The Benefits of Effective Delegation in the Workplace Free Essay Example

Abstract

The aim of this research is to investigate the predictive relationship of productivity with other variables such as teamwork, technical knowledge, adequate authority to do a job well, fair treatment, and sick days. The methodology used to conduct the study involved conducting a multiple regression to show the relationship between the independent variables and dependent variable. The results of the study showed that teamwork, technical knowledge, adequate authority to do a job well, fair treatment, and sick days have a predictive relationship to productivity. The conclusion from the study is that an organization that strives to improve productivity should focus on teamwork, improving technical knowledge, providing employees adequate, fair treatment, and monitor sick days.

Quantitative Report 5

Organizations today face an increase amount of competition and find it difficult to be above the competitors. Keeping ahead of the competition requires constantly coming up with innovative ideas to improve on the current ones. The organization can also focus on improving the current ideas and maintaining better than average productivity. Improving productivity is not a straightforward approach as it can be affected by different factors (Delmas & Pekovic, 2018). Some of the factors that can affect productivity include teamwork, employee technical knowledge, authority, fair treatment, and sick days. The investigation of whether the given variables impact productivity is critical to identify the specific variables that impact productivity.

It’s time to jumpstart your paper!

Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.

Get custom essay

Literature Review

Employee productivity is a metric that measures the amount of output of a project and the time it takes to complete the project. It measures the amount of goods and services that a group of workers can produce given a certain time (Alam et al., 2020). Productivity can also refer to the staff and the company’s employees using their hours efficiently to undertake relevant and significant tasks that lead to the achievement of company goals and improve revenue. Employee productivity is important because it ensures that a company’s expenditure on wages should be less than the overall revenues produced by the employees (Pradhan & Jena, 2017). Successful organizations know how the productivity of each employee is important and would undertake different strategies to improve it.

There are different factors that affect employee productivity. One of the factors that can impact employee productivity is teamwork which ensures that it can improve the motivation and morale of the group. Working as a team ensures that team members can support each other leading to better results (Ahmad & Manzoor, 2017). The technical knowledge of employees was found to improve the productivity of employees. Having technical knowledge means that employees can engage in difficult tasks successfully. Giving employees responsibility and according them with adequate authority can also improve productivity. According to Ugoani (2020), giving employees responsibility can provide job autonomy and encourage better performance among the employees. Organizations that made use of delegation facilitate adequate authority to the employees.

Other variables that could impact employee productivity were found as the fair treatment of employees and the sick days. According to Massoudi and Hamdi (2017), the perception of an organization fairness had positive outcomes for a company’s employees. Fairness had a positive influence job involvement and negative relationship with turnover intention. These factors had an impact on the productivity of employees. The number of sick days were also found by Dyrbye et al. (2019) to have a negative relationship with the sick days. Some of the causes of too much sick days were an indication of an unhealthy lifestyle, physical and mental stress, and problems in the workplace. These factors could negatively impact the productivity of the employees.

Method

The research design involved collecting data from the productivity, sav dataset. The dataset was retrieved from a survey of federal employees where they answered various questions. The specific variables chosen for the study were employee productivity ( productivity ) from levels of Teamwork ( teamwork ), Technical Knowledge ( jobknowl ), Adequate Authority to do job well ( jobauthr ), Fair Treatment ( wkrtrtmt ), and Sick Days ( wrkdyssk ). A hypothesis was formulated and the data was analyzed in SPSS. The analysis was conducted using multiple regression. A test of normality was conducted before carrying out the multiple regression to identify whether the data had a normal distribution. The study has a high reliability and validity because of the large sample size. Additionally, the data has a high validity because it undertook an appropriate statistical approach from the analysis of normal distribution to the conducting of multiple regression.

