The study aimed to assess the work performance of employees working in a medicine manufacturing unit. A cross-sectional study design was employed, and study period is from January 2021 to April 2022. The study population consisted of all workers employed in the factory, and the sample size was calculated using the formula n = Z2Npq / (N-1) d2 + Z2pq (where, Z-value = 1.96, p = Taking anticipated prevalence 50% = 0.5, q = 1—p = 1 – 0.5 = 0.5, N = Known population, D = Allowable error = 10%), with a sample size of 196, formula used for calculating sample size is commonly known as the formula for calculating sample size for estimating a population proportion using a confidence interval. It is also sometimes referred to as the margin of error formula. The inclusion criteria for the study were all employees working in the company, while the exclusion criterion was employees who were not willing to participate in the research. A simple random sampling method was used to select the participants, and computer-generated randomization was carried out.
The data collection process involved obtaining online informed consent from the participants, and an online web-based Google form was prepared and circulated through email. Questionnaire includes close ended questions regarding work performance of employees before lockdown period (Before 20/03/2020) and after lockdown (After August 2020). The questionnaire consisted of information on demographic factors, details on the nature of work, and work performance, using three pretested and predesigned standard tools, including the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ) [
20,
21], the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ) [
22], and the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (SPS-6) [
23]. The IWPQ assessed key job effectiveness characteristics, using a 5-point rating scale, while the HPQ was a self-report questionnaire that estimated medical issues in the work-setting with respect to impaired employee productivity, sick leave, and work-related injuries. The SPS-6 assessed the influence of health conditions on work engagement and total perceived output, using a five-point Likert scale.
The collected data was entered into M.S. Excel-19 and analyzed using SPSS version-20. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the demographic profile and work performance variables. A paired t-test was used to identify any significant difference between pre-lockdown and post-lockdown work efficiency. In short, the study assessed the work performance of employees working in factory, and three pretested and predesigned standard tools were employed to collect data. The collected data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and a paired t-test.
Ethical clearance approval for this study was obtained from the JNMC Institutional Ethics Committee on Human Subject and Research, J.N. Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India. The research described in this article was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set forth by the JNMC Institutional Ethics Committee on Human Subject and Research, J.N. Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka, India. All data were collected and analyzed in accordance with relevant ethical guidelines and regulations.
Result
The present study aimed to investigate various aspects of employees' performance and well-being before and after the lockdown. The findings revealed that the majority of employees belonged to the age group of 41–45 years (24.5%), and the male-to-female ratio of factory workers was 76% to 24%. Most employees had 0–10 years of service (53.6%), and a significant proportion belonged to the laborer category (44.4%). Before the lockdown, employees worked long hours, came in early or stayed late, and worked on off days. After the lockdown, 94.4% of employees continued to work in the same manner, with only a small proportion missing work due to vacation, physical or mental health problems, or other reasons.
The Performance scale as showed in Table
1 depicted the distribution of employees according to their performance ranks. Before the lockdown, the majority of employees (71.4%) were top performers, while a small proportion belonged to rank 7 (1.5%). After the lockdown, the number of top performers decreased (63.3%), while the number of employees on rank 7 increased (8.2%). However, the number of employees on ranks 8 and 9 remained almost the same. The paired T test results as mentioned in Table
2 indicated that the difference between work performance before and after the lockdown was statistically significant (
p value: 0.00001;
p value < 0.05), signifying the impact of the lockdown on employee performance.
Table 1
Distribution of employees according to scale of performance
7 | 3 | 1.5 | 16 | 8.2 |
8 | 26 | 13.3 | 28 | 14.3 |
9 | 27 | 13.8 | 28 | 14.3 |
10—Top Performance | 140 | 71.4 | 124 | 63.3 |
Total | 196 | 100.0 | 196 | 100.0 |
Table 2
Paired T test result of work performance before and after lockdown
Work Performance before lockdown—Work Performance after lockdown | 0.22449 | 0.73073 | 0.05219 | 0.12155 | 0.32743 | 4.301 | 195 | 0.00001 |
Regarding the quantity and quality of work as mentioned in Tables
3 and
4, the majority of employees had very good quantity (95.9%) and much better quality (95.4%) of work before the lockdown. After the lockdown, the number of employees with very good quantity of work decreased slightly (87.2%), while the number of employees with good quantity of work increased (12.2%). However, the number of employees with much better quality of work decreased slightly (86.7%), while the number of employees with better quality of work increased (7.1%). Only a small proportion of employees had good quality of work after the lockdown.
Table 3
Distribution of employees according to quantity of work
Somewhat Sufficient | - | - | 1 | 0.5 |
Good | 8 | 4.1 | 24 | 12.2 |
Very Good | 188 | 95.9 | 171 | 87.2 |
Total | 196 | 100 | 196 | 100 |
Table 4
Distribution of employees according to quality of work
Better | 9 | 4.6 | 14 | 7.1 |
Good | - | - | 12 | 6.1 |
Much Better | 187 | 95.4 | 170 | 86.7 |
Total | 196 | 100 | 196 | 100 |
Furthermore, the study examined the distribution of employees' mental health assessment related to stress, ability to finish work, experiencing pleasure in work, feeling hopeless to finish tasks, ability to achieve goals despite health problems, and feeling energetic at work before and after the lockdown; as showed in Tables
5,
6,
7,
8,
9 and
10. The results showed that the majority of employees strongly disagreed that due to health problems, the stress of work was hard to handle before the lockdown (99.5%). However, after the lockdown, four (2%) employees agreed to the same statement, while only one (0.5%) employee disagreed. A small proportion of employees remained neutral, indicating the impact of the lockdown on employees' mental health.
