IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP, KNOWLEDGE SHARING ON

EMPLOYEES' PRODUCTIVITY OF NON-QUOTED MANUFACTURING FIRMS IN

OSUN STATE

BY

AKINGUNLOYE, OLUWAREMILEKUN VICTOR

MAC/2017/076

BEING A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING, FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATION, OBAFEMI

AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE-IFE, NIGERIA

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (B.Sc.) IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

1
 CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the research work was carried out by AKINGUNLOYE,

OLUWAREMILEKUN VICTOR as part of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of

Science (B.Sc.) Degree in Business Administration of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,

Nigeria.

......................... ........................

Dr. O. T. Odesola Date

Supervisor

......................... .........................

Prof. G.O. Akinola Date

Head of Department

2
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this project first and foremost to God Almighty who has been there for me right from

the beginning to this very point. I also dedicate this thesis to my parents for their endless love,

support and encouragement throughout my pursuit for education. I hope this achievement will

fulfill the dream they envisioned for me.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I appreciate God for strength, grace, knowledge and His great supplies of resources needed for

the completion of this project.

I appreciate my supervisor Dr. O. T. Odesola for his guidance, patience, advise, constant support

and encouragement throughout this work which have enabled me to come to the completion of

this work and make this work as original as it can be. Through him, my knowledge of the topic

under the study has been broadened. I pray that may the Lord bless him, enrich him and grant

him abundant knowledge.

My special appreciation goes to the entire Department of Management and Accounting and the

Head of the Department, Professor G. O. Akinola. I also appreciate my part adviser Dr. Y. T

Agbaje for his guidance and support throughout my studies. I appreciate Professor M. L. Nassar,

Professor (Mrs.) E. D. Adetayo, Professor T. O. Asaolu, Professor J. O Adetayo, Professor D. O.

Elumilade, Professor R. O. Salawu, Professor (Mrs.) A. O. Ologunde, Professor (Mrs.) O. O.

Akinlo, Dr. E. Y. Akinkoye, Dr. T. J. Ayoola, Dr. E. G. Inneh, Mr. B.S. Olawoyin, Dr. (Mrs.) M.

A. Oladimeji-Araoye, Dr. I. Olubodun, Dr. O. O. Olasanmi, Dr. J.U. Monday, Dr. T.O.

Siyanbola, Dr. D. F. Sule, Dr. A. O. Oladejo, Dr. J. A Olayiwola, Dr. Q. A. Lawal, Dr. (Mrs.) S.

O. Adesukanmi, Dr. (Mrs.) M.K Salawu and Mr. A. M. Adebisi for their contribution to the

successful completion of the programme.

Administrative staff in the Department of Management and Accounting that includes Mrs. E.O.

Adeniji,Mrs. B.R. Olaleye, Mr. S.A. Adeyeye and Mrs. R.A. Adeoye are equally appreciated for

their assistance, supports and encouragement during the course of the programme.

4
I appreciate my parents Mr. & Mrs. Akingunloye for their constant support throughout the period

of the study. I appreciate my siblings Akingunloye John and Akingunloye Oluwanifemi. A

special appreciation to Mr. Akingbule for his support and care, I also appreciate Mr. & Mrs.

Aghedo for their never ending support and love.

I also appreciate my best friend, Ojo Olalekan Oluwapelumi and my other friends; Ofomana

Blessing, Alimi Fadeelat, Motunrayo and Bukola for constantly ensuring I made progress with

this work and for their selfless support towards the accomplishment of this study.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE………………………………………………………………………………….. ….i
CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………………………....i
i
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………………iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………………………..iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………....vi
LIST OF TABLES..……………………………………………………………………………....ix
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………x
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………...xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study………………………………………………………………………1
1.2 Statement of Problem.………………………………………………………………………....3
1.3 Research Questions………………………………………………………………....................4
1.4 Objectives of the Study………………………………………………….…………………….5
1.5 Hypotheses of the Study……………………………………….……………………………...5
1.6 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………….…..…5
1.7 Scope of the Study………………………………………………………………………...…..6
1.8 Definition of terms…………………………………………………………………...………..7

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Conceptual Review…………………………………………………………………………....8
2.1.1 Employee Relationship……………………………………………………………………...8
2.1.1.1 Determinants of Employee Relationship………………………………………………...11
2.1.2 Knowledge Sharing………………………………………………………………………..21
2.1.2.1 Elements of Knowledge Sharing…………………………………………………….…..24
2.1.3 Employees’ Productivity…………………………………………………………………...28
2.2 Theoretical Review…………………………………………………………………………..32
2.2.1 Social Exchange Theory…………………………………………………………………...32

6
2.2.2 Knowledge-Based Theory…..……………………………………………………………..34
2.2.3 Social Capital Theory……………………………………………………………………..35
2.3 Empirical Review…………………………………………………………………………...37
2.3.1 Employee Relationship and Employees’ Productivity…………………………….……...37
2.3.2 Knowledge Sharing and Employees’ Productivity………………………………….…….39
2.3.3 Employee Relationships, Knowledge Sharing and Employees’ Productivity………….....41
2.4 Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………………...43
2.5 Gaps in Literature……………………………………………………………………..…….46

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Area of Study………………………………………………………………………………..47
3.2 Research Design………………………………………………………………………..……48
3.3 Population, Sample Size and Sampling Technique………………………………………….48
3.3.1 Population of the Study…………………………………………………………………...48
3.3.2 Sample Size………………………………………………………………………………..48
3.3.3 Sampling Technique……………………………………………………………………….48
3.4 Model Specification…………………………………………………………………………49
3.4.1 Employees’ Productivity and Employees’ Relationship……………………….….………49
3.4.2 Employees’ Productivity and Knowledge Sharing………………………………………..50
3.4.3 Employees’ Productivity, Employees’ Relationship and Knowledge Sharing……...…….50
3.5 Measurement of Variables……………………………………………………………..…….52
3.6 Research Instrument……………………………………………………………………..….52
3.7 Validity and Reliability of Research Instrument………………………………………….…53
3.8 Data Analysis Techniques…………………………………………………………………....53

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Response Rate………………………………………………………………………………..55
4.2 Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents…………………………………..…….55
4.3 Perception of Respondents on Employee Relationship…………………………………...…57
4.4 Respondents Perception of Knowledge Sharing………………………………………….….59

7
4.5 Respondents’ Perception on Employees’ Relationship and Productivity……………………61
4.6 Respondents’ Perception on Effect of Knowledge Sharing on Employees’
Productivity…………………………………………………………….……………..……..64
4.7 Reliability of the Instrument…………………………………………………………….…...66
4.8 Effect of Employee Relationship on the Employees’ Productivity………………………….68
4.8.1 Test of Hypothesis 1……………………………………………………………………….68
4.9 Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Employees’ Productivity…………………..70
4.9.1 Test of Hypothesis 2……………………………………………………………………….70
4.10 Impact of Employees’ Relationship and Knowledge Sharing on Employees’
Productivity…………………………………………………………………………………72
4.10.1 Test of Hypothesis 3……………………………………………………………………...72
4.11 Discussion of Findings……………………………………………………………………..74

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………..76
5.2 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………...77
5.3 Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………77
5.4 Limitations to the Study……………………………………………………………………..78
5.5 Suggestions for Further Studies……………………………………………………………...78

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................79
QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................................................................................................84

8
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4.1 Response Rate………………………………………………………………………………55
4.2 Respondents’ Socio-demographic Characteristics………………………………………….56
4.3 Perception of Respondents on Employee Relationship…………………………………….57
4.4 Respondents’ Perception of Knowledge Sharing…………………………………………..59
4.5 Respondents’ Perception on Employee’s Relationship and Productivity………………….61
4.6 Respondents’ Perception on Effect of Knowledge Sharing on Employees’
Productivity………………………………………………………………………………..64
4.7 Reliability of the Instrument……………………………………………………………….67
4.8 Model Summary of Hypothesis 1………………………………………………………….69
4.9 ANOVA result of Hypothesis 1……………………………………………………………69
4.10 Coefficient Table of Hypothesis 1………………………………………………………..70
4.11 Correlation Analysis of the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Employees’
Productivity (Hypothesis 2)………………………………………………………………71
4.12 Correlation Analysis Showing the Relationship between Individual Knowledge Sharing
Drives and Employees’ Productivity (Hypothesis 2)…………………………………….71
4.13 Model Summary of Hypothesis 3………………………………………………………..73
4.14 ANOVA result of Hypothesis 3…………………………………………………………..73
4.15 Coefficient Table of Hypothesis 3………………………………………………………..74

9
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………….44
4.8 Causal-effect Relationship between Employee Relationship and Employee’s
Productivity……………………………………………………………………………....68

10
 ABSTRACT

The study examined the effect of employee relationship on employees’ productivity in non-

quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State and also investigated the relationship between

knowledge sharing and employees’ productivity among the firms. It also determined the impact

of employee relationship and knowledge sharing on employees’ productivity of non-quoted firms

in Osun State. These were with a view to understanding the combined effect of employee

relationship and knowledge sharing on employees’ productivity.

The study used descriptive survey research design. The data for the study were obtained from

primary source of data through the administration of structured questionnaire. The sample size

was 100 employees of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. Data on variables such as

communication, teamwork, conflict resolution, work-life balance, respect and recognition,

equality and fairness, organisational structure, trust, communication channels, leadership and

management support were extracted from employees of the firms. Data collected were analyzed

using percentages, mean, standard deviation, correlation and regression analysis.

The findings show that employee relationship (R2=0.212, β =0.460, p<0.05) has a positive

relationship with employee’ productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. Also,

the results show that knowledge sharing has a positive effect on employees’ productivity

(r=0.260, p=0.015). The results also show that employee relationship and knowledge sharing have an

impact on employee’ productivity (R 2=0.319, p<0.05) in non-quoted manufacturing firms in

Osun State.

The study concluded that employee’s relationship and knowledge sharing have a positive and

significant effect on employee’ productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State.

11
 CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background to the Study

Organisations today operate in fast-paced, dynamic and competitive business environment,

where effective knowledge sharing, positive employee relationships and employee productivity

are critical factors for success. These being a critical factor that contributes to the overall

productivity of an organisation, extensive research needs to be conducted in the field of

organizational behavior and management to understand the relationship between them and this

research aims to show effective knowledge sharing practices, positive employees relationship

can lead to higher employee productivity, which in turn contributes to improved organisational

performance. Therefore understanding the background and current research on these topics is

crucial for organisations to implement effective strategies and practices that promote knowledge

sharing, foster positive employee relationships, and enhance employee productivity, leading to

sustained organisational success.

Since an organisation is an entity that consists of a collection of people who are involved in

pursuing defined objectives. An important set of people here are the employees who are

employed due to a specific skill, knowledge or perceived competence that they possess to help

achieve the goal of the organization and in order to do this, they are expected to work

interdependently, thereby creating an avenue to build employee relationships.

Employees’ relationship refers to any industrial relationship between organisation and its

workers as well as between employees and their efforts to maintain a positive relationship with

one another. Every individual in their workplace in one way relates with his/her colleague. There

may be a relationship between coworkers, a worker and their supervisor, two members of

1
management, or other groups of people at work. Employee relationships encompass the way

employees relate and communicate with one another which therefore makes it important that the

employees shares a healthy relationship with one another in order to deliver their best

performance. For business organisations to have a great overall efficiency and performance, the

way the employees interact and exhibits team work is very crucial to the organisation.

An organisation with a positive and healthy relationship between the employees will have an

efficient situation of knowledge sharing. Transferring implicit (undocumented) and explicit

(documented) knowledge from one person to another is known as knowledge sharing. According

to Ipe and Minu (2003), knowledge is the organisation's most valuable strategic resource because

it may give businesses a long-term competitive advantage. For both individuals and

organisations today and in the future, knowledge sharing is crucial for maintaining key

organisational history, learning new things, solving organisational problems, developing core

capabilities and launching new initiatives. Knowledge sharing means the exchange of

employees’ knowledge, experiences and skills. For knowledge sharing to exists, employees must

have a good and healthy relationship with one another. Sharing knowledge guarantees that

employees always have access to the organisations’ knowledge and intellectual resources, which

has the added benefit of boosting productivity.

Employee productivity is a gauge of how much an organisations’ staff produces in a certain

period of time; it is an evaluation of how effectively employees perform in their workplaces.

Employee productivity is crucial since it directly affects a company's bottom line. In other

words, the more productive an employee is, the more work they can complete and the more

profit the company can generate. Employee retention is indirectly impacted by productivity of

the workforce as well. Employees who are more productive are less likely to lose interest in and

2
quit their jobs. As a result, businesses that prioritize increasing staff productivity frequently see

increases in retention rates.

Non-quoted manufacturing companies are key drivers of economic growth in Nigeria as they

contribute about 15% of Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2021 and also their

emergence has helped to create many job opportunities in the country.

The study is driven by the need to understand how non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun

State approach knowledge sharing, how employees’ relationships are shaped within these firms

and how these factors influence employees’ productivity. It will explore factors such as

organisational culture, leadership style, communication patterns, and social dynamics that impact

knowledge sharing and relationships among employees in non-quoted manufacturing firms.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

This study aims to investigate how employee’s relationships, knowledge sharing have impacts on

employee’s productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. Most of the past

researches have only considered either the influence of employee’s relationship on their

performance or the impact of knowledge sharing on their performance, but this study aims to

bring both together and investigate how they both have an impact on the performance or

productivity of employees.

As a result of the various cultural elements, Anning-Dorson (2018) also made it clear how

important it is to replicate empirical investigations in various geographic contexts. For this

reason, emphasis is still placed on this. Nurrachman, Q., Hermanto, B., & Chan, A. (2019) in

their study of the effect of knowledge sharing on employee performance at PT Tama Cokelat

Indonesia conducted a research to examine the importance of knowledge as an important

3
strategic resource in companies in order to gain competitive advantage and as a result of the

diversity in geographical contexts, a similar research will be conducted on non-quoted

manufacturing firms in Osun State to understand deeply the influence knowledge sharing and

efficient employees relationship has on employees productivity.

Farhan Ahmad & Muhaimin Karim (2019) in their study of the effects of knowledge sharing: a

review and directions for future research also identified five areas that needs to be further

investigated and they include; research on knowledge sharing impacts should adopt an

interaction and process perspective, a critical perspective be taken to broaden understandings of

the new impacts of knowledge sharing, differential impacts of knowledge sharing and employees

relationships and a psychological effects of knowledge sharing should be further investigated.

This research will contribute to the existing literature on knowledge management, employee

relationship organisational behavior, and productivity, and provide practical implications for

non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State in similar contexts.

This study aims to proffer solution to the underlying problems that might bring about the

unproductiveness of employees as a result of their unwillingness to relate with one another and

also adopt the culture of knowledge sharing as a result of non-quoted firms having difficulties in

fostering the culture of knowledge sharing among employees to build positive employee

employees relations, and improve employees performance.

1.3 Research Questions

The following questions were formulated to guide this study:

1. What is the effect of employee relationships on employees’ productivity in non-

quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State?

4
 2. How does knowledge sharing impact employees’ productivity in non-quoted

manufacturing firms in Osun State?

3. What effect does knowledge sharing and employees’ relationship have on employee’s

productivity in non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State?

