healthy and innovative organizations - deguerre
Post on 14-Jan-2015
121 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related