Unformatted Attachment Preview
Term Paper (DRAFT)
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of MAN 6245
Professor G. Ron Gilbert, Ph.D.
April 27th, 2020
This research aimed to determine how ratings of employees of the psychiatric
hospital compare to the ratings of employees working in other organizations, to compare
the ratings of employees working in units within the organization compare, to determine
organizational strengths and greatest opportunities for improvement in the organization,
as well as to come up with ways that will enable the organization to improve
To achieve the above objective a survey instrument was used. It of the research,
the Organizational Performance Assessment, which contains 17 twenty measures that are
associated with organizational effectiveness. n total that enable an organization to
compare and contrast its organizational effectiveness to those of its competitors, was
used. In this report, only seventeen dimensions contained in the first two sections of the
OPA, Internal Structures and Processes, and Support Activities were used to realize the
main objective of the research. Forty-three employees provided responses to the
seventeen dimensions of the Organizational Performance Assessment across nine
departments of the Psychiatric Hospital on February 7, 2014.
The results showed that employees believed that only one measure of the first
section of the OPA, Internal Structures and Processes, i.e., MISN (Employees believe in
the organization’s work & are committed to the mission) of the Psychiatric Hospital gave
it a competitive advantage because it was rated as being above the industry average.
Responses to all the remaining nine measures of Internal Structures and Processes
pointed to the conclusion that overall, Psychiatric Hospital was performing below the
industry average, and thus, creating an opportunity for improvements.
We recommend…… The above needs a good edit.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..………….…………….…………….……………... 2
Introduction & Purpose …………….…………….…………….………… 4
Methodology …………….…………….…………….…………………… 4 - 7
Data Summary & Analysis …………….……………..…….……………. 7 - 10
Interpretation of Findings ………………..……………….……………… 10 - 12
Summary & Recommendations ...……………….……………….………. 12 - 13
References ….…….…………….……………….……………….……….. 14 - 15
Appendix A ….…...…………….……………….……………….……….. 16 - 20
Appendix B …………………….……………….……………….……….. 21
Introduction and Purpose
Team 7 of MAN 6245 prepared this report for the Psychiatric Hospital. The report
takes into consideration the responses to the Organizational Performance Assessment
(OPA) from forty-three employees across nine departments completed on February 7,
2014. Our report will answer (shed light) the following questions: How do the ratings by
the employees of the psychiatric hospital compare to the ratings of employees working in
other organizations? How do the ratings of employees working in units within the
organization compare? What are the organizational strengths and greatest opportunities
for improvement? What do we recommend be done to enable the organization to
improve? This report will not provide information about the organization because it has
not been shared with us.
For more than twenty years, the Organizational Performance Assessment’s (OPA)
scientifically validated measures have been used by more than twenty thousand
individuals from over three hundred organizations in business, not-for-profit, and
government agencies. The OPA contains twenty measures in total that are ultimately used
to correlate your company’s organizational effectiveness when juxtaposed to others.
These measures are then divided into three sections: Internal Structures and Processes,
Support Activities, and Outcome Measures. Each section provides valuable insights into
how employees ranked internal measures within the organization, which helps define
structures and processes needing improvement. This report will focus on seventeen
dimensions contained in the first two sections of the OPA, Internal Structures and
Processes and Support Activities. This report will not provide an analysis of the last three
dimensions contained in the third section, Outcome Measures.
Ten measures are found in the first section of the OPA, Internal Structures and
Processes. The measures included in this section are Importance of Mission (MISN),
Supportive Policies Toward the Workforce (POLI), Facilitative Organizational Design
(DSGN), Positive Working Conditions (WORK), Pay and Benefits (PAY), Open
Communications With Employees (COMM), Employee Loyalty and Pride (LOYL),
Operational Efficiency (EFFI), Customer Oriented Behavior (CUST), and Supplier
Relations (SPLY). These measures may be utilized to facilitate and improve your
organization’s analysis of internal structures and processes. A brief description of these
measures are presented below:
Table 1. Section One Measures with Brief Description
Employees believe in the organization’s work and are committed to the
Organization is perceived to be fair, loyal, and caring to its workforce.
Protocols in place allow for employees to provide great customer service.
Working conditions and environment are pleasant and attractive.
Employees feel that they are fairly compensated.
Employees receive and understand feedback about their performance.
Employees are proud, highly motivated, and loyal to the organization.
Organization is efficient in allocating its resources.
Organizational behavior is customer focused.
Organization supply-chain management is effective.
The second section, Support Activities, contains seven statements that measure
the organization’s perceived capacity to provide effective internal support to its
employees that help them maintain a level of performance conducive to them being
successful at their jobs. These seven statements are: Leads Organizational Change
Effectively, Excels At Fostering Team Based Problem Solving Across Departmental
Units, Excels At Managing Its Human Resources, Excels At Managing Its Financial
Resources, Excels At Managing Its Information Technology, Is Highly Effective At
Building Partnerships with Important Representatives from Other Agencies to
Accomplish Its Goals, and The Leadership of this Organization is Excellent. This section
measures the overall support that the organization provides to its employees to help them
do their job. Please refer to Appendix A for a full description of the seventeen measures
found in the OPA.
