Brianna Barker Caza May Meaning Meeting 2008

Stemmed from an observation from my dissertation work on certified nurse-midwives

Brewed in my conversations with others doing similar work in other contexts

Hoping to address these issues further in two future studies

Present some very preliminary ideas Talk about two different contexts in

which to study them Get YOUR feedback

Interrupt whenever!

What is the relationship between work orientation and

resilience at work?

(and between perceived meaningfulness of work and

resilience)

Resilience is dynamic process of positive adaptation after experiences of adversity (Luthar, Chicchetti, & Becker, 2000).

Resilience at work is an individual’s ability to continue on a positive developmental trajectory in the face of adversity; characterized by demonstrated competence in the context of adversity, professional growth, and the ability to handle future challenges

Resilience involves three abilities: (a) the ability to absorb strain and preserve (or improve)

functioning despite the presence of adversity (both internal adversity-such as rapid change, lousy leadership, performance and production pressures-and external adversity--such as increasing competition and demands from stakeholders);

(b) an ability to recover or bounce back from untoward events. As the system becomes better able to absorb a surprise and stretch rather than collapse, the 'brutality' of an audit decreases

(c) an ability to learn and grow from previous episodes of resilient action.

From: Weick and Sutcliffe. (2007). Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (p. 71)

Survey of 220 CNMs testing a model of identity-based resilience at work. Predicted perceived meaningfulness of work

to be key mechanism of resilience Controlled for work orientation, but did not

explore it’s impact directly Expected that individuals with a calling

orientation would be more likely to show resilience at work

Perceived Meaningfulness of work: individual’s sense of purpose of their work

Work Orientation Job - individual is primarily concerned with

the financial rewards of work** Career - individual is focused on advancing

within the occupational structure Calling - individual works not for financial

gain or career advancement, but instead for the sense of fulfillment that the work brings**

Identity Strength

Identity Structure

IdentityDistinctiveness

Social Support

AffectiveCommitment

Energy Loss

Creative Responding

PerceivedMeaningfulness

Depersonalization

Reduced Personal Accomplishment

Resilience at Work

.01

.51

.17

.33

.41

.12

.-16

-.01-.01

.06

.32

.48

.06

-.38

.10

-.19

.46

-.41-.67

.16

Professional identity Mediators Individual functioning

**Controlled for Work Orientation (path added to each of the three dvs)

Perceived meaningfulness was significantly associated with reduced burnout but NOT associated with resilience at work

Addition of work orientation as a control did not change any of the relationships between model variables (whew), but did account for an bit of variance in resilience at work However, the direction of the relationship was

different than expected. Specifically, individuals with calling orientations reported less resilience in the face of critical workplace adversities.

Identity Strength

Identity Structure

IdentityDistinctiveness

Social Support

AffectiveCommitment

Energy Loss

Creative Responding

PerceivedMeaningfulness

Depersonalization

Reduced Personal Accomplishment

Resilience at Work

.01

.51

.17

.33

.41

.12

.-16

-.01-.01

.06

.32

.48

.06

-.38

.10

-.19

.46

-.41-.67

.16

Professional identity Mediators Individual functioning

**Controlled for Work Orientation

-

NS

Why would perceived meaningfulness of work NOT be associated with resilience at work (but is associated with reduced burnout)? Is there an indirect relationship? Helps you avoid

dysfunctional behaviors but not necessarily promote functional behavior?

Why would one’s orientation toward their work as calling lead to lowered functioning in the face of adversity?

Work Orientation

(Job vs. Calling)

Perceived Meaningfulness of work

Individual Functioning (Burnout/

Resilience)

**Note: I am assuming that reporting a calling orientation is associated with increased perceived meaning in one’s work.

Working Assumption

CNMs who talked about going into midwifery as a calling, had a harder time adjusting to unexpected setbacks.

“If I were not going to retire in a few more years, I would leave. In fact, I never would have gotten into it. This is not what I thought I would be doing when I dreamed of catching babies.”

“This field is not what it what it when I first got into it. It has changed, and it is hard to watch something you love disintegrate.”

CNMs who did not talk about going into midwifery as a calling seemed more flexible about making changes to adapt to their context.

“I think in the beginning I was concerned about making concessions and I was gonna change the world and then somewhere along the way I realized there are some people who don’t want that kind of experience, they do not want to have a home birth, they do not want to have an unmedicated birth, and that does not mean they should not be advocated and supported as well. …Ultimately I ended up working in the inner city for a number of years and it was pretty far cry from the midwifery I was trained for. I was working with inner city girls, but at the same time, nobody screams needing a midwife than a fifteen year old homeless girl. So it’s a different kind of midwifery that I just did not know existed until I became one.”