1.4 Objectives of the Study

This main objective of the study is to examine the effect of employee relationships and

knowledge sharing on employees’ productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in

Osun State. The specific objectives are to:

1. Examine the effect of employee relationships on employees’ productivity in non-

quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State.

2. Investigate the relationship between knowledge sharing and employees’ productivity

in non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State, and

3. Determine the impact of knowledge sharing and employees’ relationship on

employee’ productivity in non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State.

1.5 Hypotheses of the Study

The following hypotheses stated in the null form were tested:

1. Employees’ relationship has no significant effect on the productivity of employees in

non-quoted manufacturing companies in Osun State;

2. There’s no significant relationship between knowledge sharing and employees’

productivity in non-quoted manufacturing companies in Osun State; and

3. Employees’ relationship and knowledge sharing have no significant impact on the

employees productivity in non-quoted manufacturing companies in Osun State.

1.6 Significance of the Study

5
There are various ways to increase the overall efficiency of an organization and one of them is

fostering a work environment that encourages healthy relationship and knowledge sharing

among employees.

This study will help employers and the management of organisations to recognize the advantage

of encouraging knowledge sharing in their workplace and encourage their employees to relate

with one another to work as a team to achieve a common goal and imbibe the culture of sharing

knowledge among one another. It will shed new light on the benefits of employee’s relationship

and knowledge sharing at the work place.

It will also help employees to understand the importance of collaborating and building collective

knowledge as well as maintaining healthy relationships with their co-workers. It will help

employees understand how cordial relationship with one another and effective knowledge

sharing will help them come up with new innovations, develop new skills and gain new

knowledge which at the long run will have an effect on their productivity/performance.

Also, to students and academia, the analysis done in this study will provide useful data for future

studies looking at the advantages and impact of employee’s relationships, knowledge sharing on

employee’s productivity. The overview will promote new paradigms that will be beneficial for

future discussions.

1.7 Scope of the Study

This study is designed to understand the impact employee’s relationship and knowledge sharing

have on the productivity of employees of non-quoted manufacturing companies in Osun State.

A survey via the use of questionnaire will be carried out on non-quoted manufacturing industries

in Osun State which a total 100 questionnaires will be distributed. The aim of this investigation

6
is to understand how cordial employee relationships are being fostered in the workplace and how

the culture of knowledge sharing is being implemented. This study is only limited to non-quoted

manufacturing firms.

1.8 Definitions of Terms

1. Knowledge Sharing: It refers to the sharing of knowledge, expertise, and experience

among personnel. It is the act of communicating amongst people on an individual, group,

team, community, or organisational level. There are two types of knowledge: explicit

(i.e., policies and documents) and tacit (meaning intuitive and experience-based).

2. Employer: A person or firm in the public, private, nonprofit, or business sectors that

employs and compensates workers.

3. Employees: An individual that performs specific tasks for a business in exchange for a

regular pay.

4. Employees’ Relationship: This is a term that defines the relationship between employers

and employees and as well the relationship between employees themselves i.e. how

fellow employees relate and communicate with one another.

5. Employees’ Productivity: This is the volume of work or output a worker produces over

a predetermined amount of time. It is a gauge of how much an employee produces in a

certain period of time.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

This chapter will give a preview of conceptual framework explaining the various concepts in the

project topic, a theoretical framework stating and explaining theories in relation with the topic

and review of previous empirical studies that had been done on the topic

2.1 Conceptual Review

2.1.1 Employee’s Relationship

The concept of employee relationship has been extensively studied in the literature, with scholars

offering various perspectives and definitions. Denise (1995) article proposed the concept of

"psychological contracts" as a way to understand the relationship between employees and their

organisations. Denise (1995) argued that employees have expectations of their organisations and

that these expectations are not necessarily explicitly stated in employment contracts but rather

are based on implicit promises made by the organisation and she highlighted the importance of

trust and reciprocity in employee-employer relationships. Employees who feel that their

organisation is fulfilling its implicit promises are more likely to be satisfied, committed, and

engaged in their work, leading to increased productivity and organisational success.

David et al. (2004) came to the conclusion that in every business or work environment, there

exists the need for individuals to interact together and as a result of this, people in an

8
organisation needs to maintain positive and healthy relationship with one another. These

relationships can cover a wide range of aspects, including communication, tolerance, trust, duty,

fulfillment and enjoyment. Various organisations have policies and initiatives that are

specifically designed to enhance employee interactions. This is due to the fact that positive

workplace relationships can result in a wide range of advantages, including better productivity,

increased job satisfaction, and higher rates of employee retention.

The term employee relationship as any form of interactions between employees in an

organisation is a widely accepted notion in organisational and management literature. The

concept encompasses the ways in which employees interact with one another, including

communication, collaboration, conflict resolution and socialization. By understanding and

managing employee relationships, organisations can create a positive and productive workplace

culture that supports employee engagement, job satisfaction, and performance. A good

communication between employees and with their employer is imperative for building a positive

work place culture. In order to improve the work performance, an employee must receive

feedback, both positive and critical.

Employee relationships refer to the interactions and connections that employees have with one

another within an organisation. Jane et al. (2006) focus on the concept of "positive organisational

scholarship," which emphasizes the importance of building positive relationships between

employees as a way to enhance organisational performance. Jane et al. (2006) argued that

positive relationships can lead to increased engagement, creativity and innovation. Positive

employee relationships are characterized by mutual respect, trust, and cooperation. It is built on

effective communication, teamwork and social interactions among employees at different levels

and across different departments. Employee relationships can be fostered through team-building

9
activities, social events, recognition programs and open communication channels. Positive

employee relationships can enhance collaboration, communication, and teamwork, which can

lead to better performance and job satisfaction. On the other hand, negative employee

relationships can create a toxic work environment, decrease motivation and ultimately lead to

reduced productivity.

It is important to note that employee relationships are dynamic and require ongoing attention and

investment. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) found that employee engagement is a dynamic process

that requires ongoing effort and investment from both employees and employers. They argued

that creating a positive work environment requires ongoing communication, feedback, and

collaboration between employers and employees to foster a sense of shared purpose and

commitment to organisational goals. Organisations that prioritize employee relationships tend to

have higher employee engagement, satisfaction and retention rates, which ultimately contribute

to their overall success.

One key area of focus in the scholarly literature is the role of communication in employee

relationships. Research has shown that communication plays a crucial role in fostering a sense of

trust and openness in the workplace, which can lead to improved job satisfaction and higher

levels of engagement among employees (Gordon et al., 2017). Effective communication can also

help to build stronger relationships between employees and their managers, leading to better

performance and higher levels of employee retention (Bordia et al., 2006). One important aspect

of effective communication in employee relationships is the ability to give and receive feedback.

Research has shown that feedback is essential for employee growth and development and that

employees who receive regular feedback are more likely to feel valued and engaged in their

work (Kluger et al., 1996). Similarly, managers who are skilled in giving feedback are more

10
likely to build strong relationships with their employees, leading to higher levels of job

satisfaction and better performance (DeNisi et al., 2016). The scholarly literature suggests that

effective communication is a key factor in building and maintaining positive employee

relationship and that organisations should focus on developing communication skills among their

employees and managers in order to promote a positive and productive work environment.

Emphasis has been laid on the importance of effective communication in building trust and

mutual understanding between employers and employees. They have also highlighted the need

for open feedback channels and regular performance evaluations as important components of a

positive employee relationship.

Deal and Kennedy (1982) argued that organisational culture is a key factor in shaping employee

behavior, and that organisations must pay attention to their culture in order to build strong and

positive relationships with their employees. They explored the impact of organisational culture

on employee relationships and identified the importance of creating a supportive work

environment that promotes employee engagement and satisfaction. They have also highlighted

the role of leadership in setting the tone for organisational culture and building positive

employee relationships. They emphasized the importance of allowing employees to express their

views and opinions on workplace issues, and providing opportunities for participation and

involvement in decision-making processes. They have also highlighted the role of unions and

other employee representatives in advocating for the rights and interests of employees in the

workplace.

Overall, these scholars mentioned above have provided valuable insights into the dynamics of

employee relationships and the factors that contribute to a positive and productive work

environment. Their research has highlighted the importance of effective communication,

11
organisational culture, leadership, employee voice and other factors in shaping employee

relationships and promoting organisational success.

2.1.1.1 Determinants of Employee Relationship

The determinant of an employee relationship refers to the factors or elements that contribute to

the overall dynamics, satisfaction and effectiveness of the relationship between employees, with

their employer or organisation. These determinants can greatly influence the level of

engagement, productivity and retention of employees within a company. While each work

environment may have unique characteristics, there are several common determinants that play a

significant role in shaping employee relationships. Elton Mayo, a renowned social psychologist

and organizational theorist identified these factors as determinants of employee relationships;

1. Communication:

Communication is a determinant of employee relationships because it helps to build trust, rapport

and cooperation (Gary Yukl, 2006). When employees feel that they can communicate effectively

with their colleagues and managers, they are more likely to feel valued and respected. This can

lead to increased job satisfaction, motivation, and productivity.

Yukl identifies four key elements of effective communication: When these elements are present,

communication is more likely to be effective in building positive employee relationships.In

addition to the four key elements of effective communication, Yukl also identifies a number of

other factors that can influence the quality of employee relationships. These include:

a) The frequency of communication: The more often employees communicate with each

other, the more likely they are to build strong relationships.

12
 b) The quality of communication: The more positive and supportive the communication is,

the more likely it is to build strong relationships.

c) The level of trust: The more trust that exists between employees, the more likely they are

to communicate effectively.

d) The level of respect: The more respect that exists between employees, the more likely

they are to communicate effectively.

By paying attention to these factors, organisations can create a workplace environment where

communication is effective and employee relationships are strong. Here are some specific

examples of how communication can help to build positive employee relationships in an

organisation:

1. When a manager provides clear and accurate feedback to an employee, it helps the employee

to understand what they are doing well and where they can improve. This can lead to increased

motivation and job satisfaction.

2. When employees communicate openly and honestly with each other, it can help to build trust

and rapport. This can lead to a more collaborative and productive work environment.

Overall, communication is a key factor in building positive employee relationships. By paying

attention to the factors that influence the quality of communication, organisations can create a

workplace environment where employees feel valued, respected, and supported.

2. Respect and Recognition:

Respect refers to the acknowledgment and appreciation of an individual's worth, rights, and

contributions, while recognition involves acknowledging and rewarding employees for their

achievements and efforts. When employees feel respected, they experience a sense of dignity and

13
value within the workplace. Respectful treatment fosters a positive work environment and

enhances employee morale, engagement, and job satisfaction. It creates a foundation of trust and

open communication between employees and their superiors, colleagues and subordinates.

Recognition, on the other hand, involves acknowledging and appreciating employees'

contributions and achievements. It can take various forms, such as verbal praise, written

commendations, awards, or public acknowledgment. When employees receive recognition for

their work, they feel valued and motivated, leading to increased job satisfaction and a higher

level of commitment to their organisation.

When respect and recognition are present in employee relationships, several positive outcomes

can emerge. Firstly, it promotes a sense of belonging and loyalty among employees. They are

more likely to develop strong bonds with their colleagues and supervisors, leading to better

teamwork, collaboration, and cooperation.

Secondly, respect and recognition contribute to employee engagement and productivity. When

individuals feel respected and recognized for their efforts, they are more motivated to perform at

their best and go the extra mile to achieve organisational goals. They feel a sense of pride in their

work and are more committed to the success of the organisation.

Respect and recognition play a crucial role in shaping employee relationships, and the

significance of these factors has been extensively studied by various researchers over the years.

One notable researcher who has examined this topic is Abraham Maslow (1943). According to

Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory, employees have a fundamental need for respect and

recognition within the workplace. Maslow (1943) proposed that these needs fall under the

category of esteem needs, which emerge after basic physiological and safety needs are met.

14
Maslow (1943) argued that when employees feel respected and recognized, it positively impacts

their self-esteem and overall well-being, leading to improved motivation, job satisfaction, and

productivity.

Respect in the workplace refers to treating employees fairly, valuing their opinions, and

acknowledging their contributions. When employees are respected, they feel a sense of

belonging, trust, and psychological safety, which fosters positive relationships with their

colleagues and supervisors. Recognition, on the other hand, involves acknowledging and

appreciating employees' efforts, achievements, and contributions. It can take various forms, such

as verbal praise, awards, bonuses, or promotions. When employees receive recognition for their

work, it enhances their self-worth and reinforces positive behaviors, leading to increased

engagement and commitment.

Abraham Maslow (1943) research highlights that respect and recognition are not mere luxuries

but fundamental psychological needs that significantly impact employee relationships.

Organizations that prioritize creating a culture of respect and providing regular recognition are

more likely to foster positive employee relationships, enhance morale, and drive better

performance. Moreover, respectful and recognized employees are likely to experience higher job

satisfaction. They perceive their work environment as supportive and fair, which positively

impacts their overall well-being. Satisfied employees are more likely to stay with the

organization, reducing turnover rates and associated costs.When employees are treated with

respect and receive recognition for their contributions, it enhances their sense of worth,

motivation, engagement, and job satisfaction. This, in turn, strengthens teamwork, productivity,

and the overall success of the organisation.

3. Teamwork and Collaboration:

15
Teamwork and collaboration are crucial factors that significantly influence employee

relationships within an organisation. They create a strong foundation for effective

communication, trust and shared accountability among team members. By working together

towards common goals, employees develop a sense of unity and camaraderie, which fosters a

positive work environment and enhances productivity. When employees collaborate, they

combine their diverse skills, knowledge and perspectives to tackle complex challenges. This

collective effort enables teams to generate innovative ideas, find creative solutions and make

well-informed decisions. Collaboration promotes learning from one another and encourages

continuous improvement, as individuals can leverage their strengths and fill in each other's

knowledge gaps. As a result, employees feel valued and appreciated for their contributions,

which positively impacts their overall job satisfaction and motivation.

Hackman (1990) highlighted the significance of teamwork and collaboration in creating and

sustaining effective employee relationships, he emphasized that when employees work together

in a collaborative team environment, they tend to experience higher levels of job satisfaction,

motivation and engagement. Collaboration allows individuals to pool their diverse skills,

knowledge and perspectives, leading to more innovative problem-solving and decision-making

processes. This collective effort not only improves the quality of work outcomes but also

enhances employee morale and job fulfillment. Moreover, collaboration encourages the

exchange of ideas, promotes learning, and facilitates professional growth among team members.

It enables employees to leverage each other's strengths and compensate for weaknesses, thereby

enhancing overall team performance. By working together towards a common goal, employees

develop a sense of camaraderie and a shared sense of accomplishment, strengthening their

relationships and promoting a positive organisational culture.

16
4. Conflict Resolution:

This refers to the process of addressing and managing conflicts or disagreements that arise

between individuals or groups within the workplace. Conflict resolution as a determinant of

employee relationships is a crucial aspect of organizational dynamics. Scholars have extensively

studied this topic to understand the impact of conflict resolution strategies on employee relations.

