Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore
description
Transcript of Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore
![Page 1: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Role Characteristics and their Relationships to Job Attitudes Among Workers in Maryland Adolescent Behavioral Treatment Centers
Michael J. WalkMichael J. WalkUniversity of BaltimoreUniversity of Baltimore
![Page 2: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction
![Page 3: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The Research Setting Maryland Department of Health and Mental Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene (DHMH) operates three Regional Hygiene (DHMH) operates three Regional Institutes for Children and Adolescents Institutes for Children and Adolescents (RICA).(RICA).
Treatment staff typesTreatment staff types Direct-Care (residential)Direct-Care (residential) Clinical (therapists)Clinical (therapists) AdministrativeAdministrative
![Page 4: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Importance of This Research
Residential adolescent mental health Residential adolescent mental health treatment requires a continuum of care treatment requires a continuum of care including consistent and diligent staff.including consistent and diligent staff.
Current reports suggest high turnover rates Current reports suggest high turnover rates and low levels of job satisfaction among and low levels of job satisfaction among employees treating emotionally disturbed employees treating emotionally disturbed adolescents, especially direct-care workers.adolescents, especially direct-care workers.
![Page 5: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Role AmbiguityRole Ambiguity Role ConflictRole Conflict Role OverloadRole Overload
Job SatisfactionJob Satisfaction Organizational Organizational
CommitmentCommitment
Turnover Turnover IntentionsIntentions
+
-
![Page 6: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Hypotheses (continued)
Differences between position types:Differences between position types: Direct-care experiences more Role AmbiguityDirect-care experiences more Role Ambiguity Direct-care experiences more Role ConflictDirect-care experiences more Role Conflict Administrative experiences less Role Administrative experiences less Role
Overload.Overload.
![Page 7: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Method
![Page 8: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Measures – Independent Variables
Role Ambiguity (11 items)Role Ambiguity (11 items) House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983)House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983)
Role Conflict (7 items)Role Conflict (7 items) House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983)House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983)
Role Overload (6 items)Role Overload (6 items) NewNew e.g., “I am expected to do too much in too little e.g., “I am expected to do too much in too little
time” time”
![Page 9: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Measures – Dependent Variables
Job Satisfaction (3 items)Job Satisfaction (3 items) Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job
Diagnostic SurveyDiagnostic Survey Organizational Commitment (9 items)Organizational Commitment (9 items)
Cook and Wall (1980)Cook and Wall (1980) Turnover Intentions (3 items)Turnover Intentions (3 items)
Michigan Organizational Assessment Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Questionnaire
![Page 10: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Measures – Participant Variables Participant VariablesParticipant Variables
AgeAge TenureTenure EducationEducation GenderGender Position TypePosition Type
Direct careDirect careClinicalClinicalAdministrativeAdministrative
![Page 11: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Method (cont’d)
ProcedureProcedure
![Page 12: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Procedure Obtained complete employee rosterObtained complete employee roster Stratified by position typeStratified by position type Systematic samplingSystematic sampling
Every 3Every 3rdrd employee employee 340 contacted (intra-institutional mail)340 contacted (intra-institutional mail) Completed during work hoursCompleted during work hours 2-week follow ups2-week follow ups 300 returned surveys (88% response rate)300 returned surveys (88% response rate)
![Page 13: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Results
![Page 14: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Participants by Gender and Position
![Page 15: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Hypothesized Factor StructureRA1
RC1
RC7
RO1
RO6
JS1
JS2
OC1
OC9
TI1
RA11
Role Ambiguity
Role Conflict
Role Overload
Job Satisfaction
Org. Commitment
Turnover Intentions
TI3
JS3
TI2
OC2
![Page 16: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Model TestingRA1
RC1
RC7
RO1
RO6
JS2
OC9
TI1
RA11
Role Ambiguity
Role Conflict
Role Overload
Job Satisfaction
Org. Commitment
Turnover Intentions
TI3
JS3
TI2
OC2
RO2
![Page 17: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Common Method BiasRA1
RC1
RC7
RO1
RO6
RA11
Role Ambiguity
Role Conflict
Role Overload
JS2
OC9
TI1
Job Satisfaction
Org. Commitment
Turnover Intentions
TI3
JS3
TI2
OC2Method
Bias
Final Measurement Model
![Page 18: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Model Fit Indices
Model χ2 df RMSEA GFI CFI
Null 20653.80 666
Hypothesized 775.95 614 .03 .88 .99
Respecified Modela 647.33 613 .01 .90 1.00
Revised (Final) Modelb 627.20 579 .02 .90 1.00
Unconstrained Revised Modelc 620.59 578 .02 .90 1.00
Model with Method Factord 576.83 544 .01 .90 1.00
aRole overload item 1 was allowed to load on the role conflict factor in addition to the role overload factor.bRole overload item 1 was deleted from the model.cRole overload item 6 was allowed to load on the turnover intentions factor in addition to the role overload factor.dA method factor was added to the model; all items were allowed to load on the method factor.