Results

Tests of Normality
	Extent to which workers are treated fairly	Kolmogorov-Smirnov a			Shapiro-Wilk
	Extent to which workers are treated fairly	Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Employee evaluation of unit productivity	1.05	.135	8	.200 *	.941	8	.626



















	1.40	.249	4	.	.926	4	.571



1.61	.224	4	.	.911	4	.486
1.75	.206	12	.169	.883	12	.097
2.10	.115	8	.200 *	.970	8	.896
2.45	.393	4	.	.749	4	.038
2.80	.104	16	.200 *	.971	16	.850
2.94	.230	4	.	.939	4	.645
3.15	.109	16	.200 *	.966	16	.769
3.50	.238	12	.059	.891	12	.120
3.85	.158	23	.143	.962	23	.514
3.99	.215	4	.	.946	4	.689
4.20	.099	42	.200 *	.982	42	.753
4.27	.250	4	.	.963	4	.797
4.34	.189	4	.	.980	4	.902
4.55	.107	20	.200 *	.953	20	.422
4.76	.367	4	.	.820	4	.143
4.90	.127	32	.200 *	.953	32	.176
4.97	.236	4	.	.956	4	.754
5.25	.113	44	.196	.980	44	.644
5.39	.228	4	.	.921	4	.542
5.60	.151	16	.200 *	.968	16	.810
5.95	.170	24	.069	.908	24	.032
6.30	.172	8	.200 *	.940	8	.616
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Tests of Normality c
	Number of workdays missed during last 12 months due to illness	Kolmogorov-Smirnov a			Shapiro-Wilk
		Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Employee evaluation of unit productivity	.00	.099	33	.200 *	.962	33	.296









1.00	.093	18	.200 *	.978	18	.927
2.00	.122	41	.127	.961	41	.174
3.00	.079	65	.200 *	.976	65	.251
4.00	.078	61	.200 *	.982	61	.517
5.00	.098	45	.200 *	.976	45	.464
6.00	.107	28	.200 *	.946	28	.160
7.00	.122	16	.200 *	.945	16	.418
8.00	.168	10	.200 *	.970	10	.892
9.00	.385	3	.	.750	3	.000
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
c. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Number of workdays missed during last 12 months due to illness = 6.50. It has been omitted.

Tests of Normality a,c,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m
	Knowledge to perform job responsibilities	Kolmogorov-Smirnov b			Shapiro-Wilk
	Knowledge to perform job responsibilities	Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Employee evaluation of unit productivity	2.24	.229	4	.	.962	4	.792



















	2.52	.259	3	.	.959	3	.612



















2.59	.385	3	.	.750	3	.000
2.66	.157	6	.200 *	.967	6	.871
2.73	.401	4	.	.731	4	.025
2.87	.234	10	.129	.934	10	.492
2.94	.305	5	.145	.763	5	.039
3.01	.153	17	.200 *	.979	17	.943
3.08	.325	3	.	.875	3	.309
3.15	.356	3	.	.818	3	.157
3.22	.163	15	.200 *	.927	15	.242
3.29	.164	13	.200 *	.947	13	.552
3.36	.090	23	.200 *	.975	23	.811
3.43	.121	25	.200 *	.955	25	.330
3.50	.260	2	.
3.57	.153	15	.200 *	.936	15	.339
3.64	.204	11	.200 *	.952	11	.669
3.71	.090	14	.200 *	.987	14	.998
3.78	.132	11	.200 *	.960	11	.775
3.92	.195	6	.200 *	.949	6	.728
3.99	.306	10	.009	.849	10	.057
4.06	.166	14	.200 *	.950	14	.559
4.13	.240	11	.076	.873	11	.084
4.20	.272	3	.	.947	3	.554
4.27	.159	5	.200 *	.969	5	.867
4.34	.197	9	.200 *	.878	9	.148
4.41	.234	10	.130	.855	10	.066
4.48	.291	7	.075	.754	7	.014
4.69	.206	5	.200 *	.943	5	.689
4.76	.184	4	.	.982	4	.916
4.83	.261	5	.200 *	.888	5	.345
4.97	.181	5	.200 *	.961	5	.816
5.04	.253	7	.194	.927	7	.524
5.11	.324	6	.048	.797	6	.055
5.46	.260	2	.
5.53	.227	3	.	.983	3	.747
5.74	.152	5	.200 *	.996	5	.995
5.88	.260	2	.
6.30	.260	2	.
6.51	.260	2	.
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 1.82. It has been omitted.
b. Lilliefors Significance Correction
c. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 2.38. It has been omitted.
e. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 2.80. It has been omitted.
f. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 3.85. It has been omitted.
g. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 4.55. It has been omitted.
h. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 4.62. It has been omitted.
i. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 4.90. It has been omitted.
j. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 5.18. It has been omitted.
k. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 5.60. It has been omitted.
l. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 6.37. It has been omitted.
m. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Knowledge to perform job responsibilities = 6.58. It has been omitted.

