Work Environment and Academic Staff Performance in Federal Polytechnics, South-West, Nigeria

Submission Deadline-23rd July 2024
June 2024 Issue : Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now
Submission Deadline-20th July 2024
Special Issue of Education: Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now

Work Environment and Academic Staff Performance in Federal Polytechnics, South-West, Nigeria

  • Ademola Iyanda Ebeloku, PhD
  • Adebayo Sulaiman Adeodu
  • James Olalekan Akinbode
  • 874-889
  • May 21, 2024
  • Education

Work Environment and Academic Staff Performance in Federal Polytechnics, South-West, Nigeria

1Ademola Iyanda Ebeloku, PhD; 1Adebayo Sulaiman Adeodu, PhD & 2James Olalekan Akinbode, PhD

1Department of Business Administration, Federal Polytechnic Ile-Oluji, Ondo State, Nigeria

2Department of Business Administration, Bowen University, Nigeria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1104065

Received: 05 April 2024; Accepted: 20 April 2024; Published: 21 May 2024

ABSTRACT

No entity operates in isolation but within an environment which can make or mar the performance of individuals in the entity. This study examined work environment and academic staff performance in Federal Polytechnics operating in South West, Nigeria. The study made use of survey designed which made it possible to have assessed thoughts, opinions, and feelings of participants through structured online closed ended questionnaire. 6 Federal Polytechnics with 2,358 academic staff total population was targeted for the study. However, 342 sample size was determined and proportional distributed based on the population. Data collected were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings revealed that there is significant difference in the research outputs of the federal polytechnics. However, there was no significant difference in the teaching effectiveness of academic staff in the federal polytechnics. Another finding reveals academic staff involvement in community service is significantly different. The hypotheses tested revealed that physical work environment contributes to academic staff performance, and non-physical work environment contributes academic staff performance. The study concludes that the physical work environments in the federal polytechnics requires improvements to enhance academic staff performance. The study recommends that academic staff, management, and government affiliated with these federal polytechnics should play their roles adequately to evolve highly competitive polytechnic system.

Key Words: Academic Staff, Performance, Environment, Polytechnic, Work environment,

INTRODUCTION

The Polytechnic is a major arm of Tertiary Educational Institutions (TEIs) saddled with the responsibilities of providing wide range of intermediate and higher-level technology and technologists which have manifested over the years through the provision of high quality of education around the world (National Board for Technical Education NBTE, 2022). However, insignificant progress has been observed in developing countries in which Nigeria is one (Aliyu & Kabiru, 2014). What is expected from the polytechnics in terms of breeding intellectual capacity, technological and economic transformation in Nigeria for instance appear to be far at sight as cutting-edge research and effective teaching are not witnessed (Ebeloku et al., 2014; Ugbomhe & Ogie, 2012). This suggest that stakeholders of the polytechnic have not gotten their priorities right. With reference to the mandate, a stakeholder of the polytechnic is the academic staff who have as their responsibilities to continuously research, teach and engage in community service to drive the mandate have been perceived not to have lived up to expectations, otherwise, the positive impact would have been felt in the nation.

In context, it is perceived that academic staff performance contributes largely to the mandate of the polytechnic. Therefore, research outputs, teaching effectiveness, and community service involvement of the academic staff are used as proxies of the dependent variable. These proxies are captured accordingly: Research outputs is viewed as intellectual publications in articles, chapter in book, book, and patents, among others that are aimed at solving a problem (Galadanci, Muaz & Mukhtar, 2016). Teaching effectiveness is determined by the level of competence displayed by an academic staff in an attempt at imparting knowledge in the students (Martínez-Garrido & Murillo, 2022). This entails the ability of the academic staff to ensure knowledge, skills and right attitude are transmitted to students on a subject while community service involvement as a measure of academic staff performance as well. The polytechnic and the host community are the community in this instance which refers to campus community and immediate local areas of the polytechnic.

Today, there is no polytechnic that is not interested in the three performance indicators of academic staff. With regards to the polytechnics owned by the federal government, the intentions are clear and constitute part of the criteria used to promote academic staff and rate each polytechnic performance. Government and her established board (National Board for Technical Education, NBTE), are not relenting in promoting how these performance indicators would be achieved and have continuously seek ways to address the issue of unimpressive performance of the polytechnic system. In the recent past, the academic staff have been challenged towards reaching their full performance potentials. However, the academic staff tends to be handicapped by some factors among which is the work environment (Oluwunmi & Gbarayeghe, 2022). This work environment represents the total sum of physical, psychological and emotional forces that make up surroundings in a setting (Adeyanju, 2022).

