Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PEOPLE SURVEY
WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE
Leadership, Well‐Being and Community Policing
REPORT
March 2016
Dr Les Graham
Ms Natalie Brown
Ms Yuyan Zheng
Ms Marisa Plater
Durham University Business School
Email contact address: [email protected]
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
2 METHODS .................................................................................................................. 2
3 DISCUSSION OF THE KEY MEASURES ........................................................................ 3
3.1 Vision Clarity .................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Procedural Justice (Fairness) ........................................................................... 3
3.3 Perceived Organisational Support ................................................................... 3
3.4 Ethical Leadership ............................................................................................ 3
3.5 Leadership Behaviour ...................................................................................... 4
3.6 Public Service Motivation (PSM) ..................................................................... 4
3.7 Code of Ethics Values Alignment ..................................................................... 5
3.8 Empowerment ................................................................................................. 5
3.9 Engagement ..................................................................................................... 5
3.10 Emotional Energy ............................................................................................. 6
3.11 Job Satisfaction ................................................................................................ 6
3.12 Work‐Home Conflict ........................................................................................ 6
3.13 Commitment to the Public .............................................................................. 6
3.14 Self‐Esteem ...................................................................................................... 6
3.15 Self‐Concept Clarity ......................................................................................... 7
3.16 Work Intensity ................................................................................................. 7
3.17 Uncertainty ...................................................................................................... 7
3.18 Psychological Confidence ................................................................................ 7
3.19 Psychological Detachment ............................................................................... 8
3.20 Voice Behaviour ............................................................................................... 8
3.21 Voice Ethics ...................................................................................................... 9
3.22 Individual Initiative .......................................................................................... 9
3.23 Sleep Quality .................................................................................................... 9
4 DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS ............................................................................................. 10
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 10
4.2 Discussion of Average Scores for Key Measures ........................................... 10
5 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN KEY MEASURES ............................................................ 15
5.1 Introduction to Analysis of Relationships between Key Measures ............... 15
5.2 The Impact of Leadership .............................................................................. 15
5.3 The Impact of Fairness Perceptions ............................................................... 17
5.4 The Impact of Public Service Motivation ....................................................... 18
6 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 19
Section 1 ‐ Introduction
1
1 INTRODUCTION
West Yorkshire Police and Durham University Business School have agreed to collaborate on a
research project to study the impact of workplace factors on employees and how these affect
service delivery for the public. The research project was conducted by independent
researchers from Durham University Business School in collaboration with personnel from
West Yorkshire Police.
The aims of this study were firstly, to establish key measures for workplace factors, staff
attitudes, motivation and well‐being which can be tracked over time; secondly, to investigate
factors having the largest impact on key measures to assist in the identification of priorities
for action; and finally, to establish a selection of measures that allow West Yorkshire Police to
compare themselves with other forces.
The study has been conducted in accordance with West Yorkshire Police policy and Durham
University ethical guidelines for research. Participation in the survey was voluntary, and
anonymity and confidentiality for all participants is assured.
Section 2 ‐ Methods
2
2 METHODS
The survey was designed using proven academic scales for each of the measures and
circulated online to employees of West Yorkshire Police using a server hosted independently
by Durham Constabulary. Responses were collected in two stages; a main survey in November
2015 followed by a shorter survey, each with a four week completion period.
In total, 2,668 responses were received from the main survey (31.1% response rate) and
1,904 from the shorter survey (22.2% response rate). The response rates between police
officers and staff were 28.6% and 37.8%, respectively. This can be considered as a good
response rate and is consistent with experience of collaborative research in other forces.
To enable longitudinal analysis of data, respondents were asked to formulate an anonymous
identification code. A very positive result is that 83.5% of respondents were prepared to do
this.
Section 3 ‐ Discussion of the Key Measures
3
3 DISCUSSION OF THE KEY MEASURES
To assist in understanding the results and findings in this report, the key measures included in
the survey are briefly discussed below.
3.1 Vision Clarity
Individuals were asked their opinions on how clear the organisation’s vision is to them,
whether it has defined objectives and whether it is easy to understand.