Tests of Normality b,c,d,e,f,g,i,j,k,l,m,n
	Use and effectiveness of teams	Kolmogorov-Smirnov a			Shapiro-Wilk
	Use and effectiveness of teams	Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Employee evaluation of unit productivity	2.10	.260	2	.



















	2.59	.151	4	.	.993	4	.972



















	2.87	.288	4	.	.868	4	.290












2.94	.260	2	.
3.01	.211	3	.	.991	3	.817
3.08	.260	2	.
3.22	.260	2	.
3.29	.265	3	.	.953	3	.583
3.36	.249	6	.200 *	.950	6	.737
3.43	.211	7	.200 *	.940	7	.642
3.50	.147	4	.	.996	4	.985
3.57	.162	7	.200 *	.944	7	.675
3.64	.278	6	.162	.875	6	.246
3.71	.288	4	.	.887	4	.369
3.78	.173	4	.	.981	4	.909
3.85	.293	4	.	.849	4	.222
3.92	.260	2	.
3.99	.180	9	.200 *	.954	9	.733
4.06	.166	7	.200 *	.938	7	.625
4.13	.189	8	.200 *	.943	8	.645
4.27	.145	16	.200 *	.947	16	.449
4.34	.285	6	.140	.907	6	.419
4.41	.206	12	.171	.915	12	.247
4.48	.237	10	.118	.916	10	.326
4.55	.281	7	.102	.830	7	.080
4.62	.293	5	.185	.869	5	.261
4.69	.171	13	.200 *	.913	13	.199
4.76	.125	15	.200 *	.920	15	.189
4.83	.227	3	.	.983	3	.747
4.90	.189	3	.	.998	3	.906
4.97	.153	9	.200 *	.965	9	.848
5.04	.245	9	.126	.892	9	.210
5.11	.259	9	.083	.867	9	.114
5.18	.271	8	.086	.877	8	.176
5.25	.195	5	.200 *	.932	5	.613
5.32	.258	7	.174	.862	7	.158
5.39	.230	5	.200 *	.931	5	.604
5.46	.263	3	.	.955	3	.593
5.53	.226	7	.200 *	.893	7	.290
5.67	.258	9	.085	.857	9	.090
5.74	.291	6	.122	.916	6	.477
5.81	.178	6	.200 *	.981	6	.956
5.88	.260	2	.
6.02	.260	2	.
6.09	.177	8	.200 *	.956	8	.773
6.16	.278	4	.	.881	4	.341
6.23	.173	7	.200 *	.978	7	.949
6.30	.420	4	.	.701	4	.012
6.37	.181	4	.	.984	4	.925
6.44	.196	8	.200 *	.915	8	.393
6.51	.260	2	.
6.58	.260	2	.
6.72	.184	3	.	.999	3	.927
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
b. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 2.24. It has been omitted.
c. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 2.31. It has been omitted.
d. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 2.45. It has been omitted.
e. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 2.66. It has been omitted.
f. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 2.73. It has been omitted.
g. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 3.15. It has been omitted.
i. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 4.20. It has been omitted.
j. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 5.60. It has been omitted.
k. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 5.95. It has been omitted.
l. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 6.79. It has been omitted.
m. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 6.86. It has been omitted.
n. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Use and effectiveness of teams = 7.00. It has been omitted.

