The environment at the workplace is an essential factor that affects the functioning of an employee, his/her motivation, efficiency, and outcomes. For this reason, it is critical to devote significant attention to the monitoring of this factor and investigation of all points that impact its state. Speaking about the healthcare sector, this issue acquires the top priority because of the need for the better cooperation between all specialists that could be achieved only in terms of the appropriate working environment (Leiter & Laschinger, 2006). For this reason, different specific toolkits provide both employees and employers with an opportunity to assess the current state of the working environment and find areas that should be altered to ensure the increased efficiency of diverse health units functioning.
Using the toolkit suggested by the Royal College of Nursing, we will check an organization again the suggested indicators to ensure that appropriate relations between workers are cultivated and the unit promotes dignity at work. The first four items include (RCN, n.d.):
an effective bullying and harassment policy – yes
a robust, consistent response to incidents of violence at work – yes
a safe environment/culture for staff to raise concerns without fear of reprisal, and appropriate support for those who do – yes
policies that promote dignity and diversity in all workplaces – yes
These four units indicate that the current workplace environment in the health unit could be considered satisfactory. The rationale for positive answers is explained by several factors. First, the selected medical unit adheres to an efficient and strict harassment policy that helps to minimize cases of intolerant behaviors or sexual discrimination. All workers realize the fact that their wrong behavioral patterns are inadmissible and will be punished. For this reason, all specialists feel safe and cooperate in mixed teams. This factor apparently contributes to the improved working environment and better outcomes.
Second, managers and leaders respond to incidences of violence appropriately. Using employees reports and feedbacks, they reveal cases of violence or abusive behaviors and discuss them to cease their development and punish all initiators of conflicts. The severity of punishment depends on the nature of the conflict, character of violent behavior, and consequences triggered by these inappropriate actions (Leiter & Laschinger, 2006). In such a way, the robust response helps to guarantee security to all workers and avoid bullying.
The next point in the checklist indicates that all workers can raise specific concerns related to different peculiarities of the existing working environment, its quality, and problematic areas. It is a core component of the functioning of every organization as its employees have an outstanding power to contribute to its development by suggesting new ideas for its improvement (Kelly, McHugh, & Aiken, 2011). In such a way, the appropriate state of this issue is important for the working environment.
Finally, the last aspect is related to the cultivation of the appropriate culture that promotes dignity and diversity within the collective. At the moment, introduced policies contribute to the enhanced cooperation and elaboration of the respectful attitude to all employees regardless of their status, gender, age, and position.
Altogether, all options mentioned in the checklist are crucial for the cultivation of the appropriate working environment and enhanced performance of workers. There are policies that cultivate dignity and diversity. Moreover, all inappropriate behaviors are monitored and eliminated. This approach results in the increased efficiency of the unit and its further development.
References
Kelly, L., McHugh, M., & Aiken, L. (2011). Nurse outcomes in Magnet and non-Magnet hospitals. Journal of Nursing Administration, 41(10), 428-433.
Leiter, M., & Laschinger, H. (2006). Relationships of work and practice environment to professional burnout: testing a causal model. Nursing Research, 55(2), 137-146.
Royal College of Nursing (RCN). (n.d.). Healthy workplace toolkit. Web.
Nursing organizations, practitioners, and employers must combine their efforts to create desirable working environments. When nurses practice in quality workplaces, it becomes easier for them to offer superior health services to different patients. This discussion explores the issues revolving around the nature and quality of practice environments.
Personal Practice Environment
The presented Quality Practice Environments (QPE) Checklist offers meaningful insights that can be used to create effective working environments. Personally, I believe that I have been practicing in an environment that fulfills most of the attributes outlined in the document. To begin with, the working environment is supported by the institution in an attempt to promote lifelong learning and acquisition of evidence-based concepts that can improve patient outcomes. The issue of nursing leadership is also taken seriously. The rationale for this argument is that nurse leaders are supported and equipped with adequate resources (“Quality practice environments,” n. d.). There are also experienced practitioners who support and empower newly-recruited nurses. Additionally, nurses have authority and responsibility for practice. They are required to engage in policymaking processes. Practitioners collaborate with different professionals to achieve their goals.
The organization supports every nursing or care delivery model using adequate policies, mission and vision statements, and practices. The leaders in the institution embrace nurses’ insights and ideas, promote work-life balance programs, and implement powerful strategies to address personal concerns. The current challenge that affects the effectiveness of this working environment is the issue of workload management (Reed, 2017). The problem of nursing shortage explains why the institution is yet to hire more competent practitioners to offer evidence-based care to different patients.
Rationale and Recommendations
The above discussion reveals that most of the nurses in the unit are empowered to deliver quality services to their patients. The institution’s ability to focus on practitioners’ needs and concerns is a positive indicator of a desirable working environment. Work-life balance, lifelong learning, and provision of adequate resources are some of the practices that make the environment appropriate for the delivery of quality patient services (“Quality practice environments,” n. d.). However, my unit lacks adequate professionals and nurses to meet the needs of its patients. Some nurses are also forced to work overtime due to the problem of nursing shortage. Additionally, the unit lacks an effective mechanism to discuss or plan patient care with the targeted beneficiaries.
The current gaps can be addressed using evidence-based approaches. The first one is that the institution should hire more nurses or nurse aids to support every care delivery process. Units should also be guided to liaise with patients to develop appropriate care delivery plans (Reed, 2017). Finally, various concepts such as work-life balance and lifelong learning should be supported to meet the needs of more practitioners.
Conclusion
Organizational leaders in healthcare institutions must use their competencies to collaborate with different stakeholders such as practitioners, physicians, and patients to design the most appropriate practice environments. The above QPE Checklist should be used to inform any form of change aimed at improving the welfare of nurse practitioners. These questions should, therefore, be taken seriously whenever using the QPE Checklist:
How can practitioners contribute to the development of quality practice environment using the QPE Checklist?
What new issues or concerns should be added to the document to improve the working conditions of different practitioners?
How can organizations combine various concepts such as “magnet status” and “meaningful use” with the attributes described in the document?
References
Quality practice environments. (n. d.). Web.
Reed, P. (2017). Translating nursing philosophy for practice and healthcare policy. Nursing Science Quarterly, 30(3), 1-12. Web.
How to deal with unhealthy work environments is a difficult question. Much has been written and said about unhealthy work environments and their effects on the quality of nursing care delivery. This paper provides a brief insight into the issue of healthy work environments and its implications for nursing. The history and relevance of the issue are discussed. The paper evaluates the effects of unhealthy work environments on patients, nurses, physicians, and other stakeholders. Pros and cons, as well as possible ways to resolve the issue are evaluated and discussed. The goal of the paper is to create an objective picture of the issue and its implications for nursing.
Introduction
Nurses operate in complex environments. Unfortunately, healthy work environments remain a serious nursing issue. A wealth of literature describes the importance and implications of healthy work environments for nurses. Nevertheless, many work environments remain unhealthy for nurses and make them leave their institutions and profession for good (Kupperschmidt, Kientz, Ward & Reinholz, 2010). This paper critically evaluates the issue of healthy work environments and their effects on nurses. The history of the nursing issue is discussed. The paper evaluates the pros and cons of the nursing issue and possible ways to resolve it. The goal of the paper is to create an objective picture of healthy work environments and its implications for nursing.
