Conference Positive Management 2015 18 & 19 November

Conference Positive Management 2015

18 & 19 November

Conference Positive Management 2015

18 & 19 November

Programme

Financial Management; Chair: Dr. Maaike Lycklama à Nijeholt, Associate professor RUAS

08.30 Presentations of the Financial Management Research Group, RUAS Best Practices of Soft Controls, Omid Alozai Social Impact Bonds, Brian van Es The Soft Due Diligence Check: Success and Failure. Sybe Stuij

09.45 break 10.15 Positive Antecedents and Consequences of Entrepreneurship – Theoretical

Considerations, Prof.dr. Przemyslaw Zbierowski 10.40 I like you and you like me, let's do something creative, Dr Aldona Glinska-Newes 11.05 break 11.30 Positive Employee Attitudes as a Determinant of Project Success and Business

Excellence: The Case of Poland, Dr. Rafal Haffer, Dr. Joanna Haffer 12.00 Finding meaningfulness In-Work: why sensitivity matters, Donna Morrow 12.30 luncheon

POSITIVE EMPLOYEE ATTITUDESAS A DETERMINANTOF PROJECT SUCCESS AND BUSINESS EXCELLENCE: THE CASE OF POLAND

JOANNA HAFFER, PhDTORUN SCHOOL OF BANKING, FACULTY OF FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

PROF. RAFAŁ HAFFERNICOLAUS COPERNICUS UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ECONOMIC SCIENCES AND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS EXCELLENCE

3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015

PRESENTATION ISSUES

4

Research projects introduction

Project 1: business excellence of companies

Characteristics of the EFQM Excellence Model

Research results: progress of Polish enterprises towards business excellence and critical improvement factors

Project 2: project management efficiency

Definition of project success factors

Research results: project success factors in Polish companies

Conclusions


RESEARCH PROJECTS INTRODUCTION

The presented data come from two research projects

The first one, entitled „Self-assessment in quality management systems of companies” (grant of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, no. 1 H02D 099 30) was concerned with the engagement of Polish enterprises in the initiatives aiming at business excellence

It was completed in 2007

As a result, a sample PL2007 made up of 230 enterprises was examined

The second research project entitled “Project management efficiency in the enterprises operating in Poland” was concerned with project success factors in companies

It was conducted in 2008

The research resulted in purposive sample PL2008, mostly formed on the basis of the member list of the Polish Project Management Association. In total, 70 respondents participated in the study

5


PROJECT 1: BUSINESS EXCELLENCE OF ENTERPRISES

The representatives of top management were asked in a structured questionnaire to evaluate on a 0-100 percentage scale the advance of the companies they manage in business excellence initiatives, regardless of whether they apply any of the holistic leadership models or not. EFQM Excellence Model indicators were used as the evaluation criteria for the study

The measurement scales included 51 sub-criteria, constituting of nine more aggregated criteria identical with nine elements of the EFQM Excellence Model. According to these criteria, respondents could assess an organization’s progress towards excellence. These evaluations were then linked with a performance variable

The results of correlations encouraged the discussion of the condition of Polish enterprises and made it possible to determine the efforts which should be made for their further development

6


PROJECT 1: THE EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL = THE EUROPEAN QUALITY AWARD MODEL

7


8

PRO

JECT

1: P

ROG

RESS

OF

POLI

SH C

OM

PAN

IES

TOW

ARD

S BU

SIN

ESS

EXCE

LLEN

CE

Self-

asse

ssm

ent r

esul

ts fo

r EFQ

M E

xcel

lenc

e M

odel

indi

cato

rs (P

L200

7)


PROJECT 1: PROGRESS OF POLISH COMPANIES TOWARDS ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCECorrelations r coefficients for EFQM Excellence Model indicators and performance variable (FTP) (PL2007)

9

EFQM Excellence Model indicators Firm’s total performance (FTP)

Enablers according to EFQM Model

Leadership 0.162*

People management 0.180**

Strategy 0.091

Partnership and resources 0.176**

Processes 0.147*

Results according to EFQM Model

People results 0.242†

Customer results 0.217†

Society results 0.223†

Key results 0.564†* p<=0.05; ** p<=0.01; † p<=0.001


PROJECT 1: CRITICAL IMPROVEMENT FACTORS FOR POLISH COMPANIES ON THEIR ROAD TOWARDS BUSINESS EXCELLENCEResults for individual items of the EFQM Model for PL2007 sample – performance-importance matrix

10


0 ,2 0 ,3 0 ,4 0 ,5 0 ,6Im p o rtan ce

In d iv id u a l d e v e lo p m e n t p la n s fo r e v e ry e m p lo y e e a re c re a te d

E m p lo y e e sa tis fa c tio n in d ic a to rs a re d e fin e d

S tra te g y is w e ll k n o w n o ne a c h le v e l o f o rg a n iz a tio n

V is io n a n d m iss io n o f a c o m p a n y a re w e ll k n o w n a m o n g e m p lo y e e s

D o c u m e n te d im p ro v e m e n ts in c r itic a l p ro c e sse sw ith in th e sp a c e o f la s t th re e y e a rs