3.2 Procedural Justice (Fairness)
Procedural justice concerns the fairness of the ways and processes used to determine the
distribution of outcomes among individuals. Outcomes can be rewards, job responsibilities,
new job roles, training opportunities, workload, redundancy, promotions etc. Individuals’
perceptions of the procedural fairness of decisions made by senior leaders and across the
wider organisation were measured.
3.3 Perceived Organisational Support
Employment relationships have commonly been viewed as having the characteristics of an
exchange. The employer provides a range of contractual and non‐contractual benefits,
including extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, opportunities for growth and development, respect,
consideration and concern, which may be seen by the employee as going beyond contractual
requirements. Where this is the case, the employee may perceive the organisation as being
supportive and so is likely to reciprocate by also going beyond contract in their behaviours.
Perceptions of positive support from the organisation have been found to be very important
for well‐being.
3.4 Ethical Leadership
In the workplace, most individuals look outside of themselves to significant others for
guidance on ethical matters. Ethical leadership can be considered as the demonstration of
appropriate conduct, both in an individual’s personal actions and their interpersonal
Section 3 ‐ Discussion of the Key Measures
4
relationships. Ethical leaders promote ethical conduct to their employees through two‐way
communication, reinforcement and decision‐making. Ethical leadership can be conceptualised
as having three building blocks: being an ethical example, treating people fairly and actively
managing morality.
Moral Person – ethical leaders are honest, fair and trustworthy individuals who engage in
principled decisions. They behave ethically in their professional and personal lives.
Moral Manager – encourages correct behaviour and discourages subordinate unethical
behaviour through communication about ethics and applying sanctions when unethical
behaviour occurs. Moral managers make ethics an explicit part of their leadership agenda and
act as intentional and visible role models of ethical behaviour. They use communication,
rewards and sanction systems to hold employees accountable for ethical conduct. We asked
employees about their views of their current immediate supervisors’ leadership.
3.5 Leadership Behaviour
A recently developed leadership measure, which is thought to extend beyond ethical
leadership, was used in this study to assess supervisory leadership behaviours. This form of
leadership is characterised by a leader focusing on developing individuals to their fullest
potential.1 It comprises the following aspects of leadership: the leader as a competent
person, the leader as an ethical example, the empowerment of followers, helping followers to
grow and succeed in their roles, caring about followers’ well‐being, putting the needs of
followers before themselves and a focus on serving the community.
3.6 Public Service Motivation (PSM)
Interest in public service motivation has arisen from the observation that employees in the
public sector behave differently from their private sector counterparts. PSM is seen as a
unique attribute of public‐sector employees that provides them with a desire to serve the
1 Liden et al. (2008: 162)
Section 3 ‐ Discussion of the Key Measures
5
wider community. PSM has been defined as “the motivational force that induces individuals
to perform meaningful . . . public, community and social service.”2
PSM comprises of four key dimensions: self‐sacrifice, attraction to public policy‐making,
commitment to the public interest or civic duty and compassion. PSM is considered to be a
useful basis for understanding public‐sector employee motivation3 and can be considered as
an attitude that motivates public‐sector workers to display altruistic or pro‐social behaviours.
3.7 Code of Ethics Values Alignment
We measured the extent to which individuals believe their own personal values align with
those expressed in the Code of Ethics.
3.8 Empowerment
Psychological empowerment has been defined as an increased task motivation manifested in
four feelings reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role: Meaning ‐ the value
of a work goal or purpose judged in relation to an individual’s own ideals or standards,
Competence (or self‐efficacy) ‐ an individual’s belief in his or her capability to perform work
activities with skill, Self‐determination ‐ an individual’s sense of having choice in initiating and
regulating work actions, reflecting autonomy in the initiation and continuation of work
behaviours and processes, and Impact ‐ the degree to which an individual can influence work
outcomes.
