SAFETY HEALTH ENVIRONMENT on Employee RetentionA Graduate ThesisPresented toThe Faculty of the Graduate SchoolSAN BEDA COLLEGE – ALABANGMuntinlupa CityIn Partial FulfillmentOf the Requirements for the DegreeMASTER IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIONArianne Christy C. BernabeDr. Benedict E. RazonAdviserJune 2018Table of Contents TOC o “1-3” h z u ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PAGEREF _Toc516996072 h 1ABSTRACT PAGEREF _Toc516996073 h 2CHAPTER 1 PAGEREF _Toc516996074 h 3 THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND PAGEREF _Toc516996075 h 3 Introduction PAGEREF _Toc516996076 h 3 Background of the Study PAGEREF _Toc516996077 h 5 Statement of the Problem PAGEREF _Toc516996078 h 7 Statement of Hypothesis PAGEREF _Toc516996079 h 8 Theoretical Framework PAGEREF _Toc516996080 h 8 Conceptual Framework PAGEREF _Toc516996081 h 10 Significance of the Study PAGEREF _Toc516996082 h 11 Scope and Limitation of the Study PAGEREF _Toc516996083 h 11 Operational Definition of Terms PAGEREF _Toc516996084 h 12CHAPTER 2 PAGEREF _Toc516996085 h 14 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES PAGEREF _Toc516996086 h 14 Synthesis PAGEREF _Toc516996087 h 23CHAPTER 3 PAGEREF _Toc516996088 h 26 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY PAGEREF _Toc516996089 h 26 Research Design PAGEREF _Toc516996090 h 26 Sampling Plan PAGEREF _Toc516996091 h 26 Research Instruments PAGEREF _Toc516996092 h 27 Data Gathering Procedures PAGEREF _Toc516996093 h 27 Statistical Treatment of Data PAGEREF _Toc516996094 h 28CHAPTER 4 PAGEREF _Toc516996095 h 31 PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA PAGEREF _Toc516996096 h 31CHAPTER 5 PAGEREF _Toc516996097 h 51 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAGEREF _Toc516996098 h 51CHAPTER 6 PAGEREF _Toc516996099 h 58 BENEDICTINE HALLMARK: PRAYER PAGEREF _Toc516996100 h 58BIBLIOGRAPHY PAGEREF _Toc516996101 h 59APPENDIX A PAGEREF _Toc516996103 h 62 Cover Letter PAGEREF _Toc516996104 h 62APPENDIX B PAGEREF _Toc516996105 h 63 Questionnaire PAGEREF _Toc516996106 h 63List of Tables TOC h z c “Table” Table 1. Gender of the Respondents……………………………………………… PAGEREF _Toc517216215 h 31Table 2. Age of the Respondents…………………………………………………..

. PAGEREF _Toc517216216 h 32Table 3. Position of the Respondents………………………………………………. PAGEREF _Toc517216217 h 33Table 4. Length of Service / Tenure of the Respondents………………………… PAGEREF _Toc517216218 h 34Table 5. Educational Attainment of the Respondents……………………………..

PAGEREF _Toc517216219 h 35Table 6. Extent of Employees’ Satisfaction on the Safety Health Environment…

PAGEREF _Toc517216220 h 37Table 7. Psychographic Profile of the Respondents………………………………. PAGEREF _Toc517216221 h 39Table 8. Results of ANOVA on the Psychographic Profile of the Respondents..

PAGEREF _Toc517216222 h 40Table 9. Independent Samples Test on Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to Gender………………………………. PAGEREF _Toc517216223 h 41Table 10. Independent Samples Test on Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to Position……………………………… PAGEREF _Toc517216224 h 42Table 11. Results of ANOVA on the Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to Age…………………………………………… PAGEREF _Toc517216225 h 44Table 12. Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to Age (with significant difference)……………………………………… PAGEREF _Toc517216226 h 44Table 13. Results of ANOVA on the Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to Length of Service…………………………… PAGEREF _Toc517216227 h 46Table 14.

Results of ANOVA on the Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to Educational Attainment…………………….. PAGEREF _Toc517216228 h 47Table 15. Pearson Correlation of Safety Health Environment and Employee Retention in terms of Psychographic Profile……………………………………….. PAGEREF _Toc517216229 h 48List of Figures TOC h z c “Figure” Figure 1. Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………….

.. PAGEREF _Toc517120531 h 9Figure 2. Paradigm of study………………………………………………………….

. PAGEREF _Toc517120532 h 10ACKNOWLEDGEMENTAll praise and glory to the Lord God for everything He provided. All of these is from Him, through Him and for Him.

I dedicate my every achievement and milestone to glorify His name.Deepest gratitude for my colleagues in the Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration for all the support and encouragement especially during the data gathering process.Special thanks to my thesis adviser, Dr.

Benedict E. Razon, for the constant support and encouragement he provides despite of his busy schedule. His guidance and valuable insights made this research more relevant and meaningful.Appreciation to my thesis panel, Dr.

Cecilia Navarro, Dr. Andres Ignacio San Mateo Jr. and Atty. Beatriz Lampas, for the recommendations to further refine this study and improve on it.Thanks to my statistician, Engr.

Augusto Matias, for being able to help me and guide me in the statistical treatment of data even though he is out of the country.Thanks to my classmates, especially to my co-advisees, for all the encouragements and for sharing information and sources of information that helped me finish this research. Special recognition to Edward and to my son, Champ for all the love, patience and understanding. They are my inspiration. And to my Papa, Mama and brother, thank you for all the love and support.ABSTRACTEmployee retention is an important concept in human resource management. Organizational success depends on how firms can effectively retain high performers and high potentials.

The work environment has always been considered as a factor affecting employee retention. However, work environment can be different, from completely comfortable to very hazardous to health. The Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration is an example of a hazardous work environment. In this kind of work environment, safety health is very important. This study explores the correlation of the safety health environment and employee retention. Data were obtained from respondents who are regular employees with at least one (1) year length of service in the organization. The findings indicate that there is a significant difference on the respondents’ perception on their safety health environment when they are grouped according to age but no significant difference when they are grouped according to gender, age, length of service and educational attainment.

Pearson’s Correlation (r) value of 0.062 concludes that there is negligible correlation between safety health environment and employee retention. Moreover, it was found that the respondents value work advancement to a “very great extent”.Results suggest that the respondents’ decision to stay in the organization is affected by factors other than safety health environment.

However, it is still important that the management give importance to safety health environment for the wellbeing of the employees.CHAPTER 1THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUNDIntroductionIt is now widely recognized that the survival and growth of any organization depends on its employees. An organization that gives importance to employee retention and can effectively retain employees, especially its top performers, are far off from those that cannot.

Employee retention can be described as the ability of an organization to hold on longer to those employees that keep them in business creating a stable workforce CITATION Mse15 l 13321 (Msengeti & Obwogi, 2015). A stable workforce presents a significant competitive advantage because organizations without it are forced to invest repeatedly in recruiting, orientating, training and supervising activities. In addition, if employees stay longer in an organization: they develop job expertise and specialization; build stronger relationships with colleagues; and lead to long-term success of the company.Today, although human resource management have been receiving much importance, developing an employee retention strategy remains one of the challenges faced by any organization.

Aside from the retirement of skilled staff, employees intentionally quit because of dissatisfaction, de-motivation or other grievances at work.CITATION Sal16 l 13321 (Salman, Mahmood, Aftab, & Mahmood, 2016)Literature suggest that one of the factors affecting employee retention is the work environment. Hence, the concept of providing a safe work environment has emerged as a solution to employee turnover and a key for employee retention (Salman, Mahmood, Aftab, & Mahmood, 2016).However, work environments can be different especially on their physical aspects – from those completely comfortable to those very hazardous and dangerous to workers’ life and health CITATION Bak13 l 13321 (Bakoti? ; Babi?, 2013). A chemical laboratory is one example of a hazardous workplace that, by its very nature, may pose danger to the workers’ life and health.

The workers in a chemical laboratory face a variety of hazards and risks including: handling flammable, reactive and explosive chemicals; exposure to toxic chemicals and biohazards; managing hazardous waste; and some physical dangers by use of compressed gases, cryogens, high-pressure reactions and vacuum work.Since the hazards involved in working in a chemical laboratory are part of the work itself, providing safety health environment with appropriate safety measures and programs has been given much attention. Safety practices and policies do not eliminate the hazards but instead prevent unwanted events like accidents, injuries, near miss or deaths from happening. Effectiveness or seriousness of one organization in providing a safety health environment may be different from another organization. Studies suggest that a safe workplace encourages workers to remain in their jobs and enables them to work effectively.Therefore, this prompted the researcher to study the correlation of safety health environment on employee retention in the Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration. Background of the StudyThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Philippines is a regulatory agency under the Department of Health. It is mandated under Republic Act No.

