Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

96

IMPACT OF OFFICE FACILITIES AND WORKPLACE MILIEU ON

EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE: A CASE STUDY OF SARGODHA
UNIVERSITY
Sajida Parveen
1

Malik Muhammad Sohail
2

Farheen Naeem
3

Zarqa Azhar
4

Saddat Hasnain Khan
5

ABSTRACT
It was important to maintain a comfortable, safe, supportive physical environment to help workers
stay motivated and productive. This study aims to explore the impact of office facilities and
workplace milieu on employees performance in a university of Sargodha. A sample of 150
respondents of male and female employees of both teaching and non-teaching category was
selected. Chi-square and Gamma test were applied to interpret the findings of study.
Keywords: Office Facilities, Workplace, Employee Performance.

INTRODUCTION

Work environment comprises the totality of forces, actions and other influential factors that are
currently and, or potentially contending with the employees activities and performance. Work
environment is the sum of the interrelationship that exists within the employees and between the
employees and the environment in which the employees work (Kohun, 1992). Infrastructure
includes the physical facilities (roads, airports, utility supply systems, communication systems,

1
Department of Sociology, GC University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
2
Department of Humanities and Social Science, National Textile University, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
E-mail:sohailmujahid@hotmail.com
3
Department of Sociology, GC University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
4
Department of Sociology, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan
5
Department of Sociology, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan

Asian Journal of Empirical Research


journal homepage: http://aessweb.com/journal-detail.php?id=5004
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

97

water and waste disposal systems etc.), and the services (water, sanitation, transport, energy)
flowing from those facilities (Sida, 1996). According to Cascio, (2006), performance refers to the
degree of achievement of the mission at work place that builds up an employee job. Mostly
researchers used the term performance to express the range of measurements of transactional
efficiency and input and output efficiency (Stannack, 1996).

There are key factors in the employees workplace environment that impact greatly on their level of
motivation and performance. In addition to motivation, workers need the skills and ability to do
their job effectively (Chandrasekar, 2011).Mostly people spend fifty percent of their lives within
indoor environments, which deeply influence their mental status, actions, abilities and also their
performance (Sundstrom, 1994). Good results and increased output is assumed to be the result of
better workplace environment. Better physical environment of office will boost the employees and
finally improve their productivity (Carnevale, 1992).

The current study concentrates on the impact of workplace environment and infrastructure on
employees performance. This study represents a significant contribution to understand workplace
environment and infrastructure and its impacts on employees performance, because it positive
enhance the working ability of employees. This study will contribute to see satisfaction of
employees with their working environment.A poor work environment has proved to be associated
with reduced job satisfaction, absenteeism, somatic complaints, burnout and depression phenomena
(McCowan, 2001). According to (Ramlall, 2003) people are strive to work and to stay in those
corporation that provide good and positive work environment, where employee feel that they are
valued mostly and making difference. This study will give some suggestions to improve the
workplace environment. So that employers increase their performance regarding their work.

Objectives:
1) To determine the impact of working environment on university employees performance.
2) To explore the level of satisfaction of university employees with their performance.
3) To check the impact of infrastructure on employees performance.
4) To find out level of satisfaction of female employees working with male employees.

Figure-1: Conceptual frame








Background
Variables
Gender
Education
Age
Income
Infrastructure
Furniture
Air- Conditioner
Workplace
EnvironmentR
elationship with
boss
Workload
Communication

Dependent
Variables
Employees
Performance
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

98

Workplace environment
Lambert et al. (2001) found that environmental factors are important determinant of job
satisfaction. The level of salary, promotion, appraisal system, climate management, and relation
with co-workers are the very important factors. Huges, (2007) surveyed 2000 employees pertaining
to various organizations and industries in multiple levels. The reported results of these survey
showed that nine employees out of ten believed that a workspace quality affects the attitude of
employees and increases their productivity. James, (1996) concluded that the working as a team has
significant impact on the satisfaction level of employees as it affects their performance. It is
essential to recognize to the significance of these factors to boost the satisfaction level in the
workforce. How employees perceive their work environment can affect employee's commitment,
motivation, and performance and also helps organization to form a competitive edge over its rivals.
Brown and Leigh, (1996) concluded that a motivational and empowered work climate can
influence employee's attitudes toward work positively and can improve work performance. Work
place survey conducted for steel case described that an effective work environment management
entails making work environment attractive, creative, comfortable, satisfactory and motivating to
employees so as to give employees a sense of pride and purpose in what they do (Taiwo, 2009).

Creating better and higher performing workplace requires an awareness of how workplace impacts
behavior and how behavior itself drives workplace performance. People work individually and
interact with others and this requires different workplace solutions (Chandrasekar, 2011). How
workplace is designed and occupied affects not only how people feel, but also their work
performance, their commitment to their employer, and the creation of new knowledge in the
organization. These are the cornerstones of the level of research known as the environmental
psychology of workspace (Vischer, 2008). According to Abdulla et al. (2010) environmental
factors represent the immediate job environment that contains skills required to perform a job,
authority, autonomy, relationship with supervisors and co-workers and other working conditions.

EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE

Cummings and Schwab, (1973) argue that performance is ultimately an individual phenomenon
with environmental factors influencing performance mainly through their effect on the individual
determinants of performance, ability and motivation. According to Collis and Montgomery, (1995)
Employee performance has been shown to have a significant positive effect on organizational
performance. According to Adams, (1965) people are motivated to seek social equity in the
rewards they receive for high performance. He suggests that the outcome from job includes; pay
recognition, promotion, social relationship and intrinsic reward. To get these rewards various
inputs needs to be employed by the employees to the job as time, experience, efforts, education and
loyalty. He also suggests that, people tend to view their outcomes and inputs as a ratio and then
compare these ratios with others and turn to become motivated if this ratio is high.