Rowe (1980) in her influential research on conflict management and resolution emphasized the

significance of addressing conflicts promptly and effectively within the workplace. According to

Rowe (1980) unresolved conflicts can have detrimental effects on employee relationships, team

dynamics and overall organizational performance. She proposed a framework known as the

"Eight Strategies for Managing Interpersonal Conflict" that provides guidance on resolving

conflicts constructively. The strategies include:

i. Problem-solving: Encouraging parties involved in the conflict to collaborate and find

mutually beneficial solutions.

ii. Controlling: Establishing rules and procedures to manage conflicts and maintain order

within the organization.

iii. Avoiding: Temporarily or strategically avoiding conflicts to prevent further escalation.

iv. Smoothing: Emphasizing common ground and minimizing differences to reduce tension.

v. Compromising: Seeking middle ground and reaching a mutually acceptable solution

through negotiation.

vi. Forcing: Imposing a decision or solution on conflicting parties based on authority or

power.

vii. Mediating: Engaging a neutral third party to facilitate communication and help parties

find a resolution.

17
viii. Arbitrating: Submitting the conflict to a neutral third party who has the authority to make

a binding decision.

Effective conflict resolution can foster positive employee relationships by promoting open

communication, trust and collaboration. It helps create a supportive work environment where

individuals can express their opinions, resolve differences and work towards common goals.By

addressing conflicts proactively and employing suitable conflict resolution strategies,

organizations can enhance employee satisfaction, reduce turnover and improve overall

productivity. Rowe's research provides valuable insights into the role of conflict resolution as a

determinant of employee relationships, emphasizing the need for organisations to prioritize

effective conflict management to create a harmonious and productive work environment.

On the other hand, when conflicts are left unresolved or mismanaged, they can negatively impact

employee relationships. Unresolved conflicts often lead to strained communication, decreased

cooperation, and eroded trust among team members. This can create a toxic work environment

characterized by hostility, resentment, and reduced productivity. Employees may also experience

higher levels of stress, dissatisfaction, and a decreased sense of well-being.

5. Work-life Balance:

Work-life balance refers to the equilibrium an individual achieves between their professional

commitments and personal life. It involves effectively managing and integrating work and non-

work responsibilities to create a harmonious and fulfilling lifestyle. The concept of work-life

balance has garnered significant attention in the field of organizational behavior, particularly in

relation to its impact on employee relationships.

18
Friedman (2000) emphasized on the significance of work-life balance in fostering positive

relationships between employees and their organizations. Friedman (2000) argues that when

individuals are able to effectively manage their work and personal responsibilities, they

experience reduced stress levels, improved overall well-being, and enhanced job satisfaction.

This, in turn, leads to stronger commitment to the organization, increased engagement, and better

interpersonal relationships among colleagues.

When employees are able to maintain a healthy work-life balance, several positive outcomes can

occur within the context of employee relationships:

a) Reduced stress and burnout: Long hours, excessive workload, and neglecting personal

life can lead to chronic stress and burnout. A lack of work-life balance can strain

relationships with colleagues and superiors, resulting in increased conflicts and decreased

productivity. Conversely, when employees have time to recharge and engage in activities

outside of work, their stress levels decrease, enhancing their ability to build positive

relationships and collaborate effectively.

b) Enhanced job satisfaction: Employees who have a balanced lifestyle are generally more

satisfied with their jobs. By having time for personal interests, hobbies, and family, they

feel fulfilled and experience a greater sense of well-being. This positive outlook can

translate into stronger relationships with coworkers and contribute to a harmonious work

environment that promotes productivity.

c) Improved mental and physical health: Neglecting personal well-being for work can have

detrimental effects on mental and physical health. Poor health can negatively impact

employee relationships, as individuals may have difficulty focusing, maintaining positive

interactions, or coping with stress. In contrast, when employees prioritize self-care and

19
 have time for exercise, relaxation, and personal pursuits, they are more likely to be

healthier and have the energy and motivation to build positive relationships and perform

better at work.

d) Increased engagement and productivity: When employees have a healthy work-life

balance, they tend to be more engaged and productive. Being able to disconnect from

work during non-working hours allows individuals to recharge, maintain motivation, and

bring fresh perspectives to their tasks. Moreover, when employees feel supported in

managing their personal obligations alongside work, they are more likely to be

committed and loyal to their organisation, leading to stronger relationships with

colleagues and increased productivity.

e) Supportive and inclusive work culture: Employers that prioritize work-life balance foster

a supportive and inclusive work culture. By providing flexible work arrangements, such

as remote work options, flexible schedules, or family-friendly policies, organizations

demonstrate that they value their employees' well-being and personal lives. This

supportive environment helps build trust and positive relationships among team

members, as they feel understood, respected, and supported in managing their work and

personal commitments.

Work-life balance as a determinant of employee relationships is crucial for creating a positive

work environment that promotes collaboration, reduces stress, enhances job satisfaction, and

ultimately boosts productivity. Employers should strive to implement policies and practices that

encourage work-life balance, recognizing that supporting employees in maintaining harmony

between work and personal life is beneficial for both individuals and the organisation as a whole.

6. Equality and Fairness:

20
Equality refers to treating all employees with the same rights, opportunities, and respect,

regardless of their background, characteristics, or personal circumstances. It emphasizes the

absence of discrimination or bias based on factors such as gender, race, age, religion, sexual

orientation, or disability. In an equal workplace, all employees have equal access to resources,

benefits, promotions and opportunities for professional growth. Fairness, on the other hand, goes

beyond equality by considering individual circumstances and providing fair treatment based on

merit, effort, and performance. Fairness involves evaluating employees' contributions and

rewarding them accordingly. It means that decisions regarding promotions, pay raises,

assignments and disciplinary actions are made based on objective criteria, transparent processes

and without favoritism or bias.

John (2004) explored the concept of fairness in the employment relationship and according to

him, equality and fairness are crucial elements in establishing a positive and productive

employee relationship. John (2004) argued that employees seek fair treatment, which includes

fair compensation, fair opportunities for advancement and fair treatment in decision-making

processes. Equality in the employee relationship refers to the idea that all employees should be

treated with equal consideration and respect, regardless of their background, gender, race, or any

other characteristic. Budd (2004) emphasizes that equal treatment should be based on merit and

qualifications rather than arbitrary factors. This means that employees should have equal access

to job opportunities, promotions, and resources, and their contributions should be evaluated

fairly and objectively.

2.1.2 Knowledge Sharing

The conceptual framework of knowledge sharing is based on the idea that knowledge is a

valuable resource that is created and exchanged through social interactions. The process of

21
knowledge sharing involves the transfer of explicit knowledge (e.g., facts, procedures, and rules)

and tacit knowledge (e.g., skills, experience, and expertise) between individuals or groups within

an organization.

According to the socialization, externalization, combination and internalization model (SECI)

developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge is created through a spiral of four stages:

socialization (sharing tacit knowledge), externalization (converting tacit knowledge into explicit

knowledge), combination (integrating explicit knowledge), and internalization (applying explicit

knowledge to tacit knowledge). This model suggests that knowledge sharing is a social process

that involves both explicit and tacit knowledge and requires active participation and engagement

from individuals.

Becerra-Fernandez et al. (2010) discussed the importance of knowledge as a strategic resource

for organizations. The authors argued that knowledge is a critical resource that can provide

organizations with a sustainable competitive advantage. They describe how knowledge can be

created, captured, stored, shared, and leveraged to support organisational goals and improve

performance. They also discussed various knowledge management approaches and technologies,

such as communities of practice, knowledge repositories, and knowledge networks. It could

provide enterprises with sustainable competitive advantage in a competitive dynamic economy.

Since knowledge sharing behavior is the foundation for how employees can contribute to the

application of knowledge, innovation and organisational optimization (Renzl Birgit, 2008).

Renzl showed that knowledge sharing within a team or between teams was essential for

organisations to develop the skills and capabilities, to enhance the value, and to sustain

competitive advantage. Thus, the effectiveness of knowledge management is increasingly

dependent on information exchange. In the area of knowledge management, it is a significant

22
event. Given the enormous potential benefits of knowledge sharing, many businesses have

dedicated a lot of time and resources to knowledge management.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) defined knowledge sharing as the process of transferring

knowledge, expertise and information among individuals or groups within an organisation. It

involves the exchange of ideas, insights, best practices and lessons learned, which can foster

more organisational innovations. Knowledge sharing can occur through various channels, such

as formal training programs, informal discussions, mentoring, communities of practice, and

digital platforms. Every employee in an organisation have at least one skill, experience, expertise

or knowledge they possess about one thing or the other, and being that the collective contribution

of each employee have an effect on the overall productivity of the organisation, it is needed for

employees to relate these with one another.

Connelly (2000) defined knowledge sharing as the exchange of knowledge or the behavior that

help others with knowledge. Ipe (2003) believed that the process through which a private

individual's knowledge becomes recognized, assimilated and used by others was known as

knowledge sharing. It means that knowledge sharing is at least a conscious behavior, and

knowledge sources also do not want to give up ownership of knowledge.

From the above, we can sum up the fundamental qualities of knowledge sharing based on the

definition given above as follows:

1) Knowledge sharing is a significant individual behavior;

2) Knowledge sharing is a voluntary, proactive, behavioral awareness;

3) Knowledge sharing is regulated by environmental systems or procedures, such as legal, ethical

standards and code of conduct, habits; and

23
4) Knowledge sharing results in knowledge being jointly occupied by two or more parties.

For firms to remain competitive and react to shifting market conditions, effective knowledge

sharing is essential. Organisations can tap into their employees' collective intelligence and foster

a culture of collaboration and ongoing learning by encouraging knowledge and skill sharing.

Employees may become more creative, capable of solving problems, and making better decisions

as a result of this.

Nonaka et al. (1995) in their study argued that knowledge creation and sharing are critical to the

success of Japanese companies and offers a framework for how organizations can build a culture

of knowledge creation and sharing. They argued that knowledge sharing is a crucial mechanism

that boosts innovation, employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. Organisations

that encourage and support knowldege sharing typically have more inventive, agile, and

collaborative work environments, which enhance organisational results. To promote a culture of

continuous learning and improvement, organisations should encourage and support knowledge

exchange among employees through a variety of channels and recognize and reward people for

their contributions.

David (1997) also explored the concept of knowledge sharing from various perspectives,

including organisational behavior, human resource management, and information systems. David

identified a range of factors that influence knowledge sharing, including individual attitudes and

motivations, organisational culture, social networks and technology. One key area of focus in

their scholarly literature is the role of individual attitudes and motivations in knowledge sharing.

2.1.2.1 Elements of Knowledge Sharing

24
Knowledge sharing is a crucial component of knowledge management and several past

researchers have explored various elements and factors that contribute to effective knowledge

sharing within organisations. Here are some key elements of knowledge sharing in knowledge

management in an organisation according to Nonaka et al. (1995)

1. Organisational Culture:

Culture refers to the shared beliefs, values, norms, behaviors, and attitudes that shape the way

people interact and work together. An organizational culture that promotes and values

knowledge sharing is essential. It involves creating an environment where individuals feel

comfortable sharing their knowledge, collaborating with others and recognizing the importance

of knowledge as a strategic asset. The way an organisation's culture values and promotes

knowledge sharing can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of knowledge management

processes. Nonaka et al. (1995) argues that organisational culture plays a crucial role in the

creation, sharing and use of knowledge. They suggest that knowledge is created through a social

process and that the culture of an organisation shapes the social norms and values that support

knowledge creation and sharing.

Tsai (2001) also argued that organisational culture can facilitate or hinder knowledge sharing by

influencing employees' behavior. For example, a culture that emphasizes competition and

individual achievement may discourage employees from sharing knowledge with others, while a

culture that values teamwork and collaboration may encourage knowledge sharing.

Therefore, organisations that seek to promote knowledge sharing should work to cultivate a

culture that values and supports it. This can be achieved through a variety of means, including:

a) Encouraging collaboration and teamwork

25
 b) Rewarding knowledge sharing and collaboration

c) Providing opportunities for training and development

d) Fostering a sense of community and shared purpose

e) Celebrating successes and learning from failures

By creating a culture that supports knowledge sharing, organisations can unlock the full potential

of their employees and drive innovation and growth.

2. Trust:

Trust is a critical element of knowledge sharing within organisations, as identified by researchers

like Nonaka et. al (1995).Trust refers to the belief that others will act in a reliable, honest, and

competent manner. When trust exists, individuals are more willing to share their knowledge,

collaborate, and engage in open communication.

According to Dirkx (2011), trust plays a crucial role in facilitating knowledge sharing within

organisations. Trust creates an environment where individuals feel safe and confident in sharing

their knowledge without fear of negative consequences or exploitation. Dirkx (2011) emphasized

three dimensions of trust that impact knowledge sharing:

a) Competence trust: Competence trust refers to the belief that others possess the necessary

knowledge, skills, and abilities to effectively contribute and use shared knowledge. When

individuals perceive others as competent, they are more likely to trust their contributions

and engage in knowledge sharing activities.

b) Integrity trust: Integrity trust relates to the belief that others will act ethically and with

honesty in handling shared knowledge. It involves the assurance that shared knowledge

will not be misused, misappropriated, or wrongly attributed. When integrity trust exists,

26
 individuals are more willing to share their knowledge without the fear of negative

consequences.

c) Benevolence trust: Benevolence trust refers to the belief that others have good intentions

and will act in the best interest of the organization and its members. It involves the

confidence that shared knowledge will be used for the collective benefit rather than

personal gain. When individuals perceive benevolence trust, they are more inclined to

share their knowledge and collaborate with others.

Dirkx (2011) highlighted that building trust requires consistent actions and behaviors over time.

Trust is not easily established but can be nurtured through transparent communication,

demonstration of ethical behavior, and fulfilling commitments. Leaders play a crucial role in

fostering trust by promoting a culture of trustworthiness, setting clear expectations, and valuing

knowledge sharing as a collective endeavor.

Overall, trust is a fundamental element that creates the psychological safety and confidence

needed for effective knowledge sharing. Organisations that prioritize trust-building efforts are

more likely to experience enhanced collaboration, innovation, and knowledge flow among their

members.

3. Communication channels:

Communication channels are important elements of knowledge sharing in an organisation.

According to many researchers like Nonaka, Takeuchi, Davenport, Prusak, Wasko and Faraj in

the field of organisational behavior and knowledge management, effective communication

channels are essential for successful knowledge sharing in an organization. By using different

27
modes of communication, individuals and groups can share, create and apply knowledge to drive

innovation and growth.

4. Leadership and Management Support:

Leadership support refers to the actions and behaviors demonstrated by leaders that encourage

and promote knowledge sharing among employees. Effective leaders create a culture that values

and prioritizes knowledge sharing as a strategic asset; they communicate the importance of

knowledge sharing, set clear expectations and provide resources and incentives to facilitate

knowledge sharing activities. Management support complements leadership by providing the

necessary structures, systems, and processes to facilitate knowledge sharing. This includes

creating platforms and tools for sharing and capturing knowledge, allocating time and resources

for knowledge sharing activities, and integrating knowledge sharing into performance evaluation

and reward systems.

By providing leadership and management support for knowledge sharing, organisations can

create an environment that encourages and enables the flow of knowledge across individuals,

teams and departments. This facilitates innovation, problem-solving and learning, leading to

improved decision-making, enhanced organizational agility and a competitive advantage in the

marketplace.