Main body
Nurses operate in complex environments. The complexity of nursing work was abundantly established (Ebright, 2010). Unfortunately, the reasons why intended outcomes are not achieved are poorly understood (Elbright, 2010). Healthy work environments exemplify a serious issue, since they cause heavy consequences on the quality of nursing care and patient safety. Healthy work environments are a nursing issue, because they are extremely important for nurses and patients (Kupperschmidt et al, 2010) and can help to reduce complexity and errors in nursing care environments (Ebright, 2010). Unfortunately, the gap in the nursing research regarding healthy work environments and their implications for patient safety continues to persist.
The issue of healthy work environments has far-reaching implications for nursing management and leadership. This is an important reason why nurses must recognize the relevance of the issue and assume a responsibility for creating healthy work environments.
The history of the issue dates back to the beginning of the new millennium. In 2005, the American Association of Critical Care Nurses developed and published six standards of healthy work environments in nursing care (Marquis & Huston, 2008). Before 2005, researchers and scholars in nursing had been increasingly concerned about the nature and implications of healthy work environments for nurses. Since 2003, researchers have been trying to identify, discuss, and evaluate the factors that challenge the provision of quality nursing care (Ebright, 2010).
The reasons and consequences of disruptive behaviors in nursing care have been discussed (Longo, 2010). Parse’s Theory of Human Becoming and a Five-Factor Model for Becoming a Skilled Communicator have been used to develop new conceptual frameworks (Kupperschmidt et al, 2010). Nevertheless, nursing work environments remain unhealthy and push nurses to leave their profession (Kupperschmidt et al, 2010).
The issue affects all stakeholders, including nurses and patients. According to Kupperschmidt et al (2010), “the negative outcomes of unhealthy work environments affect patient safety and nurses’ willingness to remain in the workplace”. Unhealthy work environments expose nurses to unnecessary stresses and psychological disorders (Longo, 2010). They threaten patient safety and wellbeing and break the line of collaboration and communication between them and practicing nurses (Longo, 2010). Unhealthy work environments reduce healthcare workers’ ability to pursue competence and professionalism in the workplace (Longo, 2010). Stresses and behavioral disturbances compromise the quality of nurse-physician relationships and lead to decreased communication, collaboration, and information transfer (Longo, 2010).
The pros and cons of the issue are obvious. On the one hand, unhealthy work environments create a challenging atmosphere and keep nurses focused on their tasks. On the other hand, unhealthy work environments pose a serious threat to patient safety and wellbeing. Unhealthy work environments affect all stakeholders, reduce patient safety, and create additional cognitive load in nurses (Ebright, 2010). They leave little room for quality nursing care and disrupt the stability of professional relationships within and between the nursing staff.
Possible ways to resolve the issue are numerous and varied. Kupperschmidt et al (2010) suggest that nurses must assume a responsibility for creating and maintaining a healthy work environment. Nurses must become skilled communicators (Kupperschmidt et al, 2010). They must become reflective, mindful, authentic, and candid (Kupperschmidt et al, 2010). It should be noted, that authentic leadership is an essential prerequisite for creating and sustaining healthy work environments: Marquis and Huston (2008) cite authentic leadership among the six basic standards of HWEs.
HWEs can be easily promoted, by eliminating system gaps that create complexity, implementing appropriate technologies, redesigning RN work, and supporting new RN as they are learning to take complex workplace decisions (Ebright, 2010). Nurses must develop policies and procedures to deal with disruptive behaviors and foster general communication skills (Longo, 2010). Nurses must be cognizant of their behaviors and the standards of appropriateness, to ensure that they do not cross the boundaries of acceptable behaviors in the workplace (Longo, 2010).
Conclusion
Healthy work environments exemplify a serious nursing issue. The history of the issue dates back to the beginning of the new millennium: in 2005, six standards of HWEs in nursing were published. Despite the growing body of literature, many nursing environments remain unhealthy and push nurses to leave their institutions and profession for good. Unhealthy work environments affect patient wellbeing and expose nurses to unnecessary stresses. They reduce collaboration and communication between nurses and physicians. It is high time nurses assumed a responsibility for developing and maintaining HWEs. Authentic leadership can become a relevant factor of sustained HWEs in nursing care.
References
Ebright, P.R. (2010). The complex work of RNs: Implications for healthy work environments. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 15(1), 4.
Kupperschmidt, B., Kientz, E., Ward, J. & Reinholz, B. (2010). A healthy work environment: It begins with you. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 15(1), 3.
Longo, J. (2010). Combating disruptive behaviors: Strategies to promote healthy work environment. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 15(1), 5.
Marquis, B.L. & Huston, C.J. (2008). Leadership roles and management functions in nursing: Theory and application. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Communication and nursing are inseparable. In this paper, two articles are reviewed and evaluated. A brief summary of the articles is provided. Their strengths and weaknesses are discussed. Implications for future researchers are provided.
Introduction
The latter contribute to and enhance the quality of nursing care and patient health outcomes. The importance of communication in nursing care has been widely documented. Nevertheless, practicing nurses experience significant barriers to communication in clinical settings. This is one of the reasons why researchers seek to develop new models of communication. Recommendations provided by researchers have the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of communication in nursing. However, all patients are unique; so are nursing situations. Apparently, there cannot be a single, universal solution to communication problems in nursing, and professional nurses must have an inner capacity to address communication controversies in ways that benefit patients.
Communication is probably the most popular object of nursing research. In his article, Robert L. Veninga (2007) discusses how communication makes effective nursing leaders. Veninga (2007) is confident that, to be effective, nursing leaders must communicate “four sets of values: respect, continuous learning, hope, and a light-hearted spirit” (p.7). Veninga (2007) provides facts and assumptions to justify the importance of communication in nursing. The author explains the meaning of a light-hearted spirit and the way communication can help nursing leaders to build resilient nursing environments (Veninga, 2007). Roman (2007) adds to this body of knowledge and provides recommendations to improve communication in the most problematic nursing situations. For example, when asking for a raise, the nurse should provide specific examples of his (her) achievements and abilities to pursue professional growth (Roman, 2007).When addressing a staffer’s inappropriate hygiene, tactfulness is the best way to communicate the problem (Roman, 2007). The author recognizes the wide range of issues nurses face in their work and offers ideas to resolve and avoid these issues in practice (Roman, 2007).
Both articles provide a valuable insight into the nature and value of communication for practicing nurses. Nurses may find themselves in confusing, puzzling situations (Roman, 2007). Sometimes nurses initiate decisions and conversations that make them feel uncomfortable (Roman, 2007). In the meantime, nursing leaders must be able to motivate their followers and recognize their achievements. Achieving these goals is impossible without effective communication. Roman (2007) and Veninga (2007) provide practical guidance for nurses and nursing leaders, who want to improve their communication skills. Yet, both articles are not without limitations.
