A prospective model of the relationship between psychological climate, work attitude, and staff...

A prospective model of the relationship between psychological climate, work attitude, and staff

turnover

Bryan R. Garner, Ph.D. & Brooke D. Hunter, B.S.

Chestnut Health SystemsNormal, IL

R01AA017625 (PI: Garner)#270-07-0191

(PIs: Dennis & Godley)

Opinions are those of the authors and not official positions of the government

Addiction Health Services ResearchFairfax, VA – October 4, 2011

R01DA030462 (PI: Garner)

Defining turnover

Turnover is when a current staff member voluntarily or involuntarily leaves the organization.

• 33% annual counselor turnover and 23% clinical supervisor turnover (Eby, Burk, & Maher, 2010).

• 31% annual counselor turnover and 19% clinical supervisor turnover (Garner, Hunter, Modisette, Ihnes, & Godley, under review).

Estimates of Staff Turnover within Substance Use Treatment Field?

Generally most prevalent and of greatest concern

Why should we care about staff turnover?

Negative consequences of staff turnover:

1. Financial costs associated with recruiting, selecting, and training replacement staff.

2. Potential for reductions in quality or effectiveness of services being delivered to the organizations’ customers or clients.

Why do staff turnover?

Models of staff turnover process

1. Intermediate Linkages Model

Mobley (1977)

2. Meta-analytic, structural equation modeling turnover model

Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992


3. Culture, climate, work attitudes, and staff turnover

Aarons & Sawitzky (2006)

Relationship not reported

Correlational relationship


Limitations

Hypothesized model

PsychologicalClimatea

Work Attitudeb

StaffTurnover

Study Entry 3-month post-study entry

4 -18 months post-study entry

a James & Jones (1974); James & James (1989); Parker, 1999

b Parker et al. (2003)

Psychological Climate

Hypothesized model


Work Attitudeb

StaffTurnover





Psychological Climate

Hypothesized model


Work Attitudeb

StaffTurnover





An individuals perception of their work environment

An individuals evaluation of those perceptions

What’s the difference between these?

“PCg and satisfaction are distinct constructs” (p.265)

Psychological Climate andWork Attitudes

Parker et al. (2003)

the relationships of psychological climate with employee motivation

and performance are fully mediated byemployees’ work attitudes. (p. 389)

Hypothesized model


Work Attitudeb

StaffTurnover



Caution: Temporal order does not imply causation



Test direct relationship

Participants

• 95 substance abuse treatment (SAT) therapists participating in a multisite (N=29) evidence-based practice dissemination and implementation initiative (Godley, Garner, Smith, Meyers, & Godley, 2011) and a related pay-for-performance experiment (Garner, Godley, Dennis, Godley, & Shepard, 2010).

Background Characteristics M (SD) or %

Age in years 36 (11)

Female 73%

Caucasian 56%

Master’s degree+ 55%

Recovery Status 5%

Annual Salary $34,769 ($7,494)

None of these were significant predictors of turnover

Procedures

• Under IRB approval, participants were asked to complete a 30-45 minute survey at study entry and three months post-entry.

• Staff turnover information was provided by supervisors at each respective treatment site.

Measures

• Psychological Climate – five-factor latent construct created using items from the Psychological Climate Questionnaire (James & Sells, 1981), the organizational climate domain of the Organizational Readines for Change (ORC) instrument (Lehman, Greener, & Simpson, 2002), and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996).

Job Challenge& Autonomy

RoleClarity

RoleOverload

CoworkerSupport

SupervisorSupport

PsychologicalClimate

Fit statistics:χ2/df = 1.02, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .015; comparative fit index (CFI)

= .998; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .996, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .042).

Measures continued

• Work Attitude – five-factor latent construct created using items from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967), the pay satisfaction questionnaire (Heneman & Schwab, 1985), the job involvement scale (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Reeve & Smith, 2001), and the intentions-to-quit scale (adapted for this study based on items developed by Walsh, Ashford, & Hill, 1985).

Job Involvement

Intentions-to-Quit

BenefitSatisfaction

PaySatisfaction

Job Satisfaction

WorkAttitude

Fit statistics:χ2/df = 1.86, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .095; comparative fit index (CFI)

= .918; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .836, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .049).

Measures continued

• Turnover – represented as a latent factor with four binary event indicators where 1 = turnover and 0 = no turnover and with event indicators coded as missing once turnover occurred or the observation period ended.

Months13-18

Months10-12

Months7-9

Months4-6

Turnover

Analyses

Mediation analysis using multilevel discrete-time survival analysis with latent variables, which combines the strengths of:• Mediation analysis (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986)• Longitudinal data analysis (e.g., Singer & Willett, 2003)• Multilevel modeling (e.g., Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Snijders &

Bosker, 1999)• Survival analysis (e.g., Morita, Lee, & Mowday, 1989; Muthén &

Masyn, 2005; Singer & Willett, 1993, 2003; Willett & Singer, 1993)• Structural equation modeling (e.g., Bollen, 1989; Hoyle, 1995)

Results:Turnover rate

• Of the 95 participants, 19 (20%) left the organization during the course of the study.

• Of the 19 that left, 18 (95%) were voluntary turnovers, which represents a 19% voluntary turnover rate.

Hypothesized Model:

Study Entry

3-month post-study entry

4 -18 months post-study entryT

IME


Turnover

WorkAttitude

Results:Model 1

SS CS RO RC JCA

JS PS BS ITQ JI

WorkAttitude

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001


.74*** .79*** -.49** .56*** .53***

.80*** .66*** .54*** -.50*** .21

.87***

More positive perceptions of work environment at study entry (i.e.,

psychological climate) was predictive of more positive work attitudes

measured 3 months later.

Hypothesized Model:

Study Entry



IME

WorkAttitude


Turnover

Results:Model 2

SS CS RO RC JCA


* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Months4-6

Months7-9

Months10-12

Months13-18

Turnover

.82*** .84*** -.52** .62*** .44*** .32** .32** .32** .32**

Hazard Odds Ratio (hOR) = 0.37***

Higher perceptions of work environment at study entry (i.e., psychological climate)

was predictive of decreased likelihood of turnover between months 4 and 18.

Hypothesized Model:

Study Entry



IME

WorkAttitude


Turnover

Results:Final Model

SS CS RO RC JCA

JS PS BS ITQ JI

WorkAttitude

.75*** .79*** -.61**

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

.62*** .46***

Months4-6

.40**

Months7-9

Months10-12

Months13-18

Turnover

.40** .40** .40**

.88*** .61*** .47*** -.64*** .29**

WorkAttitude


.82*** hOR = 0.26*

Relationship between Psychological Climate and

Turnover is no longer significant (hOR = 0.95; p=.95) when Work Attitude is included in model

(i.e., Full Mediation)

Main Findings and Implications

Main Finding #1:19% Voluntary Turnover Rate

Main Finding #2: Work attitude fully mediated

the temporal relationship between psychological climate

and staff turnover

Implication's

Implication's

Voluntary turnover rates were higher than ideal and warrants ongoing monitoring

Organizations wanting to improve work attitude and reduce frequent staff turnover may benefit from focusing on improving dimensions of psychological climate (e.g., supervisor support, coworker support)

A questionable approach to reducing staff turnover

Thank You.

A prospective model of the relationship between psychological climate, work attitude, and staff...

Documents

Transcript of A prospective model of the relationship between psychological climate, work attitude, and staff...