Ruggles (1998) emphasized that leadership support is crucial for creating an environment where

knowledge sharing is encouraged and valued. Leaders play a pivotal role in setting the tone and

direction for knowledge management initiatives. They are responsible for creating a vision that

highlights the strategic importance of knowledge sharing and articulates its benefits to the

organisation. Leadership support involves several key aspects:

28
 a) Advocacy: Leaders need to actively promote knowledge sharing by advocating its value

and benefits to the organization. They should communicate the importance of knowledge

sharing in achieving organisational goals and encourage employees to participate.

b) Resource allocation: Leaders should allocate resources, such as time, technology, and

funding, to support knowledge sharing activities. This includes providing employees with

the necessary tools and platforms to share and access knowledge effectively.

c) Role modeling: Leaders should lead by example and actively participate in knowledge

sharing activities. By sharing their own knowledge, experiences, and best practices,

leaders demonstrate the desired behavior and create a culture of openness and

collaboration.

d) Recognition and rewards: Leaders should recognize and reward employees who actively

engage in knowledge sharing. This can be done through formal mechanisms such as

performance evaluations, promotions, or bonuses, as well as informal means such as

public acknowledgment or peer recognition.

2.1.3 Employee’s Productivity

Employee productivity refers to the efficiency and effectiveness of employees in completing

their tasks and achieving organizational goals. Scholars like Frederick Winslow Taylor, Elton

Mayo and Douglas McGregor have conducted research on this topic and have proposed various

theories and models to explain employee productivity.

Pearce and Robinson (2007) claimed that productivity is a measurement of the quantity and

quality of work completed while taking into account the cost of the resources used. The lower

the production costs of an organization's goods and services, the greater their competitive

advantage. A higher rate of productivity does not always equate to more output; possibly the

29
same amount was produced using less resources (such as labor, resources, and time). Assessing

productivity also entails figuring out how long it takes an average worker to produce a certain

amount of output. It can also track how much time a group of employees spends on specific

tasks, including manufacturing, travel, or waiting around for supplies or upgrading equipment.

As employee productivity refers to the amount of work an employee can accomplish within a

specific period. Productivity is essential to the success of a business because it directly impacts

its output, quality of work, profitability and overall performance. Employees who are productive

can complete their work on time, meet their goals, and contribute to the growth and success of

the organisation. It is a way to gauge how much work an employee produces in relation to the

input or resources consumed. Productivity has a significant impact on the profitability,

competitiveness, and overall performance of any organisation, making it a key component in

deciding its success.

Yunus and Ernawati (2017) defined employee productivity as the capability to produce goods

and services in order to achieve the goals of the organisation. The effectiveness of a company is

greatly influenced by its employees and their productivity. The work environment is very

important, and human resources are important. The environment comprises a corporate culture

that ought to support work-life balance, employee wellbeing, the creation of realistic

performance measurements, and performance-based incentives.

Effective management is crucial to enhancing employee productivity. Managers need to provide

clear expectations, goals, and objectives to employees, and ensure they have the necessary

resources and support to perform their work. Effective communication, feedback, and

recognition can also help to motivate employees and improve their performance.

30
Thorndike's (1999) law of effect suggested that employees are more likely to repeat behaviors

that lead to positive outcomes. By providing training that improves employee skills and

knowledge, organizations can improve employee productivity by increasing the likelihood of

positive outcomes. Organisations can also improve employee productivity by investing in

employee training and development programs, promoting a knowledge sharing culture, and

creating a positive relationship environment among employees. Providing flexible work

arrangements, wellness programs, and opportunities for career growth can also boost employee

morale and productivity.

There are many factors that can affect employee productivity and scholars have studied these

factors over the years. Here are some of the factors and the years in which they were studied:

1. Work environment - In the 1930s, Elton Mayo and his colleagues conducted the famous

Hawthorne studies, which showed that the work environment can have a significant impact on

employee productivity. Mayo found that changes in lighting, temperature, and other

environmental factors could affect productivity.

2. Job satisfaction - In the 1950s, Frederick Herzberg proposed the two-factor theory, which

suggests that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are influenced by different factors. He found that

factors such as recognition, growth opportunities, and meaningful work can increase job

satisfaction and improve employee productivity.

3. Motivation - In the 1960s, Douglas McGregor proposed Theory X and Theory Y, which

suggest that employees can be motivated in different ways. Theory X assumes that employees

are lazy and need to be closely monitored, while Theory Y assumes that employees are self-

motivated and can be trusted to work independently.

31
4. Leadership - James MacGregorBurns (1970) proposed the transformational leadership theory,

which suggests that effective leaders can inspire and motivate employees to achieve

organizational goals. He found that transformational leaders are more effective than transactional

leaders in improving employee productivity.

5. Training and development - Donald Kirkpatrick (1980) proposed the four-level model of

training evaluation, which suggests that training can improve employee productivity by

increasing their knowledge, skills, and attitudes. He found that training programs that are

relevant to the employee's job are more effective than those that are not.

These are just a few examples of the factors that can affect employee productivity, and the

scholars who have studied them over the years.

Employee productivity may be hard to measure, but it has a direct bearing on a company's

profits. An employer fills his staff with productivity in mind and can get a handle on a worker's

capabilities during the initial job interview. However, there are several factors on the job that

help maximize what an employee does on the job. Brady (2000) stated that, perhaps none of the

resources used for productivity in organisations are so closely scrutinized as the human

resources.

In a human resource system, a lot of the actions made are intended to influence either individual

or organizational productivity. Human resource practices directly affecting productivity include

appraisal systems, training, selection, and job design.

Bernardin (2007) referenced in Pradeep and Prabhu (2011), maintains that the key human

resource management (HRM) component of competitive advantage is reducing labor costs and

boosting productivity through the construction of clearer connections between compensation and

32
performance. Additionally, growing worries about productivity and satisfying customer needs

have re-ignited interest in strategies meant to encourage employees to pay closer attention to

satisfying (or exceeding) customer needs and boosting productivity. The easiest strategy to

increase output is to forge stronger ties between the employee and management.

2.2 Theoretical Review

2.2.1. Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory is a social psychological perspective that proposes that social interactions

are based on the exchange of rewards and costs between individuals. This theory suggests that

employees engage in relationships with each other in order to gain rewards and avoid

punishments.

George Homans (1960) is a sociologist who developed the theory. According to George, the

social exchange occurs when two or more individuals engage in a social interaction that involves

giving and receiving rewards and costs. Homans (1960) proposed that social exchange can be

analyzed using the following four principles:

a) The principle of reward - This principle suggests that people are more likely to engage in

a behavior if they receive a reward for it. For example, an employee might work harder if

they receive a bonus for their performance.

b) The principle of punishment - This principle suggests that people are less likely to engage

in a behavior if they receive a punishment for it. For example, an employee might be less

likely to take risks if they fear being reprimanded.

c) The principle of immediate returns - This principle suggests that people are more likely to

engage in a behavior if they receive an immediate reward for it. For example, an

33
 employee might be more motivated to complete a task if they receive praise immediately

after finishing it.

d) The principle of fair exchange - This principle suggests that people are more likely to

engage in a social interaction if they perceive it as fair. For example, an employee might

be more motivated to work hard if they perceive that they are being treated fairly by their

employer.

Homans (1960) also proposed that the strength of a social relationship is based on the amount of

rewards and costs exchanged between individuals. Homan (1960) argued that individuals are

more likely to form relationships with those who provide more rewards than costs, and that

relationships are more likely to last when the exchange of rewards and costs is perceived as

equitable.

Rousseau (1989) argued that social exchange theory can be used to understand the nature of the

psychological contract between employees and their organizations. The psychological contract

refers to the unwritten expectations that employees have about the employment relationship,

such as the level of support they will receive from their employer. According to Rousseau

(1989), when employees perceive that their employer has fulfilled their obligations under the

psychological contract (e.g. providing adequate support, rewards, and opportunities for

advancement), they are more likely to reciprocate with increased commitment and effort. This

can lead to improved job performance and productivity.

Rousseau (1989) also noted that the quality of the exchange relationship between employees and

their employers can have an impact on productivity. When employees feel that their employer is

committed to them and values their contributions, they are more likely to be motivated to

34
perform well. This can lead to increased productivity, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment.

Overall, the social exchange theory suggests that positive employee relationships can have a

significant impact on productivity. When employees perceive that their employer is fulfilling

their obligations and supporting them, they are more likely to reciprocate with increased

commitment and effort, leading to improved productivity.

2.2.2 Knowledge-Based Theory

The theory of knowledge-based was propounded by researchers Ikujiro Nonaka and Ryoko

Toyama. They introduced this theory in their article titled "A Firm as a Knowledge-Creating

Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm" published in 2000. The knowledge-based

theory of knowledge sharing suggests that knowledge sharing is crucial to enhancing employee

productivity. This theory posits that knowledge is a valuable resource for organisations and the

sharing of knowledge among employees can lead to improved performance and productivity.

The knowledge-based theory is grounded in several fundamental assumptions. Firstly, it assumes

that knowledge is a valuable strategic resource for organisations. It recognizes that knowledge,

encompassing both tacit and explicit forms, is a critical asset that can provide a competitive

advantage and drive innovation and problem-solving within the organisation. Secondly, the

theory assumes that knowledge is dynamic and constantly evolving. It acknowledges that

organizations need to actively manage and leverage their knowledge assets to adapt to changing

environments and stay competitive. This implies that knowledge creation, transfer, and

utilization are ongoing processes that require continuous attention and nurturing. Furthermore,

the theory assumes that effective knowledge sharing is crucial for organizational success. It

35
recognizes that knowledge is more valuable when it is shared and utilized by individuals and

groups within the organisation.

According to this theory, knowledge sharing occurs when individual build positive relationship

with one another and exchange information, ideas and experiences with others in the

organisation. This can be done through various methods, such as informal conversations, formal

training sessions, or through the use of technology platforms. The theory also highlights the

importance of creating a knowledge-sharing culture within the organisation. This means that

employees should be encouraged to share their knowledge with others, and that the organisation

should provide the necessary resources and incentives to facilitate knowledge sharing.

This theory emphasizes that knowledge sharing is most effective when the knowledge being

shared is relevant, valuable, and practical. Additionally, it suggests that knowledge sharing is

more likely to occur when there is trust and good relationship between the individuals or

organisations involved and when there are clear incentives for sharing knowledge, such as

rewards or recognition. The knowledge-based theory of knowledge sharing also highlights the

importance of communication and collaboration in facilitating knowledge sharing. Effective

communication can help to ensure that knowledge is shared accurately and clearly, while

collaboration can provide opportunities for individuals to share knowledge and learn from each

other. This means that employees should be encouraged to share their knowledge with others,

and that the organisation should provide the necessary resources and incentives to facilitate

knowledge sharing and building an environment that facilitates employee relationship.

2.2.3 Social Capital Theory

36
The social capital theory was propounded by Pierre Bourdieu, a prominent French sociologist in

the year 1986. It assumes that strong social connections and relationships among employees are

valuable assets for organisations. These connections create a foundation of trust, mutual respect,

and shared norms that foster effective knowledge sharing. The theory recognizes that employees

who have strong social ties are more likely to collaborate, communicate openly, and exchange

knowledge with one another. It also assumes that social capital within the organization positively

influences employees' willingness to share their expertise and experiences, leading to increased

knowledge flow, innovation, and problem-solving.

The social capital theory is a theoretical framework that explores how social networks and

relationships within organisations can facilitate or inhibit the sharing of knowledge. According to

this theory, social capital refers to the resources that individuals and groups can access through

their social connections and relationships. These resources can include information, ideas, skills,

and opportunities that can be leveraged for personal or collective benefit.

Social capital theory suggests that social networks and the resources embedded in them (such as

trust, norms, and shared knowledge) can have a significant impact on individual and

organizational performance. When it comes to knowledge sharing, social capital theory suggests

that employees who are embedded in strong social networks are more likely to share knowledge

and information with their colleagues, which can lead to increased productivity and innovation

within the organisation.

Several scholars have studied the relationship between social capital and knowledge sharing, and

their findings support the social capital theory. For example, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) found

that social capital positively impacts knowledge sharing and innovation within organizations.

They identified three dimensions of social capital: structural, relational, and cognitive, which

37
influence knowledge sharing in different ways. Structural capital refers to the formal and

informal relationships among employees, while relational capital refers to the quality of those

relationships, and cognitive capital refers to shared norms, values, and beliefs.

However, social capital theory also acknowledges that social networks and relationships can also

inhibit knowledge sharing in some cases. For example, if individuals are not connected to the

right people or groups, they may not have access to the knowledge they need. Additionally, if

there is a lack of trust or reciprocity within social networks, individuals may be hesitant to share

knowledge out of fear that it will not be reciprocated or that they will be punished for sharing.

Overall, the social capital theory of knowledge sharing highlights the importance of

understanding the social dynamics within organisations in order to promote effective knowledge

sharing and collaboration.

2.3 Empirical Review

2.3.1 Employee Relationships and Employees Productivity

There have been numerous empirical studies on the relationship between employee relationship

and employee productivity, using different sample sizes, methods of sampling, data collection,

and analysis.

A study by Islam, Ahmad and Islam (2018) aimed to explore the impact of employee-employer

relationship on employee productivity. The study used a sample size of 300 employees from

various industries in Pakistan. The sampling method used was stratified random sampling, and

the data was collected through a structured questionnaire. The study used regression analysis to

analyze the data. The findings showed that employee-employer relationship had a significant

positive impact on employee productivity. This study however will be conducted using non-

38
quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State, Nigeria as a case study and it aims to find out if

difference in the geographical context will bring about the same results.

A study by Wang and Hsieh (2013) examined the impact of leader-member exchange

relationships on employee productivity. The study had a sample size of 253 employees and used

a convenience sampling method. Data was collected through surveys and analyzed using

hierarchical regression analysis. The results showed that positive leader-member exchange

relationships were associated with higher levels of employee productivity. However, the study

used a convenience sampling method which is availability sampling i.e. selecting individuals

who are readily available and accessible to participate in the study but this study aims to use

random sampling technique in non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State to ascertain if

similar results will be derived.

A study by Hui, Lee and Rousseau (2004) investigated the impact of coworker relationships on

employee productivity. The study had a sample size of 150 employees and used a purposive

sampling method. Data was collected through surveys and analyzed using structural equation

modeling. The results showed that positive coworker relationships were associated with higher

levels of employee productivity. However, the study used a purposive sampling method which is

judgmental and selective techniques but this study aims to use random sampling technique to

ascertain if similar results will be derived.

A meta-analysis by Gerstner and Day (1997) examined the impact of social exchange

relationships (including supervisor-subordinate, coworker, and leader-member exchange

relationships) on employee productivity. The meta-analysis included 94 studies with a total

sample size of over 22,000 employees. The studies used various sampling methods and data

collection techniques. The results showed that positive social exchange relationships were

39
associated with higher levels of employee productivity. However this study only aimed to prove

one of the theories behind employee relationship, knowledge sharing and employee productivity,

but this study will bring the knowledge based theory and social capital theory into effect while

carrying out an extensive research on non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State.

A study conducted by Kacmar and Ferris (1991) examined the impact of supervisor-subordinate

relationships on employee productivity. The study had a sample size of 259 employees and used

a random sampling method. Data was collected through surveys and analyzed using regression

analysis. The results showed that positive supervisor-subordinate relationships were associated

with higher levels of employee productivity. Although, the study has similar methodology with

the current study, this study will be carried out on non-quoted manufacturing firms and also

examine the impact of employee-employee relationships on productivity.