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

99

Identifying and selecting the best employees for particular jobs is an important task for
organizations. High-performing workers are perfect since employee performance directly impacts
the organizations bottom line. Poor performers can cost their employer money through the loss of
production and in the costs of turnover and training (Cooper and Cartwright, 1994). According to
Suhartini, (1995), employee performance is a combined result of effort, ability, and perception of
tasks. High performance is a step towards the achievement of organizational goals and tasks.
Employee performance is an important building block of an organization and factors which lay the
foundation for high performance must be analyzed by the organizations. Since every organization
cannot progress by one or two individuals effort, it is collective effort of all the members of the
organization. Performance is a major multidimensional construct aimed to achieve results and has a
strong link with planned goals of an organization (Abbas and Yaqoob, 2009). Performance is the
key multi character factor intended to attain outcomes which has a major connection with planned
objectives of the organization (Sabir et al. 2012).

INFRASTRUCTURE

Office Furniture
Administrative office managers should be knowledgeable about office furniture. The result of
selecting improper office furniture may be carry out for a long time, as it is often difficult
discarding the pre-owned furniture, which is commonly purchased rather than leased or rented.
Another issue, which is important to consider in enhancing employee productivity, is by selecting
and using proper furniture and equipment, the important physical factors in the office (Keeling and
Kallaus, 1996; Quible et al. 1996). Selecting appropriate office furniture is an important
consideration in which office managers need to pay more attention to make sure that the ergonomic
environment is properly maintained. While ergonomic environment is important in increasing
employee productivity, adjustable office furniture, such as desks and chairs, which can support
employees in generating their work is recommended, to allow the work comfortably throughout the
day (Burke, 2000). The office design encourages employees to work a certain way by the way their
workstations are built. In doing so, the company is answering the firms business plan while
making sure their employees have everything they need to work (Al-Anzi, 2009).

Temperature
Today most office buildings are designed with air conditioning systems, so the temperature level in
one room can remain constant all the time. However, certain factors should come into thought in
establishing proper temperature level; for instance obese workers will work best with lower
temperature levels, whereas the reverse is true for thin workers. The air quality contains four
factors that are: temperature, humidity, ventilation, and cleanliness. A comfortable office
environment is a building or room in which workers can generate their work properly as it clean,
with proper range of temperature, enough ventilation, and a sufficient humidity. After the
temperature level in an office has been set-up properly within the favorable level of humidity, the
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

100

air in the office still needs to be circulated; otherwise it can increase the temperature, which in turn
may cause discomfort. Air flow is also important as it can avoid people inhaling inadequate air.
Moreover, smoking must be illegal in the office. Some small offices still use electric fans to make
sure that the air is circulated well (Quible, 1996; Keeling and Kallaus, 1996).In one experiment,
Lan et al. (2010) investigated the impact of three different indoor temperatures (17C, 21C and
28C) on productivity. They found that employees feel slightly uncomfortable in both the coolest
and warmest of these climates, that they were less motivated and that they experienced their
workload as more difficult, with a consequent turn down in productivity.

WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT AND EMPLOYEES PERFORMANCE

Head of Department
Leadership can be defined as the exercise of influence by one member of a group over other
members to help the group or organization to achieve its goals. Leadership is the process of
influencing a group towards accomplishing its goals. Good leaders can encourage their employees
to participate in work, and make decisions. Leadership is used as a means of motivating others.
Both manager as well as employees must possess leadership traits. An effective leader must have a
thorough knowledge of motivational factors for others. Motivating others is at the heart of
leadership and organizational success (George and Jones, 2005). Organizations must groom leader
to support the employees and to well build the work environment where workers want to stay.
Providing the opportunities test their abilities and providing level of performance can enhance
employees capabilities and want to stay in the organization. Cummings and Schwab, (1973) claim
that leadership is perhaps the most carefully investigated organizational variable that has a potential
impact on employee performance. Winning leaders understand what motivates employees and how
the employees strengths and weaknesses influence their decisions, actions and relationships. They
also mention the connection between leadership traits or leadership behaviors and employee
performance (Freyermuth, 2007).

It is generally accepted that the performance of any group of people is largely dependent on the
quality of its leadership. Effective leadership behavior facilitates the attainment of the subordinates
desires, which then results in effective performance (Maritz, 1995). Behling and McFillen, (1996)
confirmed the link between high performance and leadership in the United States by developing a
model of charismatic/transformational leadership where the leaders behavior is said to give rise to
inspiration, fear and empowerment in his subordinates, resulting in exceptionally high effort,
especially high commitment and motivation to take risks.Employees productivity is determined by
their relationship with their immediate supervisor (Al-Anzi, 2009). Leadership is a central feature
of organizational performance. It is an essential part of organization activities of people and
directing their efforts towards the goals and objectives of the organization. Leadership is the moral
and intellectual ability to think about and work for what is best for the company and its employees.
Good leadership helps to develop team work and the integration of individual and group goals.
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

101

Leaders have to sustain performance, sustaining current performance and growing for the future
with the workers in the organization. The role of the leader in shaping performance is very
important to the success of an organization (Oluseyi and Ayo, 2009).

Communication
Communication is highly functional for work and occurs often in a workplace. Principle of least
collaborative effort, people base their conversations on as little combined effort as possible.
According to (Kraut et al. 1990; Peponis, 2004), informal communication is highly valued for
collaboration at work organizations is trying different strategies to increase the likelihood of
informal interactions between co-workers. Communication is the key to bring people together at
one place to make it as workplace. The organizational communication is key to get involved into
better relationships within an organization, to transmit information, to cooperation with each other,
to understand and coordinate the work, to improve communication climate and learning, and hence
to increase overall workplace satisfaction and an individuals job satisfaction (Ali and Haider,
2010). Salacuse, (2007) indicated that as a result of changing work environments in which
employees are more educated and intelligent than past generations, leaders are now required to lead
by negotiation. Specifically, he noted that in order for leaders to persuade people to follow their
vision, they need to communicate effectively by appealing to the interests of the followers. Cassar,
(1999) found that employee participation, which includes such things as involvement in joint
decision making, has been shown to have a positive association with positive work attitudes and
employee commitment.In that competent communicators must employ communicative resources
such as language, gestures, and voice, and in order for supervisors to be perceived as capable
communicators. They must share and respond to information in a timely manner, actively listen to
other points of view, communicate clearly and concisely to all levels of the organization, and utilize
differing communication channels (Stohl, 1984; Shaw, 2005).