The peculiarity of academic work environment distinguishes it from other forms of work environment in terms of infrastructure, library (physical and electronic), electricity, internet, and serenity, among others (Aggarwal et al., 2023; Olanipon et al., 2023). For instance, there are disheartening situations where two to four senior academic staff share one office. Also, incidents of erratic electricity supply, inconsistent internet, lack of efficient medical facility, absence of relaxation centers and staff quarters, among others have been reported (Mbachu & Unachukwu, 2022). With this lack of supportive academic work environment, aside individual efforts; performance of academic staff would not have been at all. It is imperative to change the narrative if the nation’s polytechnics desire to compete favorably with their counterparts in developed climes. It is against this backdrop that the study examined work environment and academic staff performance in federal polytechnics operating in south-west, Nigeria.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Academic Staff Performance

Performance determines the level of entity’s functionality as regards is actual output against expected output (Agada & Tofi, 2020). In this regard, individual’s performance can be described as the extent to which their assigned tasks are accomplished (Manzoor, Wei & Asif, 2021). In educational institution like polytechnic, individuals can be staff with assigned tasks whilst his performance would be the extent to which assigned responsibilities are accomplished. By this, staff performance can be evaluated as excellent, good or bad in relations to assigned tasks accomplishment (Namutebi, 2019). The broad classification of staff in a polytechnic is academic staff and non-teaching staff. The academic staff which this study is interested in represents members of tertiary institutions of learning designated involved in research, teaching, and community service and ranges from lecturer’s cadre to instructor’s cadre (Aliyu & Kabiru, 2014).

In context, academic staff performance is the extent to which academic staff achieved assigned responsibilities such as cutting-edge research, teaching, and community service (Olanipon et al., 2023). To determine the level of academic staff performance, these responsibilities have been set as key performance indicators in form of research outputs, teaching effectiveness, and community service involvement.

Academic Work Environment

The academic work environment represents a peculiar work setting with educational sector regulators requirements to make it one (Adeyanju, 2022; Oluwunmi & Gbarayeghe, 2022; Aboagye et al., 2021). This is because it must promote learning, research, teaching, and socialisation among others for all interested parties in the society. Therefore, it represents the totality of the surrounding in an educational facility like a polytechnic (Aboagye et al., 2021). Specifically, for the academic staff, it is an environment that must be conducive with all necessary tools and facilities to support and promote research and teaching (Adeyanju, 2022). Aside this, such environment must offer social, physical, psychological and emotional support to academic staff as well as safety and comfort. If not for any reason, extant studies (Aggarwal et al., 2023; Olanipon et al., 2023; Mgaiwa, 2021) have linked conducive work environment to employees’ satisfaction and performance.

Theoretical Review

Three theories (Person-Environment Fit Theory, Workplace Theory and Lewin Field Theory) were explored in this review. The Person-Environment Fit Theory of Schneider (1987) was premised on the interaction between people and their surroundings. Of course, to how it determines the functionality of both which inferred the fitness the theory is about. This fitness in the view of Yu (2013), enhances interpersonal interactions and impact each other. For instance, human activities make or mar environment and in return, the environment create what human requires to survive and perform well. Therefore, a person’s behavioral outcome is subject to the environment outlook. The work environment is one of such environment and human activities therein defines the outlook which in turn defines the activities of human being. Performance of staff in the polytechnic is assumed to be subject the environment that has been created. Although, this creation of environment is not in the hands of staff alone and that is why the workplace theory Herzberg identified two-factor (satisfier and dissatisfier) within work environment. According the Workplace theory, the environment plays significant role in driving staff satisfaction in work organizations like a polytechnic. It was established that conducive environment motivates employees to perform better (Thompson & Phua, 2012). Furthermore, Lewin’s Field theory of (1951) identified person’s conduct and character, environments and interaction of both as creation of situation that can be conducive, or toxic (Cherry, 2014). The theorist evaluated possible situations within environment as what will determine human activities. The environment represents both physical and non-physical factors which affect human disposition (Deutsch, 1954). These factors are forces that can propel individuals in workplace to get close to the achievement of their responsibilities. This study is therefore anchored on the Lewin’s Field theory because it adequately explains the context of study. The work environment of a polytechnic can determine what the outcome of academic staff will look like as this will vary from time to time and in context, there are six polytechnics that are involved in this study making variations of work environment possible as well as variations of academic staff performance possible.

Empirical Review

Extant studies have explained some areas between work environment and employee performance in one way or the other (Olanipon et al., 2023; Adeyanju, 2022; Oluwunmi & Gbarayeghe, 2022). The study of Olanipon et al., (2023) which examined environment and employees’ performance in Federal Polytechnic Ado-Ekiti considered workload, bodily chance, and cultural elements as determinants of employee performance. It was found that bodily dangers, cultural factors, workload, and the general paintings environment determines employees’ overall performance. In a related study, Oluwunmi and Gbarayeghe (2022) looked at workers of Covenant University, Nigeria as regard their workplace layout and environment. It was found that workplace layout offered was good influence overall performance of workers. Likewise, Premarathne’s (2020) study on physical environment and employee performance revealed unfavorable work environment in garment sector and this have not affected employees’ performance as performance improves from time to time.

In the study of Firmansyah (2020), work environment was examined against employees’ commitment in Iranian agro firms. It was discovered that work environment is positively related to employees’ commitment and performance. Furthermore, Hafeezi et al., (2019) examined work surroundings and behavioral environmental factors on employee productivity. The study was by survey method and it was found that work surroundings significantly contribute to employees’ performance. The study of Adeyanju (2022) looked at an instance within work environment (relaxation activities) as correlates of academic staff productivity in Southwest Nigerian Universities. The study established that relaxation activities on campus promotes staff productiveness.

