Workplace Environment Assessment Report: Strategies and Solutions

This report presents a comprehensive workplace environment assessment, evaluating its health and safety for employees. The evaluation, scoring 80, indicates a moderately healthy environment, with areas for improvement such as addressing extreme workload and one-way communication. The report identifies surprising aspects of the assessment, including the impact of one-way communication and excessive work pressure. It then reviews the oppression theory, relating it to the assessment findings by highlighting how excessive workload and one-way communication can lead to employee exploitation and hinder career development. The report suggests strategies to overcome shortcomings, such as hiring more employees to reduce workload, and recommends training programs to foster team working skills and mutual respect. It also suggests collecting employee feedback to strengthen successful practices like good leadership and clear performance expectations. The report aims to provide insights and practical solutions for improving the workplace environment and fostering high-performance interpersonal teams.

Running Head: Workplace Environment Assessment
WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT

2
Workplace Environment Assessment
Table of Contents
Part 1: Evaluation of the work environment..............................................................................3
Part 2: Literature review.............................................................................................................4
Part 3: Discussion about strategies that are based on evidence for building high-performance
interpersonal teams.....................................................................................................................5
Reference list..............................................................................................................................7

3
Workplace Environment Assessment
Part 1: Evaluation of the work environment
1. Describing the result
Evaluation of a workplace environment reveals whether the workplace is healthy and safe for
their employees or not. After the completion of the evaluation, it has been found that the
workplace has scored 80. It means that it is lying between 80 and 89. It means that this
workplace can be considered as moderately healthy for the workers. According to Aronsson
et al. (2017), employers may look into different alternative ideas that can support them to
make this kind of working environment more healthy for employees. It has been found that
employees at this workplace often face difficulties due to the extreme workload. On the other
hand, one-way communication is present within this organization. It means that managers
make decisions and convey to the employees.
2. Two surprising things and one believed idea
Firstly, one-way communication is a fact that has surprised me about the result of
this workplace environment evaluation. According to Harmon, DeGennaro, Norling,
Kennedy & Fontaine (2018), one-way communication makes employees feel that they are
bound to perform according to the instructions of management and they cannot complain
against any operation of the company to anyone. Secondly, extreme work pressure is a
surprising fact that is preventing this workplace from becoming healthy for employees. Huge
workloads are preventing employees to maintain a balance between their personal and
professional lives.
The idea of assessing the viewpoints of both management and the employees were
considered prior to conduct this evaluation. This belief has helped to understand the issues
facing by both of these parties within this workplace.
3. Suggestion from the result regarding civility and health of the workplace

4
Workplace Environment Assessment
This result suggests that this working environment is partially healthy for the employees. It
means that the management of this company needs to be more sensitive in terms of
understanding the problems of their employees. As suggested by McGregor, Ashbury, Caputi
& Iverson (2018), the level of exploitation must be reduced to gain support from the
employees in achieving organizational goals.
Part 2: Literature review
1. The oppression theory
Oppression theory can be explained as a relationship between two categories, where one
group gets benefited from the exploitation of others. As stated by Taylor (2016), the concept
of oppression can be explained as harm by which a group is systematically burdened or
constrained by stronger forces. It is a central concept that is often used in philosophy. The
members of the stronger group earn privileges, while the individuals of the weaker group get
reduced or diminished (Duma, Maingi, Tap, Weekes & Thomas Jr, 2019). In the workplace,
sometimes the employees receive fewer privileges that cause harm in their career by creating
fewer development opportunities. Hence, employee turnover can occur.
2. Relation of the theory to the result
The theory of oppression can be related to the study results as it can be seen that a moderate
score is achieved in work environment assessment. It can be seen that employees in the
selected workplace have to face extreme work pressure that impacts on their work-life
balance. Hence, they get exploited and the management gets benefited by achieving more
revenue. According to the concept of oppression, one group gets benefits by privilege, which
are unearned (Dash & Mohanty, 2019). Hence, by creating huge pressure on employees, the
management group of the selected company earns the privilege of high turnover. On the other
hand, one-way communication is seen during the assessment process, which indicates that the