Organizational communication does not involve only upward and downward communication, but
managers and employees communicate with each other in various ways at different levels. It may
be the formal or informal, verbal or non-verbal, written or oral; and its levels include or face to face
communication between individuals, group communication among teams and organizational-level
communications involves vision and mission, policies, new initiatives, and organizational
Knowledge and performance. All the directions and flows of organizational communications are
combined into a variety of patterns called communication networks (Ali and Haider, 2010). Social
interactions enable the development of common grounds for communication, which increases
communication effectiveness and enhances the ability of individuals to work together. As well,
through over-layered social ties, team members establish trust that carries over into feelings of
safety in sharing ideas about the work process (Krauss and Fussell, 1990; Katzenbach and Smith,
1994). Kotter, (1988) unveiled that effective organizational communication is critical to actively
engage employees, foster trust and respect, and promote productivity. The focus on openness in
communication between senior management and employees results in improved employee
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

102

productivity and engagement. Meetings with top executives help to build affinity and trust.
Supportive communication is the most significant factor for the existence of an organization. The
quality of organizational communication is often referred to in terms of communication climate,
which can be described as a subjectively experienced quality of the internal environment of an
organization; the concept embraces a general cluster of inferred predispositions, identifiable
through reports of members perceptions of messages and message-related events occurring in the
organization (Kitchen and Daly, 2002; Goldhaber, 1993).

Workload
Workload refers to the intensity of job assignments. It is a source of mental stress for employees.
Stress is an active state of mind in which human being faces both an opportunity and constraint
(Robbins, 2011). Allen, (1996) defined workload as the total amount of time a faculty member
devotes to activities like teaching, research, administration, and community services etc. A study
conducted by Moy, (2006) opined that clerical and professional workers association found that
65.5% of workers believed a five-day work week would help them better manage their private
matters.Whereas half of respondents believed that this practice would allow them to spend more
time with their families and improve their quality of life which helps in improving their
productivity at work.Numerous studies found that job stress influences the employees job
satisfaction and their overall performance in their work. In fact, modern times have been called as
the age of anxiety and stress (Rehman et al. 2012). Excessive work interference with family is
also associated with greater stress mostly, job burnout, increased absenteeism and higher turnover
(Allen et al., 2000; Anderson et al., 2002). J ex and Beehr, (1991) reported that strains associated
with being overworked have been found to be uniformly negative across behavioral, psychological,
and physiological outcome domains. Kirchmeyer, (1995) indicated negative links in between
experience of work/nonworking conflict and organizational commitment.

Workload is an opportunity for the employees to learn and prosper more quickly. As employees do
their jobs they gain more work experience, which enhance their exposure. It is also viewed that
employees who have enough work to do remains more active while work-less employees leftover
lazy. Workload pressure can be positive leading to increased productivity. Under utilization of
human skills or failing to reach the full potential of the employees is also one cause to increase
stress. Employees who have the capabilities to perform a job enjoy workload. However, when this
pressure becomes excessive it has negative impact (Shah et al. 2011). All types of stress including
work overload have a definite impact on the individual and the organization. Both physical and
mental illness renders the employee unlit for work, and combine both to decrease the satisfaction
obtained from work and reduce job performance and productivity levels. A long - term heavy
workload can affect an employees physical or mental health, performance, or productivity. Heavy
workloads have been shown to have a negative impact on turnover (Malik and Ahmad, 2011).


Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

103

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In order to investigate the research goals, a total of 150 respondents of male and female employees
of both teaching and non teaching category were selected. Selected participants answered a survey
questionnaire. Wimmer and Dominick, (2006) wrote that Surveys are now used in all areas of life.
Businesses, consumer groups, politicians, and advertisers use them in their everyday decision-
making process. Babbie, (1992) explored that surveys may be used for descriptive, explanatory
and exploratory purposes. They are chiefly used in studies that have individual people as the units
of analysis. The universe is set of all units that the research covers, or to which it can be
generalized (Neuman, 2006).The term units is employed because it is not necessarily people who
are being sampled-the researcher may want to sample from a universe of nations, regions, schools,
etc. (Bryman, 2001). The universe of this research comprised male and female employees of both
teaching and non-teaching of employees of University of Sargodha. Sample was collected by
convenience and selective methods. The reason for sampling rather than collecting data from the
entire population, are self evident. In research investigations involving several hundreds or
thousands of elements, it would be practically impossible to collect data from, or test, or examine
every element. Even if it were possible, it would be prohibitive in terms of time, cost and other
human resources. Thats why sampling to make a research feasible (Sekaran, 2010). The pre-test
was taken in the selected population before collecting data. It gives the researcher an opportunity to
see weaknesses. The reliability of statistics of the pre-testing was Cronbachs Alpha-.861.

DATA ANALYSIS

Part-A(Univriate analysis)

Table-1: Distribution of respondents followingsocio-economic background
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 75 50.0
Female 75 50.0
Age (in years)
Up to 30 years 80 53.3
31 to 40 years 47 31.3
41 to 50 years 23 15.3
Income (Rs.)
Up to 20,000 61 40.7
21,000 to 30,000 37 24.7
31,000 to 40,000 15 10.0
Above 40,000 37 24.7
Education level
Matric 7 4.7
Intermediate 20 13.3
Graduation 44 29.3
Master or above 79 52.7
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

104

Table-1 shows that about a half (50.0%) of the respondents were males and other half of them were
females. Table presents the age distribution of the respondents. More than a half i.e. 53.3 percent of
the respondents had up to 30 years of age, little less than one-third i.e. 31.3% of them had 31-40
years of age and 15.3% of them had 41-50 years of age. So majority of the respondents belonged to
young age group. Table also indicates that a major proportion i.e. 40.7% of the respondents had up
to Rs. 20000 monthly income, while about one-fourth i.e. 24.7% of the respondents had 21000-
30000 monthly income, 10% of them had 31000-40000 and another one-fourth i.e. 24.7% of them
had above 40000 monthly income. Table-1 visibly presents the educational level of the
respondents. Table shows that only 4.7% of the respondents were matriculated, while 13.3% of
them were intermediate, 29.3% of them were graduated and a majority of the respondents i.e.
52.7% of them had mastered or above level of education. The findings show that majority of the
respondents had graduation and above level of education.