![Page 19: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Results by Gender
![Page 20: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Results by Position Type
![Page 21: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
1. Role Ambiguity 4.94 .93 ---
2. Role Conflict 5.02 .81 .52 ---
3. Role Overload 4.50 .99 .51 .44 ---
4. Job Satisfaction 3.92 1.26 -.39 -.32 -.30 ---
5. Organizational Commitment 4.05 .84 -.56 -.48 -.42 .28 ---
6. Turnover Intentions 3.57 1.45 .52 .35 .41 -.28 -.43
Hypothesis Testing
![Page 22: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Job Satisfaction
Regression AnalysesRegression Analyses
![Page 23: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Regression: Job Satisfaction
Participant characteristicsParticipant characteristics FF(5, 296) = 7.12, (5, 296) = 7.12, pp < .01, < .01, RR22 = .11 = .11 Staff position: Staff position: ββ = .21, = .21, p p < .01< .01
![Page 24: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Regression: Job Satisfaction Role AmbiguityRole Ambiguity
FF(6, 293) = 10.34, (6, 293) = 10.34, p p < .01, < .01, RR22 = .18 = .18 FchangeFchange(1, 293) = 23.73, (1, 293) = 23.73, p p < .001, Δ< .001, ΔRR22 = .07 = .07 ββ = -.31, = -.31, p < p < .001 (.001 (Staff position: Staff position: ββ = .09, = .09, nsns))
Role ConflictRole Conflict FF(6, 293) = 8.64, (6, 293) = 8.64, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .15 = .15 FchangeFchange(1, 293) = 14.62, (1, 293) = 14.62, p p < .001, Δ< .001, ΔRR22 = .04 = .04 β = -.23, β = -.23, p p < .001< .001
Role OverloadRole Overload FF(6, 293) = 7.97, (6, 293) = 7.97, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .14 = .14 FchangeFchange(1, 293) = 11.04, (1, 293) = 11.04, pp < .01, Δ < .01, ΔRR22 = .03 = .03 β = -.20, β = -.20, p p < .01< .01
![Page 25: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Regression: Job Satisfaction Role Characteristics as a SetRole Characteristics as a Set
FF(8, 291) = 8.66, (8, 291) = 8.66, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .19 = .19 FchangeFchange(3, 291) = 10.13, (3, 291) = 10.13, pp < .001, Δ < .001, ΔRR22 = .08 = .08 Role AmbiguityRole Ambiguity
β = -.22, β = -.22, p p < .01 < .01
![Page 26: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Organizational Commitment
Regression AnalysesRegression Analyses
![Page 27: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Regression: Org. Commitment Participant CharacteristicsParticipant Characteristics
FF(5, 294) = 14.75, (5, 294) = 14.75, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .20 = .20 TenureTenure
β = .24, β = .24, p p < .001< .001 Position TypePosition Type
β = .27, β = .27, p p < .001 < .001
![Page 28: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Regression: Org. Commitment Role AmbiguityRole Ambiguity
FF(6, 293) = 26.88, (6, 293) = 26.88, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .36 = .36 FchangeFchange(1, 293) = 70.14, (1, 293) = 70.14, p p < .001, Δ< .001, ΔRR22 = .15 = .15 β = -.46, β = -.46, p p < .001< .001 Position type: β = .08, Position type: β = .08, nsns
Role ConflictRole Conflict FF(6, 293) = 22.22, (6, 293) = 22.22, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .30 = .30 FchangeFchange(1, 293) = 47.80, (1, 293) = 47.80, p p < .001, Δ< .001, ΔRR22 = .11 = .11 β = -.37, β = -.37, p p < .001< .001
![Page 29: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Regression: Org. Commitment Role Ambiguity & Role Conflict as a SetRole Ambiguity & Role Conflict as a Set
