Honest Mistakes: an Important Predictor for Work Engagement: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Vivi Li and Version 2 by Vivi Li.

Multiple studies highlight the link between engagement at work and performance, influencing organizations to put more effort into improving employee engagement levels. High levels of engagement at work (e.g., Work Engagement or WE) in the public sector directly impact the health, education, and economic services obtained by the population. ThRe influence of multiple psychological parameters on employees’ work engagement (WE) within the public sector are examined. The idesearchers' idea is to break the concept of WE down into eight individually measurable parameters that will allow for a better understanding and development of stronger interventions: strategic clarity, honest mistakes, work appreciation, a caring environment, trust, clear expectations, psychological safety, and autonomy. Honest mistakes refers to how mistakes are perceived within an organization and is an Important predictor for work engagement.

  • honest mistakes
  • public sector management
  • work engagement
  • future of work
  • remote work
  • mistakes

1. Introduction

High levels of engagement at work (e.g., Work Engagement or WE) in the public sector directly impact the health, education, and economic services obtained by the population [1][2]. A large body of work has studied the connection between WE and productivity, showing a possible correlation between the two in a wide range of cultures, professions, and over time [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. For instance, a two-year investigation by the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) showed that low WE in employees is linked to subsequent patient mortality, even when prior patient mortality is controlled for [14]. Additionally, WE is found to be positively correlated with nations’ economic activity and productivity based on data of 43,850 employees from 35 European countries [15]. Similar dynamics occur in the private sector as well. Organizations with high levels of WE have significantly lower levels of workplace stress [16] and workplace accidents [17]. Engaged employees in private sector organizations have a higher perception of individual impact in addition to feeling more creative, innovative [18], and being physically healthier [19].
Nonetheless, some organizations are not putting sufficient emphasis on increasing employee WE [20][21]. The public sector, in particular, governments and their offices, are performing notably worse at engaging their employees than their private-sector counterparts [22]. This research examines the relative importance of money and eight psychological parameters (strategic clarity, honest mistakes, work appreciation, caring environment, trust, clear expectations, psychological safety, autonomy) previously shown to influence WE levels.
While most studies about WE have focused on one specific mechanism and its influence on WE, this research examines the relative importance of money and additional eight psychological parameters (strategic clarity, honest mistakes, work appreciation, caring environment, trust, clear expectations, psychological safety, autonomy) previously shown to influence WE levels. In addition to showing the importance of having these parameters balanced in a work environment to achieve higher levels of WE, researchers introduces a new formalization of the Honest Mistakes concept, which is the perceived ability to make mistakes and learn/grow from them without facing significant repercussions.

2. Predictors for Work Engagement  and Honest Mistakes

Commonly, work engagement (WE) is defined as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” [23]. WE is most often measured by the Utrecht WE index [24][25][26] alongside other scales [27][28][29][30][31]. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) adopted the Utrecht index to measure levels of WE in the public sector [32]. The adapted WE index has high validity and reliability. Nonetheless, this index does not help break down the social and psychological parameters that influence the WE in practice and simply provides an overview. Looking beyond the index, toward a more nuanced view of WE, would allow for the development of stronger interventions. Namely, the main contribution of this research is the breakdown of the WE into individually measurable parameters, providing a better understanding of the sociological and work environmental mechanisms that are taking part in defining the level of WE of employees. The literature on WE and motivation has distinguished multiple mechanisms that have been shown to influence it empirically. Based on this literature of mechanisms and dependencies, researchers define eight parameters that show strong connections to WE across several cultures, sectors, and times: namely, strategic clarity, honest mistakes, work appreciation, a caring environment, trust, clear expectations, psychological safety, and autonomy. Researchers also include monetary compensation in researchers' analyses to be consistent with recent research. A schematic view of these parameters is provided in Figure 1, and a summary of these properties is provided in Table 1. Further descriptions of these parameters are found in the following paragraphs.
Figure 1. A schematic view of the psychological parameters that influence work engagement.
Table 1. A summary of the parameters used in the Work Engagement (WE) modeling.
Name Description
Strategic clarity Feeling of purpose in one’s work, alignment to company vision.
Honest mistakes Perceived ability to make mistakes and learn/grow from them without facing significant repercussions.
Work appreciation Continuous perception of organizational appreciation for one’s individual contribution.
Caring environment Willingness of coworkers to reciprocate care and consideration in social exchanges.
Trust Trust in how one’s organization and/or its leaders will behave in the future and transparency of policies and processes.