3.9 Engagement
Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work‐related state of mind that is characterised by vigour,
dedication and absorption. 4 It relates to an individual’s job attitude, behaviours and
intentions. Engagement can be considered as a measure of an individual's ability to express
their authentic self in their role and their willingness to invest their personal energies into
their work. Improved engagement can lead to higher individual performance, enhanced well‐
being and reduced staff turnover.
2 Brewer and Selden (1998: 417) 3 Kim (2010) 4 Schaufeli et al. (2002)
Section 3 ‐ Discussion of the Key Measures
6
3.10 Emotional Energy
Emotional energy, as measured in this study, is central to individuals’ well‐being and can be
considered as the amount of emotional and mental energy individuals have available to them
to meet the daily demands and challenges they face in their job. Low levels of emotional
energy are manifested by both physical fatigue and a sense of feeling psychologically and
emotionally ‘drained’ at work. Prior research has found that low emotional energy levels are
related to reduced organisational commitment, lower productivity and performance, reduced
engagement, ill‐health, decreased physical and mental well‐being, increased absenteeism and
turnover intentions, and lower levels of persistence in the face of difficulties.
3.11 Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is simply defined as how content an individual is with his or her job. In this
survey, we measured a single dimension of affective job satisfaction to represent an overall
emotional feeling individuals have about their job as a whole.
3.12 Work‐Home Conflict
If incompatible demands occur between an individual’s work and home roles, then conflicts
will occur. This is very important for both individuals and organisations, as work‐home conflict
has been found to relate strongly to decreased employee health, well‐being, commitment
and performance, and higher levels of intention to quit.
3.13 Commitment to the Public
Commitment refers to the volitional psychological bond of dedication and responsibility that
an individual feels towards different targets. In this study, we measure individuals’
commitment to the public.
3.14 Self‐Esteem
Self‐esteem refers to how an individual feels about themselves and their opinion of their self‐
worth. Individuals with high self‐esteem tend to have a positive self‐image and are self‐
confident in their viewpoints and actions. Self‐esteem has been found to be an important
Section 3 ‐ Discussion of the Key Measures
7
factor for the prevention of a decline in emotional energy. A high level of self‐esteem in
individuals has been found to increase job satisfaction and performance.
3.15 Self‐Concept Clarity
Individuals’ beliefs about themselves are an important contributor to their psychological well‐
being5 and it has consistently been found that individuals with a clear sense of who they are
have higher self‐esteem and greater psychological well‐being.6 Self‐esteem and self‐concept
clarity are conceptually distinct aspects of an individuals’ self‐concept. Self‐esteem can be
considered as how positively an individual regards themselves (an evaluative component),
while self‐concept clarity can be thought of as how well an individual knows themselves (a
knowledge component).7 Self‐concept clarity has been suggested to help individuals be more
resilient in stressful circumstances.8 As such, it is expected that self‐concept clarity will be an
important individual factor for emotional energy.
3.16 Work Intensity
Work intensity describes the extent to which individuals feel there are too many
responsibilities or activities expected of them in light of the time available, their abilities and
other constraints.
3.17 Uncertainty
We asked individuals about the level of uncertainty they perceive exists in their workplace,
and how unsettled and uncertain they feel.
3.18 Psychological Confidence
Psychological confidence perceptions refer to employees’ beliefs that their colleagues (e.g.
supervisors, co‐workers) will not sanction or misunderstand them for taking risks such as
speaking up with suggestions or concerns. When employees perceive their level of
psychological confidence to be high, they are free of fears and concerns about voicing their
5 Marcia (1980) 6 Usborne and Taylor (2010) 7 Lee‐Flynn et al. (2011) 8 Campbell (1990)
Section 3 ‐ Discussion of the Key Measures
8
opinions. Consequently, such perceptions can reassure and encourage employees to express
their opinions, concerns and new ideas. Empirical research has found that good leaders (e.g.
ethical leaders) who interact with followers with openness and truthfulness can proactively
create a fair work environment characterised by high psychological confidence, which leads to
followers engaging in voice behaviours.
