongingness to the organization. It is likely expected that when employee
perceive support is assured from the supervisor, they will feel more valued by the organization
becausesupervisorisconsideredasarepresentativeoftheorganizationandtheresultwillbe

64 | P a g e
more engaged asreciprocity.As such, supportive supervisoryactions lead to improvements
inorganizational performance should be promoted within DBWPF.

Hypothesis7:

H0: Worktimehasnopositiveandsignificanteffectonemployee’sperformance.HA:
Work time has positive and significant effect on employee’s performance

The last contributor to the variation in task and contextuals performance of employees of
DBWPF was work time and it was positively statistically significant in affecting the level of
employees’ task performance (Beta = 0.075, P-value = 0.035) and employees’ contextual
performance (Beta = 0.016, P-value = 0.000) since P-value < 0.05. The coefficient 0.075 in task
performance model (model 1) indicated that work time had direct (positive) influence on task
performancei.e.,keeping otherthingsconstant,a1% improvementinworktime leadDBWPFto an
increase in employees’ task performance by 7.5% and vice versa. The Pearson correlation
coefficient between work time and employees task performance (r = 0.2773, P-value = 0.0000)
also support the existence of a moderate significant correlation between them (see Table 4.7).
The coefficient of work time in contextual performance model (model 2) is 0.016 implying that
keeping other things constant, a 1% Improvement in work time lead DBWPF to an increase in
employees’ contextual performance by 1.6% and vice versa. The Pearson correlation coefficient
between work time and contextual performance (r = 0.1492, P-value = 0.0262) also supported as
there exist a weak and positive significant correlation between them (see Table 4.7).

Abid & Barech (2017) studied influence of flexible working hours on performance of employees
and noticed a positive association. Flexible working hours boosts performance of employees and
enhances organizations profitability. Flexible time enhances productivity, job satisfaction,
reduces stress level of employees, improves quality of lives of employees, lessens absenteeism
and organizational overtime costs. Amstad et al. (2011) conducted a study on work flexibilityand
concluded that flexibility in working time has a lot of benefits for the organizations which
includes high performance, productivity, health improvement, decreased stress, better work life
balance and less absenteeism. Flex time is beneficial for both organizations and employees. The
organizational benefits are enhanced productivity; less accidents and reduction in turnover rates,
thebenefitsforemployeesarelowworkburden,well-beingandabetterworklifebalance

65 | P a g e
(Kossek& Thompson, 2016). Hashim, Ullah& Khan (2017) studied the effect oftime flexibility
on employee performance: a study of teachers at the government management science school
Peshawar and noticed a positive influence of time flexibility on employee performance. Today,
flexible working hours is becoming more and more important to the workplace. Many
organizations offer employees the option.

Therefore, management body of DBWPF should initiate flex time for all employees, as by doing
so; the employees will engage in their work more effectively and will work hard to achieve
organization objectives. Additionally, the factory should also introduce flexibility in working
time for all the employees in an organization so that the employees can work with passion which
will enhance their performance and ultimately productivity of organization will increase. By
introducing appropriate and flexible working time through DBWPF employees can obtain a
work-life balance and will obtain a quality life. Immediate supervisors should fix the start and
end time of work for all his team members and in case if any employee has given an assignment
out of the working time, he should be given overtime payment.

Table4.14:SummaryofHypothesisTesting
Hypothesis Decision
H1: Physicalworkconditionhassignificantandpositiveeffectonemployees ’ A c c e p t e d
performance.
H2: Organizationalhealthandsafetyhavesignificantandpositiveeffecto n A c c e p t e d
employees’performance.
H3: Internalorganizationalcommunicationhassignificantandpositiveeffect o n A c c e p t e d
employees’performance.
H4: Workloadhassignificantandpositiveeffectonemployees’ performance . A c c e p t e d
H5: Rewardhassignificantandpositiveeffectonemployees’performance . A c c e p t e d
H6: Supervisorsupporthassignificantandpositiveeffectonemployees ’ A c c e p t e d
performance.
H7: Worktimehassignificantandpositiveeffect ontourismperformance . A c c e p t e d
Source:Stata13OutputbasedonSurveyData,2021

66 | P a g e
 CHAPTERFIVE

SUMMARY,CONCLUSION,RECOMMENDATIONAND
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Summary

The study is conducted with the aim of assessing the effect of work condition on employee’s
performance of Debre Berhan Wood Processing Factory (DBWPF). Both task performance and
contextual performance employees were used. Concerning working condition seven
constructs/attributes were developed. The mean score of task performance was (Mean = 3.042,
Std. Dev. = 0.761). In addition, contextual performance having two constructs namely altruism
andconsciousnesswithatotalof14items/elementshaveascoreof(Mean=3.674,Std.Dev.
= 0.665). Altruism dealing with an employee’s tendency to help other co-workers within thefirm
with their work i.e., helping behaviors as one of the constructs of contextual performance exhibit
a score of (Mean = 3.982, Std. Dev. = 0.633). The other construct of contextual performance
conscientiousness dealing with employee’s dedication to the job by compliance to organizational
norms and the need to surpass formal requirements have a score of (Mean = 3.674, Std. Dev. =
0.665).Although both behaviors are regarded as contextual performance,they are conceptually
different in the way they are exhibited by employees.

The study revealed that participants labeled tasks that involved behaviors directed
towardspeoplewithinanorganizationasaltruismandbehaviorsdirectedtowardstheactualjobsor
tasksasjobconscientiousness.Therefore,altruismasbehaviorsbenefitingindividualswithin an
organization have a pretty much high score as compared to conscientiousness as behaviors
benefiting the job or tasks. Thus, according to Zaidaton & Bagheri (2009) for variables that are
evaluated based on a 5-point Liker scale (from “1” “strongly disagree” to “5” “strongly agree”),
the mean score below 3.39 was considered as low, the mean score from 3.40 up to 3.79 and
above 3.8 were considered as moderate and high respectively. Based on the above evaluation
employees of DBWPF showed a low task performance score and a moderate contextual
performance score.

67 | P a g e
The seven constructs/attributes of work condition with in DebreBerhan wood processing factory
have a score of (Mean = 3.241, Std. Dev. = 0.312). Among the constructs a lowest score was
recorded for workload (Mean = 2.394, Std. Dev. = 0.896) followed by internal organizational
communication (Mean = 2.854, Std. Dev. = 0.726), work time (Mean = 3.014, Std. Dev. =
0.648), occupational health and safety(Mean = 3.098, Std. Dev. = 0.854), physical work
condition (Mean = 3.586, Std. Dev. = 0.801), supervisor support (Mean = 3.805, Std. Dev. =
0.769) and work place reward (Mean = 3.936, Std. Dev. = 0.629).