Table-2:Distribution of respondents following their opinion about the infrastructure
Respondents opinion about
infrastructure
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
F. % F. % F. % F. % F. %
Do you think that your
furniture is according to
your need
16 10.7 66 44.0 21 14.0 39 26.0 8 5.3
Do you think that your
furniture is comfortable
enough so that you can
work without getting tired
17 11.3 47 31.3 37 24.7 28 18.7 21 14.0
Do you think that office
environment influences
your performance
83 55.3 53 35.3 11 7.3 3 2.0 0 0.0

Table-2 presents the respondents opinion about the infrastructure on their work place. Only 10.7%
of the respondents were strongly agreed, a major proportion i.e. 44% of them were agreed with the
thinking that their furniture is according to their need, while 14% of them were neutral, 26% of
them were disagreed and remaining 5.3% of them were strongly disagreed with the furniture of
their workplace. J ust 11.3% of the respondents were strongly agreed, 31.3% of them were agreed
with the thinking that their furniture is comfortable enough so that they can work without getting
tired, while 24.7% of them were neutral, 18.7% of them were disagreed and remaining 14% of
them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. A majority i.e. 55.3% of the respondents were
strongly agreed, 35.3% of them were agreed with the thinking that office environment influences
on their performance, while 7.3% of them were neutral and 2% of them were disagreed with this
opinion.




Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

105

Table-3: Distribution of respondents following their opinion about the room environment

Respondents
opinion about room
environment
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
F. % F. % F. % F. % F. %
Do you think that your
room temperature is
pleasant enough for work
17 11.3 38 25.3 21 14.0 50 33.3 24 16.0
Do you think that good
room temperature increase
your work performance
88 58.7 50 33.3 8 5.3 4 2.7 0 0.0
Do you think that overall
temperature of your
workspace is Pleasant to
work easily
28 18.7 31 20.7 30 20.0 50 33.3 11 7.3

Table-3 shows the respondents opinion about the room environment on their work place. Only
11.3% of the respondents were strongly agreed, about one-fourth i.e. 25.3% of them were agreed
with the thinking that their room temperature is pleasant enough for work, while 14% of them were
neutral, 33.3% of them were disagreed and 16% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion.
A majority i.e. 58.7% of the respondents were strongly agreed, about one-third i.e. 33.3% of them
were agreed with the thinking that good room temperature increase their work performance, while
5.3% of them were neutral, 2.7% of them were disagreed with this opinion. About 18.7% of the
respondents were strongly agreed, 20.7% of them were agreed with the thinking that overall
temperature of their workspace is pleasant to work easily, while 20% of them were neutral, 33.3%
of them were disagreed and 7.3% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. So the room
temperature had a good impact on the employees performance.

Table-4 presents the respondents opinion about the attitude of head of the department. More than
one-fourth i.e. 26% of the respondents were strongly agreed and 36.7% of them were agreed with
the thinking that head of department behave friendly with employees, while 22.7% of them were
neutral, 12% of them were disagreed and only 2.7% of them were strongly disagreed with this
opinion. So majority of them were agreed that head of the department behave friendly with
employees. About 19.3% of the respondents were strongly agreed and a major proportion i.e.
42.7% of them were agreed with the thinking that their head of department sets standards of
performance for employees working there, while 20.7% of them were neutral, 13.3% of them were
disagreed and only 4% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. About 19.3% of the
respondents were strongly agreed and most of them i.e. 39.3% were agreed with the thinking that
their head of department provide opportunity to his/her employees to suggest solutions of
problems, while 26% of them were neutral, 8.7% of them were disagreed and remaining 6.7% of
them were strongly disagreed with this opinion.


Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

106

Table-4: Distribution of respondents following their opinion about the attitude of HoD
Respondents opinion about
the attitude of head of the
department
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
F. % F. % F. % F. % F. %
Do you think that head of
department behave friendly
with employees
39 26.0 55 36.7 34 22.7 18 12.0 4 2.7
Do you think that your head
of department Sets
standards of performance
for employees working
there
29 19.3 64 42.7 31 20.7 20 13.3 6 4.0
Do you think that your head
of department provide
opportunity to his/her
employees to suggest
solutions of problems
29 19.3 59 39.3 39 26.0 13 8.7 10 6.7
Do you think that your head
of department defines role
& responsibilities for each
member
38 25.3 71 47.3 20 13.3 17 11.3 4 2.7
Do you think that your head
of Department gives work
structure to employees to
do work
30 20.0 71 47.3 25 16.7 17 11.3 7 4.7
Do you think that your
head of department
involves his/her sub-
ordinates in making
decisions in meetings
30 20.0 62 41.3 33 22.0 19 12.7 6 4.0
Do you think that your head
of department Encourages
employees to do quality
work
51 34.0 55 36.7 31 20.7 7 4.7 6 4.0
Do you think that head of
department Communicates
effectively

37 24.7 61 40.7 36 24.0 11 7.3 5 3.3
Do you think that overall
behavior of your head of
department helps you to
perform your work
effectively
37 24.7 55 36.7 35 23.3 15 10.0 8 5.3
Do you think your head of
department is cooperative
and supportive
31 20.7 62 41.3 40 26.7 12 8.0 5 3.3
Do you think Cooperative
head of department is
necessary for better
performance of sub-
ordinates
92 61.3 47 31.3 7 4.7 1 0.7 3 2.0