Veninga (2007) writes that nursing leaders must be able to communicate respect, hope, continuous learning, and a light-hearted spirit. Unfortunately, how to make it happen remains unclear. The author provides a detailed and comprehensive description of the four leadership values but does not specify what exactly leaders should do, to communicate these values to their followers. The situation with a light-hearted spirit is particularly problematic: the concept of light-heartedness by itself is rather confusing. The importance of a light-hearted spirit in nursing cannot be overstated, but nursing leaders need a clearer, more “tangible” picture of communication. Simultaneously, Roman (2007) forgets that all patients are unique; and so are clinical situations. Sometimes, nurses may not be able to follow the author’s recommendations. Both articles lack empirical support, which lends little credibility to their claims and assumptions. Nonetheless, it is clear that the knowledge provided by Roman (2007) and Veninga (2007) can create a good basis for future research. Moreover, it is with this knowledge that nurses and nursing leaders can reconsider their communication issues from a different perspective. Apparently, there is no single, universal solution to all communication problems in nursing. Nurses need flexibility and inner capacity to address various communication controversies in ways that benefit patients.
Conclusion
Nursing and communication are inseparable. Nurses need superior communication skills. Veninga (2007) and Roman (2007) provide their own views on the problem of nursing communication. What Roman (2007) and Veninga (2007) write in their articles can create a good basis for future research. In the meantime, nurses need flexibility and inner capacity to address various communication controversies in ways that benefit patients.
References
Roman, L.M. (2007). Finding the words: How to handle difficult conversations. Registered Nurse, 70(3), 34-38.
Veninga, R.L. (2007). Building resilient work environments: The role of communication. Creative Nursing, 3, 7-8.
Organizations within the healthcare system are meant to establish a supportive environment, both for the patients and the employees. As the nursing profession is essential for healthcare, nurses can represent the quality of a medical entity through such programs as Magnet designation. Magnet signifies organizations where nursing leaders can align their strategic goals toward better patient outcomes (American Nurses Credentialing Center [ANCC], n.d.). Healthcare facilities that are awarded by Magnet have better work environments, as the designation suggests ways to advance employment conditions.
The proceeding of earning a Magnet recognition is relatively complicated and has certain prerequisites. The procedure begins with three steps regarding eligibility requirements, the application process, and submission requirements (ANCC, n.d.). Eligibility criteria mandate the applicant organization to have at least one nursing setting where the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO), Nurse managers, and Nurse leaders have particular degrees (ANCC, n.d.). The entity also must have implemented specific standards, policies, and procedures (ANCC, n.d.). The application procedure involves completing a form, submitting payment, and providing supportive documents that include but are not limited to the CNO’s resume, facility and nursing organizational charts, and an attestation letter (ANCC, n.d.). Submission requirements concern the two previous steps but also present information about final verification (ANCC, n.d.). Overall, the designation process requires facilities within the healthcare system to analyze their gaps, develop action plans, cooperate with the assigned Program Analyst, educate employees, and transform cultures (ANCC, n.d.). Moreover, each awarded facility must reapply every four years to demonstrate that it maintains the recognition status (ANCC, n.d.). Organizations must be prepared to put extensive effort into attaining Magnet.
Although completing the program can be challenging, Magnet offers sufficient benefits. Firstly, the designation improves patient and nurse satisfaction through higher adoption of safe practices, better support of the evidence-based practice, lower mortality and patient fall rates, and advanced gradings of hospital experience (ANCC, n.d.). Secondly, the Magnet status affects nurse retention through a collaborative culture, which values nurses as integral partners within the organization, and investment in the education and development of nurses (ANCC, n.d.). As a result, the facility is expected to have lower percentages of dissatisfaction, burnout, and turnover among nurses (ANCC, n.d.). Thirdly, the recognition impacts quality outcomes by empowering nurses to perform better, decreasing the length of stay, and increasing net inpatient income (ANCC, n.d.). Moreover, entities with Magnet recognition can display their logo in advertisements and presentations to show commitment to high-quality service to patients, investors, and future employees (ANCC, n.d.). While the program focuses on assessing the nursing staff, it offers advantages to patients and other workers.
Furthermore, Magnet contributes to the establishment of a healthy work environment (HWE), which is necessary for all health care providers. One could choose a nursing home as an example for critiquing an organization based on three of the six characteristics of HWE. The first standard, which also reflects a flaw, is appropriate staffing that requires nurse competencies to correspond with patient needs (Woolforde, 2019). However, nursing homes sometimes cannot find or attract proper employees due to various reasons. The second HWE characteristic is skilled communication, which suggests that nurses must master communication abilities (Woolforde, 2019). Nevertheless, because some nursing homes hire workers without sufficient experience, the transmission of information between employees can be inadequate. As a result, the third standard of HWE, which is a true collaboration, can be hindered (Woolforde, 2019). The three characteristics of a healthy work environment are interconnected and can affect patient outcomes.
The HWE standards are important because they are associated with the competencies of the Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN). In particular, appropriate staffing correlates with patient-centered care, as they both concentrate on meeting patient needs (“Qsen competencies,” n.d.; Woolforde, 2019). On the other hand, skilled communication and true collaboration are connected to teamwork and collaboration (“Qsen competencies,” n.d.; Woolforde, 2019). Similar to the two standards, the competency prioritizes the development of communication skills and recognizes the significance of professional collaboration (“Qsen competencies,” n.d.; Woolforde, 2019). Consequently, organizations can move toward a healthier work environment by empowering nurses to enhance their QSEN abilities.
Nurse leaders could utilize Magnet’s specific attributes to generate strategies that would promote or sustain HWE. For example, such a strategy can be based on interventions concerning each of the mentioned HWE characteristics. In particular, an intervention for not hiring appropriate staffing could focus on implementing employee training to facilitate education and development (ANCC, n.d.; Woolforde, 2019). To ensure true collaboration, organizations could concentrate on creating a collaborative culture to demonstrate the nursing profession’s value and increase nurses’ job satisfaction so that they would pursue and foster teamwork (ANCC, n.d.; Woolforde, 2019). An intervention for improving skilled communication could be based on analyzing gaps in the transmission of information to develop relevant action plans (ANCC, n.d.; Woolforde, 2019). Health care providers must critically monitor labor conditions to generate strategies to advance employee happiness and performance.
To summarize, the Magnet designation program signifies organizations within the healthcare system that have a professional nursing team working in a healthy environment. Some standards that characterize HWE include appropriate staffing, skilled communication, and true collaboration. Those characteristics correspond with certain QSEN competencies and can indicate a facility’s problems. Based on identified issues, health care providers can refer to Magnet practices to seek ways for improvement.
The article’s main purpose is that assess burnout, turnover intention, and supposed quality of care for patients among healthcare professionals in Oman and examine the prospective moderating responsibility of job satisfaction on the relationship between nurse turnover intention and their working environment. The author targets healthcare organizations in Oman and the rest of the world. In this case, the research investigates all nurse turnover intention indicators and burnout to establish ways of mitigating the issue. The author is an assistant dean for postgraduate studies and research in the department of fundamentals and nursing administration, college of nursing in Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khoud Muscat City. Such qualifications demonstrate the credibility of the article since the findings were obtained by someone who has experience in this field.
The relevance of the article is that organizational strategies are required to encourage nurse job satisfaction by providing nurses with the ability to resume functional responsibilities in hospital issues to decrease turnover intention and promote improved care for patients in terms of quality. The article’s main argument is that participation in hospital affairs, staffing adequacy, and a foundation for care quality serve as indicators of burnout in nurses and the perceived quality of patient care. According to (Al Sabei et al., 2020), working in a suitable environment relates to less turnover intention and hence job satisfaction remains high. Employees’ problems need to be solved within a short period so that their grievances could not affect the services of the company. High production will ensure customer satisfaction and hence increases the profit margin of the organization.