Inthisregard,themeanscoreofphysicalwork condition(Mean=3.586)deemedtobemoderate
implying the need for improvement in the air conditioning facility to control the heat when the
machines are working. The mean score of occupational health and safety (Mean = 3.098) was
foundto below and the goals ofoccupational safetyandhealthprograms includefosteringasafe and
healthy work environment. Occupational health and safety may also protect co-workers, family
members, employers, customers, and many others who might be affected by the workplace
environment. In this regard, working environment such as lighting, noise level, temperature and
ventilation should be acceptable. Internal organizational communication having a score of (Mean
= 2.854) which low indicating existence of weak internal communication with in DBWPF. For
these reasons, team building via social networking within DBWPF should be promoted.There
should be also a room for participation in decision making process, and opportunities and
freedom to express oneself within DBWPF should be promoted in line to regular staff meetings.
Workload as the other critical construct of work condition within this study have the lowest mean
score (Mean = 2.394) as compared to the other six constructs/attributes of work condition
included in this study.

Work place reward exhibits the highest mean score (Mean = 3.936) among the constructs or
attributes of the working condition and considered as high. But this does not mean no need of
improvement regarding work place reward within DBWPF. Every organization needs a reward
and recognition system which exhaustively addresses four main areas namely compensation,
benefits, recognition and appreciation. Supervisor support is another attribute or construct of
working condition havethesecond highest mean score (Mean= 3.805). Supportfrom supervisor
mayinfluenceemployees’experienceatworkandtheirtendencytobeloyalandcommittedto

68 | P a g e
their organization. Work time has a score of (Mean = 3.014) have a considerable effect on
employees’ job performance.

Concerning Pearson correlation, a very strong and highly significant positive linear relationships
isobservedbetweenorganizationalhealthandsafetyandtaskperformance(r=0.8523,p-value
= 0.0000), followed by physical work condition (r = 0.6900, p-value = 0.0000) and internal
organizational communication (r = 0.6101, p-value = 0.0000) which have a strong and
significantly positive linear relationship with task performance. The other attributes of work
condition namely work place reward (r = 0.2920, p-value = 0.0000), supervisor support (r =
0.2977, p-value= 0.0000) and work time (r = 0.2773, p-value= 0.0000) haveweak and positive
significant relation with task performance while work load (r = -0.4380, p-value = 0.0000) have
a moderate and negative statistically significant relation with employee task performance within
DBWPF. With regard to contextual performance, work load with(r = -0.8968, p-value =0.0000)
have a very strong and negatively statistically significant linear relationship with contextual
performance. Organizational health and safety(r = 0.6849, p-value = 0.0000) also found to have
a strong statistically positive relation with contextual performance. Other two attributes of work
condition namely physical work condition (r = 0.5249, p-value = 0.0000) and internal
organizational communication (r = 0.5249, p-value = 0.0000) have a moderate and positive
statistically significant relation with contextual performance and workplacereward (r = 0.3370,
p-value = 0.0000) and supervisor support (r = 0.3604, p-value = 0.0000) have weak positive and
statistically significant relation with contextual performance while work time (r = 0.1492, p-
value = 0.0000) have a very weak positive and statistically significant relation to contextual
performance.

The multiple regression analysis also supports the result obtained through Pearson correlation
analysis. All the explanatory variables or constructs/attributes of working condition included in
thetwoemployees’performance modelsarestatisticallysignificantindeterminingthedependent
variables. Specifically, physical work condition, occupational health and safety, internal
organizational communication, work place reward, supervisor support and work time have a
positive and statistically significant effect on employees’ task and contextual performance
whereas workload has a negative and significant effect on employees’ task and contextual
performance.

69 | P a g e
 Conclusion

All in all, the study revealed that all attributes/constructs of working condition namely, physical
work condition, organizational health and safety, internal organizational communication, work
load, work place reward, supervisor support and work time are found statistically significant in
explaining or determining employees’ task and contextual performance. The results of the study
suggested that organizations have to address the issue of working condition in meeting
organizational goals. By improving work condition, DBWPF have the opportunity to (a)
strengthen the level of commitment that employees have for the organization, (b) improve
engagement, (c) improve motivation, (d) increase organizational profits, (d) enhance overall
business value, and (e) enhance sustainability. Improving working condition within DBWPF has
the potential to improve the performance of employees and this in turn raises the organization
overall performance. Therefore, providing appropriate work condition to employees has the
potential to win the hearts of the employees and motivate them to deliver superior job
performance; andinthis wayorganizations could effectivelyimproveemployeeproductivityand
performance.

Recommendation

Thisstudywas targetedto assess the effect ofworking condition on employees’job performance in

Debre Berhan Wood Processing Factory (DBWPF) and hence on the basis of the findings of the
study, the following recommendations are drawn.

 Prioritizing mental health in a physical work condition is not only a smart choice, but also
a necessary one if DBWPF want to create a culture where employees feel safe and
comfortable. A physical work condition that supports mental well-being can result in
happier, healthier employees. Therefore, its recommended that physical work condition in
termsoflighting,noiselevel,temperature,ventilationandmachineriesshouldbeplacedin a
proper location and in a way that fit posture of employees. Additionally, physical work
conditions are so consequential, designing and constructing a work place must be linked
with operation management to create a physical work condition that is technically sound
and ideal.

