Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Barasde, S - Stanford CultureofLove Presentation April2013
Barasde, S - Stanford CultureofLove Presentation April2013
Barasde, S - Stanford CultureofLove Presentation April2013
: A Longitudinal Study of the Influence of a Culture of Companionate Love on Employee and Client Outcomes in the Long-term Care Industry
Sigal Barsade & Olivia (Mandy) O Neill Wharton School School of Management University of Pennsylvania George Mason University
service, of business: to give an opportunity for individual development through the better organization of human relationships. . . .I think it
offers a larger opportunity than any single profession in the possibilities of those intimate human interweavings through which all development of man must come.
Mary Parker Follett, 1925, p. 113
Link
Companies are also beginning to recognize the importance of companionate love as part of their culture
Pepsi Caring is the first guiding principles MagnaPowerTrain Caring as a key value Zappos We watch out for each other, care for each other, and go above and beyond for each other- CEO Tony Hsieh Love is first of Whole Foods management. principles
BUT. Organizational culture research has ignored the construct of emotional culture, focusing only on shared cognitions, or cognitive culture.
Method
Sample comes from a large not-for-profit long-term healthcare facility in a metro city in the Northeast. 185 employees, 108 patients and 42 families across 13 units in the geographic sites. Multiple ratings of a culture of companionate love: outside research observers, employees, and patients families Multiple measures of employee, patient and family outcomes spanning the attitudinal, emotional, behavioral, and health domains. Includes ratings of patient mood, objective patient health care outcomes, and employee absenteeism. Longitudinal: Predictor variables were gathered at Time 1 and all dependent variables were collected 16 months later (Time 2)
The Influence of a Culture of Companionate Love on Employee, Patient and Family Outcomes
Employee outcomes Teamwork Satisfaction Emotional exhaustion Absenteeism
Patient outcomes Satisfaction Quality of Life Mood (rated by CNAs) Health (objective measures) Patient family outcomes Satisfaction Willingness to Recommend Facility
home for the patients, it has been a home for me. My co-workers have been a family. They have watched me grow. Since I started coming here theyve been cooperative, compassionate and moreover, loving. Comment from Nurse My co-workers are caring, compassionate people Nurse The staff genuinely cares and feels the loss, which shows their compassion. Family member commenting on how employees deal
with patient death on the units I love them all. Family Member
Conclusion
A culture of companionate love positively impacts employees, patients and their families Leaders need to consider and manage emotional culture as well as cognitive culture
Create organizational structures and procedures to support a culture of love
Leaders own emotions influence the culture emotional contagion Leaders coaching others in companionate love can help their own health
Questions?
Thank you!
Appendix Slides
Does a Culture of Companionate Love Matter in Other Industries? Relationship to Employee Attitudes
Relationship between of Culture of Companionate Love and: Employee Job Satisfaction (r=.23, p < .001) Employee commitment to the organization (r=.23, p < .001) Accountability for individual work performance (r =.07, p < .01)
Longitudinal Models Predicting Employee Engagement and Withdrawal at Time 2 from Outside Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Employee Teamworka Time 2 Employee Satisfactionb Time 2 Employee Emotional Exhaustiona -.18 -.32 -.22 .00 .05 -.28 -1.78 -.40 .07 Time 2 Employee Absenteeismc
Site 1 Site 2 Male Tenure Certified nursing assistant Trait positive affectivity Social desirability Culture of companionate love Outsider raters observations Pseudo R2
*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 156 observations nested in 13 units; b n = 137 observations nested in 13 units. cn = 120 observations nested in 13 units p < .05, p< .01, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).
Longitudinal Models Predicting Employee Engagement and Withdrawal at Time 2 from Employees Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Employee Teamworka Time 2 Employee Satisfactionb Time 2 Employee Emotional Exhaustiona -.15 -.13 -.29 .00 .02 -.37 -1.70 -.07 -.30 Time 2 Employee Absenteeismc
Site 1 Site 2 Male Tenure Certified nursing assistant Trait positive affectivity Social desirability Culture of companionate love Employees observations Culture of companionate love * Trait positive affectivity Pseudo R2
.15
.21
.08
.00
*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Trait affectivity, social desirability, culture of companionate love, and interaction terms all grand-mean centered. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 137 observations nested in 13 units; b n = 156 observations nested in 13 units. cn = 120 observations nested in 13 units p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).