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

107

About one-fourth i.e. 25.3% of the respondents were strongly agreed and a major proportion i.e.
47.3% were agreed with the thinking that their head of department defines role and responsibilities
for each member, while 13.3% of them were neutral, 11.3% of them were disagreed and only 2.7%
of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. About one-fifth i.e. 20% of the respondents
were strongly agreed and a major proportion i.e. 47.3% were agreed with the thinking that their
head of department gives work structure to employees to do work, while 16.7% of them were
neutral, 11.3% of them were disagreed and only 4.7% of them were strongly disagreed with this
opinion. About one-fifth i.e. 20% of the respondents were strongly agreed and a major proportion
i.e. 41.3% were agreed with the thinking that their head of department involves his/her sub-
ordinates in making decisions in meetings, while 22.0 percent of them were neutral, 12.7% of them
were disagreed and only 4% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. About one-third i.e.
34% of the respondents were strongly agreed and 36.7% were agreed with the thinking that their
head of department encourages employees to do quality work, while 20.7% of them were neutral,
4.7% of them were disagreed and only 4% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion.
About one-fourth i.e. 24.7% of the respondents were strongly agreed and a major proportion i.e.
40.7% were agreed with the thinking that their head of department communicate effectively, while
24% of them were neutral, 7.3% of them were disagreed and only 3.3% of them were strongly
disagreed with this opinion. About one-fourth i.e. 24.7% of the respondents were strongly agreed
and 36.7% were agreed with the thinking that overall behavior of their head of department helps
them to perform their work effectively, while 23.3% of them were neutral, 10% of them were
disagreed and remaining 5.3% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. About one-fifth
i.e. 20.7% of the respondents were strongly agreed and a major proportion i.e. 41.3% were agreed
with the thinking that their head of department is cooperative and supportive, while 26.7% of them
were neutral, 8% of them were disagreed and remaining 3.3% of them were strongly disagreed with
this opinion. A majority i.e. 61.3% of the respondents were strongly agreed and 31.3% were agreed
with the thinking that cooperative head of department is necessary for better performance of sub-
ordinates, while 4.7 % of them were neutral, 0.7% of them were disagreed and only 2% of them
were strongly disagreed with this opinion.

Table-5 explores the respondents opinion about workload. A 24% of the respondents were
strongly agreed and a major proportion i.e. 40% of them were agreed with the thinking that their
workload disturbed their social life, while 12% of them were neutral, 16.7% of them were
disagreed and 7.3% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. So majority of them had
thinking that workload disturbed their social life. More than one-fourth i.e. 26.7% of the
respondents were strongly agreed and 38% of them were agreed with the thinking that their
workload is effects their health, while 12% of them were neutral, 16.7% of them were disagreed
and 6.7% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion.



Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

108

Table-5: Distribution of respondents following their opinion about workload

Respondents opinion about
workload
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
F. % F. % F. % F. % F. %
Do you think your workload
disturb your social life
36 24.0 60 40.0 18 12.0 25 16.7 11 7.3
Do you think that your
workload is effects your
health
40 26.7 57 38.0 18 12.0 25 16.7 10 6.7
Do you think that your
workload force you to do
over time work
30 20.0 49 32.7 31 20.7 28 18.7 12 8.0
Do you think too much
workload creates stress
57 38.0 64 42.7 16 10.7 11 7.3 2 1.3
Do you think that too much
workload negatively affect
your performance
41 27.3 64 42.7 20 13.3 20 13.3 5 3.3
Do you think that
comfortable environment
can help you to complete
your daily tasks easily
70 46.7 64 42.7 13 8.7 2 1.3 1 0.7
Do you think that
challenging task improve
your performance
63 42.0 62 41.3 18 12.0 6 4.0 1 0.7
Do you able to complete
your work task in given
time
57 38.0 66 44.0 18 12.0 6 4.0 3 2.0

More than one-fifth i.e. 20% of the respondents were strongly agreed and 32.7% of them were
agreed with the thinking that their workload force them do over time work, while 20.7% of them
were neutral, 18.7% of them were disagreed and 8% of them were strongly disagreed with this
opinion. About 38% of the respondents were strongly agreed and 42.7% of them were agreed with
the thinking that too much workload create stress, while 10.7% of them were neutral, 7.3% of them
were disagreed and only 1.3% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. So a huge
majority of the respondents had thinking that too much workload creates stress. About 27.3% of the
respondents were strongly agreed and 42.7% of them were agreed with the thinking that too much
workload negatively affect their performance, 13.3% of them were neutral and another 13.3% of
them were disagreed and 3.3% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. A major
proportion i.e. 46.7% of the respondents were strongly agreed and 42.7% of them were agreed with
the thinking that comfortable environment can help them to complete their daily tasks easily, 8.7%
of them were neutral and 1.3% of them were disagreed and 0.7% of them were strongly disagreed
with this opinion. A major proportion i.e. 40% of the respondents were strongly agreed and 41.3%
of them were agreed with the thinking that challenging task improve their performance, 12% of
them were neutral, 4% of them were disagreed and 0.7% of them were strongly disagreed with this
opinion. About 38% of the respondents were strongly agreed and 44% of them were agreed with
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

109

the thinking that challenging task improve their performance, 12% of them were neutral, 4% of
them were disagreed and 0.7% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion.

Table-6: Distribution of respondents following their opinion about communication
Respondents opinion about
communication
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
F. % F. % F. % F. % F. %
Do you think that there is
well communicated
environment among
employees at workplace
42 28.0 61 40.7 29 19.3 17 11.3 1 0.7
Do you think that there is
well communicated
environment between sub-
ordinate and head of
department
33 22.0 44 29.3 48 32.0 20 13.3 5 3.3
Do you think that head of
department share their
opinion effectively with
sub-ordinates
22 14.7 49 32.7 37 24.7 34 22.7 8 5.3
Do you think that good
Communication
environment at work place
is necessary to improve
performance
83 55.3 52 34.7 11 7.3 4 2.7 0 0.0
Do you share your views
with your head of
department without
hesitation
40 26.7 62 41.3 28 18.7 15 10.0 5 3.3
Do you share your views
with your colleagues
without hesitation
61 40.7 52 34.7 25 16.7 6 4.0 6 4.0
Do you think that good
communication skill may
be helpful to solve
problems
71 47.3 65 43.3 8 5.3 4 2.7 2 1.3
Do you participate in
meetings and share ideas
41 27.3 50 33.3 20 13.3 24 16.0 15 10.
0

