Unraveling the Organizational Health Paradox (International Study; South Korea, China, and...)
Introduction:
In the face of today's unpredictable, volatile, intricate, and uncertain (VUCA) environment, organizations are at a crossroads, striving to balance the promotion of employee well-being with maintaining a competitive advantage. This delicate equilibrium is pivotal for sustaining long-term business success, with job performance playing a crucial role as a direct influencer of organizational efficiency and goal achievement. The proposed study, titled "Unraveling the Organizational Health Paradox: A Comprehensive Examination of Job Performance Mediated by the Dual Dynamics of Positivity (PsyCap, Knowledge Sharing Behavior) and Negativity (Job Burnout, Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors (CWB-C)," seeks to dissect the complex interplay between positive and negative workplace dynamics and their collective impact on job performance, particularly within the context of organizational health.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to provide a detailed examination of how organizational health influences job performance, taking into account both positive (psychological capital and knowledge sharing behavior) and negative (job burnout and counterproductive work behaviors) aspects. This research aims to illuminate the mediating mechanisms through which these dynamics operate, offering fresh insights into the balancing act between fostering a positive work environment and mitigating negative factors for enhanced job performance. Specifically, this investigation will explore how these dual dynamics interact within the framework of organizational health, characterized by organizational agility and a spectrum of vitality-toxicity, to shape job performance outcomes.
Data Collection and Population
The study will be conducted among employees working in the healthcare sector (especially, nurses), given its critical exposure to agile changes and the pressing need for knowledge-intensive behaviors amidst traditional operational frameworks.
A sample size of over 205 participants from organizations with more than 300 employees will be targeted, aligning with Cohen's (1992) recommendations for ensuring statistical power and effect sizes. The recruitment of participants will leverage a multifaceted approach, including offline and online channels, to ensure a diverse and representative sample.
South Korean Healthcare Worker Data
This dataset was commissioned by a survey specialist company located in Gangnam, South Korea, named EZ Soft (Embrain), from February 20th to March 14th, 2024, with an investment of 1.46 million won (146만원).
An initial sampling of 500 samples was conducted; however, during the verification process, it was discovered that three items related to the resilience aspect of PsyCap were missing. Consequently, a second sampling was undertaken from March 8th to March 15th, 2024, to complete the data collection.
Chinese data
It came from Dylan, Zhen Yao who is a graduate student at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, USA.
The data collection for the survey was meticulously conducted across three distinct healthcare institutions, yielding a total sample size of 800 respondents.
Specifically, the survey engaged 500 participants from the Yantai Penglai People's Hospital, accessible via their website https://www.plhospital.cn/.
An additional 250 respondents were recruited from the Yantai Penglai Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, with further details available on their website https://www.ytsplzyyy.cn/. The sample was rounded out with 40 participants from Yantai First Hospital.
Upon the return of the surveys, a total of 360 responses were received, all of which originated from China (CHN). An outlier analysis conducted on these returned surveys identified 12 outliers, representing approximately 3.33% of the total responses. After the exclusion of these outliers, the final dataset comprised 348 valid responses.
The collected data were analyzed using SPSS, employing the Mahalanobis distance method to detect outliers. Through this analysis, 39 and 35 outliers were identified and subsequently excluded from the dataset.
Tentative Models
This research endeavors not only to enhance academic understanding and theoretical development in the realms of organizational health, job performance, and the interplay of positive and negative workplace dynamics but also to offer practical insights for management strategies in the VUCA era.
Through its comprehensive examination and novel insights, the study aims to contribute valuable knowledge to the fields of positive psychology, social entrepreneurship, organizational behavior, and human resource development, supporting the advancement of healthier, more resilient, and more productive organizational environments.
2024. 03. 19
현재까지 의료분야 종사자 (간호사) 대상, 조직 민첩성, 조직 건강성, 긍정성, 부정성 등에 관한 데이터 정리된 것을 첨부의 엑셀파일과 같이 공유합니다.
