Quantitative Research
Quantitative Research
Read the article Burnout, Employee Engagement, and Coping in High-Risk Occupations by Jennifer Falkoski. In a two-to-three-page paper, using two additional scholarly sources, determine which quantitative design was employed for this research and why, based on the knowledge you have gained from the reading assignment in Practical Research. Explain if the quantitative method that was used in this study was effective and why or why not. If the method used was not effective, provide a different quantitative design and explain why this alternate design is preferable.
This assignment is worth 8 points of the total course grade.
This assignment aligns with the following weekly outcomes: 2, 3.
This assignment aligns with the following course outcomes: 3.
Burnout, Employee Engagement,
and Coping in High-Risk Occupations
L
Jennifer Falkoski, PsyD
This study assessed whether there were any significant relationships among burnout,
type of coping, and employee engagement in a population of employees actively working
in the medical and mental health fields. It also evaluated preferred workplace motivators
across two overarching job categories: medical and mental health caregivers and admin
istrative and supporting roles. The results showed that as employee burnout increased,
so did the use of more harmful coping mechanisms. The study also found an inverse
relationship between emotional exhaustion and employee engagement. Additionally,
employee engagement and personal accomplishment were positively related. Employee
preferred workplace motivators across two job-overarching job categories were also
assessed. The highest-ranking employee-preferred workplace motivators identified in the
participant sample were nature of the work itself, responsibility, salary, relationship with
peers, and professional growth.
Burnout
Burnout is a phenomenon that has been
studied in organizations for more than 20
years. The applied research on burnout was
initially examined within industries that
had a high rate of interpersonal interaction
(Maslach & Leiter, 1997, 2008). More spe
cifically, these industries included human
services, health care, and education. Over
the last two decades, research in this area
has expanded to all industries, including
international companies.
One downside to the extensive research
in this area is that the term “burnout” has
lost its meaning in the workplace (Maslach
& Leiter, 1997). People have become inured
to this term and expect burnout with
any type of job. Burnout’s perception
as an inevitable state has made it increa
singly more difficult to manage in the
workplace.
It is imperative that organizations con
tinuously find ways to enhance protective
factors against burnout in the workforce,
especially because most companies are
dynamic in nature. Maslach and Leiter
(1997) cite several contemporary factors
that affect burnout in the workplace. These
factors include less intrinsic work, global
economics, increase in the use of technol
ogy to run business operations, redistri
bution of power, and failing corporate
citizenship. Employees who are experienc
ing burnout also report feeling overloaded
at work, a lack of control over their own
work, unrewarded by their work, a lack of
community within the organization, unfair
/011mal of Psyc/10/ogical lssues in Orga11izatio11al Culture, Volume 2. Number,!, 2012 02012 Bridgepoint Education. lnc. and VilL’)’ PLrindicals, Inc
Pub!ishl’d onlinl’ in VilL’)’ Onlinl’ Library (wikyunlindibr.iry.com), DOI: 10.1002/jpuc.20085 49
treatment, and conflicting personal values with
company values (Maslach & Leiter, 1997).
Burnout is a powerful demotivator in the
workplace. People experiencing burnout due to
chronic stress often experience and display nega
tive feelings and attitudes toward their specific
job role and coworkers (Jenaro, Flores, & Arias,
2007). Employees experiencing burnout can also
feel physically and emotionally exhausted.
Coping
Coping strategies are methods of navigating various
environmental and intrapersonal stressors (Jenaro
et al., 2007). These strategies can be either adaptive
or maladaptive. These resources are crucial to the
prevention and management of burnout.
In an occupational setting, resources include
physical, psychological, social, or organizational
aspects of any given job within an organization
(Jenaro et al., 2007). In particular, these resources
help employees achieve work goals, foster per
sonal development, and decrease overall job
demands. Adaptive coping skills have been shown
to reduce vulnerability to burnout and increase
occupational resiliency. Resiliency is a term used
to describe psychological endurance or hardiness
that aids individuals in dealing effectively with
negative life stressors through adaptive coping
skills (Jenaro et al., 2007).