Early study of Khan et al., (2011) which investigated impact of workplace environment and infrastructure on employees’ performance in Pakistan educational setting found positive impact of adequate infrastructure on employees’ performance. Likewise, in the study of Ratti and Caudel (2016) which examined office space and employee’s performance revealed positive relationship between adequate office and employee’s performance. The study of Renne (2020) on physical environment setting and academician performance in Malaysia find out that physical environment features contributed to employee performance by 41% while the study of Kjelberg and Skoldstrom (2021) which was at the instance of ergonomics (physical work environment feature) and contented employees (performance driver) established impact.

METHODOLOGY

The study adopted a survey research design. The area of study is all the six federal polytechnics in southwest, Nigeria. Records of the establishments of these polytechnics as at December 2022 in sum shows the academic staff strength was 2358 (See Table 1). This served as the study’s population.

The study discovered that the features of the population are similar which made sample workable as well as the fact that independent variable (Work environment) have common trend in each of these polytechnics. Therefore, a sample was drawn using Taro Yamane (1973) formula as calculated below:

n =        N / 1+Ne2

Where n = sample (?) size, N = population (2358) and e = desired error or margin (0.05)

2358 / n = 1 + 2358(0.05)2

2358 / n = 1 + 2358(0.0025)

2358 / n = 1 + 5.895

2358/ n = 6.895

n = 342

Therefore, three hundred and forty-two (342) academic staff of these federal polytechnics were targeted in the survey. The 342-sample size was considered adequate to represent the entire population based on this formula. To double check the level of sample size adequacy, Owojori (2002) position was also adopted as he opined that a good sample will represent at least 10% of the total population. In this case, 342 represents 15% of the total population (See Table 1).

To determine the adequacy of the sample size, simple percentage was used

= Number of the sample size / Total number of the population     X 100

  342/ 2358    X 100

=   15%

The study therefore concludes that 342 sample size was adequate for the study. To have proportional distribution of the sample size in line with the target population of the study, the study made use of simple frequency calculation to determine this and this as well as other details were contained in Table 1.

Table 1: List of Federal Polytechnics in South-West, Nigeria selected for the study with Academic Staff Strength and Sample Size

S/N State Name of the Polytechnic Academic Staff Strength Sample Size Distribution
1 Lagos Yaba College of Technology 697 697/2358 X 342 =       101
2 Ogun Federal Polytechnic, Ilaro 500 500/2358 X 342 =        73
3 Oyo Federal Polytechnic, Ayeide 93 93/2358 X 342 =           13
4 Osun Federal Polytechnic, Ede 384 384/2358 X 342 =        56
5 Ondo Federal Polytechnic Ile Oluji 146 146/2358 X 342 =         21
6 Ekiti Federal Polytechnic, Ado-Ekiti, 538 538/2358 X 342 =        78
Total 2358 342

The survey made use of questionnaire to collect primary data. The research instrument was made of two sections: Section A: Respondents Personal Data while Section B: Work Environment and Academic Staff Performance on a five-item scale of Likert adopted from Herpen, Praag and Cool (2003), Dauda and Mohammed (2012), Mohammed and Abdullahi (2011), and Molefe (2012) with little modifications. The instrument was subjected to validity and reliability test. The reliability tests for research output, teaching effectiveness, community service involvement, physical work environment, and non-physical work environment were 0.78, 0.81, 0.77, 0.86 and 0.70 respectively while the Cronbach reliability alpha was 0.91.

Data collected were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics (Chart, mean and standard deviation) were used to present the respondents personal data and other objectives of the study while inferential statistics (Regression, Correlation, ANOVA) were used to test for hypotheses. The IBM SPSS version 29 and Microsoft excel were used for the analysis of the data.

DATA ANALYSIS

Descriptive Analysis of Respondents Personal Data

As against the projected sample size of 342 envisaged, 327 responses were found analyzable and the summary was presented in Figure 1. For the respondents’ gender, 77.7% of the respondents were males while 22.3% of the respondents were females. This suggests that males were more involved in academics job than female at the polytechnic level. This could be because males are involved academics job at tertiary institution. Furthermore, Figure 1 presented the respondents’ marital status and 4.6% were single, 93.9% were married while 1.5% were others. Based on this data, majority are married and would desire comfort at work. Also, respondents age group reveals that 1.5% were less than 30 years of age, 20.8% were between 30-40, 48.6% were between 41-50, 22.3% were between 51-60, while 6.7% were 61 year and above. On the highest educational qualification of respondents, 1.8% holds HND, 12.8% possessed first degree, 56.9% had second degree, 27.8 had third degree while 0.6% possessed others. Furthermore, employment status of respondents was captured, and all the positions were represented with the highest from Chief Lecturer (18.7%) and least Chief Instructor (0.9%). Lastly, respondents’ polytechnics were captured and Yabatech (29.1%), Fed Ayede (4%), Fed Ilaro (20.8%), Fed Ede (16.8%), Fed Ile Oluji (6.4%), and Fed Ado (22.9%). When this level of participation is compared with the population of the academic staff in the polytechnics, it can be deduced that adequate participation was received and subsequently analysis will be reliable.

