1 / 37

Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore

Role Characteristics and their Relationships to Job Attitudes Among Workers in Maryland Adolescent Behavioral Treatment Centers. Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore. Introduction. The Research Setting.

reid
Download Presentation

Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Role Characteristics and their Relationships to Job Attitudes Among Workers in Maryland Adolescent Behavioral Treatment Centers Michael J. Walk University of Baltimore

  2. Introduction

  3. The Research Setting • Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) operates three Regional Institutes for Children and Adolescents (RICA). • Treatment staff types • Direct-Care (residential) • Clinical (therapists) • Administrative

  4. Importance of This Research • Residential adolescent mental health treatment requires a continuum of care including consistent and diligent staff. • Current reports suggest high turnover rates and low levels of job satisfaction among employees treating emotionally disturbed adolescents, especially direct-care workers.

  5. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses • Role Ambiguity • Role Conflict • Role Overload • Job Satisfaction • Organizational Commitment - + • Turnover Intentions

  6. Differences between position types: Direct-care experiences more Role Ambiguity Direct-care experiences more Role Conflict Administrative experiences less Role Overload. Hypotheses (continued)

  7. Method

  8. Measures – Independent Variables • Role Ambiguity (11 items) • House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983) • Role Conflict (7 items) • House, Schuler, and Levanoni (1983) • Role Overload (6 items) • New • e.g., “I am expected to do too much in too little time”

  9. Measures – Dependent Variables • Job Satisfaction (3 items) • Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) Job Diagnostic Survey • Organizational Commitment (9 items) • Cook and Wall (1980) • Turnover Intentions (3 items) • Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire

  10. Measures – Participant Variables • Participant Variables • Age • Tenure • Education • Gender • Position Type • Direct care • Clinical • Administrative

  11. Method (cont’d) Procedure

  12. Procedure • Obtained complete employee roster • Stratified by position type • Systematic sampling • Every 3rd employee • 340 contacted (intra-institutional mail) • Completed during work hours • 2-week follow ups • 300 returned surveys (88% response rate)

  13. Results

  14. Participants by Gender and Position

  15. Hypothesized Factor Structure JS1 RA1 Role Ambiguity Job Satisfaction JS2 JS3 RA11 RC1 OC2 OC1 Org. Commitment Role Conflict RC7 OC9 RO1 TI1 Role Overload Turnover Intentions TI2 RO6 TI3

  16. Model Testing RA1 Role Ambiguity Job Satisfaction JS2 JS3 RA11 RC1 OC2 Org. Commitment Role Conflict RC7 OC9 RO1 RO2 TI1 Role Overload Turnover Intentions TI2 RO6 TI3

  17. RA1 Role Ambiguity Job Satisfaction JS2 JS3 RA11 Method Bias RC1 OC2 Org. Commitment Role Conflict RC7 OC9 RO1 TI1 Role Overload Turnover Intentions TI2 RO6 TI3 Final Measurement Model Common Method Bias

  18. Model Fit Indices 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.

  19. Results by Gender

  20. Results by Position Type

  21. Hypothesis Testing

  22. Job Satisfaction Regression Analyses

  23. Regression: Job Satisfaction • Participant characteristics • F(5, 296) = 7.12, p < .01, R2 = .11 • Staff position: β = .21, p < .01

  24. Regression: Job Satisfaction • Role Ambiguity • F(6, 293) = 10.34, p < .01, R2 = .18 • Fchange(1, 293) = 23.73, p < .001, ΔR2 = .07 • β = -.31, p < .001 (Staff position: β = .09, ns) • Role Conflict • F(6, 293) = 8.64, p < .001, R2 = .15 • Fchange(1, 293) = 14.62, p < .001, ΔR2 = .04 • β = -.23, p < .001 • Role Overload • F(6, 293) = 7.97, p < .001, R2 = .14 • Fchange(1, 293) = 11.04, p < .01, ΔR2 = .03 • β = -.20, p < .01

  25. Regression: Job Satisfaction • Role Characteristics as a Set • F(8, 291) = 8.66, p < .001, R2 = .19 • Fchange(3, 291) = 10.13, p < .001, ΔR2 = .08 • Role Ambiguity • β = -.22, p < .01

  26. Organizational Commitment Regression Analyses

  27. Regression: Org. Commitment • Participant Characteristics • F(5, 294) = 14.75, p < .001, R2 = .20 • Tenure • β = .24, p < .001 • Position Type • β = .27, p < .001

  28. Regression: Org. Commitment • Role Ambiguity • F(6, 293) = 26.88, p < .001, R2 = .36 • Fchange(1, 293) = 70.14, p < .001, ΔR2 = .15 • β = -.46, p < .001 • Position type: β = .08, ns • Role Conflict • F(6, 293) = 22.22, p < .001, R2 = .30 • Fchange(1, 293) = 47.80, p < .001, ΔR2 = .11 • β = -.37, p < .001

  29. Regression: Org. Commitment • Role Ambiguity & Role Conflict as a Set • F(7, 292) = 27.18, p < .001, R2 = .40 • Fchange(2, 292) = 46.76, p < .001, ΔR2 = .19 • Tenure: • β = .17, p < .01 • Role Ambiguity • β = -.37, p < .001 • Role Conflict • β = -.24, p < .001

  30. Turnover Intentions Regression Analyses

  31. Regression: Turnover Intentions • Participant Characteristics • F(5, 294) = 11.94, p < .001, R2 = .17 • Tenure • β = -.27, p < .001 • Position Type • β = -.17, p < .05

  32. Regression: Turnover Intentions • Role Ambiguity • F(6, 293) = 22.37, p < .001, R2 = .31 • Fchange(1, 293) = 62.11, p < .001, ΔR2 = .15 • β = .45, p < .001 • Position Type: β = .01, ns • Role Conflict • F(6, 293) = 13.39, p < .001, R2 = .22 • Fchange(1, 293) = 17.34, p < .001, ΔR2 = .05 • β = .24, p < .001 • Position Type: β = -.10, ns

  33. Regression: Turnover Intentions • Role Ambiguity and Conflict as a Set • F(7, 292) = 19.60, p < .001, R2 = .32 • Fchange(2, 292) = 32.39, p < .001, ΔR2 = .15 • Role Conflict: • β = .09, ns • Role Ambiguity: • β = .41, p < .001 • Tenure: • β = -.20, p < .001

  34. Discussion

  35. Summary • Negative role characteristics were found to be associated with low levels of positive job attitudes. • Direct-care staff and males reported higher levels of negative role characteristics and lower levels of positive job attitudes.

  36. Possible Actions • Role Characteristics • Improve communication and evaluation procedures. • Make all expectations clear, complementary, and congruent. • Give special attention to improving the psychological climate of direct-care staff and males in order to achieve the biggest organizational gains.

  37. Q & A

More Related