9711 otherwise known as “The Food and Drug Administration Act of 2009” to ensure the safety, efficacy and quality of health products, which include food, drugs, cosmetics, devices, biologicals, vaccines, in-vitro diagnostic reagents, radiation-emitting devices or equipment, and household/urban hazardous substances, including pesticides and toys, or consumer products that may have an effect on health which require regulations as determined by the FDA.The central office of the Food and Drug Administration is located at Alabang, Muntinlupa City and its several regional field offices are distributed across the different regions of the country. To support its operations and as provided by law, the Food and Drug Administration maintains a Common Services Laboratory. The Common Services Laboratory provides analytical services complementing the activities of other divisions in the interest of sustaining FDA’s role as an effective regulatory agency. It conducts research and laboratory tests, including physico-chemical analysis, microbiological analysis, biological tests, and safety and toxicity tests on products regulated by FDA.

The FDA Common Services Laboratory complies with the requirements of ISO 17025:2005 and is guided by its Quality Policy, “to ensure the integrity of test results through efficient and quality analytical services by continuously improving its quality system towards achieving Total Quality Service”.Currently, the FDA Common Services Laboratory has about a hundred (100) employees, including the licensed professionals, technicians and administrative staff. One of the specific objectives of the Common Services Laboratory is to maintain a pool of qualified professionals and trained technicians. It acknowledges the need for highly competent and dedicated professionals with technical expertise.

Strict qualification standards are being implemented during the recruitment process and, upon employment, the employees undergo continuous training and development programs to enhance their competency and expertise.The FDA Common Services Laboratory recognizes the importance of employee retention. It values its high performers and high potentials especially those who had already developed expertise and competencies at specific fields.

Employee turnover disrupts the workflow and affects research and development projects.The FDA Common Services Laboratory, by its very nature, is a hazardous workplace. Work includes handling of toxic chemicals and biohazards. Handling of such materials are part of the work itself and cannot be eliminated. Employees are exposed to a variety of hazards which may cause danger to their life and health.

Despite of this, attrition rate at FDA Common Services Laboratory is very low, less than 5% per year.The FDA Common Services Laboratory implements measures ensuring laboratory safety for the protection of its workers and the environment from chemical and hazardous waste. Responsible for the implementation of the safety policies are the Safety Officers.Given the hazardous nature of work in a chemical laboratory and the high employee retention rate, the researcher was impelled to study the relationship between the safety health environment and employee retention within the framework of the FDA Common Services Laboratory. This will serve as an assessment on the satisfaction of employees of the Common Services Laboratory on the safety health measures being implemented on their workplace and how it is related to their retention in the organization.

Statement of the ProblemThis research study aims to determine the correlation of safety health environment on employee retention in the Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration. Specifically, it seeks answers to the following questions:What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of:AgeGenderPositionLength of Service / TenureEducation AttainmentHow do the respondents perceive safety health environment in terms of:Building FacilitiesFirst Aid FacilitiesEmergency PlanningHealth and Safety PoliciesWhat is the psychographic profile of the respondents in terms of their perception to:Monetary AchievementWork ItselfWork AdvancementIs there a significant difference on the respondents’ perception to the safety health environment when they are grouped according to their demographic profile?Is there a significant correlation between the respondents’ perception on safety health environment and employee retention?Statement of HypothesisThe researcher has come up with the below hypothesis:Ho. The satisfaction of employees on their safety health environment has no significant relationship on extent of employee retention in the Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration.Theoretical FrameworkThe theoretical framework used in this research is based on the study conducted by Saad Salman, Asif Mahmood, Faisal Aftab and Atif Mahmood entitled “Impact of Safety Health Environment on Employee Retention in Pharmaceutical Industry: Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction and Motivation”. According to their research findings, the safety health environment is significantly related to employee retention. Furthermore, safety health environment and employee retention relationship is mediated by job satisfaction and employee motivation.

Their study implies that promoting health protection policies would improve job satisfaction and job motivation among employees, resulting in retention. CITATION Sal16 l 13321 (Salman, Mahmood, Aftab, ; Mahmood, 2016)Figure 1 presents the framework developed by Saad Salman, Asif Mahmood, Faisal Aftab and Atif Mahmood to show the relationship between safety health environment and employee retention and the mediating role of job satisfaction and motivation.1790700123825000Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 1. Theoretical Framework. Safety health environment on employee retention and the mediating role of job satisfaction and motivation CITATION Sal16 l 13321 (Salman, Mahmood, Aftab, ; Mahmood, 2016)Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework of this research study presents the Independent and Dependent variable.3762376160020Dependent Variable020000Dependent Variable2000250160020Intervening Variable020000Intervening Variable129540145415Independent Variable020000Independent Variablecenter2105025Respondents’ Demographic Profile AgeGenderPositionLength of serviceEducational attainment00Respondents’ Demographic Profile AgeGenderPositionLength of serviceEducational attainment218884511334750028301951147445003484880483870Employee RetentionRespondents’Psychographic ProfileMonetary AchievementWork ItselfWork Advancement020000Employee RetentionRespondents’Psychographic ProfileMonetary AchievementWork ItselfWork Advancement102870509905Safety Health EnvironmentBuilding Facilities First Aid Facilities Emergency Planning Health and Safety Policies020000Safety Health EnvironmentBuilding Facilities First Aid Facilities Emergency Planning Health and Safety PoliciesFigure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 2. Paradigm of studyThe independent variable for this study is the safety health environment while the dependent variable is the employee retention including the respondent’s psychographic profile as to their perception to monetary achievement, work itself and work advancement. The intervening variable includes the demographic profile of the respondents as to their age, gender, position and length of service and educational attainment.

Significance of the StudyThis research study would be of much benefit to the Food and Drug Administration – Common Services Laboratory because it would help in evaluating the extent of satisfaction of the respondents to their safety health environment and see its relationship with employee retention. The result of this study can be used as a basis for improving and refining workplace safety health management in efforts to strengthen the employee retention.Employees of the Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration will benefit in this study if the organization decides to improve its safety health environment. Employees provided with safe and comfortable workplace are more effective and less likely to quit. Employee retention will contribute to the overall performance of the organization and to the attainment of its long-term vision.At the same time, this study can be used as reference by other organizations and stakeholders who would like to improve employee retention by improving satisfaction of their employees with respect to safety health environment. Moreover, this study can be used by future researchers as reference material to their related scholarly studies.

Scope and Limitation of the StudyThe scope of this research study is Safety Health Environment and Employee Retention. The research is limited to the assessment of the correlation of safety health environment on employee retention among regular employees of Common Services Laboratory (Alabang), Food and Drug Administration with at least one (1) year length of service in the organization using survey methodology. Details of actual health and safety policy and work-related hazards are not part of the study. Assessment of the current position of Food and Drug Administration in terms of its safety health environment were not done.

Operational Definition of TermsThe definition of terms presents the operational meaning and explanation of the words or group of words that are substantial and are repeatedly used in this research paper. It provides the common understanding for the particular keywords.Chemical Laboratory refers to a place where scientific experimentation,research, tests or analysis using chemicals are conducted. The Common Services Laboratory is a chemical laboratory.Employee retention refers to the ability of the organization to keep its employees working with them for a longer time and preventing them to quit or resign.

Psychographic profile refers to the segmentation of the respondents in terms of their interests, values, attitudes and perception towards their work.Safety Health Environment refers to the workplace that safeguards the health of its occupants from exposure to hazards and risks resulting from work activities that may affect their physical wellbeing.Work condition / Work environment refers to the physical elements of the workplace plus the things and situations that form part of the employee’s involvement with the work itself.

Physical Workplace / Workplace refers to the place where employees do their assigned tasks.CHAPTER 2REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIESThe literature review provides scholarly and relevant contributions to research that aid in understanding the correlation of safety health environment on employee retention. Moreover, the literature review includes a discussion on the independent variable, safety health environment, and the dependent variable, employee retention.

Work Environment Recent studies had recognized that work environment plays an important role in an organization. Many problems faced by employees are related to their working environment. A conducive work environment increases the employees’ level of productivity in the organization.

