Designing Healthy and Innovative Organizations

Implications for Organizational Effectiveness and Employee Mental Health

Don de GuerreConcordia University, Canada

Adapted from Emery,, 2006 and de Guerre, 2006

Designing Healthy Innovative Organisations

• Brief overview of the results from a 2006 joint Canadian and Australian ‘Mental Health in the Workplace’ research project.

• Identification of the critical factors leading to improved mental health and high levels of organisational innovation.

• Strategic imperatives to improve organisationalcompetitiveness.

Research based approach

Diagnostic questionnaire• All questions previously piloted in various

research projects• Comprehensive list of questions for all

influences on• Motivation,• Innovation• Productivity and• Mental health

• Able to scientifically map causal links betweenkey factors and company performance

‘Mental Health in the Workplace’

• Consortium of researchers and organisations• Partners in Canada & Australia • AMERIN Pty.• Department of Applied Human Sciences

Concordia University in Montreal• CIHR grant (Canada only)

• The most recent and up to date researchon STS and organisational effectiveness

‘Mental Health in the Workplace’

Research Design:• Pre- & post-intervention test of Mental Health,

Demographic & organisational factors

• Intervention: to change organisational designprinciple from

• First design principle (DP1) which gives dominant hierarchy (bureaucratic, authoritarian structure) to

• Second design principle (DP2) which gives non dominant hierarchy based on peer negotiations

• Therefore,• equal, symmetric relationships in a participative

democratic structure

Four Organizational Types

Re-organization

Re-structuringDemocratic (DP2)

Bureaucratic (DP1) LF & TLC

Democratic Structure

Un-democratic Structure

Un-democratic Process Democratic Process

Most popular options

• Work as individuals but have to coordinate with othersto achieve collective goals (37.9%), most in Australia(48.1%)• Teams with leaders (37.3%), most in Canada (43.8%.)• Team spirit (7.9%)• No teamwork (6.4%)• Teams without leaders for short term projects and/orproblem solving (5.8%)• Teams without leaders have responsibility for meeting allagreed team goals (4.8%)

Major hypothesis:

• Better Mental Health after intervention than before

• Shift from:• lower to higher levels of responsibility in workforce

• lower to higher control of work by employees

• unequal & asymmetric power relations to equal &symmetric ones

• lower to higher employee engagement andbetter company performance

‘Mental Health in the Workplace’

Also predict:• Equality will produce more positive affectsthan inequality (DP1, r = -.33; DP2, r = .46)

• Positive affects correlate with• Motivation (.59)• Mental health (.38)• Innovation (.33) and Productivity (.26)• Accountability (.32)• Low absenteeism (.29)• Good relations and trust (.44)

‘Mental Health in the Workplace’

Therefore the objectives are to:

• Produce healthier workplaces & people

• Produce higher innovation and productivity

• Through intervention (PDW) designed to produce• greater responsibility for coordination & control• more equal & symmetric relations• more positive affect

• Test the effect of interventions on MH, ‘before’ & ‘after’• determine the contribution of risk amplifiers & attenuators

Results

• Same set of factors produce

• Innovation• Productivity• Mental health

• Therefore, what is good for the organization isalso good for the people – no conflict

• Cascading series of causes from design principle to outcomes

High level causal path analysis

Outcomes

Enabling conditions

Basic conditions

Design principles and structures

High level causal path analysis

Not DP1 DP2 Not Laissez-faire

Design Principles & Structures

Intrinsic motivators (6 psychological criteria

Basic Conditions

Motivation / Positive affects / Conditions for innovation / Good relations and trust / Intellectual satisfaction Not negative affects

Enabling Conditions

Productivity Mental HealthInnovation Low sick days

Outcomes

Break Out of Determining Cluster

DP2 IntrinsicMotivators

Motivation Innovation &Productivity

MentalHealth

Low DP1

Six Criteria for Productive Human Activity Total Scores

05

101520253035404550

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Low total scores on 6criteria

High total scores on 6criteria

Elbow Room or Autonomy in Decision Making

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

too little & far too little

just right

too much & far too much

Room to Set Goals

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

too little & far too little

just right

too much & far too much

Motivation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Don't like it or hate it

Like it or love it

Total Positive Affects

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Low

High

Total Negative Affects

05

101520253035404550

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Low

High

Creative Working Mode

0

5

10

15

20

25

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Low

High

Fight/Flight Dynamics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Low

High

Dependency Dynamics

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Low

High

Trust and Quality of Relationships

05

101520253035404550

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Low

High

Intellectual Satisfaction

05

101520253035404550

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Low

High

Accountability

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Weak & very weak

Strong & verystrong

Sick Days

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

None

More than 6

Innovativeness

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Extremely & verylow

High, very high &extremely high

Productivity

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% % % %

DP1 DP2 LF TLC

Low, very &extremely low

Very & extremelyhigh