Table 5
Distribution of employees according to mental health assessment regarding stress
Agreed | - | - | 4 | 2.0 |
Disagreed | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 |
Neutral | - | - | 6 | 3.1 |
Strongly Disagreed | 195 | 99.5 | 185 | 94.4 |
Total | 196 | 100 | 196 | 100 |
Table 6
Distribution of employees regarding ability to finish work
Agreed | 91 | 46.4 | 93 | 47.4 |
Strongly Agreed | 104 | 53.1 | 99 | 50.5 |
Disagreed | - | - | 1 | .5 |
Neutral | - | - | 3 | 1.5 |
Strongly Disagreed | 1 | .5 | 1 | .5 |
Total | 196 | 100 | 196 | 100 |
Table 7
Distribution of mental health assessment regarding distraction in work
Agreed | 1 | 0.5 | 4 | 2.0 |
Strongly Agreed | - | - | - | - |
Disagreed | 1 | 0.5 | 2 | 1.0 |
Neutral | - | - | 4 | 2.0 |
Strongly Disagreed | 194 | 99.0 | 186 | 94.9 |
Total | 196 | 100 | 196 | 100 |
Table 8
Distribution of employees regarding despair to finish work
Agreed | - | - | - | - |
Strongly Agreed | - | - | - | - |
Disagreed | 1 | 0.5 | 4 | 2.0 |
Neutral | - | - | - | - |
Strongly Disagreed | 195 | 99.5 | 192 | 98.0 |
Total | 196 | 100 | 196 | 100 |
Table 9
Distribution of employees regarding ability to achieve goal
Agreed | 87 | 44.4 | 86 | 43.9 |
Strongly Agreed | 109 | 55.6 | 108 | 55.1 |
Disagreed | - | - | 1 | 0.5 |
Neutral | - | - | 1 | 0.5 |
Strongly Disagreed | - | - | - | - |
Total | 196 | 100 | 196 | 100 |
Table 10
Distribution of employees regarding feeling energetic in work
Agreed | 84 | 42.9 | 85 | 43.4 |
Strongly Agreed | 112 | 57.1 | 109 | 55.6 |
Disagreed | - | - | - | - |
Neutral | - | - | 2 | 1.0 |
Strongly Disagreed | - | - | - | - |
Total | 196 | 100 | 196 | 100 |
The present study investigated the impact of lockdown on employees' ability to handle work-related stress, as well as their feelings of despair and pleasure at work. Before the lockdown, 91 (46.4%) employees agreed that they were able to finish their work despite their health problems, while 104 (53.1%) employees strongly disagreed with the statement. However, after the lockdown, 93 (47.4%) employees agreed to the same statement, 3 (1.5%) employees remained neutral, 99 (50.5%) employees strongly agreed, and only one employee strongly disagreed.
Regarding experiencing pleasure in work, only one employee (0.5%) agreed that health problems distracted them from experiencing pleasure in work before the lockdown, while 194 (99%) employees strongly disagreed. After the lockdown, four (2%) employees agreed that health problems distracted them from experiencing pleasure in work, two (1%) employees disagreed, and four (2%) employees remained neutral. Additionally, 186 (94.9%) employees strongly disagreed that health problems distracted them from pleasure in work.
The Table Distribution of Employees Regarding Despair to Finish Work indicated that before the lockdown, only one employee (0.5%) disagreed that due to health problems, they felt hopeless to finish their tasks, while 195 (99.5%) employees strongly disagreed. However, after the lockdown, four (2%) employees disagreed with the statement, while 192 (98%) employees strongly disagreed.
Table Distribution of Employees Regarding Ability to Achieve Goal revealed that before the lockdown, 87 (44.4%) employees agreed that despite health problems, they can achieve their goals, and 109 (55.6%) employees strongly agreed. After the lockdown, 86 (43.9%) employees agreed, and 108 (55.1%) employees strongly agreed. One (0.5%) employee disagreed, and one (0.5%) employee remained neutral to the statement.
With respect to feeling energetic at work, before the lockdown, 84 (43.9%) employees agreed that they felt energetic to complete their work, and 112 (57.1%) employees strongly agreed. After the lockdown, 85 (43.4%) employees agreed, and 109 (55.6%) employees strongly agreed. Two (1%) employees remained neutral to the statement.
Finally, all employees (100%) understood the questionnaire and found it relatable to their work. These findings demonstrate the significant impact of lockdown on employees' mental health, particularly in terms of their ability to manage work-related stress and despair to finish their tasks. However, the majority of employees expressed confidence in their ability to achieve their goals and feel energetic at work, despite their health problems. These results highlight the need for interventions to support employees' mental health and well-being in the workplace.