Figure 1: Respondents Personal Data

Source: Field Survey (2024)

Significant difference in the research outputs of the academic staff

To determine the level of significant differences in research outputs from the federal polytechnics, five proxies were used. Table 2 summarized the results and specifically, FedPoly Ado-Ekiti recorded the highest mean score on academic staff presence on electronic research platform 4.000(SD=1.390). On publication in high indexed journals, FedPoly Ile-Oluji took the lead with mean value 3.5824(SD=1.3645). For research award won, FedPoly Ayede had highest mean value of 3.231(SD=1.3634). Furthermore, FedPoly Ede recorded the highest mean value of 3.455(SD=1.5131) on collaborative publication with scholars from other polytechnics and lastly, on the presentation on research paper at international conference, FedPoly Ayede recorded the highest mean value 3.923(SD=1.1875). With these results, all the polytechnics were above 3.0 in each of the measures but FedPoly Ayede appears to have recorded higher feat in research outputs than others. With their respective grand mean scores 3.765(SD=1.3256), 2.859(SD=1.5562), 2.303(SD=1.4044), 3.278(SD=1.4920), and 3.523(SD=1.5164), there is no significant differences in research outputs. Therefore, no significant difference in the research outputs of the academic staff in the federal polytechnics.

Table 2: Report on Research Outputs
NPoly eRPlat iIndJour ResearchAw PwOP PintConf
Yabatech Mean 3.747 2.779 2.421 3.316 3.558
N 95 95 95 95 95
Std. Deviation 1.2714 1.5654 1.4260 1.4311 1.5279
FedPoly Ayede Mean 3.615 2.923 3.231 3.231 3.923
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation 1.2609 1.4979 1.3634 1.7394 1.1875
FedPoly

Ilaro

Mean 3.779 2.603 2.147 3.353 3.603
N 68 68 68 68 68
Std. Deviation 1.3587 1.5467 1.3633 1.4117 1.4776
FedPoly

Ede

Mean 3.509 3.109 2.091 3.455 3.400
N 55 55 55 55 55
Std. Deviation 1.3591 1.5714 1.2805 1.5131 1.4732
FedPoly

Ile-Oluji

Mean 3.714 3.524 2.619 3.286 3.810
N 21 21 21 21 21
Std. Deviation 1.1464 1.3645 1.5645 1.4541 1.2891
FedPoly

Ado-Ekiti

Mean 4.000 2.813 2.200 3.040 3.347
N 75 75 75 75 75
Std. Deviation 1.3950 1.5742 1.4142 1.6061 1.6805
Total Mean 3.765 2.859 2.303 3.278 3.523
N 327 327 327 327 327
Std. Deviation 1.3256 1.5562 1.4044 1.4920 1.5164

Source: SPSS Output (2024)

Significant difference in the teaching effectiveness of the academic staff

As regard the level of teaching effectiveness in the federal polytechnics, five proxies were used. Table 3 provided the synopsis of the results and FedPoly Ile-Oluji top with the highest value of 4.714(SD=.4629) on prompt attendance of classes. On satisfactory level of preparation for classes, FedPoly Ede recorded the highest mean value of 4.455(SD=.5025). On whether lecture delivery approach encourages student’s active participation in classes, FedPoly Ayede had the highest mean value of 4.615(SD=.5064). Additionally, FedPoly Ilaro recorded the highest mean value of 4.103 (SD=1.1988) as regard lecturers stays in classes till the end of lecture time and lastly, FedPoly Ayede recorded highest mean value 4.231(SD=1.0919). These results suggest that the polytechnics academic staff were effective in their teaching responsibilities. With their respective grand mean scores 4.563(SD=.6972), 4.321(SD=.8089), 4.456(SD=.7696), 4.040(SD=1.2013), and 3.853 (SD=1.2172), there is no significant differences in the academic staff teaching effectiveness. Therefore, no significant difference in the teaching effectiveness of the academic staff in the federal polytechnics.

Table 3: Report on Teaching Effectiveness
nPoly Pclasses ClasPreS Lecdeli Alottime StuPerf_CA_Ex
Yabatech Mean 4.526 4.263 4.347 4.095 3.737
N 95 95 95 95 95
Std. Deviation .7122 .8898 .8845 1.0923 1.2047
FedPoly

Ayede

Mean 4.615 4.385 4.615 3.231 4.231
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation .5064 .6504 .5064 1.5892 1.0919
FedPoly

Ilaro

Mean 4.397 4.221 4.441 4.103 3.897
N 68 68 68 68 68
Std. Deviation .8833 .9279 .7203 1.1988 1.3060
FedPoly

Ede

Mean 4.673 4.455 4.527 4.091 3.891
N 55 55 55 55 55
Std. Deviation .4735 .5025 .6900 1.1591 1.2274
FedPoly

Ile-Oluji

Mean 4.714 4.381 4.429 3.952 3.762
N 21 21 21 21 21
Std. Deviation .4629 .7400 .7464 1.3956 1.1360
FedPoly

Ado-Ekiti

Mean 4.627 4.360 4.533 4.040 3.893
N 75 75 75 75 75
Std. Deviation .6931 .8161 .7593 1.2241 1.2033
Total Mean 4.563 4.321 4.456 4.040 3.853
N 327 327 327 327 327
Std. Deviation .6972 .8089 .7696 1.2013 1.2172

Source: SPSS Output (2024)