It was observed that factors like supervisor support, relation with co-workers, training and development, attractive and fast incentives and recognition plans, adequate work load at work place are helpful in developing strategies to achieve a conducive work environment that has positive impact on employee’s level of productivity. CITATION Tah15 l 13321 (Tahir ; Awan, 2015)The work environment includes the physical location where one officially does his/her job. It is one of the most important social spaces. Moreover, the work environment also involves other aspects relating to the physical place, such as the quality of the air, noise level, cleanliness, and added non-monetary benefits of employment such as provision of child-care facilities or free parking space. Employees who work in fit work environments feel enthusiastic and engaged in their job. They feel appreciated and cared for at work.

Thus, forming a suitable work environment is a significant factor in upgrading the prosperity of the organization. CITATION Ser15 l 13321 (Al-Shammari, 2015)The physical work environment particularly in healthcare facilities has been found to decrease job-related anxiety and improve employee-employer relations. Job-related attitudes and feelings are often affected and associated with employees’ evaluations of their physical work environment. A well-designed workplace lowers job-related anxiety, increases level of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. For instance, facility design affects job-related attitudes and the bond between employees and their organization. CITATION Sad15 l 13321 (Sadatsafavi, Walewski, & Shepley, 2015)Safety Health EnvironmentNowadays, employees are becoming more aware of their rights concerning their working environment which includes working hours, job safety & security, relationship with co-worker, esteem needs and top management (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015).The working environment, including the identifiable workplace and the causes of accidents and illness, influence the overall health and safety of employees.

There are indictors that measure the work wellbeing in terms of the state of the workers’ health and safety. The work wellbeing of workers is conceptualized as the explicit results of the working environment including work-related injuries, work-related diagnoses, illness/sickness, work-related health problems, work-related deaths, etc. A good work environment increases productivity and work force. Healthy workers are more productive than not-so-healthy workers who must take sick leave as result of bad work environments. CITATION Fol14 l 13321 (Foldspang, et al., 2014)Work Condition and Job SatisfactionToday, organizations and businesses are faced with the challenges of satisfying its employees’ needs to cope up with the changing and evolving world and to achieve success and remain in competition.

Organizations recognize the need to provide good working conditions to its employees. Good working conditions increases the efficiency, effectiveness, productivity and job commitment of employees in the organization and prohibit costs emerging as a result of dissatisfied employees. Moreover, there is a positive relationship between working environment and employee job satisfaction.

CITATION Raz15 l 13321 (Raziq & Maulabakhsh, 2015).Job satisfaction can be associated with how much an employee likes his work as well as the level of his preoccupation with work. It is a sense of comfort and positive experience that an employee has related to the job.

Furthermore, it affects work behavior and organizational performance. Job satisfaction is a complex cluster of attitudes towards different aspects of the work. It includes a variety of factors such as nature of work, salary, stress, working conditions, colleagues, superiors, working hours, etc. Working conditions affect job satisfaction and studies have shown that workers prefer working conditions which are not dangerous and unpleasant. However, there are two categories of working conditions: normal (pleasant) conditions and difficult working conditions. Difficult working conditions pose dangers to workers’ life and health.

It is influenced by: external factors – temperature, humidity, lighting, noise, gases, radiation, dust, smoke and other harmful factors; subjective factors – gender and age of the worker, fatigue, monotony, unfavorable posture during work, etc.; and factors related to the organization – duration of the work shift, work schedule, working time, work pace, excessive strain etc. According to the study of Danica Bakoti? and Tomislav Babi?: (1) there is no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction between workers who work under difficult working conditions and those who work in normal working conditions; (2) workers who work in normal working conditions are more satisfied with working conditions than workers who work under difficult working conditions; and (3) in the case of workers who work under difficult working conditions, the working conditions are important factor of their overall job satisfaction. Thus, although difficult working conditions may not be eliminated, it is necessary to be improved by taking measures to ensure safety. In this way, satisfaction of workers under difficult work conditions may be increased as well as their performance. CITATION Bak13 l 13321 (Bakoti? ; Babi?, 2013)Workplace hazard perceptions were identified to reduce workers’ psychological health and, thus, reduced job satisfaction and higher intentions to quit. Hence, organizations should acknowledge the need to reduce physical work environment hazards in effort to maintain job satisfaction among employees.

Reducing workplace hazards results in psychological safe environment and it includes safety training, supervisor support and improving overall safety. CITATION McC15 l 13321 (McCaughey, Turner, Kim, DelliFraine, & McGhan, 2015) Job Commitment Job commitment can be defined as the employee’s positive emotional connection to the employer or organization. By improving how employees feel about their jobs, they would become more committed to their work provider. Several studies found out that there is a strong correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment of workers in several countries. Job satisfaction is a reliable predictor of job commitment. That is, a satisfied employee develops a stronger commitment to his work. Likewise, job commitment predicts work variables such as employee turnover, organizational citizenship, behavior, and job performance.

CITATION Ser15 l 13321 (Al-Shammari, 2015)Job SatisfactionJob satisfaction increases when work coincides with employee’s values and needs. Moreover, there is high satisfaction when employees are able to pursue the goals which are significant to them and fits their interests and life plans. Job satisfaction can be divided into different dimensions: satisfaction with empowerment, satisfaction with job fulfilment, satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with work group, satisfaction with security and satisfaction with work facilitation. An employee satisfied with one dimension may not be satisfied with the others. Not every dimension has equal importance to each employee. For instance, some may value job security more than empowerment. Furthermore, overall job satisfaction in organizations varies.

There are organizations that have more satisfied employees than others. Likewise, satisfaction among employees varies. Some employees are naturally inclined toward either high or low levels of satisfaction regardless of the work environment or no matter how good a job is. Some people may even be happy working in difficult conditions. CITATION Ste14 l 13321 (Stewart & Brown, 2014)Employees with low job satisfaction often have negative moods and attitudes. These people are more likely to quit their jobs. Thus, organizations seeking to prevent or reduce employee turnover give importance on measuring and improving their employees’ job satisfaction. CITATION Ste14 l 13321 (Stewart ; Brown, 2014)Employee RetentionEmployee retention is now a key strategic issue in organizations.

Employees today are less committed to individual employers than in the past. They spend less time with individual employers and make more career changes. Employees leave for several reasons: reduction in force (initiated by the employer), turnover (initiated by the employee), or retirement. However, regardless of whether such departure is by the employer’s or employee’s decision, the organization must manage this separation process to ensure that transitions are smooth for both employers and employees, that operations are not disrupted, and that important professional relationships are not damaged.

(Mello, 2015)Employee turnover can cause disruption in operations, work team dynamics, and unit performance. Furthermore, it creates costs for the organization. These costs include the direct economic costs of staffing and training new hires as well as the indirect costs of the downtime needed for the new employee to gain proficiency in the job and to become fully socialized and integrated into the organization.

Excessive employee turnover may also affect the morale of employees and the organization’s reputation as being a good place to work. Turnover in organizations, while unavoidable, can be strategically managed to allow organizations to minimize the disadvantages of turnover and maximize its advantages. (Mello, 2015)Determinant factors of employee retention include development opportunities, compensation, work-life balance, management/leadership, work environment, social support, autonomy and training and development. (Kossivi, Xu, & Kalgora, 2016)Employee retention can be expressed quantitatively as an Employee Retention Rate (ERR) which is the percentage of employees that the organization can keep within a specified period. Success of an organization in retaining its employees is measured in terms of ERR or through assessment of the Employee Turnover Rate (ETR). High employee retention rate implies a low employee turnover rate.

Organizations strive to maintain high ERR especially of their high performers and high potentials. (Msengeti & Obwogi, 2015)In general, an effective organization has the ability to retain their best employees. Retaining good performers include a set of actions that would keep employees engaged once they have been hired. However, organizations have different strategic emphasis on employee retention. State government offices use Loyal Soldier HR strategy. In this strategy, employee retention reduces recruitment costs and offers workers with a sense of security that convinces them to work even at lower wages than they might be able to earn at private firms.

As an example, government employees prefer to continue working as public servants even though they might be able to earn more money somewhere else because government offices are less likely to replace or lay off employees. (Stewart & Brown, 2014)Employee retention may be functional or dysfunctional. Functional retention is when high-performing employees stay in an organization. This benefits both the employee and the organization.

Dysfunctional retention is when low-performing and demotivated employees stay in an organization. This may be damaging both to the employee and the organization. (Stewart & Brown, 2014)Employee EngagementEmployee engagement has been defined as the involvement, satisfaction and enthusiasm for work and towards organizational goals. It occurs when employees become committed to their work and their organization and remain motivated to attain good performance. It is the willingness of the employees to work beyond the expectations.