이 데이터는 2024년 2월20일 부터 3월 14일까지 EZ Soft (엠브레인) 이라는 한국 강남의 조사전문업체에 의뢰하여 146만원 투자하여 1차 표집 500 샘플을 하였으나, 확인 과정 중 PsyCap 중 Resilience 부분 세개 항목이 누락되어 2024년 3월 8일부터 3월 15일까지 2차로 다시 표집하여 최종 모은 것입니다.
수집한 데이터를 SPSS 를 이용하여 Mahalanobis Distance 방법을 이용하여 각각 39개 35개의 Outlier를 탐지해서 제외하였습니다.
https://www.statisticssolutions.com/identifying-multivariate-outliers-in-spss/
Identifying Multivariate Outliers in SPSS
Multivariate outliers are typically examined when running statistical analyses with two or more independent or dependent variables.
www.statisticssolutions.com
이와같은 과정을 거쳐, 첨부된 파일과 같이 20240318_Agile_DataSet_Korea_Ver1.0.xlsx 의 파일과 같이 데이터와 변수를을 첫번째 Shett에 그리고, 데이터 표집과정과 전처리 과정 및 몇가지 Resaerch Model 에 대한 아이디어를 제공합니다.
| Probablity of Mahalanobis Threadhole : < .0001 | ||
| Valid Variable | ||
| CHN | Outlier (12 / 360 = 3.33%), | 348 |
| KOR2 | Outlier (35/500 = 7.00%) | 465 |
| KOR1 | Outlier (39 /500 = 7.8%) | 461 |
이러한 데이터를 바탕으로, 서로 서로 협력하여 Agile Study for Nurse 리서치 주제로, 서로서로 의지하여 Authorship 나누면서 많이 많이 페이퍼 뽑아보면 좋겠습니다.
감사합니다.
(데이터 쓰실때, 저를 공저자로 넣는 것 빼먹지 말아주세요.^^ )
IRB: Application Package:
IRB Approval
2024.04.23: IRB Change Application
2024. 04.27: IRB Change Application (No Need for approval for "Exemption Criteria".)
Reference
- Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155.
- Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. (2011). Understanding the link between information technology capability and
organizational agility: An empirical examination. MIS Quarterly, 931-954. - Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Avey, J. B. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital
in the supportive organizational climate—employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 219-238. doi:10.1002/job.507 - Oliveira, M., Curado, C. M. M., Maçada, A. C. G., & Nodari, F. (2015). Using alternative scales to measure
knowledge sharing behavior: Are there any differences? Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 132-
140. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.042 - Riley, M. R., Mohr, D. C., & Waddimba, A. C. (2018). The reliability and validity of three‐item screening
measures for burnout: Evidence from group‐employed health care practitioners in upstate New
York. Stress and Health, 34(1), 187-193. doi:10.1002/smi.2762 - Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive
work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781-790. doi:10.1037/a0019477
How to validate a newly developing Scale (Measurement) of Organizational Health and Toxicity (OHT)?
Validating a newly developed psychological construct, such as the Organizational Health and Toxicity (OHT) scale with seven items, involves a systematic process to ensure it reliably and accurately measures what it is intended to measure. Below is a structured approach to validate this construct:
1. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework Development: Begin with a thorough literature review to ground your construct in existing theory and research. This step helps in defining the dimensions of Organizational Health and Toxicity and ensures that your items cover the construct comprehensively.
2. Item Development: Develop items (questions or statements) based on the conceptual framework. Each item should aim to capture a specific aspect of the OHT construct. Ensure the items are clear, concise, and understandable to the target population.
3. Content Validity: Engage experts in the field of organizational psychology or related areas to evaluate the relevance and representativeness of the items for the OHT construct. This can be done through a structured survey or a Delphi method, seeking consensus on item relevance.