Tests of Normality b,d,e,f,g,h,i,j
	Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job	Kolmogorov-Smirnov a			Shapiro-Wilk
		Statistic	df	Sig.	Statistic	df	Sig.
Employee evaluation of unit productivity	.70	.183	3	.	.999	3	.931



















	1.40	.221	4	.	.965	4	.808



















	1.47	.260	2	.













1.75	.248	5	.200 *	.817	5	.112
2.10	.336	7	.016	.759	7	.016
2.45	.305	4	.	.920	4	.538
2.66	.286	3	.	.930	3	.490
2.73	.260	2	.
2.80	.260	2	.
3.01	.385	3	.	.750	3	.000
3.15	.162	9	.200 *	.925	9	.435
3.36	.269	4	.	.863	4	.272
3.43	.260	2	.
3.50	.311	5	.128	.843	5	.174
3.57	.306	4	.	.758	4	.046
3.64	.202	6	.200 *	.948	6	.721
3.71	.224	5	.200 *	.936	5	.639
3.78	.416	4	.	.685	4	.008
3.85	.248	8	.158	.910	8	.353
3.92	.354	4	.	.824	4	.151
3.99	.260	2	.
4.06	.264	8	.106	.854	8	.104
4.13	.259	4	.	.935	4	.623
4.20	.207	8	.200 *	.879	8	.184
4.27	.174	6	.200 *	.981	6	.958
4.34	.260	2	.
4.41	.197	8	.200 *	.911	8	.364
4.48	.263	10	.048	.876	10	.118
4.55	.244	6	.200 *	.884	6	.288
4.62	.310	4	.	.916	4	.515
4.69	.148	7	.200 *	.979	7	.954
4.76	.190	12	.200 *	.918	12	.274
4.83	.160	12	.200 *	.951	12	.651
4.90	.232	3	.	.980	3	.726
4.97	.094	14	.200 *	.967	14	.839
5.04	.181	14	.200 *	.957	14	.676
5.11	.174	8	.200 *	.911	8	.362
5.18	.158	8	.200 *	.944	8	.651
5.25	.278	5	.200 *	.934	5	.623
5.32	.200	5	.200 *	.935	5	.627
5.39	.258	5	.200 *	.895	5	.381
5.46	.170	11	.200 *	.964	11	.822
5.53	.175	8	.200 *	.905	8	.319
5.60	.252	4	.	.899	4	.427
5.67	.325	5	.091	.771	5	.046
5.74	.159	9	.200 *	.903	9	.273
5.81	.251	9	.107	.901	9	.256
5.95	.266	4	.	.938	4	.641
6.02	.292	3	.	.923	3	.463
6.09	.215	5	.200 *	.949	5	.731
6.16	.317	5	.111	.838	5	.159
6.30	.188	8	.200 *	.928	8	.496
6.44	.330	3	.	.866	3	.286
7.00	.260	2	.
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
b. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job = 1.61. It has been omitted.
d. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job = 2.24. It has been omitted.
e. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job = 2.59. It has been omitted.
f. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job = 3.29. It has been omitted.
g. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job = 5.88. It has been omitted.
h. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job = 6.37. It has been omitted.
i. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job = 6.51. It has been omitted.
j. Employee evaluation of unit productivity is constant when Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job = 6.65. It has been omitted.

When you run the Multiple Regression, ensure you select options for multicollinearity and residual plots (see Cronk).

See Multiple Regression Primer for SPSS.pdf.

A comprehensive resource to help guide you is included with the assignment Multiple Regression Comprehensive Review.pdf.

