Happy-Productive Worker: Organizational-Level Test

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Conceptualization
Theoretical Framework
Research Design
Results
Conclusion
Works Cited

In the world of business and management, it is important to understand how to increase the efficiency of an organization. An efficient workforce, for instance, means a highly-profitable business venture (Gallagher & Tombs, p.286). It can also mean an effective organization able to accomplish its goals (Watson, p.248). A company composed of productive workers will manufacture products and provide service at lower costs as compared to an organization with disgruntled workers.

It is, therefore, the goal of every business leader or entrepreneur to maintain this high level of productivity and thus the hypothesis that a happy worker means increased efficiency. It is important to verify if indeed this is the case. This paper will take a closer look at a study using data from 66 Dutch home care organizations and find out if indeed employees that are satisfied with their jobs are positively linked to organisational efficiency.

Conceptualization

At the very beginning, researchers Toon W. Tarris and Paul J.G. Shreurs immediately found trouble in explaining what they are attempting to achieve. This is because of the vagueness of some of the concepts and ideas that were mentioned in the said study (Cartwright & Cooper, p.160). For example, how can science properly frame the concept that there is a happy and unhappy worker? What is happiness and how can it be measured? This is why the researchers tried to clarify what they wanted to convey by restating that it is not a measure of happiness but a measure of high individual well-being that leads to high individual-level performance.

Although there is much improved as a result of the change in terminologies it is still difficult to grasp from a scientific perspective what the researchers were trying to measure and if they have the capability to measure an employees well-being and then find the correlation of employee well-being to the overall performance of the organization.

This is perhaps the reason why the researchers clarified what they meant by the happy-productive worker hypothesis by pointing out what comprised happiness in the workplace. They underlined happiness to mean that high individual well-being is affected by the demands of the workplace, the ability of the employee to control the circumstances in the workplace, the capacity to receive and ask support, overall satisfaction in the workplace and ability to manage emotional exhaustion (Tarris & Schreurs, p.120). By doing so they made it easier to evaluate the results of the study.

Theoretical Framework

After clarifying the terminologies that will be used, the researchers had to discuss the theoretical framework and they needed more than the use of generalizations such as One often-voiced idea in occupational health psychology is that satisfied and happy workers are on average more productive than others (Tarris & Schreurs, p.121). This is a major challenge for them because of the prevalence and the common knowledge associated with the idea that a satisfied employee automatically means efficiency. They have the burden to prove this assertion and it is a phenomenon that is difficult to test in a controlled environment.

In addition, the researchers discovered early on that although the happy-productive worker hypothesis is universally accepted by the general public, scientifically speaking there is not enough evidence to support this theory (Barrick & Ryan, p.34). The most optimistic review of related literature will reveal that results are mixed. On one hand, similar studies reveal that there is no correlation between employee satisfaction in the workplace and job performance. On the other hand, there are those who asserted that there is indeed a correlation between the two.

The researchers had another problem to tackle before they can begin with the research design. Everything that they know so far with regards to the happy-productive worker hypothesis is limited to the fact that these studies were made without looking at the problem from the perspective of the organizational level. Thus, it can be proven that a satisfied worker can indeed translate that positive feeling into efficiency in the workplace but it is not yet clear if this translates to organizational behaviour.

The researchers made an important observation when they pointed out that the association between employee well-being and productivity is weak and therefore third variables must be involved (Tarris & Schreurs, p.121). This enabled them to see how the hypothesis has to be tested in the real world. In the real world, there are many factors that can affect organisational behaviour and overall performance of the organisation and it is not just limited to what a single employee feels regarding his or her job.

There are two facets of the research design that help ensure the validity of the study. First of all, it is the decision to make it a large-scale survey of different workgroups. In this case, the large-scale survey meant that researchers studied not a handful but 66 Dutch home care organisations. Both the employees and the clients were part of the study that was made.

The second facet of the study that significantly enhanced the effectiveness of the research was the inclusion of four performance indicators: a) client satisfaction; b) organisational productivity; c) personnel costs; and d) organisational efficiency (Tarris & Schreurs, p.124). This allowed the use of variables that are testable. For example, it is possible to measure client satisfaction. One way to do this is to provide a well-constructed questionnaire and using the data from the said questionnaires the researchers can measure employee well-being.