Table-6 represents the respondents opinion about communication. More than one-fourth i.e. 28%
of the respondents were strongly agreed, while a major proportion i.e. 40.7% of them were agreed
with the thinking that there is well communicated environment among employees at workplace,
while 19.3% of them were neutral, 11.3% of them were disagreed and 0.7% of them were strongly
disagreed with this opinion. So majority of them had thinking that there is well communicated
environment among employees at workplace. More than one-fifth i.e. 22% of the respondents were
strongly agreed, 29.3% of them were agreed with the thinking that there is well communicated
environment among sub-ordinate and head of department, while 32% of them were neutral, 13.3%
of them were disagreed and 3.3% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. About 14.7%
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

110

of the respondents were strongly agreed, 32.7% of them were agreed with the thinking that head of
department share their opinion effectively with sub-ordinates, while 24.7% of them were neutral,
22.7% of them were disagreed and 5.3% of them were strongly disagreed with this opinion. A
majority i.e. 55.3% of the respondents were strongly agreed, 34.7% of them were agreed with the
thinking that good communication environment at work place is necessary to improve
performance, while 7.3% of them were neutral, 2.7% of them were disagreed with this opinion. So
a huge majority of the respondents had thinking that good communication environment at work
place is necessary to improve performance. More than one-fourth i.e. 26.7% of the respondents
were strongly agreed, a major proportion i.e. 41.3% of them were agreed with the thinking that
share their views with their head of department without hesitation, while 18.7% of them were
neutral, 10% of them were disagreed and 3.3% of them strongly disagreed with this opinion. A
major proportion i.e. 40.7% of the respondents were strongly agreed, 34.7% of them were agreed
with the thinking that share their views with their colleagues without hesitation, while 16.7% of
them were neutral, 4% of them were disagreed and 4% of them strongly disagreed with this
opinion. Little less than a half i.e. 47.3% of the respondents were strongly agreed, 43.3% of them
were agreed with the thinking that good communication skill may be helpful to solve problems,
while 5.3% of them were neutral, 2.7% of them were disagreed and 1.3% of them strongly
disagreed with this opinion. About 27.3% of the respondents were strongly agreed, 33.3% of them
were agreed with their participation in meetings and share ideas, while 13.3% of them were neutral,
16% of them were disagreed and 10% of them strongly disagreed with this opinion.

Table-7:Indexation
Variable No. of
items in
Matrix
Question
No. of
categories
in Index
variable
Min.
Score
Max.
Score
Mean
Score
SD Alpha
value
Employees
performance
19 5 41 71 56.58 4.59 .7826
Infrastructure 2 5 2 10 5.56 2.23 .8704
Workplace
environment
8 5 7 25 15.65 3.66 .7309
Workload 6 5 6 22 12.82 4.04 .7071
Communication 7 5 16 31 23.58 3.20 .6568
Attitude of head
of the
department
8 5 8 37 18.60 6.32 .8900

PART-B
(Bivariate Analysis)
Testing Of Hypotheses

Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

111

Hypothesis 1: It is more likely that better infrastructure have positive impact on

employees performance of university of Sargodha

Table-8: Infrastructure and employees performance nexus
Infrastructure Employees performance Total









Low Medium High
Low

11 33 13 57
19.3% 57.9% 22.8% 100.0%
Medium

14 26 17 57
24.6% 45.6% 29.8% 100.0%
High 4 22 10 36
11.1% 61.1% 27.8% 100.0%
Total

29 81 40 150
19.3% 54.0% 26.7% 100.0%
Chi-square =8.85,d.f. =4,significance =0.426
NS
,Gamma =0.096, NS=Non-significant

Table-8 presents the association between infrastructure and employees performance. Chi-square
value shows a non-significant association between infrastructure of work place and employees
performance. Gamma value also shows no relationship between the variables. It means
infrastructure of work place had no impact on employees performance. So the hypothesis It is
more likely that better infrastructure have positive impact on employees performance of university
of Sargodha is rejected.

Hypothesis-2: It is more likely that too much workload affects the employees performance
negatively

Table-9: Workload and employees performance nexus
Workload Employees performance Total









Low Medium High
Low

7 27 9 43
16.3% 62.8% 20.9% 100.0%
Medium

18 36 23 77
23.4% 46.8% 29.9% 100.0%
High 4 18 8 30
13.3% 60.0% 26.7% 100.0%
Total

29 81 40 150
19.3% 54.0% 26.7% 100.0%
Chi-square =3.80,d.f. =4,significance =0.433
NS
,Gamma =0.063, NS=Non-significant

Table-9 indicates the association between workload and employees performance. Chi-square value
shows a non-significant association between workload and employees performance. Gamma value
also shows no relationship between the variables. It means workload also had no impact on
employees performance. So the hypothesis It is more likely that too much workload affects the
employees performance negatively is rejected. Table-10 presents the association between
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

112

communication and employees performance. Chi-square value shows a non-significant association

between communication and employees performance. Gamma value also shows no relationship
between the variables. It means communication between employees also had no impact on
employees performance. So the hypothesis It is more likely that good communication at
workplace is necessary for employees to give good performance is rejected.

Hypothesis-3: It is more likely that good communication at workplace is necessary for
employees to give good performance

Table-10: Communication and employees performance nexus
Communication Employees performance Total









Low Medium High
Low

4 17 11 32
12.5% 53.1% 34.4% 100.0%
Medium

16 56 20 92
17.4% 60.9% 21.7% 100.0%
High 9 8 9 26
34.6% 30.8% 34.6% 100.0%
Total

29 81 40 150
19.3% 54.0% 26.7% 100.0%
Chi-square =3.80,d.f. =4,significance =0.433
NS
, Gamma =0.063, NS=Non-significant

Table-11 opines the association between attitude of head of the department and employees
performance. Chi-square value shows a significant association between attitude of the head of the
department and employees performance. Gamma value shows positive relationship between the
variables. It means attitude of the head of the department had positive impact on employees
performance. So the hypothesis Attitude of the head of the department will be associated with the
employees performance is accepted.

Hypothesis 4: Attitude of the head of the department will be associated with the
employees performance.

