Recently, almost of comapanys are fully understanded of the importance of employee performance, especially in the field of smartphone manufacturing. Improving employee performance or to find out the methods through which high level of employee performance can be achieved is becoming one of the decisive factors for any company success. This research aimed to identify and measure the level of factors affecting the manufacturing employee performance working at SEV, through identifying the variables include leadership, organizational culture, working environment, motivation, training & development. In the thesis, the author has used theory of Khan and Jabbar (2013); Mathis & Jackson (2009) as the basis component framework to measure the employee performance at SEV. These 05 factors are measured by 20 obseved variables. Manufacturing employee performance is a depedent variable which mesured by 04 observed variables .This study is qualitative and quantitative in nature and aimed to find out the relationship between above mentioned variables and manufacturing employee performance in SEV. For this purposes data was collected from SEV with the research sample consisted of 350 manufacturing employees are working in main assembly factory at SEV. However, in the fact that, it is 326 of the manufacturing employee participated in the survey, acounts for 93.14%. Questionnaires were collected by company email system. Survey results were processed by SPSS software. The mean of the manufacturing employee performance is 3.4 that mean employee performance was average good level. Manufacturing employee have not achieved maximum performance. The most inportance factors that affecting manufacturing employee performance is Working Environment (Beta=0.319, contributes 25.2 %), second by Leadership (Beta=0.313, contributes 24.72 %), and Motivation (Beta=0.248, contributes 19.59 %). The problems in enhancing the manufacturing employee at SEV are found as below: - First, the employees think that there is a difference in their income between shiftwork and group work while the base salary is the same. Employees work in groups have higher income and working time is 4 days/week. Many employees want to work in groups instead of working shifts. In fact, 31% of employees are satisfied with total income (salary, benefits and other bonuses) and 38% “Neutral” while 32% of employees are dissatisfied with total income. - Second, promotion policy doesn’t have a clear for individual manufacturing employee. Manufacturing employee is only promoted by job level and is rarely appointed to direct management positions such as Sub / Line Leader. Ratings and rewards are often awarded representing the whole production line or team. Individual awards are limited. Only 33% of the employee while 37% didn’t satisfy with promotion opportunities and rewarding. Thirth, the mean of “You are satisfied with the support of leaders and colleagues at work (WE5)” is only 3.01 which means that the employee didn’t satisfy with the support of leaders and colleagues at work. In fact, 30% of the employee satisfied, 48% neutral while 28% didn’t satisfy (20% Disagree and 8% Strongly Disagree). Finally, the mean of "Leaders usually trust and encourages the members decide on work methods (LS2)" is 3.22. This is normal level which means that employees need to get more trust from Leaders and employees need more encourage at work. The researcher gave some solutions to improve the manufacturing employee performance as follow: - Improving promotion & reward motivation: the company should build clear criteria for promotion for manufacturing employee and career level. - Improving the support of leaders and colleagues at work: Enhancing coaching job skill, enhance discussion, work communication and building trust. In addition, SEV also arranges employee rotation to suit their capacity and job requirements. Rearcher hoped that manufacturing employee performanace is improved and help to enhance company performance and the company can develop sustainably.
1 NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY NEU BUSINESS SCHOOL NGUYEN VAN TUYEN FACTORS AFFECTING MANUFACTURING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE AT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS VIETNAM MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION THESIS HANOI – 2020 NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY NEU BUSINESS SCHOOL NGUYEN VAN TUYEN FACTORS AFFECTING MANUFACTURING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE AT SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS VIETNAM MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION THESIS SUPERVISOR: ASSOC PROF DR VU THI MINH HANOI – 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First, I would very much like to express my warm gratitude to my thesis supervisors, Associate Professor Doctor Vu Thi Minh, who instructed and taught me a lot, gave me her valuable time and preciuos comments to contribute much to my thesis I would also like to extend my appreciation to all instructors at NEU Business School for sharing their knowledge and experience with me Second, I send my sincere thanks to managers and colleagues at Samsung Electronics Vietnam for catering me in collecting full and accurate data in research process Finally, I also would like to thank my family and friends for their support in finishing this thesis Thank you very much Nguyen Van Tuyen Nov 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATION SEV: Samsung Electronics Vietnam SEC: Samsung Electronics Company HRM: Human Resource Management EFA: Exploration Factor Analysis KPI: Key Performance Indicator MBO: Management by Objectives LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Research process 16 Figure 2.1: Research Model of the factors affecting manufacturing employee performance at SEV .28 Figure 3.1: Samsung Electronics Vietnam Organizational Chart 33 Figure 3.2: Age group 34 Figure 3.3: Gender structure 34 Figure 3.4: Marital status .34 Figure 3.5: Workmanship level 35 Figure 3.6: Working time .35 Figure 3.7: Job