Univerzitet u Novom Sadu Filozofski fakultet Odsek za psihologiju ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Abstract There are a number of similar concepts of organizational health. According to the Organizational Health Model (Hart & Cooper, 2001), organizational health can be understood as a quintessential nodal link between stress, individual performance, and organizational performance. The model also represents a turning point in the field of occupational stress research, because it focuses simultaneously on both individual indicators of stress and well-being (for example burnout and vitality), and the indicators of organizational performance (such as organizational citizenship behaviour and turnover intentions). Many organizational characteristics (such as the perception of working conditions), as well as individual personality traits of employees (such as positive and negative affectivity), have been shown to play an important role in the stress process. On the other hand, little is known about the role(s) that (ir)rational beliefs play in the development of stress and wellbeing in employees. The main aim of this study was to test whether conditions at work and (ir)rational beliefs can predict some of the organizational health indicators, such as burnout, work engagement, psychosomatic symptoms, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), absenteeism and turnover intentions. To address this question, research was conducted on a sample of 477 employees of both genders, with an average age of 39 years, permanently employed in 18 public and private sector companies in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina in Serbia. The final model showed an acceptable fit to the data (S-Bχ²(1036)= 1721.35, p< .01, CFI=.91, NFI= .80, NNFI= .91, RMSEA= .04, SRMR= .06). It has been demonstrated that positive experiences at work positively predicted work engagement and, consistent with our hypotheses, they did not have a significant direct effect on psychosomatic symptoms, nor on burnout. On the other hand, negative work experiences were found to increase burnout, but, contrary to our hypotheses, they were not related to psychosomatic symptoms. Finally, negative work experiences, as expected, did not predict work engagement either. It was also shown that irrational beliefs partially mediate the relationship between work experiences and some of the stress indicators, namely, psychosomatic symptoms and work engagement. It can be also concluded that burnout increases turnover intentions, but it does not predict absenteeism. On the other hand, psychosomatic symptoms proved to increase absenteeism, while their relationship with turnover intentions was not clear and needs further investigation.
The final structural model works better for public sector employees, as compared to the private sector, with few differences in the significance of parameters. In addition, employees in public and private companies reported a similar level of overall organizational health. Finally, women, together with employees with lower levels of education proved to be more prone to develop stress symptoms, although the latter finding was not evident for all the variables measured. The study presented here is the first of its kind in Serbia and has important implications for the theory and practice of organizational health and well-being of employees. The limitations of the study arise mainly from the cross-sectional design of the research and the fact that all variables were measured using self-report scales. Future research should direct more attention towards the specific dimensions of organizational climate, specific (ir)rational beliefs, as well as a broader range of organizational performance indicators. Keywords: organizational health, working conditions, irrational and rational beliefs, occupational stress.
Page 1 and 2: Univerzitet u Novom Sadu Filozofski
Page 3 and 4: Fizički opis rada: FO Naučna obla
Page 5 and 6: Članovi komisije: (ime i prezime /
Page 7 and 8: Physical description: PD Scientific
Page 9 and 10: Thesis Defend Board: DB president:
Page 11: Dobijeni finalni model bolje funkci
Page 15 and 16: Uslovi na radu i individualna uvere
Page 63 and 64:
Uslovi na radu i individualna uvere
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Univerzitet u Novom Sadu I Filozofs
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199:
show all

Univerzitet u Novom Sadu Filozofski fakultet Odsek za psihologiju ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?