3.19 Psychological Detachment
Detachment from work refers to an individual’s state of mind when they are not working, and
their ability to distance themselves from job‐related issues, problems or opportunities (such
as receiving job‐related phone calls at home). It demonstrates an individual’s ability to switch
off and distance themselves from their job, not only physically but also mentally. There is
strong research evidence for the importance of psychological detachment in the recovery
from work stress. Such recovery experiences help employees replenish cognitive resources
lost due to work demands, which further increases their psychological health and life
satisfaction, and decreases the negative impacts from stressors on employees’ well‐being and
performance.
3.20 Voice Behaviour
Voice behaviour refers to employees communicating their ideas, suggestions, concerns and
information about any work‐related issues.9 The purpose of this discretionary communication
is to make improvements for the organisation, such as aiding team performance and
enhancing service to the public. Voice behaviour can be divided into promotive behaviours
and prohibitive behaviours.10 Promotive voice is considered to be proactive behaviour, and is
defined as “expressions of ways to improve existing work practices and procedures to benefit
organisations”, whereas prohibitive voice relates to protective/preventative behaviour, and is
defined as “expressions of individuals’ concerns about existing or impending practices,
incidents, or behaviours that may harm their organisation.”11
9 Morrison (2011) 10 Liang et al. (2012) 11 Van Dyne and LePine (1998); Liang et al. (2012)
Section 3 ‐ Discussion of the Key Measures
9
3.21 Voice Ethics
Voice ethics refers to the communication between individuals and their work teams, with
particular focus on integrity and ethical behaviour. This measure investigates the extent to
which individuals are willing and prepared to talk to members of their work teams if they
believe they are not behaving ethically or with integrity.
3.22 Individual Initiative
Individual initiative relates to the extent to which individuals voluntarily engage in
spontaneous work behaviours that go beyond what is expected of them, such as coming in
early or staying late for work, working on weekends and volunteering for additional tasks on
top of their work duties. It may also include taking work home or dealing with work‐related
tasks while not at work, such as taking telephone calls or answering emails.
3.23 Sleep Quality
Individuals were asked to evaluate the quality of sleep they had over the past month. Their
responses indicated the level of quality sleep they had overall, the scale ranged from very
poor to very good.
Section 4 ‐ Descriptive Results
10
4 DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
The descriptive statistics for measures for all respondents are presented in Table 1. The
average scores for officers and staff are presented in Table 2.
Analyses to investigate whether there are any differences between scores for officers and
staff have been conducted and, where appropriate, the effect sizes of any differences have
been calculated. Effect sizes can be considered as being small, medium or large. In this study
we calculated values of Eta‐squared and followed the guidelines proposed by Cohen (1988)
for interpretation of .01 relating to a small effect, .06 to a medium effect and .14 to a large
effect (Pallant, 2012). A small effect size suggests that there is a real world impact, but is
something likely only found through careful study. A large effect size is more substantial and
indicates something that we need to take notice of. It suggests that the difference between
the two sets of scores is substantial and/or consistent enough that it could be found between
the two populations quite easily. A medium effect, while noteworthy, is not as important as a
large effect size. Discussion of the average scores and differences between officers and staff
are presented below. We also provide a brief discussion of differences in scores for ‘Agile’
workers.
4.2 Discussion of Average Scores for Key Measures
Ethical leadership is reported as high with an average score of 5.14. This suggests that
individuals believe that their immediate supervisor treats people fairly, actively manages
morality and acts as an ethical example. The score for leadership behaviour is slightly lower at
4.79, but still at an encouraging level.
The perceptions of procedural justice (fairness) are very important for individuals’ attitudes
and behaviours (see Section 5). Police officers scored lower than staff (3.16 and 3.72,
respectively), with a medium effect size. The average score for perceptions of organisational
support are low, with police officers scoring lower than staff (2.82 and 3.71, respectively),
with a medium effect size.