70 | P a g e
 Organizations should provide workers with a secure, safe and healthful working
environment. Employees in any situation are entitled to work in environments where risks
to their wellbeing and safety are correctly controlled. Introduction of innovative ways or
systems of working, disseminating information to employees on the risks and hazards
involved concerning work and arranging and executing health and safety training to
employees should be promoted and should not be considered as a one-shot responsibility.
Effort of implementing good safety practices effort should be made to draft out good
production layout, harmful substances should be stored in separate location, staff shouldbe
extrinsically be motivated for adhering to safety practices and equipment, lightening,
sound systems should be properly installed and placed.
 Communication in organization also plays important role in enhancing participation of
employees. When employees have an opportunity to participate in decision making, they
will feel that they are important persons for the organization. Insufficient or limited
employee participation in decision making will result in low level of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, employee engagement. One of the key objectives of good
internal organizational communication is to meet up with workforce and talk about
organization's beliefs, standards, mission and goals. Employees also share their ideas and
thoughts on how they individually and as a team can help organization to achieve targets.
Therefore, employers should ensure open communication: and provide positive
performance direction, including positive feedback.
 Workload levels should be periodically evaluated together with employees’ performance
and determined as per national standard, employee demand and potential but not at the
expense of organizational priorities and norms.Therefore, since extremely high workload
levels are likely to create a sense of helplessness and a feeling of burnout, which could
make employees give up on their efforts. On the other hand, extremely low workload
levelsbreedcomplacency,whichcanbearecipeforunderperformance.Assuchbalancing should
be maintained in workload assignment within DBWPF.
 Reward is also very important for attracting high talented employees and retaining them.
Competitive salaries and job security as components of reward are very good in attracting
employees with necessary competencies which the organizations need to maintain their
competitiveadvantage,particularlyinthiseraofintensebusiness.Therefore,in

71 | P a g e
 administering rewards to the employees to achieve effective performance in DBWPF,
management bodies should be properly guided and know what motivates each category of
workers most. Following this, appropriate reward system should be laid down within the
organization at most.
 Employees who receive high supervisor support tend to increase their efforts to exceed
their responsibilities, in return for the benefits provided by their supervisors. Supervisor
support can play a vital role to engage the employee which may enhance their
belongingness to the organization. As such, supportive supervisory actions targeted
towards employees which in turn lead to improvements in organizational performance
should be promoted within DBWPF.
 Today, flexible working hours is becoming more and more important to the workplace.
Many organizations offer employees the option. For this, by introducing appropriate and
flexible working time employees of DBWPF can obtain a work-life balance and will
obtain a quality life.

SuggestionsforFurtherResearch

The main objective of this study is to examine the effect of work condition on employees’ job
performance of DebreBerhan Wood Processing Factory (DBWPF). Since the study isconducted
on DBWPF, in order to reach on a more concrete and plausible policy implications or
recommendations, future researchers who are interested on the related subject area should
undertake their study on other organizations. A comparative analysis concerning working
conditions among different firms belonging to the same industry can be another area of
investigation suggested for future researchers.

72 | P a g e
 REFERENCES

Abbas, Q., &Yaqoob, S.(2009). Effect of Leadership Development on Employee Performancein

Pakitan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 47(2), 269–292.

Abdul, G. A. & Tafique T. (2015). Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: A

casestudyofBanksandInsuranceCompaniesinPakistan.EuropeanJournalofBusiness and
Management, 7(1).

Abubakar Isah Baba, A.I., Ghazali, S., (2017). Effects of motivation, working conditions and
perceived organizational justice on employee performance. Asian Journal of
Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(8).

Aisha, A.N., Pamoedji, H. & Yassierli (2013). Effects of Working Ability, Working Condition,
Motivation and Incentive on Employees Multi-Dimensional Performance. International
Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 4(6), 605-609.

Akpan,E.,(2011).EffectiveSafetyandHealthManagementPolicyforImproved:performanceof
organizations in Africa. International Journal of Business and Management 6(3), 159-
164.

Ali, A.Y.S., Ali, A.A., & Adan, A.A. (2013). Working conditions and employees’ productivity in
manufacturing companies in sub-Saharan African context: Case of Somalia. Educational
Research International, 2(2), 67-78.

Alice, K.M., Julie M. & Kennedy, N.O. (2018). Perceived Working Conditions on Employee
Performance in Zero Rated Hotels within Nakuru Town Kenya. International Journal of
Recent Innovations in Academic Research, 2(7): 134-140.

Al-Omari, K., & Okasheh, H. (2017). The Influence of Work Environment on Job Performance:A
Case Study of Engineering Company in Jordan. International Journal of Applied
Engineering Research, 12(24), 15544-15550.

Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of
Work-FamilyConflictandVariousOutcomeswithaSpecialEmphasisonCross-Domain

73 | P a g e
 Versus Matching-Domain Relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
16(2),151–169.

Antonelli, A. Baker, M., McMahon, A., & Wright, M. (2001). Six SME case Studies that
demonstrate the business benefit of effective management of occupational health and
safety. Berkshire: Prepared by Greenstreet Berman Ltd for the Health and Safety
Executive. Research Report. The Australian National Training Authority. OHS
Administration.

ArmstrongM.(2006).Humanresourcemanagement(10thed.)London:Koganpage.

Aseanty,D.(2016).ImpactofWorkingAbility,MotivationandWorkingConditiontoEmployee’s
Performance; Case in Private Universities in West Jakarta. OIDA International Journal
of Sustainable Development, Ontario International Development Agency, Canada. 9(4).

Atya N. A., Pamoedji, H., & Yassierli (2013) Effects of Working Ability, Working Condition,
Motivation and Incentive on Employees Multi-Dimensional Performance. International
Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 4(6),

Awan, A.G. & Tahir,M.T. (2015). Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: A
casestudyofBanksandInsuranceCompaniesinPakistan.EuropeanJournalofBusiness and
Management, 7(1), 329-345.

Babies.(2013).ThePracticeofSocialResearch,13thedition.Canada:International Edition.

Bakar, H. A., Walters, T., Halim, H., (2014). Measuring communication styles in the Malaysian
workplace: Instrument development and validation, Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 18(3), 37-41.

Bhaga, T. (2013). The impact of working conditions on the productivity of nursing staff in the
Midwife and Obstetrical Unit of Pretoria West Hospital (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Pretoria).

Bhawsar, S., Paharia, A., Nougriaya, S. (2014). Working Conditions and Employees
Productivity: A Case study on Iron ORE Mines in Jabalpur (M.P.): Literature Review.
International Journal of Engineering Technology & Management Research. 2(2).

74 | P a g e
Bonache, J. (2005). Job satisfaction among expatriates, repatriates and domestic employees:The
perceived impact of international assignments on work‐related variables. Personnel
Review, 34(1), 110-124.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations, 71-98.

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

psychological Science 13(6), 238–241.

Bright, L. (2005). Public Employees with High Levels of Public Service Motivation: Who Are
They, Where Are They, and What do They Want? Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 25(2), 138–154.

Bücker, J. L. E., Furrer, O., Poutsma, E., Buyens, D.,(2014). The impact of cultural intelligence
on communication effectiveness, job satisfaction and anxiety for Chinese host country
managers working for foreign multinationals,International Journal of Human Resource
Management, vol. 25(14), 2068–2087.