2.3.2 Knowledge Sharing and Employees Productivity

A study by Oyedele (2020) used a sample size of 259 surveyed healthcare workers from three

hospitals in Nigeria. This study utilized purposive sampling to select participants from the three

hospital. The authors collected data through a self-administered questionnaire and used

regression analysis to analyze the data. The study found a positive relationship between

knowledge sharing and employee productivity, with knowledge sharing significantly predicting

job performance, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, the research was not

conducted in non-quoted manufacturing firms, therefore, this study aims to carry out its research

in non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State using simple random sampling techniques and

regression data analysis method.

40
A study by Alkubaisi et al. (2019) examined knowledge sharing and its effect on employee

productivity in public sector organisations in Malaysia using a sample size of 326 employees

from three public sector organizations. The study used a convenience sampling and collected

data via questionnaires which was analysed using structural equation modeling. The study found

a positive relationship between knowledge sharing and employee productivity. However this

study will be conducted on non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State using a random

sampling technique to check if knowledge sharing have effects on the productivity of employees

from other sector of organisation or firms.

A study by Azam (2019) reviewed the impact of knowledge sharing on employee productivity of

employee in the banking sector. This study surveyed 300 employees from six banks in Pakistan

and utilized convenience sampling to select participants from the six banks. The author collected

data through a self-administered questionnaire and used structural equation modeling to analyze

the data. The study found a positive relationship between knowledge sharing and employee

productivity, indicating that knowledge sharing practices improve employee performance, job

satisfaction, and organisational commitment. However, a similar research will be conducted in

non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State using simple random sampling techniques and

regression data analysis method to check if similar results will be gotten.

A study Kumar et al. (2017) investigated the impact of knowledge sharing on employee

productivity in manufacturing sector using a sample size of 204 employees from various

manufacturing firms in India. The method of sampling was simple random sampling and data

was collected using questionnaires which was later analysed using structural equation modeling.

The study found a positive relationship between knowledge sharing and employee productivity.

The study was conducted on firms in the manufacturing sector using both quoted and non-quoted

41
manufacturing firms as their sample population, this study will be conducted solely in non-

quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State using a random sampling technique to check if

knowledge sharing have effects on the productivity of employees.

A study by Osibanjo et al. (2016) aimed to explore the impact of knowledge sharing on

employee productivity in a pharmaceutical company in Nigeria. The sample size of the study

was 216 employees and the method of sampling was stratified sampling. Data were collected

using stratified sampling via the use of questionnaires which was later analysed using multiple

regression analysis. The study found a positive relationship between knowledge sharing and

employee productivity. However, the research was conducted in just one firm and this study will

be using a different method of sampling to conduct the research in more than one non-quoted

manufacturing firm in Osun State.

Another study by Al-Swidi et al. (2014)on knowledge sharing, trust and employee productivity

was conducted using a sample size of 270 employees from various organisations in Saudi

Arabia. The method of sampling was convenience sampling and data collection was done using

questionnaires. The method of data analysis was structural equation modeling. The study found a

positive relationship between knowledge sharing and employee productivity. However, this

study will be using a different sampling and data analysis technique which is random sampling

technique and regression data analysis method to conduct the research on non-quoted

manufacturing firms in Osun State.

2.3.3 Employee Relationships, Knowledge Sharing and Employee Productivity.

42
There have also been numerous empirical studies on the link between employee relationship,

knowledge sharing and employee productivity, using different sample sizes, methods of

sampling, data collection and analysis.

A study by Zhang and Guo (2020) on the impact of social interaction on knowledge sharing and

employee productivity used a sample size of 342 employees from various companies in China.

Convenience sampling method was used and data were collected using questionnaires. The study

made use of structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyse the data and the study found that

social interaction positively influences knowledge sharing among employees, which in turn

enhances employee productivity. This study will be conducted in non-quoted manufacturing

companies in Osun State to check the impact that employee relationship and effective knowledge

sharing has on the productivity of employees in that sector using simple random sampling

techniques and regression data analysis method.

A study by Chen et al. (2020) aimed at investigating the impact of employee relationships and

knowledge sharing on team productivity using a sample size of 10 teams with 50 employees

from a manufacturing firm. Purposive sampling was used and data was collected through

observations, interviews and survey questionnaire. Method of data analysis was content analysis,

social network analysis and the study found that positive employee relationships fostered

knowledge sharing within teams, which in turn positively influenced team productivity. The

analysis also revealed that teams with higher levels of trust and open communication exhibited

higher levels of knowledge sharing and productivity. Although the study looked into two

elements i.e. trust and communication to draw a conclusion , this study will be looking at a

variety of other elements to ascertain if the same positive result will be gotten if conducted in

43
non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun state using simple random technique and regression

data analysis.

Similarly, a study was conducted by Xu and Wang (2019) on the influence of employee

relationship on job performance using a sample size of 328 employees from Chinese

manufacturing companies. The study used stratified random sampling and questionnaire to

collect data. The method of data analysis was hierarchical regression analysis. Although the

study found that employee relationships have a positive impact on job performance, and that this

impact is partially mediated by knowledge sharing, a similar research will be conducted in non-

quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State using random sampling method, questionnaire and

regression data analysis method to test the impact that employees relationship and knowledge

sharing has on employees productivity.

Kim and Lee (2018) also conducted a research on the analysis of employee relationships and its

impact on knowledge sharing and innovation using a sample size of 92 employees from a South

Korean software company. Purposive sampling and survey questionnaire and social network

analysis were used in the sampling and data collection procedure. Multiple regression analysis

was used to analyse the data gotten and the study found that employee relationships positively

influence knowledge sharing and innovation. However, a research similar to this will be carried

out in non-manufacturing firms in Osun State using random sampling techniques and regression

data analysis method to test these hypotheses and check if those factors also have effects on the

productivity of employees in the manufacturing sector.

Park and Lee (2017) in their study of the effects of coworker relationships on employee

productivity found that coworker relationships have a positive impact on employee productivity,

and that this impact increases over time. The study also found that the positive impact of

44
coworker relationships on employee productivity is greater when employees have higher levels

of emotional intelligence. The study used a sample size of 288 employees from a South Korean

manufacturing company via random sampling and questionnaires was used to collect data.

Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to analyses data but this study will be using

similar data collection techniques but use regression analysis method to analyse data to check if

similar results will be gotten in non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State and also check if

this impact increases over time and what are the elements that contributes to this.

2.4 Conceptual Framework

This study is aimed at the evaluation of the relationships of the employees and knowledge

sharing of employees in non-quoted manufacturing firms. Also this study explores the

correlations between employee relationships and knowledge sharing with employee productivity.

The conceptual framework developed to describe the relationships between these variables is

shown in Figure 2.1

EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

communication
respect and
teamwork and
conflict
work-life
equality and
EMPLOYEE
KNOWLEDGE SHARING PRODUCIVITY

45
 organisational culture
trust
communication
channels
leadership and
management support
documentation and
knowledge
Figure 2.1

The conceptual framework for understanding the impact of employee relationships and

knowledge sharing on employee productivity can be outlined as follows:

Independent Variables:

a. Employee Relationships: This refers to the quality of social interactions, trust, communication,

and cooperation among employees within an organization. It includes factors such as

communication, respect and recognition, team work and collaboration, conflict resolution, work-

life balance, equality and fairness.

b. Knowledge Sharing: This represents the processes and practices through which employees

exchange, transfer, and utilize knowledge within the organisation. It includes both explicit

knowledge (codified information, documents) and tacit knowledge (personal experiences,

expertise).

Dependent Variable:

Employee Productivity: This is the outcome variable that measures the effectiveness and

efficiency of employees' work performance. It encompasses indicators such as task completion,

quality of work, meeting deadlines, innovation, and overall organisational performance.

46
The proposed conceptual framework suggests that strong employee relationships and effective

knowledge sharing positively influence employee productivity. This relationship may be

mediated by the employees' ability to absorb knowledge and the social capital within the

organization. By examining these variables and their relationships, organisations can better

understand and enhance the factors that drive employee productivity through effective employee

relationships and knowledge sharing.

2.5 Gap in Literature

While there is a significant body of research on employee-employer relationships, knowledge

sharing, and employee productivity, there are still several research gaps in these areas. Most of

the past research has only focused on either one of the independent variable i.e. employee

relationship or knowledge sharing but this research aims to combine the two variables and

examine its impact on employee productivity.

Although there has been research on the role of some determinants in employee relationships,

knowledge sharing and employees productivity, there is a need for more research that explores

the impact of individual differences such as personality traits, values, and attitudes and also

factors such as trust, communication and leadership. For example, a review by Chiaburu and

Harrison (2008) found that personality traits such as openness to experience and agreeableness

were positively related to knowledge sharing behaviors.

A study by Gerstner (1997) examined the impact of social exchange theory on the productivity

of employees leaving out the knowledge based theory and theory of social capital. This research

aims to bring the whole theories into observation and study how they all have effect on fostering

47
positive employee relationships and knowledge sharing among employees and how these

improve general organisational productivity.

Also, most of the past research did not concentrate on how employee relationship, knowledge

sharing affects the productivity of employees in non-quoted manufacturing firms, this research

aims to make non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun state its area of focus.

Research has shown that employee-employer relationships, knowledge sharing, and productivity

can be influenced by organisational and environmental factors. A study by Jang et al. (2013)

found that the impact of leadership on knowledge sharing behaviors was influenced by

organisational culture. However, there is a need for more research that explores how these

factors interact to affect these relationships and behaviors.

Overall, while there has been significant research on employee-employer relationships,

knowledge sharing, and productivity, there are still several research gaps in these areas that need

to be addressed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of these important organisational

phenomena.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

48
This chapter explains the area of study, research design, population, sample size and sampling

technique, research instrument, validity and reliability of the research instrument, data collection

procedure and data analysis technique used in the study in order to achieve the objectives of the

study.

3.1 Area of Study

The area of study was Osun State with a population 3.4 million people according to the 2006

census andwas forecasted to have a population of 4.7 million people in 2016 is strategically

positioned in Nigeria. It is home to many non-quoted manufacturing firms and one of the

neighboring states to Lagos state, the economic hub of Nigeria, which offers numerous business

opportunities and a large consumer base. Osun State has been making significant investments in

infrastructure development and the government has been working on improving road networks,

electricity supply, and access to water, which are crucial for the smooth functioning of

manufacturing operations. Osun State boasts abundant natural resources, including agricultural

products such as cocoa, timber, palm produce, and mineral resources like gold, granite and

limestone which serve as raw materials for various manufacturing processes, enabling companies

to source inputs locally and reduce production costs. Osun State presents several advantages for

non-quoted manufacturing firms. Hence this study was conducted in Osun State to focus on the

impact of employees’ relationship, knowledge sharing on the productivity of employees in non-

quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State.

3.2 Research Design

49
The study used a cross-sectional research design to extract data from employees working in non-

quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State, Nigeria. A cross-sectional design will enable the

researcher to obtain data at a single point in time, making it possible to examine the relationship

between the variables of interest. The research investigates the impact of employees’

relationship, knowledge sharing on the productivity of employees in non-quoted manufacturing

firms in Osun State.

3.3 Population, Sample Size and Sampling Technique

3.3.1 Population of the Study

The target population of this study is 100 employees in non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun

State. These firms will be chosen randomly from cities in Osun State.

3.3.2 Sample Size

A total of 100 employees from non-quoted manufacturing firms will be the study sample size for

the survey.

3.3.3 Sampling Technique

The researcher made use of simple random sampling technique to choose the sample size for the

study. This is because simple random technique provides each member of a population an equal

and independent chance of being selected for a sample, this ensures that the sample is

representative of the entire population, minimizing bias and allowing for generalization of the

findings

50
3.4 Model Specification

The model below was used to examine the effect of employees’ relationship, knowledge sharing

on employees’ productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State.

3.4.1Employees’ Productivity and Employees’ Relationship

Employees’ productivity (EP) is a function of employees’ relationship (ER). The employees’

relationship model is hereby stated below;

EP= ƒ (ER)

EP= ƒ (communication, respect and recognition, team work, conflict resolution, work-life

balance, equality and fairness)

EP= βₒ+ β 1 CO 1+ β 2 R R1+ β 3 TW 1+ β 4 CR 1+ β 5 WL 1+ β 6 EF 1+ε 1

Where; EP= Employees’ Productivity

ER= Employees’ Relationship

β 0 = Constant term

β 1... β 6= Coefficient of independent variables.

ε 1= Stochastic error term

CO= Communication

RR= Respect and Recognition

TW= Teamwork

CR= Conflict Resolution

51
WL= Work-Life Balance

EF= Equality and Fairness

3.4.2 Employees’ Productivity and Knowledge Sharing

Employees’ productivity is a function of knowledge sharing (KS). The knowledge sharing model

is hereby stated below;

EP= ƒ (KS)

EP = ƒ (organizational culture, trust, communication channels, leadership & management

support, documentation and knowledge preservation)

EP= βₒ+ β 1 OC 1 + β 2 T R 1+ β 3 CC 1+ β 4 LM 1+ε 1

Where; EP= Employees’ Productivity

KS= Knowledge Sharing

β 1 = Constant term

β 1... β 4= Coefficient of independent variables.

ε 1= Stochastic error term

OC= Organizational culture

TR= Trust

CC= Communication channels

LM= Leadership and management support

3.4.3 Employees’ Productivity, Employees’ Relationship and Knowledge Sharing

52
Employees’ productivity (EP) is a function of Employees’ relationship (ER) and Knowledge

sharing (KS). The employees’ relationship and knowledge sharing model is hereby stated below;

EP= ƒ (ER) + (KS)

EP= ƒ (communication, respect and recognition, team work, conflict resolution, work-life

balance, equality and fairness) + ƒ (organizational culture, trust, communication channels,

leadership & management support)

EP= βₒ+ β 1 CO 1 O C 1+ β 2 R R1 TR1+ β 3 TW 1 CC 1+ β 4 CR1 LM 1+ β 5 WL 1+ β 6 EF 1+ε 1

Where; EP= Employees’ Productivity

ER= Employees’ Relationship

KS= Knowledge Sharing

β 0 = Constant term

β 1... β 6= Coefficient of independent variables.

ε 1= Stochastic error term

CO= Communication

OC= Organizational culture

RR= Respect and Recognition

TR= Trust

TW= Teamwork

CC= Communication channels

53
CR= Conflict Resolution

LM= Leadership and management support

WL= Work-Life Balance

EF= Equality and Fairness

3.5 Measurement of Variables.

This research has two sets of variables; the dependent variable and the independent variables.

The dependent variable for the study is the employees’ productivity of non-quoted

manufacturing firms in Osun State. Employees’ productivity was measured by work

environment, job satisfaction, motivation, leadership, training & development and technology. A

5-point Likert scale was utilized to assess the productivity of employees with 1 weighing the

lowest and 5 weighing the highest.

The employees’ relationship and knowledge sharing are the independent variables of the study

and were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Employee relationship was measured by

communication, respect and recognition, team work, conflict resolution, work-life balance,

equality and fairness as indicators while knowledge sharing was also measured by organizational

culture, trust, communication channels, leadership and management support.