Significant difference in Community Service Involvement of the academic staff

To determine the level of significant differences in academic staff involvement in community service in the federal polytechnics, five proxies were used. Table 4 summarized the results and academic staff from FedPoly Ile Oluji recorded the highest mean score of 3.333(SD=1.3540) on availability of time and ease of involvement in community service. Friendliness of the community was acknowledged with Yabatech on the lead with mean value 3.874(SD=.9137). On whether the polytechnics management promotes community services, FedPoly Ado Ekiti academic staff rated this with the highest mean value of 3.253(SD=1.3566). Furthermore, FedPoly Ayede recorded the highest mean value of 4.077(SD=.7596) on availability of projects for community service and lastly, on involvement in ongoing community service, FedPoly Ayede recorded the highest mean value 3.615(SD=1.0439). These results suggest that all the polytechnics academic staff were involved in community services. With their respective grand mean scores 2.960(SD=1.3951), 3.728(SD=1.0134), 3.107(SD=1.3399), 3.994(SD=.8722), and 3.119(SD=1.4211), there is no significant differences in community service involvement. Therefore, there is no significant difference in community service involvement of academic staff in the polytechnics.

Table 4: Report on Community Service Involvement
nPoly EasyCS FridCom PolyMgtCS AvaiProCS InvCS
Yabatech Mean 2.947 3.874 3.147 4.063 2.989
N 95 95 95 95 95
Std. Deviation 1.4540 .9137 1.2880 .8355 1.4476
FedPoly Ayede Mean 3.308 3.308 3.231 4.077 3.615
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation 1.4936 1.3156 1.4233 .7596 1.0439
FedPoly

Ilaro

Mean 2.691 3.618 3.044 3.853 3.088
N 68 68 68 68 68
Std. Deviation 1.2726 1.0514 1.3431 .9814 1.4008
FedPoly

Ede

Mean 3.073 3.873 2.855 4.036 3.145
N 55 55 55 55 55
Std. Deviation 1.4511 .9241 1.4709 .8157 1.5082
FedPoly

Ile-Oluji

Mean 3.333 3.524 3.190 4.048 3.143
N 21 21 21 21 21
Std. Deviation 1.3540 .9808 1.1233 .6690 1.3887
FedPoly

Ado-Ekiti

Mean 2.973 3.667 3.253 3.973 3.200
N 75 75 75 75 75
Std. Deviation 1.3752 1.0946 1.3566 .9296 1.4237
Total Mean 2.960 3.728 3.107 3.994 3.119
N 327 327 327 327 327
Std. Deviation 1.3951 1.0134 1.3399 .8722 1.4211

Source: SPSS Output (2024)

Significant difference in Physical Work Environment in the Polytechnics

FedPoly Ile-Oluji academic staff recorded the highest mean score on their inability to stay at work lately to work 3.571(SD=1.5353). On office illumination, FedPoly Ayede had the highest mean value 3.154(SD=1.5191). Considering the state of lecture rooms, FedPoly Ayede had highest mean value of 3.462(SD=1.1266). Furthermore, relaxation center availability and comfortability, FedPoly Ado-Ekiti recorded the highest mean value of 2.640 (SD=1.2152) and lastly, FedPoly Ile-Oluji recorded the highest mean value of 2.619(SD=1.3956) for infrastructures. Based on these results, all the polytechnics had measures of physical environment not impressive with their respective grand mean scores of 3.266(SD=1.4735), 2.688(SD=1.3815), 2.642(SD=1.3049), 2.554(SD=1.2493), and 2.364(SD=1.3126), there is no significant differences in the physical environment. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the physical environment of the polytechnics.

Table 5: Report on Physical Work Environment
nPoly Stayback OficIllu LectRom RelaxCent AdeInfra
Yabatech Mean 3.253 2.663 2.716 2.632 2.568
N 95 95 95 95 95
Std. Deviation 1.3988 1.3015 1.2434 1.2887 1.3018
FedPoly Ayede Mean 2.846 3.154 3.462 2.615 2.615
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation 1.6756 1.5191 1.1266 1.3868 1.4456
FedPoly

Ilaro

Mean 3.338 2.662 2.500 2.397 2.191
N 68 68 68 68 68
Std. Deviation 1.3995 1.4823 1.3876 1.2111 1.2843
FedPoly

Ede

Mean 3.218 2.491 2.509 2.582 2.236
N 55 55 55 55 55
Std. Deviation 1.4617 1.3727 1.3454 1.3150 1.3328
FedPoly

Ile-Oluji

Mean 3.571 2.667 2.143 2.286 2.619
N 21 21 21 21 21
Std. Deviation 1.5353 1.3904 1.1952 1.1019 1.3956
FedPoly

Ado-Ekiti

Mean 3.240 2.813 2.773 2.640 2.240
N 75 75 75 75 75
Std. Deviation 1.6094 1.3823 1.2795 1.2152 1.2823
Total Mean 3.266 2.688 2.642 2.554 2.364
N 327 327 327 327 327
Std. Deviation 1.4735 1.3815 1.3049 1.2493 1.3126

Source: SPSS Output (2024)