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is a term used to describe
the degree to which an employee works with
passion and feels a profound connection to the
company (Crabtree, 2004). He or she seeks new
ways to be innovative and helps propel the
company forward. Factors that contribute to
employee engagement include positive relation
ship with supervisor, workplace friendships, an
50 Journal of Psychologicnl lssues in Orga11izatio11al Culture. Volume 2, Number 4, DOI: 10.1002/jpoc
element of selflessness in interpersonal relation
ships at work, development of goals, and a clear
understanding of the requirements of the job.
Statement of Purpose
Most research in this area has focused on the neg
ative effects of burnout in high-risk occupations,
but little research has focused on the resiliency.
The ideology of how resiliency is developed in
individuals and what workplace factors hinder or
foster this adaptive disposition is not well defined.
This study provides the field of organizational psy
chology with insight into the relationships between
burnout, coping, and employee engagement, as
well as how these factors combined with employee
preferred workplace characteristics can be aligned
to foster resiliency in employees.
Research Questions
Primarily this study aimed to investigate if there
were any relationships between burnout, employee
engagement, and type of coping mechanism for
people employed in the medical and mental health
fields. Additionally, years of active employment
and its relationship to burnout was assessed.
Finally, common themes regarding employee pre
ferred workplace characteristics were assessed
with regard to job category.
Method
Sample
Data were collected from 268 participants who
completed four assessments online through
Surveymonkey.com. Of the 268 responses, eight
responses were completely eliminated for missing
data (N = 260). I recruited participants from among
employees working in outpatient treatment units
of public health care facilities, including both
medical and behavioral health. Treatment units
I
I
I
I
level of employee engagement. This survey mea
sures employee and workplace performance using
13 questions on a Likert scale. The Gallup Orga
nization is the foremost institution studying
employee engagement, thus making this survey
an appropriate choice to examine employee
engagement.
Coping
To identify coping strategies that influence resil
iency, the Brief COPE Dispositional Inventory
(Brief COPE) was used. This abbreviated, multidi
mensional inventory assesses the various ways
that people respond to stress (Carver, Scheier, &
Weintraub, 1989). In this assessment, respondents
report the extent to which they perform the activi
ties listed in the questionnaire items when they are
stressed out (Carver, 2007). This assessment is
available for fair use in an academic setting and
does not require the permission of the author
to use.
The Brief COPE has 14 subscales, with 28
items total. “The scales are: self-distraction, active
coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional
support, use of instrumental support, behavioral
disengagement, venting, positive reframing, plan
ning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame”
(Carver, 2007, p. 96).
The subscales in the Brief COPE were adjusted
from the original version. The Restraint Coping
and Suppression of Competing Activities were
omitted due to a lack of value in previous research,
as well as displaying redundancy to the Active
Coping subscale (Carver, 1997). In the abbreviated
version, the Positive Reinterpretation and Growth
subscale was renamed Positive Reframing. Fur
thermore, the Focus on and Venting of Emotions
subscale was renamed Venting. The Mental
Disengagement subscale was renamed Self
Distraction in the abbreviated version. Carver
52 Jourunl of Psychological Issues in Orga11izatioun/ Culture. Vulunll’ 2. NumberI , DOI: 10.1002/jpoc
(1997) created a Self-Blame subscale because it
was found that self-blame is a predictor of poor
adjustment under stress.
In the complete version, although not strongly
intercorrelated, the scales do correlate in concep
tual meaningful ways (Carver et al., 1989). For
example, one group reflected adaptive strategies.
More specifically, Active Coping and Planning
were linked with Positive Reinterpretation and
Growth (Positive Reframing) and Instrumental
and Emotional Social Support. Positive Reinter
pretation and Growth (Positive Reframing) is cor
related with acceptance as are other adaptive
strategies, but not as strongly (Carver et al., 1989).
A second group comprises scales with an
emphasis on maladaptive strategies (Carver et al.,
1989). In particular, these scales include Denial,
Behavioral Disengagement, Venting, and Sub
stance Use and are all moderately correlated.
These scales tend to be inversely related to the
adaptive strategies. For example, Active Coping
and Planning are negatively correlated with Denial
and Behavioral Disengagement.
Workplace Motivators
Workplace motivators were assessed through an
inquiry on the demographic survey. “Workplace
motivators included for analysis in this study are
achievement, recognition and reward, nature
of the work itself, responsibility, advancement,
growth, company policy and administration, rela
tionship with supervisor, salary, relationship(s)
with peers, relationship(s) with subordinates,
status, and security/safety” (Herzberg, 2003, p. 90).
