1
Background of the Study
Workplace environment is the totality of the interrelationships that exist within the employees
and the surroundings in which they work (Kohun, 2011). This environment comprises of the
physical location in addition to the immediate surroundings, behavioral procedures, policies,
rules, culture, resources, working relationships, workplace environment, which all impact on
the techniques employees use to perform their duties (Heath, 2012). The form of workplace
environment in which employees operate determines whether or not the organization succeeds
(Chandrasekhar, 2011). Physical workplace environment includes the office layout and design
while psychosocial factors include motivation and social support from the supervisors.
Employees in Public Universities require supervisor support since it makes them feel cared
for thereafter they work better to meet their targets (Poulsen, 2014).
The workplace environment is an important aspect in keeping employees satisfied in today’s
corporate world (Gitonga, 2015). The typical employer to employee relationship of old has
been reversed. Employees are living in a developing economy and have unlimited job
opportunities. This combination of issues has created an environment where the organizations
require the employees more than the employees need the organization (Smith, 2011). Large
percentage of employees in the countries of the European Union report that they are exposed
to stress at workplace, and the consequences are very significant for the organizations they are
working for (Kristensen, 2015). Among these consequences are mental disorders, stress,
fatigue, sickness, labor turnover and decreased motivation and productivity. The EU associate
countries gave ergonomics, supervisor support and motivation top priority among work
environment factors. The directors of the European work environment institutes have
estimated that ergonomics, supervisor support and motivation would be the most important
research field in the future (Cox & Rial-Gonzalez, 2012).
Management of effective workplace environment involves creating the work environment
comfortable, attractive, motivating and satisfactory to employees so as to give them a
sense of pride and purpose in what they do (Humphries, 2009). Employees are contented
when they feel their immediate environment; both physical sensations and emotional states go
hand in hand with their obligations. Additionally, how employees associate with their
organization’s immediate workplace environment, influences their error rate levels, efficiency
and innovativeness, collaboration with other employees, absenteeism and, ultimately their
2
retention (Leblebici, 2012).
Work environment deals with creation of conditions in which an employee can carry out his
or her duties comfortably. Effective application of ergonomics supervisor support and
motivation can achieve a balance amongst workers’ task and demands. This enhances
employee productivity, provide employee safety and physical and mental wellbeing and job
satisfaction hence enhanced organizational productivity (Garbie, 2014). Working conditions
and psychosocial environment are equally essential in determining organizational and
employee performance (Atambo & Nyamwamu, 2013). An American workplace
psychological organization report (2009) indicated that 69% of organizations attribute poor
performance to unconducive work environment.
Organizational Performance
Organizational performance (OP) is measured as service delivery to internal and external
customers. Performance encompasses the accomplishment of a given task which is measured
in relation to set standards of accurateness, completeness, cost, and speed (Borman &
Motowidho, 2010). Organizational performance comprises the actual output of an
organization as measured against its intended objectives. It encompasses the following fields
of organizations outcomes: financial performance that include profits, return on assets, return
on investment and shareholders returns (Richard, 2013).
An organization performance is tested against the commitment that the management made in
performance management system. It measures the management plans and tests whether social,
economic and ecological goals are being achieved (Garbie, 2014). Organizational
performance is imperative for organizational outcomes and success. Employees’ performance
is the individual result of effort, ability, and perception of the responsibilities (Platt, 2010).
Since employees are the key resource to any institution, the long-term benefits of a correctly
constructed and user-friendly workplace environment ought to be taken into consideration and
factored into the initial cost (Smith, 2011). To constantly improve workplace environments,
attention should be given to the performance culture that values all the employees and
promotes a sustainable ergonomics (Woodward, 2013).
Healthy workplace environment makes good the organizations sense and is characterized by
respect that supports employees’ engagement and creates a great performance culture that
inspires innovation and creativity (Kohun, 2011). Organizations are believed to have a
3
positive place to work, hence are likely have a competitive advantage because they are in a
better position to appeal and retain extremely skilled employees. This is an important
deliberation in the current labour market. A conducive workplace environment is likely to
result into reduced employee turnover and to attract and retain qualified employees (Cunneen,
2010).
Favorable workplace environment guarantees the wellbeing of employees and enables them to
exert themselves to their duties with all energy they have hence this may translate to increased
performance (Taiwo, 2010). Most organizational employees spend 50% of their lives within
indoor workplace environments, which highly influences their overall performance
capabilities (Sundstrom, 2014). Improved physical workplace environment increases
employee’s performance and eventually improve the organizational productivity (Manu,
2015). The quality of the workplace environment greatly impacts on the employees’
performance hence subsequently influences the organizations productivity and performance.
Workplace Environment in Public Universities with its Associated
Components
Workplace environment means the processes, systems, structures in the workplace that
influence favorably and unfavorably the individual employee’s performance (Dahling, 2015).
Creating a workplace environment that encourages wellbeing of employees and increase
individual productivity is seen as a strategy for enhancing the organizations efficiency and
productivity (Marchington, 2016).
Improving the workplace environment increases productivity of employees, hence they
produce extraordinary results which increases organizational performance. University
rankings generally show that University of Oxford, Stanford University Harvard University,
University of Nairobi and Kenyatta University have good workplace environment since the
managements have provided working equipment, comfortable furniture and supervisor
support in offices (Grove, 2016).
Public Universities in Kenya
University education in Kenya can be traced from 1951 at which time the Royal Technical
College of East Africa was built in Nairobi. The college started operating and admitted the
first batch of students in April 1956. In the year 1961, the Royal Technical College was
converted into a university and was named University College of Nairobi, which awarded
University of London degrees. In 1970, the University of Nairobi was established by an Act
4
of Parliament (University of Nairobi Act 1970). Due to the high demand for university
education in the number of universities in Kenya increased from one public university college
in 1970 to thirty chartered Public Universities (PU) and three constituent University colleges
in 2016 (CUE, 2016). PU in Kenya are funded by the national government (Miguel, 2015).
Higher education plays a crucial role in the supply of high level manpower for the socio-
political and economic development of a nation (Ekundayo & Ajayi, 2011). It is the
realization of this fact that there has been a rising demand for higher education in Kenya in the
recent past that is driven by an ever changing labor market dynamics coupled with an
ambitious and bulging youth population. To combat this trend, the government upgraded
several middle level colleges to university college status and also recently elevated many
public university colleges to fully-fledged universities, many of them far from urban centers
(Kaiser, 2014). The Universities have improved access to education to many secondary school
graduates and the working class who look for chances to pursue university education
(Slotnick, 2014).
Statement of the Problem
Creating a workplace environment which encourages the comfort of employees and therefore
increasing individual employees’ performance is viewed as a strategy for increasing
organizations efficiency and productivity. Employees in a workplace environment work
better when comfortable which is a state of mind which relies on both emotional state and
physical sensation. Creating an effective workplace environment must account for the two
essentials and when sufficiently provided, it can boost organizational competitiveness. Kenya
Vision 2030 strategies identifies education as the vehicle that would drive Kenya into a
middle income economy. Many working class and secondary school graduates look for
opportunities to pursue university education. This has led to increased number of staff and
students in the public universities. Overcrowded facilities due to increased student enrolment
and employees are likely to impact negatively on staff performance. The growth in enrolment
has resulted in a situation where in many universities in the country, physical facilities cannot
cope with the number of employees. Therefore, the study sought to establish the effect of
workplace environment on organization performance of public universities in Mt. Kenya
region, Kenya.
REFERENCES
5
Aaltonen, D. (2017). Human Resource Management in Context, London, CIPD. Journal
of Public Administration, 3(1), 1-14.
Agunyai, S. C. (2015). Manpower Development, Capacity Building and Service
Delivery in Ife-East Local Government Area, Osun State, Nigeria. Journal of
Public Administration and Policy Research, 7(1), 1-14.
Alvesson, M. S. (2015). Changing Organizational Culture. London: Routledge. Journal
of Policy Research, 7(6),334-360.
Arnold, K. T. (2011). The Swiss-model Workspace. A Web-based Environment for
Protein Structure Homology Modelling Bioinformatics, 22(2), 195-201.
Atambo, W., & Nyamwamu, W. (2013). Enhancing the Role of Employee Recognition
towards improving Performance: A survey of Kenyatta National Hospital,
Kenya. ILO, 1(7), 95-109.
Anyango J. N. (2012). Assessment of the Relationship between Quality Management
Practices and Performance of manufacturing firms in Nairobi. African Journal of
Business and Management, 2, 20-12.
Babbie, E. (2012). Survey Research Methods. Journal of Research Methods, 45 (2), 255-
260.
Baldwon, J. E. (2014). Employee Development: Issues in Construct Definition and
Investigation of Antecedents. Improving Training Effectiveness in Work
Organizations, ed. JK Ford, SWJ Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, and MS
Teach out ,153-189.
Barney, J. B. (2007). ‘Is the Resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for Strategic
Management Research? Yes’, Academy of Management Review, 26, 102-105.
Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers: From linear to multidirectional career paths:
Organizational and Individual Perspectives. Career Development International,
9(1), 58-73.
Baruch, Y. (2004). Managing Careers: Theory and Practice. Journal of Business and
Management, 2, 14-18.
Baruch, Y. (2016). Organizational Career Systems. Business Journal, 5, 30-40.
Bates, S. Y. (2011). Investigating the structural relationships among organizational
support, learning flow, learners' satisfaction and learning transfer in corporate e‐
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 973-984.
6
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (2010). Development of leader-member
exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal,
39(6), 1538-1567.
Beautyman, M. (2006). Office Design Effects, Innovation, Collaboration, and Creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538-1567.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidho, S.J. (2010). Expanding the Criterion domain
to include elements of Contextual Performance. Personnel Selection
in Organizations New York Journal, 35 (2), 254- 300.
Bryson, A. (2015). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–833.
Bryman, A. E. (2015). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Journal of Research Methods, 2(7), 9–33.
Cavanaugh, C. R. (2011). The effects of Distance Education on K-12
student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Learning Point Associates/North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL).
Chandrasekhar, V. (2011). Workplace Environment and its impact on
Organizational Performance. Physical Review Letters, 107(5),
56802.
Chi, C. G., & Gursoy, D. (2008). Employee Satisfaction, firm’s
Performance, and Financial Performance: An empirical examination.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28 (2), 245–253.
Clements, K. M. (2013). Attempted Suicide among Transgender Persons:
The influence of gender-based discrimination and victimization.
Journal of Development, 51(3), 53-69.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). International Edition: Journal
Business Research Methods, 2(1), 41-66.
Cox, T., & Rial-Gonzalez, E. (2012). Work-related stress: The European picture.
Magazine of the European Agency for Safety and Health at work, 5, 4-6.
Cromwell, J., & Kolb, L. M. (2011). Pay for Performance in Health Care.
Journal of Health Care, 3(2), 324- 350.
Cunneen, Y. (2010). The impact of Performance Management System on
Employee Perfomance-Analysis with WERS 2004 (Master's thesis,
University of Twente).
Doman, C. Y. (2010). Comparison between Indoor and Outdoor air
contaminant levels in residential buildings from passive sampler
7
study. Journal of Building and Environment, 36(9), 999-1007.
