INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 844
www.rsisinternational.org
Work Environment and Employee Productivity in Selected Higher
Education Institutions of Manila
Dr. Jeffrey B. Villena, Dr. Virgel E. Diamante
Graduate School Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology, Manila, Philippines.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12110077
Received: 18 November 2025; Accepted: 25 November 2025; Published: 09 December 2025
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the work environment and employee productivity in selected Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) in Manila, focusing on both faculty and non-academic staff. The research aims to assess how physical,
social, and organizational aspects of the workplace influence individual and team productivity, as well as to
identify challenges affecting employee performance. Data were collected through structured surveys and semi-
structured interviews with 40 faculty members and 40 non-academic staff from three HEIs, using a mixedmethods
approach for deeper insights.
The results indicate that employees generally perceive the work environment as favorable, with the social
environment rated highest, reflecting positive interpersonal relationships, effective communication, and
collegiality. Employee productivity was also rated highly, particularly in terms of individual skills, task efficiency,
and teamwork. Significant differences were observed between faculty and non-academic staff, with faculty
consistently assigning higher ratings. Correlation analyses further revealed a strong, statistically significant
relationship between the work environment and employee productivity, with the organizational environment
emerging as the most influential factor. Key challenges identified include excessive workload, limited
professional development opportunities, inconsistent supervision, and inadequate resources.
Based on these findings, the study concludes that HEI employees demonstrate strong competence, motivation,
and commitment, but targeted interventions are needed to optimize workload distribution, strengthen leadership
communication, upgrade facilities, and provide continuous professional development. Implementing these
strategies will enhance employee well-being, institutional performance, and long-term sustainability.
Keywords: Work Environment, Employee Productivity, Higher Education, Organizational Support, Faculty,
Staff.
INTRODUCTION
The higher education sector, encompassing teaching, research, extension services, and administrative functions,
relies heavily on the commitment of both faculty and non-academic staff to achieve institutional goals. Faculty
members drive instruction, scholarship, and community engagement, while non-academic staff ensure the smooth
delivery of administrative, technical, and support services. Together with administrators, they form the backbone
of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), underscoring the importance of fostering a supportive and well-managed
work environment. While much of the discourse often highlights student outcomes and institutional rankings, the
welfare of faculty and staff, as well as the conditions in which they work, are equally critical since these directly
influence organizational effectiveness, service quality, and long-term sustainability. Employees thus emerge as
the most valuable asset of HEIs, requiring balanced workloads, adequate resources, effective administrative
support, collegial relationships, and opportunities for professional growth to ensure optimum productivity and
engagement.
The primary reason for conducting this study is to address the challenges faced by faculty and nonacademic staff
in sustaining well-being amid budget constraints, lean staffing, and rising performance expectations. In the
Philippine context, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) play a crucial role in national development by expanding
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 845
www.rsisinternational.org
access to education, producing skilled graduates, and contributing to research and innovation. However, many
institutions continue to struggle with low morale, high attrition, and inconsistent organizational performance
issues often rooted in inadequate attention to workplace conditions that affect both academic and support
personnel. By examining these concerns, the study seeks to provide evidence-based insights that will help HEI
leaders, policymakers, and human resource practitioners design healthier, employeecentered, and more
sustainable work environments. Improving workplace conditions is not only a matter of employee welfare but
also a strategic imperative that enhances academic quality, strengthens institutional performance, and contributes
meaningfully to national progress. Manila was chosen as the study site because it serves as the country’s
educational hub, hosting a concentration of HEIs that reflect both the opportunities and challenges of urban
academic environments. Insights from Manila HEIs therefore offer a valuable basis for understanding broader
trends and issues in Philippine higher education.
This study draws on Organizational Support Theory (OST), proposed by Eisenberger et al. (1986), which posits
that employees develop perceptions regarding the extent to which their organization values their contributions
and cares about their well-being. These perceptions, termed Perceived Organizational Support (POS),
significantly influence employees' attitudes and behaviors, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and performance. In the context of HEIs, POS can affect faculty and staff motivation, engagement, and retention,
thereby impacting the overall effectiveness and sustainability of the institution. By applying OST, this study aims
to explore how the work environment in HEIs influences employees' perceptions of support and, consequently,
their productivity and well-being.
METHODOLOGY
The study on the work environment in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila employed a mixedmethods
research design, combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches to generate a comprehensive
understanding of employees’ perceptions. The quantitative component utilized structured surveys to collect
measurable data on workplace conditions, productivity, engagement, and institutional support, while the
qualitative component consisted of semi-structured interviews designed to capture deeper insights into
employees’ lived experiences and the contextual factors influencing their work environment.
Purposive sampling was used to select 40 faculty members and 40 non-academic staff from three HEIs in Manila.
Guided by principles of stratified sampling, the population was divided into academic and non-academic strata to
ensure adequate representation across employee groups and to improve the reliability and precision of
comparisons. Purposive sampling was deemed appropriate because it allows the deliberate selection of
participants who possess specific characteristics relevant to the study’s objectives, particularly when resources
are limited and the emphasis is on depth of understanding (Nikolopoulou, 2023; Campbell, 2020).
Data collection involved a combination of survey questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to ensure both
breadth and depth of interpretation. The survey instrument contained closed-ended questions and Likert-scale
items assessing workload balance, administrative support, availability of resources, workplace relationships, and
opportunities for professional growth. This structured approach facilitated the identification of quantitative
patterns and trends across a relatively large sample.