Clear expectations Well-defined objectives and goals combined with well-given feedback.
Psychological safety The absence of psychological and social risk or harm within a team, safety and support in taking risks.
Autonomy Ability to exercise one’s independent judgment at work, control over decisions within one’s job.
Money Absolute value of monetary compensation given to the employee as a result of the work, salary or in-kind compensation.
Strategic clarity is related to meaning at work, i.e., purpose. The literature suggests that having a sense of purpose comes from two levels, finding intrinsic value in daily activities and believing the broader work to be worth doing, which is clearly the case for mission-oriented positions [33]. An extensive body of research has debated how much doing broadly meaningful work influences employee outcomes, but many believe meaningful work has significant positive impacts [34][35][36]. In addition, emphasizing meaning in daily activities has also been shown to increase motivation and productivity [37]. Researchers primarily focus on the former of these components with the strategic clarity parameter, as this is more applicable at the organizational level. Honest mistakes refers to how mistakes are perceived within an organization. The perception of mistakes at work, at the employee and team level, has been shown to be associated with work outcomes. Although it would seem intuitive for mistakes to impact outcomes such as productivity, Edmondson et al. found evidence supporting a relationship in the opposite direction when self-reported [38]. More productive teams were found to make more mistakes than unproductive teams, which qualitative data indicated stemmed from a greater willingness to report mistakes rather than actually making more mistakes. However, a study on residents in the Netherlands found that those with burnout reported more mistakes than engaged ones [39]. The nuance with these results is attributed to how mistakes are perceived. According to past research, the challenge to learn from mistakes comes from the need to overcome a great psychological discomfort caused by the threat to one’s self-esteem. This discomfort needs to be overcome to allow an investigative process to occur about the situation that leads to learning from it [38][40][41]. To do that, a positive culture around errors needs to be fostered. Recent studies suggest that a learning climate and mistake acceptance allow for true learning [42] and that there is a relationship between leaders’ forgiveness and organizational performance [43]. Learning behavior also mediates team psychological safety and team performance [44][45]. Research suggests there is a fine line to walk with negative feedback, needing to create a slight sense of shame to motivate change but framed as a learning opportunity to support employees’ recovery [46]. If organizations are not successful at limiting shame through the perception of mistakes, employee well-being is harmed in the short term and WE is harmed in the long term. Caring environment is one that cares for its employees. Flourishing positive emotions of employees impacts levels of trust [47], influences how information is processed [48], builds enduring personal resources [49], and mediates the expression of values in behaviors [50][51]. Showing concern and respect for subordinates has a strong direct relationship with the degree to which employees are satisfied with their leaders [7] and their engagement at work [52]. Psychological safety is when there is a “shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking” [52][53]. Employees who feel high levels of psychological safety are more likely to be highly motivated. More impressively, a longitudinal study at Google found psychological safety to be the strongest predictor of highly successful teams [54]. One explanation for the importance of psychological safety within teams, in addition to its influence on WE, is its significant mediation of teams’ creative output [55]. The growing research on psychological safety suggests seemly endless benefits toward employee outcomes, leading more researchers to focus on the drivers of psychological safety [56]. A popular variable influencing psychological safety is perceived organizational support, where high levels of support from leaders and managers result in high levels of psychological safety [57]. Work appreciation is about how employees feel valued at work. When leaders and teammates believe employees are capable and important and pass this information through daily behaviors and attitudes, employees will internalize such information and form positive self-evaluations, impacting their motivation [58][59]. Clear expectations is about the importance of employees knowing what is expected of them. Due to uncertainty aversion—a psychological factor that describes the tendency to prefer the known to the unknown—clarifying expectations is important to achieving high levels of WE. Setting clear goals and giving effective feedback positively impacts WE as well [7][60][61][62]. In addition, by informing and enabling personal improvement, evaluating one’s deficiencies and focusing on positive change impacts WE [63]. Trust is a leading indicator of how employees believe an organization and/or its leaders will behave in the future [64]. Trust is correlated with engagement [65] and performance [51][66]. Management Transparency enables managers to set a personal example for their employees and establish an organizational culture of openness, trust, and sharing that encourages employees to take initiative and risk [67]. The ability to execute is when the employee knows the effort put into work is not going to be wasted. Successful managers understand that the real value of strategy can only be recognized through execution. As a recent survey of portfolio managers put it: “The ability to execute strategy was more important than the quality of the strategy itself”. It doesn’t matter how good the plan is if you cannot make it happen [68]. Autonomy refers to the degree of freedom and independence the employee has to exercise his/her judgment at work [69]. Perceived autonomy initiates regulatory processes that are qualitatively different from those that are initiated when the functional significance of the events or context is controlled [70]. The degrees of freedom and independence that were given to the employee to exercise his/her judgment at work were found to enhance intrinsic motivation [71] and increased the ability to satisfy high needs such as a sense of meaning at work and a sense of self-realization, improving performance in the long term [72].