Table-11: Attitude of head of the department and employees performance nexus
Attitude of the head of the
department
Harassment Total







Low Medium High
Low

10 35 12 62
32.2% 56.5% 19.3% 100.0%
Medium

12 40 19 71
16.9% 56.3% 26.8% 100.0%
High 2 6 9 17
11.7% 35.3% 59.2% 100.0%
Total 29 81 40 150
19.3% 54.0% 26.7% 100.0%
Chi-square =16.06,d.f. =4,significance =0.02*,

Gamma =0.328, *=significant
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

113

DISCUSSION

Findings show that almost (58.7%) of the respondents is strongly agreed with the thinking that
good room temperature increase their work performance. The findings are supported by Roelofsen,
(2002) who said that the most significant indoor environmental factor is room temperature. Heating
and air conditioning system directly affect on employees productivity. Chi-square value shows a
significant association between attitude of the head of the department and employees performance.
Gamma value shows positive relationship between the variables. It means attitude of the head of
the department had positive impact on employees performance. So the hypothesis Attitude of the
head of the department will be associated with the employees performance is accepted. The
results are supported by Cummings and Schwab, (1973) who mention the connection between
leadership behavior and employees performance. It is further supported by Maritz, (1995)who
reported that effective leadership behavior facilitates the attainment of the subordinates desires,
which then results in effective performance. A finding shows that (40.7%) respondents is agreed
with the thinking that their head of department communicate effectively which is supported by
Salacuse, (2007) who indicates that leaders are now required to lead by negotiation, they need to
communicate effectively by appealing to the interests of the followers. About (33.3%) respondents
were agreed that they participation in meetings and share ideas. The findings are supported by
Cassar, (1999) that employee participation and involvement in decision making have a positive
association with positive work attitudes and employee commitment. A majority i.e. (55.3%) of the
respondents are strongly agreed, (34.7%) of them were agreed with the statement that good
communication environment at work place is necessary to improve performance. Findings are
supported by Chen et al. (2006) who found that there are positive relationships between
organizational communication, organizational commitment and job performance. Kotter, (1988)
noted that effective organizational communication promotes productivity. About (38.0%) of the
respondents were strongly agreed and (42.7%) of them were agreed with the opinion that too much
workload create stress. So a huge majority of the respondents had thinking that too much workload
creates stress. It is further supported by Rehman et al. (2012) who found that job stress influences
the employees job satisfaction and their overall performance in their work. Findings show that
majority of respondents had thinking that workload disturbed their social life i.e. (24%)
respondents were strongly agreed and (40%) of them were agreed. Imam et al. (2010) concluded
that employees facing workload have a moderate level of stress in which work to family conflict
rises, it is further supported by Cummings, (2001) who found that workload harmed their marriage
or significant relationship (48.8%), caused them to smoke or drink more alcohol (32.9%), and
contributed to long-term health conditions (36.6%).


Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

114

CONCLUSION

The research investigates the impact of workplace environment and infrastructure on employees
performance. Analysis and interpretation of the data have empirically demonstrated that
infrastructure at workplace had no significant impact on employees performance. The results of
impact of incentives at workplace had a positive impact on employees performance of university
of Sargodha. The results of too much workload on affects the employees performance negatively is
rejected. The hypothesis Attitude of the head of the department will be associated with the
employees performance is accepted. One of the finding of the study is very impressive in which
the results of the hypothesis female employees have to face more harassment at workplace than
male employees is rejected. The finding shows that workplace environment is suitable for female
employees.

REFERENCES

Abbas, Q. and Yaqoob, S. (2009) Effect of leadership development on employee performance in
Pakistan, Pakistan Economic and Social Review, Vol. 47, pp. 269-292.
Abdulla, J., Djebarni, R. and Mellahi, K. (2010) Determinants of job satisfaction in the UAE-A
case study of the Dubai police, Vol. 40, pp.126-146.
Adams, J. S. (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental
social psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Al-Anzi, N. M. (2009) Workplace environment and its impacts on employees performance: A
study submitted to Project Management Department in Saudi Aramco, Open University of
Malaysia.
Ali, A. and Haider, J. (2012) Impact of internal organizational communications on employee job
satisfaction-case of some Pakistani banks, Global Advanced Research J ournal of Management and
Business Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 38-44.
Allen, H. L. (1996). Faculty workload and productivity in the 1990s: preliminary findings, The
NEA 1996 ALMANAC of Higher Education.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D.E.L., Bruck, C.S. and Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with
work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. J ournal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol.5, pp. 278-308.
Anderson, S. E. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: links
to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. J ournal of Management, Vol.28, pp. 787-810.
Babbie, E. (1992) The practice of social research (6
th
Edition). Wadsworth Group: A division of
Thomson Learning, Inc., California.
Behling, O. and McFillen, J. (1996) A syncretic model charismatic/transformational leadership,
Group and Organization Management, Vol. 21, pp. 120-160.
Brown, S. P. and Leigh, T. W. (1996) A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to
job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 358-368.
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

115

Burke, A. (2000) The challenge of seating selection, Ergonomic Supplement, Vol. 69, pp. 70-72.
Bryman, A. (2001) Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
Carnevale, D. G. (1992) Physical settings of work. Public Productivity and Management Review,
Vol. 15, pp. 423-436.
Cascio, W. F. (2006) Managing human resources: productivity, Quality of Life, Profits. McGraw-
Hill Irwin.
Cassar, V. (1999) Can leader direction and employee participation co-Exist? investigating
interaction effects between participation and favorable work-related attitudes among maltese
middle-managers, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 57-68.
Chandrasekar, K. (2011) Workplace environment and its impact on organisational performance in
public sector organisations, Alagappa University, Karaikudi, India. International J ournal of
Enterprise Computing and Business Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 1-20.
Chen, D. (2011) Research on performance management of Chinese SME. International J ournal of
Business and Management, Vol. 6, pp. 263-265.
Collis, D. J. and Montgomery, C. A. (1995) Competing on resources, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73, pp. 118-128.
Cooper, C. L. and Cartwright, S. (1994) Healthy mind, healthy organization: a proactive
approach to occupational stress, Human Relations, Vol. 47, 455-471.
Cummings, L. L. and Schwab, D. P. (1973) Performance in organizations: determinants and
appraisal. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Freyermuth. (2007). Retaining Employees in a Tightening Labor Market,
www.cfo.com/whitepapers/index.cfm/displaywhitepaper/10308654?topic id=10240327 22k
George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. (2005) Understanding and managing organizational behavior 4
th