Currently, ‘engagement’ has become the new management mantra, replacing the terms ‘job satisfaction’, ‘motivation’ and ‘commitment’. Engagement impacts individual and organizational performance. Engaged employees have positive feelings towards their work and consider their jobs as an important part of what they are. Employee engagement is consistent with high commitment and loyalty. Job satisfaction is a precursor of job engagement. Conversely disengagement is related to stress and, consequently, to turnover. Employee engagement drivers include job challenge, autonomy, variety, feedback, fit, opportunities for development and rewards and recognition.

CITATION Arm14 l 13321 (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014)Related StudiesRelationship of Safety Health Environment and Employee RetentionA conducive and favorable work environment is an essential factor in employee retention. A flexible atmosphere where working experience is enjoyable and resources are adequately provided contributes to employee retention.CITATION Kos16 l 13321 (Kossivi, Xu, & Kalgora, 2016)In the Hotel Industry in Mombasa County, Kenya, it was studied that pay had a weak influence on employee retention while work environment had the strongest influence. CITATION Mse15 l 13321 (Msengeti & Obwogi, 2015)In the research of Waqas, et al., workplace environment was found to be the second most important factor affecting the job satisfaction level of workers in developing countries like Pakistan. Moreover, there is a positive relation between job satisfaction and job loyalty.

CITATION Waq14 l 13321 (Waqas, et al., 2014)A study conducted to explore the link between work environment, career development opportunities and employee retention in Vodafone Ghana Limited found that work environment and career development opportunities significantly affect employees’ decision to stay in Vodafone Ghana Limited and, thus, the employee retention. Attractive work environment for employees will boast their decisions to stay with the organization. CITATION Kwe13 l 13321 (Kwenin, 2013)In a study conducted in the Pharmaceutical industry in Pakistan, it was confirmed that employee retention is influenced by factors like safety health environment, job satisfaction and motivation. Employee retention was found to be a significant outcome of safety health environment. Moreover, the levels of job satisfaction and employee motivation equally mediate the relationship between safety health environment and employee retention. The study suggests that by fostering health protection policies, job satisfaction and motivation will be increased and will result in the retention of capable employees.CITATION Sal16 l 13321 (Salman, Mahmood, Aftab, ; Mahmood, 2016)An effective and efficient occupational health and safety management is critical to safeguard workers especially in dangerous and hazardous industries like the mining industry.

There is a significant negative relationship that exists between occupational health and safety management, particularly safety leadership and provision of safety equipment and facility, and turnover intention. CITATION Amp16 l 13321 (Amponsah-Tawiah, Ntow, ; Mensah, 2016)SynthesisThis research study is based on the impact of safety health environment on employee retention in the Food and Drug Administration – Common Services Laboratory. The fundamental ideas and concerns that had been tackled and identified in this literature review in accordance with the research aims and objectives are: (1) The work environment plays an important role in an organization. It affects the level of comfort the employees receive from their work and their job satisfaction.

Employees provided with an attractive and safe working environment are able to perform well and, thus, productive. Improvements on the working environment will also improve the employees’ productivity and the organizations’ performance. (2) There are two categories of work condition – normal (pleasant) work condition and difficult work condition. Although hazards may be impossible to eliminate in difficult work conditions, safety policies and practices can be imposed to ensure the wellbeing of its workers. Safety standard in difficult work conditions is an important factor in the overall job satisfaction of workers. (3) Management of safety practices and safety programs influence employees’ productivity and job satisfaction. Safety practices and programs include promotion of health and safety, investigation of accidents and training of employees on safety standards. (4) There is a strong correlation between job satisfaction and job commitment of workers in several countries.

Job satisfaction is a reliable predictor of job commitment. Job commitment predicts work variables such as employee turnover, organizational citizenship, behavior, and job performance. (5) Employee retention is one of the major challenges faced by an organization. Employees leave an organization for several reasons. For any reason, employee turnover can cause disruption in work operations and unit performance. Furthermore, it creates additional costs for the organization. (6) Some determinant factors of employee retention include development opportunities, compensation, work-life balance, management/leadership, work environment, social support, autonomy and training and development. Of these factors, recent studies found that the work environment plays a significant role in employee retention.

An attractive and conducive work environment encourages workers to stay with the organization.CHAPTER 3RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThe research methodology presents the procedure followed to study the correlation of safety health environment on employee retention in the Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration. This chapter outlines the research design, method for data collection and statistical treatment of data used in the study. It also includes the description of the research instrument and the population studied.Research DesignThe study used descriptive survey research design to determine the correlation of safety health environment on employee retention in the Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration.Descriptive survey research uses survey questionnaire to collect information from a sample of individuals. Such information can be used to describe and interpret the state of events as it exists at present.

Sampling PlanThe Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration has about 80 regular employees with at least one (1) year length of service in the organization. Because of the small population size, it was planned to survey the entire population for valid findings without the random errors of sampling methods. However during the time of survey, out of the planned 80 employees, only 62 employees were present. Thus, only the 62 employees were handed-out with questionnaires and responded.Research Instruments This study utilized survey questionnaire to gather primary data. The questionnaire is divided into three parts: (1) the demographic profile of the respondents; (2) the perception of employees on their safety health environment and (3) the psychographic profile of the respondents.

The second part of the questionnaire focuses on the extent of satisfaction, from highly satisfied (4) to highly dissatisfied (1), of respondents on their safety health environment. The third part of the questionnaire focuses on the respondents’ perception on the importance of monetary achievement, work itself and work advancement, from very great extent (5) to not at all (1).The copy of the cover letter and the survey questionnaire handed out to the respondents are in Appendix A and B, respectively.This study also utilized books, journals, electronic sources and other related studies to gather secondary data.Data Gathering ProceduresThis research study surveyed regular employees assigned directly under of the Common Services Laboratory (Alabang) – Food and Drug Administration having stayed with the organization for at least one (1) year.Participation in the survey was voluntary. The individual responses will remain confidential and anonymous.

The names of the participants were not asked, and only basic demographic information were requested. Data from this survey is reported only as a collective combined total. The researcher asked the consent and approval of the Director of the Common Services Laboratory (Alabang) – Food and Drug Administration before distributing the questionnaires. The questionnaires were distributed and collected personally by the researcher. Each respondent was given a cover letter and a questionnaire to individually evaluate the given items. Data collection thru this survey questionnaire was over a period of one week.All the data gathered were treated with appropriate statistical tools.

Statistical Treatment of DataThe researcher used the following statistical tools: (1) Percentage; (2) Weighted Mean; (3) Pearson Correlation Coefficient; (4) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA); and (5) t-test.Percentage was used to determine the demographic profile of the respondents. Weighted mean was used to measure the respondents’ perception to the safety health environment in terms of building facilities, first aid facilities, emergency planning and health and safety policies. Statistical Limits: 3.26 -4.00Highly Satisfied2.

51 -3.25Satisfied1.76 -2.50Dissatisfied1.00 -1.75Highly DissatisfiedWeighted mean was also used to measure the psychographic profile of the respondents.Statistical Limits: 4.

21 -5.00Very Great Extent3.41 -4.20Great Extent2.61 -3.40Moderate Extent1.81 -2.

60Little Extent1.00 -1.80Not at AllPearson Correlation Coefficient was used to measure the relationship of safety health environment on employee retention.Value of rStrength of Relationship -1.00Very high negative correlation 0.

00No Correlation+1.00Very high positive correlationANOVA and t-test were used to determine if there is a significant difference on the respondents’ perception to the safety health environment when they are grouped according to their demographic profile. CHAPTER 4PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATAPresentation, interpretation and analysis of data contains the outcome of the survey questionnaires that were distributed to the respondents. It includes presentation of data in tabular form and their corresponding interpretations.

Data gathered from this research were analyzed and discussed in accordance with the research objectives and to answer the statement of the problem. Part 1 is about the demographic profile of the respondents and Part 2 is about the correlation of safety health environment and employee retention.Part 1: Demographic ProfileTo answer the Statement of the Problem 1, “What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender, position, length of service / tenure and education attainment?”The demographic profile of the respondents is considered upon in terms of gender, age, position and length of service.Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 1.

Gender of the RespondentsGender Frequency Percentage (%)Male 17 27.42Female 45 72.58Total 62 100.

00Majority of the respondents are female, representing 72.58%, and only 27.42% are male. This result suggests that more females are working in the Common Services Laboratory, FDA than males. In fact, all the respondents in the supervisory or managerial positions are all females.