Section 4 ‐ Descriptive Results
11
Table 1: Average Scores for Key Measures, All Respondents
Measure All Respondents (Average)
Vision Clarity 4.11
Procedural Justice (Fairness) 3.43
Perceived Organisational Support 3.24
Ethical Leadership 5.14
Leadership Behaviour 4.79
Public Service Motivation 4.88
Code of Ethics Values Alignment 5.56
Empowerment 5.38
Engagement 4.66
Emotional Energy 4.46
Job Satisfaction 4.79
Work‐Home Conflict 4.39
Commitment to the Public 5.80
Self‐Esteem 4.90
Self‐Concept Clarity 4.92
Work Intensity 4.73
Uncertainty 6.00
Psychological Confidence 5.03
Psychological Detachment 3.95
Voice (Promotive) 5.52
Voice (Prohibitive) 5.17
Voice (Ethics) 5.49
Individual Initiative (1‐5 scale) 2.21
Sleep Quality (1‐5 scale) 2.52
Notes: 1. All measures used a 1 to 7 scale, except where stated otherwise (e.g. 1 ‐ Strongly Disagree, 2 ‐ Disagree,
3 ‐ Slightly Disagree, 4 ‐ Neither Agree or Disagree, 5 ‐ Slightly Agree, 6 ‐ Agree, 7 ‐ Strongly Agree).
Section 4 ‐ Descriptive Results
12
Table 2: Comparison of Average Scores between Police Officers and Police Staff
Measure Police Officers (Average)
Police Staff (Average)
Difference [Effect Size]
Vision Clarity 3.78 4.47 M
Procedural Justice (Fairness) 3.16 3.72 M
Perceived Organisational Support 2.82 3.71 M
Ethical Leadership 5.11 5.15 n.s.
Leadership Behaviour 4.74 4.81 n.s.
Public Service Motivation 4.74 5.02 S
Code of Ethics Values Alignment 5.50 5.64 n.s.
Empowerment 5.25 5.52 S
Engagement 4.41 4.94 S
Emotional Energy 4.12 4.81 M
Job Satisfaction 4.44 5.19 M
Work‐Home Conflict 5.33 3.69 L
Commitment to the Public 5.83 5.78 n.s.
Self‐Esteem 4.91 4.86 n.s.
Self‐Concept Clarity 4.86 5.00 n.s.
Work Intensity 5.14 4.37 M
Uncertainty 6.18 5.75 S
Psychological Confidence 5.03 5.03 n.s.
Psychological Detachment 3.77 4.07 S
Voice (Promotive) 5.52 5.52 n.s.
Voice (Prohibitive) 5.36 5.02 S
Voice (Ethics) 5.71 5.34 S
Individual Initiative (1‐5 scale) 2.40 2.04 M
Sleep Quality (1‐5 scale) 2.32 2.77 S
Notes: 1. All measures used a 1 to 7 scale, except where stated otherwise (e.g. 1 ‐ Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 ‐ Slightly
Disagree, 4 ‐ Neither Agree or Disagree, 5 ‐ Slightly Agree, 6 ‐ Agree, 7 ‐ Strongly Agree). 2. n.s. indicates a non‐significant difference between the two groups, suggesting that while there may be a difference
in average scores, it is not sufficient to be significant (i.e. it may be due to chance). 3. If the effect size is significant, it can be small (S), medium (M) or large (L).
Section 4 ‐ Descriptive Results
13
A positive finding is that individuals across the force feel highly empowered, engaged and
satisfied in their jobs. This suggests that individuals feel they have high levels of autonomy,
high levels of the skills needed to meet the challenges in their roles, that they can make an
impact in their jobs and they are prepared to commit high levels of effort in their roles.
A further very positive finding is that public service motivation is reported, on average, to be
high. Police officers scored slightly lower than staff (4.74 and 5.02, respectively). 12 This
indicates that the majority of individuals in the force feel a high level of calling to serve the
public, are prepared to make self‐sacrifices and are motivated to make a positive difference
to society. As can be expected from this finding, commitment to the public was also reported
as high. Moreover, individuals reported high levels of Code of Ethics values alignment with an
average score of 5.56. This suggests that the majority of police officers and staff believe their
own personal values align with those expressed in the Code of Ethics.