3.6 Research Instrument

The questionnaires will be divided into five (5) sections to address each objective and provide

answers to the research questions:

SECTION A of the questionnaire contains question related to demographic characteristics of the

respondent such as age of the respondent, gender of the respondent, marital status of the

54
respondent, academic qualification of the respondent and the number of years the respondent has

spent in the firm.

SECTION B focuses on the factors that facilitate employees’ relationship which includes

communication, respect and recognition, team work and collaboration, conflict resolution, work-

life balance, equality and fairness.

SECTION C focuses on the elements of knowledge sharing which includes organizational

culture, trust, communication channels, leadership and management support, documentation and

knowledge preservation.

SECTION D includes questions to capture employees’ relationship factors affecting the

productivity of employees.

SECTION E captured questions on knowledge sharing factors that has an impact on the

productivity of the employees.

SECTION A, B,C,D,E response option of the instrument were based on 5-point Likert scale

format; 5-Strongly agree, 4-Agree, 3-Neutral, 2-Disagree, 1-Strongly Disagree.

3.7 Validity and Reliability of Research Instrument

The researcher used both face and content visibility to ascertain the validity of the research

instrument. The project supervisor evaluated the validity of the research instrument.

Cooper and Schindler (2008) recommended that pre-test of the research instrument should be

10% of the target population. The pre-test of the questionnaires was conducted on SMEs at the

New Market of OAU, Ile-Ife to ensure it passed the reliability test with at least overall score of

0.7, indicating that it should be used for the survey. The questionnaires was pre-tested to check

55
whether the questionnaire is understandable by the respondents, whether the response form

would effectively address the data needed for the research and identify difficulties respondents

would encounter in completing the questionnaire.

3.8 Data Analysis Technique

Objective One: The first objective is to examine the relationship between employees’

relationship and employees’ productivity among non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State

and this was achieved using inferential statistics

Objective Two: The second objective is to evaluate the effect of knowledge sharing on the

productivity of employees in non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State and this was

achieved using inferential statistics

Objective Three: The third objective is to determine the relationship between employees’

relationship, knowledge sharing and employees’ productivity among non-quoted manufacturing

firms in Osun state using inferential statistics.

56
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS, INTEPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with the result of the analysis and interpretation in line with the objectives,

research questions/hypothesis postulated for the study. The data were coded and analyzed with

descriptive statistical techniques using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)

Version 25.0. Data collected were analyzed based on the responses received from the

respondents.

4.1 Response Rate

A total of 100 were distributed but only 90 were filled and returned. After sorting out the

questionnaires and finding out that all are useable, the analysis in this chapter is based on the

available sample size of 90.

Table 4.1: Response rate

57
Questionnaire Total %
Distributed 100 100%
Filled and Returned 90 90%
Not Returned 10 10%
Therefore the response rate of the questionnaire used for this analysis is 90%

4.2 Socio-demographic Characteristics

This involves the analysis of various socio-economic characteristics of employees that influence

the organizational productivity of employees in manufacturing firms in Osun State, Nigeria.

These among others include, gender, age, years in firm, marital status and academic

qualifications.

Table 4.2 Respondents’ Socio-demographic Characteristics

Variables Frequency Percentage

N=90 (%)
Gender
Male 60 66.7
Female 30 33.3
Age
Less than 20 years 01 1.1
20-39 years 39 43.3
40-59 years 50 55.6

58
Marital status
Single 22 24.4
Married 67 74.4
Divorced 01 1.1
Years in firm
1-4 years 29 32.2
5-9 years 28 31.1
10-14 years 29 32.2
15 years and above 04 4.4
Academic qualification
SSCE 04 4.4
OND/NCE 18 20
HND/BSC 55 61.1
MSC/MA 13 14.5
Source: Field Survey, 2023
Table 4.2 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, it showed that 66.7%

of the respondents were male and 33.3% were females. 74.4% are married, 61.1% of the

respondents had HND/BSC academic qualification. 55.6%of the respondents are within the age

range of 40-59 years, and 32.2%of the respondents had worked in their current firm for 10-14

years, and same percentage had worked for 1-4 years.

59
4.3Perception of Respondents on Employee Relationship

Variables SA A NEUTRAL D SD Mean SD Decision

F (%) F (%) F (%) F F
(%) (%)
Communication
Build great rapport 64 19 04 (4.4) 02 01 4.59 .77 High
between employees (71.1) (21.1) (2.2) (1.1) perception
in the organization
Keeps everyone on 35 45 06 (6.7) 4 4.23 .76 Low
the same page and (38.9) (50) (4.4) perception
create healthy
working environment
Improves employee 63 (70) 23 4 4.61 .71 High
commitment and job (25.6) (4.4) perception
satisfaction
Respect and Recognition
Improves 50 33 07 (7.8) 4.47 .64 Low
communication (55.6) (36.7) perception
among employees
Encourages and 51 34 04 (4.4) 01 4.50 .64 High
motivates employees (56.7) (37.8) (1.1) perception
Helps to show the 50 37 03 4.49 .67 Low
value of employees (55.6) (41.1) (3.3) perception
Teamwork
Makes organizational 53 34 03 (3.3) 4.55 .56 High
goal achievement (58.9) (37.8) perception
easier
Improves creativity 47 36 04 (4.4) 03 4.41 .73 Low
(52.2) (40) (3.3) perception
Creates space for 52 33 03 02 4.44 .85 Low
personal (57.8) (36.7) (3.3) (2.2) perception
development
Conflict Resolution

60
Reduces disputes and 46 35 03 (3.3) 06 4.34 .84 Low
clash of interest (51.1) (38.9) (6.7) perception
Maintains orderliness 57 26 06 (6.7) 01 4.54 .67 High
in the organization (63.3) (28.9) (1.1) perception
Better employee 52 34 03 (3.3) 01 4.52 .62 High
engagements (57.8) (37.8) (1.1) perception
Work-Life Balance
Reduces stress and 52 35 02 (2.2) 01 4.53 .60 High
the changes of burn (57.8) (38.9) (1.1) perception
out
Prevents interference 46 41 2 (2.2) 01 4.47 .60 Low
of work in the (51.1) (45.6) (1.1) perception
personal life and
responsibilities of
employees
Lowers absenteeism 59 27 02 (2.2) 02 4.58 .65 High
(65.6) (30) (2.2) perception
Equality and Fairness
There is absence of 57 30 03 (3.3) 4.60 .56 High
discrimination in the (63.3) (33.3) perception
firm
All employees have 57 32 01 (1.1) 4.62 .51 High
equal rights and (63.3) (35.6) perception
opportunities
regardless of their
background or
personal
circumstances.
Boost collaboration 58 28 03 (3.3) 01 4.59 .61 High
(64.4) (31.1) (1.1) perception

Notes: SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N= Neutral D= Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree

Weighted Mean=81/18=4.50

Weighted SD= 12.06/18=0.67

61
Source: Field Survey, 2023

Table 4.3 shows the employees’ relationship factors, which were addressed under different

domains. Based on communication, 71.1% of the respondents strongly agreed that

communication builds great rapport between employees in the organisation, and as well 70% of

the respondents strongly agreed that communication improves employees’ commitment and job

satisfaction, 50% of the respondents agreed that communication keeps everyone on the same

page and create healthy working environment.

55.6% of the respondents strongly agreed that respect and recognition improve communication

among employees, 56.7% strongly agreed that respect and recognition encourages and motivates

them and also, 55.6% of the respondents strongly agreed that it helps to show the value of

employees. Based on teamwork, 58.9% of the respondents strongly agreed that teamwork makes

organizational goal achievement easier, improves creativity (52.2%); and creates space for

personal development (57.8%).

On conflict resolution, 63.3% of the respondents strongly agreed that conflict resolution helps

maintain orderliness in the organization, and 51.1% of the respondents were of the opinion that

conflict resolution reduces disputes, clash of interests (51.1%) and helps better employee

engagements (57.8%). Work-Life balance was believed 57.8% of the respondents to help reduce

stress and chances of burn out, prevents interference if work in the personal life and

responsibilities of employees (51.1%), and 65.6% of the respondents also strongly agreed that it

helps to lower absenteeism.

Based on equality and fairness, 63.3% of the respondents strongly agreed that where there is

equality and fairness, there is absence of discrimination in the firm, all employees have equal

62
right and opportunities regardless of their background or personal circumstances (63.3%), and it

helps boost collaboration among employees (64.4%)

4.4Respondents Perception of Knowledge Sharing

Variables SA A NEUTRAL D SD Mean SD Decision

F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F
(%)
Organizational culture
Provides support 66 21 01 (1.1) 02 0 (0 ) 4.68 .61 High
(73.3) (23.3) (2.2) perception
Promotes a learning 49 40 0 (0) 0 (0) 01 4.51 .62 High
environment (54.4) (44.4) (1.1) perception
Encourages 59 28 02 (2.2) 01 4.60 .65 High
innovation and (65.6) (31.1) (1.1) perception
creativity
Trust
Improves the 52 37 01 (1.1) 4.57 .52 High
willingness to (57.8) (41.1) perception
confide in others
Reduces the fear of 56 30 02 (2.2) 02 4.56 .66 High
losing one’s unique (62.2) (33.3) (2.2) perception
value
Fosters favorable 52 36 (40) 02 4.53 .62 High
team culture (62.2) (2.2) perception
Communication Channels
Makes knowledge 56 30 04 (4.4) 4.58 .58 High
sharing in the (62.2) (33.3) perception
organization easier
and reduces
bottlenecks
Helps to provide a 55 29 06 (6.7) 4.54 .62 High
feedback mechanism (61.1) (32.2) perception

63
Helps to keep 50 36 (40) 03 (3.3) 01 4.50 .62 High
interaction organized (55.6) (1.1) perception

Leadership and Management Support

Empowers 63 (70) 26 01 (1.1) 4.69 .49 High
employees to interact (28.9) perception
and relate with each
other
Provides support, 62 26 02 (2.2) 4.66 .52 High
recognition and (68.9) (28.9) perception
reward for
employees who
participate in
knowledge sharing
activities
Encourages 65 24 01 (1.1) 4.70 .53 High
continuous learning (72.2) (26.7) perception
among employees
Notes: SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N= Neutral D= Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree

Weighted Mean= 55.12/12=4.4

Weighted SD= 6.96/12= 0.58

Source: Field Survey, 2023

Table 4.4 shows respondents’ perception on Knowledge Sharing. 73.3% of the respondents

strongly agreed that organizational culture provides support, 65.6%of the respondents also

strongly agreed that organizational culture encourages innovation and creativity, and 54.4%

strongly agreed that it promotes learning environment. Based on trust, 62.2% of the respondents

strongly agreed and believed that trust reduces fear of losing one’s unique value and fosters

favorable team culture, 57.8%of the respondents strongly agreed that trust improves the

willingness to confide in others.

64
Based on communication channels, 62.2% of the respondents strongly agreed that it makes

knowledge sharing in the organization easier and reduces bottlenecks, 61.1% of the respondents

strongly agreed that the appropriate communication channels provides a feedback mechanism,

and 55.6% strongly agreed that it helps to keep interaction organized. Also, 70% of the

respondents strongly agreed that leadership and management support empower employees to

interact and relate with each other, 72.2% of the respondents strongly agreed that it also

encourages continuous learning among employees, and 68.9% of the respondents strongly agreed

that it provides support recognition and reward for employees who participate in knowledge

sharing activities.

4.5 Employees’ Relationship and Employees’ Productivity

Table 4.5 Respondents’ Perception on Employee’s Relationship and Productivity

Variables SA A NEUTRA D SD Mean SD Decision

L
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
F (%)
Communication
It is a 46 39 03 (3.3) 02 4.48 .58 Low
contributing (51.1) (43.3) (2.2) perception
factor to
employee
engagement
and
productivity
Improves 46 39 03 (3.3) 02 4.43 .67 Low
employees’ (51.1) (43.3) (2.2) perception
performance
Respect and Recognition
Respected and 53 34 03 (3.3) 4.55 .56 High
recognized (58.9) (37.8) perception
employees are

65
motivated to
improve their
productivity
Poor self- 50 36 (40) 03 (3.3) 01 4.50 .62 Low
esteem will (55.6) (1.1) perception
affect
employees’
productivity
Teamwork
Individuals are 46 37 06 (6.7) 01 4.42 .67 Low
able to improve (51.1) (41.1) (1.1) perception
on the
performance
and standards
Increases 55 34 01 (1.1) 4.60 .51 High
planning skills (61.1) (37.8) perception
employee
motivation and
employee
productivity
Conflict Resolution
Absence of 59 23 06 (6.7) 02 4.54 .72 High
conflict boosts (65.6) (25.6) (2.2) perception
productivity
Improves 48 42 01 4.51 .56 Low
performance (53.3) (45.6) (1.1) perception
by encouraging
merging of
innovations
towards goal
achievement
Work-Life balance

Increases 57 28 05 (5.6) 4.57 .59 High

motivation to (63.3) (31.1) perception
achieve goals
and boosts

66
overall
productivity
Eliminates 53 36 (40) 01 4.57 .56 High
stress and (58.9) (1.1) perception
challenges that
might hinder
employees’
productivity
Equality and Fairness
Appropriate 56 31 03 (3.3) 4.59 .56 High
and fair (62.2) (34.4) perception
treatment is
key to
improved
productivity
Increases 50 36 (40) 03 (3.3) 01 4.50 .62 Low
employees’ (55.6) (1.1) perception
engagements,
retention and
motivation to
be productive
Notes: SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N= Neutral D= Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree

Weighted Mean = 54.2/12= 4.52

Weighted SD= 5.99/12= 0.50

Source: Field survey, 2023

Table 4.5 shows the respondents’ perception on effect of employees’ relationship and their

productivity. 51.1% of the respondents strongly agreed that communication is a contributing

factor to employee engagement and productivity, as it helps improve employee performance.

Based on respect and recognition, 58.9% of the respondents also strongly agreed that respected

and recognized employees are motivated to improve their productivity and 55.6% of the

67
respondents strongly agreed poor self-esteem will affect employees’ productivity. On team work,

61.1% of the respondents strongly agreed that teamwork increases planning skills, employees’

motivation and employee productivity and 51.1% strongly agreed that individuals are able to

improve on their performance standards through team work.

Based on conflict resolution, 65.6% of the respondents strongly agreed that absence of conflicts

boosts productivity, and 53.3% of the respondents strongly agreed that it improves performance

by encouraging merging of innovations towards goal achievement. On work-life balance, most

63.3% of the respondents strongly agreed that work-life balance increases motivation to achieve

goals and boosts overall productivity, and also eliminates stress and challenges that might hinder

employees’ productivity 58.9%. Based on equality and fairness, 62.2% of the respondents

strongly agreed that appropriate and fair treatment is key to improved productivity, and also

55.6% of the respondents strongly agreed that equality and fairness increases employees’

engagement, retention and motivation to be productive.