References

  1. Al-Tkhayneh, K.; Kot, S.; Shestak, V. Motivation and demotivation factors affecting productivity in public sector. Adm. Manag. Public 2019, 33, 77–102.
  2. Bovaird, T. Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 846–860.
  3. Vigoda-Gadot, E.; Eldor, L.; Schohat, L. Engage Them to Public Service: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination of Employee Engagement in Public Administration. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2017, 43, 518–538. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/12317990/Engage_Them_to_Public_Service_Conceptualization_and_Empirical_Examination_of_Employee_Engagement_in_Public_Administration (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  4. Jin, M.H.; McDonald, B. Understanding Employee Engagement in the Public Sector: The Role of Immediate Supervisor, Perceived Organizational Support, and Learning Opportunities. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2017, 47, 881–897.
  5. Hayes, M.; Chumney, F.; Wright, C.; Buckingham, M. The Global Study of Engagement—Technical Report; ADP Research Institute: Roseland, NJ, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.adp.com/-/media/adp/resourcehub/pdf/adpri/adpri0102_2018_engagement_study_technical_report_release%20ready.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  6. Hayes, M.; Buckingham, M. The Global Study of Engagement—Technical Report; ADP Research Institute: Roseland, NJ, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiE2PmWsJ_4AhW1tlYBHadXDOMQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ufic.ufl.edu%2FDocuments%2FAnnualReport201920.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Gw1ApVoGJcY8rTANSM6bI (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  7. Assis, L.O.M.D. Compreendendo as Variações e os Determinantes Do Engajamento E Motivação Para o Trabalho de Servidores Públicos. Repositorio UNAN. 2019. Available online: https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/27716 (accessed on 15 April 2022). (In Portuguese).
  8. Vigoda-Gadot, E.; Eldor, L.; Schohat, L.M. Engage Them to Public Service: Conceptualization and Empirical Examination of Employee Engagement in Public Administration. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2013, 43, 518–538. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258126454_Engage_Them_to_Public_Service_Conceptualization_and_Empirical_Examination_of_Employee_Engagement_in_Public_Administration (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  9. Reis de Souza Camões, M.; Oliveira Gomes, A. Engajamento no Trabalho: Conceitos, Teorias e Agenda de Pesquisa para o Setor Público. Adm. Pública Gestão Soc. 2021, 3. (In Portuguese)
  10. Dodge, T.; D’Analeze, G. Employee Engagement Task Force “Nailing the Evidence” Workgroup; Bruce Rayton University of Bath School of Management, Marks and Spencer Plc: London, UK, 2012.
  11. Hanaysha, J. Improving employee productivity through work engagement: Empirical evidence from higher education sector. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2016, 6, 61–70.
  12. Stairs, S.; Galpin, M. Positive Engagement: From Employee Engagement to Workplace Happiness. In Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009.
  13. Truss, C.; Shantz, A.; Soane, E.; Alfes, K.; Delbridge, R. Employee engagement, organisational performance and individual well-being: Exploring the evidence, developing the theory. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 2657–2669.
  14. Jeve, Y.B.; Oppenheimer, C.; Konje, J. Employee engagement within the NHS: A cross-sectional study. Public Adm. Rev. 2015, 4, 85–90.
  15. Maroni, E. Productivity in the Dutch Public Sector: The Case of Libraries and Fire Services; CBS: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
  16. Anthony-McMann, P.E.; Ellinger, A.D.; Astakhova, M.; Halbesleben, J.R.B. Exploring Different Operationalizations of Employee Engagement and Their Relationships with Workplace Stress and Burnout. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2017, 28, 163–195.
  17. Whiteoak, J.W.; Mohamed, S. Employee engagement, boredom and frontline construction workers feeling safe in their workplace. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 93, 291–298.
  18. Bellon, J.S.; Estevez-Cubilete, A.; Rodriguez, N.; Dandy, R.; Lane, S.; Deringer, E. Employee Engagement and Customer Satisfaction. Allied Acad. Int. Conf. 2010, 7, 1–5.