This inquiry asked participants to identify
their top six preferred workplace motivators and
then rank in order of preference (1 = Most impor
tant, 6 = Least important) their preferred type of
workplace motivators. These data were analyzed
using a job category and workplace motivator
I
I
I
filter in Surveymonkey.com and tabulated into an
overall frequency diagram by job category.
Procedures
After obtaining institutional review board (IRB)
approval, the demographic survey, Maslach
Burnout Inventory-Health Services Survey, Ql2,
and Brief COPE Dispositional Inventory were
loaded onto Surveymonkey.com. These were
online surveys; no paper forms of the surveys were
distributed. The online interface allowed complete
anonymity of the participants as no personal iden
tifying information was collected. Informed
consent took place electronically as well. After the
completion of this project, all raw data gathered
directly from the participants were destroyed.
Data Analysis
A canonical correlation was conducted to assess
whether there were any relationships between
burnout, employee engagement, and type of
coping. Canonical analysis determines the rela
tionship between a set of predictor variables and
a set of criterion variables; because two of the
three assessments used had multiple subscales,
this type of analysis was the most appropriate.
Figure 1
Participant Range of Burnout by Level
This is in contrast to using a standard regression
analysis that measures the relationship between a
single predictor and criterion variable. Workplace
motivators were assessed through frequency dia
grams for each job category.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a significant
relationship between level of burnout
and level of employee engagement.
The data analysis showed that there was a
significant relationship between these two vari
ables (Wilks’s lambda= .73, p < .001). The value of
multiple R, also referred to as the magnitude of the
canonical correlation, is .52 and the value of R2 is
.27. A significant, positive relationship was found
between employee engagement and the Personal
Accomplishment subscale (canonical coefficient=
.48). Additionally, a significant, negative relation
ship was found between employee engagement
and the Emotional Exhaustion subscale of the
MBI-HSS (canonical correlation = .70; Figures 1
and 2).
Hypothesis 2 (Hi}: There are significant
relationship(s) between level of burnout
and type of coping skills.
Assessment of Burnout
Range of Experienced Burnout
Joumal of Psyclwlogica/ Issues i11 Orgm1izntio11a/ Culture. Volume 2, Numbl'r4, DOI: 10.1002/jpoc 53
Figure 2
Mean Scores on Employee Engagement
al Mean Values of Employee Engagement
4.5-r--------------
ii 4.0- - - -.- -- -- --E - 3.5-
ai 3.0- , , : : o E 2 5 ..... _. I -f .,. ' -
';;; , 2:0 ,._.. ... . ':Jl!LA,:
Q) (11 ,.. .. .- .,.. ... ,;.--,, ... ... c, 1.5 't .., ----(#' -Y-./ ;.=
8 &i 1.0-,- -.. . , -'- .. :. - -
0.5-
(11 0.0-1------,..-........ ----,------...---
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Participants
The data analysis showed that there were sig
nificant relationships between these two variables
(Cluster 1: Wilks's lambda = .50, p < .001; Cluster
2: Wilks's lambda= .81, p < .003). The magnitude
of the Cluster 1 canonical correlation is .62 and
the squared value is .38. The magnitude of the
Cluster 2 canonical correlation is .38 and the
squared value is .14.
Regarding Cluster 1, significant, positive rela
tionships were found between the Emotional
Exhaustion subscale of the MBI-HSS (canonical
coefficient = -.67) and the following subscales of
the Brief COPE: Self-Distraction (canonical coef
ficient= -46), Denial ( canonical coefficient= -.40),
Behavioral Disengagement (canonical coefficient
= -.57), Venting (canonical coefficient= -.46), and
Self-Blame (canonical coefficient = -.53). In other
words, the canonical statistical analysis computed
which, if any, of the three MBI-HSS subscales were
related to which, if any, of the 14 subscales of the
Brief COPE. The analysis showed that Emotional
Exhaustion is positively related to Self-Distraction,
Denial, Behavioral Disengagement, Venting, and
Self-Blame.