Chiang, T. and Birch, A. (2010). Pay for performance and work attitudes: The mediating role of
employee- organization service value congruence. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29(4), 632-640.

Clifford, J. (1985). The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as determinants of
work satisfaction. Journal of Sociology.

Cresswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach.
(2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

CropanzanoR,MitchellM.S.(2005).Socialexchangetheory:aninterdisciplinaryreview.
JournalofManagement.31(6),874-900.

Deasy, A. (2016). Impact of Working Ability, Motivation and Working Condition to Employee’s
Performance; Case in Privatev Universities in West Jakarta. International Journal of
Sustainable Development, 9(4), 35-42.

75 | P a g e
Delgado-Rodriguez, N., Hernandez-Fernaud, E., Rosales, C., Diaz-Vilela, L., Isla-Diaz, R., &
Diaz-Cabrera, D. (2018). Contextual performance in Academic Settings:The Role of
Personality, Self-Efficacy, and Impression Management. Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 34(2), 63-68.

Evans, J. D.(1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. . Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Field,A.(2005).DiscoveringStatisticsusingSPSS:2nded.SAGEPublication. Gall,

M. G. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.).

Gerber, P.D., Nel, P.S. and Van Dyk, P.S. (1998). Human Resource management. (4th ed) Cape
Town: Southern Book Publishers.

Gujarati,D.(2004).BasicEconometrics,4thed., PublishedintheMcGraw−HillCompanies.

Gunaseelan, R., & Ollukkaran, B. (2012). A study on the impact of work environment on
employee performance. Namex International Journal of Management Research.

Gupta, M., Kumar, V.,& Singh, M. (2014). Creating satisfied employees through workplace
spirituality:AstudyoftheprivateinsurancesectorinPunjab(India).JournalofBusiness Ethics,
122(1), 79-88.

Hackman, J. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 11, 445–455.

Imran, R., Fatima, A., Zaheer, A., Yousaf, I.,& Batool, I. (2012). How to Boost Employee
Performance: Investigating the Influence of Transformational Leadership and Work
Environment in a Pakistani Perspective. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research,
11(10), 1455–1462.

Ince, M., Gul, H., (2011). The role of the organizational communication on employees'
perception of justice: A sample of public institution from Turkey,” Journal of Social
Sciences, 21(1), 106-124.

76 | P a g e
Ismail, J., Ladisma, M., Mohd Amin, S. H., &Arapa, A. (2010). The Influence of physical
workplace environment on the productivity of civil servants: The case of the Ministry of
Youth and Sports, Putrajaya, Malaysia. Voice of Academia, 5(1), 78-98.

Jackson, S. L. (2008). Research methods a modular approach. Belmont, CA: Thomson

HigherEducation.

Kahya,E.(2007)Theeffectsofjobcharacteristicsandworkingconditionsonjobperformance.
InternationalJournalofIndustrialErgonomics,37, 515–523.

Khan, S. H., Azhar, Z., Parveen, S., Naeem, F., & Sohail, M. M. (2011). Exploring the impact of
infrastructure,payincentives,andworkplaceenvironmentonemployees’performance(A case
study of Sargodha University). Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4), 118-140.

KhankaS.S.,(2003).HumanResourceManagement.India:SChanda&companiesLtd.

Kibe, C. W., (2014). “Effects of communication strategies on organizational performance: Acase

study of Kenya ports authority,” Journal ofBusiness and Management, 6(11), 6–11.

Kiberenge, C. & Elizabeth N. (2016). Effects of Working Environment on Employees

PerformanceatTeachersServiceCommissionTransNzoiaCounty.InternationalJournal of
Scientific Engineering and Research (IJSER), 4(2), 151-156.

Kossek EE, Thompson RJ. (2016). Workplace flexibility: Integrating employer and employee
perspectives to close the research practice implementation gap. The Oxford handbook of
work and family 255, 24-26.

Kothari. (2004). Research methodology methods and techniques (2nd ed),new age
internationalpublishes.

Lam, T., Baum, T., & Pine, R. (2001). Study of managerial job satisfaction in Hong Kong's
chinese restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
3(1), 35-42.

Leblebici, D. (2012). Impact of workplace quality on employee’s productivity: case study of a

bank in Turkey, Turkey, Journal of Business, Economics and Finance. 1(1), 38-40.

77 | P a g e
Luddy, N. (2005). Job satisfaction amongst employees at a Public health institution in the
Western Cape. . Unpublished Masters Treatise. University of the Western Cape, Cape
Town, Western Cape.

McCoy, J. M.,& Evans, G. W. (2005). Physical work environment. Handbook of work stress,219-
245.

Moenga,A.K.,Makomere,J.,&Otiso.K.N.,(2018).PerceivedWorkingConditionsonEmployee
Performance in Zero Rated Hotels within Nakuru Town Kenya. International Journal of
Recent Innovations in Academic Research, 2(7), 134-140.

Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., Schmitt, M.J., (1997). A theory of individual differences in task
and contextual performance. Human Performance 10 (2), 71–83.

Muda, I., Rafiki, A., & Harahap, M. R. (2014). Factors Influencing Employees’ Performance: A
Study on the Islamic Banks in IslamicScienceUniversity of Malaysia University of North
Sumatera. International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 5(2), 73–80.

Mugenda,O.A.(2008).ResearchMethods;Quantitative&Qualitative.

Musau P, Nyongesa P, Shikhule A, Birech E, Kirui D, Njenga M, Kiilu K. (2008). Workload

indicators of staffing need method in determining optimal staffing levels at Moi Teaching
and Referral Hospital. East African Medical Journal, 85(5), 232–39

Naharuddin, N., & Sadegi, M. (2013). Factors of workplace environment that affect employees
per-formance: A case study of Miyazu Malaysia. International Journal of Independent
Research and Studies, 2(2), 66-78.

Nduku, S.S., Mwenda, L. & Wachira, A. (2015). Effects of Working Conditions on Performance
of Employees of Kenya Commercial Bank Head Office. International Journal of Current
Research, 7(3), 14174-14180.

Niemelä, R., Hannula, M., Rautio, S., Reijula, K., &Railio, J. (2002). The effect of air
temperature on labour productivity in call centres a case study. Energy and buildings,
34(8), 759-764.

78 | P a g e
Prasetya,A. & Kato, M. (2011). The effects of Financial and Non-financial compensation to the
Employee performance. In Second International Research Symposium in Science.