Significant difference in Non-Physical Work Environment in the Polytechnics

Table 6 summarized the results of the non-physical work environment and specifically, FedPoly Ayede recorded the highest mean score on cordial relationship among colleagues 4.308(SD=.6304). On superior mentorship of earlier academics, FedPoly Ede had the highest mean value 3.636(SD=.9499). The serenity of the polytechnic environ reveals that Yabatech had highest mean value of 3.347(SD=1.1464). Furthermore, on whether the environment provides psychological support, FedPoly Ayede recorded the highest mean value of 3.231(SD=1.1658) on the ground that is does averagely and lastly, on the existence of web of relationship between and among actors of the polytechnic without disturbing staff emotions, FedPoly Ado Ekiti recorded the highest mean value 3.453(SD=1.1542). With these results, all the polytechnics had less than 4.308 in the measures with their respective grand mean scores 4.159(SD=.7173), 3.379(SD=1.2272), 3.107(SD=1.2326), 2.914(SD=1.3242), and 3.141 (SD=1.2624).  Therefore, there is no significant difference in the non-physical work environment of the federal polytechnics.

Table 6: Report on Non-Physical Work Environment
nPoly Cordial Rel Mentor Serene Env Env Psy Web Rel
Yabatech Mean 4.179 3.568 3.347 2.905 3.179
N 95 95 95 95 95
Std. Deviation .5255 1.1360 1.1464 1.3996 1.2375
FedPoly Ayede Mean 4.308 3.385 2.615 3.231 2.769
N 13 13 13 13 13
Std. Deviation .6304 1.5566 1.4456 1.1658 1.5359
FedPoly

Ilaro

Mean 4.088 3.132 3.132 3.015 3.103
N 68 68 68 68 68
Std. Deviation .7867 1.3483 1.1448 1.2031 1.2111
FedPoly

Ede

Mean 4.182 3.636 2.855 2.818 2.873
N 55 55 55 55 55
Std. Deviation .7224 .9499 1.4327 1.3890 1.3341
FedPoly

Ile-Oluji

Mean 3.905 2.905 3.095 2.714 2.905
N 21 21 21 21 21
Std. Deviation 1.1360 1.5134 1.2209 1.3093 1.4108
FedPoly

Ado-Ekiti

Mean 4.227 3.307 3.053 2.907 3.453
N 75 75 75 75 75
Std. Deviation .7273 1.2078 1.1956 1.3373 1.1542
Total Mean 4.159 3.379 3.107 2.914 3.141
N 327 327 327 327 327
Std. Deviation .7173 1.2272 1.2326 1.3242 1.2624

Source: SPSS Output (2024)

Test of Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis I

There is no significant relationship between Physical Work environment and academic staff performance in Federal Polytechnics, South-West, Nigeria

Table 7: Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .060a .004 .001 1.3252 .004 1.193 1 325 .275

a. Predictors: (Constant), Physical workplace environment

b. Dependent Variable: Academic staff performance

Source: Computed Data (2024)

From Table 7, the result of R value shows effect of physical work environment on academic staff performance. In this case the R square is .004 if expressed by a percentage it will be 4%. This means that the model explains 4% of the variance in the academic staff performance is by physical work environment, hence the remaining 96% accounts for other factors not considered in the model. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, physical workplace environment determines academic staff performance.

Null Hypothesis II

There is no significant relationship between Non-Physical Work environment and academic staff performance in Federal Polytechnics, South-West, Nigeria

Table 8: Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Durbin-Watson
1 .053a .003 .000 1.4922 2.120
a. Predictors: (Constant), Non-Physical Work Environment
b. Dependent Variable: Academic Staff Performance

Source: Computed Data (2024)

From Table 8, the result of R value shows effect of non-physical work environment on academic staff performance. In this case the R square is .003 if expressed by a percentage it will be 3%. This means that the model explains 3% of the variance in the academic staff performance is by non-physical work environment, hence the remaining 97% accounts for other factors not considered in the model. Thus, null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, non-physical workplace environment determines academic staff performance.

Table 9: ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.047 1 2.047 .919 .338b
Residual 723.629 325 2.227
Total 725.676 326
a. Dependent Variable: Academic Staff Performance
b. Predictors: (Constant), Non-Physical Work Environment

Source: Computed Data (2024)

As presented in Table 9, the ANOVA result shows the assessment of the statistical significance (0.338). The F-value for the model was obtained by dividing the regression mean square (2.047) by the residual mean square (2.227). The F-value for the model is equal to .919

Table 10: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.819 .486 5.797 .000
Non-Physical Environment .110 .115 .053 .959 .338
a. Dependent Variable: Academic staff Performance

Source: Computed Data (2024)

Table 10 described the variable that is statistically significant and with exclusive contribution to the model obtainable under the sig column; it reveals the strength of the contributions of the independent variable (non-physical work environment) to the dependent variable (academic staff performance). It made a unique and statistically significant contribution to the model. Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, non-physical work environment has effects on academic staff performance in the federal polytechnics.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

This study has revealed that research outputs of the federal polytechnics differ along the proxies examined. However, there is no significant differences in research outputs which is averagely on the grand mean scores 3.765, 2.859, 2.303, 3.278, and 3.523. Based on this, the academic staff research output needs to improve as respondents revealed that there is significant difference in proxies investigated in the federal polytechnics. This agrees with the study of Renne (2020) which established differences in the performance of academician in Malaysia on the ground of research outputs. Also, the study of Maisano et al., (2023) suggests that research outputs of academic staff differs because it is individual based.