Regarding Cluster 2, significant, positive rela
tionships were found between the Personal
Accomplishment subscale of the MBI-HSS and
the following subscales of the Brief COPE: Denial
54 foumal of Psyc/10/ogical Issues i11 Orgnniwtiona{ Culture, Volume 2. Number4, DOI: 10.Jt)02fjpoc
(canonical coefficient = .66), Substance Use
(canonical coefficient = .53), Use of Emotional
Support (canonical coefficient = .47), Planning
(canonical coefficient = .65), and Humor (canoni
cal coefficient= .52). In other words, the canonical
statistical analysis computed which, if any, of the
three MBI-HSS subscales were related to which, if
any, of the 14 subscales of the Brief COPE. The
analysis showed that personal accomplishment is
positively related to Denial, Substance Use, Use of
Emotional Support, Planning, and Humor.
Furthermore, significant, negative relation
ships were found between the Personal Accom
plishment subscale of the MBI-HSS and the
following subscales of the Brief COPE: Use of
Instrumental Support (canonical coefficient =
-.60) and Behavioral Disengagement (canonical
coefficient = -.92). In other words, the canonical
statistical analysis computed which, if any, of the
three MBI-HSS subscales were related to which, if
any, of the 14 subscales of the Brief COPE. The
analysis also showed that Personal Accomplish
ment is negatively related to Instrumental Support
and Behavioral Disengagement.
Also with regard to Cluster 2, significant, pos
itive relationships were found between the Deper
sonalization subscale of the MBI-HSS and the
following subscales of the Brief COPE: Denial
(canonical coefficient = .66), Substance Use
(canonical coefficient = .53), Use of Emotional
Support (canonical coefficient = .47), Planning
(canonical coefficient= .65), and Humor (canoni
cal coefficient= .52). In other words, the canonical
statistical analysis computed which, if any, of the
three MBI-HSS subscales were related to which, if
any, of the 14 subscales of the Brief COPE. The
results showed that the MBI-HSS subscale of Dep
ersonalization is positively related to Denial, Sub
stance Use, Use of Emotional Support, Planning,
and Humor.
In addition, significant, negative relationships
were found between the Depersonalization sub
scale of the MBI-HSS and the following subscales
on the Brief COPE: Use of Instrumental Support
(canonical coefficient= -.60) and Behavioral Dis
engagement (canonical coefficient =-.92). In other
words, the canonical statistical analysis computed
which, if any, of the three MBI-HSS subscales were
related to which, if any, of the 14 subscales of
the Brief COPE. The results showed that Deper
sonalization is negatively related to Use of Instru
mental Support and Behavioral Disengagement
(Figures 3-13).
Figure 3
Participant Range of Burnout by Level
Hypothesis 3 (H3): There are significant
relationships between type of coping skills
and level of employee engagement.
The data analysis showed that there was a
significant relationship between these two vari
ables (Wilks's lambda = .75, p < .001). The value
of multiple R, also referred to as the magnitude of
the canonical correlation, is .50 and the value of
R2 is .25. A significant, positive relationship was
found between Employee Engagement and the
Behavioral Disengagement subscale of the Brief
COPE (canonical coefficient= .43). Additionally, a
Assessment of Burnout
2
Range of Experienced Burnout
Figure 4
Participant Responses on Self-Distraction Subscale
Coping: Self-Distraction (SD)
9-,-----....,...---------------,
8
7
Q) 6
,._ 5-
8 4
Cl) 3
2
1-
. -
.._.__... .... --+-- ---
.. . ... _......... . . _._...... .... -----
......... - .. ...
_ ...... .._._ ____ .......... _ .... _ ...... ____ ............__
....... . .. . ....... . .... ........ .....
. .. ... . .. .... . . . ...
--------+-
0-f----..---------------<.-+-+---+,,-----
50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Participants
Figure 5
Participant Responses on Denial Subscale
Coping: Denial (D)8-,----- --------- -----,
7
6
5 _.__.__. - -
8 4 ... .. ....
en 3 ............._. ---+----- .... .____.__.._ ............ -
2io-----------------..... --------------
1-
0-l----+o>+—–….,—-,>-+—-+,+——“‘f’—-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Participants
/oumal of Psychological Issues in Orgmtiwtionnl Culture. Vnluml’2. Numbl’r4 DOI: 111.1002/jpnc 55
56
Figure 6
Participant Responses on Substance Use Subscale
Coping: Substance Use (SU)
9————————,
8
7
6
5
8 4 . .. .. .
(/)3-
..