Overall, the Psychiatric Hospital employs eighty-three people within the
Accounting, Administration, Business Development, Plant Operations, Medical Records,
Partial Hospitalization, Nursing, Business Office, and Social Work departments. As
stated before, forty-three of the eighty-three employees partook in the survey conducted.
The aforementioned information is detailed in the following table.
Table 2. Employee Response Breakdown
Business Development (BD) 2
Plant Operations (PO)
Medical Records (MR)
Partial Hospitalization (PH)
Business Office (BU)
Social Work (SW)
Data Summary and Analysis
Psychiatric Hospital Results Versus Industry Average
The following graph shows how a total of 43 employees rated each of the ten
measures versus industry average. This graph shows the results of employees who have
taken the assessment.
Score = 50%; within Industry Average
Scores > 50%; Above Average (Competitive Advantage)
Scores < 50%; Below Average (Opportunities for Improvement)
Data Analysis of 10 Measures by Organizational Unit
The OPA included a seven point Liker Type scale that ranged from 1=Strongly
Disagree to 7=Strongly Agree. See figure below:
Figure 1. Seven Point Likert-Type Scale
After the employees took the Organizational Performance Assessment, the
results of the questionnaire were then placed in an organized vertical graph as shown
Figure 2. Vertical Likert-Type Scale
The higher up the bar of the graph, the more positive the score is (strongly agree).
The further below the line, the more negative (strongly disagree).
If an average score on a 1 through 7 scale was 6.10, it would be displayed as 2.10
(positive). A low score of 2.40 of the 1 through 7 scale would be shown on the graph as
1.60 by subtracting 4.00 from the mean.
Summary of the 20 data measures by Organizational Unit/Department
Table 3. Summary of Collected Survey Data
**Note: The last three measurements will not be analyzed** Do not include them.
The table above has been formatted by using three different colors; red, yellow, and
green. This was made in order to analyze the data with better visualization. The red shaded
areas represent lower scores in the Likert-Type scale. The yellow shaded area represents the
middle ranges in the Likert-Type scale. The green shaded area represents the higher scores on
the Likert-Type scale (1=SD, 7=SA).
Interpretations of Findings
Do the employees’ ratings of the psychiatric hospital compare to the ratings of
employees working in other organizations?
Of the employees sampled, using the 10 measures, only one measure was above
50% - which exceeds the industry average. Of the 43 employees surveyed, Importance of
the Mission (MISN) clearly exceeded the industry average at 63.77%. This finding would
indicate that the psychiatric facility maintains a competitive advantage in this area.
A high MISN value reflects that the employees surveyed have a belief that their
work for the psychiatric facility is very important. One of the key characteristics to
determine whether an organizational goal is accomplished is to measure the degree to
which members of the organization know, understand and commit to their organization’s
mission. This is a huge step in the right direction for an organization to achieve its
ultimate goals and a measure, which indicates that the employees’ commitment is in lock
step with the vision of the corporation.
All remaining measures obtained in the employees’ survey ranged between
approximately 27% and 39%. These numbers are below 50% of the Industry average.
Therefore, the measures the fall below the 50% industry average indicate opportunities
for improvement in these areas.
The next highest measure was Facilitative Organizational Design (DSGN). This
measure indicates that the employees surveyed feel the organization’s responsiveness to
decision making is well suited to its existing design. This means the organization has
minimized roadblocks and “red-tape” that are barriers to responsive communications and
interactions with customers. The results indicate that the employees surveyed are not
overburdened with excessive checks and balances that preclude effective responsiveness.
However, the results tend to show that the psychiatric facility’s employee’s scores do fall
below the industry average.
Comparison of Organizational Unit/Department Data Measures (Replace this sub
heading with the actual Research Question you are addressing.)
Comparing the measures collected for each department can allow for the
identification of departmental “hot spots” that are prime opportunities for improvement.
For example, Table 3, indicates at least 13 low scores in the Likert-Type scale for the
Accounting department. Once again, the Table displays a “heat-map” wherein each
measure and corresponding score can be emphasized for further analysis and comparison
with other departments.
A view of Table 3, can quickly indicate that the Partial Hospitalization
department/unit has no areas indicating low scores. Whereas, the Accounting department
has at least 13 low scores . Contrast this with the Business Development department/unit
where there is only one low Likert-Type area indicated. This data can be utilized to shift
attention to areas of interest and to indicate the areas in most need of improvement. For
example, it is worth noting that both the Accounting Department/unit and the Business
Development department/unit both indicate low Likert-Type scale scores in the Excels at
Managing its IT. In the Open Questions section of the OPA, in answering the question
I do not think this needs to be discussed here. It is important, but does not fit
here. “What does the organization need to do better?”, the Business Development
department/unit indicated that one way would be to improve communication across
departments. Ideally, this suggestion could be used in connection with the comments
from the Accounting Department to facilitate a solution that incorporates Information
Technology to improve communication.