Saeed, R., Mussawar, S., Lodhi, R. N., Iqbal, A., Nayab, H. H., & Yaseen, S. (2013). Factors
Affecting the Performance of Employees at Work Place in the Banking Sector ofPakistan.
Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 17(9), 1200–1208.

Salvator,D.&Reagle,D.(2002).StatisticsandEconometrics.SchaumsOutlinesSeries.2ndEd.
McGraw-HillCompanies,Inc.

Samuel, S.N., Lilian, M. & Anita, W. (2015). Effects of working conditions on performance of
employees of Kenya Commercial bank head office International Journal of Current
Research. 7(3), 14174-14180.

Sgobbi, F., Cainarca, G. C., (2015). High-Performance work practices and core employee
wages: Evidence from Italian manufacturing plants.

Shah SSH, Jaffari AR, Aziz J, Ejaz W, Ul-Haq I, Raza SN (2011). Workload and performance of
employees. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(5), 256–
267.

Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with
subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695.

Singh,Y.(2006).FundamentalofresearchmethodologyandstatisticsNewDalhi:NewAge.

SinhaEl-Saaba(2004).TheSkillsandCareerPathofanEffectiveProjectManager.
InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,19,1-7.

Temessek.(2009).ExpandingthePsychosocialWorkEnvironment:WorkplaceNormsandWork–Family
Conflict as Correlates of Stress and Health. Vol. 3No. 1. Pp.71-88.

Thomaz, J. C., (2010). Identification, reputation, and performance: Communication mediation,”

Journal of Latin American Business Review, 11(2), 171–197.

VanScotter,J.R.,Motowidlo,S.J.,Cross,T.C.,(2000).Effectsoftaskandcontextual performance on
systematic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (4), 526–535.

79 | P a g e
Vischer, J. C. (2007). The effects of the physical environment on job performance: towards a
theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and Health: Journal of the International
Society for the Investigation of Stress, 23(3), 175-184.

Wameedh A. K. (2011). Improving Safety Performance by Understanding Relationship between

Management Practices and Leadership Behavior in the Oil and Gas Industry in Iraq,
University Utara Malaysia.

Werner, J.M., (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource
management. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 3–24.

Zhon, J.E.A., Isfenti, S., Rulianda, P.W. (2018). Study on The Effect of Leadership Style, Reward
Systems, and Working Conditions on Employee Work Performance (Case Study of The
State Plantation of Merbau Pagar, Indonesia). Junior Scientific Researcher, 4(2), 126-
135.

80 | P a g e
 APPENDIX

Appendix1:Questionnaire

DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGEOFBUSINESSANDECONOMICS
DEPARTMENTOFMANAGEMENT(MBAPROGRAM)

DearRespondent,

Iama postgraduatestudent from Debre Berhan University,who arecurrentlywriting a thesis in

Business Administration. I am undertaking my MBA thesis on “The Effect of Work Conditionon
Employees Job Performance: The Case of Debre Berhan Wood Processing Factory”. I believe
that this is an important issue as work condition and employee performance in the
manufacturing sector has been regarded as an important factor in employee’s performance and
in turn leading to a better output to their customers.

Theanswersandyourpersonalinformationwillremainconfidentialand anonymous.

Ithankyouinadvance.

PartI:DemographicInformation

1. Sex: Male Female

2. Age (in years):
3. MaritalStatus: Single Married Divorce
4. Education Status:Illiterate Primary (1-8) Secondary
Diploma Degree Masters&above
5. Working Experience (in years):
6. Working Unit/Division:

PartII:ContextualandTask Performance
Below are a number of statements. Select only one alternative by putting “X” in the
corresponding box. Sometimes the given alternatives may not be exactly suitable. However, we
request that you choose the best alternative that is closest to your opinion.

81 | P a g e
Pleasereadthequestion carefullybeforeselectinganalternativebasedonthescale provided.

1=StronglyDisagree(SD),2=Disagree(D),3=Neutral(N),4=Agree(A),5=StronglyAgree (SA)

C o n t e x t u a l P e r f o r m a n c e

A l t r u i s m
S. No . D i m e n s i o n s

1 =SD

5 =SA
2 =D

3 =N

4 =A
1 Ihelpotheremployeeswiththeirworkwhentheyhav e
been absent.
2 Iamcooperativetodothingsnotformallyrequiredby th e
job.
3 Itakeinitiativetoorientnewemployeestotheorganization
eventhoughnotpart ofhis/herjobdescription.
4 Ihelpotherswhentheirworkloadincreases
5 Imakeinnovativesuggestionstoimprovetheoveral l
qualityofthe organization.
6 Iwillinglyattendfunctionsnotrequiredby the
organization,buthelpsinitsoverallimage.
C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s

S. No . D i m e n s i o n s
1 =SD

5 =SA
2 =D

3 =N

4 =A
1 I a m p u n c t u a l a t w o r k p l a c e .
2 I t a k e u n d e s e r v e d w o r k b r e a k s .
3 Itakefewerdaysoffthanmostindividualsor fewe r
thanallowed.
4 Igiveadvancenoticeif unabletocometowork .
5 Ispendagreat dealoftimeinpersonaltelephon e
conversations.
6 Itakeunnecessarytimeoffwork.
7 I t a k e e x t r a b r e a k s .
8 Ispendagreat dealoftimeinidleconversation
T a s k P e r f o r m a n c e

82 | P a g e
 S . D i m e n s i o n s

1 =SD

5 =SA
2 =D

3 =N

4 =A
No.

1 Ialwaysachievetheobjectivesof my job
2 I m e e t c r i t e r i a f o r p e r f o r m a n c e
3 Idemonstrateexpertiseinalljob-related tasks
4 Ifulfillalltherequirementsofmyjob
5 Icouldmanagemoreresponsibilitythan typicall y
assigned
6 Iamsuitableforahigher-level role
7 Iamcompetentinallareasofmyjob,handles task s
with proficiency
8 Iperformwellintheoveralljobbycarryingouttask s
as expected
9 Iplans&organizestoachieveobjectivesofmyjob &
meetdeadlines

PartIII:DeterminantsofEmployeePerformance
P h y s i c a l W o r k C o n d i t i o n

S. No. D i m e n s i o n s
1 = SD

5 = SA
2=D

3=N

1 Thereisanairconditioningfacilitytocontrolth e 4 =A
heatwhenthemachinesareworking
2 Themachineriesintheorganizationareplacedi n
suchawaythatisappropriatetooperatethem
3 My workplace provides an undisturbed
environmentwithoutanynoisethatgivesmealone
timetoperformmy duties.
4 TheequipmentIusesuitsmypostureandIcan
easilyadjust.

