1. INTRODUCTION:

Today's world is human's world and custodians of human organizations. Organizations will not be able to survive without humans. On the other hand our lives need to contribution of all people cooperation, and collaboration. So these led to divide duties, different skills and improve the quality and quantity of people.

Environment of organization is the collection of countable navigation. These navigates were recognized directly or indirectly by people who work and affect their motivation and behavior. Environment of organization is where in which people work. It can affect in motivation and satisfactory of a job. The 4 aspects of environment of organization are organizational formality, participation and low delegation. Here it will be studied about these 3 aspects.

The concept of organizational formality is employees feeling of laws, methods and offices strong rules. Productivity of managers means to use peoples and sources in order to reduce the costs and make clients more satisfied.

Organizations need to programs and variety of instruments in order to encourage their employees. Here In this study the main question is: is there any relationship between environment of organization and productivity of managers?

2. LITERATURE:

Productivity will be improved when the organizational culture enterprise purpose to organizational priorities and sometimes changes shape. Studies show that organizational culture is the most important key to improve the organization’s success and failing (Kazemi, 2010). Productivity and organizations culture have strong relationship with each other (Kashani and Khanyfar, 2011). Encouragement plans in the organizations are so important too (Rao, 2005; Taheri, 2006).

According to the study in Iran, a significant relation exists between organizational responsibility, identity and patronage with organizational productivity. But a significant relation does not exist between organizational structure and productivity of managers (Zirak et al., 2013). The other study shows that in Iran's gas office the organizational structure has a negative effect in employee's empowerment (Baybordi et al., 2013). But in the other one a significant relation exists between organizational structure and clients (Javan Pakdaman et al., 2013).

According to French's theory based on existence ideas it can't be defined the best organizational environment. Litwin and Stringer (2010) believe that it is irrational to say managers how to conduct because the manager defines the high quality of turnover (Litwin and Stringer, 2010).

Organizational environment is important in the offices (Boulden, 1992). They believe that organizational space refers to the perceptions of members of the formal system, the informal methods of management and also other environmental important factors. This understanding affects in ideas, values and encouragements in the work environment. There are 9 parts in organizational environment:

1. Organizational structure

2. Responsibility

3. Bonus

4. Risk

5. Friendship

6. Patronage

7. Critera

8. Expositions

9. Conflict

According to one of the studying done in Lithuania a reasonable satisfying situation exists with job's identity (Smitina, 2010). The other studying shows that a relation exists between manager's patronage and human sources and management support (Taveira et al., 2013).

French (1986) introduces organization's lasting in paying attention to external and internal factors and its yield. These characters affect in each other. For example managers by using support programs employment legal rules (French, 1986).

3. METHODOLOGY:

This research is one of the applied studying. It is also the correlation study. This research is based on the collection of data along with describe method. Generally this study is correlation-descriptive one.

This study has used some of the organizational managers as sample. So all of the West Azerbaijan's administrations have been used because statistical societies usually have a lot of volume, and geographic extent and cannot go to all of them, we are forced to choose some examples and generalize the results to the research community (Farhangi and Safarzadeh, 2008).

Due to the protective reasons, there was not access to the population of offices of West Azerbaijan managers. So it was estimated the sample size according to the following formula.

The most important parameter in above formula is to reach S²as the variance. It was used 25 questionings and was calculated as 0.0729%. The error level of is assumed as 5%. So the confidence level would be 95%. So Z is 1.96 and the value of equal (d) is 0.05.

According to these numbers that is obtained from the formula, the sample size would be 100. 150 questionnaires were distributed and the percentage of answers was 66.67. According to sample studying among managers in administrations in this study it was used a standard questionnaire consisting of 54 questions, which are in line with the aim of study that designed by Moghimi and Saatchi (Moghimi, 2011; Saatchi et al., 2011).

Eight questions are related with formality of organizational structure that include questions about: level of management, job description, rules, hierarchy, and etc. Six questions are related with organizational prticipation and also seven questions are about low delegation.

In order to define perpetuity it was used Cronbach’s alpha by SPSS software. So first it was used 35 respondents. And it was found the adhesion by Cronbach’s alpha and the answer was about 0.71. The common amount was 0.7 so it is clear that the first answer is more than the second one.