As previously noted, the FDA deals with products related to health. Thus, the result is consistent with the statistics presented by Matt Rocheleau. According to his 2016 data, higher percentage of women are in the professions: laboratory technologists and technicians, health practitioner support technicians; pharmacists; and administrative assistants CITATION Roc17 l 13321 (Rocheleau, 2017). Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 2. Age of the RespondentsAge Frequency Percentage (%)20-39 Years 47 75.

8040-54 Years 6 9.6855-65 Years 9 14.52Total 62 100.

00The age profile of the respondents were divided into three, representing different generations. 20-39 year olds represent the millennials, 40-54 year olds represent the gen X and 55-65 year olds represent the baby boomers. 75.80% of the respondents have ages between 20-39 years or are millennials. 9.

68% are 40-54 years of age, gen X, and 14.52% are 55-65 years of age, baby boomers.A reason why there is a higher number of young workers is because of the continuous recruitment to fill in the needed number of personnel to increase the operations and capacity of the agency. Consequently, those who apply in the entry level positions are millennials or young workers. These young workers, who have just graduated from college or have few work experience, have the enthusiasm to explore job opportunities.

On the other hand, the 40-54 and 55-65 years of age have slowed down their pattern of changing jobs and mostly have already developed their expertise in their chosen career paths CITATION Gra13 l 13321 (Graves, 2013).The respondents having supervisory or managerial positions are distributed through these three age groups. The agency does not promote based on seniority of age but through competency and experience. Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 3. Position of the RespondentsPosition Frequency Percentage (%)Rank and File 56 90.

32Supervisory / Managerial 6 9.68Total 62 100.0090.32% of the respondents are in the rank and file positions and only 9.68% are in supervisory or managerial positions. The agency follows an organizational chart and there are only few supervisory and managerial positions.

Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 4. Length of Service / Tenure of the RespondentsLength of Service / Tenure Frequency Percentage (%)1-2 Years 4 6.453-5 Years 19 30.656-10 Years 19 30.6511-15 Years 7 11.

2916-20 Years 0 0.0021-30 Years 8 12.90Above 30 Years 5 8.06Total 62 100.

00Majority of the respondents are in the agency for around 3-5 and 6-10 years. Each range comprises of 30.65% of the respondents. These respondents are in the millennials generation.

They were the ones hired to increase the operations and capacity of the agency and to replace the promoted and retired employees.It is also worth noting that 8.06% of the respondents are in the service for more than 30 years, 12.90% are in for 21-30 years and 11.29% are in for 11-15 years. Those 6.45% who are in the service for 1-2 years hold newly created positions or vacated positions due to promotions.

No respondents were in the organization for around 16-20 years. Tracing back, 16-20 years ago was the time of political unrest and government administration instability during the presidency of Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Thus, this may be the cause of reduced hiring and recruitment in government agencies during those times.Nonetheless, the Common Services Laboratory, FDA have long-term employees as demonstrated by the more than 50% respondents having been with the organization for more than 5 years. This indicates that the organization have effective strategies to retain employees. Having long-term employees is a sign of a stable workforce. Thus, this suggests that operations, work team dynamics and each unit performance of the organization are less likely to be disrupted. Furthermore, it means less cost for staffing and training of new hires for the organization.

Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 5. Educational Attainment of the RespondentsHighest Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage (%)Elementary 1 1.61High School 0 0.00Vocational 0 0.00College 56 90.32Post Graduate 5 8.

06Total 62 100.0090.32% of the respondents have a college degree. Work in the Common Services Laboratory is mostly technical and thus require at least a bachelor’s degree as a minimum requirement. Furthermore, the government has been taking drastic measures to ensure that those joining as public servants are competent. Thus, in addition to the basic eligibility requirements, those with college degrees are the ones being hired. The 1.

61% elementary graduate was in the service for around 30 years. This was the time when the agency was still lenient because of the low numbers of applicants and candidates for a public service position. 8.06% of the respondents have a post graduate degree. Most of these respondents are in supervisory / managerial positions.

4 out of the 6 respondents in the supervisory / managerial positions have master’s in business administration or master’s in public administration. This indicates the competence and strong qualifications of those in the supervisory / managerial positions.Part 2: Safety Health Environment and Employee RetentionTo answer the Statement of the Problem 2, “How do the respondents perceive safety health environment in terms of: building facilities; first aid facilities; emergency planning; and health and safety policies?”Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 6. Extent of Employees’ Satisfaction on the Safety Health EnvironmentFactor Weighted Mean VerbalInterpretationBuilding Facilities Building Structure 2.77 SatisfiedLaboratory Layout 2.76 SatisfiedEnvironmental Condition 2.

60 SatisfiedStorage of Hazardous Chemicals 2.05 DissatisfiedSecurity of Restricted Areas 2.24 DissatisfiedMean 2.48 DissatisfiedFirst Aid Facilities First Aid Equipment 2.71 SatisfiedFirst Aid Medical Supplies / Kit 2.47 DissatisfiedAccess to First Aid Facilities 2.48 DissatisfiedFirst Aid Trainings 2.

31 DissatisfiedFirst Aid Response of Trained Personnel 2.35 DissatisfiedMean 2.46 DissatisfiedEmergency Planning Emergency Evacuation Plan 2.66 SatisfiedEmergency Devices 2.23 DissatisfiedAccess to Emergency Exits 2.66 SatisfiedFire and Earthquake Drills 2.

81 Satisfied. Emergency Response Trainings 2.63 SatisfiedMean 2.60 SatisfiedHealth and Safety Policy Organization’s commitment to health and safety 2.56 SatisfiedWritten health and safety policy 2.63 Satisfied Safety Inspections and Audits 2.66 SatisfiedLaboratory Safety Awareness 2.

84 Satisfied. Provision of Personal Protective Equipment and Safety Gears 2.55 SatisfiedMean 2.

65 SatisfiedGrand Mean 2.55 SatisfiedThe table above presents the perception of the respondents on the safety health environment of Common Services Laboratory, FDA in terms of building facilities, first aid facilities, emergency planning and health and safety policies, answering the second statement of the problem. In this regard, the table shows that the respondents are generally satisfied based on the grand mean of 2.55. The respondents have expressed satisfaction on the emergency planning and health and safety policy. On the other hand, the respondents have expressed dissatisfaction on the building facilities and first aid facilities.

Their satisfaction or dissatisfaction is based on their experiences in the course of their employment in the Common Services Laboratory, FDA.Of the factors that the respondents have expressed dissatisfaction, the greatest contributors are the storage of hazardous chemicals, security of restricted areas, first aid trainings and first aid response of trained personnel. It is also noted that there is general dissatisfaction on the emergency devices. These matters are very important in a hazardous type of work environment because of the risks involved. It requires different degree of measures than those in normal office work conditions.According to the study of Amponsah-Tawiah, Ntow, & Mensah, an effective and efficient health and safety management is critical to ensure the safety and protection of workers especially in dangerous and hazardous work environment.

Health and safety management includes safety leadership and provision of safety equipment and facility. There is a significant negative relationship that exists between occupational health and safety management and turnover intention. (Amponsah-Tawiah, Ntow, & Mensah, 2016)To answer the Statement of the Problem 3, “What is the psychographic profile of the respondents in terms of their perception to monetary achievement, work itself and work advancement?”Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 7. Psychographic Profile of the RespondentsStatement Weighted Mean VerbalInterpretationMonetary Achievement I work for the salary and wages. 4.05 Great ExtentI want to settle for a job where I can earn the maximum salary. 4.

08 Great ExtentMonetary benefits motivate me to do my best. 3.87 Great ExtentMean 4.00 Great ExtentWork Itself I enjoy working in a laboratory. 4.16 Great ExtentI want to settle for a job where I can fully utilize my knowledge. 4.

39 Very Great ExtentThe nature of my work motivates me to do my best. 3.92 Great ExtentMean 4.16 Great ExtentWork Advancement I work to improve my competency. 4.27 Very Great ExtentI want to settle for a job where I can have professional development. 4.44 Very Great ExtentIncentive measures, recognition and promotion motivate me to do my best.

4.19 Great ExtentMean 4.30 Very Great ExtentGrand Mean 4.15 Great ExtentThe table above represents the perception of the respondents in terms of monetary achievement, work itself and work advancement. The respondents have expressed “very great extent” of agreement regarding work advancement, based on a mean of 4.