4. Pilot Testing: Conduct a pilot study with a small sample of the target population. This step is crucial for identifying any issues with item clarity, response format, and the overall administration process. Analyze pilot data to refine items and improve the measure.
5. Construct Validity:
5.A: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): Use EFA with a larger sample to explore the underlying factor structure of the OHT scale. This helps in understanding how items group together and whether they align with the theoretical dimensions of the construct.
5.B: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): After establishing a tentative factor structure through EFA, use CFA on a different sample to confirm the factor structure. This step validates how well the measured variables represent the number of constructs.
6. Reliability Testing:
6.A: Internal Consistency: Assess the internal consistency of the OHT scale using Cronbach's alpha or composite reliability scores for each dimension to ensure that the items within each factor consistently measure the same construct.
6.B: Test-Retest Reliability: To assess the stability of the measure over time, administer the OHT scale to the same group of participants at two different points in time and calculate the correlation between the two sets of responses.
7. Criterion Validity: Establish criterion validity by correlating OHT scores with other established measures that theoretically should be related to organizational health and toxicity (e.g., job satisfaction, employee turnover intentions, etc.).
8. Cross-Validation: To ensure the OHT scale's generalizability, conduct cross-validation studies with different populations or within different organizational contexts.
9. Publication and Peer Review: Document the development and validation process in a detailed research paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. Peer feedback can provide further validation and suggestions for improvement.
10. Continuous Refinement: Based on feedback from the academic community and further research, continuously refine the OHT scale to enhance its validity and applicability in diverse organizational settings.
Stata: Do-File
/* ======================================================================
Research Project: Unraveling the Organizational Health Paradox
Project 1.
The Development and Validation of the Organizational Health and Toxicity Scale:
Examining Its Influence on Burnout and Counterproductive Work Behavior
2024. 03. 21
================================================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration of Scale Development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023. 01. 11: Toxic Orgarnization Concepts (from 2021, Pandemic & Toxic):
(https://healingorg.tistory.com/13: TikTok's Toxic Work Culture)
2023. 08. 03: IRB 신청 및 승인
2023. 11.13 ~ 2023. 03. 05: Toxic Orgaization Situation Study
(Interview 32, AAUP), Field Research and Interview
2023. 01. 07 ~ 2023. 02.15: Developing 7 items OHT scale fine tuning
2024. 02. 06: 덕성여대, 윤종원 교수님; 대구보건대 고주연 교수님 방문 및 Survey Item 정리;
DATA Gathering (All Korea 1, 2 = 465 + 461 = 926: All CHN = 348)
(Group KOR2; KOR: 2024년 2월 1차, 3월 2차:
2024년 의료정책 추진 반대 집단행동: 2024년 2월 1일, 의대정원 3000 -> 5000 명 증원 발표
(나무위키: http://surl.li/rtwxh)
1차 조사: 의사파업으로 간호사 업무 증가
2차 조사: (2024.03.03) World Medical Association (WMA)
President Dr. Jujain AlQodmani support Korean Physicians' strike
(http://surl.li/rtwzq)
(2024.03.08) 간호사 업무 확대 시작; http://y2u.be/TlApFTXw8-I
Professors strike (의대교수 반발)
Korea 1: (KOR-1차 Error) 2024.02.22 ~ 03. 01)
확인내용: Resil 1, 2, 3 (out of PsyCap) are missing
총 대상(Population size) 1,739,129 Population
: 마크로밀 엠브레인 온라인 조사 패널
설문대상(Target Sample):
패널기초조사 직업이 간호사 인 패널
배포량(Distribution volume) 5,920 Distribution
응답률(Return Rate) – 조사 접속 수 1,063 Participation (18.0%)
응답완료 530 Completion
대상아님/대상초과 174 / 337 Not qualified
중도포기 22 Stopped
불성실데이터 14 Incomplete
전달데이터 500 Delivered Data
KOR1_Outlier (39 /500 = 7.8%)
Subtotal Korea 1 Sample: 461