S y s te m a tic m e a su re m e n t o f sa tis fa c tio n ,lo y a lty, p ro d u c tiv ity a n d a b se n te e ismo f e m p lo y e e s

T h e re su lts o f e m p lo y e e sa tis fa c tio n su rv e ya re a c u rre n t s ig n p o s t fo r im p ro v e m e n ts

F e e d b a c k o n im p ro v e m e n tp ro p o sa ls su b m itte d b y e m p lo y e e s

In c re a se o f e m p lo y e e sa tis fa c tio n

9 0

8 0

7 0

6 5

6 0

5 0

4 0

3 0

Per

form

ance

In c re a se o f th e n u m b e r o f im p ro v e m e n t p ro p o sa ls

11

Leadership vision and mission of a company are well communicated to all employees

Strategy strategy is well known on each level of organization

Processes documented improvements in critical processes within the space of last three years

People results employee satisfaction indicators (the conditions which should be fulfilled to satisfy the

employees) are defined systematic measurement of satisfaction, loyalty, productivity and absenteeism of employees using the results of employee satisfaction survey as the current signpost for improvements growing level of employee satisfaction growing number of improvement proposals submitted by employees

People management individual development plans for every employee feedback on improvement proposals submitted by employees

PROJECT 1: CRITICAL IMPROVEMENT FACTORS FOR POLISH COMPANIES ON THEIR ROAD TOWARDS BUSINESS EXCELLENCEResults for individual items of the EFQM Model for PL2007 sample


PROJECT 2: THE EFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The project managers were asked in a structured questionnaire to verify a list of project success factors in order to assess their importance in a recently realized project, using the scale from 0 to 5, where: 0 meant that a given factor was insignificant for project success, 1 meant that a given factor had very little significance, 2 – little significance, 3 – medium significance, 4 – big significance, and 5 – very big significance for project success

This way it was possible to identify factors increasing project management efficiency in enterprises operating in Poland

12


PROJECT 2: DEFINITION OF PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS

13

Project success factors are the key variables explaining its success (Diallo, Thuiller, 2005)

They can also be referred to as “lever” or “stimuli” which can be used by project managers or project organization to increase the probability of achieving the desired project result (Westerveld, 2003)

Paying attention and caring about these factors improves the effectiveness of all project management processes


PROJECT 2: PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS IN COMPANIES OPERATING IN POLANDAverage assessment of the importance of individual groups of factors for project success (PL2008)

14


PROJECT 2: PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS IN COMPANIES OPERATING IN POLANDA part of a list of 87 project success factors ordered according to their importance for project success(PL2008)

15

No.

13 Factor connected

with project

manager

9 Factor connected

with project team

6 Factors connected

directly with project

1 Factor connected

with project implementing organization

Factor nameAverage

mark

FACTORS CRITICAL FOR PROJECT SUCCESS – LIST OF 291 X - - - engagement of project manager 4.62 X - - - sense of responsibility of project manager 4.5

3 - - X -clearly defined project objectives (clear and understandable project vision)

4.4

4 - X - - engagement of project team members 4.45 X - - - ability of project manager to react to changes 4.46 - X - - sense of responsibility of project team members for project results 4.47 X - - - communicative skills of project manager 4.38 X - - - leadership skills of project manager 4.39 - X - - professional / specialist competences of project team members 4.310 X - - - formal and informal authority of project manager 4.311 - X - - communicative skills of project team members 4.312 X - - - skills of project manager in coordination of activities and works 4.313 - - - X atmosphere of cooperation 4.214 - X - - proper composition of project team 4.215 - X - - atmosphere stimulating creativity of project team members 4.216 - X - - acceptance and good relations among team members 4.217 X - - - speed of decision-making of project manager 4.218 X - - - previous experience of project manager at a similar post 4.119 - X - - clarity of division of responsibilities among team members 4.120 X - - - knowledge and skills of project manager in project management 4.121 - X - - motivation of team members 4.122 X - - - ability of project manager to delegate powers 4.123 - - X - regular supervision of implementation of project plan 4.0

24 - - X -easy access to suitable resources necessary for project implementation

4.0

25 - - X - realistic project plan 4.026 X - - - ability of project manager to reach compromise 4.027 X - - - motivation of project manager 4.028 - - X - detailed and clear structure of division of duties within project 4.0

29 - - X -agreement for active participation of customers (their representatives) in project works / customer involvement

4.0

CONCLUSIONS

16

The research results made it possible to indicate how strongly performance on both the operational (project) level and the strategic (business) level is influenced by positive employee attitudes

The key factors influencing examined firms’ performance, from among 51 tested according to the EFQM methodology, deal with people and their satisfaction. At the same time they are the most critical factors for business excellence improvement

Similarly, among 87 tested factors which are conducive to successful realization of projects, the most significant ones are those referring to people, especially to their engagement


JOANNA HAFFER, [email protected]

PROF. RAFAŁ [email protected]

THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION

mailto:joanna.haffer@

mailto:[email protected]

Meaningfulness in work: Why Sensitivity MattersDonna Morrow, MBA, PMP

Doctoral Student, Satish & Yasmin Gupta College of Business, University of Dallas

Sue Conger, PhDProfessor, Satish & Yasmin Gupta College of Business, University of Dallas

2015 Positive Management Conference, Rotterdam, Netherlands

Research Question and Working Definition

• RQ: How best to define meaningfulness sensitivity in work?

