Introduction
Explicit review of this analytical paper resonates within an unlimited time frame. Reflectively, the review will authenticate relevance of a research article which apparently failed to comprehensively capture conceptualization ideas discussed within its periphery of ideal and actualization.
Besides, the critique paper reflects on the methodology strategy and adopted methods which appear to have employed qualitative and quantitative analysis. In addition, the critique investigates research designs and conceptualized results which are quantifiable and assess the same in terms of relevance in the present organization structure in Public Sector Organizations (PSOs) (Griffin & Morehead, 2010).
The scope in this scenario is to capture influence of environment on performance in organizations across continents of the global society. In the conclusive segment, evaluation of originality, presentation of alternative recommendations, and conceptualization are placed in order to ensure relevance in review of prospect schema (Kaczmarczyk & Murtough, 2002).
Title Critique
The title of this research article is given as “Workplace Environment and its Impact on Organizational Performance in Public Sector Organizations” which in my opinion, fail to comprehensively reflect on the aspects discussed in the text.
As a matter of fact, the article is silent on segmentation of the research target who is the employee, geographical location of the research target, and the dynamics and unique aspects of the segment or sector of study.
In addition, the title does not capture focus of the research article as that pointed towards understanding a quantifiable aspect of environment on social welfare in place of work. Also, the findings and recommendations presented in this research article are restrictive and may not paint actual picture of structural aspects of PSOs across the globe.
Methodology analysis and measurements
The article captured unspecified number of employees interviewed but gives percentages in analysis of response. The open-ended questionnaires sufficiently provide series of answers that are full of assumptions. As a matter of fact, most of references used in this article are outdated and may not present an accurate literature review on current issues of the topic (Barry, 2007).
Therefore, in my opinion, since the article was done in 2011, the author should have used updated recent literature in order to put into account various social and technological dynamics that directly impact the workplace environment. Besides, the author is not specific on timeframe for the alleged causes and measurement indices for an otherwise result.
As observed in the research methodology, the author employed the use of quantitative research methodology, which measures assumptions given and reflectively develops quantifiable results. Specifically, open-ended questionnaires are used as primary method of data collection.
However, this method does not comprehensively capture the key theme, which is reflection on influence of perceived and real environmental factors on performance of employees. Moreover, since this paper dwells on aspects of role congruity, workplace initiative, supervisory roles, and other physical environmental factors, which cannot be quantified, I would recommend qualitative data collection and analysis.
Specifically, use of observations and direct interviews would have provided more accurate data than open-ended questionnaires (Barry, 2007). In order to obtain actual and study psychological reaction for response given, a researcher should adopt a non-biased tool for obtaining data.
Therefore, the research article would have been more specific if both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis approaches were simultaneously employed in the research (Barry, 2007). In my opinion, this recommendation will minimize biasness in conceptualization of data generated.
Assessment of research design and results
The author employs simple correlation analysis involving measurement of dependent and independent variables.
These variables are space and facilities required in doing the job, relationship with supervisors at the workplace, equity and treatment at workplace, communication systems at workplace, and environmental factors at workplace. The simultaneous application and measurement of independent and dependent variable are great and captures true value representation of the target population (Doene, 2009).
In addition, I would recommend the author to use intrusive regression analysis that quantifies relationship between two variables. The relationship between the two variables can be expanded to more variables grouped in pairs.
Formula for intrusive regression analysis, Y=a+ bx, represents respective factors that are dependent and independent for every measurement and give room for interchangeability and testing personal data (Doene, 2009). When properly used, regression analysis produces quantifiable and realistic results within a minimal error range.
In practicality, the research may assign variable Y to represent essence of communication systems at work and their relevance to duties carried out by employees and x being a dependent variable such as intrinsic motivational input by management. The same procedure is used to calculate the results for Y variable when x is an extrinsic part of the motivational aspect.
This calculation is repeated for the number of measurement variables to obtain accurate relationship and correlation between every pair of quantifiable factors (Doene, 2009). Once respective values are obtained, it is easier to mathematically draw intrinsic and extrinsic relationship between dependent and independent variables.
Though the research work appears comprehensive and professional, it is apparent that the author has not included an appendix sheet for sample of the questionnaire, introduction letter, a number of question asked, and forms of questions (closed-ended or open-ended) (Doene, 2009).
Article’s originality and conceptualizations
The most essential part of a properly written research paper should reflect on conceptualization and maintain originality. This research paper does not provide a clear link between one variable to another and is majorly based on assumptions. Besides, the analysis presented may not present a complete reflection of actual situation in different work environments.
Due to special nature of the interest group, every work environment is unique (Barry, 2007). Therefore, results obtained in this analysis may be biased and void of actual situation in work environment. Different work environments require various motivational factors.
For instance, technical work environment is inclined towards following strict safety rules. On the other hand, social work environment is flexible to different conditions. In order to build an ideal work environment, organization structuring should be inclined towards inclusion of managerial perspective since this organ monitors progress of the working group.
Specifically, a good working environment should be flexible, relevant, and comfortable within set measurement standards that support intrinsic and extrinsic relationship environment has on performance of employees. However, these measures should be specific to a work environment, skills of employees, and goals of an organization.
Besides, it is important to consider the size of an organization and nature of its duties. Conclusively, this article captures various issues on environmental impact on performance of employees in PSOs. However, it is not specific on a time frame. Besides, the research paper is silent on unique aspects of environmental influence on performance in place of work.
References
Barry, P. H. (2007). The impact of office comfort on productivity, Journal of Facilities Management, 6, 37-51
Doene, D. (2009). Applied Statistics in Business and Economics, (3rd ed.). Alabama: McGraw Hill.
Griffin, R. W., & Morehead, G. (2010). Organisational Behaviour: Managing People and Organisations (9th ed.). Pearson Publications.
Kaczmarczyk, S., & Murtough, J. (2002). Measuring the performance of innovative workplaces, Journal of Facilities Management, 1, 163-176