Status of Ergonomics in Public Universities

Status of Ergonomics in Public Universities

The respondents were requested to select the scale that best described the influence of

ergonomics on the organization performance. Ergonomics is the study of employees’

workstation environment that includes the tools of work, office layout and physical

environment (temperature and light). The findings are provided in Table 4.5.

Table 4. 5: Status of Ergonomics in Public Universities

Statements

Not at all

Low extent

Moderate extent

Great extent

Very Great Extent

Mean

SDev

1.The furniture I

in is well

ventilated and

lighted 1.8% 9.4% 36.5% 43.5% 7.6% 4.46 0.84

3. I am adequately

provided with tools

and equipment to

work with 0.6% 10.0% 45.3% 34.7% 7.6% 4.40 0.80

4. The

temperatures in the

room or office I

better at their job (mean = 4.46, SD=0.84) whereas 87.6% of respondents agreed that adequate

tools and equipment relevant to employee’s work enhances performance in an organization

(Mean = 4.40, SD = 0.80). The findings further indicate that 80.6% of the respondents agreed

that appropriate room or office temperatures would make them better perform at their job

(mean =4.27; SD =0.89). In both cases it was noted that the ergonomics can boost employee’s

performance in an organization. These findings suggest that in order for performance in public

Universities to improve, Universities ought to invest adequately in furniture which is

comfortable, flexible to adjust; easy to rearrange or reorganize was adequate to enable

workers to perform their roles and responsibilities. This should be followed suit by good

Ventilation and lighting which would prepare the employees to perform better at their jobs. If

Respondents opined that poor workplace ergonomics emanates from numerous issues that

influence the overall wellbeing of workforces. Common concerns consisted of knees banging

on keyboard trays, wrong heights for table and chairs, a lack of back, cramped space and

elbow support, and elbows resting on hard surfaces.

The overall findings imply that if a university improves ergonomics, its organizational

performance will improve. The findings from the study validates and brings to reality a notion

presented in Leblebici (2012) that a better workplace environment motivates employees and

produces better results. The study demonstrated that office ergonomics deficiencies at the

Universities which include outdated office design and décor, inadequate office illumination,

un-ergonomic office furniture, unsuitable office design and décor will variedly lead to

Table 4. 6: Correlation Analysis on the Influence of Ergonomics on Organizational

Performance of Public Universities

Ergonomics Pearson’s Correlation 0.974**

The results in Table 4.6 shows that there was a positive significant linear relationship between

independent variable ergonomics and dependent variable organizational performance of

Temessek (2014) analyzed the magnitude to which the individuals distinguish the workplace

environment as fulfilling their intrinsic, extrinsic and social needs and their reason of staying

with the institution. The analysis on the impact of perception of environments on employee

commitment and turnover in the organization and concluded that if employees are provided

with enabling environmental support, they would be highly satisfied and show the high level

of commitment towards their organization and hence low turnover rate.

Status of Supervisors Support in Public Universities

The researcher sought to determine whether supervisor’s support had an effect on employees’

performance. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with

statements on supervisor support. Table 4.7 shows the results.

Table 4. 7: Status of Supervisors Support in Public Universities

2. I can rely on

help me out with

a work problem 0.0% 10.6% 49.4 27.1% 10.0% 3.38 0.81

3. My roles &

responsibilities

are clearly stated 0.0% 8.8% 35.9% 37.1% 15.3% 3.61 0.86

4. My supervisor

seeks

information from

employees when

rely on their supervisors to help them out with a work problem (Mean =3.4,

SD = 0.81) whereas (88.3%) of the respondents agreed that their roles and

responsibilities were clearly stated (Mean =3.6, SD = 0.86). Further,

(80.6%) of the respondents agreed that their supervisors sought information

from employees when making important decisions (Mean =3.4, SD = 0.94).

These findings suggest that performance management provisions are

significant tools for aligning individuals’ performances to their

organizational objectives. Majority of the respondents held a view that

supervisors are responsible for the day-to-day performance of an individual

department or section. From content analysis, respondents expressed that the

workplace problems, including lateness or nonattendance as well as

providing reports and activity updates to management.

Respondents were asked open ended questions and they viewed that

supervisors are responsible for the day-to-day performance of an individual

department or section. In light of the above-mentioned, respondents

expressed that the supervisors should have experience in what the

department does and therefore should earn the position on experience. The

advice of respondents on supervisory tasks included: Helping the team

understand performance targets and goals, training or ensuring that workers

are properly trained for their specific roles, providing real-time feedback on

team members, identifying and resolving workplace problems.