(KOR-2차 정상) 2024. 03.08 ~ 03. 15 확인내용
총 대상(Population size) 1,739,129 Population
: 마크로밀 엠브레인 온라인 조사 패널
설문대상(Target Sample):
: 패널기초조사 직업이 간호사 인 패널
배포량(Distribution volume) 31,273 Distribution
응답률(Return Rate) – 조사 접속 수 3,284 Participation (11.4%)
응답완료 546 Completion
대상아님/대상초과 789 / 1913 Not qualified
중도포기 36 Stopped
불성실데이터 12 Incomplete
전달데이터 500 Delivered Data
KOR2_Outlier (35/500 = 7.00%)
Subtotal Korea 2 Sample: 465
(Group CHN)
China: (2024. 03 .05)
Whole China Nurse Population 5220000
Statistica:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/225544/number-of-nurses-in-china/
Ditribution:
(Sample in a Eastern China Province) 800
1 Yantai Penglai People's Hospital 500
https://www.plhospital.cn/
2 Yantai Penglai Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine
250
https://www.ytsplzyyy.cn/
3 Yantai First Hospital 50
Return Ratio: (360/800 = 45%)
Complted and Returned Survey 360
CHN Outlier (12 / 360 = 3.33%),
Subtotal 348
Mahalanobis Distance (SPSS) was used to identify and remove the outlier
Criteira Generally 0.001 (0.1%) rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey Items
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Variables:
Country:
KOR2: Korean Nurses (03.08 ~ 03.15, 2024)
KOR1: Korean Nurse (02.22 ~ 03.01, 2024)
CHN: Chinese Nurse (03.05 ~ 03. 12, 2024)
1 Agility AOA1 We fulfill demands for rapid-response, special requests of our customers (patients) whenever such demands arise; our customers (patients)have confidence in our ability.
2 AOA2 We can quickly scale up or scale down our production/service levels to support fluctuations in demand from the market.
3 AOA3 Whenever there is a disruption in supply from our suppliers, we can quickly make necessary alternative arrangements and internal adjustments.
4 AMA1 We are quick to make and implement appropriate decisions in the face of market/customer-changes.
5 AMA2 We constantly look for ways to reinvent/reengineer our organization to better serve our marketplace.
6 AMA3 We treat market-related changes and apparent chaos as opportunities to capitalize quickly.
7 Organizational Health and Toxicity OHT1 (This organization) Consistently acknowledges and promotes individuals for their exceptional performance, following a system that rewards based on their achievements.
8 OHT2 Advocates for autonomous decision-making, fostering cross-team collaboration to enhance collective outcomes."
9 OHT3 Cultivates an environment of open dialogue and establishes a transparent reward system aligned with organizational values.
10 OHT4 Focuses on skills and competencies in recruitment and promotion, actively addressing and reducing any form of bias or prejudice.
11 OHT5 Committed to actively listening, fostering constructive two-way communication with highly regarded diverse voices, and incorporating feedback into its decision-making process.
12 OHT6 Emphasizes continuous skill development and regularly acknowledges achievements at all organizational levels from bottom to top.
13 OHT7 Proactively champions diversity and inclusion, integrating these principles into all facets of its operations.
14 Job Performance SDB1 (I am) Coming up with new, original ideas for handling work.
15 SDB2 Redesigning job tasks for greater effectiveness and efficiency, even if it isn’t required.
16 SDB3 Taking initiative and doing whatever is necessary.
17 SDB5 Going against established policies and procedures if he or she thinks it would result in meeting broader organizational goals.
18 QUANT Working sufficient quantity of time
19 QUAL Achieving quality of work
20 PsyCap Effic1 I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management
21 Effic2 I feel confident contributing to discussions about the organization (health institution)’s strategy
22 Effi3 I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues
23 hope1 "If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it."
24 hope2 Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work.
25 hope3 I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals.