The results are shown in below table:

Table1. Relaibility statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha	N of items
0.711	29

In order to use describe statistics it was used the following statistics. Then it chose the reasonable relationship between this shifty by correlation coefficient. According to the normal of these data by Pearson correlation coefficient or Spearman it was used the kind of relations.

These data by using Excel and SPSS were been analyzed:

Hypotheses:

1. A significant relation exists between organizational formality and productivity of managers.

2. A significant relation exists between organizational participant and productivity of managers.

3. A significant relation exists between low delegation and productivity of managers.

Organizational formality

Organizational participant

Productivity of managers

Low delegation

Dependent variables Independent variable

Figure 1. Theoretical model of research

4. DATA ANALYZE

Based on the central limit theorem and given that the sample size was estimated to be more than 30 people, normality of the data is accepted and Pearson correlation will be used to examine the hypothesis.

4.1 Studying of Hypotheses

First hypothesis: A significant relation exists between organizational formality and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

H₀: A significant relation does not exist between organizational formality and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

H_1:A significant relation exists between dimension of organizational formality and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

The amount of correlation between the variables is 0.354. On the other hand because the amount of this reasonable correlation that is (0.000) less than real coefficient (0.01) so it can be accepted 99% safety factor the studying hypothesis. It can be said a significant relation exists between organizational formality and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

Table 2. The coefficient between organizational formality and productivity of managers

		Organizational formality	Productivity of managers
Organizational formality	Pearson Correlation	1	. 354^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		. 000
	N	100	100
Productivity of managers	Pearson Correlation	. 354^**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	. 000
	N	100	100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0. 01 level (2-tailed).

The second hypothesis: A significant relation exists between organizational participant and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

H₀: A significant relation does not exist between organizational participant and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

H₁: A significant relation exists between organizational participant and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

Table 3 shows that the amount of correlation is 0.623. Since a significant level of correlation (0.000) is less than the coefficient of error (0.01), so it is accepted (99%) of this hypothesis and it can be said that a significant relation exists between productivity of managers and organizational participant in offices of West Azerbaijan.

Table 3. The coefficient between organizational participant and productivity of managers

		Organizational participant	Productivity of managers
Organizational participant	Pearson Correlation	1	. 476^**
	Sig. (2-tailed)		. 000
	N	100	100
Productivity of managers	Pearson Correlation	. 476^**	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	. 000
	N	100	100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0. 01 level (2-tailed).

The third hypothesis: A significant relation exists between low delegation and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

H₀: A significant relation does not exist between low delegation and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

H₁: A significant relation exists between low delegation and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan.

According to results of SPSS software in table 4 the amount of correlation between 2 variables is -0.222 that is a poor association. Because the real association test is (0.027) more than the amount of coefficient (0.01) so it can be said a significant relation does not exist between low delegation and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan. But a significant relation exists between the low delegation and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 4. The coefficient between low delegation and productivity of managers

		Low delegation	Productivity of managers
Low delegation	Pearson Correlation	1	-.222^*
	Sig. (2-tailed)		. 027
	N	100	100
Productivity of managers	Pearson Correlation	-. 222^*	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	. 027
	N	100	100
*. Correlation is significant at the 0. 05 level (2-tailed).

5. CONCLUSION:

In this studying that is about examination of organizational environment and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan. It was studied the relation between organizational environment and productivity of managers.

In this study the relationship between 3 characters of organizational environment and manager's productivity were been examined.

The question was if a significant relation exists between organizational environment and productivity of managers in offices of West Azerbaijan or not. To find a suitable organizational environment, it is important to increase the efficient organization. These results are associate with studies of Baumgardner (1988), Litwin and Stringer (1968), Vaughan (1983), Abdullah (1992) and Nazem (1999, 2001, 2004).

The limitation in this study was lack of suitable contribution of leaders and respondents. In this study just 3 characters of organizational environment had been shown and it is needed the others too.