Figure 1: Interaction of a Culture of Companionate Love and Trait Positive Affect on Employee Satisfaction.
Figure 2: Interaction of a Culture of Companionate Love and Trait Positive Affect on Employee Teamwork.
Figure 3: Interaction of a Culture of Companionate Love and Trait Positive Affect on Employee Emotional Exhaustion.
Longitudinal Models Predicting Resident Mood at Time 2 from Outside Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Predictor Variables Time 2 Resident Pleasant Mood (as rated by primary Certified Nursing Assistants) a
Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Outside raters observations Pseudo R2
.10
p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).
Longitudinal Models Predicting Resident Satisfaction and Quality of Life at Time 2 from Outside Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Predictor Variables Time 2 Resident Satisfaction a Time 2 Resident Quality of Life Dignity b Time 2 Resident Quality of Life Good Relationships b
Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Outside raters observations Pseudo R2
.04
.18
.10
*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 32 observations nested in 13 units; bn = 39 observations nested in 13 units. p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).
Longitudinal Models Predicting Resident Health Outcomes at Time 2 from Outside Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Predictor Variables
Time 2 Resident Weight Gain a Time 2 Resident Fewer Trips to Emergency Room a .25 .07 -.04 1.61 .02 Time 2 Resident Lower Incidence of Ulcers b -.31 -.19 -1.16 .20 .09
Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Outside raters observations Pseudo R2
*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 114 observations nested in 13 units; b n = 111 observations nested in 13 units. p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).
Longitudinal Models Predicting Family Attitudes at Time 2 from Outsider Raters Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Family Member Satisfaction a -.18 .38 .26 -.43 .17 .32 .16 Time 2 Family Member Would Recommend to Othersa -.32 .19 .31 -.47 .11 .29 .20
Site 1 Site 2 Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Outsider raters observations Pseudo R2
*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. Poor health, cognitive impairment, and poor physical functioning measures are for the family member in the hospital. a n = 91 observations nested in 13 units. p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).
Longitudinal Models Predicting Family Attitudinal Variables at Time 2 from Family Observations of Culture of Companionate Love at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Time 2 Family Member Satisfactiona Family Member would Recommend to Othersa
Site 1 Site 2 Poor health (Time 2) Cognitive impairment (Time 2) Poor physical functioning (Time 2) Culture of companionate love Family observations Pseudo R2
*Unstandardized beta coefficients. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. Poor health, cognitive impairment, and poor physical functioning
measures are for the family member in the hospital. a n = 47 observations nested in 13 units. p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).
Table 10: Longitudinal Models Predicting Employee Engagement and Withdrawal at Time 2 from Culture of Companionate Love Artifacts at Time 1*
Time 1 Predictor Variables Time 2 Employee Teamworka .91 .69 .35 .00 .11 .05 1.31 .55 .05 Time 2 Employee Satisfactionb .35 .76 .32 .00 -.06 .06 1.40 .44 .10 Time 2 Employee Emotional Exhaustionb -.95 -.72 -.30 .00 .01 -.29 -1.68 -.48 .08 Time 2 Employee Absenteeism -1.08 -.62 -.01 .00 .51 -.04 -.24 -.38 .09
Site 1 Site 2 Male Tenure Certified nursing assistant Trait positive affectivity Social desirability Culture of companionate love Artifacts Pseudo R2
*Unstandardized coefficients are reported. Time 2 measures collected 16 months later. a n = 156 observations nested in 13 units; b n = 137 observations nested in 13 units. n = 120 observations nested in 13 units p < .05, p< .01, p< .001, two-tailed tests (control variables), one-tailed test (culture of companionate love).
link
Consequences
Individual attitudes and behaviors Group dynamics and effectiveness Organizational survival & effectiveness
Individual Differences
Trait affect Emotional intelligence Propensity towards Emotional Contagion Big-5 Personality Variable