4.6 Knowledge Sharing and Employees’ Productivity.

Table 4.6 Respondents’ Perception on Effect of Knowledge sharing on Employees’

Productivity

Variables SA A NEUTRAL D SD Mean SD Decision

F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
Organizational culture
Poor organizational 45 (50) 43 02 (2.2) 4.45 .62 Low
culture will affect (47.8) perception
productivity

68
Supports and 45 (50) 42 02 (2.2) 01 (1.1) 4.45 .60 Low
encourages improved (46.7) perception
performance
Trust
Lack of trust among 60 29 01 (1.1) 4.65 .50 High
employee will affect (66.7) (32.2) perception
employee productivity
Helps to build reliance 52 35 02 (2.2) 01 (2.2) 4.53 .60 High
and confidence in (57.8) (38.9) perception
others which is key to
improving
productivity
Communication channels
A well-structured 61 24 03 (3.3) 02 (2.2) 4.60 .67 High
communication (67.8) (26.7) perception
channels helps sharing
of ideas and
innovations which will
affect performance

Effective sharing of 42 43 04 (4.4) 01 (1.1) 4.40 .63 Low

knowledge is a (46.7) (47.8) perception
prerequisite to
improved productivity

Leadership and Management Support

Helps employees to 57 31 01 (1.1) 01 (1.1) 4.57 .67 High

perform outstandingly (63.3) (34.4) perception

69
Sets standards for 62 24 02 (2.2) 02 (2.2) 4.62 .65 High
employee productivity (68.9) (26.7) perception

Notes: SA= Strongly Agree; A= Agree; N= Neutral D= Disagree; SD= Strongly Disagree

Weighted mean=36.27/8=4.53

Weighted SD= 4.94/8= 0.62

Source: Field survey, 2023

Table 4.6 shows respondents’ perception on the effect of knowledge sharing on employees’

productivity. Half of the respondents strongly agreed that poor organizational culture will affect

productivity, and good organizational culture supports and encourages improved performance.

Also, trust was strongly agreed 66.7% of the respondents that its absence tend to affect

employees’ productivity, but if present, helps to build reliance and confidence in others which is

the key to improving productivity was strongly agreed by 57.8% of the respondents.

67.8% of the respondents also strongly agreed that communication channels help sharing of ideas

and innovation which will affect performance and 47.8% of the respondents agreed that effective

sharing of knowledge is prerequisite to improved productivity. On leadership and management

support, 63.3% of the respondents believed that it helps employees to perform outstandingly and

68.9% of the respondents strongly agreed that leadership and management support helps to set

standards for employee productivity.

4.7 Reliability of the Instrument

Cronbach’s coefficient alphas were computed for each dimension to determine the internal

consistency reliability of the research instruments used in the study. Table 4.6 shows the

70
Cronbach’s Alpha values for the variables of the study. According to Nunnally et al, (1994), the

value of 0.60 is considered as in the lower limit of acceptability for Cronbach’s alpha. As shown

in Table 4.6, all variables in this study had the alpha values of 0.842 to 0.904 which were all

above 0.60. This indicates a good standard of reliability that is supported with the viewpoint of

the higher the degree of consistency and stability in an instrument, the higher the reliability

(Moser & Kalton, 1989).

Table 4.7

Variables Dimension Cronbach’s Cronbach’ Remark

Alpha s Alpha
(Dimension)
Employees’ Communication 0.782 0.904 18items Excellent
relationship evaluated
Respect and 0.490 with a scale
recognition ranging from
1(strongly
Teamwork 0.703
disagreed) to
Conflict 0.738 5(strongly
resolution agreed)

Work-life 0.583
balance
Equality and 0.476
fairness
Knowledge Organizational 0.726 0.869 12items Excellent
sharing culture evaluated
with a scale
Trust 0.738
ranging from
1(strongly
Communication 0.569 disagreed) to
channels 5(strongly
agreed)
Leadership and 0.568
management
support

71
Employees’ 0.886 12items Excellent
relationship and evaluated
Employees’ with a scale
productivity ranging from
1(strongly
disagreed) to
5(strongly
agreed)

Knowledge 0.842 08items Excellent

sharing and evaluated
Employees’ with a scale
productivity ranging from
1(strongly
disagreed) to
5(strongly
agreed)

Overall 0.961 50items Excellent

evaluated
with a scale
ranging from
1(strongly
disagreed) to
5(strongly
agreed)

Table 4.7 shows the reliability of the instrument for data collection. It showed that the internal

consistency of the instrument was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha test. The results showed

that employees’ relationship has 0.904; knowledge sharing has 0.869; employees’ productivity

based on employees’ relationship has 0.886, and employees’ productivity based on knowledge

sharing variable has Cronbach’s alpha result of 0.842. The overall internal consistency of

instrument result was 0.961, indicating that the instrument is reliable

72
4.8 Effect of Employee Relationship on the Employees’ Productivity

The causal-effect relationship between employee relationship and employees’ productivity was

determined with the use of simple linear regression. The results suggests that there is a positive

relationship between the two variable (R 2=0.212, p=0.000) at p < 0.05 and the unstandardized

coefficient (β) indicating that relationship among employees has effects on their productivity by

46%. R2=0.212 means 21.2% variations in employees’ productivity of non-quoted manufacturing

firms in Osun State can be explained by employee relationship.

Employee R2= 0.212, β= 0.460, p= .000 Employees’ Productivity

Relationship
The Fig. 4.8. above is the Regression analysis showing the causal-effect relationship between

Employee Relationship and Employee’s Productivity

4.8.1 Test of Hypothesis 1

For hypothesis 1 which states that employee relationship does not have a significant effect on

employees’ productivity, the R value indicates the linear relationship between the employee

relationship and employees’ productivity. The value .460 indicates the degree of correlation

between the two variables. The independent variable significantly predicts the productivity of the

employee in non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. F (1.87) =23.358, p < 0.05, which

indicates that the employee relationship under study have significant impact on employee

productivity. Moreover, R2 = 0.212 depicts that the model explains 21.2% of the variance in

employee productivity, the remaining 78.8% (100%-21.2%) is explained by other variables

which are not examined in this study. The result of the study concluded that employees’

73
relationship will attract increase in productivity of employees in non-quoted manufacturing firms

in Osun State.

Table 4.8: Model Summaryb

Std.
Error
Adjust of the
Mod R ed R Estima Durbin-
el R Square Square te Watson
1 .46 .2 .203 .44876 1.965
0a 1
2
a. Predictors: (Constant), employee relationship

b. Dependent Variable: employee productivity

The ANOVA results (Table 4.9) shows in that the value of F cal is 23.358 with significant value

of .000. The significant value is less than 0.05, which means that employee relationship have

impact on employees’ productivity (P < 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis that states that

employee relationship does not have significant effect on employees’ productivity is rejected and

the alternative hypothesis that employee relationship does have a significant effect on

employees’ productivity is accepted.

Table 4.9: ANOVAa

Sum of Mean
Square d Squa Sig
Model s f re F .
Regressio 4.704 1 4.704 23.3 .00
n 58 0b
Residual 17.521 8 .201
7

74
 Total 22.225 8
8
a. Dependent Variable: employee productivity

b. Predictors: (Constant), employee relationship

Source: Field Survey, 2023

The coefficient table (Table 4.10) provides regression results on the relationship between

employee relationship, knowledge sharing and employees’ productivity. The value 0.819 is the

intercept which can be used to formulate regression equation. Employee relationship value

shows that if employee relationship increased by 1, employees’ productivity will increase by

46.0%, while the value .460(standardized coefficients) implies that for every 1 standard

deviation movement of employee relationship, the more improved productivity employees

exhibit by 46.0%. The analysis shows that employees’ productivity is significantly affected by

employee relationship. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 4.10
Coefficientsa
Stan
dardi
zed
Coeff
Unstandardize icient
d Coefficients s
Std.
Err Sig
Model B or Beta T .
(Constant) .8 .15 5.38 .00
1 2 7 0
9

75
 Employee .4 .09 .460 4.83 .00
relationship 6 5 3 0
0
a. Dependent Variable: employee productivity
Source: Field Survey, 2023

4.9 Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Employees’ Productivity?

To examine whether there’s a relationship between knowledge sharing and employees’

productivity, the Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was applied to identify the nature of

relationship between the two variables. Table 4.11 revealed that there is a positive relationship

between Knowledge sharing and Employees’ productivity, with p<0.05 (r=0.260, p=0.015)

4.9.1 Test of Hypothesis 2

To test the null hypothesis which states that there’s no significant relationship between

knowledge sharing and employees’ productivity in non-quoted manufacturing companies in

Osun State, the variables that showed correlations with employee productivity were:

Organizational culture (P-value: 0.005): There was a significant positive correlation between

organizational culture and employee productivity. This suggests that focusing on organizational

culture can improve productivity of employees.

Trust (P-value: 0.000): This variable has a positive relationship with employee productivity.

Trust among employee is more likely to increase productivity level of respondents.

Leadership and management support (r=0.271, p=0.011) communication channels (r=0.173,

p=0.103) also has positive relationship effect on employees’ productivity.

Table 4.11: Correlation Analysis of the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and
Employees’ Productivity

76
 Knowledge Employees’
Sharing Productivity
Knowledge Pearson 1 .260*
Sharing Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .015
N 88 88
Employees’ Pearson .260* 1
Productivity Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .015
N 88 90
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 4.12 Correlation Analysis Showing the Relationship between Individual Knowledge

Sharing Drives and Employees’ Productivity

Knowledge Sharing Proxies Employees’ Productivity

Sig.
R (2-Tailed)

Organizational Culture 0.294 0.005

Trust 0.379 0.000
Communication Channels 0.173 0.103
Leadership and Management
0.271 0.011
Support
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.10 Impact of Employees’ Relationship and Knowledge Sharing on Employees’

Productivity.

To determine the relationship between employee relationship, knowledge sharing and

employees’ productivity, simple linear regression was used to determine the causal-effect

77
 relationship between the variables and the result suggests that there is a significant relationship

between the variables in Table 4.14. That is, there is significant relationship between employees’

relationship (R2=0.319, p=0.012) at p<0.05 and employees’ productivity and the unstandardized

coefficient (β=0.263) indicating that employee relationship impacts employees’ productivity by

26.3%. Also, there is a significant relationship between knowledge sharing (R 2=0.319, p=0.000)

at p<0.05 and employees’ productivity and the unstandardized coefficient (β=0.394) indicating

that knowledge sharing impact employees’ productivity by 39.4%.

4.10.1 Test of Hypothesis 3

For hypothesis 3, the R value indicates the linear relationship between the performance appraisal

and employees’ productivity. The value .565 indicates the degree of correlation between the two

variables. The independent variables significantly predict the productivity of the employee. F (2,

84) =19.684, p < 0.05, which indicates that knowledge sharing and employees’ relationship

under study have significant impact on employee productivity. Moreover, R 2 = 0.319 depicts that

the model explains 31.9% of the variance in employee productivity, the remaining 68.1% (100%-

31.9%) is explained by other variables which are not examined in this study. The result of the

study concluded that employees’ relationship and knowledge sharing among employee will

attract increase in productivity.

Table 4.13: Model summaryb

R Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R Square Square the Estimate Durbin-Watson

78
1 .565a .319 .303 .41919 1.631
a. Predictors: (Constant), knowledge sharing, employee relationship
b. Dependent variable: Employee productivity

The ANOVA results (Table 4.14) shows that the value of F cal is 19.684 with significant value

of .000. The significant value is less than 0.05, which means that employee relationship and

knowledge sharing have impact on employees’ productivity (P < 0.05). Therefore, the null

hypothesis that states that employee relationship and knowledge sharing does not have a

significant effect on employees’ productivity is rejected and the alternate hypothesis which states

that employee relationship and knowledge sharing has a significant effect on employees’

productivity is accepted.

Table 4.14: ANOVA

Sum R Durbi
of Mean squa n-
Squa Squar red Watso
Model res Df e F Sig. n
1 Regressio 6.918 2 3.459 0.31 19.6 .00 1.631
n 9 84 0b
Residual 14.76 84 .176
0
Total 21.67 87
8
The coefficient table (Table 4.15) provides regression results on the relationship between

employee relationship, knowledge sharing and employees’ productivity. The value 0.510 is the

intercept which can be used to formulate regression equation. Employee relationship value

shows that if employee relationship increased by 1, employees’ productivity will increase by

26.3% and if knowledge sharing among respondents increased by 1, employees’ productivity

will increase by 39.4%. While the value .263(standardized coefficients) implies that for every 1

79
standard deviation movement of employee relationship, the more productivity employees exhibit

by 26.3% and, the value .392 (standard deviation) implies that for every 1 standard deviation

movement of knowledge sharing among employee, the more productivity employees exhibit by

39.2%. The analysis shows that employees’ productivity is significantly and positively affected

by knowledge sharing and significantly affected by employee relationship. This is another

confirmation the null hypothesis is to be rejected while the alternate hypothesis which states that

employee relationship and knowledge sharing has a significant effect on employees’ productivity

is accepted.

Table 4.15: Coefficients

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) .510 .169 3.019 .003
Employee .263 .102 .263 2.580 .012
relationship
Knowledge .394 .103 .392 3.844 .000
Sharing
a. Dependent Variable: employee productivity

4.11 Discussion of Findings

The first objective examined the relationship between employee’s relationship and employees’

productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. The findings revealed that

employee relationship has a positive relationship with employee’ productivity (R 2=0.212,

p<0.05) which implies that if employee relationship is improved, there will be an increase in the

productivity of employees. This is in accordance with the findings of Quagraine (2010) who

80
asserted that active engagement and good relationship among the workers boost the confidence

in work activity and improves productivity.

Furthermore, for the second objective the study showed that knowledge sharing had a positive

relationship with employees’ productivity at (r=0.260, p=0.015). Organisational structure, trust,

communication channels, and leadership and management support were used to assess

respondents’ perception of the effect of knowledge sharing on their productivity. This finding is

in conformity with the results of the previous research conducted by Conelly et. al (2012), where

it was discovered that knowledge sharing positively affected employee productivity and

individual job performance. When employees willingly shared their knowledge and expertise

with others, it led to increased collaboration, problem-solving, and overall productivity within

the organisation.

Also for the third objective, this study shows that employee relationship and knowledge sharing

have impact on employees’ productivity (R2=0.319, p<0.05). This finding is in accordance with

the findings of a study conducted by De Long and Fahey (2000) and Wasko and Faraj (2005).

The aforementioned research studies collectively provided evidence that a positive employee

relationship and a culture of knowledge sharing within organisations are associated with

increased employee productivity. Also, the result of this finding supports the findings of a study

conducted by Ogunmokun, et al. (2020) among Nigerian employees where organizational culture

and trust serially mediates positive effect on their productivity. This simply implies that increase

in trust and organizational culture can cause an increase in employees’ productivity.

81
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes, concludes, makes recommendations about the findings of this study

and makes suggestions for further studies. This summary, conclusion and recommendations are

directly related to the data that was collected and analyzed.

5.1 Summary

The study examined the effect of employee relationship on employees’ productivity in non-

quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State and also investigated the relationship between

knowledge sharing and employees’ productivity among the firms. It also determined the impact

of employee relationship and knowledge sharing on employees’ productivity of non-quoted firms

in Osun State. These were with a view to understanding the combined effect of employee

relationship and knowledge sharing on employees’ productivity.