In order to reach to the adequate leaders it should be paid attention to organizational health, organizational environment, culture, control and other aspects. The managers should do the most important activities by using management tenet and human relations to create productive organizations.

6. REFERENCES:

1. Abdullah, Mahlok, (1992) “Organizational culture/ the key to excellence, Malaysian Success Stories. Better quality of work life through Productivity”, APO. Abstract, PhD, Virginia Commonwealth University.

2. Baumgardner, John Elizabeth, (1988), ”perceptions of nursing and faculty and administrators about organizational climate and its effect on research productivity in baccalaureate and higher degree programs of nursing education”, Dissertation abstract, PHD, the University of Akron.

3. Baybordi, Leila, Azizzadeh, Fariba and Khalilzadeh, Babak (2013), Comparative Study of Organizational Structure Relation and Empowerment of Employees, Euro-Asian Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 1, Issue. 1, 24-32

4. Boulden, George, P. (1992). “Productivity linked to Profitability the basis for improve worklife. Betler quality of work life throug productivity”, (Asian productivity Organizations).

5. Farhangi, Ali Akbar and Safarzadeh, Hosein, (2008) "research methods in the human science (with a view on the dissertation writing)" Pyam-e-Pouya publishing, Tehran, second edition.

6. French, Wendell L. (1986) “Human resources management”. Houghton– mifflin company.

7. Javan Pakdaman, Ali, Malmir, Ameneh, Azizzadeh, Samira and Azizzadeh, Fariba (2013), The relationship between organization structure and CRM, Management and Administrative Sciences Review, Vol. 2, Issue. 5, 563-574

8. Kashani, Majid and Khanyfar, Hussein, (2011) “The impact of organizational culture on productivity”, thesis. School year of 90-91.

9. Kazemi, Syyed Abbas, (2010) “Utilization and analysis in organizations”, Samt publisher.

10. Litwin, George H., and Stringer, Robert A., (1968) “Motivation and organizational climate”. Harvard University.

11. Moghimi, Mohammad, (2011) "Organization and Management Research Approach". Termeh Publications, Tehran, 7^th Edition.

12. Nazem, Fattah, (1987), “productivity management (organizational climate and productivity)”, Islamic Azad University Research Publications (Roudehen)

13. Nazem, Fattah, (1999) "study the Relationship between leadership style and organizational climate and productivity of Islamic Azd university managers to provide appropriate management model", research project, Roudehen Islamic Azad University.

14. Nazem, Fattah, (2001) “study the Relationship between leadership style and organizational climate and productivity of Islamic Azad university managers to provide appropriate management model," PhD thesis of Department of Management, Science and Research Islamic Azad University.

15. Nazem, Fattah, (2004) "Study the Relationship between leadership style and organizational climate and productivity management services of petrochemical industry to provide appropriate management model", research project, the National Petrochemical Company of Iran.

16. Rao, Prasada (2005), Motivation model for improving productivity in a manufacturing unit- a success story, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55, No. 5, 430-436

17. Saatchi, Mahmoud and Kamkari, Kambiz and Asgarian, Mahnaz, (2011) "Psychological tests", Vireyesh Publications, Tehran, second edition.

18. Smitina, Agita (2010), The link between vocational identity, study choice motivation and satisfaction with studies, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1140-1145.

19. Taheri, Shahnam, (2006) "productivity and quality management", Tehran, Aein Publications.

20. Taveira, Alvaro D., James, Craig A., Karsh, Ben-Tzion and Sainfort, Francois (2003), Quality management and the work environment: an empirical investigation in a public sector organization, Applied ergonomics, 34, 281-291

21. Vaughan, K. M., (1983) “The Relationship of Managers”, Education, Training and Experience to Organizational Climate and Productivity. [Dissertation Abstract ,Ed. D. ], Boston University.

22. Zirak, Hassan, Azizzadeh Fariba, Bahrami, Hamidreza and Sarihi Sfestani, Rasool (2013), Investigating the Relationship between Organizational Environment and Productivity of Organizational Managers, Euro-Asian Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 1, Issue. 1, 51-62

Received on 04.02.2014 Modified on 05.03.2014

Asian J. Management 5(3): July-September, 2014 page 302-305