26 hope4 At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself.
27 opti1 I can be “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I have to.
28 opti2 I usually take stressful things at work in stride.
29 resil1 I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced difficulty before.
30 resil2 I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job
31 resil3 I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work.
32 Knowledge Sharing Behavior: KSA1 I often participate in knowledge sharing activities in my team
33 KSA2 I usually spend a lot of time conducting knowledge sharing activities in my team
34 KSA3 I usually share my knowledge with the other members of my team
35 KSB1 I often share the reports and official documents from my work with the members of my team
36 KSB2 I always share my manuals, methodologies and models with the members of my team
37 KSB3 I often share my experience or know-how with the members of my team
38 KSB4 I always share my know-where and know-whom when prompted by the members of my team
39 Burnout EE1 I feel emotionally drained from my work
40 EE2 I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job
41 EE3 Working with people all day is really a strain for me
42 DP1 I’ve become more callous towards people since I took this job
43 DP2 I don’t really care what happens to some my works
44 DP3 I feel I treat some people as if they were impersonal objects
45 PA1_R I feel exhilarated after working closely with my people
46 PA2_R I have accomplished many things in my work
47 Counterproductive Work Behavior Counter1 Purposely wasted your employer’s materials/supplies
48 Counter2 Complained about insignificant things at work
49 Counter3 Told people outside the job what a lousy place you work for
50 Counter4 Came to work late without permission
51 Counter5 Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you weren’t
52 Counter6 Insulted someone about their job performance
53 Counter7 Made fun of someone’s personal life
54 Counter8 Ignored someone at work
55 Counter9 Started an argument with someone at work
56 Counter10 Insulted or made fun of someone at work
57 Job Satisfaction Satisfaction Please indicate your level of satisfaction with your current job.
58 Demographics Gender " What is your gender?
1. Male
2. Female
3. Prefer not to say "
59 Age "What is your age?
1. < 22
2. 22 ~ 25
3. 26 ~ 34
4. 36 ~ 44
5. 45 ~ 55
6. > 55 "
60 Size " How big is your organization? (Employee size?)
1. < 10
2. 10 – 50
3. 50 – 250
4. 250 – 1,000
5. > 1,000 "
61 Duty " What do you do at your organization?
1. Nurse or Nurse Practitioner
2. Medical professionals (such as physical therapists, occupational therapists, clinical pathologists, etc.),
3. Hospital Administration
4. Others ______________ "
62 Degree " What is your highest level of education?
1. Under middle diploma
2. Middle school diploma
3. High school diploma
4. 2-3 years vocational college
5. 4-year college
6. graduate college "
63 Tenure " How long have you been working at your current organization (year)?
1.< 1 year
2.1 ~ 3
3.3 ~ 5
4.5 ~ 10
5.10 ~ 15
6.> 15"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OHT Scale Development & Validation Test
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reviewing Literature and Establishing a Framework
2. Crafting Survey Items
3. Assessing Content Validity
4. Executing Pilot Studies
5. Evaluating Construct Validity
5.A. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)? (Not necessary?)
5.B. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
6. Testing Reliability
6.A. Internal Consistency (Cronbach's alpha)
6.B. Test-Retest Reliability (KOR1 and KOR2)
7. Establishing Criterion Validity (OHT - Job Satisfaction to validate relevance)
8. Conducting Cross-Validation (China Sample)
9. Undergoing Peer Review (Publication)
10. Refining Continuously
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OHT Scale Validation following Curry(2019)'s Mapping MOrlaity with a Compass:
Teting the Theory of MAC with a new Questionniare, Journal of Resaerch in Personality
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.10.008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study1: Developing OHT Scale: Literature Reivew; Generated 7x5 (35) items but shortened 7 items by experts
Pretested (OST); Devepled Items were checked and translated into Korean for Study 2
Study 2A: Testing (500 Samples) of Korean Nurses : Participant were recruited via a market polling firm (Embrain).