The study used descriptive survey research design. The data for the study were obtained from

primary source of data through the administration of structured questionnaire. The sample size

was 100 employees of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. Data on variables such as

communication, teamwork, conflict resolution, work-life balance, respect and recognition,

equality and fairness, organisational structure, trust, communication channels, leadership and

82
management support were extracted from employees of the firms. Data collected were analyzed

using percentages, mean, standard deviation, correlation and regression analysis.

The findings show that employee relationship (R2=0.212, β =0.460, p<0.05) has a positive

relationship with employee’ productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. Also,

the results show that knowledge sharing has a positive effect on employees’ productivity

(r=0.260, p=0.015). The results also show that employee relationship and knowledge sharing have an

impact on employee’ productivity (R 2=0.319, p<0.05) in non-quoted manufacturing firms in

Osun State.

5.2 Conclusion

The study examined the impact of employee relationship and knowledge sharing on employees’

productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. The study concluded that

employee relationship has a significant favorable effect on employees’ productivity of non-

quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. It also concluded that knowledge sharing based on

findings that a positive but relatively weak relationship exists between knowledge sharing and

employees’ productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State. Employee

relationship as well as Knowledge Sharing has a positive direct effect on employees’

productivity.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the researcher recommends the following to non-quoted

manufacturing firms:

a) Management of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun State should improve positive

and health relationship among employees in the firm to boost overall productivity

83
b) An organisational culture that encourages knowledge sharing should be adopted in non-

quoted manufacturing firm to en

c) Appropriate measures of employee relationship and knowledge sharing should be

adopted by non-quoted manufacturing firms to ensure that overall productivity can be

improved.

5.4 Limitations to the study

The researcher encountered some constraints while administering the questionnaire, such

includes controlled access to respondents of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun

State. Also, another constraint encountered by the researcher was the unwillingness of

some of the respondents to participate in the research and time constraint as well as

employees in the firms didn’t give quality time to attend to the survey.

Additionally, finding and locating the non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun state

brought about difficulties to the researcher, only a few of them could be located via the

internet, the researcher has to employ other means to get the locations of some of the

firms.

5.5 Suggestions for Further Studies

1. Further research can be carried by interested researchers on the 78.8% (employee

relationship) variation which were not captured in the models of this study.

2. A more comprehensive research can also be carried by interested researchers on the

74% (knowledge sharing) variation which were not captured in the models of this study.

3. Research can be carried among non-quoted manufacturing firms various places outside

Osun state where this study was originally conducted.

84
 4. Research can also be carried out on other sector of the economy in the State.

REFERENCES
Arthur, J. B., & Kim, D. (2005b). Gainsharing and knowledge sharing: the effects of labour–
management co-operation. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
16(9), 1564–1582.

Boon, C., Hartog, D. N. D., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011). The relationship between
perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role of person–
organisation and person–job fit. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
22(1), 138–162.

Borges, R. S. G. E. (2012). Tacit knowledge sharing between IT workers. Management Research

Review, 36(1), 89–108.

Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator Analysis of Employee Engagement: Role of
Perceived Organizational Support, P-O Fit, Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction. Vikalpa, 38(1), 27–40.

Cabrera, Á. J. R., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-Sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies,

23(5), 687–710.

Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment
and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740–753.

Castaneda, J. M., Japos, G. V., & Templonuevo, W. (2022). Effects of hybrid work model on
employees and staff’s work productivity: A literature review. JPAIR Multidisciplinary
Research, 50(1), 159–178.

Castelfranchi, C. (2004). Trust mediation in knowledge management and sharing. In Springer

eBooks (pp. 304–318).

Catania, A. C. (1999). Thorndike’s Legacy: Learning, Selection, and the Law of Effect. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72(3), 425–428.

Chiu, C., Hsu, M., & Wang, E. W. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual

85
 communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision
Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: a new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128.

Cummings, T. J., & Worley, C. G. (1975). Organization development and change.

De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(4), 113–127.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Business Horizons, 26(2), 82–85.

Fuller, J., Brown, L., Katou, M., &Dealny, J. (2016). Compensation Policy and Organizational
Performance: The Efficiency, Operational, and Financial Implications of Pay Levels and
Pay Structure, Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 752–762.

Gannon, D., & Boguszak, A. (2013). Douglads McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. CRIS:
Bulletin of the Centre for Research and Interdisciplinary Study, 2013(2), 85–93.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. (1995). Understanding and managing organizational behavior.

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social Behavior and the Administrative Process. The
School Review, 65(4), 423–441.

Gillenson, M. L., & Sanders, T. M. (2005). Employee Relationship Management: Applying the
concept of personalization to U.S. navy sailors. Information Systems Management, 22(1),
45–50.

Gold, A. S., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge Management: An Organizational
Capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214.

Gould-Williams, J. S. (2017). The Importance of HR Practices and Workplace Trust in

Achieving Superior Performance: A Study of Public-sector Organizations, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (1), 1– 27.

Hauberer, J. (2011). The founding concepts of social capital - Bourdieu’s Theory of Capital and
Coleman’s Rational-Choice Approach to Social Capital. In VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften eBooks (pp. 35–51).

Hendriks, P. H. J. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for
knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91–100.

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597–
606.

86
Hsu-Hsin, C., Tzu-Shian, H., &Ju-Sung, C. (2011).The relationship between high- commitment
HRM and knowledge-sharing behavior and its mediators, International Journal of
Manpower, 32(5), 604 – 622.

Ipe, M. (2003b). Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual framework. Human

Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359.

Ipe, M. (2003c). Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual framework. Human

Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359.

Jackson, S. E., Hitt, M. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2003). Managing knowledge for sustained
competitive advantage : designing strategies for effective human resource management.
In Jossey-Bass eBooks.

Kengatharan, N. (2019). A knowledge-based theory of the firm. International Journal of

Manpower, 40(6), 1056–1074.

Khan, G. (2012).Determinants of human resource priorities and implications for organizational

performance, Journal of Management, 20(2), 54-77.

Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2006). The impact of organizational context and information Technology on
Employee Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370–
385.

Le, P. T., & Lei, H. (2018). The mediating role of trust in stimulating the relationship between
transformational leadership and knowledge sharing processes. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 22(3), 521–537.

Le, P. T., & Lei, H. (2018b). Fostering knowledge sharing behaviours through ethical leadership
practice: the mediating roles of disclosure-based trust and reliance-based trust in
leadership. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 16(2), 183–195.

Lee, Y., & Kim, J. (2017). Authentic enterprise, organization-employee relationship, and
employee-generated managerial assets. Journal of Communication Management, 21(3),
236–253.

Lin, H. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study.
International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

Markham, Dow, & McKee, (2012) „Disentangling the Wage-Productivity Relationship:

Evidence from Select OECD Member Countries‟, International Advances in Economic
Research, 8, 314 23.

87
Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2006). The Relationship between Interpersonal Trust, Employee
Satisfaction, and Employee Loyalty. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
17(10), 1261–1271.

Memon, A. (2009). Human Capital: A Source of Competitive Advantage “Ideas for Strategic
Leadership. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(2), 234-241.

Michael, A (2005). Armstrong’s Handbook of Management and Leadership: Approaches to

HRM and L&D. Kogan Page Limited Publishing. United States

Millea, N. (2012). Simplified Method of Measuring Productivity Identifies Opportunities for

Increasing It. Industrial Engineering, Feb.

Mugenda, A., & Mugenda, O. (2013).Research Methods Quantitative and Qualitative

Approaches.(3rd Ed.). Nairobi: Acts Press Publishers.

Nonaka, I. (1998). The Knowledge-Creating company. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 175–187).

Nonaka, I., Ikujiro, N., Takeuchi, H., Nonaka, P. O. K. I., & Takeuchi, B. P. O. M. a. T. I. O. B.
R. H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new
perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), 1–20.

Nurrachman, Q. (2019). The Effect of Knowledge Sharing on Employee Performance.

Pattananayak, H. (2008). Human Resource Management (3rd Ed.). New Dehli: Prentice – Hall.

Pearce, J., & Robinson, R. Jr. (2007).Strategic Management (10th Edition.).McGraw- Hill
International Edition.

Pearce, N., & Peters, L. (2015). The Human Resource Architecture: Toward A Theory of Human
Capital Allocation and Development. Academy of Management Review, 14(1) 21-28.

Pradeep, D. D., &Prabhu, N. (2011).The Relationship between Effective Leadership and

Employee Performance.International Conference on Advancements in Information
Technology, 198-207.

Prouse, G. (2014).Employee Relationship Management.Hitachi Consulting.

Qureshi, T. M., Akbar, A.Khan, M. A., Sheikh, R. A., &Hijazi, S. T. (2010). Do human resource
management practices have an impact on financial performance of banks? African
Journal of Business Management , 4(7), 1281-1288.

88
Rawashdeh, A.M., & Al-Adwan, I.K. (2012). The impact of human resource management
practices on corporate performance: Empirical study in Jordanian commercial banks.
African Journal of Business Management, 6 (41), 10591-10595.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding written and

unwritten agreements.

Sabherwal, R., Steelman, Z., & Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2023). Knowledge management

mechanisms and common knowledge impacts on the value of knowledge at individual
and organizational levels. International Journal of Information Management, 72, 102660.

Sandhu, M. S., Jain, K., & Ahmad, I. U. K. B. (2011). Knowledge sharing among public sector
employees: evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 24(3), 206–226.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25(3), 293–315.

Som, A. (2015). Innovative human resource management and corporate performance in the
context of economic liberalization in India, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 19(7), 1278 — 1297.

Song, S. (2006). Workplace friendship and Employees’ productivity: LMX Theory and the case
of the Seoul City Government. International Review of Public Administration, 11(1), 47–
58.

Sias, P. M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee information experiences.

Communication Studies, 56(4), 375–395.

Singh, R. B., & Mohanty, M. (2010). Impact of training practices on employee productivity: A
Comparative study. Interscience Management Review, 51–56.

Steers, R., & Porter, L. W. (1992). Motivation and work behavior. Long Range Planning, 25(2),
130.

Stringer, L. (2006). The link between the quality of the Supervisor–Employee relationship and
the level of the employee’s job satisfaction. Public Organization Review, 6(2), 125–142.

Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge Transfer in Intra-organizational Network. Academy of Management

Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

Valle, M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2000). Do politics perceptions relate to political behaviors? Tests of
an implicit assumption and expanded model. Human Relations, 53(3), 359–386.

89
Werbler, C. & Harris, C. (2009).Effective Communication Positively Impacts Employee
Motivation Levels and Advocacy.Princeton, NJ: Opinion Research Corporation.

Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do High Commitment Human Resource Practices affect Employee

Commitment? A Cross Level Analysis Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Journal of
Management, 27(5), 515 – 535.

Yang, C., & Chen, L. (2007). Can organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge
sharing behavior? Journal of Information Science, 33(1), 95–109.

Yoon, C., & Rolland, E. (2012). Knowledge-sharing in virtual communities: familiarity,

anonymity and self-determination theory. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(11),
1133–1143.

Yang, J. B. (2007). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and

collaborative culture. Tourism Management, 28(2), 530–543.

QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is designed strictly for academic research purpose. The aim of this
questionnaire is to gain insights and gather data regarding the effect of employees’ relationship,
knowledge sharing on employees’ productivity of non-quoted manufacturing firms in Osun state,
Nigeria. Your response is strictly confidential. We kindly request that you answer all question
honestly and to the best of your knowledge, as the input is crucial to the success of the research
work.
Thanks for your time and contribution to our research.
SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
Please fill in the space or tick any of the following as it applies to you.
1. Gender: (a) Male [ ] (b) Female [ ]
2. Age: (a) less than 20years [ ] (b) 20-39years [ ] (c) 40-59years [ ] (d) 60years and
above [ ]
3. Marital status (a) single [ ] (b) married [ ] (c) divorced [ ] (d) separated [ ]
4. How many years have you spent in the firm? (a) less than 1 year [ ] (b) 1-4years [ ] (c)
5-9 years [ ] (d) 10-14years [ ] (e) 15years and above [ ]
5. Academic qualification (a) SSCE level [ ] (b) OND/NCE [ ] (c) HND/B.Sc. Degree [ ]
(d) MSc/MA Degree [ ]

90
SECTION B: EMPLOYEES’ RELATIONSHIP FACTORS
Choose from the selected list below your level of agreement or disagreement to the following
statements.
Key: 5= Strongly Agree, 4= Agree, 3= Neutral, 2= Disagree, 1= Strongly Disagree
Statements 5 4 3 2 1
Communication
Builds great rapport between employees in the
organisation
Keeps everyone on the same page and create
healthy working environments
Improves employee commitment and job
satisfaction
Respect and Recognition
Improves communication among employees
Encourages and motivates employees
Helps to show the value of employees
Teamwork
Makes organisational goal achievement easier
Improves creativity
Creates space for personal development
Conflict Resolution
Reduces disputes and clash of interest
Maintains orderliness in the organisation
Better employee engagements
Work-Life Balance
Reduces stress and the chances of burn out
Prevents interference of work in the personal
life and responsibilities of employees
Lowes absenteeism
Equality and Fairness

91
There is absence of discrimination in the firm
All employees has equal rights and
opportunities regardless of their background
or personal circumstances
Boosts collaboration

SECTION C: KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Choose from the selected list below your level of agreement or disagreement to the following
statements.
Statements 5 4 3 2 1
Organisational Culture
Provides support
Promotes a learning environment
Encourages innovation and creativity
Trust
Improves the willingness to confide in
others
Reduces fear of losing one’s unique value
Fosters favorable team culture
Communication Channels
Makes knowledge sharing in the
organisation easier and reduces bottlenecks
Helps to provide a feedback mechanism
Helps to keeps interaction organized
Leadership and Management Support
Empowers employees to interact and relate
with each other
Provides support, recognition and reward for
employees who participate in knowledge

92
sharing activities
Encourages continuous learning among
employees

SECTION D: EMPLOYEES’ RELATIONSHIP AND EMPLOYEES’ PRODUCTIVITY

Choose from the selected list below your level of agreement or disagreement to the following
statements.
5 4 3 2 1
Communication
It’s a contributing factor to employee
engagement and productivity
Improves employees performance
Respect and Recognition
Poor
Poor self-esteem will affect employees’
productivity
Teamwork
Individuals are able to improve on the
performance standards
Increases planning skills, employee
motivation and employee collaboration
Conflict resolution
Absence of conflict boosts productivity
Encourages merging innovations towards
goal achievement
Work-Life Balance
Increases motivation to achieve goals
Eliminates stress and challenges that might
hinder employees’ productivity
Equality and Fairness

93
Appropriate and fair treatment is key to
improved productivity
Increases employees engagements, retention
and motivation to be productive
SECTION E: KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND EMPLOYEES’ PRODUCTIVITY
Choose from the selected list below your level of agreement or disagreement to the following
statements
5 4 3 2 1
Organisational Culture
Gives employee clear expectations and
provide them with resources needed to
succeed
Encourages improved performance
Trust
Supports communication among employees
Helps to build reliance and confidence in
others which is key to improving
productivity
Communication Channels
A well structured communication channel
helps sharing of ideas and innovations which
will affect performance
Effective sharing of knowledge is a
prerequisite to progress
Leadership and Management Support
Helps employees to perform outstandingly
Sets standards for employee performance
and company culture quality

94