30, and “great extent” of agreement with monetary benefits and work itself. Furthermore, ranking the three factors, work advancement is the highest followed by work itself and then by monetary achievement.Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 8. Results of ANOVA on the Psychographic Profile of the RespondentsSum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Between Groups 2.812 2 1.406 3.

131 .046Within Groups 82.185 183 .449 Total 84.997 185 ANOVA results show significance value of 0.046 which is less than 0.

05. This indicates that there is a significant difference on the means of the three factors. To determine which one contributes to this significant difference, Tukey’s method (Pairing) was used. It revealed that monetary achievement and work advancement are significantly different at the 0.05 level. The respondents value work advancement more than monetary benefits.Hence, referring to the third statement of the problem, there is a significant difference on the respondents’ psychographic profile specifically on their perception in terms of monetary achievement and work advancement.It is important to note that the respondents are in a government agency where salaries and wages are standardized.

Although entry level positions in government offices offer higher basic pay than most private firms, the immediate management or administrator cannot just easily give additional monetary incentives or benefits. Hence, monetary achievement is not the main motivation of the respondents.Nevertheless, the results are supported by literature that states that effective organizations that retain employees have them engaged in the job challenge, autonomy, variety, feedback, fit, opportunities for development and rewards and recognition.

Engaged employees believe that their jobs are an important part of who they are and indicate commitment and loyalty. CITATION Ste14 l 13321 (Stewart & Brown, 2014)To answer the Statement of the Problem 4, “Is there a significant difference on the respondents’ perception to the safety health environment when they are grouped according to their demographic profile?”Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 9. Independent Samples Test on Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to GenderLevene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of MeansF Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)Equal variances assumed .644 .425 .500 60 .

619Table 9 presents the t-test results of the respondents’ perception to safety health environment when they grouped according to gender. Based on equal variances assumed, the significance value is 0.619 which is greater than 0.025 (2-tailed). Hence, there is no significant difference on the respondents’ perception on safety health environment when they are grouped according to gender. This implies that both males and females experience general satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the given factors of their safety health environment.In a chemical laboratory, both males and females are exposed to the same level of hazards especially those from toxic chemicals and wastes. No job responsibilities or activities are classifiable as for men or for women only.

Both males and females are vulnerable to the dangers and risks involved. Hence, both males and females require the same level of safety and protection from the occupational hazard in a chemical laboratory. No significant difference on their perception on safety health environment.

Both are aware of what is being provided for their safety (cause of satisfaction) and what is lacking (cause of dissatisfaction).Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 10. Independent Samples Test on Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to PositionLevene’s Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of MeansF Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)Equal variances assumed 3.004 .088 -.

484 60 .639Table 10 presents the t-test results of the respondents’ perception to safety health environment when they grouped according to position. Based on equal variances assumed, the significance value is 0.639 which is greater than 0.