EFA, CFA, Kiser-Meyer-Olkin index (KM)=0.95) and Barlett's test of sphericity, Parallel Analysis, Pattern matrix, Cross-loading
Cronbach's Alpha
2A-I: OHT Scale & single-item Job satisfaction
Study 2B:Plus Re-test (Two Weeks later) Same test with the sample population; Re-Test (Pearson Correlation?)
EFA, CFA, Kiser-Meyer-Olkin index (KM)=0.95) and Barlett's test of sphericity, Parallel Analysis, Pattern matrix, Cross-loading
Cronbach's Alpha
2A-II: OHT Scale & single-item Job satisfaction
Study 3: Cross-Validation with Chinese context (with 360 samples in Shangdon by Dylan Zhen Yao at Cornell University)
Translated and re-translated by Two Chinese natives and American school graduate students;
3: OHT Scale & single-item Job satisfaction
Study 1, 2, 3 encompass the criteria of relevancy, reliability, and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATA INPUT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study 2A: Korea 1 (Original) n= 461
/Users/jeonghwanchoi/Library/CloudStorage/OneDrive-温州肯恩大学/0.Healing_ORG_Institute/1000.Journal/01.2024_Agility_Performance/06.Data_Analysis/02.Validation_Data/20230321_Validation_Data/20240321_Validation_Study2_KOR1_Ver1.dta
Study 2B: Korea 2 (Re-test): n=465
/Users/jeonghwanchoi/Library/CloudStorage/OneDrive-温州肯恩大学/0.Healing_ORG_Institute/1000.Journal/01.2024_Agility_Performance/06.Data_Analysis/02.Validation_Data/20230321_Validation_Data/20240321_Validation_Study2_KOR1_Ver1.dta
Study 3: CHN (Cross-Validation): n=348
/Users/jeonghwanchoi/Library/CloudStorage/OneDrive-温州肯恩大学/0.Healing_ORG_Institute/1000.Journal/01.2024_Agility_Performance/06.Data_Analysis/02.Validation_Data/20230321_Validation_Data/20240321_Validation_Study3_CHN_Ver1.dta
2023. 03. 20: How to validate a newly developing Scale (Measurement) of Organizational Health and Toxicity (OHT)?
2023. 03. 19: Data Sharing
This study investigates the impact of organizational health on job performance, analyzing the mediating roles of positive dynamics (Psychological Capital and Knowledge Sharing Behavior) and negative dynamics (Job Burnout and Counterproductive Work Behaviors) within healthcare settings.
Targeting employees from large healthcare organizations, the research aims to elucidate how these factors collectively influence job performance. Through a multifaceted recruitment strategy ensuring a diverse sample, this study seeks to offer insights into the complex interplay between organizational health and employee behavior, contributing to the theoretical and practical understanding of managing workplace dynamics in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment.
In accordance with the "Transparency and Openness Promotion" guidelines, as outlined by Soderberg, C. K. (2018) in "Using OSF to share data: A step-by-step guide" (Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 115-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918757),
I have included a section in the Methods part of our manuscript. So, all data, analysis code, and research mat
OSF: Whole Data : https://osf.io/bk3yh/
OSF: S. Korea Data: https://osf.io/ajgnt/
OSF: China Data: https://osf.io/6mg8z/
2023.03.19: Initially Archive
'Choi's Research > 1.Progress in Research' 카테고리의 다른 글
| Scite Customization with Dashboard and Document (0) | 2024.04.26 |
|---|---|
| Mahalanobis Distance Outlier Detection Practice (SPSS) (0) | 2024.03.18 |
| Research Project: Measurement (Organizational Agility and Health Paradox) (0) | 2024.02.05 |
| [RESEARCH] KUSA/WKU AGILE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH GROUP (0) | 2022.10.30 |
| Is the Psychological Safety Matter in the Manufacturing Industry? (0) | 2018.07.21 |
댓글