The article utilized a cross-sectional design to assemble information from a 207 sample of nurses working in a public hospital in Muscat, Oman. Furthermore, the author utilized an electronic survey in assessing the perceptions of the nurses within their workplace satisfaction with their work, burnout, turnover intention, and the level of quality of care for patients. The author concludes that ensuring improvement in the nurse’s job satisfaction serves as a mechanism through future interventions that might boost working conditions and promote improved nurse retention. On the other hand, my observations are that nurses in the world have severe burnout. Many of them report their increased intentions to quit their present healthcare organization. Burnout is associated with inadequate quality of care for patients, turnover intention, and increased absenteeism. Additionally, burnout remains associated with both work-related and personal aspects. However, providing a suitable working environment promotes better nurse retention and fewer reported burnout cases in healthcare nurses in Muscat, Oman. Moreover, improved organizational job satisfaction enables healthcare organizations better to decrease nurse turnover in the country and the world.
References
Al Sabei, S. D., Labrague, L. J., Miner Ross, A., Karkada, S., Albashayreh, A., Al Masroori, F., & Al Hashmi, N. (2020). Nursing work environment, turnover intention, job burnout, and quality of care: the moderating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 52(1), 95-104. Web.
Healthcare organizations always try to maintain and develop a healthy and civil workspace environment that provides clear and efficient communication among employees and leadership. The general policy is closely connected with employees’ community, retention, and overall job satisfaction. It helps resolve any problems and conflicts that may appear in a workspace. Thus, it is crucial to support a healthy and civil workspace environment.
Discussion
According to the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory, my workspace environment is rated as having a mildly healthy work environment. Due to the findings, specific neutral and somewhat positive elements are enhanced to create a more beneficial experience. Still, no entirely disagreed parts may be characterized as unhealthy or stressful.
Despite having a generally good perspective, there were not many features I could firmly declare to be entirely positive. Even though I believe the workplace to have a civil atmosphere, I never anticipated it to be just above the proper level. Moreover, the Assessment made me realize that some aspects needed to be improved. I had assumed that employees who shared the same goal and trusted one another would be more involved in collaborative activities or decision-making. Lack of benefits and competitional salaries interfere with the intention of leadership to create a firm employee community with talented workers. Before the Assessment, I was confident that my workplace’s environment was generally positive, and I knew this to be the case. The Assessment demonstrated that I had no significant disagreements with any points.
The results propose that, even though the general atmosphere of health and civility is normal, it still needs more than twenty points to realize the level of a very healthy and civil environment. Other than that, a few aspects require special consideration to move forward with the situation. Therefore, the studied works provide strategies and methods to increase productivity alongside a healthy and civil workplace environment.
Concepts of Civil Workspace Environment
Defining the most positive work experience has become a problem over the last thirty years. Different scholars researched ways of preventing and dealing with harmful situations in the healthcare sphere. Among them, Olender (2011), Clark (2019), and Griffin (2014) pointed out and developed theoretical and practical fields of strategies that improve the work atmosphere for nurses. Different approaches study healthy environments in the workplace, many of which include various types of uncivil encounters. Griffin (2014) identifies the following problems among coworkers: incivility, bullying, and workplace mobbing. Each of them affects personal experience and influences teamwork and the organization. All scholars defy the issue as the lack of practical knowledge on managing such situations and the constant high stress level.
According to the Nurse Leaders’ Survey, realized by Clark and Olender (2011), implementing stress reduction strategies is one of the critical concepts of providing a healthy work environment. It offers a more personal approach to the problem, including spending time with family and friends, a regular workout routine, quality sleep, and healthy eating habits. Besides that, as a collective practice, empathy, higher collaboration, and conflict resolution should be applied as a work policy.
Other studies by Griffin and Clark (2014) and later further development of the concept by Clark (2019) involve a more functional view of resolving stressful and uncivil situations. The first work explores Cognitive Rehearsal (CR) as an approach to prevent and stop horizontal violence and lateral violence. The later study examines the CR by combining it with other techniques such as evidence-based scripting and debriefing simulated scenarios. Role-playing prepared scenarios with a mentor increases the efficiency of uncivil encounters’ resolution and prepares nurses to face an unhealthy environment with higher stress resistance. The mentioned research focuses on conversation practices, preparatory reading, and building skills for managing harmful encounters.
Concerning my work environment, explored studies provide new methods to resolve problems, such as creating a mentoring program and incorporating a collective experience, which will increase the value of partnerships and individual workers. While working in a critical care unit in an acute care hospital, there is no means to implement the whole range of CR practices with scenarios and role play. However, there is still a need for increasing collaboration strategies. The concept of a collaborative vision and partnership provided by Clark and Olender (2011) may be applied to my workspace to resolve the problem with the mentoring program by providing a new one with an emphasis on civility and teamwork. Assigning mentors for the newly licensed workers would ensure faster learning and civility understanding based on positive role modeling. Consequently, this would create more comprehensive, well-defined policies that focus on civility by exchanging experiences.
Besides that, to develop stronger work teams, identifying and describing uncivil encounters as a part of CR may be used. The difference between an educational and practical approach is addressing real situations among workers. Debriefing harmful encounters would ensure discussion of the actions, thought processes, and reflection of those actions to incorporate improvement into future encounters (Clark, 2019). My workspace environment would become healthier and more civil by resolving such problems and building means to prevent future accidents.
Strategies for Building High-Performance Interprofessional Teams
The work in the critical care unit has a high workload and demands more concentration and energy, which may result in higher stress and anxiety. Management in such a case is responsible for providing dignified conditions and a work environment that will encourage nurses to strive to be their best. There are issues with my Work Environment Assessment related more to leadership than problems within the team. Studied works provide several ways to resolve issues with the reward and compensation system and recruitment of prospective employees.
According to Clark and Olender (2011), nurse leaders must be very supportive of the success of the nursing practice to create and sustain a healthy work environment. It must be secured by the foundational documents and policies of the hospital. Each member of the healthcare team has to be valued and appreciated. In the case, for instance, of creating a working mentoring program, mentors should teach and show respect to new nurses and be rewarded with benefits for helping others and sharing their experiences.
The evidence-based strategy of Cognitive Rehearsal may also be used as an intervention for management by nurses (Clark, 2019). Confronting the leaders about unfair treatment or disregarded achievements and efforts would allow workers to speak their thoughts and receive feedback openly. Rehearsed phrases and situations help to overcome the fear of arguing with management. Therefore, such a practice would encourage communication between hospital workers and leadership, which would increase members’ skills and opinion value, which is secured by the program of rewards from the previous strategy.
Other aspects of my Assessment are relatively positive; the cooperation and relations within the group are healthy; however, there is always a place for improvement. Though there is no need to use CR for intervention among nurses, it may still be implemented as a primary prevention tool. Management has to apply the following points to prevent cases of incivility (Griffin & Clark, 2014). Leaders must secure relevant regulations, such as vision, philosophy, and values, in the fundamental documents mentioned in the previous paragraphs. These regulations must be shared and embraced by all working. Nurses must commit to focusing on patient care and safety and avoid further uncivil encounters. To create behavioral norms, for instance, no gossiping, discussing problems in private, giving positive feedback, respecting others, having a positive and “can-do” attitude, assisting others, and responding to patients promptly. Implying and following the mentioned points ensures a higher civility score and prevents further unhealthy interactions.