025 (2-tailed). Hence, there is no significant difference on the respondents’ perception on safety health environment when they are grouped according to position. Regardless of rank, the respondents generally have the same sentiments over the factors of safety health environment. The rank and file personnel, supervisors and manager have had same experiences regarding their safety health environment. The supervisors and manager of the Common Services Laboratory had worked as rank and file chemical analysts and were internally promoted. They have had first hand experiences with working with hazardous chemicals and wastes. Thus, they are aware of the status of the safety health environment and may have been the reason to have the same perception as those in the rank and file positions. Having no significant difference on perception to the safety health environment suggests that it will be easier for the organization to point out the factors causing dissatisfaction and improve on them.Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 11. Results of ANOVA on the Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to AgeSum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Build Facilities Between Groups 1.238 2 .619 3.483 .037Within Groups 10.486 59 .178 Total 11.724 61 First Aid Facilities Between Groups 1.709 2 .854 3.592 .034Within Groups 14.033 59 .238 Total 15.742 61 Emergency Planning Between Groups 1.003 2 .502 2.114 .130Within Groups 13.996 59 .237 Total 14.999 61 Health and Safety Policies Between Groups .555 2 .277 1.051 .356Within Groups 15.580 59 .264 Total 16.135 61 Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 12. Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to Age (with significant difference)Frequency Weighted Mean Verbal InterpretationBuilding Facilities 20-39 years old 47 2.41 Dissatisfied40-54 years old 6 2.86 Satisfied55-65 years old 9 2.60 SatisfiedTotal 62 2.48 DissatisfiedFirst Aid Facilities 20-39 years old 47 2.40 Dissatisfied40-54 years old 6 2.96 Satisfied55-65 years old 9 2.46 DissatisfiedTotal 62 2.46 DissatisfiedTable 11 presents the ANOVA results on the respondents’ perception on safety health environment when they are grouped according to age. It shows significant difference on factors building facilities (sig.=0.037) and first aid facilities (sig.=0.034). In both these factors, significance value is less than 0.05. There is no significant difference on the rest of the factors.Table 12 presents the data of the respondents’ perception to the safety health environment in terms of building facilities and first aid facilities grouped according to age. These are the factors according to the ANOVA results in table 11 that have significant differences. Regarding the building facilities, those with ages 20-39 years or the millennials are generally dissatisfied. On the other hand, those with ages 40-54 years and 55-65 years are satisfied. This is consistent with the studies suggesting that millennials are more demanding on their work spaces and work environment. They are not anymore impressed with traditional office set-ups and want workplaces that will allow them to work efficiently through well-designed layouts CITATION Bar17 l 13321 (Barrett, 2017).Regarding the first aid facilities, those with ages 20-39 years and 55-65 years are generally dissatisfied while those with ages 40-54 years are satisfied. Again, those with ages 20-39 years are the millennials who are more demanding when it comes on workplaces. Those with ages 55-65 years who are also dissatisfied with the first aid facilities are those who are in the age facing more health risks and, thus, are more conscious on the first aid available for them when sudden occupational accidents occur. Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 13. Results of ANOVA on the Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to Length of ServiceSum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Building Facilities Between Groups .987 5 .197 1.030 .409Within Groups 10.737 56 .192 Total 11.724 61 First Aid Facilities Between Groups 1.340 5 .268 1.042 .402Within Groups 14.402 56 .257 Total 15.742 61 Emergency Planning Between Groups 1.584 5 .317 1.322 .268Within Groups 13.415 56 .240 Total 14.999 61 Health and Safety Policies Between Groups .332 5 .066 .235 .946Within Groups 15.803 56 .282 Total 16.135 61 Table 13 presents the ANOVA results on the respondents’ perception on safety health environment when they are grouped according to length of service. It shows no significant difference on the four factors since their significance values are all greater than 0.05. Respondents who have been staying in the organization for long and those who are relatively new have same sentiments on the factors of their safety health environment. The respondents considered in this study are those who are in the organization for at least a year. The result indicates that the one-year tenure has already given the respondents enough experience to be aware on the status of their safety health environment. Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 14. Results of ANOVA on the Respondents’ Perception on Safety Health Environment Grouped According to Educational AttainmentSum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Building Facilities Between Groups .533 2 .266 1.404 .254Within Groups 11.191 5 9 .190 Total 11.724 6 1 First Aid Facilities Between Groups .405 2 .202 .779 .464Within Groups 15.337 5 9 .260 Total 15.742 6 1 Emergency Planning Between Groups .170 2 .085 .339 .714Within Groups 14.829 5 9 .251 Total 14.999 6 1 Health and Safety Policies Between Groups .008 2 .004 .014 .986Within Groups 16.127 5 9 .273 Total 16.135 6 1 Table 14 presents the ANOVA results on the respondents’ perception on safety health environment when they are grouped according to their highest educational attainment. It shows no significant difference on the four factors since their significance values are all greater than 0.05.It indicates that the perception to the safety health environment is not affected by educational attainment. Awareness programs and trainings provided to the respondents had given them knowledge on the safety health environment. In addition, experience and hands-on involvement on the safety health environment formed their perceptions. To answer the Statement of the Problem 5, “Is there a significant correlation between the respondents’ perception on safety health environment and employee retention?”Table SEQ Table * ARABIC 15. Pearson Correlation of Safety Health Environment and Employee Retention in terms of Psychographic ProfilePearson Correlation .062Sig. (2-tailed) .632Sum of Squares and Cross-products .850Covariance .014N 62Pearson’s Correlation (r) is 0.062 and is less than 0.10 which concludes that there is negligible correlation between safety health environment and employee retention in terms of the respondents’ psychographic profile. Moreover, r is not significant because the significance value is 0.632 which is greater than 0.05. This answers the fifth statement of the problem, suggesting that there is no significant correlation between the respondents’ perception on safety health environment and employee retention. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. This means that the respondents’ perception on their safety health environment does not directly affect employee retention. Employee retention in terms of the respondents’ psychographic profile does not highly depend on the safety health environment. Increasing the satisfaction of the respondents on their safety health environment does not guarantee better employee retention. Moreover, although the respondents have general satisfaction on their safety health environment based on the factors considered, increasing satisfaction in these factors will not automatically lead to increased employee retention. An explanation of why the result of this study deviates from the theoretical framework is the different perceptions towards job satisfaction and employee retention strategies.Literature suggests that state government offices use Loyal Soldier HR strategy that emphasize employee retention by offering workers with a sense of security that convinces them to work even at lower wages than they might be able to earn at private firms CITATION Ste14 l 13321 (Stewart ; Brown, 2014). Hence, those working in government offices stay in the organizations because of the job security it offers, among others. Safety health environment is a basic requirement but not the decision point.Moreover, there are different dimensions of job satisfaction. For instance, there is satisfaction with job fulfilment, satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with work group and satisfaction with security. The results of the study illustrates that the respondents find a just average satisfaction on their safety health environment but give high degree of importance on the work itself and work advancement. This implies that the respondents value the work itself and work advancement more than the safety health environment. According to Stewart and Brown, some employees are naturally inclined toward either high or low levels of satisfaction regardless of the work environment or no matter how good a job is and some people may even be happy working in difficult conditions (Stewart ; Brown, 2014).In addition, there are also other aspects that contribute to the work environment that might influence the employee retention apart from the safety health factors. As mentioned the study of Tahir and Awan, supervisor support, relation with co-workers, training and development, attractive and fast incentives and recognition plans, adequate work load at work place are factors in achieving a conducive work environment (Tahir ; Awan, 2015). CHAPTER 5SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThis chapter presents the summary of findings, drawn conclusions and recommendations based on the results of the study presented in chapter 4.The main objective of this study is to show the correlation between safety health environment and employee retention in the Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration. A survey questionnaire was developed and distributed to the employees of the Common Services Laboratory, FDA. The respondents answered the questionnaire using Likert Scale. The data obtained from the survey were analyzed using statistical tools and interpreted to address the research problems stated in this study.Summary of FindingsThe following presents the summary of the research findings:Answer to the Statement of the Problem 1, “What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of age, gender, position, length of service / tenure and education attainment?”Gender: 27.42% are males and 72.58% are females.Age: 75.80% are within the age of 20-39 years old; 9.68% are within the age of 40-54 years old; and 14.52% are within the age of 55-65 years old.Position: 90.32% are in the rank and file positions and 9.68% are in the supervisory / managerial positions. Tenure: 6.45% are in the organization for 1-2 years; 30.65% are in the organization for 3-5 years; 30.65% are in the organization for 6-10 years; 11.29% are in the organization for 11-15 years; 0.00% are in the organization for 16-20 years; 12.90% are in the organization for 21-30 years; and 8.06% are in the organization for above 30 years. Educational Attainment: 1.61% have elementary as the highest educational attainment; 90.32% have college degree; and 8.06% have post graduate degree. Answer to the Statement of the Problem 2, “How do the respondents perceive safety health environment in terms of building facilities, first aid facilities, emergency planning and health and safety policies?”Building Facilities: Mean of 2.48 translates to “Dissatisfied”.First Aid Facilities: Mean of 2.46 translates to “Dissatisfied”. Emergency Planning: Mean of 2.60 translates to “Satisfied”.Health and Safety Policy: Mean of 2.65 translates to “Satisfied”.The grand mean of the respondents’ perception to the safety health environment in terms of the factors building facilities, first aid facilities, emergency planning and health and safety policy is 2.55 which translates into the verbal interpretation ‘Satisfied’.Answer to the Statement of the Problem 3, “What is the psychographic profile of the respondents in terms of their perception to monetary achievement, work itself and work advancement”?Monetary Achievement: Mean of 4.00 translates to “Great Extent”Work Itself: Mean of 4.16 translates to “Great Extent”Work Advancement: Mean of 4.30 translates to “Very Great Extent”The ANOVA results, significance value of 0.046 which is less than 0.05, on the respondents’ psychographic profile specifically on their perception in terms of monetary achievement and work advancement, show significant difference. Answer to the Statement of the Problem 4, “Is there a significant difference on the respondents’ perception to the safety health environment when they are grouped according to their demographic profile?”Gender (using t-test): Based on equal variances assumed, significance value of 0.619 which is greater than 0.025 (2-tailed), there is no significant difference.Position (using t-test): Based on equal variances assumed, significance value of 0.630 which is greater than 0.025 (2-tailed), there is no significant difference.Age (using ANOVA): There is significant difference on factors building facility (sig.=0.037) and first aid facilities (sig.