position 36 Figure 3.8: Manufacturing employee’s performance evaluation result 38 Figure 3.9: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about Working Space 50 Figure 3.10: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about Infrastructure 50 Figure 3.11: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about working tools safety 50 Figure 3.12: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about interpersonal relationship .51 Figure 3.13: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about work interaction 51 Figure 3.14: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about Coaching 53 Figure 3.15: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about Empowerment 53 Figure 3.16: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about Participation 53 Figure 3.17: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about the Salary 56 Figure 3.18: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about the total Promotion 57 Figure 3.19: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about the Reward 57 Figure 3.20: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about the Profit sharing .58 Figure 3.21: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about the Job enrichment 58 Figure 3.22: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about the Recognition .58 Figure 3.23: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about promotion opportunities 60 Figure 3.24: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about Creative & Innovation .60 Figure 3.25: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about employee orientation .61 Figure 3.26: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about Training Need Assessment 62 Figure 3.27: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about Training program & Method 64 Figure 3.28: Manufacturing employee’s opinion about On Job Training .64 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recently, almost of comapanys are fully understanded of the importance of employee performance, especially in the field of smartphone manufacturing Improving employee performance or to find out the methods through which high level of employee performance can be achieved is becoming one of the decisive factors for any company success This research aimed to identify and measure the level of factors affecting the manufacturing employee performance working at SEV, through identifying the variables include leadership, organizational culture, working environment, motivation, training & development In the thesis, the author has used theory of Khan and Jabbar (2013); Mathis & Jackson (2009) as the basis component framework to measure the employee performance at SEV These 05 factors are measured by 20 obseved variables Manufacturing employee performance is a depedent variable which mesured by 04 observed variables This study is qualitative and quantitative in nature and aimed to find out the relationship between above mentioned variables and manufacturing employee performance in SEV For this purposes data was collected from SEV with the research sample consisted of 350 manufacturing employees are working in main assembly factory at SEV However, in the fact that, it is 326 of the manufacturing employee participated in the survey, acounts for 93.14% Questionnaires were collected by company email system Survey results were processed by SPSS software The mean of the manufacturing employee performance is 3.4 that mean employee performance was average good level Manufacturing employee have not achieved maximum performance The most inportance factors that affecting manufacturing employee performance is Working Environment (Beta=0.319, contributes 25.2 %), second by Leadership (Beta=0.313, contributes 24.72 %), and Motivation (Beta=0.248, contributes 19.59 %) The problems in enhancing the manufacturing employee at SEV are found as below: - First, the employees think that there is a difference in their income between shiftwork and group work while the base salary is the same Employees work in groups have higher income and working time is days/week Many employees want to work in groups instead of working shifts In fact, 31% of employees are satisfied with total income (salary, benefits and other bonuses) and 38% “Neutral” while 32% of employees are dissatisfied with total income - Second, promotion policy doesn’t have a clear for individual manufacturing employee Manufacturing employee is only promoted by job level and is rarely appointed to direct management positions such as Sub / Line Leader Ratings and rewards are often awarded representing the whole production line or team Individual awards are limited Only 33% of the employee while 37% didn’t satisfy with promotion opportunities and rewarding Thirth, the mean of “You are satisfied with the support of leaders and colleagues at work (WE5)” is only 3.01 which means that the employee didn’t satisfy with the support of leaders and colleagues at work In fact, 30% of the employee satisfied, 48% neutral while 28% didn’t satisfy (20% Disagree and 8% Strongly Disagree) Finally, the mean of "Leaders usually trust and encourages the members decide on work methods (LS2)" is 3.22 This is normal level which means that employees need to get more trust from Leaders and employees need more encourage at work The researcher gave some solutions to improve the manufacturing employee performance as follow: - Improving promotion & reward motivation: the company should build clear criteria for promotion for manufacturing employee and career level - Improving the support of leaders and colleagues at work: Enhancing coaching job skill, enhance discussion, work communication and building trust In addition, SEV also arranges employee rotation to suit their capacity and job requirements Rearcher hoped that manufacturing employee performanace is improved and help to enhance company performance and the company can develop sustainably 86 (Source: Author design base on SEV’s Documentary) APPENDIX In-Depth interview In-depth interviews with 20 respondents were conducted on August