– —
2———————————-
1
0-1—————+ .-+
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Participants
Figure 7
Participant Responses on Emotional Support Subscale
–
300
Coping: Use of Emotional Support (ES)
9-,————————,
8 …. .. … .. …
7 ……….. — —- .. . .. _…_
6 . . . …….. …….. ……….. … ….. .
0 5 … …………… …………… ……… . .
(.) 4- …….. .. _._ .. _ … . … . _…….. … _ ……… .
(/) 3 .. 2
1
. . — — .. .. _________._. – — —-
0+—-… +–.__.——-.+—-.. .._ ___________.., ________ —-1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Participants
Figure 8
Participant Responses on Instrumental Support Subscale
Coping: Use of Instrumental Support (IS)
9,———————-
8 —
7 .. –
– —
–
—-
. .. .. ……
– –
.. .
Q) 6′
0 5
….. . …… _. .. __ ………. . … _ … _ ..
…. _ ……….. _ … .. .. ….. __. … _.
0 4 ………….. ………….. .
(/) 3 —–
–
–….. .
2 .. …… __.. . ….. _ _.
. . …… ……. .
.. _.__. ._
. ……… _.
1
0 ——-
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Participants
Figure 9
Participant Responses on Behavioral Disengagement
Subscale
300
Coping: Behavioral Disengagement (BD)
?———————-
6 –
5
4 .. .
— —
…..
—
— +——-+–
. ……… …. . … … . .
/j, 3-
_ ……… .
…. __…….. . … ___… … _. …. … – —
2 .. +Ill II ……………………………………………….
1
0-1—–
0 50
—–1′ —- —-i
100 150 200
Number of Participants
250 300
Joumnl of Psychological Issues in Orgn11iwtio11al Culture. Vulunll’ 2. Number4 DOI: JO.JfXJ2/jpuc
Figure 10
Participant Responses on Planning Subscale
Coping: Planning (P)
9————————-
8 …. —+- …. ______.. _._… —+ .. .. ..
–
7 …. . .. . .. .. ……. .
6- … …. .. . . . . … .. …. …. . .. .. . . . Q)
0 5
—-+ ….. .. __.. .. __
.. . ….
…… .
_..
.. – –
-0 (/)
4 … . … . ……. .. … .. …. . . .. . .. ….. .. .
3 _. …. –. —
2 .. __…_. .. -+- . .. –.. — –
1
0 _…_ … _…_ __ .,…. __ –.. -+-+-+.+– ——<
0 50
Figure 11
100 150 200
Number of Participants
Participant Responses on Self-Blame Subscale
250 300
Coping: Self-Blame (SB)
9 ---- ----- --------------
8
7
Q) 6
__._ . ---
...
---
..
--- - -- .
.... ...
.... _ .... . . .. . 0 5-
0 4- .. . .................. ................................. __
(j)
3 ...... ..... .......... ... .
. .. ... .. . . . .. . .... . 2
1
. ........... ---- . - - ... ...._ ...... _ ..... - -
0 -'----+-..-.------ .. -+--------<
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Participants
Figure 12
Participant Responses on Venting Subscale
Coping: Venting (V)
9------------------- ----,
8
7-
---+-- --+- --- . --
. -- .... _._. . .. - - ... _ ..... - -
f
6 .. _ ...
0 5- ... _.._.... ... ..... _ ....... _. ........ -- _.. .. __ _
o4 ..... . ........ .................................. .. .... .
- - ... ----
-- .. .. _ .... . -
--+- ---
.... _ ... ..... _ ...... _
- -. ----+
(/) 3-
2
1
0 ----..-----<
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Participants
Figure 13
Participant Responses on Humor Subscale
Coping: Humor (H)
9--------------------
8 . - . ... .. ..
7- _.__
.
--. -- - ---+-
6 ..
.. ... . .. - .. ...
..
. ...
.. .. . . 5 0 4 .. . --- - _ .. _ ......... ... ... _... ... __
(/) 3 . .... . . ........
2
1
o.
....................................... _ ... - . -- -
--------i
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Participants
I
I
I
significant, negative relationship was found
between Employee Engagement and the Use of
Emotional Support subscale of the Brief COPE
(canonical correlation= .70; Figures 14-16).
Hypothesis 4 (H4): There is a significant
relationship between years of active
employment in critical care areas in the
medical or mental health field and level
of burnout.