The other approach may be applied to address heavy workload and stress. Cognitive Rehearsal, in this case, is a strategy to prepare for a stressful encounter by rehearsing specific phrases that might be used during the meeting and being coached by someone (Clark, 2019). It may be used to rehearse stressful situations with patients and during heavy workloads. For instance, preparing scenarios of encounters with patients during mentoring would help lower work stress levels. Considering the algorithm of work and phrases would make it easier to proceed from one task to another, saving more energy. Therefore, the CR may be used to develop a better workspace environment in acute care hospitals.
Conclusion
So, even though my Work Environment Assessment does not have a perfect civility score, there are no serious issues. However, the studied works provide several approaches and strategies to improve the existing situation. Scholars developed working algorithms for preventing uncivil interactions and managing them if problems occur. Hence, cognitive rehearsal management can enhance the quality of civility in the workspace and imply open policy to improve collective relations and individual development.
A healthy work environment is an important factor that can enhance employee motivation, productivity, and job satisfaction. Research also points out that the work environment influences turnover and retention, which are among the key issues in nursing practice (Ritter, 2011). According to Blake (2015), nurse leaders have a prominent role in creating and maintaining healthy work environments because the management might be oblivious to specific issues affecting the workforce. There are several critical components of a healthy work environment, and I believe that most of them are present in my practice setting.
Communication and Recognition
The first element of a healthy work environment is open communication between nurses and management. As noted by Shirey (2017), “the quality of relationships between managers and workers has been linked to employee- and unit-level outcomes,” and thus managers should strive to be engaged in communication (p. 48). In my practice, managers talk to nurses regularly and encourage them to share concerns and suggestions to improve work processes. Secondly, recognition schemes play a critical role in supporting a healthy work environment (Blake, 2015). Studies show that recognition enhances job satisfaction, thus contributing to employee outcomes (Feather, Ebright, & Bakas, 2015). In my workplace, leaders reward excellent performance by selecting the nurse of the month, which helps nurses to stay motivated.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture also plays an essential role in supporting a healthy work environment (Shirey, 2017). In particular, a culture that emphasizes support and collaboration contributes to the work climate and enhances satisfaction (Blake, 2015; Shirey, 2017). Nurse leaders in my workplace support the culture of belonging, where each employee contributes to work processes and has the constant support of colleagues and managers. A culture of safety can also have a positive influence on work environments. Blake (2015) explains that a focus on safety helps managers to maintain adequate staffing levels, thus keeping the workload manageable for all nurses. In my workplace, managers focus on safety and monitor staffing regularly to prevent these issues. This means that the working conditions are humane and nurses can maintain a work-life balance required to avoid burnout and facilitate retention. All in all, I believe that my practice settings reflect the key components of a healthy work environment and that nurse leaders have played an essential part in achieving and maintaining this result.
References
Blake, N. (2015). The nurse leader’s role in supporting healthy work environments. AACN Advanced Critical Care, 26(3), 201-203.
Feather, R. A., Ebright, P., & Bakas, T. (2015). Nurse manager behaviors that RNs perceive to affect their job satisfaction. Nursing Forum, 50(2), 125-136.
Ritter, D. (2011). The relationship between healthy work environments and retention of nurses in a hospital setting. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(1), 27-32.
Shirey, M. R. (2017). Leadership practices for healthy work environments. Nursing Management, 48(5), 42-50.
Creating a healthy work environment is a process that requires careful planning and implementation. It also requires the combined efforts of both leaders and employees. A healthy work environment caters for physical, social and psychological or mental health of all personnel in an organization.
The sensitization process caters for both the psychological and social well-being of employees. Leaders play a vital role in the creation, implementation, and maintenance of a healthy work environment.
In order to capture the impact of sensitization programs, policies and practices that are encouraged have been noted and their impacts discussed. Companies are required to set impact indicators that help in determining whether the initiated programs have had an impact in ensuring that there is a healthy work environment.
Moving forward, leadership of these organizations should make numerous steps towards ensure that they provide healthy working conditions. Although creation and maintenance of a healthy workplace is expensive and challenging, the benefits reaped far outweigh the shortcomings.
Introduction
A healthy workplace or organization should ensure that all their employees are sheltered from disease and that their mental, physical and social well-being is catered for (World Health Organization, 2010; American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 2005).
A healthy workplace is created by combining the efforts of workers as well as managers and engaging them in a continuous process of promoting health, well-being and, safety in the work environment (Chenoweth, 2011; O’Reilly, Caldwell, Chatman, Lapiz, & Self, 2009; Bevan, 2010).
The health hazards on organization faces difere with the nature of their work. Some of the hazards may be biological, mechanical or ergonomic. In an effort to create a healthy work environment, organizations have invested in the creation of policies and practices that sensitize employees on the importance of a healthy workplace.
Investing in a healthy working environment has led to notable improvements in employee performance, as well as business returns (Allen, 2011). According to the World Health Organization (2010), companies that promote workers’ health and maintained healthy workplaces were among the most successful.
Although leadership wellness programs have created several benefits, there are fears that have been associated with the financial burden the organization bears in creating a healthy working environment (Grawitch, Ledford, & Ballard, 2009; Akpan, 2011).
An individual’s health and lifestyle, while at work, go hand in hand. Due to this link, it is within reason to say that a person’s work environment determines the quality of work done.
Despite the conventional view, that creating and maintaining a healthy environment is more costly than not having it, there is more proof for the latter than the former.
The world health organization (2010) found that there were several costs that companies could avoid in the case that a healthy working environment was in place.
Some of the avoidable costs include accident related costs, legal fees resulting from the violation of health and safety law, employee sick leave, and employee medical expenses (Linhard, 2004; Lahiri, Gold, & Levenstein, 2004).
Although there are a few people in an organization, who may be capable of maintaining a healthy lifestyle without the need for a healthy working environment, the passage of time and an organization that does not encourage healthy living will eventually lead them to abandon their lifestyle (Grawitch et al., 2009).
So as to minimize employee exposure to health risk, it is necessary for organizations to sensitize their employees on the importance of adopt healthier lifestyles.
The Role of Leaders in Creation and Maintenance of a Healthy Work Environment
Leaders play a significant role in the creation and management of a healthy working environment (Lowe, 2003). Leaders achieve the organization’s objectives by understanding the behaviors of their subordinates (Bierema, 2012).
By understanding their employees’ behavior and attitude towards healthy living, leaders can adjust the work environment so as to suit their lifestyles. Following this thinking the initiation of a healthy working environment could help them achieve the best out of their personnel.
We all participate in mixed environments. This means that organizations need to be comfortable with variable and implement change. Good organizations also have a sense of the inherent drivers and biases their workers have and use them to effectively motivate different personality types.
In order to create a healthy environment, it is necessary to identify leaders who support the idea of establishing a healthy workplace and also understand its significance (Allen, 2011; Gilbert, Carr-Ruffino, Ivancevich, & Konopaske, 2012).