Complementing the survey, semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected faculty and nonacademic
staff to explore perceived strengths and weaknesses of the institutional work environment, sources of stress and
satisfaction, adaptability to changing demands, and suggested improvements. Triangulation of quantitative and
qualitative data enhanced the credibility of findings and allowed for a more holistic understanding of how the
work environment affects employee well-being, performance, and institutional effectiveness.
In analyzing the survey results, the researchers noted an overwhelmingly positive pattern of responses, which
may indicate the presence of ceiling effects or social desirability bias. To improve future data accuracy and
sensitivity, the study recommends refinements to the survey instrument. These include expanding the Likert scale
to offer a wider range of response options, incorporating reverse-coded items to reduce acquiescence bias, and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 846
www.rsisinternational.org
developing more behaviorally specific indicators that can better capture subtle variations in employees’
perceptions of workplace conditions and productivity.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. How do Faculty and Non-Academic Staff assess the work environment in selected Higher Educations
Institutions in Manila?
Physical Environment Table 1
Assessment of Physical Work Environment
Indicators
Faculty
NonAcademic
Staff
Composite
Mean
Rank
WM
VI
WM
VI
WM
VI
1. The institution’s facilities, classrooms, and offices are
wellmaintained and conducive to academic and
administrative functions.
5.00
E
3.85
VG
4.43
E
1
2. The institution provides a safe and secure working
environment for both faculty and non-academic staff.
4.50
E
3.97
VG
4.24
E
3
3. The institution provides adequate equipment,
technology, and resources for employees to effectively
perform their duties.
4.40
E
3.82
VG
4.11
VG
4
4. The institution’s physical environment is designed to be
comfortable and supportive of teaching, research, and
administrative work.
5.00
E
3.80
VG
4.40
E
2
Overall Weighted Mean
4.72
E
3.86
VG
4.29
E
Legend:
Point
Range
Verbal Interpretation
Symbol
5
4.20 – 5.00
Excellent
E
4
3.40 – 4.19
Very Good
VG
3
2.60 – 3.39
Good
G
2
1.80 – 2.59
Poor
P
1
1.00 – 1.79
Needs Improvement
NI
As presented in Table 1, the assessment of the physical work environment in selected Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) in Manila reveals that both faculty and non-academic staff generally perceived the conditions
as favorable. The indicator “The institution’s facilities, classrooms, and offices are well-maintained and conducive
to academic and administrative functions” obtained the highest composite mean of 4.43, interpreted as Excellent,
suggesting that the upkeep of physical facilities is strongly upheld and consistently recognized across both groups.
This was followed closely by “The institution’s physical environment is designed to be comfortable and
supportive of teaching, research, and administrative work,” which garnered a composite mean of 4.40, also rated
as Excellent. This indicates a shared view among respondents that the workplace environment contributes
positively to both academic and non-academic performance.
Meanwhile, “The institution provides a safe and secure working environment for both faculty and nonacademic
staff” received a composite mean of 4.24, still within the Excellent range, reflecting satisfaction with the security
and safety measures implemented on campus. The lowest-rated indicator was “The institution provides adequate
equipment, technology, and resources for employees to effectively perform their duties,” which obtained a
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 847
www.rsisinternational.org
composite mean of 4.11, interpreted as Very Good. While still favorable, this result points to some concerns
regarding the adequacy of available tools and technologies needed to optimize teaching, research, and
administrative efficiency.
Overall, the general assessment yielded a composite mean of 4.29, interpreted as Excellent. This shows that both
faculty and non-academic staff agree that the physical work environment in HEIs in Manila is conducive to
productivity, efficiency, and employee satisfaction. This finding underscores the importance of sustaining high
standards in physical working conditions, as it significantly contributes to employee morale, motivation, and
institutional effectiveness.
Social Environment
Table 2 Assessment of Social Work Environment
Indicators
Faculty
Non-Academic
Staff
Composite
Mean
Rank
WM
VI
WM
VI
WM
VI
1. There is a positive and supportive working atmosphere
among faculty, staff, and administrators.
4.80
E
4.32
E
4.56
E
1
2. Administrators or department heads provide clear
expectations and constructive feedback
4.70
E
4.03
VG
4.37
E
4
3. Faculty and non-academic staff feel valued and respected
by their colleagues, department heads, and administrators.
4.90
E
4.18
VG
4.54
E
2
4. There is effective communication within departments and
across institutional units.
4.80
E
3.95
VG
4.38
E
3
5. Opportunities for teamwork, collaboration, and shared
projects are provided.
4.50
E
3.85
VG
4.18
VG
5
Overall Weighted Mean
4.80
E
4.32
E
4.56
E
As shown in Table 2, the assessment of the social work environment by both faculty and non-academic staff in
selected Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila yielded an overall composite mean of 4.56, verbally
interpreted as Excellent. This indicates that respondents generally perceive a strong and positive social
atmosphere within their institutions.
The highest-rated indicator was “There is a positive and supportive working atmosphere among faculty, staff, and
administrators” with a composite mean of 4.56, ranked first. This result highlights that collegiality and
interpersonal relations are strongly upheld, contributing to a supportive and cooperative academic community.
Closely following this, “Faculty and non-academic staff feel valued and respected by their colleagues, department
heads, and administrators” obtained a composite mean of 4.54, also rated Excellent. This emphasizes the
importance of mutual respect and recognition as key drivers of organizational culture and employee morale.