Organisational productivity is also measurable. This is because the researchers were able to pinpoint that productivity can be equated to the degree that the organisation can realise its primary goal such as the production of service hours. The same thing can be said of the personnel costs. This is measurable because satisfied workers are supposed to work harder and deliver a higher-quality product and this means that the organisation will not have to pay overtime to allow them to finish their jobs. In other words, they can finish their job on time.

The fourth factor is also measurable because it is linked to the way the workers were able to finish their jobs on time. The only problem is that it seems redundant. Personnel costs are tied to overtime pay and it seems that this is also the same measure used on efficiency. If this is not the case then the researchers will have a hard time measuring it unless of course, they will point out that efficiency also means an overall reduction of overhead costs. So they have to first identify what level of expenses can be considered inefficient; in other words, there must be a budget allowed per organisation. This should have been pointed out as one of the limitations of the study.

The researchers went even further by clarifying what they meant by dissatisfied employees and they argued that the testable variable is emotional exhaustion. They broke this down even further by stating that emotional exhaustion is associated with three work characteristics that they identified as a) job demands; b) job control; and c) social support ((Tarris & Schreurs, p.125). They reasoned out that if there is high demand, low control and low social support then there is a higher tendency for employees to be dissatisfied with their work.

They also pointed out another reason why they highlighted these work characteristics it is not merely to show how they can measure emotional exhaustion but also to attempt to understand the relationship or statistical interactions of demand, control and support (Tarris & Schreurs, p.125). This is important because the research team will have a better understanding of the relationship of a well-satisfied workforce and organisational efficiency.

Research Design

The research team said that they were able to secure an 85.3% response from the 95 members of the association of employees. This is a good start and a very important aspect of the research design that should not be neglected. It was pointed out earlier in the review of related literature that most of the studies related to the happy-productive worker hypothesis were done in the individual level and therefore much is unknown when it comes to testing this hypothesis in the context of an organisation. The high response rate is also critical because the researcher wanted to find out if there is indeed a correlation between satisfied workers and organisational efficiency. Therefore if the majority of the workers have high regard for their work and they are satisfied with their job and yet productivity is low then there are other factors that can influence whether an organisation is efficient or not.

However, there are elements of the research design that may require further investigation as these can have a critical effect on the results of the study. First of all, the majority of respondents were women. If one will combine with this with the idea emotional exhaustion is linked to social support then one has to ask if women have a higher tolerance for emotional exhaustion if everything is considered equal?

It is also important to point out that the employees tested for this study do not have the same social status and they perform different jobs in the said organisation. When the research team discussed the theoretical framework of the study it was easy to assume that they were going to test those who are directly involved with the clients. However, when the details of the study were revealed it was discovered that they lumped together different positions, skills, and job responsibilities. There were those who only finished primary school while others went to college or university. As a result, there are different workload and different types of responsibilities. Again one has to ask if the person who is in charge of bringing clients to the toilet and help them move their bowels are prone to emotional exhaustion as compared to another employee who is in a management position.

This can become problematic when it comes to interpreting the results because the clients are the main source of information when it comes to evaluating the performance of the employees but they did not have a chance to interact with those who work behind the desk. It is possible that the research team ignored this small detail considering the fact that there are more employees who are in direct contact with the clients.

It must be pointed out though that the research team increased the validity of their results when they decided to mail the questionnaire to the employees who agreed to be the respondents in the said study. The research team also made sure that they have a postage-paid return envelope that enables the respondents to return directly to the researchers. This means that the employees could expect confidentiality and by allowing them to answer the questionnaires in the comfort of their own home it was easier to provide answers in the most truthful manner.

Results

The regression analysis was appropriate for this study because of two reasons. First, there were 66 organisations that were included in the study. Secondly, the variables that were tested were isomorphic meaning that they may look the same but in reality, they are different. It is therefore important to discover the statistical relationship of these variables.