FF(7, 292) = 27.18, (7, 292) = 27.18, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .40 = .40 FchangeFchange(2, 292) = 46.76, (2, 292) = 46.76, p p < .001, Δ< .001, ΔRR22 = .19 = .19 Tenure:Tenure:
β = .17, β = .17, p p < .01< .01 Role AmbiguityRole Ambiguity
β = -.37, β = -.37, p p < .001< .001 Role ConflictRole Conflict
β = -.24, β = -.24, p p < .001< .001
![Page 30: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Turnover Intentions
Regression AnalysesRegression Analyses
![Page 31: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Regression: Turnover Intentions Participant CharacteristicsParticipant Characteristics
FF(5, 294) = 11.94, (5, 294) = 11.94, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .17 = .17 TenureTenure
β = -.27, β = -.27, p p < .001< .001 Position TypePosition Type
β = -.17, β = -.17, p p < .05 < .05
![Page 32: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Regression: Turnover Intentions Role AmbiguityRole Ambiguity
FF(6, 293) = 22.37, (6, 293) = 22.37, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .31 = .31 FchangeFchange(1, 293) = 62.11, (1, 293) = 62.11, p p < .001, Δ< .001, ΔRR22 = .15 = .15 β = .45, β = .45, pp < .001 < .001 Position Type: β = .01, Position Type: β = .01, nsns
Role ConflictRole Conflict FF(6, 293) = 13.39, (6, 293) = 13.39, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .22 = .22 FchangeFchange(1, 293) = 17.34, (1, 293) = 17.34, p p < .001, Δ< .001, ΔRR22 = .05 = .05 β = .24, β = .24, p p < .001< .001 Position Type: β = -.10, Position Type: β = -.10, nsns
![Page 33: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Regression: Turnover Intentions Role Ambiguity and Conflict as a SetRole Ambiguity and Conflict as a Set
FF(7, 292) = 19.60, (7, 292) = 19.60, p p < .001, < .001, RR22 = .32 = .32 FchangeFchange(2, 292) = 32.39, (2, 292) = 32.39, p p < .001, Δ< .001, ΔRR22 = .15 = .15 Role Conflict:Role Conflict:
β = .09, β = .09, nsns Role Ambiguity:Role Ambiguity:
β = .41, β = .41, p p < .001< .001 Tenure:Tenure:
β = -.20, β = -.20, p p < .001 < .001
![Page 34: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Discussion
![Page 35: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Summary
Negative role characteristics were found to Negative role characteristics were found to be associated with low levels of positive job be associated with low levels of positive job attitudes.attitudes.
Direct-care staff and males reported higher Direct-care staff and males reported higher levels of negative role characteristics and levels of negative role characteristics and lower levels of positive job attitudes.lower levels of positive job attitudes.
![Page 36: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Possible Actions Role CharacteristicsRole Characteristics
Improve communication and evaluation Improve communication and evaluation procedures.procedures.
Make all expectations clear, Make all expectations clear, complementary, and congruent.complementary, and congruent.
Give special attention to improving the Give special attention to improving the psychological climate of direct-care staff psychological climate of direct-care staff and males in order to achieve the biggest and males in order to achieve the biggest organizational gains.organizational gains.
![Page 37: Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062810/56815c6f550346895dca8210/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Q & A