5
Workplace Environment Assessment
oppressed group of this firm is treated unfairly. This can also be explained through the
oppression theory as this action by the dominant group of this company tends to block or
immobilize the oppressed group (Dhaini et al. 2016). Employees of this firm cannot
communicate their grievances to the management.
3. Process of applying the oppression theory
However, the theory or concept of oppression can be applied to improve the working
environment of the firm. For example, recruiting more employees in this firm can reduce the
burden of current employees. The dominant group of this company will be privileged more as
greater productivity can be earned. Besides, the oppressed group will get less harmed as work
division will occur. Moreover, this theory can be used to provide training to employees. For
example, one-way communication can be used to provide training through online courses
created by management. The management will earn greater revenue from skilled employees,
while the greater ability of employees will help them to gain career development
opportunities.
Part 3: Discussion about strategies that are based on evidence for building high-
performance interpersonal teams
1. Recommendation of strategies to overcome identified shortcomings
Firstly, hiring more employees is recommended to this organization as it can help the
management to reduce extreme workload. As suggested by Jørgensen, Villadsen, Burr,
Punnett & Holtermann (2016), this solution may divide the workload and job satisfaction
level can be increased with the help of this solution. Dividing the workload among more
number of employees may make this workplace healthier than before as the employees will
be able to perform better under limited work pressure.

6
Workplace Environment Assessment
Secondly, educating employees about working in a team and respecting the
values of each other is recommended to this workplace. For employing this
recommendation, this organization may arrange training programs twice a month to help
employees to build team working skills. The management needs to tell their employees to
respect the dignity and the values of each other to work collaboratively as teams.
2. Recommendation of strategies to strengthen successful practices
It is recommended that feedback from employees can be collected to bolster good
practices identified such as good leadership practices and communicating performance
expectations. As opined by Jørgensen et al. (2016), the collection of feedback helps to engage
employees in the decision-making process and the flow of ideas can increase. Thus, both
good practices can be improved. Another strategy is to set business plans aligning with
organizational objectives. This can help the leaders to manage teams easily and performance
expectations can be communicated more easily. Less error in these good practices will occur
and employees can work according to given targets.

7
Workplace Environment Assessment
Reference list
Aronsson, G., Theorell, T., Grape, T., Hammarström, A., Hogstedt, C., Marteinsdottir, I., ...
& Hall, C. (2017). A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment
and burnout symptoms. BMC public health, 17(1), 264. Retrieved
from:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-017-4153-7
Dash, B., & Mohanty, P. K. (2019). The Effects of Work Environment, Self-evaluation at
Workplace and Employee Morale on Employee Engagement. Srusti Management
Review, 12(1), 33-39. Retrieved
from:http://srustimanagementreview.ac.in/paperfile/1047075584_The%20Effects
%20of%20Work%20Environment,%20Self-evaluation%20at%20Workplace
%20a.pdf
Dhaini, S. R., Zúñiga, F., Ausserhofer, D., Simon, M., Kunz, R., De Geest, S., &
Schwendimann, R. (2016). Care workers health in Swiss nursing homes and its
association with psychosocial work environment: A cross-sectional study.
International journal of nursing studies, 53, 105-115. Retrieved
from:https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/367719
Duma, N., Maingi, S., Tap, W. D., Weekes, C. D., & Thomas Jr, C. R. (2019). Establishing a
Mutually Respectful Environment in the Workplace: A Toolbox for Performance
Excellence. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 39, e219-e226.
Retrieved from:https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
output=instlink&q=info:aLgCrsZnCywJ:scholar.google.com/
&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2016&scillfp=4620335980814328084&oi=lle

8
Workplace Environment Assessment
Harmon, R. B., DeGennaro, G., Norling, M., Kennedy, C., & Fontaine, D. (2018).
Implementing healthy work environment standards in an academic workplace: An
update. Journal of Professional Nursing, 34(1), 20-24. Retrieved
from:https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/1928/2018/08/Implementing-healthy-work-
environment-standards-in-an-academic-workplace-update.2018.pdf
Jørgensen, M. B., Villadsen, E., Burr, H., Punnett, L., & Holtermann, A. (2016). Does
employee participation in workplace health promotion depend on the working
environment? A cross-sectional study of Danish workers. BMJ open, 6(6), e010516.
Retrieved from:https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010516?
cpetoc=&utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=BMJOp_Trend
MD-1
McGregor, A., Ashbury, F., Caputi, P., & Iverson, D. (2018). A Preliminary Investigation of
Health and Work-Environment Factors on Presenteeism in the Workplace. Journal of
occupational and environmental medicine, 60(12), e671-e678. Retrieved
from:https://dl.uswr.ac.ir/bitstream/Hannan/69295/1/2018%20JoOEM%20Volume
%2060%20Issue%2012%20December%20%2821%29.pdf
Taylor, E. (2016). Groups and oppression. Hypatia, 31(3), 520-536. Retrieved
from:https://www.elanortaylor.org/uploads/9/1/8/2/91822306/groups_penultimate.pdf