One means of creating a healthy organization is by encouraging workers to maintain healthy practices (Allen, 2011). In such a scenario, if there are employees who have strict lifestyle and health requirement, the organization’s leaders can strive to provide the ideal working environment necessary for them to continue their practices.
Some of these health practices could require the establishment of facilities or the purchase of particular equipment. These facilities could be in-house or outsourced, provided they are close to the organization or the workplace. By providing fitness facility near the workplace may make it easier for employees to get some time to do exercise.
Leaders could also organize some time for the worker to engage in exercises. Organizations could make healthy foods available in cafeterias and vending machines at affordable prices.
The Impact of Policies and Practices that Promote Awareness on the Importance of Creating and Maintaining a Healthy Work Environment
An ideal and healthy work environment is created by the organization’s leaders through enactment of various policies and encouraging the employees in adopting healthy lifestyles.
For leaders to create and maintain a healthy workplace environment, they must be capable of allocating the organization’s resources without affecting profit margins (Lowe, 2003; O’Reilly, Caldwell, Chatman, Lapiz, & Self, 2009; Oxenburgh & Marlow, 2004).
The practices and policies that are put in place serve two purposes; one is to protect, and the other is to discourage habits that create unsafe work environments. In an effort to ensure that the policies are enforced, employees who do not follow the set safety requirements should be punished appropriately.
There are other policies that that can be introduced in an organization in order to ensure that the mental well-being of employees protected. Sexual harassment policies ensure that all employees within the organization are treated equally without bias of gender or sexual preference (Burton, 2010; Blanchard, 2009; Ritter, 2011).
The policy may be extended to cater for racial equality (Blanchard, 2009). Leaders and managers should encourage workers to practice good work organization. This practice eliminates the problems related to workload demand, time pressure, job quality and supervisor support (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006).
Practices that encourage and promote two-way communication between workers and leaders create an environment where employees feel safe to approach management with any problem they may have (O’Reilly, Caldwell, Chatman, Lapiz, & Self, 2009).
Policies that protect employees from sudden job loss due to mergers, acquisitions, retrenchment or the economy, reduce employee stress levels significantly (Spence, Kemp, & McKee, 2012; American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 2005; Woo & Postolache, 2008).
The job security assurance offered by such policies encourages workers to be more productive. The primary objective of these policies and practices is to promote cohesion while ensuring the employees that they have an equal chance of getting a promotion (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006; Burton, 2010; World Health Organization, 2010).
These policies also sever a broader purpose of eliminating or reducing the occurrence of emotional of mental stress (Burton, 2010; World Health Organization, 2010).
The social well-being of employees is an area where many organizations fail to consider when creating a healthy environment (American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 2005).
In order to set up a socially healthy workplace, it is of paramount importance that leaders have a good relation with their employees (Casse, 2012; Kroth, Boverie, & Zondlo, 2007).
Allen (2011) found that in such scenarios, it was preferable to have the workforce divided into teams and team leaders selected from within. The elected leaders are able to monitor their subordinates’ social lives and can thus help them maintain a healthy work-life balance.
Co-worker support helps employees to be more open and honest about their health lifestyle. Moreover, the emotional support gotten in such an environment helps workers to overcome the conflicts that arise from work-life situations (Partnership for Prevention, 2011; World Health Organization, 2010).
A healthy social environment lessens the impact felt by an employee in the case where they have to be transferred to other branches of the organization (Chenoweth, 2011).
Another means of establishing a healthy organization is by enhancing employee awareness of the dangers of unhealthy living (Grawitch et al., 2009). However, this should be done with care to avoid causing social tension in the workplace where unhealthy workers are criticized.
To ensure that this is done successfully, the involvement of leaders and managers in the sensitization programs would be useful.
Chenoweth (2011) found that organizations which had put in place policies and practices which sensitized employees on the importance of being respectful to all workers, had fewer incidences related to gender discrimination, harassment, and HIV stigmatization.
Allen (2011) found that the sensitization process should focus on both individual and group strengths instead of weaknesses. Awareness training programs that target group aim at helping teams work together as one unit (Partnership for Prevention, 2011).
By so doing, employees stop viewing themselves as individuals, but as a team where their success depends on group performance. Group sensitization eliminates enmity among workers while also enhancing cohesion (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006).
Moreover, group awareness programs create social bonds by making anti-social members more active (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006).
Individual sensitization focuses on leaders and improving leadership skills. Leaders learn various ways of handling conflict and harassment situations (Casse, 2012; Wiskow, Albreht, & Pietro, 2010).
The creation of healthy living support groups with team leaders helps to foster cohesion and encourage participants to adopt and maintain a healthy lifestyle (Bierema, 2012). In Addition, teams boost performance by helping poor performing individuals to increase productivity for the sake of the group (Kane-Urrabazo, 2006).
Leaders should be able to hold their teams together and be the role model for the other employees to follow (Lowe, 2003). In addition, they should be able to construct a healthy lifestyle plan for the organization in a way that the needs of every individual in the organization are considered.
Heath conscious leaders have a tremendous influence in the creation, maintenance, and promotion of a healthy work environment (Lowe, 2003). Such leaders are able to monitor, support and offer means for their workers to improve or maintain a healthy lifestyle (World Health Organization, 2010).
Issues Surrounding Sensitization Programs
The most crucial part played by leaders is that of distributing the organization’s resources in a manner that does not compromise the company’s profitability (Lowe, 2003). The leaders allocate the funds needed for the establishment of a suitable and healthy, social, and physical environment.
When doing so, great care should be taken to avoid leading the organization to ruin while creating the ideal healthy workplace.
The costs associated with initiation and maintenance of sensitization programs should be carefully monitored so that they do not exceed the cost benefit of the project (Teronen, 2002; Lahiri, Gold, & Levenstein, 2004). This involves research into spending limited resources on those interventions that will have the greatest impact.
The scrupulous tracking of an individual’s overall health catches may cause some employees to feel that the organization is prying too much into their lives. So as to avoid conflict with some individuals, group forums to educate workers on the importance of maintaining healthy lifestyles are recommended.
Most organizations are characterized with long working hour of prolonged physical inactivity (World Health Organization, 2010; Woo & Postolache, 2008)). This inflexibility in working hours creates some difficulties in creating opportunities for employees in attending health sensitization programs.
In addition, long working hours make it hard for employees to have adequate time to take their meals. However, this issue can be solved through the initiation of simple and effective projects and programs within the organization.
So as to solve the issue of time, managers can create a rotation program where each department gets a chance to attend the sensitization talks.
Measuring the Impact of a Healthy Working Environment
Measuring the impact of a healthy working environment will involve looking at the immediate effect that health promotion programs in an organization influence the determinants of health for all stakeholders in the organization (Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008).
Health programs in an organization usually have an immediate effect on both social and physical settings (Lowe, 2010; Akpan, 2011).
The direct impact of these programs includes individuals gaining health knowledge, acquiring of new skills that are health-friendly, motivation in maintaining healthier status and changing into healthier actions and behaviors (Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008).
While organization sets these health programs to promote a healthier environment, there is a need to include key indicators that will help in measurement of the changes.
These indicators should be developed to show the type of change anticipated and the percentage of people for what the change will impact (Lowe, 2010; Mattke, Balakrishnan, Bergamo, & Newberry, 2007).