Variables Entered/Removed a
Model	Variables Entered	Variables Removed	Method
1	Knowledge to perform job responsibilities b	.	Enter
2	Extent to which workers are treated fairly , Number of workdays missed during last 12 months due to illness, Use and effectiveness of teams , Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job b	.	Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Employee evaluation of unit productivity
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.338 a	.114	.111	.80643
2	.517 b	.267	.255	.73831
a. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge to perform job responsibilities
b. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge to perform job responsibilities , Extent to which workers are treated fairly , Number of workdays missed during last 12 months due to illness, Use and effectiveness of teams , Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job

ANOVA a
Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	26.762	1	26.762	41.151	.000 b


Residual	207.457	319	.650
Total	234.219	320
2	Regression	62.512	5	12.502	22.936	.000 c


Residual	171.707	315	.545
Total	234.219	320
a. Dependent Variable: Employee evaluation of unit productivity
b. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge to perform job responsibilities
c. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge to perform job responsibilities , Extent to which workers are treated fairly , Number of workdays missed during last 12 months due to illness, Use and effectiveness of teams , Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job

Coefficients a
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig.
1	(Constant)	3.767	.209		18.002	.000
1
Knowledge to perform job responsibilities	.343	.053	.338	6.415	.000
2	(Constant)	2.466	.303		8.138	.000





Knowledge to perform job responsibilities	.271	.050	.267	5.448	.000
Extent to which workers are treated fairly	-.046	.033	-.070	-1.413	.159
Use and effectiveness of teams	.170	.040	.207	4.249	.000
Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job	.226	.035	.326	6.491	.000
Number of workdays missed during last 12 months due to illness	-.015	.020	-.037	-.775	.439
a. Dependent Variable: Employee evaluation of unit productivity

Excluded Variables a
Model		Beta In	t	Sig.	Partial Correlation	Collinearity Statistics
Model		Beta In	t	Sig.	Partial Correlation	Tolerance
1	Extent to which workers are treated fairly	.007 b	.133	.895	.007	1.000



Use and effectiveness of teams	.234 b	4.550	.000	.247	.985
Extent to employee has authority to make decisions while performing job	.327 b	6.543	.000	.344	.980
Number of workdays missed during last 12 months due to illness	-.017 b	-.313	.755	-.018	1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Employee evaluation of unit productivity
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Knowledge to perform job responsibilities

Discussion

Interpretation of Results

The analysis of normal distribution was conducted through the Shapiro-Wilk test. The results from the test was greater than 0.05 for the different tests of normality, indicating that it follows a normal distribution (“Testing for Normality Using SPSS Statistics”, 2020). The data could then be analyzed using multiple regression.

Multiple regression was conducted on SPSS and the results were evaluated by analyzing the multiple correlation coefficient and the correlation coefficient for each of the given variables. The multiple correlation coefficient, R, was 0.338 for model 1 and 0.517 for model two. The R-square, coefficient of determination, for model 1 was 0.111 and for model 2 was 0.255. The results showed that the independent variable in model 1 explained 11.1% of the variability in the dependent variable and the independent variables in model 2 explained 25.5% of the variability in the dependent variable (“Multiple Regression Using SPSS Statistics”, 2020).

The results from the ANOVA table were F (1,319) = 41.151, p < .0005 for model 1 and F (5,315) = 22.936, p < .0005 for model 2. The results indicated that the regression model is a good fit for the data (Cronk, 2019).

The coefficients from the data revealed the following equation that could be used to predict the dependent variable of productivity.

Productivity = 3.767 + (0.343* jobknowl).

Productivity = 2.466 + (0.271*jobknowl) + (-0.046*wkrtrtmt)+ (0.170*teamwork)+

(0.226*jobauthr) + (-0.15*wrkdyssk).

The results from the tests were found to be significant. The null hypothesis was rejected and the conclusion from the study was that there a significant predictive relationship of employee productivity (productivity) from levels of Teamwork (teamwork), Technical Knowledge (jobknowl), Adequate Authority to do job well (jobauthr), Fair Treatment (wkrtrtmt), and Sick Days (wrkdyssk).