  19. Leijten, F.R.M.; van den Heuvel, S.G.; van der Beek, A.J.; Ybema, J.F.; Robroek, S.J.W.; Burdorf, A. Associations of Work-Related Factors and Work Engagement with Mental and Physical Health: A 1-Year Follow-up Study Among Older Workers. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2015, 25, 86–95.
  20. Kashyap, V.; Chaudhary, R. Linking Employer Brand Image and Work Engagement: Modelling Organizational Identification and Trust in Organization as Mediators. South Asian J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 6, 177–201.
  21. Rothmann, S.; Jorgensen, L.I.; Hill, C. Coping and work engagement in selected South African organisations. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2011, 37, 1–11.
  22. Soelton, M.; Amaelia, P.; Prasetyo, H. Dealing with Job Insecurity, Work Stress, and Family Conflict of Employees. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Management, Economics and Business, Berlin, Germany, 15 December 2020.
  23. Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B. Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research; Psychology Press: Hove, England, 2010; pp. 10–24.
  24. Schaufeli, W.; Bakker, A. UWES—Utrecht Work Engagement Scale—Preliminary Manual, Version 1.1; Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2004.
  25. Seppala, P.; Mauno, S.; Feldt, T.; Hakanen, J.; Kinnunen, U.; Tolvanen, A. ando Schaufeli, W. The Construct Validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and Longitudinal Evidence; Springer Science+Business Media B.V.: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.
  26. Schaufeli, W.B. General Engagement: Conceptualization and Measurement with the Utrecht General Engagement Scale (UGES). J. Well-Being Assess. 2017, 1, 9–24.
  27. Costa, P.L.; Passos, A.M.; Bakker, A.B. Team work engagement: A model of emergence. J. Occup. Organ. Phychol. 2014, 87.
  28. Petrovic, I.B.; Vukelic, M.; Cizmic, S. Work Engagement in Serbia: Psychometric Properties of the Serbian Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Front. Phychol. 2017, 8, 1799.
  29. Selander, K. Work Engagement in the Third Sector. VOLUNTAS Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2015, 26, 1391–1411.
  30. Shimazu, A.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Kosugi, S.; Suzuki, A.; Nashiwa, H.; Kato, A.; Sakamoto, A.; Irimajiri, H.; Amano, S.; Hirohata, K.; et al. Work Engagement in Japan: Validation of the Japanese Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 510–523.
  31. Brake, H.T.; Bouman, A.M.; Gorter, R.; Hoogstraten, J.; Eijkman, M. Professional burnout and work engagement among dentists. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2007, 115, 180–185.
  32. Flecha, N. Towards a Standard Questionnaire Module on Employee Engagement for Civil Service Surveys; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2019.
  33. Martela, F.; Pessi, A.B. Significant work is about self-realization and broader purpose: Defining the key dimensions of meaningful work. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 363.
  34. Tummers, L.G.; Knies, E. Leadership and Meaningful Work in the Public Sector. Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 859–868.
  35. Lysova, E.I.; Allan, B.A.; Dik, B.J.; Duffy, R.D.; Steger, M.F. Fostering meaningful work in organizations: A multi-level review and integration. J. Vocat. Behav. 2019, 110, 374–389.
  36. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. On Corporate Social Responsibility, Sensemaking, and the Search for Meaningfulness Through Work. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 1057–1086.
  37. Khan, M.Y. Mission Motivation and Public Sector Performance: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan. 2020. Available online: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/42938/ (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  38. Edmondson, A.C. Learning from failure in health care: Frequent opportunities, pervasive barriers. Qual Saf Health Care 2004, 13 (Suppl. 2), ii3–ii9.
  39. Prins, J.T.; van der Heijden, F.M.M.A.; Hoekstra-Weebers, J.E.H.M.; Bakker, A.B.; van de Wiel, H.B.M. Burnout, engagement and resident physicians’ self-reported errors. Psychol. Health Med. 2009, 14, 654–666.
  40. Edmondson, A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 350–383.
  41. Schulz, K. Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error; Portobello Books Ltd.: London, UK, 2010.
  42. Kucharska, W. Do mistakes acceptance foster innovation? Polish and US cross-country study of tacit knowledge sharing in IT. J. Knowl. Manag. 2021, 25, 105–128.
  43. Domínguez-Escrig, E.; Broch, M.F.F.; Gómez, C.R.; Alcamí, L.R. Improving performance through leaders’ forgiveness: The mediating role of radical innovation. Pers. Rev. 2022, 51, 4–20.