Therefore, it would be important to create an indicator for each strategy or program developed and implemented to determine the extent of influence (Bluyssen, 2013). These indicators should act as agents of data collection covering all employees that the programs are affecting.
Guidelines for data collection and measuring health promotions
The benefits of a healthy working environment can be measured by looking at the advantages that come about from the direct introduction of wellness leaders and programs.
The benefits may include increased employee performance, shorter time spent away from work due to illness, and increase in returns, as well as retaining employees over long periods (Allen, 2011).
By looking at the relationship between health issues in the organization and the practices and policies that can be carried out by a company’s leaders, it is possible to identify the benefits reaped in terms of productivity.
It will also be important to monitor the costs that will be incurred while implementing and maintaining a healthy working environment. These costs could be in terms of investments in facilities, equipment, policy enactment, employees, and time (Bierema, 2012; Mattke, Balakrishnan, Bergamo, & Newberry, 2007)).
In order to measure and gather information on the economic impact achieved by promotion of healthy work environment, several steps should be followed.
Firstly, the organization should identify the impact indicators that should be used in the evaluation. This step will involve establishing the types of evidence that will help determine if the objectives of the health program have are achieved (Hertz, 2010).
For example; if the organization wants overweight members to reduce their weight through introduction of gym programs at specific hours, then frequently measuring their weight will help determine if the objectives of the programs are realized (Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008).
The second step involves determining the targets that the organization aims at achieving after implementation of the health program. This can be achieved by examining what percentage of the target group will have gained the knowledge or skill, advocated by a certain program.
In an effort to reduce accidental health related problem, an organization may initiate a health education program.
For example, by the end of three weeks ninety per cent of employees attending the health education will have gained knowledge on how to manage their blood sugar levels (Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008).
Thirdly, the organization identifies the information to be collected and methods that shall be used in obtaining the information. Methods such as qualitative and quantitative can help collect data that will be useful in the determination of the level of impact that the health programs have achieved.
Quantitative methods such as questionnaire responses and service utilization can help determine the level of relationship that has been developed between these health programs and impact made.
Qualitative methods such as the use of focus groups and interview can help collect accident related information that will help explain where this relationship between health programs and impact exists (Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008).
The next step involves establishing an evaluation methodology that is used to analyze the collected information. The importance of developing an assessment plan is to help in removing alternative explanations that may arise when information obtained is evaluated (Hertz, 2010).
In most scenarios, the standard design (used to assess the effectiveness of the programs launched to reduce accident occurrence in the workplace) involves using one group that participates in a particular program and compare it with another group that does not participate in the same program (Bluyssen, 2013).
This will help in determining if there is any change that comes with members being admitted to a certain program. If the group achieves the set target, then the program has been a success in promoting a healthier working environment.
If there is no difference between the two groups, then, the administrators of the programs should consider reevaluating the program to establish areas that need to be improved in order to achieve the set objectives (Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008).
The fifth step involves the implementation of the plan that has been developed to measure and evaluate the impact. Planning is part of the process however it is as important to implement the programs that are developed n in order to achieve results (Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008).
The final step in measuring the impact and influence of health programs in creating a healthier working environment is reporting what has been achieved. This will help motivate people to be more involved since if there is a positive change at the end (Victorian Government Department of Human Services, 2008).
Despite all these efforts, organizations should monitor the cost that they will have incurred in development implementation of these programs. This will help with future planning and also to ensure that these programs are within the sustainability level of the organization.
The Future of Leadership Involvement in Creating a Healthy Environment
Although the research has found out that there exist a gap between working conditions and the output of employees, a gap still exists that will need to be reduced moving forward. The full involvement and support of leadership in the organization will be significant in reducing this gap.
A healthier working environment will lead to better performance of employees and, thus, the reason leadership should commit to ensuring this happens (Schabracq, Jacques, & Cooper, 2003).
Moving forward in order to establish healthier working environments, there is a need for development of strategies that will be implemented both at leadership levels and employee’s level to achieve this (Lowe, 2010). The success of these strategies should have the support of all parties involved leadership especially.
The facilitation of the implementation of these strategies will depend on leadership. Also, the authorization for these programs to run in an organization still depends on leadership. This, therefore, will show the importance of leadership in the future to maintain and improve working conditions to be healthier (Grech, 2013)
In order to promote a healthier working environment, the leadership of the organization should always start by mobilization of individuals to form committees that are involved in management of how to improve working conditions and making sure they are healthier (Grech, 2013).
Leadership should also be part of those committees in order to provide guidance on strategies that are developed to be in line with the objectives and vision of the organization. These committees, however, should be formed by individuals who are committed to ensuring they achieve the set goals.
Leadership can also involve outside organizations who can evaluate the current working environment. These organizations after the evaluation of the current state, they should develop and recommend actions that can be taken by management to improve the current working conditions.
Leadership can also be involved with other organizations who want to improve their working conditions to funding research on how to promote healthier working conditions (Grech, 2013).
Leadership should also be involved in the assessment of what can be done to improve and the resources that are available in order to ensure the working environment is promoted to be better (Grech, 2013).
When the leadership gets to understand what can be done versus what they would like to do, they will need to consider the strengths and weakness of the organization. This will help in the formulation of the best strategies that can be implemented with the available resources.
This stresses the importance of involving all stakeholders in the organization in order to be able to promote a healthier working environment (Bluyssen, 2013).
Reference List
Akpan, E. I. (2011). Effective Safety and Health Management Policy for Improved Performance of Organizations in Africa. International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (3), 159-165.
Allen, J. (2011). Wellness Leadership. Maryland: Human Resources Institute.
American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. (2005). AACN Standards for Establishing and Sustaining Healthy Work Environment. A Journey to Excellence, 4-42.
Bevan, S. (2010). The Business Case for Employees Health and Wellbeing. London: The Work Foundation.
Bierema, L. L. (2012). HRD’S Critical Role In Creating Healthy Organizations. Atlanta: University of Georgia.
Blanchard, M. (2009). Creating a Motivating Work Environment. Escondido: The Ken Blanchard Companies.
Bluyssen, P. (2013). The Healthy Indoor Environment: How to Assess Occupants’ Wellbeing in Buildings. New York: Routledge
Burton, J. (2010). WHO Healthy Workplace Framework: Background and Supporting Literature and Practices. Geneva: WHO Press.
Casse, P. (2012). Challenging Leadership the Skolkovo Approach. Bloomington: Xlibris Corporation.
Chenoweth, D. (2011). Promoting Employee Well-Being. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management Foundation.
Gilbert, J. A., Carr-Ruffino, N., Ivancevich, J. M., & Konopaske, R. (2012). Toxic Versus Cooperative Behaviors at Work: The Role of Organizational Culture and Leadership in Creating Community-Centered Organizations. Internationa Journal of Leadership Studies, 7 (1), 29-47.
Grawitch, M. J., Ledford, G. E., & Ballard, B. D. (2009). Leading the healthy workforce: The integral role of employee involvement. Consulting Psychology, 1(1), 122-135.
Grech, C. (2013). Future Office. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Hertz, H. (2010). Health Care Criteria for Performance Excellence: Baldrige National Quality Program (2009-2010). New York: Diane Publishing
Kane-Urrabazo, C. (2006). Management’s Role in Shaping Organizational Culture. Journal of Nursing Management, 14(1), 188-194.