83 | P a g e
5 I canseeverywellwhileworkingwithmachinesi n
the organizations because lighting issues is
considered while Placing them.
O c c u p a t i o n a l H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y

S. No. D i m e n s i o n

1 = SD

5 = SA
2=D

3=N

4 =A
1 Workingenvironmentsuchaslighting,noiselevel,
temperatureandventilationare acceptable
2 Workplacehasadequatefire-fightingequipmen t
andwithineasyreachofworkers
3 Workstationandseatingfacilityare comfortable to
work
4 Workplacehasanadequatelyequippedandstaffed
clinic
5 Healthandsafetyregularchecksaremadebyth e
organization
I n t e r n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n

S. No. D i m e n s i o n
1 = SD

5 = SA
2=D

3=N

4 =A
1 Thereisateambuildingviasocialnetworkin g
withintheorganization
2 Makingurgentannouncementsviasocialnetworks
isaculturein the organization
3 Employeesuggestionsaretakenseriouslywithi n
the organization
4 Thereisaroomforparticipationindecision
makingprocesswithintheorganization
5 Thereisaregularstaffmeetingswithinthe
organization

84 | P a g e
6 Opportunitiesandfreedomtoexpressonesel f
withintheorganizationisavailable
W o r k L o a d

S. No. D i m e n s i o n s

1 = SD

5 = SA
2=D

3=N

4 =A
1 Iworklong anddifficultworking hoursand day s
2 IamabletomeetthedeadlineIhaveformywor k
3 Ifeeloverworkedbythedemandplaceonme
4 Ifeeltiredbythedemandplacedon
5 Iamnotabletotakesufficient breaks
W o r k P l a c e R e w a r d

S. No. D i m e n s i o n s

1 = SD

5 = SA
2=D

3=N

4 =A
1 Thebasicsofpayment,forexample,overtim e
paymentarereasonable.
2 Iearnthesameasormorethanotherpeopleon a
similarjob.
3 MysalaryissatisfactoryinrelationtowhatIdo .
4 Thebenefitsystemoftheorganizationtreatseac h
employeereasonably.
5 Mymedicalschemeis satisfactory.
6 Theopportunityforpromotionexistsinthi s
organization.
7 Iampraisedregularlyformygoodwork.
8 Ihavetheauthoritytocorrectdailyproblemwhe n
they occur
S u p e r v i s o r S u p p o r t

S. No. D i m e n s i o n s
1 = SD

5 = SA
2=D

3=N

4 =A

85 | P a g e
1 Mysupervisiontakesapersonalinterestinthos e
he/shesupervise
2 Thereisregularfeedbackandrecognitionfo r
doingagoodjob
3 Mysupervisorencouragesmetothosecreativ e
jobsIdo
4 Mysupervisortakesresponsibilityforshapingth e
attitudes and relationship within our
division/department
5 Mysupervisorprovidesmewithcontinuous
feedbacktohelpmeachievemytasks
W o r k T i m e

S. No. D i m e n s i o n s

1 = SD

5 = SA
2=D

3=N

4 =A
1 Regulardailyorweeklyworkinghoursarealways
withinthelegallimit
2 Myemployergivesworkersatleast24consecutive
hoursoffperweek
3 Iamgrantedanannualpayleaveformywork
4 My overtime work is appropriate and well
compensated

86 | P a g e
Appendix2:DescriptiveStatisticsontheDependentVariables

C o n t e x t u a l P e r f o r m a n c e Mean SD
A l t r u i s m
S. No. D i m e n s i o n s
1 Ihelpotheremployeeswiththeirworkwhentheyhavebeen absent . 3.671 1.163
2 Iamcooperativetodothingsnotformallyrequiredbythe job . 4.343 0.665
3 Itakeinitiativetoorientnewe m pl oye e st ot he orga ni z a t i one ve n 4.130 0.728
thoughnotpartofhis/herjobdescription.
4 Ihelpotherswhentheirworkloadincrease s 4.247 0.747
5 Imakeinnovativesuggestionstoimprovetheoverallqualityofth e 3.905 1.186
organization.
6 Iwillinglyattendfunctionsnotrequiredbytheorganization,but help s 3.594 1.148
initsoverall image.
MeanScoreof Altruism 3.981 0.623
C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s Mean SD
S. No. D i m e n s i o n s
1 I a m p u n c t u a l a t w o r k p l a c e . 3.333 1 . 1 5 2
2 I t a k e u n d e s e r v e d w o r k b r e a k s . 3.117 1 . 2 2 0
3 Itakefewerdaysoffthanmost individualsorfewerthan allowed . 3.788 1 . 2 3 1
4 Igiveadvancenoticeifunabletocometowork. 4.198 1 . 0 7 8
5 Ispendagreatdealoftimeinpersonaltelephoneconversations . 3.333 1 . 1 9 4
6 I t a k e u n n e c e s s a r y t i m e o f f w o r k . 2.761 1 . 3 2 2
7 I t a k e e x t r a b r e a k s . 3.554 1 . 2 4 5
8 Ispendagreat dealoftimeinidleconversation 3.085 1 . 2 2 4
MeanScoreof Conscientiousness 3.396 0 . 7 7 7
MeanScoreofTask Performance 3.647 0 . 6 6 4
T a s k P e r f o r m a n c e Mean SD
S. No. D i m e n s i o n s
1 Ialwaysachievethe objectivesofmy jo b 2.968 1.295
2 I m e e t c r i t e r i a f o r p e r f o r m a n c e 2.612 1.215
3 Idemonstrateexpertiseinalljob-related tasks 2.774 1.238
4 I f u l f i l l a l l t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f m y j o b 3.022 1.263
5 Icouldmanagemoreresponsibilitythan typicallyassigne d 3.157 1.269
6 I a m s u i t a b l e f o r a h i g h e r - l e v e l r o l e 3.112 1.271
7 Iamcompetentinallareasofmyjob,handlestaskswith proficienc y 3.315 1.196
8 Iperformwellintheoveralljobbycarryingouttasksasexpecte d 3.436 1.232
9 Iplans&organizestoachieveobjectivesofmyjob&meetdeadline s 3.042 0.681
MeanScoreofTask Performance 3.042 0.761