Not ALL the CNMs who talked about their work as a calling showed decreased resilience in the face of adversity. In fact, some talked about it as a reason for their positive functioning in the face of hardships:

“I do this work because it was what I was made to do. And so, even when I have a week full of sleepless nights, thankless patients, and hard labors, I still look forward to each and every birth.”

Complicated relationship; not a clear cut direct relationship Calling orientations seem to both exacerbate

and ameliorate individuals’ reactions to adversity

MAYBE there is an indirect relationship: Individuals with different work orientations use

different tactics in reacting) to adversities Interaction: different tactics work differently for

people with different work orientations

Negative Event

Coping Tactics

Individual Functioning (Resilience)

Work Orientation

• Cognitive, affective or behavioral actions individuals take in response to a stressor

• To demonstrate resilience, these tactics should:• allow individuals to absorb strain and preserve

(or improve) functioning despite the presence of adversity)

• Lead individuals to bounce back from untoward events quickly and easily.

• Allow individuals to learn and grow from previous episodes of resilient action, so that they can better respond in the future

General purpose: Study of conflict management between nurses and physicians in a Midwestern hospital system (design and test intervention)

My part: Want to understand how individuals react (cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally) to these instances of conflict, and the impact of various individual factors (e.g., work orientation)

Methods: Context very open to access (as of now). Plan to use diary/journaling, interviews, and surveys

**with A. Avgar & L. Wang**

Cognitive: Cognitive reframing, attributions Behavioral: Utilizing social support networks,

confronting individual, avoidance, filing a complaint

Affective: effective management of emotions (having a mix of positive and negative emotions)

General purpose: To understand how golfers demonstrate resilience during the PGA tour qualifying tournament, and the tactics they use in each of these situations Short-term (bad shot/round) Long-term (between tournaments)

This study: Understand the specific tactics (cognitive, affective, social, and behavioral) individuals use for both short and long-term resilience, and how work orientation impacts the use of these tactics.

Methods: Pre/Post Survey; Interviews; Observation. (Access unknown)

**with G. Northcraft**

One of the most intense and important events in a golfer’s life

“It launches the careers of future legends and serves crushing blows to past stars looking for one more chance. Every fall, more than a thousand veterans and talented hopefuls sweat through three phases of hell in the Q school, as the tournament is universally known, vying for the 30 slots available on the PGA Tour.  It is a test all but a handful of the most brilliant players have to endure, and it's not just another tournament in which a player can try again next week if he misses the cut. At Q school, a bad round or the wrong mind-set means you're out for the year.”

General purpose: To understand how golfers demonstrate resilience during the PGA tour qualifying tournament, and the tactics they use in each of these situations Short-term (bad shot/round) Long-term (between tournaments)

This study: Understand the specific tactics (cognitive, affective, social, and behavioral) individuals use for both short and long-term resilience, and how work orientation impacts the use of these tactics.

Methods: Pre/Post Survey; Interviews; Observation. (Access unknown)

**with G. Northcraft**

Short-term (in tournament): Focus on their strengths Attribute their mistakes to situational

variables Surround themselves with individuals who will

provide encouraging and optimistic comments.

Maintain positive affective state This leads to increased self-efficacy and

psychological hardiness, which will be key in cultivating resilience short-term

Long-term (between tournaments): Adopt a learning orientation ; focus on

improving weaknesses Internal attributions of mistakes/errors Surround self with individuals who will provide

critical feedback (instrumental social support) Indulge both positive and negative affective

states This leads to a period of learning and growth,

which will allow individuals to better demonstrate resilience long-term

General purpose: To understand how golfers demonstrate resilience during the PGA tour qualifying tournament, and the tactics they use in each of these situations Short-term (bad shot/round) Long-term (between tournaments)

This study: Understand the specific tactics (cognitive, affective, social, and behavioral) individuals use for both short and long-term resilience, and how work orientation impacts the use of these tactics.

Methods: Pre/Post Survey; Interviews; Observation. (Access unknown)

**with G. Northcraft**

Interprofessional Relationships

Resilience in the PGA

Insight gained (hopefully)

- Understand the relationship between individuals’ orientation towards their work and how they respond to interpersonal conflict at work

- Understand the relationship between individual’s orientation toward golf and how they respond to both small and large scale stressors

Advantages - Important issue-Very flexible in access (lots of data, hopefully)

-There is a wide “range” of orientations toward golf and the tournament- look at differences between short and long term resilience

Disadvantages - W.O. may not have a large influence in shaping response to high incidence, low impact stressors

- Relevance to OB theory?

What do YOU think the relationship is between work orientation and/or perceived meaningfulness of work and individual functioning in the face of adversity?

Will these things impact preference for or effectiveness of certain tactics?

Are these useful questions to be asking? Which context do you like? Which do you not

like? Any recommendations on how to study this?