Kroth, M., Boverie, P., & Zondlo, J. (2007). What Managers do to Create Healthy Work Environments Journal of Adult Education, XXXVI (2), 1-12.
Lahiri, S., Gold, J., & Levenstein, C. (2004). Net-cost Strategy for Workplace Interventions. Journal of Safety Research, 36 (3), 241-255.
Linhard, J. (2004). Understanding the Return on Health Safety and Environmental Investments. Journal of Safety Research, 36 (3), 257-260
Lowe, G. S. (2003). Healthy Workplaces and Productivity: A Discussion Paper. Quebec: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Lowe, G. (2010). Creating Healthy Organizations: How Vibrant Workplaces Inspire Employees to Achieve Sustainable Success. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mattke, S., Balakrishnan, A., Bergamo, G., & Newberry, S. (2007). Methods to Measure Health-related Productivity Loss. The American Journal of Management Care, 13 (4), 211-218. Mattke, S., Balakrishnan, A., Bergamo, G., & Newberry, S. (2007). Methods to Measure Health-related Productivity Loss. The American Journal of Management Care, 13 (4), 211-218.
O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., Lapiz, M., & Self, W. (2009). How Leadership Matters: The Effects of Leaders’ Alignment on Strategy Implementation. The Leadership Quarterly 1(21), 104-113.
Oxenburgh, M., & Marlow, P. (2004). The Productivity Assessment Tool: Computer-based cost-benefit analysis strategy for the economic assessment of occupational health and safety interventions in the workplace. Journal of Safety Research, III (36), 209-214.
Partnership for Prevention. (2011). Leading by Example: The Value of Worksite Health Promotion to Small and Medium-sized Employers. Washington, DC: Partnership for Prevention.
Ritter, D. (2011). The relationship between healthy work environments and retention of nurses in a hospital setting. Journal of Nursing Management, 19, 27-32.
Schabracq, M., Jacques, A., & Cooper, C. (2003). The Handbook of Work and Health Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Shirey, M. R. (2005). Authentic Leaders Creating Healthy Work Environments For Nursing Practice. American Journal Of Critical Care, 15 (3), 256-267.
Spence, G., Kemp, T., & McKee, A. (2012). Management: A Focus on Leaders. London: Pearson Higher Education.
Teronen, A. (2002). The Economics of Health, Safety, and Well-being. Finland: ILO Safework & Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
Victorian Government Department of Human Services. (2008). Measuring health promotion impacts: A guide to impact evaluation in integrated health promotion. Melbourne Victoria: Rural and Regional Health and Aged Care Services Division.
Woo, J.-M., & Postolache, T. (2008). The impact of work environment on mood disorders and suicide: Evidence and implications. PubMed Central Journals, 7 (2), 185-200.
World Health Organization. (2010). Healthy Workplaces: a Model for Action. Geneva: WHO Press.
Many organizations are faced with stressful work environments within their daily operations. However, in order to keep the stressful environments from affecting performance and profitability, an organization has to take controlling and reduction of causes of stress seriously.
Among the causes of stressful work environments are issues related to the nature of work, the worker tasked with completion of the task, the manager overseeing the completion of the duties, and how the organization is wired in its operations (Weiten, Dunn & Hammer, 2009). In order to explore how an organization can deal with a stressful work environment, this paper takes the approach of looking at how an organization can mitigate stressful environments by focusing on managers and workers individually.
Managers
When it comes to resolving work related issues and complications that may impact on the general performance of an organization, the role of the management becomes very crucial. For one, managers are tasked with ensuring that employees perform their duties in a timely manner and that the work is of high quality. This usually means that managers are susceptible to stressful work environments in that they have to put in extra hours to go through what employees under them have done (Nelson & Quick, 2011).
This can be a daunting task if a manager is tasked with overseeing the performance of a lot of employees. For a company to deal with such a scenario, the management may have to reconsider the management structure that is in place. This is likely to include the creation of numerous supervisor positions to assist the line managers with base level oversight duties.
Managers are also often faced with lack of sufficient authority and autonomy in their operations. This is a cause of stress since organizational bureaucracy and red tape serve to undermine the way managers carry out their duties.
The stress comes from the fact that overreliance of the organization on top management to approve every decision that managers make results into a slow pace of performance (Weiten, Dunn & Hammer, 2009). It also makes managers weary of coming up with innovative ideas since they fear their decisions will be unfairly scrutinized and shot down.
The net result of such a scenario is that tense relationships between management become inevitable. The organization can opt to give managers more freedom in decision making by dividing responsibilities in management. In order to eliminate the stresses that are related to lack of upward mobility in a firm, an organization should promote managers who excel in their duties (Landy & Conte, 2010).
Workers
The biggest causes of stressful work environments for workers in any organization revolve around interpersonal work relationships and issues concerning their jobs. Interpersonal work relationships involve the interaction of workers and their immediate superiors, or interaction with colleagues.
Superiors are in most cases notorious for bullying employees by assigning impossible tasks or tasks that require more than the assigned time to complete (Hauge, Skogstad & Einarsen, 2007). In order to eliminate rampant cases of bullying, an organization can seek to assign its employees specific duties which they are required to perform. This can be done in the form of a performance contract in which an employee commits to certain tasks within a specified period.
This eliminates instances where superiors stress out employees by assigning duties which employees are not supposed to do. The management can alternatively look at organizational arrangements that eliminate instances of worker isolation. This, for instance, can be achieved by adapting an open office layout for workers performing the same tasks (Dewe, O’Driscoll & Cooper, 2010).
The organization can also look into means of encouraging employee output by recognizing and rewarding excellence (Landy & Conte, 2010). Many employees quote lack of growth opportunities in their workplaces as a major reason why they are not willing to put in extra efforts at work.
In order to ensure that rewarding performance does not come at the cost of impeding performance levels, an organization can put in place a multifaceted rewarding system (Dewe, O’Driscoll & Cooper, 2010). By doing this, the work environment ceases to be a ‘winner takes all’ in terms of promotion, which can negatively affect the output of those who do not perform like others. Organizations can also go a step further to ensure that their employees feel appreciated for what they do in the organization.
Conclusion
Conditions in a work environment can make or break an organization. This fact is especially true when stressful work environments are factored; therefore, organizations should be quick to mitigate the damages that such environments can cause. An organization can go about dealing with stressful work environments by tailoring approaches towards the management and employees.
By focusing on the management, the organization can benefit from sound management as a result of eliminating stress factors such as heavy workload and lack of autonomy in decision making. Focus on the staff, on the other hand, can eliminate stress factors such as bullying and isolation by taking up organizational changes such as performance contracting and open office layout.
References
Dewe, P., O’Driscoll, M. & Cooper, C. (2010). Coping with work stress: A review and critique. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hauge, L., Skogstad, A. & Einarsen, S. (2007). Relationships between stressful work environments and bullying: Results of a large representative study. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organizations, 21(3), 220-242.
Landy, F. & Conte, J. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology, 3rd Ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Nelson, D. & Quick, J. (2011). Organizational behavior: Science, the real world, and you, 8th Ed. Mason, OH: CENGAGE Learning.
Weiten, W., Dunn, D. & Hammer, E. (2009). Psychology applied to modern life: Adjustment in the 21st century, 10th Ed. Mason, OH: CENGAGE Learning.