87 | P a g e
Appendix3:DescriptiveStatisticsontheIndependentVariables
P h y s i c a l W o r k C o n d i t i o n Mean SD
S. No. D i m e n s i o n s
1 Thereisanairconditioningfacilitytocontroltheheatwhenth e 3.869 1.190
machinesareworking
2 Themachineriesintheorganizationareplacedinsuchawaythati s 3.486 1.171
appropriatetooperatethem
3 Myworkplaceprovidesanundisturbedenvironmentwithoutan y 3.941 0.956
noisethatgivesmealonetimetoperformmy duties.
4 TheequipmentIusesuitsmypostureandIcaneasilyadjust . 3.238 1.081
5 Icanseeverywellwhileworkingwithmachinesintheorganization s 3.396 1.121
becauselightingissuesisconsideredwhilePlacingthem.
MeanScoreofPhysicalWorkCondition 3.586 0.801
O c c u p a t i o n a l H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y Mean SD
S. No. D i m e n s i o n
1 Workingenvironmentsuchaslighting,noiselevel,temperaturean d 3.819 1.039
ventilationareacceptable
2 Workplacehasadequatefire-fightingequipmentandwithineas y 3.315 1.232
reachofworkers
3 Workstationandseatingfacilityarecomfortabletowor k 2.968 1.295
4 Workplacehasanadequatelyequippedandstaffedclini c 2.612 1.215
5 Healthandsafetyregular checksaremadebytheorganizatio n 2.774 1.238
MeanScoreofOccupationalHealthandSafety 3.098 0.853

I n t e r n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o m m u n i c a t i o n Mean SD
S. No. D i m e n s i o n
1 Thereisateambuildingviasocialnetworkingwithintheorganizatio n 2.923 1.054
2 Makingurgentannouncementsviasocialnetworksisacultureinth e 2.860 1 . 0
organization
3 Employeesuggestionsaretakenseriouslywithintheorganizatio n 2.761 1.196
4 Thereisaroomforparticipationindecisionmakingprocesswithi n 2.846 1.223
the organization
5 Thereisaregularstaffmeetingswithinthe organizatio n 2.954 1.293
6 Opportunitiesandfreedomtoexpressoneselfwithintheorganizatio n 2.774 1.238
is available
MeanScoreofInternalOrganizationalCommunicatio n 2.853 0.725
W o r k L o a d Mean SD
S. No. D i m e n s i o n s
1 Iworklonganddifficultworkinghoursanddays 2.405 1.148
2 Iam abletomeetthedeadlineIhaveformywork 2.667 1.152
3 Ifeeloverworkedbythedemandplaceonme 2.882 1.220
4 I f e e l t i r e d b y t h e d e m a n d p l a c e d o n 2.212 1.231

88 | P a g e
5 I a m n o t a b l e t o t a k e s u f f i c i e n t b r e a k s 1.801 1.078
M e a n S c o r e o f W o r k L o a d 2.393 0.896
W o r k P l a c e R e w a r d Mean SD
S. No. D i m e n s i o n s
1 Thebasicsofpayment,forexample,overtimepaymentar e 4.243 1.162
reasonable.
2 Iearnthesameasormorethanotherpeopleonasimilar job . 3.977 1.065
3 MysalaryissatisfactoryinrelationtowhatIdo. 3.846 1.193
4 Thebenefitsystemoftheorganizationtreatseachemploye e 3.991 0.887
reasonably.
5 M y m e d i c a l s c h e m e i s s a t i s f a c t o r y . 3.454 1.514
6 Theopportunityforpromotionexistsinthisorganization . 3.720 0.994
7 I a m p r a i s e d r e g u l a r l y f o r m y g o o d w o r k . 4.022 0.999
8 Ihavetheauthoritytocorrectdailyproblemwhentheyoccu r 4.234 0.860
MeanScoreofWorkPlaceReward 3.936 0.629
S u p e r v i s o r S u p p o r t Mean SD
S. No. D i m e n s i o n s

1 Mysupervisiontakesapersonalinterestinthosehe/shesupervis e 4.247 0.822

2 Thereisregularfeedbackandrecognitionfordoingagoodjo b 3.918 1.130
3 MysupervisorencouragesmetothosecreativejobsIdo 3.828 1.058
4 Mysupervisortakesresponsibilityforshapingtheattitudesan d 3.045 1.202
relationshipwithinourdivision/department
5 Mysupervisorprovidesmewithcontinuousfeedbacktohelpm e 3.986 1.061
achievemytasks
MeanScoreofSupervisorSupport 3.805 0.769

W o r k T i m e Mean SD
S. No. D i m e n s i o n s

1 Regulardailyorweeklyworkinghoursarealwayswithinthelega l 2.549 0.820

limit
2 Myemployergivesworkersatleast24consecutivehoursoffpe r 2.869 1.267
week
3 Iamgrantedanannual payleaveformywork 3.481 0.703
4 Myovertimeworkisappropriateandwellcompensated 3.153 0.999
M e a n S c o r e o f W o r k T i m e 3.013 0.647

89 | P a g e
Appendix4:MultipleLinearRegressionAnalysisandDiagnosticTests

S o u r c e | SS d f MS Number o f o b s = 2 2 2
+ F ( 7 , 214) = 150.14
M o d e l | 106.391183 7 15.1987404 Prob> F = 0.0000
Residual | 21.6638144 214 .101232778 R-squared = 0.8308
+ AdjR-squared = 0.8253
T o t a l | 128.054997 221 .579434375 R o o t M S E = .31817

Taskperformance | Coef. Std.Err. t P>|t| [95%Conf. Interval]

+
Phyworkcond | .2479435 .0344524 7.20 0.000 .1800339 .315853
Orghealthsafety | .5646296 .0417229 13.53 0.000 .4823892 . 6 4 6 8 7
Introrgcomm | .1435003 .0379468 3 . 7 8 0.000 . 0 6 8 7 0 3 .2182977
Workloa | .081017 .0298847 2 . 7 1 0.007 .0221109 .13992 3
d
Workplcrwd | .1818154 .0473896 3 . 8 4 0.000 . 0 8 8 4 0 5 2 .2752257
Supsupport | .098769 .0390806 2 . 5 3 0.012 . 0 2 1 7 3 6 7 .1758013
Worktim | .0751649 .035335 2 . 1 3 0.035 .0055158 .14481 4
e
_cons | -1.517521 .252828 -6.00 0.000 -2.01587 3 -
1.019169