Figure 14
Mean Scores for Employee Engagement
Mean Values of Employee Engagement
4.5-,---------------------,
... e 4.o - ,E Ql 3.5
-
(/) en 3 o ... I
. ........ I ' .-. o c: 2.5 'r,: : t - + fff!.
:
t :
l/, W 2.0-.-..... ,.. ..
'... +;. ... ;,.J:_ - -
c: 1.5 ': .,. - -!I -..__ .__',f+f'A
:Jl 1.0 ,.. 4-
+
4) ' .. 4>. t.
:a; a. 0 5
o:o 1—————-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Participants
Figure 15
Participant Responses on Emotional Support Subscale
Coping: Use of Emotional Support (ES)
9..————————,
8 …. __________… +—+- — _.
7 — . …. _.. ._…. — – .. – –
C) 6 — . ….. _.. .. …. —-+ …. __ ……… ____…. …. __.
0 5 …………………. …… .. . …….. . .
0 4 ……… – … … . ……….. …. _ ………. –
(/) 3 ..
2 _.__. … _____.__.__.. .. …………… — —
1 – –
01—..,._–,,4.-..a>—-+–_…,>-++—–+-+———l
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Participants
Figure 16
Participant Responses on Behavioral Disengagement
Subscale
6-
Q)
5
-+-
Coping: Behavioral Disengagement (BD)
– — _______. — —
. … . . . . .
300
0 4 — _____. ……. _._ . . . … –
(.) 3 … ……. _. …. …… …. _….,. ….. –
(/) 2 ….. -,, ……. . …… . ……………….. _….
1 — _ ____._ -+- —–+ – —
0 —+-+–+
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Participants
The data analysis showed that there is a sig
nificant, negative relationship between the total
number of years in active employment and the
Depersonalization subscale of the MBI-HSS
(Pearson correlation = -.20, p < .01; Figures 17
and 18).
To address this hypothesis, a two-tailed
Pearson correlation analysis was used to deter
mine whether there was a relationship between
any of the subscales of the MBI-HSS and the
demographic variable years of active employment
in the field.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): There are different work
place motivators that are more effective in
motivating employees depending on their
job category within an organization.
Figure 17
Participant Scores of Number of Years of Active Work
Years of Active Work in Field
300.---------------------,
250 *:. !: : .. . . .
200 I ,,: , .. I .: ! ._!__ :. z 150 ''
:
. i, ;.
100
.: ,.. !.:
.
. .
.
so t!:i .. ! I
0+--=-_.:_c+--i-- ----a0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Number of Years
Figure 18
Range of Burnout on Depersonalization Subscale
Burnout: Depersonalization Subscale
MBIDP (Average),
160..------------:40,--------
140
120
100
Z 80
60
40
20
MBIDP (Low) MBIDP (Average) MBIDP (High)
Range of Depersonalization Scores
Joumnl of Psycliologicnl lssues i11 Orgn11izntio11nl Culture. Volume 2. Numbl'r 4, DOI: I0.1002/jpuc 57
The workplace motivators included for analy
sis in this study were achievement, recognition
and reward, nature of the work itself, responsi
bility, advancement, growth, company policy and
administration, relationship with supervisor,
salary, relationship(s) with peers, relationship(s)
with subordinates, status, and security and safety.
This research question was addressed by col
lecting data as part of the demographic survey.
This inquiry asked participants to identify their
top six preferred workplace characteristics and
then rank in order of preference (1 = Most impor
tant, 6 = Least important) their most preferred
type of workplace characteristics.
This data was analyzed by utilizing frequency
diagrams of the participants responses for each
motivator based on job category (Figures 19 and
20). Regarding the administrative and supporting
roles (ASR) job category, the identified top six
workplace motivators in order of preference were
nature of the work itself, responsibility, salary
(Rank 3 and 6), relationship with peers, and pro
fessional growth. Regarding the medical and
mental health (MMHC) job category, the identi
fied top six workplace motivators in order of pref
erence were nature of the work itself, professional
Figure 19
Top Six Preferred Workplace Motivators by Administrative
and Supporting Role Category
25
20
z 15
10
5
0-
Administrative and Supporting Role (ASR) Top Six
Preferred Workplace Motivators
Q)
.c ""
- Q)
- "'
0::
Q) -" 0
s
:0
;;;
C
0
0.
"'
Q)
a:
c
cn a>
C [l.. C [l..