in SEV The objective of the in-depth interviews is to gain more insight into this research topic During the in-depth interviews, the employee basic information was take from HR System as gender, age, … So, participants expressed their opinions and discussed in open-ended questions: Please tell me your most recent month's performance evalution result Table: 01 Evaluation level A B+ B C Frequency 12 Percent (%) 15% 25% 60% 0% Do you think that the factors: Leadership, Motivation, Working Environment, OrganiztionalCulture, Training & Development are effected your current performance? Table: 02 Factors Leadership Organizational Culture Motivation Working Environment Frequency 19 18 20 20 Percent (%) 95% 90% 100% 100% 87 Training & Development 20 100% In your opinion, what factors have the most effect on your performance? Table: 03 Factors Leadership Organizational Culture Motivation Working Environment Training & Development Total Frequency 20 Percent (%) 25% 10% 15% 40% 10% 100% Are you satisfied with the personal performance rating of the Leader monthly? Table: 04 Response Yes No Total Frequency 16 20 Percent (%) 80% 20% 100% Did you know that the leader evaluates your performance based on efficiency, efficiency, productivity and timeliness criteria? Table: 05 Response Frequency Percent (%) Yes 17 85% No 0% Not full 15% Total 20 100% The problems you face into relate to which factor of your organization? 88 Table: 06 Factors Leadership Organizational Culture Motivation Working Environment Training & Development Frequency Percent (%) 30% 15% 35% 40% 25% Please specify any ways you think performance in your organization can be improved? ………………………………………………………………………………… Thank you for your response! (Author design base on SEV’s Documentary) APPENDIX SPSS EXPLORATION FACTOR ANALYSIS AND REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS Cronbach’s Alpha and Exploratory factor analysis to Adjust performance scale 1.1 Cronbach’s Alpha analysis The research will retest the scales through specific working environment in SEV (Questionnare survey) To ensure the reliability of the scale, this study will remove the scales which have Cronbach’s Alpha less than 0.6 Also, retaining only those 89 variables which have Corrected Item- Total Correlation greater than 0.3 Leadership (LS) Scale: Table 1: Cronbach’s alpha of Leadership (LS) Scale Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Alpha 809 Items Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean Scale Corrected LS1 LS2 LS3 Cronbach's if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Deleted Item Correlation Item 6.7147 7.2546 6.9755 Deleted 3.854 3.963 4.313 763 613 609 Deleted 631 790 788 Cronbach’s Alpha of the scales is 0.809 > 0.6 and Corrected Item-Total Correlation of LS1; LS2; LS3 > 0.3 Organizational culture Scale: Table 2: Cronbach’s alpha of Organizational Culture Scale Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Alpha 809 Items Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Deleted Item Correlation Item Deleted Deleted 90 OC1 OC2 OC3 6.9080 7.2638 7.0859 3.622 3.401 4.251 746 665 576 647 736 817 Cronbach’s Alpha of the scales is 0.809 > 0.6 and Corrected Item-Total Correlation of OC1; OC2; OC3 > 0.3 Working environment Scale Table 3: Cronbach’s alpha of working environment Scale Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Alpha 842 Items Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean Scale Corrected WE1 WE2 WE3 WE4 WE5 Cronbach's if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Deleted Item Correlation Item 13.2209 13.0706 13.4049 13.3282 13.6503 Deleted 10.376 12.140 11.011 12.320 12.659 863 617 633 611 534 Deleted 747 818 817 820 839 Cronbach’s Alpha of the scales is 0.842 > 0.6 All Corrected Item-Total Correlation of Items >0.3 Training & Development Scale Table 4: Cronbach’s alpha of Training & Development Scale Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Alpha Items 91 851 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Deleted Item Correlation Item Deleted Deleted TD1 7.1595 3.821 847 687 TD2 7.3926 4.061 644 862 TD3 7.6074 3.519 696 825 Cronbach’s Alpha of the scales is 0.851 > 0.6 and Corrected Item-Total Correlation of TD1; TD2; TD3 > 0.3 Motivation Scale: Table 5: Cronbach’s alpha of Motivation Scale Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Alpha 846 Items Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean Scale Corrected M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 Cronbach's if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Deleted Item Correlation Item 15.0982 15.3466 15.3988 15.3160 15.1871 15.2178 Deleted 19.209 19.009 20.364 21.595 21.149 21.069 687 749 554 559 602 626 Deleted 809 796 837 833 826 822 Cronbach’s Alpha of the scales is 0.846 > 0.6 Corrected Item-Total Correlation of M1; M2; M3; M4; M5; M6 > 0.3 92 Performance Scale Table 6: Cronbach’s alpha of Performance Scale Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 815 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean Scale Corrected P1 P2 P3 P4 Cronbach's if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Deleted Item Correlation Item 10.3528 10.3773 10.0798 10.0399 Deleted 8.247 7.220 7.803 8.155 566 747 694 542 Deleted 798 711 740 811 Cronbach’s Alpha of the scales is 0.815 > 0.6 and Corrected Item-Total Correlation of P1; P2; P3; P4 > 0.3 Summary: Manufacturing employee’s Performance: Through Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis, there are no variances deleted There are scales and variances (Table 7) Table 7: The adjusted scales of manufacturing employee’s Performance after Cronbach’s Alpha Analysis No Scale LS OC WE TD M Variances LS1, LS2, LS3 OC1, OC2, OC3 WE1, WE2, WE3, WE4,WE5,WE6 TD1, TD2, TD3 M1, M2, M3, M4,M5,M6 Cronbach’s Alpha 0.809 0.809 0.842 0.851 0.846 93 P P1, P2, P3, P4 0.815 1.2 Exploratory factor analysis KMO and Bartlett’s Test Tables 8: KMO and Bartlett’s Test KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Bartlett's Test of Approx Chi-Square Sphericity df Sig .852 3194.44 190 000 KMO=0.852, satisfied requirement: 0.5