=0.034). In both these factors, significance value is less than 0.05. There are no significant difference on the rest of the factors.Length of Service (Using ANOVA): All significance values are greater than 0.05, hence there is no significant difference.Educational Attainment (Using ANOVA): All significance values are greater than 0.05, hence there is no significant difference.Answer to the Statement of the Problem 5, “Is there a significant correlation between the respondents’ perception on safety health environment and employee retention?”Pearson’s Correlation is r = 0.062, meaning there is a negligible correlation since it is less than 0.10. Furthermore, r is not significant because the significance value is 0.632 which is greater than 0.05. There is negligible correlation between the respondents’ perception on safety health environment and employee retention.ConclusionsAlthough there is general satisfaction of the respondents in their safety health environment which is one factor of employee satisfaction and retention, the study finds no significant correlation between the safety health environment and employee retention. This means that increasing the level of satisfaction in the safety health environment will not directly result to increased employee retention. Furthermore, the results show that even though the respondents are dissatisfied with certain factors in their safety health environment, they remain engaged in their work and stay with the organization giving value to the monetary benefits, work itself and work advancement. Hence the primary factor of employee retention in the Common Services Laboratory, FDA is not the safety health environment.Considering also that the organization studied is a government agency, the factor job security may have been a significant influence on the employee retention. RecommendationsThe following recommendations were formulated based on the results and analysis drawn from this research study.For the Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration:1. The results express dissatisfaction of the respondents on some of the factors of their safety health environment. Regarding the building facilities, they are dissatisfied on the storage of hazardous chemicals and security of restricted access. For the first aid facilities, they are dissatisfied with the first aid medical supplies / kit, access to first aid facilities, first aid trainings and first response of trained personnel. And for the emergency planning, they are dissatisfied with the emergency devices. The Common Services Laboratory should review and evaluate the status of each of the factors pointed out. This should include checking on international and/or national standards and government regulations for these factors, if any, then use the results as basis for compliance and improvement. Although there is no significant correlation on the safety health environment and employee retention, it is still important that the organization improve on this area for the wellbeing of their employees.2.Regular awareness or training programs regarding safety in the laboratory should be provided. Training programs should be a combination of classroom-type lectures and hands-on workshops so that employees will be fully capable of attending and responding to actual safety concerns and incidents. 3.The organization could seek assistance from Occupational Safety and Health Center (OSHC) in the assessment of the safety health environment and occupational hazard and risks involved in the work in the Common Services Laboratory.4.Since the respondents express “very great extent” of agreement with work advancement and “great extent” of agreement on work itself, the organization could get job engagement through these factors. Work advancement can be promoted through the following activities: continuous provision of local and international technical trainings; support on development of expertise by allowing membership to national technical committees; and provision of constant evaluation/feedback on competencies for professional development.The work itself can be promoted by providing complete set of materials, references, tools, and latest high-technology equipment as required for the accomplishment of the work assigned; For the Future Researchers:1. It is recommended to consider other factors of the work environment (i.e. relationship with colleagues, supervisor support and involvement with the work) and its relationship on employee retention to develop strategies to strengthen human resource. 2. Comparison on the perceptions of those working in private chemical laboratories and government agency chemical laboratories should also considered.CHAPTER 6BENEDICTINE HALLMARK: PRAYERPraying is very important because it is how we communicate and talk to the Lord. When we pray, we humble ourselves before the Lord. We open our hearts to him and tell him our deepest desires, dreams, agonies and fears. No one lies in prayers. No one pretends to be somebody else when praying. A person is his/her true self when he/she prays. The content of a person’s prayer almost absolutely tell who or what kind of person he/she is. Work or chores started with a prayer are always completed with excellence because our prayers help us to focus and guide us in our objectives. Decisions made in prayer are worth-trusting. We pray because we acknowledge that we are not on our own. Our lives ultimately depends on the Lord’s planned purpose for us. We accept that we need His guidance and we need Him to help us in our tasks and struggles.The Lord Jesus Christ Himself teaches and encourages us to pray. The Lord God hears all our payers and, in His perfect time, he answers each and every one of them. This given opportunity for us to pray and be heard by the Lord is a sign of His love for us. That even though we are undeserving, sinful and wicked, He wants us to talk to him and return to Him.BIBLIOGRAPHYBooks:Armstrong, M., ; Taylor, S. (2014). Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (13th ed.). Ashford Colour press Ltd.Committee on Promoting Safe and Secure Chemical Management in Developing Countries. (2010). Chemical Laboratory Safety and Security. A Guide to Prudent Chemical Management. (L. Moran, & T. Masciangioli, Eds.) Washington, DC, United States of America: The National Academies Press. Retrieved March 09, 2018, from http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/bcst/miscellaneous/Chemical-Laboratory-Safety-and-Security.pdfKothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology Methods & Techniques (2nd ed.). New Delhi, India: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers. Retrieved February 28, 2017Mathis, R. L., Jackson, J. H., Valentine, S., & Meglich, P. (2017). Human Resource Management (15th ed.). Cengage Learning.Mello, J. A. (2015). Strategic Human Resource Management (4th ed.). Stamford, CT, USA: Cengage Learning.Stewart, G. L., & Brown, K. G. (2014). Human Resource Management (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Electronic Sources:Dudovskiy, J. (2016). Research Methodology. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from http://research-methodology.net: http://research-methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-collection/purposive-sampling/Foldspang, L., Mark, M., Rants, L., Hjorth, L., Langholz-Carstensen, C., Poulsen, O., . . . Aasnæss, S. (2014). Working environment and productivity. A register-based analysis of Nordic enterprises. Norden. Denmark: Nordic Council of Ministers. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:731771/FULLTEXT01.pdfHartman, S. W. (n.d.). Management Theory. New York Institute of Technology. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://www.aom-iaom.org/article_hartman.pdfJournals: BIBLIOGRAPHY Al-Shammari, S. A. (2015, May). The Effect of Work Environment on Employees’ Productivity. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 4(5), 1554-1558. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v4i5/SUB154560.pdfAmponsah-Tawiah, K., Ntow, M., ; Mensah, J. (2016, August). Occupational Health and Safety Management and Turnover Intentionin the Ghanaian Mining Sector. Safety and Health at Work, 7, 12-17.Bakoti?, D., ; Babi?, T. (2013, February). Relationship between Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction: The Case of Croatian Shipbuilding Company. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(2), 206-213. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_2_February_2013/22.pdfKossivi, B., Xu, M., ; Kalgora, B. (2016, May 30). Study on Determining Factors of Employee Retention. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 261-268. Retrieved May 19, 2017, from http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.45029Kwenin, D. O. (2013, December). Relationship between Work Environment, Career Development Opportunities and Employee Retention in Vodafone Ghana Limited. Global Journal of Human Resource Management, 1(No. 4), 1-9. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from http://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Relationship-between-Work-Environment-Career-Development-Opportunities-and-Employee-Retention-in-Vodafone-Ghana-Limited.pdfMcCaughey, D., Turner, N., Kim, J., DelliFraine, J., ; McGhan, G. E. (2015, May). Examining workplace hazard perceptions ; employee outcomes in the long-term care industry. Safety Science, 78, 190-197.Msengeti, D. M., ; Obwogi, J. (2015, April). Effects of Pay and Work Environment on Employee Retention: A Study of Hotel Industry in Mombasa County. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(4). Retrieved February 2017, 2017, from http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0415/ijsrp-p4077.pdfRaziq, A., ; Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). Impact of Working Environment on Job Satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 717-725. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567115005249#Sadatsafavi, H., Walewski, J., ; Shepley, M. (2015, March/April). Physical Work Environment as a Managerial Tool for Decreasing Job-Related Anxiety and Improving Employee-Employer Relations. Journal of Healthcare Management, 60(2), 114-132.Salman, S., Mahmood, A., Aftab, F., ; Mahmood, A. (2016, Spring). Impact of Safety Health Environment on Employee Retention in Pharmaceutical Industry: Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction and Motivation. Journal of Business Studies, 12(1), 185-197. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from http://ibt.edu.pk/qec/jbs/12.1/13.pdfSalunke, G. (2015, May). Work Environment and its Effect on Job Satisfaction in Cooperative Sugar Factories in Maharashtra, India. Abhinav International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in Management ; Technology, 4(5), 21-31. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://abhinavjournal.com/journal/index.php/ISSN-2320-0073/article/view/665Tahir, T., ; Awan, A. (2015). Impact of working environment on employee’s productivity: A case study of Banks and Insurance Companies in Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(1), 329-345. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/viewFile/18911/19378Waqas, A., Bashir, U., Sattar, M., Abdullah, H., Hussain, I., Anjum, W., . . . Arshad, R. (2014). Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction and Its Impact on Job Loyalty. International Journal of Learning & Development, 4(2), 141-161. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ ijld.v4i2.6095Website:Barrett, R. (2017, March 20). Workplace Design Trends: Make Way For Millennials. Retrieved from www.facilityexecutive.com: https://facilityexecutive.com/2017/03/workplace-design-trends-make-way-for-millennials/Food and Drug Administration Philippines. (n.d.). Retrieved March 09, 2018, from www.fda.gov.ph: http://www.fda.gov.ph/about-food-and-drug-administrationGraves, J. A. (2013, September 12). Careers. Retrieved from www.usnews.com: https://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2013/09/12/plotting-your-career-path-from-age-20-to-age-70 Rocheleau, M. (2017, March o7). Chart: The percentage of women and men in each profession. Retrieved from www.bostonglobe.com: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.htmlAPPENDIX ACover LetterDear Fellow Employee,Greetings!My name is Arianne Christy C. Bernabe and I am an MBA student at San Beda College Alabang. For my thesis, I am studying the Correlation of Safety Health Environment on Employee Retention in Common Services Laboratory, Food and Drug Administration. Since you are assigned directly under this department, I am inviting you to participate in this research study by answering the attached questionnaire. The questionnaire will require only a few minutes to complete.Participation is voluntary, and you may refuse to participate at any time. If you chose to participate, your responses will remain confidential and anonymous. Data from this research will be reported only as a collective combined total. No one other than the researcher will know your individual answers to this questionnaire.Considering this is my personal undertaking. Food and Drug Administration has no obligation with the outcome of this activity.Thank you and I hope for your consideration. Very truly yours, Arianne Christy C. BernabeAPPENDIX BQuestionnaire Personal Information2731135635000Please mark appropriate boxes with ” “.Gender Male FemaleAge 20-39 years 40-54 years 55-65 yearsPosition Rank and File Supervisory / ManagerialLength of Service / Tenure  1-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-30 years Above 30 yearsHighest Education Attainment Elementary High School Vocational College Post GraduateSurvey InformationPlease check the corresponding column to indicate the extent of your agreement to the following points:Safety Health Environment(4 – Highly Satisfied, 3 – Satisfied, 2 – Dissatisfied, 1 – Highly Dissatisfied)  4 3 2 1Building Facilities Building Structure (Strength & Integrity) Laboratory Layout Environmental Condition(Lighting, Ventilation and Temperature) Storage of Hazardous Chemicals Security of Restricted Areas First Aid Facilities First Aid Equipment (i.e. Eyewash unit, Safety shower) First Aid Medical Supplies / Kit Access to First Aid Facilities First Aid Trainings First Aid Response of Trained Personnel Emergency Planning Emergency Evacuation Plan Emergency Devices (i.e. Alarms, Sensors, Fire Extinguisher) Access to Emergency Exits Fire and Earthquake Drills Emergency Response Trainings Health and Safety Policy Organization’s commitment to health and safety Written health and safety policy Safety Inspections and Audits Laboratory Safety Awareness Provision of Personal Protective Equipment and Safety Gears Psychographic Profile(5 – Very Great Extent, 4 – Great Extent, 3 – Moderate Extent, 2 – Little Extent, 1 – Not at all)5 4 3 2 1Monetary Achievement I work for the salary and wages. I want to settle for a job where I can earn the maximum salary. Monetary benefits motivate me to do my best. Work Itself I enjoy working in a laboratory. I want to settle for a job where I can fully utilize my knowledge. The nature of my work motivates me to do my best. Work Advancement I work to improve my competency. I want to settle for a job where I can have professional development. Incentive measures, recognition and promotion motivate me to do my best.