Psychological confidence was reported as high at 5.03. This suggests that individuals believe
that their co‐workers and supervisors will not sanction them when they demonstrate voice
behaviour. For all three measures of voice behaviour (promotive, prohibitive and ethics)
scores were encouragingly high. This suggests that individuals are generally willing to
communicate ideas and suggestions on work‐related issues with the intent to make
improvements, identify concerns that may impact the force’s future performance and are
willing to talk to team members if they behave with a lack of integrity.
The score for uncertainty was found to be high in both groups.13 Police staff scored higher
than officers for vision clarity (4.47 and 3.78, respectively).14 Work intensity is high for both
police officers and staff (5.14 and 4.37, respectively).15 A high score for work intensity
suggests that an individual feels they have a high level of responsibility and activity expected
of them, given their skills, abilities and available time. Individual initiative (voluntarily taking
work home or working extra hours) was also higher for police officers than staff16 (2.40 and
2.04, respectively), with a medium effect size. Levels of individual initiative were found to be
12 With a small effect size. 13 Higher in officers than staff, with a small effect size. 14 With a medium effect size. 15 With a medium effect size. 16 Measured on a 1 to 5 scale.
Section 4 ‐ Descriptive Results
14
higher at higher ranks and grades. Work‐home conflict is significantly higher for police officers
(5.33) than staff (3.69), with a large effect size.
Self‐esteem and self‐concept clarity were found to be at positive levels. This suggests
individuals, on average, have high self‐worth and self‐confidence and that they have a clear
idea of their own identity. Psychological detachment was reported as generally low, with an
average score of 3.95.17 This suggests that individuals across the force have difficulty in
mentally detaching themselves from job‐related issues, problems or opportunities when away
from their working environment. The average score for emotional energy was 4.46.18 This is a
very important measure that relates to individual well‐being and behaviour. While the profile
of scores for staff is encouraging, the profile of scores for officers is less positive in that there
are a relatively high number of officers reporting lower scores. For sleep quality the average
score reported by police staff was higher than officers, with a small effect size. The average
sleep quality score of 2.52 19 suggests that a high number of individuals have poor sleep
quality.20
Agile Working
An examination of differences between staff reporting undertaking ‘Agile’ working, and those
not, suggested a high level of benefit for this work practice; ‘Agile’ workers reported higher
scores for fairness perceptions, empowerment, engagement and job satisfaction.
17 Higher in staff than officers with a small effect size. 18 Higher in police staff than officers with a medium effect size. 19Measured on a 1 to 5 scale.20 43% of staff and 61% of officers reported a poor or very poor level of sleep quality.
Section 5 ‐ Relationships between Key Measures
15
5 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN KEY MEASURES
5.1 Introduction to Analysis of Relationships between Key Measures
In this section we present the findings of a series of statistical analyses to test relationships
between the key measures (a significance level of p < .05 is adopted for all reported results).
Whilst in a cross‐sectional study it is not possible to establish causality, we adopt an approach
of prediction of relationships between variables from theoretical considerations and from
prior research. We then test the generated hypotheses using linear regression analyses and
PROCESS analysis.21 The general model shown in Figure 1 is adopted for testing relationships.
In regression models, we control for the effects of gender, age, role and tenure in policing.
Figure 1: A General Model for Testing
5.2 The Impact of Leadership
As can be seen in Table 3, leadership behaviour has a positive impact on individuals’ attitudes
and behaviours. This means that when an individual feels that their leader is focused on
developing them to their fullest potential, they will show more positive attitudes and
behaviours than when the individual does not feel this. When the level of leadership
behaviour displayed by the immediate supervisor is high, individuals will feel higher levels of
empowerment, engagement and job satisfaction.