Furthermore, teaching effectiveness of the federal polytechnics differ along the proxies examined. However, there is no significant differences in the teaching effectiveness, which is averagely on the grand mean scores 4.563, 4.321, 4.456, 4.040, and 3.853. Based on this, the academic staff teaching effectiveness is impressive in the federal polytechnics. This result expanded the finding of Olanipon et al., (2023) which was on FedPoly Ado Ekiti only, as it established variation in staff teaching effectiveness. Also, community service involvement of academic staff in the federal polytechnics reveals that there is no significant difference in the community service involvement with an average grand mean scores 2.960, 3.728, 3.107, 3.994, and 3.119. Based on this, the academic staff community service involvement differs in the federal polytechnics.

On the second hand, the physical work environment of the federal polytechnics was examined, and it was revealed that there is significant difference in the physical work environment with grand mean scores of 3.266, 2.688, 2.642, 2.554, and 2.364. Based on this, the federal polytechnics differs in their physical work environment. This corroborates the study of Kjelberg and Skoldstrom (2021) admitted variations in physical work environment features in selected firms. Also, Oluwunmi and Gbarayeghe’s (2022) finding agrees workplace layout and environment differs while the non-physical work environment of the federal polytechnics revealed that there is significant difference in the non-physical work environment with an average grand mean of 4.159, 3.379, 3.107, 2.914, and 3.141. Based on this, the federal polytechnics differs in their non-physical work environment. This corroborates the study of Adeyanju (2022) which established that social relationship between colleagues differs in academic settings.

Results from the tow hypotheses conducted shows that physical workplace environment determines academic staff performance. This finding corroborates the finding of Awoke (2019) which studied workers working conditions and performance in Ethiopian working setting which revealed that there is significant relationship between physical working environment and staff performance. Also, the study of Oluwunmi and Gbarayeghe’s (2022) finding corroborates this study as it was established that workplace layout had a good influence overall performance of workers. On the contrary, Premarathne’s (2020) study suggests that unfavorable work environment have not affected employees’ performance while non-physical workplace environment determines academic staff performance. This corroborates the study of Adeyanju (2022) that established a nexus between relaxation activities and academic staff productivity.

CONCLUSION

Performance remains fundamental to any work setting including tertiary educational institutions in which the polytechnic is one. The driver of this performance is employee and academic staff in polytechnic plays vital role in determining the achievement of polytechnic performance yardsticks like research output, teaching effectiveness and community service. This study has revealed variations in the level of these performance measures of academic staff in federal polytechnics operating in south-west, Nigeria through work environment which was viewed from physical and non-physical perspectives. The physical work environment entails physical features of the polytechnic which includes infrastructures, office settings, and lighting, among others while the non-physical features represents colleagues’ relationships, mentorship and psychological support, among others. It was concluded that these variables contribute to academic staff performance in the federal polytechnics studied but could be of better contribution if the work environment is more conducive.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Federal government should invest more in the physical work environment of these polytechnics to promote a more conducive work environment.
  • Also, adequate funding for research and publication will enhance research outputs from the polytechnics
  • The management of the polytechnics are advised to always manage their respective polytechnics to achieve academic staff performance
  • Also, management should promote serene non-physical work environment. This will go a long way to foster cordial relationships on their respective campuses.
  • The academic staff should work as a team through collaborative research, co-teaching, mentoring and continuously develop themselves.