E – E
aj:’: aj:’:
a: a:
Preferred Workplace Motivators
I
I
I
g
i
r
[
”
s
0
,;:
‘
5
l
Q
:,
f
‘”
…
QI
co
Table 1
Participant Responses on Preferred Workplace Motivators by Administrative and Supporting Role (ASR) Category
Top Six Workplace Motivators for ASR Overall (N = 45)
Company
Recognition Nature of the Professional Policy and Rel. With Rel. With Rel. With
Rank Achievement and Reward Work Itself Advancement Responsibility Growth Administration Supervisor Peers Subordinates Salary
1 26.7% (12) 0.0% (DI 46.7% (21) 0.0% (DI 2.2% (1) 6.7% (3) 2.2% (1) 0.0% (0) 4.4% (2) 2.2% 11) 4.4% 12)
2 11.1% (5) 2.2% (1) 11.1% 15) 2.2% (1) 20.0% (9) 15.6% 17) 6.7% (3) 8.9% 14) 2.2% 11) 6.7% 13) 8.9% (4)
3 11.1% 15) 2.2% (1) 4.4% 12) 4.4% 12) 8.9% 14) 8.9% (4) 2.2% 11) 13.3% 16) 11.1% 15) 11.1% 15) 17.8% (8)
4 11.1% (5) 2.2% (1) 4.4% (2) 0.0% IOI 6.7% 13) 17.8% (8) 6.7% 13) 15.6% 171 24.4% (11) 2.2% (1) 6.7% 13)
5 11.1% 15) 4.4% (2) 2.2% (1) 6.7% (3) 4.4% (2) 15.6% (7) 6.7% (3) 8.9% (4) 11.1% 15) 8.9% (4) 8.9% (4)
6 0.0% (DI 11.1% (5) 4.4% 12) 4.4% (2) 8.9% (4) 11.1% (5) 6.7% (3) 6.7% (3) 6.7% (3) 8.9% 14) 22.2% (10)
Note. The numbers in bold represent the top six preferred workplace characteristics for each overarching job category (medical and mental health caregivers and administrative and supporting roles).
Security/
Status Safety
0.0% (DI 4.4% 12)
2.2% (1) 2.2% (1)
2.2% (1) 2.2% (1)
0.0% IOI 2.2% (1)
6.7% (3) 4.4% (2)
2.2% (1) 6.7% (3)
en
0
5
[
0
,;:
”
.
Q
:;;-
i
,
t
e3
;.
e
Table 2
Participant Responses on Preferred Workplace Motivators by Medical and Mental Health (MMHC) Role Job Category
Top Six Workplace Motivators for MMHC Overall IN= 165)
Company
Recognition Nature of the Professional Policy and Rel. With Rel. With Rel. With Security/
Rank Achievement and Reward Work Itself Advancement Responsibility Growth Administration Supervisor Peers Subordinates Salary Status Safety
1 10.9% (18) 4.8% (8) 63.0% (104) 0.0% (DI 3.6% (6) 4.8% 18) 0.0% IOI 2.4% 14) 1.8% 13) 0.6% (1) 2.4% (4) 0.6% (1) 4.8% 18)
2 10.3% (17) 2.4% 14) 14.5% (24) 1.8% 13) 13.3% (22) 23.0% (38) 1.8% 13) 4.8% 18) 11.5% (19) 0.0% IOI 14.5% 124) 0.6% (1) 1.2% 12)
3 9.1% (15) 3.0% 15) 4.8% (8) 4.2% 171 13.3% 122) 15.8% (26) 6.1% (10) 9.7% (16) 14.5% 124) 1.8% 13) 13.3% 122) 0.6% (1) 3.6% (6)
4 7.3% (12) 3.6% 16) 5.5% 19) 4.2% 171 7.3% (12) 13.3% (22) 1.8% 13) 13.9% (23) 16.4% (27) 4.8% 18) 14.5% (24) 1.8% 13) 5.5% 19)
5 7.3% (12) 8.5% (14) 2.4% (4) 4.2% 171 7.3% (12) 7.3%(12) 6.1% (10) 13.3% (22) 17.6% (29) 7.9% (13) 8.5% (14) 3.0% (5) 6.7% (11)
6 4.3% 171 8.6% (14) 3.1% 15) 6.1% 110) 6.7% (11)
