Attendance Compliance and Work Productivity among Employees in ACES Polytechnic College, Inc.: Basis for Policy Recommendation

Employee attendance compliance is an essential factor influencing organizational effectiveness and employee work productivity, particularly in educational institutions where service quality depends on employee performance and accountability. Despite the growing body of research on attendance management and productivity, limited studies have examined their relationship within private higher education institutions in the Philippine context. This study aimed to determine the relationship between attendance compliance and work productivity among employees of ACES Polytechnic College, Inc. Specifically, it assessed the levels of attendance compliance and work productivity, examined the relationship between these variables, and determined whether work productivity significantly differed according to selected demographic characteristics. The study employed a quantitative research design using descriptive-correlational and causal-comparative approaches. A total of 108 teaching and non-teaching employees who met the inclusion criteria participated in the study through purposive sampling. Data were collected using a validated survey questionnaire and analyzed using mean, standard deviation, Pearson's Product-Moment Correlation, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at the 0.05 level of significance. The findings revealed that employees demonstrated very high levels of attendance compliance (M = 3.40, SD = 0.68) and work productivity (M = 3.27, SD = 0.64). Correlation analysis showed a moderate positive and statistically significant relationship between attendance compliance and work productivity (r = 0.384, p < .001), indicating that employees with higher attendance compliance tended to exhibit greater work productivity. Moreover, work productivity did not significantly differ according to age, sex, and years of service, although a significant difference was observed based on civil status. The study concludes that attendance compliance is significantly associated with employee work productivity and highlights the importance of strengthening attendance compliance practices, organizational support, and employee development initiatives to promote higher productivity and improve institutional effectiveness in higher education institutions.

Attendance Compliance, Work Productivity, Employee Performance, Organizational Behavior, Policy Recommendation

1. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (2016). Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types of employee development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 845–857. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Consulting Psychologists Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.19379625 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634438 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Johns, G. (2008). Absenteeism and presenteeism: Not at work or not working well. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 160–177). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Improving the individual work performance questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Journal of Applied Measurement, 15(2), 160–175. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Laerd Statistics. (n.d.). One-way ANOVA in SPSS Statistics. https://statistics.laerd.com [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Luthans, F. (2011). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Maquilan, D. J. S., & Miniano, C. M. B. (n.d.). Attendance monitoring practices and employee compliance. [Complete publication details must be verified before submission.] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mohammed, A., & Elrayah, M. (n.d.). Employee awareness of attendance policies and organizational compliance. [Complete publication details must be verified before submission.] [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71–83. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor–emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Republic of the Philippines. (2012). Republic Act No. 10173: Data Privacy Act of 2012. Official Gazette. Official Gazette – Republic Act No. 10173 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Is Strike Relevant in the Modern Era? Evidence from Indian Manufacturing, IT/Ites, FMCG, Electronics and Emerging Sectors
• A Qualitative Exploration of Work-Life Balance Among Private Universities Lecturers in Klang Valley
• Leadership Styles and Employee Motivation: Examining the Impact on Job Satisfaction and Turnover
• Human Resource Management, Organizational Culture, and Good Governance Practices: A Structural Equation Model on Service Orientation among Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation in Davao Region
• Cost of Silence: Exploring the Impact of Organisational Silence on Employee Engagement