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
Conference Positive Management 2015
18 & 19 November
POSITIVE EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES
AS A DETERMINANT
OF PROJECT SUCCESS AND BUSINESS
EXCELLENCE: THE CASE OF POLAND
JOANNA HAFFER, PhD
TORUN SCHOOL OF BANKING, FACULTY OF FINANCE AND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
PROF. RAFAŁ HAFFER
NICOLAUS 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
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
RESEARCH PROJECTS INTRODUCTION
5

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
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
PROJECT 1: BUSINESS EXCELLENCE OF ENTERPRISES
6

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
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
PROJECT 1: THE EFQM EXCELLENCE MODEL = THE EUROPEAN QUALITY AWARD
MODEL
7
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
8
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
Self-assessment results for EFQM Excellence Model indicators (PL2007)
PROJECT 1: PROGRESS OF POLISH COMPANIES TOWARDS
BUSINESS EXCELLENCE
PROJECT 1: PROGRESS OF POLISH COMPANIES TOWARDS ORGANIZATIONAL
EXCELLENCE
Correlations 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
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
PROJECT 1: CRITICAL IMPROVEMENT FACTORS FOR POLISH COMPANIES ON THEIR
ROAD TOWARDS BUSINESS EXCELLENCE
Results for individual items of the EFQM Model for PL2007 sample – performance-importance matrix
10
90
80
Performance
70
Feedback on improvement
proposals submitted by employees
Systematic measurement of satisfaction,
loyalty, productivity and absenteeism
Strategy is well known on
of employees
each level of organization
The results of employee satisfaction survey
are a current signpost for improvements
Documented improvements in critical processes
within the space of last three years
65
60
50
Increase of employee satisfaction
Vision and mission of a company are well known among employees
Employee satisfaction indicators are defined
40
Increase of the number of improvement proposals
Individual development plans for every employee are created
30
0,2
0,3
0,4
Importance
0,5
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
0,6
PROJECT 1: CRITICAL IMPROVEMENT FACTORS FOR POLISH COMPANIES ON
THEIR ROAD TOWARDS BUSINESS EXCELLENCE
Results for individual items of the EFQM Model for PL2007 sample
11

Leadership


Strategy


documented improvements in critical processes within the space of last three years
People results






strategy is well known on each level of organization
Processes


vision and mission of a company are well communicated to all employees
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
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
PROJECT 2: THE EFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT
12

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
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
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
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
PROJECT 2: PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS IN COMPANIES OPERATING IN POLAND
Average assessment of the importance of individual groups of factors for project success (PL2008)
14
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
PROJECT 2: PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS IN COMPANIES OPERATING IN POLAND
A part of a list of 87 project success factors ordered according to their importance for project success
(PL2008)
15
13 Factor
connected
with
project
manager
9 Factor
connected
with project
team
1
X
-
2
X
-
3
-
-
4
-
X
5
X
-
6
-
X
7
X
-
8
X
-
9
-
X
10
X
-
11
-
X
12
X
-
13
-
-
14
-
X
15
-
X
16
-
X
17
X
-
18
X
-
19
-
X
20
X
-
21
-
X
22
X
-
23
-
-
24
-
-
25
-
-
26
X
-
27
X
-
28
-
-
29
-
-
No.
1 Factor
connected
with project
Factor name
implementing
organization
FACTORS CRITICAL FOR PROJECT SUCCESS – LIST OF 29
engagement of project manager
sense of responsibility of project manager
clearly defined project objectives (clear and understandable
X
project vision)
engagement of project team members
ability of project manager to react to changes
sense of responsibility of project team members for project results
communicative skills of project manager
leadership skills of project manager
professional / specialist competences of project team members
formal and informal authority of project manager
communicative skills of project team members
skills of project manager in coordination of activities and works
X
atmosphere of cooperation
proper composition of project team
atmosphere stimulating creativity of project team members
acceptance and good relations among team members
speed of decision-making of project manager
previous experience of project manager at a similar post
clarity of division of responsibilities among team members
knowledge and skills of project manager in project management
motivation of team members
ability of project manager to delegate powers
X
regular supervision of implementation of project plan
easy access to suitable resources necessary for project
X
implementation
X
realistic project plan
ability of project manager to reach compromise
motivation of project manager
X
detailed and clear structure of division of duties within project
agreement for active participation of customers (their
X
representatives) in project works / customer involvement
6 Factors
connected
directly with
project
Average
mark
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
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
3RD EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON POSITIVE MANAGEMENT, ROTTERDAM 2015
JOANNA HAFFER, PhD
joanna.haffer@wsb.torun.com.pl
PROF. RAFAŁ HAFFER
rafalh@econ.uni.torun.pl
THANK YOU FOR ATTENTION
Meaningfulness in work: Why Sensitivity Matters
Donna Morrow, MBA, PMP
Doctoral Student, Satish & Yasmin Gupta College of Business, University of Dallas
Sue Conger, PhD
Professor, 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
and Vohs, 2002; Cartwright and Holmes, 2006)
(Baumeister
– 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
Springett, 2004)
(Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Holbeche and
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.