S o u r c e | SS d f MS Number o f o b s = 222
+ F ( 7 , 214) = 218.38
M o d e l | 85.6394171 7 12.2342024 Prob> F = 0.0000
Residual | 11.9887326 2 1 4 .056022115 R-squared = 0.8772
+ AdjR-squared = 0.8732
T o t a l | 97.6281497 2 2 1 .441756333 R o o t M S E = .23669

Perceivedper~e | C o e f . Std.Err. t P>|t| [95%Conf. Interval]

+
Phyworkcond | .0661047 .0256294 2 . 5 8 0.011 . 0 1 5 5 8 6 2 .1166231
Orghealthsaf~y | .0771208 .031038 2 . 4 8 0.014 .0159415 . 1 3 8 3
Introrgcomm | .160064 .0282289 5 . 6 7 0.000 . 1 0 4 4 2 1 7 .2157064
Workloa | -.5662955 .0222315 -25.47 0.000 -.610116 2 -.5224749
d
Workplcrwd | .039654 .0152535 2 . 6 1 0.009 . 0 0 9 5 8 7 6 .0697203
Supsupport | .0491565 .0190724 2 . 5 8 0.011 . 0 1 1 5 6 2 6 .0867503
Worktim | .0167722 .002628 6 . 4 2 0.000 . 0 1 1 5 9 2 1 .0219522
e

90 | P a g e
_cons | 4.463818 .1880808 2 3 . 7 3 0.000 4 . 0 9 3 0 9 4.834546

91 | P a g e
Variable VIF 1/VIF

Orghealths~y 2.77 0.361156

Supsupport 1.97 0.506771
Workplcrwd 1.94 0.514478
Phyworkcond 1.66 0.601291
Introrgcomm 1.66 0.603784
Workload 1.57 0.638411
Worktime 1.14 0.874557

M e a n V I F 1 . 8 2

White'stestforHo:homoskedasticity
againstHa:unrestrictedheteroskedasticity

chi2(35 ) = 3 5 . 0 4
Prob>chi2 = 0.4662

Cameron&Trivedi'sdecompositionofIM-test

S o u r c e c h i 2 d f p

Heteroskedasticity 3 5 . 0 4 3 5 0.4662
S k e w n e s s 8 . 9 6 7 0.2556
K u r t o s i s 0 . 2 2 1 0.6368

T o t a l 4 4 . 2 2 4 3 0.4197

.estathettest

Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisbergtestforheteroskedasticity Ho:
Constant variance
Variables:fittedvaluesofTaskperformance

c h i 2 ( 1 ) = 0 . 1 4
Prob>chi2 = 0.7037

92 | P a g e
White'stestforHo:homoskedasticity
againstHa:unrestrictedheteroskedasticity

chi2(24 ) = 2 5 . 0 0
Prob>chi2 = 0.4058

Cameron&Trivedi'sdecompositionofIM-test

S o u r c e c h i 2 d f p

Heteroskedasticity 2 5 . 0 0 2 4 0.4058
S k e w n e s s 1 0 . 6 8 7 0.1532
K u r t o s i s 0 . 2 1 1 0.6439

T o t a l 3 5 . 8 9 3 2 0.2909

.estathettest

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticityHo:

Constant variance
Variables:fittedvaluesofPerceivedperformance

c h i 2 ( 1 ) = 2 . 6 3
Prob>chi2 = 0.1050

Ramsey RESET test using powers of the fitted values of

TaskperformanceHo:model has no omitted variables
F(3,211)= 1.59
Prob>F= 0.1918

RamseyRESETtestusingpowersofthefittedvaluesofPerceivedperformanceHo:model has no
omitted variables
F(3,211)= 2.19
Prob>F= 0.0898

93 | P a g e
Appendix4: Multiple Linear Regression Analysis and Diagnostic Tests

Source | SS Df MS Number Of obs = 259

+ F ( 7 , 251) = 150.14
Model | 124.1230 7 17.731924 Prob> F = 0.0000
Residual | 25.409021 251 .10123457 R-squared = 0.79502
+ AdjR-squared = 0.80174
Total | 149.5320 258 .5796017 Root MSE = .3104270

Task performance | Coef. Std.Err. t P>|t| [95%Conf. Interval]

+
Phyworkcon | .2479435 .0344524 7.20 0.000 .1800339 .315853
d
Orghealthsafety | .5646296 .0417229 13.53 0.000 .4823892 . 6 4 6 8 7
Introrgcomm | .1435003 .0379468 3 . 7 8 0.000 . 0 6 8 7 0 3 .2182977
Workloa | .081017 .0298847 2 . 7 1 0.007 .0221109 .13992 3
d
Workplcrwd | .1818154 .0473896 3 . 8 4 0.000 . 0 8 8 4 0 5 2 .2752257
Supsupport | .098769 .0390806 2 . 5 3 0.012 . 0 2 1 7 3 6 7 .1758013
Worktime | .0751649 .035335 2 . 1 3 0.035 .0055158 .14481 4
_cons | -1.517521 .252828 -6.00 0.000 -2.01587 3 -
1.019169

Source | SS d f MS Number o f o b s = 222

+ F ( 7 , 251) = 218.38
Model | 85.6394171 7 12.2342024 Prob> F = 0.0000
Residual | 11.9887326 214 .056022115 R-squared = 0.8772
+ AdjR-squared = 0.8732
T o t a l | 97.6281497 2 2 1 .441756333 R o o t M S E = .23669

Perceivedper~e | C o e f . Std.Err. t P>|t| [95%Conf. Interval]

+
Phyworkcond | .0661047 .0256294 2 . 5 8 0.011 . 0 1 5 5 8 6 2 .1166231
Orghealthsaf~y | .0771208 .031038 2 . 4 8 0.014 .0159415 . 1 3 8 3
Introrgcomm | .160064 .0282289 5 . 6 7 0.000 . 1 0 4 4 2 1 7 .2157064
Workload | -.5662955 .0222315 -25.47 0.000 -.610116 2 -.5224749
Workplcrwd | .039654 .0152535 2 . 6 1 0.009 . 0 0 9 5 8 7 6 .0697203
Supsupport | .0491565 .0190724 2 . 5 8 0.011 . 0 1 1 5 6 2 6 .0867503
Worktime | .0167722 .002628 6 . 4 2 0.000 . 0 1 1 5 9 2 1 .0219522

94 | P a g e
_cons | 4.463818 .1880808 2 3 . 7 3 0.000 4 . 0 9 3 0 9 4.834546

95 | P a g e
96 | P a g e