Discussion of Results

The results showed that employment productivity has a relationship with the given variables. There was a positive relationship between employment productivity and technical knowledge and teamwork. There was a negative relationship between employment productivity and fair treatment and sick days. The findings from the study were supported by previous research. Teamwork increases the level of motivation of employees and increases productivity. Technical knowledge improves the skills of employees and their ability to handle projects successfully improving productivity (Eliyana & Ma’arif, 2019). Providing employees with adequate authority was critical in improving their motivation and it could increase productivity (Diamantidis & Chatzoglou, 2019). The results also showed that there is no relationship between fair treatment of employees and employee productivity. A high number of sick days resulted in a reduction in productivity hence a negative relationship between the two variables.

Conclusion

The study showed that the variables of teamwork, technical knowledge, adequate authority, fair treatment, and sick days had a significant relationship with employee productivity. The implication of the study is that organizations that strive to improve productivity should focus on improving teamwork, technical knowledge, and adequate authority of employees. The organization can also monitor sick days and absenteeism of its employees as it would be an indicator about the productivity of the employees. There was no relationship between fair treatment of employees and productivity. Undertaking these steps should result in significant advantages for the organization.

References

Ahmad, I., & Manzoor, S. R. (2017). Effect of teamwork, employee empowerment and training on employee performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences , 7 (11), 380-394. https://www.academia.edu/download/60069384/Effect_of_Teamwork__Employee_Empowerment_and_Training_on_Employee_Performance20190721-119894-txjost.pdf

Alam, M. N., Hassan, M. M., Bowyer, D., & Reaz, M. (2020). The Effects of Wages and Welfare Facilities on Employee Productivity: Mediating Role of Employee Work Motivation. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal , 14 (4), 38-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v14i4.4

Cronk, B. C. (2019). How to use SPSS®: A step-by-step guide to analysis and interpretation . Routledge.

Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2018). Organizational configurations for sustainability and employee productivity: A qualitative comparative analysis approach. Business & Society , 57 (1), 216-251. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0007650317703648

Diamantidis, A. D., & Chatzoglou, P. (2019). Factors affecting employee performance: an empirical approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management . 68(1), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2018-0012

Dyrbye, L. N., Shanafelt, T. D., Johnson, P. O., Johnson, L. A., Satele, D., & West, C. P. (2019). A cross-sectional study exploring the relationship between burnout, absenteeism, and job performance among American nurses. BMC nursing , 18 (1), 1-8.

Eliyana, A., & Ma’arif, S. (2019). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment effect in the transformational leadership towards employee performance. European Research on Management and Business Economics , 25 (3), 144-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.05.001

Massoudi, A. H., & Hamdi, S. S. A. (2017). The Consequence of work environment on Employees Productivity. IOSR Journal of Business and Management , 19 (01), 35-42.

Multiple regression using SPSS statistics. (2020). Laerd.com. https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/multiple-regression-using-spss-statistics.php

Pradhan, R. K., & Jena, L. K. (2017). Employee performance at workplace: Conceptual model and empirical validation. Business Perspectives and Research , 5 (1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2278533716671630

Testing for normality using SPSS statistics. (2020). Laerd.com https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/testing-for-normality-using-spss-statistics.php

Ugoani, J. (2020). Effective Delegation and Its Impact on Employee Performance. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration , 6 (3), 78-87. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3666808

The Benefits of Effective Delegation in the Workplace

Tests of Normality

Tests of Normality c

Adjusted R Square

Sum of Squares

Excluded Variables a

Related essays

Evaluation of the Salvation Army’s Budgeting and Cumulative Report

How Enterprise Resource Planning Can Help Boost Customer Satisfaction

The Challenges Facing Human Resource Management

Whistleblower Protection Act

Social Media and Politics: How They Intersect

Corporate Social Responsibility: What It Is and What It Isn't

Running out of time?