Going to the results the research team were surprised by what they found out. They discovered that employee well-being is not positively related to productivity. On the other hand, they were correct in their early assumption that employees with high levels of satisfaction also resulted in high marks from their satisfied clients. However, a happy employee did not automatically produce positive results when it comes to efficiency, personnel costs, and productivity.

Nevertheless, the research team were able to prove that emotional exhaustion was affected by three performance indicators: client satisfaction; personnel costs; and productivity. Thus, the employees who felt that they were emotionally exhausted received low ratings from their clients. Emotional exhaustion also explained the high personnel costs of the organisation and why productivity was lower.

The research team were also able to validate their claim that emotional exhaustion was linked to the level of demands and control. This means that the higher the demands in the workplace and the less control they perceived they had made them emotionally exhausted (Dube et al., p.52). The employees also reported that they felt exhausted when they received little social support presumably from their peers and from the management.

At the very beginning of this evaluation, it was already pointed out that the research team may have failed to limit the scope of their study. In fact, it can be argued that there were multiple experiments within an experiment that may have created an overly complicated study. This may have contributed to the failure in determining the exact connection between the employees well-being and organisational efficiency.

For instance, they have to establish first the meaning of positive well-being or happiness of the employee. They succeeded in creating a parameter that they labelled as emotional exhaustion. However, they have to show that the employees who claimed to be exhausted can have a verifiable claim. This is why they created two types of questionnaires, one for the employee and one for the client. They had to know if exhaustion can be measured. Before they can go on with the rest of the research.

In other words, there were so many things to consider in the area of employee well-being alone. When they attempted to understand the correlation between the employees job satisfaction and organisational efficiency the team allowed themselves to get into a research design that has many unknown variables and factors that could easily affect the results of the study but they themselves have no idea what exactly was affecting the results.

The team was forced to go in this direction because they know that it was already an established fact that employee satisfaction is linked to effectiveness in the workplace such as client satisfaction. However, they are not yet aware of this can be expanded to include the whole organisation is indeed a group of satisfied workers will create a more efficient organisation.

By deciding to traverse this path the team had to explain once again the parameters of the research design and so they needed to point out how they can measure productivity and efficiency. They argued that aside from high marks from the clients the organisation is effective and efficient if the personnel costs are lower and that more work is completed at a given time.

From a management point of view, the team already made errors in judgement. It does not require extensive knowledge of operational management to understand that teamwork or organisational efficiency is affected by a host of factors including the well-being of a single employee (George et al., p.420). The team may have overlooked this fact because they may have believed that a significant number of employees tested could override any bias in the experiment. But based on the results it can be argued that this is not about any bias that can affect the results of the experiment but other factors related to organisational behaviour, meaning that leadership, overhead costs, employee training, employee experience and other factors can affect overall group efficiency.

Conclusion

It can be said that the research tried to achieve so many things at the same time. This may be the result of their desire to have a novel approach to the study of the correlation between employee well-being and organisational efficiency. They may have realised early on that there is no point in testing individual employees and their work efficiency because this assertion is supported by numerous studies. But in their attempt to discover the impact of employee well-being brought them to unfamiliar territory and they had difficulty dealing with the limitation of their research design. This is why they were only able to prove a hypothesis that is already accepted by many researchers to be true.

Works Cited

Barrick, Murray & Ann Marie Ryan. Personality and Work: Reconsidering the Role of Personality in Organisations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Cartwright, Susan & Cary Cooper. The Oxford Handbook of Organisational Well-Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Dube, Laurette et al. Emotional and Interpersonal Dimensions of Health Services: Enriching the Art of Care with the Science of Care. Quebec: McGill-Queens University Press, 2003.

Gallagher, Kevin & Steve Tombs. People in Organisations: An Active Learning Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd., 1997.

George, Kenneth, et al., Industrial Organisation: Competition, Growth, and Structural Change. 4^th ed. London: Routledge, 1992.

Taris, Toon & Paul J.G. Schreurs. Well-being and organizational performance: An organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Work & Stress 23.2 (2009): 120-136.

Click Here To Order Now!