REFERENCES

  1. Aboagye, E., Jensen, I., Bergström, G., Björk Brämberg, E., Pico-Espinosa, O J. et al. (2021). Investigating the association between publication performance and the work environment of university research academics: a systematic review. Scientometrics, 126, 3283-3301
  2. Adeyanju, S. I. (2022). Relaxation Activities and Work Environment as Correlates of Academic Staff Productivity in Universities in Southwest, Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in Business, Arts and Science, 4(2), 1-8.
  3. Agada, E. O. & Tofi, S. T. (2020). Influence of Work Environment and Training on Job Performance of Library Personnel in University Libraries in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 4(5), 51-60.
  4. Aggarwal, A., Sharma, D., Vohra, P., Sharma, S. & Sharma V. (2023). Work Environment and Job Satisfaction among Employees. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 11(1), 1247-1254.
  5. Aliyu, M., & Kabiru, S. A. (2014). Assessment of Management Strategy on Staff Training and Development in Nigerian Polytechnics. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 2(4), 95-102.
  6. Awoke, T. (2019). Effect of working environment on employee performance: The case of Bole Lemi Industrial Park. Addis Ababa University. Frontiers in Business Economics and Management, 8(3), 96-107
  7. Cephas, N. Leka., Gibson J., Godobe., Abdulazeez., & Khadijat B. (2021). Influence of physical environment on academic staff productivity in federal polytechnic Bauchi towards rebuilding educational system. International Journal of Educational Benchmark, 7, 12-18.
  8. Cherry, K. (2014). What is experiential learning? About.com Psychology. Retrieved October 20, 2023, from http://psychology.about.com/od/educationalpsychology/a/experiential-learning.htm
  9. Dauda, A., & Mohammed, A. M. (2012). Motivation and Job Performance of Academic Staff of State Universities in Nigeria: The case of Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida University, Lapai, Niger State. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(14), 142-148.
  10. Ebeloku, A.I., Akinbode, J.O. & Usman, T.A. (2014). Psychological impact of unemployment rate on polytechnic students’ academic performance. Academic Journal of Research and Development, 3(1), 1-9.
  11. Firmansyah, A.V. (2020). Impact of workplace quality on employee’s productivity: Case study of a bank in Turkey. Journal of Business, Economics & Finance, 1(1), 12-27.
  12. Galadanci, B. S., Muaz, S. A. & Mukhtar, M. I. (2016). Comparing research outputs of Nigeria federal universities based on the scopus database. CoRI’16, 79-84.
  13. Hafeezi, I., Yingjuni, Z., Hafeezi, S., Mansoori, R. & Rehman, K.U. (2019). Impact of workplace environment on employee performance: mediating role of employee health. Business, Management and Education, 17(2), 173–193.
  14. Herpen, M., Praag, M., & Cools, K. (2003). The effects of performance measurements and compensation on motivation, Tinbergen Institute (TI) Working Paper, No. 048/3.
  15. Ibrahim, A.U. & Sheyindemi, A.F. (2019). Does reward system affect employee’s performance? A case study of faculty in Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State of Nigeria. The International Journal of Business & Management, 7(6), 220-228.
  16. Khan, S. H., Azhur, Z., Parven, S., Naeem, F. & Sohail, M.M. (2011). Exploring the Impact of Infrastructure, Pay Incentives and Workplace Environment on Employees’ Performance. Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 2(4), 118-140.
  17. Kjelberg, S.N., & Skoldstrom, A.C. (2021). Relationship between work environment and productivity. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 2(4), 1992-1995.
  18. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  19. Maisano, D. A., Mastrogiacomo, L. & Franceschini, F. (2023). Empirical evidence on the relationship between research and teaching in academia. Scientometrics, 128, 4475–4507 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04770-
  20. Manzoor, F., Wei, L. & Asif, M. (2021). Intrinsic rewards and employee’s performance with the mediating mechanism of employee’s motivation. Front. Psychology, 12, 563070. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.563070
  21. Martínez-Garrido, C. & Murillo, F.J. (2022). Research on effective teaching. A multilevel study for Ibero-America. Educación, 31(61), 46-75.
  22. Mbachu, U.C. & Unachukwu, G.O. (2022). Comparative analysis of research outputs of academics in Private and Public Universities in South East Nigeria. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 13(1), 565–575.
  23. Mgaiwa, S.J. (2021). Academics’ job satisfaction in Tanzania’s higher education: The role of perceived work environment. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 4, 100-143.
  24. Mohammed, A.M., & Abdullahi, Y.B. (2011). An evaluation of staff motivation, dissatisfaction and job performance in an academic setting. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(9), 1-13.
  25. Molefe, G.N. (2012). Performance measurement model and academic staff: A survey at selected universities in South Africa and abroad. African Journal of Business Management, 6(15), 5249-5267.
  26. Namutebi, E. (2019). Instructional Leadership and Lecturers’ Job Performance in Public Universities in Uganda. Makerere Journal of Higher Education, 93–118. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/majohe.v10i2.8
  27. National Board for Technical Education (2022). Directory of Accredited Programmes offered in Polytechnics, Technical and Vocational Institutions in Nigeria. ISBN: 978-978-916-767-8. NBTE, Kaduna
  28. Olanipon, O.O., Ebhoaye, S.O., Oyamendan, A.E., Akionla, A.A., Adelakun, G.C., & Akinradewo, T.R. (2023). Work environment and employee performance among staff in Federal Polytechnic Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State. Fuoye Journal of Finance and Contemporary Issues, 4(2), 64-81.
  29. Oluwunmi, A.O. & Gbarayeghe, N.V. (2022). Influence of Office Layout on Academic Staff Performance in Covenant University, Ota. Environmental Technology and Science Journal, 13(1), 98-109. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/etsj.v13i1.8
  30. Owojori, A.A. (2002). Managerial Research. Ado-Ekiti: Kaycee Publishers.
  31. Premarathne, W.D.M.T.H. (2020). The impact of physical environment on employees’ performance. A case of garment sector in Sri Lanka. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 22(8), 34-38.
  32. Ratti, C. & Claudel, M. (2016). If work is digital, why do we still go to the office? Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2016/04/if-work-is-digital-why-do-we-still-go-to-the-office.
  33. Renne, Y.N. (2020). Effects of motivation on employees’ job commitment in the Turkish banking industry: an empirical analysis. International Journal of Business and Innovation Research, 1(3), 1-17.
  34. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–445
  35. Taro, Y. (1963). 2nd Edition Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
  36. Thompson, E. R., & Phua, F. T. (2012). A brief index of affective job satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 37(3), 275-307.
  37. Ugbomhe, O.U. & Ogie, D.O. (2012). Total Quality Management in Nigerian Polytechnics in the 21st Century: Issues and Challenges. Readings in Education, Development and Globalization. 9-18

Article Statistics

Track views and downloads to measure the impact and reach of your article.

0

PDF Downloads

179 views

Metrics

PlumX

Altmetrics