Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

A prospective model of the relationship between psychological climate, work attitude, and staff turnover Bryan R. Garner, Ph.D. & Brooke D. Hunter, B.S.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "A prospective model of the relationship between psychological climate, work attitude, and staff turnover Bryan R. Garner, Ph.D. & Brooke D. Hunter, B.S."— Presentation transcript:

1 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 Systems Normal, IL R01AA (PI: Garner) # (PIs: Dennis & Godley) Opinions are those of the authors and not official positions of the government Addiction Health Services Research Fairfax, VA – October 4, 2011 R01DA (PI: Garner)

2 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

3 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?

4 Models of staff turnover process 1. Intermediate Linkages Model Mobley (1977)

5 2. Meta-analytic, structural equation modeling turnover model Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992 Models of staff turnover process

6 3. Culture, climate, work attitudes, and staff turnover Aarons & Sawitzky (2006) Relationship not reported Correlational relationship Models of staff turnover process Limitations

7 Hypothesized model Psychological Climate a Work Attitude b Staff Turnover Study Entry 3-month post-study entry months post-study entry a James & Jones (1974); James & James (1989); Parker, 1999 b Parker et al. (2003)

8 Psychological Climate

9 Hypothesized model Psychological Climate a Work Attitude b Staff Turnover Study Entry 3-month post-study entry months post-study entry a James & Jones (1974); James & James (1989); Parker, 1999 b Parker et al. (2003)

10 Psychological Climate

11 Hypothesized model Psychological Climate a Work Attitude b Staff Turnover Study Entry 3-month post-study entry months post-study entry a James & Jones (1974); James & James (1989); Parker, 1999 b Parker et al. (2003) An individuals perception of their work environment An individuals evaluation of those perceptions What’s the difference between these? “PC g and satisfaction are distinct constructs” (p.265)

12 Psychological Climate and Work Attitudes Parker et al. (2003) the relationships of psychological climate with employee motivation and performance are fully mediated by employees’ work attitudes. (p. 389)

13 Hypothesized model Psychological Climate a Work Attitude b Staff Turnover Study Entry 3-month post-study entry months post-study entry Caution: Temporal order does not imply causation a James & Jones (1974); James & James (1989); Parker, 1999 b Parker et al. (2003) Test direct relationship

14 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

15 Procedures Under IRB approval, participants were asked to complete a minute survey at study entry and three months post-entry. Staff turnover information was provided by supervisors at each respective treatment site.

16 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 Role Clarity Role Overload Coworker Support Supervisor Support Psychological Climate 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).

17 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 Benefit Satisfaction Pay Satisfaction Job Satisfaction Work Attitude 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).

18 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. Months Months Months 7-9 Months 4-6 Turnover

19 Analyses Mediation analysis using multilevel discrete-time survival analysis with latent variables, which combines the strengths of: Mediation analysis (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986)Mediation analysis (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986) Longitudinal data analysis (e.g., Singer & Willett, 2003)Longitudinal data analysis (e.g., Singer & Willett, 2003) Multilevel modeling (e.g., Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Snijders & Bosker, 1999)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)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)Structural equation modeling (e.g., Bollen, 1989; Hoyle, 1995)

20 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.

21 Hypothesized Model: Study Entry 3-month post-study entry months post-study entry TIME Psychological Climate Turnover Work Attitude

22 Results: Model 1 SSCSRORCJCA JSPSBSITQJI Work Attitude * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 Psychological Climate.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.

23 Hypothesized Model: Study Entry 3-month post-study entry months post-study entry TIME Work Attitude Psychological Climate Turnover

24 Results: Model 2 SSCSRORCJCA Psychological Climate * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001 Months 4-6 Months 7-9 Months Months Turnover.82***.84***-.52**.62***.44***.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.

25 Hypothesized Model: Study Entry 3-month post-study entry months post-study entry TIME Work Attitude Psychological Climate Turnover

26 Results: Final Model SSCSRORCJCA JSPSBSITQJI Work Attitude.75***.79***-.61** * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p < ***.46*** Months ** Months 7-9 Months Months Turnover.40**.88***.61***.47*** -.64***.29** Work Attitude Psychological Climate.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)

27 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 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)

28 A questionable approach to reducing staff turnover

29 Thank You.


Download ppt "A prospective model of the relationship between psychological climate, work attitude, and staff turnover Bryan R. Garner, Ph.D. & Brooke D. Hunter, B.S."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google