edition. New J ersey. Pearson Prestige Hall.
Goldhaber G. M. (1993) Organizational communication. Wm. C. Brown Communications, Inc.,
Dubuque.
Huges, J. (2007) Office design is pivotal to employee productivity. Sandiego source the daily
Transcript.
Imam, H., Qureshi, T. M. and Khan, M. A, (2011) The retrenchment effect on job performance
with mediating effect of work life balance, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5, pp.
8642-8648.
James, D. (1996). Forget downsizing, now its participative redesign, Business Review Weekly,
Vol. 18, pp. 70-72.
Jex, S. M. and Beehr, T. A. (1991) Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of
work-related stress.In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 9, pp. 311-365). Greenwich, CT: J AI Press.
Johnson, R.A., Neelankavil, J. P. and Jadhav, A. (1986) Developing the executive resource.
Business Horizons, pp. 2933.
Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1994) The wisdom of teams: creating the high performance
organization. Harper Business, New York.
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

116

Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. (1978) The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wile
Keeling, B. L. and Kallaus, N. F. (1996) Administrative office management, 11
th
ed., International
Thompson Publishing, Ohio.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1995) Managing the work-nonwork boundary: an assessment of organizational
responses. Human Relations, Vol .48, pp.515-536.
Kitchen, P.J. and Daly, F. (2002) Internal communication during change management. Corporate
Communications: an international J ournal, Vol.7, pp.46-53.
Kohun, S. (1992) Business environment. Ibadan: University Press Kyko OC (2005).
Instrumentation: Know yourself and Others Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2003)
3rd editions: Harloa Pearson Educational Limited.
Kotter, J. P. (1988) The leadership factor. New York: The Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading change, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA
Krauss, R. M. and Fussell, S. R. (1990) Mutual knowledge and communication effectiveness. In:
Intellectual Teamwork, Galegher, J., Kraut, R.E. &Egido, C. (Eds.), and 111-148. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hilldale, NJ .
Kraut, R. E., Egido, C. and Galegher, J. (1990) Patterns of contact and communication in
scientific research collaboration.In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut & C.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L. and Barton, S. M. (2001) The impact of job satisfaction on
turnover intent: a test of structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. Social
Science Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 233-251.
Lan, L., Lian, Z. and Pan, L. (2010) The effects of air temperature on office workers wellbeing,
workload and productivity-evaluated with subjective ratings, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 42, pp.29-
36.
Malik, M. I. and Ahmad, M. (2011) Lucky or unlucky people: layoff survivors. Far East J ournal
of Psychology and Business, Vol. 2, pp. 23-35.
Maritz, D. (1995). Leadership and mobilising potential, Human Resource Management, Vol. 10,
pp.8-16.
McCowan, B. (2001). Self reported stress and its effects on nurses. Nursing Standard, Vol.42,
pp.33-38.
Moy, P. (2006) 80 pc of worker support five-day week, South China Morning Post, Hong
Kong.PP.4.
Neuman, W. L. (2006) Social research method: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Dorling
Kindersley Pvt. Ltd.
Oluseyi, S. and Ayo, H. T. (2009) Influence of work motivation, leadership effectiveness and
time management on employees, performance in some selected industries in Ibadan, Oyo State,
Nigeria, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, Vol. 16, pp. 7-17.
Peponis, J. (2004) Space syntax inform design, Newsletter, Vol.4, Issue 12.
Quible, Z. K. (1996) Administrative office management: an introduction. 7th. Ed., Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, New J ersey.
Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4): 96-117

117

Ramlall, S. (2003) Organizational application managing employee retention as a strategy for

increasing organizational competitiveness, Applied H.R.M. Research, Vol. 8, pp. 63-72.
Rehman, M., Irum, R., Tahir, N., Ijaz Zara., Noor, U. and Salma, U. (2012) The impact of job
stress on employee job satisfaction: a study on private colleges of Pakistan, Journal of Business
Studies Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 50-56.
Robbins, S. P., and Judge, T. A. (2011) Organizational behavior (14th Ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ : Prentice Hall.
Sabir, M. S., Iqbal, J. J., Rehman, K., Shah, K. A. and Yameen, M. (2012) Impact of corporate
ethical values on ethical leadership and employee performance, International J ournal of Business
and Social Science, Vol. 3, pp. 163-171.
Salacuse, J. W. (2007) Real leaders negotiate. University Business, Vol. 10, pp.2-3
Sekaran. U. R. B. (2010) Research methods for business.
Shah, S. S. H., Jaffari, A. R., Aziz, J., Ejaz, W., Haq, U. and Raza, S. N., (2011) Workload and
performance of employees, Interdisciplinary J ournal Of Contemporary Research In Business, Vol.
3, pp. 256-267.
Shaw, K. (2005) Getting leaders involved in communication strategy: breaking down the barriers
to effective leadership communication. Strategic Communication Management, Vol. 9, pp. 14-17.
SIDA, (1996). Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods, Stockholm: Swedish International Co-operation
Development Agency.
Stannack, P. (1996) Perspective on employees performance, Management Research News, Vol.
l19, pp.38-40.
Stohl, C. (1984) Quality circles and the quality of communication. Paper presented at the Speech
Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.
Sundstrom, E. (1994) Office noise, satisfaction, and performance, Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 26, pp. 195-222.
Taiwo, A. S. (2009) The influence of work environment on workers productivity: a case of
selected oil and gas industry in Lagos, Nigeria, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4,
pp. 299-307.
Tehrani, N. (2002) Managing organizational stress, CIPD. Retrieved on February 14, 2008.
Vischer, J. C. (2008) Towards a user-centered theory of the built environment, Building Research
and Information, Vol. 36, pp. 231-240
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D. and Chen, Z. X. (2005) Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers
performance and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management J ournal, Vol. 48,
pp. 420-32.
Wimmer, R. D. and Dominick, J. R. (2006) Mass media research. Wadsworth Group: A division
of Thomson Learning, Inc., California.