  44. Cannon, M.; Edmondson, A. Failing to Learn and Learning to Fail (Intelligently). Long Range Plan. 2005, 38, 299–319.
  45. Ferretti, E.; Rohde, K.; Moore, G.; Daboval, T. Catch the moment: The power of turning mistakes into ‘precious’ learning opportunities. Paediatr. Child Health (Canada) 2019, 24, 156–159.
  46. Xing, L.; Sun, J.; Jepsen, D. Feeling shame in the workplace: Examining negative feedback as an antecedent and performance and well-being as consequences. J. Organ. Behav. 2021, 42, 1244–1260.
  47. Dunn, J.R.; Schweitzer, M.E. Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 88, 736.
  48. Schwarz, N.; Clore, G.L. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 45, 513.
  49. Fredrickson, B.L. The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions; American Psychological Association, Inc.: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; Volume 56.
  50. Bardi, A.; Schwartz, S.H. Values and Behavior: Strength and Structure of Relations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 29, 1207–1220.
  51. Dirks, K.T.; Ferrin, D.L. Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 611–628.
  52. Hall, G.; Dollard, M.F.; Coward, J. Psychosocial Safety Climate: Development of the PSC-12. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2010, 17, 353.
  53. Dollard, M.F.; Bakker, A.B. Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 579–599.
  54. Bergmann, B.; Schaeppi, J. A data-Driven Approach to Group Creativity; Harvard Business Review: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1 May 2016; p. 124.
  55. Ahmad, N.; Ullah, Z.; AlDhaen, E.; Han, H.; Scholz, M. A CSR perspective to foster employee creativity in the banking sector: The role of work engagement and psychological safety. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 67, 102968.
  56. Newman, A.; Donohue, R.; Eva, N. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human resource management review. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 27, 521–535.
  57. Lee, H. Changes in workplace practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of emotion, psychological safety and organisation support. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2021, 8, 97–128.
  58. Zhu, Y.; Zhu, C. Management Openness and Employee Voice Behavior: An Integrated Perspective of Decision-Making Calculation and Prosocial Motivation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education Innovation and Economic Management, Xiamen, China, 16–17 September 2018.
  59. Stocker, D.; Jacobshgen, N.; Semmer, N.; Annen, H. Appreciation at Work in the Swiss Armed Forces. Swiss J. Psychol. 2010, 69, 117–124.
  60. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. Work Motivation and Satisfaction: Light at the End of the Tunnel. Psychol. Sci. 1990, 1, 240–246.
  61. Rodrigues, W.A.; Reis Neto, M.T.; Gonçalves Filho, C. As influências na motivação para o trabalho em ambientes com metas e recompensas: Um estudo no setor público. Revista de Administracao Publica. Rev. Adm. Pública 2014, 48, 253–273. (In Portuguese)
  62. Chun, Y.H.; Rainey, H.G. Goal Ambiguity and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal Agencies. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2005, 15, 529–557.
  63. Buelens, M.; Van den Broeck, H. An analysis of differences in work motivation between public and private sector organizations. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 65–74.
  64. Dirks, K.T.; Skarlicki, D.P. Trust in Leaders: Existing Research and Emerging Issues. Trust. Distrust Organ. Dilemmas Approaches 2004, 7, 21–40.
  65. Stander, E.; de Beer, L.T.; Stander, W.M. Authentic leadership as a source of optimism, trust in the organisation and work engagement in the public health care sector. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2002, 13, 1–12.
  66. Madjar, N.; Ortiz-Walters, R. Trust in supervisors and trust in customers: Their independent, relative, and joint effects on employee performance and creativity. Hum. Perform. 2009, 22, 128–142.
  67. De La Rosa, W. Trust and Transparency of Irrational Labs. 2005. Available online: https://advanced-hindsight.com/archive/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/12/trust-and-transparency-why-its-important-and-how-to-build-it-with-your-users.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2022).
  68. Zagotta, R.; Robinson, D.; Arnold, C. System for and Method of Implementing a Shared Strategic Plan of an Organization. U.S. Patent Application 09/844,259, 10 October 2002.
  69. Wheatley, D. Autonomy in Paid Work and Employee Subjective Well-Being. Work. Occup. 2017, 44, 296–328.
  70. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The support of autonomy and the control behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53, 1024.
  71. Wheatley, D. Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements. Work Employ. Soc. 2017, 31, 567–585.
  72. Locke, E.A.; Latham, G.P. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance; Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1990.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback