Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role of employee health

Abstract

Purpose – Purpose of current study is to explore, impact of workplace environment i.e Physical Environmental Factors and Behavioral Environmental Factors on employee productivity (EP) through mediating role of employee health (EH).

Research methodology – This study adopted questionnaire survey method and data was collected from 250 employees working in software houses in Pakistan. Data has been analysed using SPSS and AMOS software. Reliability and correlation analysis was performed by using SPSS while; path analysis was performed using AMOS.

Findings – Results revealed that one unit variance in PEF incorporates 35% change in EH, 33% change in EH is caused by one unit increase in BEF and one unit increase in EH leads to 80% increase in EP. Physical and Behavioural Environmental Factors are positively affecting EH and EH is positivity affecting EP. Results of the study revealed that: employee health is mediating the relationship between workplace environment factors and employee performance.

Research limitations – We used working Environment factors to determine employee health; future studies can consider compensation practices, insurance plans and health benefits by the organisation, a large sample or increased number of mediating variables can be used. The current study has adopted cross-sectional design while future studies can consider longitudinal design.

Practical implications – Organisations must maintain a better environment in order to enhance employee productivity as, employee performance and workplace environment have direct and positive relationship, employees productivity and physical as well as behavioural environment are linked through employee health.

Full text

Copyright © 2019 e Author(s). Published by VGTU Press
is is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author
and source are credited.
Business, Management and Education
ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169
2019 Volume 17 Issue 2: 173–193
https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2019.10379
*Corresponding author. E-mail: hafeeziqra@yahoo.com
IMPACT OF WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT ON EMPLOYEE
PERFORMANCE: MEDIATING ROLE OF EMPLOYEE HEALTH
Iqra HAFEEZ1, 2 *, Zhu YINGJUN1 , Saba HAFEEZ1, Raq MANSOOR1 ,
Khaliq Ur REHMAN3
1School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan China
2COMSATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan
3School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan China
Received 24 May 2019; accepted 05 August 2019
Abstract. Purpose – Purpose of current study is to explore, impact of workplace environment i.e
Physical Environmental Factors and Behavioral Environmental Factors on employee productivity
(EP) through mediating role of employee health (EH).
Research methodology– is study adopted questionnaire survey method and data was collected
from 250 employees working in soware houses in Pakistan. Data has been analysed using SPSS
and AMOS soware. Reliability and correlation analysis was performed by using SPSS while; path
analysis was performed using AMOS.
Findings – Results revealed that one unit variance in PEF incorporates 35% change in EH, 33%
change in EH is caused by one unit increase in BEF and one unit increase in EH leads to 80%
increase in EP. Physical and Behavioural Environmental Factors are positively aecting EH and
EH is positivity aecting EP. Results of the study revealed that: employee health is mediating the
relationship between workplace environment factors and employee performance.
Research limitations– We used working Environment factors to determine employee health; future
studies can consider compensation practices, insurance plans and health benets by the organisa-
tion, a large sample or increased number of mediating variables can be used. e current study has
adopted cross-sectional design while future studies can consider longitudinal design.
Practical implications– Organisations must maintain a better environment in order to enhance em-
ployee productivity as, employee performance and workplace environment have direct and positive
relationship, employees productivity and physical as well as behavioural environment are linked
through employee health.
Originality/Value– However, most of the previous studies in this eld only highlighted positive
dynamic indicators of these indicators and neglected the quantitative changes, the current study is
an attempt to obtain a quantitative measure of responses in the given context.
Keywords: Physical Environment Factors (PEF), Behavioural Environment Factors (BEF), Em-
ployee Health (EH), Employee Performance (EP), and IT Industry.
JEL Classication: I12, J81, K32, M10.

174 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
Introduction
In a typical working environment, signicant components are physical and behavioural
constituents. Elements which are associated with employee’s aptitudes to attach physically
with the oce environment are called as physical environment. While the oce occupier
etiquettes with each other are interconnected through the behavioural environmental com-
ponents. Oce environment positively aects the behaviour of individual employees. us,
the excellence of working environment act as an essential function in determining the level
of employee and worker motivation, productivity, and performance (Sharma, Dhar, & Tyagi,
2016). How well employees are aliated to an organisation, aects how employees behave
within an organization settings including: their motivation level, innovative behavior, abseen-
teesm, interaction with other employees and job retention. Employee productivity is the most
signicant interest nowadays, and it is aected by the working environment in many ways
(Mwendwa, McAulie, Uduma, Masanja, & Mollel, 2017). It can play a positive or negative
role depending on prevailing physical conditions in the working environment. In developing
countries, most of the workplace environment in industries is insecure and harmful. Healthy
and safe working environment can take a very central role in increasing productivity; un-
fortunately, most of the employers consider it as an extra cost and do not spend much on
maintaining comfortable working environment (obaben & Woodward, 1996). Furniture
design, ventilation, noise, light, supervisor support, workspace, communication, re safety
measures aect employee productivity (Eberendu, Akpan, Ubani, & Ahaiwe, 2018).
Soware houses are the companies, where main workings are related to computer or mo-
bile applications designing and development. Soware development requires highly skilled
employees with technical expertise in understanding the requirements. e World leading
soware organisations include Microso, HP, Apple, and Oracle Corporation, which devel-
ops soware and distribute worldwide. ere are also a lot of international and local soware
organisations as well. As a rising group soware houses engineers, developers perform the
crucial role in the new technological industry, so they need to have a working place with
open decision-making environments where they have a prosperous role in decisions (Kaur
& Sood, 2015). On behalf of the business dictionary, work environment and all its surround-
ing which inuence the employees in the working position, and it primarily means working
condition, which has two main components: physical environment and behavioural environ-
ment. A well-structured and grand organisation looks aer and maintains the needs of their
employees. Vigorous workers in grand organisations achieve peak performance and maintain
the organisation value (Kiyatkin & Baum, 2012).
Employees are working in insecure and unhealthy environment pretentious occupational
disease due to the negative inuences of the environment on their performance, which aects
the overall productivity of the organization (Chandrasekar, 2011). Employees are facing grave
environmental troubles in their related workplace, especially in the soware industry, which
causes complexity in supplying essential amenities to ameliorate their level of performance.
In a recent study, we have evaluated the performance of soware houses employees of Paki-
stan in the existence of such workplace physical and behavioural environmental factors. e
consequence of chosen factors has been tested on their physical health condition that eventu-

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 175
ally inuence their performance. us the primary goal of the research is to investigate the
components of working and behavioural environment which have inuences on employee
performance and to understand impact of both working environment and behavioural fac-
tors, on employee health in IT industry. is research has also evaluated the employee health
impact on workers performance. However, in most previous works on this topic, only the
fact of the positive dynamics of these indicators is noted, but not their quantitative changes.
e novelty of the article under consideration is an attempt to obtain a quantitative measure
of responses.
In major cities of Pakistan, especially Islamabad and Rawalpindi, there are many familiar
soware houses. Mostly the environment of these soware houses play an imperative role in
determining employee performance. is study has followed the working condition dened
as the work-place environment and has set terms, and conditions characteristics of the em-
ployees which are associated to employees (Samaranayake & Gamage, 2012). In 2002 soware
industry under the ministry of broadcasting and information emerged. Available statistic up
to 2007 illustrates that there were total 11,000 professionals of IT and 1,105 registered number
of soware houses. In 2006, the country was taken economic benet up-to US $1050 million
from IT services while the local IT industry reached revenue up to US$ 1,150M and the returns
from Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) was US $1,200M (Raheem et al., 2014). As per entire
valuables statistical gures (Kaur & Sood, 2015), the entire Information Technology (IT) and
Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) diligence per year, producing revenue of about
US$ 2 Billion. In 1996 the rst time aer introducing the internet, the soware market grown
up at very rapid pace and became one of the improvement factors in Pakistan IT industry.
Besides, for the establishment of IT industry, organisation of Pakistan Soware Export Board
(PSEB) established in 1995 and Pakistan Soware Houses Association was started in 1992
(Hasan, Moin, & Pasha, 2019). While in March 1997, the SandIT (Soware and Information)
was declared as a separate industry which has played an important role in advancement of
the of IT industry in Pakistan. In 2017 the undocumented IT export of Pakistan was about
up to little over $ 2.8 billion.
Main objectivesof the proposed study are: to explore what are the componenets of Physi-
cal Components of working environment and what are it’s Behavioural components; to study
the eect of physical and behavioural environment factors on employee health; to nd the
relationship between consequences of working environment and employee performance; to
examine the moderating role of employee health on the relationship of workplace environ-
ment and employee performance; and to develop scale for measuring consequences of in-
terrelationship between employee working environment and their employee performance.
1. Literature review
Workplace Environment: Workplace environment is an important component of work life for
employees as employees spend signicant part of their time at work, and it aects them in
one way or the other. It is concluded that the employees who are satised from their work
environment can lead towards more positive work outcomes (Kamarulzaman, Saleh, Hashim,
Hashim, & Abdul-Ghani, 2011). Previous researchers found that, several environmental

176 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
factors such as noise, colour, temperature, workplace design and use of indoor plants inu-
ence employee performance and well-being. ey also have suggested that future researches
can be carried on the relationship using working environment and employee productivity.
ey also suggested that comparative studies can be conducted between the oce environ-
ment of government and private oces. ey found that working environment is essential,
as in a comfortable environment employee can focus on their job correctly, and it leads to a
better employee performance, which leads to improved organisational productivity (Kama-
rulzaman et al., 2011). An environment that focuses people and has stirred them to be in its
workforce, provide them the prospect to perform eciently, is called attractive environment
or supportive environment and it helps to produce recruitment and keep on in occupation
(Awan & Tahir, 2015). Attractive work atmosphere and supportive environment give increase
to the circumstances in which employees put together their preeminent use of skills, com-
petences, and knowledge to execute eciently. Organisations sould invest more in providing
quality services to the customers (Mbembati, Mwangu, Muhondwa, & Leshabari, 2008).
Modern workplaces of IT and soware houses physical environment is surrounded by
computers, printer, machines, and dierent types of machines. Due to constant interaction
with technology, an employee’s brain is lled with sensor information. In an organisation, it is
made sure that there has a conduciveness of physical environment according to organisation
requirements for facilitating informality, privacy, crosses disciplinarily, familiarity, and com-
munication: these factors motivate employees to achieve higher level of organizational com-
mitment, that ultimalely leads the organization towards improved performance (Iqbal, 2008).
Employee Performance: employees within an organization can be motivated in dierent
ways in order to get maximum output and productivity, these rewards can be intrinsic or
extrinsic. Internal rewards are usually for accomplishing challenging assignments, and inter-
nal rewards are given for accomplishing challenging assignments, and external rewards cover
honorable recognition or sophisticated compensation (Chandrasekar, 2011).
Motivating employees for goal setting is another essential tool (Goerg, 2015). is form of
employee motivation eventually improves their performance and enhances the productivity
level of the organisations. ere are two primary purposes of goal setting, one is to improve
the individual’s behaviour, and second is to motivate them at a high level further that they
perform well with eectiveness. e specic goal is more eective than generalised goals.
Furthermore, high performance is achieved through challenging goals as compared to an
easy goal. With acceptance,practical goals, existences encourage and open communication
(Joshi & Sarda, 2011). Another essential component of the behavioural factor is attitude and
organisational justice. Prior researches have demonstrated the three most crucial eminent
dimension of the organisation. First, one called interaction justice is dened as justice be-
tween the employees and communication way of the employee to each other in work time,
politeness, respect, and dignity have dened the dierent degree of treatment with each other.
Second called procedural justice concerning the fairness making in the decision taken. e
last one is distribution justice, regarding perceived fairness in rewards and costs sharing
among the team members in connections of equity and equality (Chotikamankong, 2019;
Vimalanathan & Babu, 2013).

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 177
Workplace Environment and Productivity: Based on previous researches, it can be de-
termined that in the organisation, the working environment is signicant and has a high
impact on employees with dierent aspects. If organisation environment doesnot attract the
employees and they have a negative perception of dierent workplace environment elements
like absenteeism, performance, stress-related illness, and productivity, then eventually their
obligation has reduced to a low level which in turn aects the organisation productivity
and augmentations (Cottini & Ghinetti, 2012). However, if the organisation environment is
friendly, safe, and trusted, it impacts employees positively and their performance, creativ-
ity, productivity, commitment, and nancial health drive high, which also inuences the
organisation augmentations. Hence, Bhatti (2018); Mattson, Melder, and Horowitz (2016),
illustrated that the environment of the workplace had enhanced consequences by motivating
employees.
Physical and Behavioural Environment Factors: e oce environment has been dened
in two main categories, i.e. Physical and Behavioural Environment. Work of various research-
ers and their consequences are given in the subsequent paragraphs. Gunaseelan and Olluk-
karan (2012) worked on manufacturing sector and found that components of working envi-
ronment aects employee performance. ey took employee performance as the dependent
variable and other factors like an interpersonal relationship, monetary benets, employee
welfare, safety, security and training and development, formalisation and standardisation,
participative management, objective and rationality, supervision, and scope of advancement
as independent variables. ey used a random method of sampling for selecting of target
respondent. From 100 employees, primary data was collected using 5 points Likert scale
questionnaires, and percentage analysis was applied. e analysis concluded that employees
are less attracted to place more eorts for enhancing productivity without the appropriate
prospect of promotion in the organisation. Further, the results revealed that other factors like
a safe working environment, monetary packages, and the impact of rewards, training facility,
recognitions, and job security have positively inuenced employee’s performance.
Naharuddin and Sadegi (2013) found in their research that the workplace environment
signicantly impacts the performance of the employees. ey used survey-based data col-
lection method from 139 employees and revealed that supervisor behaviour is not enough
for the improvement of employe, a well-organised workplace physical environment and ad-
ditional benets including dierent kinds of job aids signicantly inuence employee per-
formance. Naharuddin and Sadegi (2013) studied the interrelationship between job per-
formance, job aids and physical working environment and supervisor support. ey used
the stratied random sampling technique and picked dierent employees from numerous
departments and levels of the organisation including: Head Quarters, Tooling Plant and
Stamping Plant. Data from 139 participants among, 200 was collected and regression analy-
sis was performed for testing three aforementioned measured variables. e analysis results
of Beta, negative relationship was found between the supervisor support and the employee
performance, which showed that there was not much signicant eect of supervisor on em-
ployees. Leblebici (2012) conducted their research on a foreign bank in turkey and ana-
lyzed the working environment conditions in relation to employee productivity, they car-
ried out their research using secondary data. Workplace environment consists of physical

178 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
and behavioral environmental factors. ey considered Physical components consisting of:
natural light, cleanliness, ventilation, heating/cooling facilities, comfortable working envi-
ronment, informal meeting area, oce layout, working desk/ area and general and personal
storage space. Behavioural components included: creative physical environment, distraction,
social interaction and oce layout in terms of ease of working. ey found that healthy
behavioural workplace condition yields positive consequences on employees even if physical
environmental conditions are unfavourable, another nding of the study was: behavioural
components of working environment aect employee performance more signicantly than
physical components.
Haynes (2008a) argued that organization productivity can be improved 5% to 10% by
upgrading physical design of workplace, this increased organizational performance is actualy
a result of enhanced employee performance. A number of researches have been conducted
on the investigation of eects of physical environment on employee participation towords
work, employee performance and loyality towards organization. Samaranayake and Gamage
(2012) found that positive correlation exists between job satisfaction and personal judgement
of eectiveness with reference to perceived relevance to work
Employee Health: Kelloway, Weigand, McKee, and Das (2013) have a focus on working
related health issues to soware developer professionals of India and USA and resulted that
factors like rest break time, working hours, and exercise is the main issues that inuence the
health of employees. ey further revealed that the most crucial health problems faced by
employees in both India and the USA are eye strain, headache, general fatigue, and back pain.
Shahzad, Iqbal, and Gulzar (2013) in a survey-based research study, analysed how organ-
isational culture aects employees work performance. ey conducted their study on dier-
ent soware houses in Pakistan. ey carried out their research by collecting primary data
on organizational culture by using ve aspects of organizational culture including: innovation
and risk taking, customer services, reward systems, communication systems and employee
participation. ey analysed the data by performing correlation and regression analysis. SPSS
soware was used for data analysis, sample size was 110. Results of the study revealed that
there is positive relationship between organizational culture and employee performance and
there exists positive relation between job performance and working environment. Study also
revealed that, employee commitment and participations leads towards enhanced organiza-
tional performance (Shahzad, Iqbal, & Gulzar, 2013).
A summary of the literature review has been given in Table1:
Ecological Systems eory: Ecological systems theory also known as person-in-environ-
ment theory states that:an individual in a specic environment hasa vibrant relationship with
their social, physical and natural environment (Barnett & Gareis, 2006) and this theory also
suggests that work and life are interconnected, one part has its eect on the other part in
terms of processes, time, context and time characteristics (Grzywacz & Bass, 2003).
Social Exchange eory: Motivational process in organisations is carried out with the
help of dierent social exchanges (Cook, Cheshire, & Gerbasi, 2006) Social Exchange eory
(Emerson, 1976) support from managers builds employee trust and as a result employees will
be motivated which helps in developing positive attitude towards work and employee com-
mitment level is enhanced as a result of which performance is enhanced. First-line managers

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 179
Table1. Aanalysis of existing literature
Author Year Target Methodology Conclusion
(Gunaseelan & Ol-
lukkaran, 2012)
Investigated work-
ing environment
factors which in-
uence employee
performance
– Sample size (100)
– random sampling
– 5 points Likert scale
– Data collected through
questionnaire
– Adequate promotion op-
portunity inuence perfor-
mance of employees
– Factors, i.e. job security,
facility of training, mone-
tary packages, rewards and
safe condition of working
also inuence employee per-
formance
(Naharuddin &
Sadegi, 2013)
Examined the
impact of fac-
tors of workplace
environment on
performance of
employees
– Sample 139
– Data collected through
questionnaire
– Data Analysis using
SPSS
– No signicant impact of su-
pervisor support was found
on employees performance
– physical environment
factors and job aid have
signicant inuence on per-
formance.
(Imran, Fatima,
Zaheer, Yousaf, &
Batool, 2012)
working environ-
ment, trans-forma-
tional leadership
– Sample 215,
– Data collected using
questionnaire
– Data Analysis SPSS
– e conclusion resulted
that work environment and
transformational leadership
have signicantly positive
impact on employee perfor-
mance.
(Mokaya, Musau,
Wagoki, & Karan-
ja, 2013)
Focuses on Kenya
hotel industry and
have checked the
inuence of work-
ing conditions on
job satisfaction
– Explanatory Resaech
– Stratied sample
(n= 84)
– Survey Method
– Data Analysis using
SPSS
– For improving employees
working skill, there must
have development provision
and opportunities for train-
ing from management to
employees.
(McGuire &
McLaren, 2009)
Physical environ-
ment have impact
on employee com-
mitment
– Sample size (65)
– Data collection tool
Questionnaire
– Data Analysis– SPSS
– e study determined that
for increasing the employee’s
commitment, with other
physical environment work-
ing factors employees well-
being needs to be measured
(Shahzad et al.,
2013)
Cultural Inuence
on Employee Per-
formance
– Sample Size (110)
– Data collection through
questionnaire
– Data Analysis using
– SPSS
– organisation culture has sig-
nificantly affects employee
performance.
(Leblebici, 2012)
Explored the work-
place condition’s
impact on employ-
ee performance
– Questionnire was used
for data collection
– Sample size (50)
– The study result revealed
that unhappy employees due
to the environment of work,
have not better remarkable
satisfactory results.

180 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
usually manage human resources; they manage human recourses with the ultimate objective
of attaining organisational performance. Social exchange is a process between organisation
and employees in which organisation values employee contribution and provide them with
the necessary care and makes sure that their well-being level is achieved (Eisenberger, Fasolo,
& Davis-LaMastro, 1990).
2. Research methodology
While exploring the element of job satisfaction, working environment again becomes a cru-
cial factor. ere are many elements of the workplace, including person-job t, supervisor
support, incentive plan, workload, training and development, which are considered as con-
tributing factors (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015). A mixed-method study was initially done by
a descriptive cross-sectional with survey pursued through a qualitative approach, and it was
found that there are many factors including work pressure, working teams absence, social
support, erudition of employee, safety, recognition were concluded as signicant factors and
work environment resulted as the main causative factor towards job satisfaction between
the health employees (Aziz, Kumar, Rathore, & Lal, 2015; Fadlallh, 2015). Chandrasekar
(2011) have studied the working environment by considering various types of public sector
organisations. In their research, they have a focus on employee level of performance in an
interactive work environment of the organisation. ey divided the organisation types into
three dierent categories, engineering category, administration category, and shop oor cat-
egory. Data were collected from 285 understudy employees by stratied random sampling
method. Analysis results that they recognised seven factors which aect employee’s attitude
towards works at the workplace. According to their results, the rst factor is emotional fac-
tors which have a high impact on the attitude of employees towards working environment,
the others were an interpersonal relationship, job assignment, control over the environment,
extensive work, shi, and the less eective one is above time duty. ey further found that
second category which aects employee performance is workplace physical aspect, like, oce
space, furniture’s, materials and storages, and the last one, the working place interior space.
e overall conclusion of their research resulted that to drive the employee’s performance
at peak, managers and supervisor should consider all aspects of the critical factors at work.
Based on the literature hypothesis 1 of the study will be:
Hypotheses of the Study: e current study contains and tested the following hypothesis,
which has derived from the previous literature and is also justied in the literature review.
H1: Physical factors of the workplace environment are positively associated with Employee
Health.
To improve the performance of the employees for getting better commitment and re-
sults, assurance of the adequate facilities must be provided to employees. It results that at
the workplace due to the harmful physical environment and inadequate equipment leaves
terrible eects on employee’s commitment and staying with the organisation for a long time
due to aecting job satisfaction of employees and fairness perception in the organisation
for employee’s compensation. e conviction that works settings design, innovations and
creativity have stronger inuences on businesses and organisations improvement. Hedge

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 181
(1982) concluded that an open work environment creates more signicant team interaction
by providing a high level of exibility due to the easiness of communication and access to
interpersonal work sharing as compared to closed and reserved oces. e glowing working
environments have helped in the collaboration among the sta member and higher pro-
ductivity of the organisation, as well as with increased positive attitude towards job and job
satisfaction (Dozie Ilozor, Love, & Treloar, 2002). Employee performance is also improved
by taking participation in organisational decision-making processes. Dierent training and
development programs also help the employee for creating new innovative ideas through
which they are involved in the new methods of experimentation. According to (Gunaseelan
& Ollukkaran, 2012) employee’s performance is improved by paying them according to their
expertise and experience. Hypothesis 2 is given as:
H2: Behavioural factors of workplace environment are positively associated with Employee
Health.
Das (2012) explored and discussed the prominent health related issues commonly faced
by soware developers during their professional eld. Recent studies described the factors
badly aecting the developers health, common factors are tea breaks, gym classes for exercise
etc. Because the study was related to sub-continent so more than 60 developers from dier-
ent sub-continent countries were selected and the observations show that the most common
issues in developer’s health are eye strain, fatigue and backbone pain. Similarly recent studies
show that blood pressure, cholesterol and diabetes are having not much concern at this point
of time. From the recent studies it is very clear that number of overlapping of symptoms in
health related issues (Gorin, Badr, Krebs, & Das, 2012). Based on the literature on employee
health and productivity Hypothesis 3 of the study is driven as under:
H3: Employee’s Health positively inuences Employee Performance.
Shahzad (2014) studied the impact of organisational culture on the work performance
of soware houses in Pakistan. e author has focused on ve various aspects of the reward
system, innovation, employee contribution and communication system, customer services,
and risk in organisational culture. ey found that the performance of employees have a
positive relationship with organisational culture and especially with the organisational envi-
ronment. ey further revealed that employee participation and commitment play a vital role
in enhancing organisational performance. Samaranayake and Gamage (2012) have worked
on the perception of employees associated with electronic monitoring of employees in the
working environment and their inuences on job satisfaction of soware houses employees
in Sri Lanka. ey concluded a positive correlation of individual judgment of eectiveness
with perceived signicance to work and job satisfaction. Hypothesis 4 and 5 are given below:
H4: Employee Health mediates the relationship between Physical Environmental Factors and
Employee Performance.
H5: Employee Health mediates the relationship between Behavioural Environmental Factors
and Employee Performance.
Current research is survey-based and has used primary data; formal, informal form of
interview and questionnaire are used for the collection of data. For research, both environ-
mental factors, physical and behavioural are considered with employee’s health condition,
and employees work performance. e sample size of data is 250, and by using SPPS25

182 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
and AMOS soware, the correlation and regression method and path analysis are used for
analysis.
Research Model: is research work has focused on the relationship between the work-
ing environment and employee performance. e Study based on the relationship among
the working environment and the performance of employee. We took two main factors of
working environment; the 1st factor that we considered is physical location in which (oce
lights, surroundings of oce building, sitting arrangements of employee in oce) and the 2nd
factor behavioral (tea time environment, over time bonuses etc) In this study we calculated
the eect of these factors on the developers life by gathering data from dierent soware
houses of Pakistan.
e framework of the research is depicted in Figure 1 given above.
Research Design: self administered structured questionnaires have been used to collect
quantitative data. e unit of analysis was employees in soware houses in Rawalpindi and
Islamabad. It is a cross-sectional study. A sample of 250 employees from soware houses was
selected following a systematic random sampling technique.
Data Collection: A questionnaire-based survey has been adapted for collection of data.
e questionnaire was in English and translated to Urdu and then again translated back to
English with dierent three independent professional translators to ensure consistency (Hui
& Triandis, 1985). e survey has been conducted through a self-administrative method
from dierent soware houses in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Personally administered ques-
tionnaire technique was used to achieve maximum response. For analysis, SPSS soware
was used while for verication of the model path analysis (SEM) method in AMOS has
been used.
3. Results
Reliability Analysis: Before conducting actual data analysis, reliability analysis was performed
by collecting data from y respondents. Results of the reliability analysis were signicant
(Table2). According to Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011) instrument is considered as reliable
if it achieves the value of 0.70. All values fall in acceptance range and hence the study fulls
Cleanliness
Seating
Light
Noise
Physical
Environmental
Factors
Lunch &
Friendly
Environment
Involuntary
Over
Employee
Health
Behavioral
Environmenta
l
factors
Employee
Productivity
Figure 1. Proposed research model

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 183
reliability criteria. A pilot study is very crucial as it identies a potential problem in the data
before doing actual analysing and getting nal results.
For scale reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha has been used. Cronbach’s Alpha is termed as a
coecient of internal consistency, and it is used to measure scale reliability. It is not consid-
ered a statistical test however, its results are used as a measure for scale reliability or internal
consistency. If the value of Cronbach’s Alpha is less than 0.6, it is considered less reliable. If
the vale is between 0.6–0.8, it s considered as moderately reliable and if it is between 0.8–1.
In the current study, the sample size is 237. All four variables were used in reliability analy-
sis. Physical Environmental Factors (PEF) consists of 16 items, and its Cronbach’s (alpha)
value is 0.972. Behavioural Factors (BF) contains six items, and Cronbach’s (alpha) is 0.937.
Employee Health (EH) having seven items and Cronbach’s (alpha) value is 0.958. Employee
Performance having seven items and Cronbach’s (alpha) value is 0.904. It is conrmed that
the Instrument is highly reliable with all the variables having reliability values over 0.8.
Table2. Reliability statistics
Variabl e Items Cronbach’s Alpha
(Pilot study) Cronbach’s Alpha
(Actual study)
Physical Environmental Factors 16 0.701
0.972
Behavioural Factors 6 0.732
0.937
Employee’s Health 7 0.755
0.958
Employees Performance 6 0.719
0.904
Correlation: In the current study, Pearson’s correlation has been applied as data was in-
terval scale data. Pearson’s correlation is dened as the covariance of two variables divided
by the product of their standard deviations. Correlation values are given in Table3. Value of
coecient of Pearson’s correlation between Behavioural factors (BF) and Physical Environ-
mental Factors (PEF) is 0.130, and this value is signicant at p= 0.05. Between Employee
Health (EH) and Behavioural Factors (BF), it is 0.382, and it is signicant at p= 0.000. Pear-
son’s correlation value for Employee Performance (EP) and Behavioural Factors (BF) is 0.331,
and the results are signicant at p= 0.000. Correlation value between Physical Environment
Factors (PEF) and Employee Health (EH) is 0.404 and is signicant at p= 0.000. Correlation
between Physical Environmental Factors (PEF) and Employee Performance (EP) is 0.342, and
it is signicant at p= 0.000 level of signicance and correlation between Employee Health
(EH), and Employee Performance (EP) is 0.815, and it is signicant at p= 0.000.
Table3. Correlations
Behavioural
Factors Physical
Environmental
Factors Employees’ Health
Physical Environmental Factors 0.130* 1
Employees’ Health 0.382** 0.404** 1
Employees’ Performance 0.331** 0.342** 0.815**
*. Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level
(2-tailed).

184 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
Path Analysis: As discussed earlier SPSS has been used for fundamental analysis and model
has been tested using AMOS-22 and path analysis (SEM) has been applied. Path analysis is a
technique used for multivariate analysis for testing the relationship among variables. It is also
considered as a part of regression analysis and a part of structural equation modelling. Figure 2
explains the relationship of variables via Path Analysis. In the current model value of chi-square
is 10.721 and DF is 6 while probability is 0.097. Value of Chi-square is crucial in the model, and
the small value indicates that the proposed model/ theory arecorrect. e acceptable ratio of t
between chi-square and the degree of freedom is 3:1. In the current model, the minimum value
of Chi-square is 4.511 with probability= 0.211 and with degrees of freedom= 3.
Model Fit Summary. Summary of model t is given in Table4.
Table4. Model Fit summary
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
Default model 11 4.511 3 0.211 1.504
Saturated model 14 0.000 0
Independence model 8 337.155 6 0.000 56.192
Values of Degree of Freedom 3 and p= 0.211 exhibit that results current model proved the
goodness of t. e current study is a Structural Equation Modeling technique with multivari-
ate data analysis, in this kind of studies if the value of p is insignicant, it is considered as a
good t, unlike other multivariate techniques. e acceptable range for the value of CMIN/DF
is 1 to 3. Results show that the value of CMIN/DF is 1.504, and it lies in an acceptable range
and signies the goodness of t and CMIN corresponds to chi-square value, which is 4.511.
Table5. Baseline comparisons
Model NFIΔ11 RFIρ1 IFIΔ12 TLIρ2 CFI
Default model 0.987 0.973 0.995 0.991 0.995
Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Figure 2. Path analysis of proposed model

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 185
For checking the goodness of t, we applied Normed Fit Index (NFI), RFI, Incremental
Fit Index (IFI) Tucker-Lewis Fit Index (TLI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). It can be
observed from Table5 that the value of Normed t index (NFI) 0.987 which is greater than
the recommended value of 0.9, RFI value is 0.973, and its recommended value is 0.9 (Bentler
& Bonett, 1980). Incremental Fit Index (IFI) value is 0.995. According to Bentler and Bonett
(1980) cut o criteria for IFI index is 0.95. Tucker Lewis Fit (TLI) Index results show its
value is 0.991 according to criteria its value should be closer to 1 for a better-tted model
(Tucker & Lewis, 1973). All the above results are falling in an acceptable range, and it can
be concluded that the goodness of t shows that the proposed model is a good t. PNFI and
PCFI are Proximity Adjusted Measures there is 0.493 and 0.498, and its recommended value
is 0.5, actual and recommended values are very close again. Details are given in Table6.
Table6. Parsimony-adjusted measures
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model 0.500 0.493 0.498 0.046 0.000 0.127 0.432
Saturated model 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Independence model 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.484 0.440 0.528 0.000
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is another widely used measure of
absolute t. For the goodness of t, its value lies between 0.03 and 0.08. In the current study
RMSEA value is 0.046, given in Table6 which indicates that the model is a good t.
Table7. Regression weights
Estimate Standardized
Estimate S.E C.R P
EH <— PEF 0.347 0.367 0.053 6.504 ***
EH <— BF 0.328 0.341 0.054 6.046 ***
EP <— EH 0.796 0.810 0.038 21.230 ***
Table7 shows that value of the coecient of regression for Physical Environmental Fac-
tors (PEF) and Employee Health (EH) is 0.347 at p= 0.00, and it is considered as signicant
while Standardized estimate is 0.367. e values show that there is a positive and signi-
cant relationship between Physical Environmental Factors (PEF) and Employee Health (EH)
Hence, H1 is accepted. Regression coecient value between Behavioural Factors (BF) and
Employee Health (EH) is 0.328, p= 0.000, and it is signicant. e standardised estimate is
0.341. It means that a positive and signicant relationship exists between Physical Environ-
mental Factors (PEF) and Employee Health (EH) and H2 is accepted. Regression coecient
between Employee Health (EH) and Employee Productivity (EP) is 0.796 at p= 0.00 while the
standardised estimate is 0.810 which is also signicant and indicates that there is a positive
and signicant relationship between Employee Health (EH) and Employee Productivity (EP)
and H3 is also accepted. e goodness of t of has exhibited that Employee Health (EH) play
mediating role between Physical Environmental Factors (PEF) and Employees Performance

186 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
(EP) and also between Behavioural factors (BF) and Employee Performance (EP) hence, H4
and H5 are accepted. Path Analysis ndings show that all ve hypotheses of the study are
accepted.
Table8. Intercepts: (Default model)
Estimate S.E C.R P
EH 1.515 0.274 5.526 ***
EP 0.485 0.150 6.046 0.001
Intercept or constant value for EH is 1.515, and for EP, it is 0.485 (Table8). According
to Hair et al. (2011), covariance value should be zero between two independent variables. In
table number 9 we can see the value of covariance between PEF and BF is 0.000.
Table9. Total, direct and indirect eects
BF Standardized BF PEF Standardized PEF EH Standardized EH
EH 0.328 0.341 0.347 0.367 0
0
EP 0.261 0.276 0.276 0.297 0.796
EH 0.328 0.341 0.347 0.367 0 0
EP 0.261 0 0 0 0.796 0.81
EH 0 0 0 0 0 0
EP 0.261 0.276 0.276 0297 0 0.81
Discussion
Path analysis results indicated that one unit change in Physical Environmental Factors (PE)
generates 35% change in Employee Health. ere is a signicant positive relationship between
PEF and EH, so H1 is accepted. Path diagram also explains that Behavioural Factors (BF)
has a positive inuence on Employee Health (EH) and one unit change in BF creates 33%
change in EH. ere is a positive and signicant relationship between BF and EH, and H2 is
accepted. 80% change in Employee Productivity (EP) is caused by a unit change in Employee
Health (EH), and we can conclude that employee health is a strong predictor of employee
productivity and there a strong and positive relationship between them, H3 is also accepted.
Results have also revealed that there is a mediating role of Employee Health (EH) between
PEF and EP as well as between BF and EP.
Productivity is measured in term of absenteeism (Sullivan, Baird, & Donn, 2013) address-
ing health issues faced by employees helps in determining absentees of employees and health
issues of employees directly or indirectly aects absentees rates in employees (Ronald, 2003).
Unhealthy working environment and discomfort at the workplace creates health issues in
employees, which lead to increased absentees and hence, productivity is decreased (Daniels-
son & Bodin, 2008). is conrms the study of Peterson and Beard (2004), Ellison Schriefer
(2005) who stated that optimum balance is achieved by physical environment by helping

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 187
workers in moving from one mode to another. Also, productivity is determined by pro-
moting social and behavioural environmental factors. e results are supported by Haynes
(2008b), Peterson and Beard (2004), Haynes (2007). Van der Voordt (2004a, 2004b) stated
that Physical Environment helps in creating dierent work settings which help employees in
performing their individual as well as group tasks.
In today’s competitive and challenging environment, the physical health of the workforce
is vital, and current study has explored the relationship of various environmental and behav-
ioural factors with employee health, which in turns leads organisations towards productivity.
Supportive work environment motivates employees (Earle, 2003). Little emphasis has been
given to employee health, about productivity, especially on mediating role of for employee
health between environmental factors and productivity and ndings have shown that the re-
lationship proposed in the model (Figure 1) has been proved. Healthy working environment
and managerial support (Bell, 2008; Ramlall, 2003) open communication between employees
and supervisors (Earle, 2003) leads to improved performance and helps in retaining employ-
ees. Participation of employees in critical decisions, competitive compensation practices,
pleasant relations between managers and employees (Gberevbie, 2010) career development
and employee empowerment leads to enhanced employee performance (Kundu & Gahlawat,
2016). Results of the study are also consistent with social exchange theory. Social exchange
is a process between organisation and employees in which organisation values employee
contribution and provide them with the necessary care and makes sure that their well-being
level is achieved (Eisenberger et al., 1990).
e current study provides guidelines for practitioners and business managers for nding
ways for improving the working environment and helping employees in maintaining good
health. HR Practitioners need to put more eorts in providing support to employees and
improving managerial behaviour to accomplish employees as well as organisational perfor-
mance goals (Agarwala, 2003). Study results conrms that PEF, BF and EH are determinants
of EP also EH play mediating role between PEF and EP as well as BF and EH. Results of SEM
proved the signicance of the model and conrmed all the ve hypotheses of the study. We
can conclude that the model tted enough and it is imperative for an organisation to consider
PEF, BF and EH for improving performance.
Conclusions
Working environment is one of the most important components which inuence employee
performance within an organizational settings. In today’s competitive business environment,
monetory benita alone are not enough for employees in order achieve higher performance
levels. However, a combination of monetary and non- monetary rewards is more eective
in achieving higher levels of employee performance, which leads towards achievement of
organizational goals. Employees working in soware houses needs attractive, peaceful and
cooperative working environment in order to achieve higher performance level. A happy,
industrious employee is vital for IT industry and adequated lightning, noise free and clean of-
ce, comfortable seating are the factors of physical envirinment, considered in current study.
Study revealed that, all these factors are vital in aecting employee health. Tea and lunch breaks,

188 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
involuntary overtome and friendly working environment were taken as components of behavior-
al environmental factors. It has been found these factors help in improving employee health and
a healthy mind and healthy body leads towards enhanced employee performance. Organisations
must maintain a better physical environment in order to enhance employee productivity as
employee performance has a direct relationship with workplace environment and employees
productivity and physical as well as behavioural environmental are linked through employee
health. Improving physical and behavioural factors will improve employee health and healthy
employees can be more productive; they can perform their tasks more eectively and e-
ciently and hence improve employee performance.
Limitations and future work
Apart from practical and theoretical implications, the current study has many limitations as
well and has opened new avenues for further exploration. We used environmental factors to
determine employee health; future studies can consider compensation practices, insurance
plans and health benets by the organisation in determining employee health and productiv-
ity. Studies can also be performed using a large sample or increasing mediator variables. Dif-
ferent data collection methods can be used in future studies along with a self administrative
questionnaire. e current study has been performed in cross-section design while future
studies can consider longitudinal studies and a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods
can also be used.
References
Agarwala, T. (2003). Innovative human resource practices and organisational commitment: An empiri-
cal investigation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(2), 175-197.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519021000029072
Ahmed, R., Vveinhardt, J., Ahmad, N., & Mujeeb, M. (2014). e business outsourcing in telecom-
munication industry: case of Pakistan. Transformations in Business & Economics, 13(32B), 760-779.
Awan,A.G., & Tahir,M.T. (2015). Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: A case
study of banks and insurance companies in Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Manage-
ment, 7(1), 329-345.
Aziz, I., Kumar, R., Rathore, A., & Lal, M. (2015). Working environment and job satisfaction among
health professional working at a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. Journal of Ayub Medical College
Abbottabad, 27(1), 201-204.
Bell,E.E. (2008). Exploring employee perception of the work environment along generational lines.
Performance Improvement, 47(9), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/p.20032
Bentler,P.M., & Bonett,D.G. (1980). Signicance tests and goodness of t in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
Bhatti, K. (2018). e mediation model of interrelationships among 4 C’s of work environment, em-
ployee performance and organisational performance in Pakistani organisations. Asia Proceedings
of Social Sciences, 2(3), 176-180.
Cecilia Eberendu, A., Okon Peter Akpan, E., C. Ubani, E., & Ahaiwe, J. (2018). A Methodology for the
categorisation of soware projects in Nigeria based on performance.Asian Journal of Research in
Computer Science,1(4), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajrcos/2018/v1i424758

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 189
Chandrasekar, K. (2011). Workplace environment and its impact on organisational performance in
public sector organisations. International Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business Systems,
1(1), 1-19.
Chotikamankong, K. (2019). Using WBL as ODI to improve work environment and well-being of
employee. International Research E-Journal on Business and Economics, 3(1), 1-17.
Cook,K.S., Cheshire, C., & Gerbasi, A. (2006). Power, dependence and social exchange. Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Cottini, E., & Ghinetti, P. (2012). Working conditions, lifestyles and health: University of Aarhus, Depart-
ment of Economics.
Danielsson,C.B., & Bodin, L. (2008). Oce type in relation to health, well-being, and job satisfaction
among employees. Environment and Behaviour, 40(5), 636-668.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507307459
Dozie Ilozor, B., Love,P. E., & Treloar, G. (2002). e impact of work settings on organisational per-
formance measures in built facilities. Facilities, 20(1/2), 61-67.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770210414308
Earle,H.A. (2003). Building a workplace of choice: Using the work environment to attract and retain top
talent. Journal of facilities Management, 2(3), 244-257. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960410808230
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organisational support and employee
diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51
Ellison Schriefer, A. (2005). Workplace strategy: What it is and why you should care. Journal of Corpo-
rate Real Estate, 7(3), 222-233. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010510631081
Emerson,R.M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335-362.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003
Fadlallh,A.W. (2015). Impact of job satisfaction on employees performance an application on faculty
of science and humanity studies university of Salman Bin Abdul-Aziz-Al Aaj. International Journal
of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences, 2(1), 26-32.
Gberevbie,D.E. (2010). Strategies for employee recruitment, retention and performance: Dimension
of the Federal civil service of Nigeria. African Journal of Business Management, 4(8), 1447-1456.
Goerg,S.J. (2015). Goal setting and worker motivation. IZA World of Labor.
https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.178
Gorin,S.S., Badr, H., Krebs, P., & Das,I.P. (2012). Multilevel interventions and racial/ethnic health
disparities. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 2012(44), 100-111.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs015
Grzywacz,J.G., & Bass,B.L. (2003). Work, family, and mental health: Testing dierent models of
work–family t. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 248-261.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00248.x
Gunaseelan, R., & Ollukkaran, B. (2012). A study on the impact of work environment on employee
performance. Namex International Journal of Management Research, 71.
Hair,J.F., Ringle,C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing
eory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
Hasan, A., Moin, S., & Pasha, M. (2019). Prediction of personality proles in the Pakistan soware
industry– A study. Psych, 1(1), 320-330. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych1010022
Haynes,B.P. (2007). Oce productivity: a shi from cost reduction to human contribution. Facilities,
25(11/12), 452-462. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770710822562
Haynes,B.P. (2008a). An evaluation of the impact of the oce environment on productivity. Facilities,
26(5/6), 178-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770810864970

190 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
Haynes,B.P. (2008b). e impact of oce layout on productivity. Journal of Facilities Management,
6(3), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/14725960810885961
Hedge, A. (1982). e open-plan oce: A systematic investigation of employee reactions to their work en-
vironment. Environment and Behaviour, 14(5), 519-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916582145002
Hui,C.H., & Triandis,H.C. (1985). e instability of response sets. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49(2),
253-260. https://doi.org/10.1086/268918
Imran, R., Fatima, A., Zaheer, A., Yousaf, I., & Batool, I. (2012). How to boost employee performance:
investigating the inuence of transformational leadership and work environment in a Pakistani
perspective. Middle-East Journal of Scientic Research, 11(10), 1455-1462.
Iqbal, A. (2008). Organizational climate and employees’ commitment: a study of the Pakistani knitwear
industry. InEstableciendo puentes en una economía global(p. 32). Escuela Superior de Gestión
Comercial y Marketing, ESIC.
Joshi, A., & Sarda,N.L. (2011, September). Do teams achieve usability goals? evaluating goal achieve-
ment with usability goals setting tool. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp.
313-330). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23774-4_26
Kamarulzaman, N., Saleh, A., Hashim, S., Hashim, H., & Abdul-Ghani, A. (2011). An overview of the
inuence of physical oce environments towards employee. Procedia Engineering, 20, 262-268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.164
Kaur, N., & Sood,S.K. (2015). Cognitive decision making in smart industry. Computers in Industry,
74, 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.06.006
Kelloway,E.K., Weigand, H., McKee,M.C., & Das, H. (2013). Positive leadership and employee well-
being. Journal of Leadership &Organisational Studies, 20(1), 107-117.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812465892
Kiyatkin, L., & Baum,J.R. (2012, July). Linking human capital and organizational performance: the
impact of employee health behaviors. InAcademy of Management Proceedings, 2012(1), 17659.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2012.17659abstract
Kundu,S.C., & Gahlawat, N. (2016). Eects of employee retention practices on perceived rm and
innovation performance. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 19(1), 25-43.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2016.073287
Leblebici, D. (2012). Impact of workplace quality on employee’s productivity: case study of a bank in
Turkey. Journal of Business, Economics, 1(1), 38-49.
Mattson, E., Melder,J.D., & Horowitz, J. (2016). Workplace environment and the likelihood to partici-
pate in deviant behaviour. Sentience, 14, 24-26.
Mbembati,N.A., Mwangu, M., Muhondwa, E., & Leshabari,M.M. (2008). Performance indicators for
quality in surgical and laboratory services at Muhimbili national hospital (MNH) in Tanzania. East
African Journal of Public Health, 5(1), 13-16. https://doi.org/10.4314/eajph.v5i1.38971
McGuire, D., & McLaren, L. (2009). e impact of physical environment on employee commitment
in call centres: e mediating role of employee well-being. Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, 15(1/2), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590910937702
Mokaya,S.O., Musau,J.L., Wagoki, J., & Karanja, K. (2013). Eects of organisational work conditions
on employee job satisfaction in the hotel industry in Kenya. International Journal of Arts and Com-
merce, 2(2), 79-90.
Mwendwa, P., McAulie, E., Uduma, O., Masanja, H., & Mollel, H. (2017). e impact of supportive
supervision on the implementation of HRM processes; a mixed-methods study in Tanzania. Health
Systems and Policy Research, 4(1), 1-9.
Naharuddin, N., & Sadegi, M. (2013). Factors of workplace environment that aect employees per-
formance: A case study of Miyazu Malaysia.International Journal of Independent Research and
Studies,2(2), 66-78.

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 191
Peterson,T.O., & Beard,J.W. (2004). Workspace technology’s impact on individual privacy and team
interaction. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 10(7/8), 163-172.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590410569887
Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Kossek,E.E., & Sweet, S. (2015). e work and family handbook: multi-disciplinary
perspectives and approaches. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203885383
Ramlall, S. (2003). Organisational application managing employee retention as a strategy for increasing
organisational competitiveness. Applied HRM Research, 8(2), 63-72.
Raziq, A., & Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia
Economics and Finance, 23, 717-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00524-9
Ronald, A. (2003). Reader of the purple sage: Essays on western writers and environmental literature.
University of Nevada Press.
Samaranayake, V., & Gamage, C. (2012). Employee perception towards electronic monitoring at work
place and its impact on job satisfaction of soware professionals in Sri Lanka. Telematics and In-
formatics, 29(2), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2011.08.003
Shahzad, F. (2014). Impact of organisational culture on employees’ job performance: An empirical study
of soware houses in Pakistan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 24(3), 219-227.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCoMA-07-2012-0046
Shahzad, F., Iqbal, Z., & Gulzar, M. (2013). Impact of organisational culture on employees job perfor-
mance: An empirical study of soware houses in Pakistan. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly,
5(2), 56.
Sharma, J., Dhar,R. L., & Tyagi, A. (2016). Stress as a mediator between work–family conict and
psychological health among the nursing sta: Moderating role of emotional intelligence. Applied
Nursing Research, 30, 268-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2015.01.010
Sullivan, J., Baird, G., & Donn, M. (2013). Measuring productivity in the oce workplace (Final Report).
Centre for Building Performance Research, University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
obaben, M., & Woodward, W. (1996). Workplace security for home health care employees. Journal
of Home Health Care Practice, 8(6), 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/108482239600800611
Tucker,L.R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coecient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psy-
chometrika, 38(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
van der Voordt,T.J. (2004a). Costs and benets of exible workspaces: work in progress in e Neth-
erlands. Facilities, 22(9/10), 240-246. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770410555959
Van Der Voordt,T.J. (2004b). Productivity and employee satisfaction in exible workplaces. Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, 6(2), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1108/14630010410812306
Vimalanathan, K., & Babu,T. R. (2013). Impact of environment ergonomics on the productivity of
oce workers.Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,7(4), 366-374.
Appendix
Survey questionnaire
Dear Sir/Madam, I am a student of PhD management, and this research is a partial require-
ment of my PhD. Purpose of this research is to investigate about Working Environment and
Productivity, through mediating role of Employee Health. Your participation will be highly
appreciated and your response will be kept condential. If you have any questions regarding
this research in general or the survey in particular, Please feel free to contact me through
email: hafeeziqra@yahoo.com.

192 I. Hafeez et al. Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role...
Part-I
General information
Gender: Male □ Female □
Age group you fall into? Under 20 □ 21– 30 years □ 31– 40 years □
41–50 years □ 50–60 years □ 60 and Above □
What is your highest education?
Matriculation □ Intermediate □ Bachelor □ Masters □ MPhil □
Work Area?
Programmer Analyst Graphic Designer System Designer Data Base Administrate
Work Experience?
<1 year 1–2 years 2–3 years 3–4 years 5 years and more
What is your brief job description?
_________________________________________________
Part-II
*Please Tick (√) on any of the response categories mentioned against the following state-
ments showing your degree of agreement or disagreement.
1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither Agree nor Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree
Sr. Variables 1 2 3 4 5
1My furniture is exible to adjust, rearrange or reorganize my workspace.
2My furniture is comfortable enough so that I can work without getting
tired during long hours.
3I have adequate and comfortable in my oce.
4My work environment is quiet.
5I am able to have quiet and understand time alone.
6My workspace has many noise distractions.
7My workplace is dusty and not cleared properly.
8Sweeper also cleans the oce during oce hours without disturbing any
work of employee.
9My workspace is provided with ecient lighting.
10 Do you control over the lighting on your desk (i.e adjustable desk light on
desk)?
11 Ample amount of Natural light comes into my oce.
12 Number of windows in my work area complete my fresh air and light need.
13 My oce branch is open enough to see my colleagues working.
14 My work area is suciently equipped for my typical needs (normal,
storage, movements, etc).

Business, Management and Education, 2019, 17(2): 173–193 193
Sr. Variables 1 2 3 4 5
15 I am satised with the amount of space for storage and displaying
important materials.
16 My workspace serves multi-purpose functions for informal and instant
meetings.
17 My job tends to directly aect my health.
18 I work under a great deal of tensions.
19 I have felt dgety or nervous as a result of my job.
20 If had a dierent job, my health would probably improve.
21 Problems associated with my job have kept me awake at night.
22 I have felt nervous before attending meetings in the company.
23 I oen take my job home with me in the sense that I think it when doing
other things.
24. Have you experience any sickness during your employment? Yes/No
25. What type of sickness/ health problem you suer during the employment.
a. Headache
b. Back pain
c. Nerve problem
d. Eye side problem
e. Blood pressure
f. Carpal tunnel syndrome
g. Other
h. None of above
26. Would you choose the same profession if a chance is given again? Yes/No
27. Do you think you can enjoy healthy life with this profession? Yes/No
28. Do you live with family during the week? Yes/No
29. How many hours do you spend with your family daily? Yes/No
< hour 1 hour 2 hours 3 hours
4 hours
*Reserve coding questions.
Once again thank you very much for your valuable time!