21 Hayes (2014)
Performance and
Outcomes
Individuals’
Attitudes,
Motivation,
and Behaviours
Processes of
Organisational
Work
Section 5 ‐ Relationships between Key Measures
16
Table 3: The Impact of Leadership
Measure All
Vision Clarity +
Engagement ++
Empowerment ++
Public Service Motivation +
Commitment to the Public +
Emotional Energy +
Job Satisfaction +++
Voice Behaviour +
+ / ‐ denotes whether the impact of the measure is positive or negative
Positive leadership behaviour also increases individuals’ public service motivation, their
commitment to the public and vision clarity. Voice behaviours are enhanced when leadership
behaviour is high, suggesting that employees are more willing to speak up (about issues and
concerns in the workplace) when high levels of leadership behaviour are displayed. As can be
seen from Figure 2, leadership behaviour also has positive effects on individuals’ self‐esteem
and self‐concept clarity, which in turn have positive effects on emotional energy. When
individuals feel respected and valued, self‐esteem and self‐concept clarity are enhanced,
which can make them more resilient in stressful circumstances and lead to the maintenance
of higher emotional energy levels.
Figure 2: Leadership Predicting Emotional Energy through Impacts on Self‐Esteem and
Self‐Concept Clarity
Section 5 ‐ Relationships between Key Measures
17
5.3 The Impact of Fairness Perceptions
The HMIC report on the state of policing (HMIC, 2014)22 identifies the need for fair treatment
of employees as an important factor that affects police officer and staff attitudes which will in
turn influence their behaviours. The impact of fairness perceptions are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: The Impact of Fairness Perceptions
Measure All
Perceived Organisational Support +++
Vision Clarity +++
Engagement +++
Empowerment ++
Commitment to the Public +
Emotional Energy ++
Job Satisfaction +++
Public Service Motivation ++
Voice Behaviour +
+ / ‐ denotes whether the impact of the measure is positive or negative
Figure 3 illustrates the relationships that occur between fairness, perceived organisational
support, job satisfaction, emotional energy and engagement. Fairness perceptions positively
influence perceptions of organisational support, which in turn positively influence levels of
job satisfaction, emotional energy and engagement. When perceptions of fairness and
organisational support are increased this will have positive effects on individuals’ levels of job
satisfaction, engagement and emotional energy.
Fairness perceptions are also positively related to vision clarity, public service motivation,
empowerment, commitment to the public and individuals’ willingness to engage in voice
behaviour.
22 HMIC (2014). State of Policing: The Annual Assessment of Policing in England and Wales 2013/2014. London: Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary. Published 31 March 2014.
Section 5 ‐ Relationships between Key Measures
18
Figure 3: The Importance of Fairness Perceptions
5.4 The Impact of Public Service Motivation
The impacts of public service motivation are shown in Table 5. When levels of public service
motivation are high, individuals are more satisfied with their job, more committed to the
public and more willing to perform voice behaviours. Moreover, public service motivation
also leads to higher levels of engagement and individual initiative. This suggests that when
individuals have high levels of public service motivation, they are more willing to invest extra
effort into their work and voluntarily engage in spontaneous work behaviours that go beyond
what is expected of them.
Table 5: The Impact of Public Service Motivation
Measure All
Engagement +++
Commitment to the Public +++
Individual Initiative ++
Job Satisfaction ++
Voice (Promotive) ++
Voice (Prohibitive) +
Voice (Ethics) ++
+ / ‐ denotes whether the impact of the measure is positive or negative
Section 6 – Conclusions
19
6 CONCLUSIONS
Ethical leadership across the force is high. This suggests that individuals believe that their
immediate supervisors are ethical people, who manage morality actively and treat them
fairly. Leadership behaviour is also at a high level.
Levels of empowerment, engagement and commitment to the public are positive. Individuals’
level of Code of Ethics values alignment and public service motivation are also high.
Similar to other forces across the country, perceptions of fairness and organisational support
are low and levels of uncertainty are high.
When individuals feel respected and valued, self‐esteem and self‐concept clarity are
enhanced, which can make them more resilient in stressful circumstances and lead to higher
emotional energy.
Levels of voice behaviours are high, suggesting that individuals’ willingness to communicate
ideas and suggestions on work‐related issues with the intent to make improvements is high.
Predictive analyses confirm the importance of perceived fairness and organisational support
for the achievement of well‐being and service delivery. Psychological detachment is found to
be important for sleep quality and emotional energy.