Summary and Recommendations
You need to specifically address RQ3 and RQ4. Be specific and clear that you are
responding to each of the four RQs This section needs a lot of work.
Based on this report, we recommend enabling the organization to improve requires a
forethought or planning on how health care workers engage with patients. In the most
effective manner possible, the current health mental system should be prepared through
analyzing by creating a draft, implementing, and evaluating a roadmap for measuring and
improving mental health care.
First and foremost, adequate information for mental health planning and delivery
of quality of services such as the involvement of consumer’s advocacy, resources, and
incentives from health care payers or systems is a must. The recommendations for
improving the quality mental health services presented here can apply to healthcare
overall. The steps to be taken includes providing sufficient evidence base for top-tier
measures of services that would measure through optimizing guidelines into quality
measures that could have a denominator or numerator based for the reliability or validity
to ensure the information does not lead to false data, practice guidelines, and finalizing
the measures would be based on endorsement from providers, systems, and patients.
As well as, policy makers or leaders who are well established in adopting the
measures for use in routine practice to align the measures across multiple settings. In
concurrently, identifying a team to focus on the measurement that would be monitored
and provide strategies to incorporate quality improvement where it is necessary.
In conclusion, there are lessons learned from this report that would nudge a
mental health service provider to adopt a learning health care system. The focal point is
to lead the way in the use of other innovative models of integrated care, as well as to
measure the patient’s recovery and services.
Robbins, Stephen, Timothy Judge. (2017). Essentials of Organizational Behavior.
[VitalSource Bookshelf] Retrieved from
Baker, J. J., & Baker, R. W. (2014). Health care finance: basic tools for nonfinancial
managers. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Retrieved from
Dean, Katherine S., Strategies and Benefits of Fostering Intra-Organizational
Collaboration. (2010). College of Professional Studies Professional Projects.
Paper 15 Retrived from
Earle, H.A. (2003), “Building a workplace of choice: using the work environment to
attract and retain top talent”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp.
Forey, G., & Lockwood-Lee, J. (2010). Globalization, Communication and the
Workplace : Talking Across The World. Continuum. Retrieved from
Fragkiadakis, G., Doumpos, M., Zopounidis, C., & Germain, C. (2016). Operational and
economic efficiency analysis of public hospitals in Greece. Annals of Operations
Research, 247(2), 787–806. https://doi-org.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1007/s10479-0141710-7
Kulikowski, K., & Sedlak, P. (n.d.). Can you buy work engagement? The relationship
between pay, fringe benefits, financial bonuses and work engagement.
CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY, 39(1), 343–353. https://doiorg.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1007/s12144-017-9768-4.
Lee, J., & Varon, A. L. (2020). Employee Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect in Response
to Dissatisfying Organizational Situations: It Depends on Supervisory
Relationship Quality. International Journal of Business Communication, 57(1),
Liker, J., & Choi, T. Y. (2014). Building Deep Supplier Relationships. Retrieved from
Rosenthal, R. J. (2015). Volunteer engagement 2.0: ideas and insights for transforming
volunteer programs in a changing world. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Subhash C. Kundu, & Kusum Lata. (2017). Effects of supportive work environment on
employee retention : Mediating role of organizational engagement. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(4), 703–722. https://doiorg.ezproxy.fiu.edu/10.1108/IJOA-12-2016-1100
Truskie, S. D. (1999). Leadership in High-performance Organizational Cultures.
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Wienclaw, R. A. (2019). Organization Design. Salem Press Encyclopedia. Retrieved
Woodman, R. W., & Pasmore, W. A. (2007). Research in organizational change and
development. [electronic resource]. Emerald. Retrieved from https://wwwemerald-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/insight/content/doi/10.1016/S0897-3016(06)160024/full/html
Full Description of the Seventeen Dimensions
Importance of the Mission (MISN)
This dimension measures how employees view and understand the organization’s
objective. For employees to believe in the organization’s mission, they must first
understand what it is. In other words, “organizational members need to know the strategic
intent of their organization” (Truskie, 1999). The organization is responsible for clearly
laying out their mission and to make sure that it is understood by its employees, because
if it is not, then employees may not be compelled to believe in it. This may hinder the
organization’s effectiveness to lead its workforce.
Supportive Policies Toward the Workforce (POLI)
The policies in place at an organization should promote supportive work
environments. If an Organization has supportive policies in place that create such an
environment for their workforce, then employees will develop a positive attitude towards
the employing organization (Subhash C. Kundu, & Kusum Lata, 2017). Supportive
policies are crucial for an organization to retain and motivate quality talent in the
organization (Earle, H.A., 2003). That being said, if an organization is perceived as being
supportive of their workforce, then the organization will benefit from improved
Facilitative Organizational Design (DSGN)
The design in which an organization is structured should facilitate employee
productivity. The organizational design should make it easier for employees to support
the organization’s goal (Wienclaw, R.A., 2019) ...