Meanwhile, “There is effective communication within departments and across institutional units” received a
composite mean of 4.38, interpreted as Excellent. This reflects the presence of functional communication channels
that enable coordination in both academic and administrative operations. Similarly, “Administrators or
department heads provide clear expectations and constructive feedback” garnered a composite mean of 4.37, also
rated Excellent. While leadership communication is viewed positively, this slightly lower score suggests
opportunities for improvement in ensuring consistent and constructive feedback across all levels.
The lowest-rated indicator was “Opportunities for teamwork, collaboration, and shared projects are provided”,
with a composite mean of 4.18, interpreted as Very Good. This implies that while collaboration exists, HEIs may
further strengthen institutional support for structured teamwork, cross-unit initiatives, and collaborative academic
or administrative projects to fully maximize collective productivity.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 848
www.rsisinternational.org
Overall, the findings suggest that the social work environment in HEIs in Manila is largely favorable, fostering
collegiality, respect, and effective communication. However, enhancing opportunities for structured collaboration
and reinforcing consistent leadership feedback mechanisms could further improve employee engagement,
organizational cohesion, and institutional performance.
Organizational Environment
Table 3 Assessment of Organizational Work Environment
Indicators
Faculty
NonAcademic
Staff
Composite
Mean
Rank
WM
VI
WM
VI
WM
VI
1. The institution’s policies and procedures are clearly
communicated and applied fairly to faculty and non-academic
staff.
4.90
E
3.92
VG
4.41
E
1
2. The institution provides opportunities for professional
growth, training, and
4.80
E
3.63
VG
4.22
E
5
development for both faculty and nonacademic staff.
3. Faculty and non-academic staff perceive their work as
meaningful and contributing to the institution’s mission and
success.
4.30
E
4.15
VG
4.23
E
4
4. The institution promotes work-life balance among faculty and
non-academic staff
4.70
E
3.82
VG
4.26
E
2.5
5. The institution demonstrates a strong commitment to the
overall well-being of faculty and non-academic staff.
4.70
E
3.82
VG
4.26
E
2.5
Overall Weighted Mean
4.90
E
3.92
VG
4.41
E
As displayed in Table 3, both faculty and non-academic staff assessed the organizational work environment of
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila as generally Excellent, with a composite mean of 4.41, verbally
interpreted as Excellent. Faculty members consistently gave higher ratings, averaging 4.90, while non-academic
staff rated it slightly lower at 3.92, still within the Very Good range. This difference suggests that although policies
and organizational support are recognized, non-academic staff may experience challenges in how these are
implemented at their level.
The highest-rated indicator was “The institution’s policies and procedures are clearly communicated and applied
fairly to faculty and non-academic staff,” which received a composite mean of 4.41 and ranked first. This reflects
strong confidence in fairness and transparency within the institution.
Both “The institution promotes work-life balance among faculty and non-academic staff” and “The institution
demonstrates a strong commitment to the overall well-being of faculty and non-academic staff” shared the second
rank, each with a composite mean of 4.26, interpreted as Excellent. These results highlight the importance given
to employee welfare and balance between professional and personal life.
Meanwhile, “Faculty and non-academic staff perceive their work as meaningful and contributing to the
institution’s mission and success” obtained a composite mean of 4.23, also within the Excellent range. This
indicates that employees generally recognize the significance of their roles in fulfilling institutional goals. The
lowest-rated indicator was “The institution provides opportunities for professional growth, training, and
development for both faculty and non-academic staff,” with a composite mean of 4.22. While still interpreted as
Excellent, this suggests a need for further enhancement of training programs and professional development
initiatives.
Overall, the findings imply that the organizational work environment in HEIs in Manila is viewed positively,
with strengths in fairness, well-being, and meaningful work. However, more accessible and structured
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 849
www.rsisinternational.org
opportunities for professional growth would further enhance job satisfaction, employee engagement, and
institutional effectiveness.
Table 4 Summary of the Assessment of the Work Environment
Variables
Faculty
NonAcademic Staff
Composite Mean
Rank
WM
VI
WM
VI
WM
VI
1. Physical Environment
4.72
E
3.86
VG
4.29
E
2
2. Social Environment
4.74
E
4.07
VG
4.41
E
1
3. Organizational Environment
4.68
E
3.87
VG
4.28
E
3
Overall Weighted Mean
4.71
E
3.93
VG
4.32
E
As illustrated in Table 4, both faculty and non-academic staff provided favorable assessments of the work
environment in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila, with an overall composite mean of 4.32, verbally
interpreted as Excellent. Among the three dimensions, the Social Environment received the highest overall mean
of 4.41, ranked first, suggesting that positive interpersonal relationships, effective communication, and supportive
teamwork are strongly evident within HEIs. This was followed by the Physical Environment with a composite
mean of 4.29, ranked second, and the Organizational Environment with a mean of 4.28, ranked third. Both were
likewise interpreted as Excellent, reflecting a generally favorable perception of workplace conditions and
institutional support.
Notably, faculty consistently gave higher ratings across all variables, with means ranging from 4.68 to 4.74, all
within the Excellent range. In contrast, non-academic staff provided slightly lower ratings, ranging from 3.86 to
4.07, interpreted as Very Good. This indicates a perceptual difference between the two groups, with faculty
viewing the work environment more positively than non-academic staff.
These findings imply that while the work environment in HEIs in Manila is generally perceived as conducive to
productivity and satisfaction, a modest perception gap exists. The slightly lower ratings from nonacademic staff
suggest areas for improvement, particularly in strengthening organizational policies, resource allocation, and
support systems. Addressing these aspects may enhance inclusivity, job satisfaction, and engagement, thereby
fostering a more balanced and cohesive academic community.
Is there a significant difference between the assessments of the two groups of respondents and the work
environment in selected Higher Education Institutions in Manila?
Table 5 Test of Significant Difference in the Assessment of the Work Environment Between Faculty and Non-
Academic Staff in Higher Education Institutions in Manila
Variables
Group
Mean
t-value
p-value
Decision
Interpretation
Physical Environment
Faculty
4.72
2.35
0.0218
Reject
H₀
Significant
Non-Academic Staff
3.86
Social Environment
Faculty
4.74
3.01
0.0036
Reject
H₀
Significant
Non-Academic Staff
4.07
Organizational
Environment
Faculty
4.68
2.64
0.0102
Reject
H₀
Significant
Non-Academic Staff
3.87
Note: Independent Samples t-test, df = 68. Reject Ho if p < 0.05; otherwise, fail to reject.
As shown in Table 5, the results of the Independent Samples t-test reveal that there is a statistically significant
difference between the assessments of faculty and non-academic staff on the physical, social, and organizational
aspects of the work environment in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 850
www.rsisinternational.org
For the physical environment, faculty reported a higher mean score of 4.72 compared to 3.86 from nonacademic
staff. A similar trend was observed in the social environment, where faculty gave a mean score of 4.74, while
non-academic staff rated it 4.07. Likewise, in the organizational environment, faculty assigned a mean score of
4.68 against 3.87 from non-academic staff. The computed t-values for all variables were statistically significant,
with p-values below the 0.05 threshold, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis in each case.
These findings suggest that faculty generally perceive the work environment more positively than nonacademic
staff across all dimensions. The consistent pattern of higher ratings among faculty may reflect differences in job
roles, access to institutional support, or perceptions of professional value within HEIs. Conversely, the relatively
lower scores from non-academic staff may highlight areas where institutional policies, resources, and support
systems could be strengthened to ensure equity and inclusivity.
Overall, the results underscore the importance of addressing this perceptual gap to promote a more cohesive and
supportive academic community. Efforts to align institutional practices with the needs and experiences of both
faculty and non-academic staff may lead to improved job satisfaction, enhanced performance, and a stronger
organizational culture.
How do the two groups of respondents assess the employee productivity in selected Higher Education
Institutions in Manila?
Individual Productivity
Table 6 Assessment of Individual Employee Productivity by Faculty and Non-Academic Staff in Higher
Education Institutions in Manila
Indicators
Faculty
NonAcademic
Staff
Composite Mean
Rank
WM
VI
WM
VI
WM
VI
1. Faculty and non-academic staff are able to complete
their tasks efficiently and effectively.
4.50
HE
4.45
HE
4.48
HE
2
2. Faculty and non-academic staff are motivated to
perform their jobs to the best of their ability.
4.90
HE
4.02
E
4.46
HE
3
3. Faculty and non-academic staff perceive their
workload as manageable.
4.60
HE
3.95
E
4.28
HE
4
4. Faculty and non-academic staff possess the
necessary skills and knowledge to perform their jobs
effectively.
4.70
HE
4.27
HE
4.49
HE
1
Overall Weighted Mean
4.67
HE
4.17
E
4.42
HE
Legend:
Point
Range
Verbal Interpretation
Symbol
5
4.20 – 5.00
Highly Evident
HE
4
3.40 – 4.19
Evident
E
3
2.60 – 3.39
Moderately Evident
ME
2
1.80 – 2.59
Least Evident
LE
1
1.00 – 1.79
Very Least Evident
VLE
As shown in Table 6, the overall assessment of individual employee productivity by faculty and nonacademic
staff in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila yielded a composite mean of 4.42, which is verbally
interpreted as Highly Evident. This indicates that both groups generally recognize strong levels of efficiency,
motivation, and competence in fulfilling their work responsibilities.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 851
www.rsisinternational.org
The highest-rated indicator was “Faculty and non-academic staff possess the necessary skills and knowledge to
perform their jobs effectively,” which ranked first with a composite mean of 4.49 (Highly Evident). This reflects
a high level of professional competence and suggests that employees feel adequately equipped to perform their
academic and administrative functions.
The second highest indicator was “Faculty and non-academic staff are able to complete their tasks efficiently and
effectively” with a composite mean of 4.48 (Highly Evident), indicating consistent productivity and task
accomplishment. Following this was “Faculty and non-academic staff are motivated to perform their jobs to the
best of their ability” with a composite mean of 4.46 (Highly Evident), showing that employees are generally
driven to deliver their best performance.
The lowest-rated indicator, though still in the Highly Evident range, was “Faculty and non-academic staff perceive
their workload as manageable” with a composite mean of 4.28. This suggests that while employees remain
effective and motivated, concerns about workload distribution and task allocation may affect long-term
productivity and well-being.
These findings are consistent with Abun (2021), who emphasized the importance of self-efficacy and supportive
environments in enhancing work performance. Likewise, Silud et al. (2024) highlighted that maintaining
manageable workloads reduces stress and prevents burnout, thereby sustaining employee productivity. From an
international perspective, Kurniawanto et al. (2022) noted that competence and motivation significantly influence
performance when reinforced by organizational practices that promote balance and wellbeing. Hanafi and Syah
(2021) further observed that employee motivation and satisfaction, when aligned with institutional support, lead
to higher levels of productivity.
Overall, the results imply that faculty and non-academic staff in HEIs in Manila are skilled, capable, and
motivated in their roles. However, attention to workload management is essential to maintain this high level of
productivity and prevent the risk of fatigue or reduced job satisfaction over time. 3.2 Team Productivity
Table 7 Assessment of Team Employee Productivity by Faculty and Non-Academic Staff in Higher
Education Institutions in Manila
Indicators
Faculty
NonAcademic
Staff
Composite
Mean
Rank
WM
VI
WM
VI
WM
VI
1. Faculty and non-academic staff teams work well together
to achieve
common academic and administrative goals
4.80
HE
4.13
E
4.47
HE
1
2. Faculty and non-academic staff teams are able to resolve
conflicts effectively within their departments or units.
4.50
HE
3.98
E
4.24
HE
3
3. Faculty and non-academic staff teams meet or exceed
performance
expectations in fulfilling institutional responsibilities.
4.70
HE
3.88
E
4.29
HE
2
Overall Weighted Mean
4.67
HE
4.00
E
4.34
HE
As shown in Table 7, the overall assessment of team employee productivity by faculty and non-academic staff in
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila yielded a composite mean of 4.34, which is verbally interpreted
as Highly Evident. This finding indicates that teamwork, collaboration, and collective performance are generally
strong in academic and administrative units.
The highest-rated indicator was “Faculty and non-academic staff teams work well together to achieve common
academic and administrative goals” with a composite mean of 4.47 (Highly Evident), ranked first. This
underscores the importance of shared objectives and effective collaboration in advancing institutional goals, such
as academic quality, research outputs, and efficient service delivery.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 852
www.rsisinternational.org
The second highest indicator was “Faculty and non-academic staff teams meet or exceed performance
expectations in fulfilling institutional responsibilities” with a composite mean of 4.29 (Highly Evident). This
suggests that teams in HEIs are able to meet performance benchmarks and uphold institutional standards in
teaching, research, and administrative support.
The lowest-rated indicator, though still rated as Highly Evident, was “Faculty and non-academic staff teams are
able to resolve conflicts effectively within their departments or units” with a composite mean of 4.24. This implies
that while conflict resolution practices exist, there is still room for improvement in managing disagreements or
misunderstandings, particularly across diverse academic and administrative roles.
These results highlight that teamwork is a strong asset within HEIs in Manila, supported by collegiality, shared
responsibilities, and alignment with institutional missions. However, the slightly lower rating for conflict
resolution indicates that fostering structured mechanisms such as mediation, open dialogue, and team-building
programs may further enhance team productivity and cohesion.
From the literature, Abun (2021) emphasized that collaborative work dynamics significantly enhance
organizational performance by building trust and synergy among employees. Similarly, Silud et al. (2024) noted
that effective conflict management and communication systems are crucial for sustaining team productivity in
academic settings. On an international perspective, Kurniawanto et al. (2022) also stressed that teamwork and
organizational support jointly improve institutional efficiency, while Hanafi and Syah (2021) observed that
conflict resolution skills contribute directly to overall team performance outcomes.
In sum, teamwork among faculty and non-academic staff in HEIs in Manila is perceived as productive,
collaborative, and aligned with institutional objectives, though further strengthening of conflict resolution
strategies may optimize long-term effectiveness.
Table 8 Summary of the Assessment of Employee Productivity by Faculty and Non-Academic Staff in
Higher Education Institutions in Manila
Indicators
Faculty
Non-Academic Staff
Composite Mean
Rank
WM
VI
WM
VI
WM
VI
1. Individual Productivity
4.67
HE
4.17
E
4.42
HE
1
2. Team Productivity
4.67
HE
4.00
E
4.34
HE
2
Overall Weighted Mean
4.67
HE
4.09
E
4.38
HE
As summarized in Table 8, both faculty and non-academic staff assessed employee productivity in Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila as generally Highly Evident, with an overall composite mean of 4.38.
Between the two dimensions, Individual Productivity ranked first with a composite mean of 4.42, while Team
Productivity followed closely with a mean of 4.34. This finding suggests that respondents place slightly greater
emphasis on individual efficiency, motivation, and competence compared to collective team dynamics.
Faculty consistently provided higher ratings across both dimensions, with identical means of 4.67 (Highly
Evident) for both individual and team productivity, indicating strong confidence in their own and their peers’
contributions to institutional goals. In contrast, non-academic staff rated individual productivity at 4.17 (Evident)
and team productivity slightly lower at 4.00 (Evident), showing a more moderate but still favorable perception.
The disparity between faculty and non-academic staff ratings may reflect differences in role expectations and
work experiences. Faculty members, who often exercise greater autonomy in teaching, research, and academic
decision-making, may view productivity—both individual and team-based as more strongly manifested. Non-
academic staff, however, may encounter structural or resource-related challenges that slightly affect their
perception of productivity, particularly in team contexts.
These results imply that employee productivity in HEIs is generally strong, driven by high individual performance
and supported by functional teamwork. However, the slightly lower assessment of team productivity by non-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 853
www.rsisinternational.org
academic staff suggests the need for initiatives that foster stronger collaboration, communication, and conflict
resolution across departments. Enhancing these areas could further align individual contributions with
institutional goals, ultimately improving organizational effectiveness.
Is there a significant relationship between the work environment and employee productivity?
Table 9 Test of Significant Relationship Between Work Environment and Employee Productivity in terms
of Individual Productivity
Variables
r
-
value
Strength of Relationship
p-value
Decision
Interpretation
Physical Environment
0.749
High Correlation
<.0001
Reject H₀
Significant
Social Environment
0.697
High Correlation
<.0001
Reject H₀
Significant
Organizational Environment
0.764
High Correlation
<.0001
Reject H₀
Significant
Note: The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient was used at a 0.05 level of significance. If the pvalue
is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected. The strength of correlation is interpreted as follows: 0.80– 0.99:
very high, 0.60–0.79: high, 0.40–0.59: moderate, 0.10–0.39: low, and 0.01–0.09: negligible.
As showcased in Table 9, the findings reveal a high and statistically significant correlation between the work
environment and individual employee productivity. Among the three dimensions assessed, the organizational
environment yielded the highest correlation coefficient of 0.764, indicating that policies, training opportunities,
and employee well-being initiatives have a strong influence on productivity. The physical environment followed
with a correlation of 0.749, suggesting that cleanliness, safety, and availability of necessary resources are also
crucial in supporting employees’ efficiency. Lastly, the social environment registered a correlation of 0.697,
underscoring the importance of positive interpersonal relationships, communication, and teamwork within the
workplace. Since all p-values were less than 0.0001, the null hypotheses were rejected, confirming that these
relationships are statistically significant. These results imply that a well-structured and supportive work
environment plays a vital role in enhancing the individual performance of employees in Higher Education
Institutions in Manila.
Table 10 Test of Significant Relationship Between Work Environment and Employee Productivity in terms
of Team Productivity
Variables
r
-
value
Strength of Relationship
p-value
Decision
Interpretation
Physical Environment
0.837
Very High Correlation
<.0001
Reject H₀
Significant
Social Environment
0.872
Very High Correlation
<.0001
Reject H₀
Significant
Organizational Environment
0.874
Very High Correlation
<.0001
Reject H₀
Significant
As shown in Table 10, the results reveal a high and statistically significant correlation between the work
environment and individual productivity among faculty and non-academic staff in Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) in Manila.
Among the three dimensions, the organizational environment obtained the highest correlation coefficient of 0.764,
indicating that policies, fair procedures, opportunities for professional growth, and institutional support for
employee well-being exert a strong influence on how effectively faculty and staff perform their individual tasks.
This suggests that when institutions demonstrate fairness and provide avenues for development, employees are
more likely to sustain high productivity levels.
The physical environment followed with a correlation of 0.749, highlighting that the availability of well
maintained facilities, safe and secure workplaces, and adequate resources such as technology and equipment are
critical to enabling employees to work efficiently and effectively.
The social environment yielded a correlation of 0.697, still within the high correlation range. This underscores
the importance of collegiality, mutual respect, communication, and teamwork in fostering a climate where faculty
and non-academic staff can maximize their individual productivity.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 854
www.rsisinternational.org
Since all p-values were <.0001, the null hypothesis was rejected across all dimensions, confirming that the
relationships are statistically significant. These findings emphasize that a well-structured, supportive, and
inclusive work environment significantly enhances the capacity of employees in HEIs to accomplish their tasks
effectively. Institutions that invest in organizational fairness, adequate resources, and positive interpersonal
dynamics are more likely to achieve sustainable productivity gains from both academic and non-academic
personnel.
What are the problems encountered relative to the work environment and employee productivity?
Table 11 Assessment of Problems Encountered Relative to the Work Environment and Employee
Productivity in Higher Education Institutions in Manila
Indicators
Faculty
NonAcademic
Staff
Composite
Mean
Rank
WM
VI
WM
VI
WM
VI
1. Inadequate lighting and poor ventilation negatively affect
comfort, concentration, and
overall work performance
3.10
ME
3.05
ME
3.08
ME
6
2. Noise disturbances disrupt communication, teaching, and
administrative focus
3.05
ME
3.62
E
3.34
ME
5
3. Overcrowded offices and workspaces hinder efficiency and
effective workflow
3.15
ME
3.18
ME
3.17
ME
7
4. Limited opportunities for professional training and
development reduce employee growth and competence
3.20
ME
3.25
ME
3.23
ME
8
5. Poor communication and ineffective supervision from
administrators and department heads weaken staff motivation
and productivity.
3.40
E
3.45
E
3.43
E
2
6. Insufficient resources and outdated equipment constrain
academic and administrative efficiency.
3.30
ME
3.40
E
3.35
ME
4
7. Excessive workload and understaffing contribute to stress,
fatigue, and employee burnout.
3.60
E
3.90
E
3.75
E
1
8. Concerns over workplace safety and security lower employee
morale and hinder productivity.
2.60
ME
2.50
LE
2.55
LE
9
Overall Weighted Mean
3.30
ME
3.42
E
3.35
ME
Legend:
Point
Range
Verbal Interpretation
Symbol
5
4.20 – 5.00
Highly Encountered
HE
4
3.40 – 4.19
Encountered
E
3
2.60 – 3.39
Moderately Encountered
ME
2
1.80 – 2.59
Least Encountered
LE
1
1.00 – 1.79
Very Least Encountered
VLE
As established in Table 11, both faculty and non-academic staff identified a range of moderately to highly
encountered problems affecting the work environment and employee productivity in higher education institutions
in Manila. The overall weighted mean of 3.36, verbally interpreted as Moderately Encountered, suggests that
while the issues are not extremely severe, they are consistently present and influence the overall workplace
conditions.
The most prominent problem, ranked first, was excessive workload and understaffing, with a composite mean of
3.75, verbally interpreted as Encountered. This indicates a serious concern that contributes to stress, fatigue, and
employee burnout, thereby directly reducing productivity and work quality.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 855
www.rsisinternational.org
Poor communication and ineffective supervision from administrators and department heads emerged as the
second most pressing issue, with a composite mean of 3.43 (Encountered). This highlights how leadership and
communication strongly shape staff motivation, collaboration, and overall institutional performance.
Insufficient resources and outdated equipment, ranked third with a composite mean of 3.35 (Moderately
Encountered), also constrained teaching, research, and administrative functions, emphasizing the importance of
modernizing institutional support systems. Noise disturbances (3.34) and inadequate lighting and ventilation
(3.08) were likewise rated as persistent workplace challenges that affect focus and comfort.
On the other hand, the problem least encountered was concerns over workplace safety and security, with a
composite mean of 2.55, verbally interpreted as Least Encountered. This suggests that while safety issues exist in
certain contexts, they are not a widespread challenge across institutions.
In summary, the findings reveal that the problems encountered by both faculty and non-academic staff are a
combination of workload pressures, managerial shortcomings, and environmental limitations. Although none
reached the highest severity level, their consistent presence signals the need for targeted interventions particularly
in workload distribution, supervisory practices, and resource allocation to improve overall productivity and
employee well-being in higher education institutions.
Interview Results
The interviews with selected faculty members, non-academic staff, and administrators provided rich qualitative
insights into the work environment and employee productivity in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
Participants consistently emphasized that employees possess strong foundational competencies, particularly in
task completion, collaboration, and professional responsibility. Faculty members described themselves as
“efficient in preparing lessons and delivering instruction,” while staff noted that they “ensure records and
documents are processed on time,” demonstrating reliability and commitment. These observations reinforce prior
studies underscoring the importance of employee competence and teamwork in sustaining institutional
productivity (Abun et al., 2021; Silud et al., 2024).
Despite these strengths, employees identified several persistent challenges that hinder optimal productivity. A
major concern was excessive workload and understaffing, with faculty reporting heavy teaching responsibilities
compounded by administrative tasks, and staff often performing multiple roles due to limited manpower. As one
respondent noted, “The number of responsibilities we handle is beyond what one person can manage effectively.”
This concern aligns with existing literature linking workload strain and resource constraints to burnout and
diminished efficiency in HEIs (Kurniawanto et al., 2022; Hanafi & Syah, 2021).
Issues surrounding communication and leadership effectiveness also emerged prominently. Faculty cited unclear
or inconsistent instructions from administrators, while non-academic staff highlighted irregular policy
implementation and insufficient supervisory guidance. One participant shared, “Sometimes we receive conflicting
instructions, which causes confusion and delays.” These experiences echo studies demonstrating that effective
leadership and clear communication enhance morale, coordination, and overall productivity (Nguyen et al., 2023;
Villanueva et al., 2024).
Employees also identified insufficient resources and outdated equipment as barriers to efficiency. Faculty
emphasized the need for modern teaching technologies, while staff described how obsolete office tools hinder
administrative processes. Such concerns affirm research indicating that adequate facilities and updated resources
are fundamental to high-quality academic and administrative performance (Garcia & Santiago, 2024; Castillo et
al., 2025).
Finally, respondents expressed concern over limited professional development opportunities. Many faculty and
staff voiced a desire for more training, seminars, and workshops to enhance skills and remain competitive. As one
faculty member remarked, “We want to update our skills, but training opportunities are rarely provided.” This
observation supports literature emphasizing the critical role of continuous learning in sustaining productivity and
innovation in HEIs (Rahman et al., 2022; Lopez & Dela Cruz, 2025).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 856
www.rsisinternational.org
Thematic Analysis
A deeper thematic analysis of the interview data revealed four overarching themes that provide stronger
qualitative grounding and highlight underlying structural influences on employee experiences:
1. Demonstrated Competence and Professional Commitment. Employees across all roles expressed strong
dedication to fulfilling academic and administrative responsibilities. Their commitment to task
completion, collaboration, and institutional service reflects a professional culture that supports
productivity and aligns with institutional mission.
2. Workload Strain and Structural Staffing Constraints. Participants described chronic workload pressures
driven by systemic issues such as insufficient plantilla positions, funding limitations, and organizational
norms that require multitasking. These structural constraints produce persistent overload and risk of
burnout for both faculty and non-academic staff.
3. Leadership and Communication Challenges. The data revealed recurring concerns about inconsistent
communication, unclear expectations, and limited feedback from administrators. These issues are
symptomatic of deeper organizational culture challenges, such as hierarchical leadership styles and
uneven policy implementation, which can impede coordination and reduce motivation.
4. Resource Limitations and Restricted Professional Development. Respondents noted outdated equipment,
insufficient teaching tools, and limited institutional support for training and skills enhancement.
Structural barriers—including slow procurement processes and budgetary constraints further limit access
to essential resources and inhibit employee growth and adaptability.
Overall, the interview data complement the survey results by illustrating that, although HEI employees exhibit
high competence, commitment, and professionalism, their productivity is undermined by several structural
organizational factors. These include restrictive workplace policies, leadership and communication shortcomings,
inadequate resource systems, and limited opportunities for professional development. Addressing these deeper
systemic issues is essential for creating a more supportive, equitable, and productive institutional environment.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the study reveal that employees in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Manila
generally perceive their work environment as favorable. The social environment emerged as the strongest
dimension, characterized by collegiality, effective communication, and mutual respect among colleagues. Positive
assessments of the physical and organizational environments further indicate that institutions provide conditions
conducive to productive academic and administrative work. Employee productivity was also rated highly,
particularly in terms of competence, efficiency, and teamwork, demonstrating that faculty and non-academic staff
are capable of meeting institutional demands despite existing challenges.
However, the results also highlight important disparities between faculty and non-academic staff. Faculty
consistently assigned higher ratings across all dimensions of the work environment and productivity, suggesting
differences in role expectations, access to support, and perceived institutional value. These perceptual gaps point
to inequities in workload distribution, communication flow, and resource allocation. Correlation analyses further
showed that the organizational environment particularly institutional policies, leadership practices, and
opportunities for professional development has the strongest influence on employee productivity. This underscores
the critical role of administrative structures in shaping employee performance and overall institutional
effectiveness.
Despite the generally positive perceptions, several challenges persist. Concerns related to excessive workload,
inconsistent communication, inadequate resources, and limited professional development opportunities were
evident in both survey responses and interview accounts. Nevertheless, issues related to workplace safety and basic
operational support were minimal, indicating that HEIs maintain a stable institutional foundation. Improving
workload distribution, strengthening leadership communication, and enhancing resource allocation are therefore
essential strategies for fostering a more supportive and equitable work environment.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 857
www.rsisinternational.org
Insights from the thematic analysis reinforce these findings by revealing that productivity concerns arise not only
from daily operational issues but also from deeper structural conditions. Outdated equipment, unclear supervisory
practices, gaps in communication, and constrained access to training reflect systemic institutional challenges rather
than isolated problems. Addressing these structural factors is essential for advancing employee well-being,
enhancing adaptability, and promoting a more effective and sustainable institutional environment.
In summary, employees in HEIs demonstrate strong commitment, competence, and readiness to fulfill academic
and administrative responsibilities. By implementing targeted interventions such as improving leadership practices,
updating institutional resources, promoting equitable workload systems, and strengthening professional
development HEIs can significantly enhance productivity, organizational cohesion, and long-term institutional
performance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following are recommended:
1. The administrators and department heads may implement structured workload management policies that
include task prioritization, equitable redistribution of responsibilities, and the hiring of additional
personnel where needed. These measures will help reduce excessive workload, prevent burnout, and
promote balanced role allocation for both faculty and non-academic staff.
2. The leadership teams and supervisors may undergo training focused on communication clarity,
consistency of directives, and participatory governance. Strengthening supervisory practices through clear
expectations, regular feedback, and open consultation meetings will improve motivation, coordination,
and overall institutional climate.
3. The Institutions may allocate resources for modernizing facilities, upgrading office equipment, and
enhancing instructional technologies. Strategic budgeting, streamlined procurement processes, and
prioritization of essential academic and administrative tools are necessary to ensure operational efficiency
and high-quality service delivery.
4. Human resource units and academic offices should design and implement continuous, equitable
professional development opportunities—including workshops, seminars, and skill-focused training to
support employee growth, adaptability, and long-term productivity across all units.
5. Administrators may examine existing policies to remove structural barriers that hinder workplace
efficiency. This includes addressing outdated procedures, hierarchical bottlenecks, and unclear
supervisory systems to foster a more transparent, inclusive, and responsive organizational environment.
6. Institutions may adopt continuous feedback systems such as regular consultation meetings, periodic
communication audits, and structured policy-review cycles. These mechanisms will help identify
emerging issues, monitor workplace satisfaction, and ensure that institutional support systems remain
aligned with employee needs.
7. Future evaluations of the work environment and employee productivity may adopt refined survey
instruments, incorporating expanded Likert-scale options, reverse-coded items, and behaviorally anchored
indicators. These measures will reduce inflated responses, enhance data sensitivity, and yield more
accurate insights into employee experiences.
REFERENCES
1. Abun, J. P. (2021). Enhancing employee productivity through self-efficacy and supportive work
environments. Journal of Educational Management Research, 15(2), 45-59.
2. Campbell, D. (2020). Sampling techniques in organizational research: Ensuring validity and reliability.
New York, NY: Academic Press.
3. Castillo, R., Gomez, L., & Santos, E. (2025). Modernizing resources in higher education institutions:
4. Implications for efficiency and service quality. International Journal of Educational Development, 88,
102450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2025.102450
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Page 858
www.rsisinternational.org
5. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
6. Garcia, M., & Santiago, P. (2024). Institutional support and employee efficiency: A study in Philippine
higher education. Philippine Journal of Educational Administration, 19(1), 15-30.
7. Hanafi, A., & Syah, R. (2021). Employee motivation and performance in academic institutions: An
Indonesian perspective. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 112-126.
8. Kurniawanto, A., Dewi, F., & Santoso, H. (2022). Competence, motivation, and performance in higher
education: Evidence from Southeast Asia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 44(5),
589-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2022.2084921
9. Lopez, C., & Dela Cruz, F. (2025). Continuous professional development in Philippine HEIs: Challenges
and opportunities. Journal of Academic Innovation, 7(1), 77-92.
10. Nguyen, T., Pham, H., & Le, K. (2023). Leadership and communication in higher education: Effects on
staff motivation. International Journal of Educational Leadership, 28(4), 211-230.
11. Nikolopoulou, K. (2023). Purposive sampling in educational research: Rationale and applications.
Educational Research Review, 18(2), 56-71.
12. Rahman, S., Ali, M., & Tan, C. (2022). Professional development and employee productivity in
universities. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 23(3), 421-435.
13. Silud, P., Morales, J., & Reyes, L. (2024). Workload management and employee efficiency in Philippine
higher education. Philippine Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(2), 33-48.
14. Villanueva, R., Santos, J., & Cruz, P. (2024). Communication gaps and employee productivity: Evidence
from universities. Journal of Organizational Studies, 31(2), 145-162.