• Working definition -- ‘meaningfulness sensitivity in work is a heightened mindfulness toward finding significance or purpose in work.’

– To have meaningfulness in work, the work role is significant or has purpose (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003)

– Mindfulness is the presence or absence of attention to and awareness of what is occurring in the present (Brown and Ryan, 2003)

Meaningfulness in work

• In work versus at work (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003)

– In work focus is on the individual’s work role of aggregated job tasks

– At work focus is on the organizational community where employees conduct work

• Meaningfulness in work is a subjective state that (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Vuori et al., 2012)

– Varies from individual to individual – Perception of significant and purposive positive meaning

Importance of this research

• In defining a new construct, companies can– Help meaningfulness-sensitive staff to design their jobs,

increasing satisfaction and productivity – Assist less sensitive staff to develop more personal value in their

work– Provide insight into ways to address cynicism and high attrition

• Meaningfulness sensitivity research is lacking despite research that indicates – Meaningfulness in work increases employee retention (Baumeister and

Vohs, 2002; Cartwright and Holmes, 2006)

– Increases positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, job performance, and job motivation (Cameron and Spreitzer, 2012; Rosso et al., 2010; Shusha, 2014)

– Decreases employee cynicism (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Holbeche and Springett, 2004)

Background

• ‘How to generate meaningfulness’ is a positive management concern as employees can flourish when meaningfulness in work exists (Burke, 2015)

• Meaningfulness in work is a positive outcome – Part of positive organizational scholarship (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003)

– Growing research interest (Burke, 2015; Cameron and Spreitzer, 2012)

Background continued

• Mindfulness draws upon both Buddhist psychological underpinnings and empirical psychology scholarship

• Identity theory posits role-related behaviors within social structures are the primary focus (Stryker, 1968)

• Job Design can positively influence employees’ ability to function effectively at work (Wrzesniewski et al., 2013)

Methodology

• Level of analysis – Individual level• Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 2012)

– No existing theory– No explicit expectations in order for theories to emerge

• Approach – Interviews and Focus Groups– 2 major airline companies– 28 individual interview – 2 focus groups– White collar, managerial, executive participants

• Bias mitigation– Triangulation, reflexivity, and bracketing

Discussion/Implications

• Academic– Extend positive management and meaningfulness in

work research – Align our focus with the tenets of positive management

while answering the call from scholars to view meaningfulness in work through a broader lens (Yeoman, 2014)

• Business– Offer an important pathway to employee wellbeing in a

work setting– Motivate management to consider job design

Future Direction

1. Compare and contrast different cultures, industries, organization levels to determine generalizability of meaningfulness in work sensitivity

2. Consider longitudinal versus cross-sectional to view the behavior over time and the impact towards meaningfulness sensitivity in work

3. Extend meaningfulness sensitivity around the at work community concept

Thank you!

References

Andersson, L. M., Bateman, T. S. (1997), “Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 449-469.

Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D. (2002), “The pursuit of meaningfulness in life”, in: Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J. (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 608-616.

Brown, K.W., Ryan, R.M. (2003), “The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 822-848.

Burke, R.J. (2015), “Flourishing in love and work”, in: Burke, R.J., Page, K.M., Cooper, C.L. (Eds .), Flourishing in life, work, and careers: Individual wellbeing and career experiences, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 3-25.

Cameron, K.S., Spreitzer, G.M. (2012), “What is positive in positive organizational scholarship”, in: Cameron, K.S., Spreitzer, G.M. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 1-16.

Cartwright, S., Holmes, N. (2006), “The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 199-208.

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L. (2012), The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, 7th edn, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

References

Holbeche, L., Springett, N. (2004), In search of meaning in the workplace, Roffey Park Institute, UK.Pratt, M., Ashforth, B. (2003), “Fostering meaningfulness in-working and at-work”, in: Cameron, K.S.,

Dutton, J.E., Quinn, R.E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 309-327.

Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H., Wrzesniewski, A. (2010), “On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 91-127.

Shusha, A. (2014), “The effects of job crafting on organizational citizenship behavior: Evidence from Egyptian medical centers”, International Business Research, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 140-149.

Stryker, S. (1968), “Identity salience and role performance: The importance of symbolic interaction theory for family research”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 30, pp. 558-564.

Vuori, T., San, E., Kira, M. (2012), “Meaningfulness-making at-work”, Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 231-248.

Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J.E., Berg, J.M. (2013), “Job crafting and cultivating positive meaning and identity in work”, Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 281-302.

Yeoman, R. (2014), “Conceptualising meaningful work as a fundamental human need”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 235-251.

Documents

Conference Positive Management 2015 18 & 19 November