Estimating the Mediation Role of Organizational Structure on the Relationship Between Work Engagement and Knowledge Worker Productivity

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 MSc. Public Management, University of Tehran.

2 Professor. Public Management. University of Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Prof. Public Management. University of Tehran.

Abstract

Abstract
The aim of this study is to find out the relationship between work engagement and knowledge worker productivity with respect to the moderation role of organizational structure. The study is practical and descriptive and correlational based on the methods. Study population was employees of Sport and Youth Administration of Khorasan Razavi. Through Morgan and simple random sampling method, the sample size was estimated 90 persons of the study population. Three questionnaires including Utrecht work engagement (2009), Robbins organizational structure (1990) and created knowledge worker productivity for data collection were used. The validity of the questionnaires approved by Context, Construct and Convergent validity and Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0/70 approved the reliability. Data were analyzed by Structural equation modeling in PLS software. The results showed a significant positive relationship between work engagement and knowledge worker productivity by itself and with the mediation role of organizational structure. Also, the mediation roles of complexity, formalization and centralization are approved. In fact, organizational structure design that increases complexity, and decreases formalization and centralization can increase work engagement that will result in the improvement of knowledge worker productivity.
Introduction
World is moving from an economy based on production to a knowledge-based economy which necessitates investments on manpower, information technology, research and development. The role of traditional requirements for production such as natural resources, manpower and capital are not as important as intangible inputs including information and knowledge. In recent years, knowledge has become the most important asset of organizations. Drucker believed that knowledge-worker productivity to be the biggest managerial challenge of 20th century and undeniably it will be needed for survival of organizations in developed countries (Peter F Drucker, 1999). To survive in the current competitive environment, the success of organizations is depended to acquire, use and transfer of knowledge. In this regard, organizations should consider the level of employees’ engagement in their work. Since, they decide to use their knowledge in the organization. Also, structure of organizations creates a basis for using the knowledge (Monavarian, 2008).
Case study
The study population included employees of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports of Khorasan Razavi (Iran). By simple sampling method 90 people were selected as the sample of our study.
Materials and Methods
This study is practical, descriptive and correlational based on the aim and the method of data collection. Questionnaires were used to collecting data. Knowledge worker productivity is analyzed using the Dracker model, work engagement is measured by 9-items Utrecht work engagement scale characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption, and organizational structure is examined by Robins model consists of three items including complexity, centralization and formality. Data were analyzed by Descriptive and Inferential Statistics by Structural Equation Modeling in PLS software.
Discussion and Results
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Work engagement relates to Knowledge worker productivity.
Hypothesis 2: Complexity of organizational structure relates with Knowledge worker productivity.
Hypothesis 3: Formality of organizational structure relates with Knowledge worker productivity.
Hypothesis 4: Centralization of organizational structure relates with Knowledge worker productivity.
Hypothesis 5: Organizational Structure mediates the relationship between work engagement and Knowledge worker productivity.
Hypotheses testing presented that the direct effect of work engagement on knowledge worker productivity is significant when the organizational structure is not included in the model with a value of 0.558. Including the mediator role of organizational structure, the indirect effect is significant too. T-value of the indirect effect of work engagement on knowledge worker productivity via organizational structure mediated role is 0.145. Therefore, it is concluded that this relationship via the mediator variety is significant. In addition, this study confirms the indirect association between work engagement and knowledge worker productivity by the mediating role of dimensions of organizational structure. In fact, decreasing formality and centralization cause raising work engagement and knowledge worker productivity. In contrast, complexity as a mediating factor positively influenced on the relationship of work engagement and knowledge worker productivity.
Conclusion
The results of this study indicated that organizational structure plays a mediating role in the relationship of work engagement and knowledge worker productivity in the studied organization. It means appropriate design of organizational structure will be helpful in increasing of work engagement and knowledge worker productivity. Organizational structure should not act as a barrier against employees who are engaged appropriately in their work. It should give freedom to the employees to be innovative in providing solutions in different organizational situations. In this regard, Kodden (2011) showed that increasing the flexibility of organizational structure will increase work engagement and motivates knowledge workers to make more efforts for organizational goals and as a result, knowledge worker productivity rises (Kodden, 2011). In another study by Catteeuw et al. (2007), the role of organizational structure on improvement of workers’ motivation and work engagement was approved. They added that more work engagement will result in more use of knowledge for advancing of the organization (Catteeuw, Flynn, & Vonderhorst, 2007). Therefore, enough attention should be paid to improvement of structure of organizations in order to increase knowledge productivity.

Keywords

References

1-Abdekhoda, S. (2008). The relationship between organizational structure and effectiveness in Ghom Maaref Radio. Thesis: University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian).
 2-Ahmady, G.A., Mehrpour, M., & Nikooravesh, A. (2016). Organizational Structure. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 455- 462. (In Persian).
3- Albrecht, S. L., Bakker, A.B., Gruman, J.A., Macey, W.H., & Saks, A. M. (2015). Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2 (1), 7- 35.
4- Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2010). Psychometric Properties of theItalian Version of the UtrechtWork Engagement Scale (UWES-9): A Cross-Cultural Analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26 (2), 143- 149.
5-Bin Shmailan, A. (2016). The relationship between job satisfaction, job performance and employee engagement: An explorative study. Issues in Business Management and Economics, 4 (1), 1-8.
6-Catteeuw, F., Flynn, E., & Vonderhorst, J. (2007). Employee engagement: Boosting productivity in turbulent times. Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 151.
7-Drucker, P. F. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California management review, 41(2), 79-94.
8-Ehlen, C., & van der Klink, M. (2014). Knowledge productivity for sustainable innovation: social capital as HRD target. European Journal of Training and Development, 38 (½), 54-74.
9-Guercini, S. (2014). New qualitative research methodologies inmanagement. Management Decision, 2 (10), 1-19.
10- Huang, Y., & Jim Wu, Y. (2010). Intellectual capital and knowledge productivity: The Taiwan biotech industry. Management Decision, 48 (4), 580-599.
11-Jamshidi, A. (2008). Conceptual aspects effect on organizational structure designing. Noor journal, 1, 107-126. (In Persian).
12- Jennifer, E., Swanberg, a., Sharon, P., McKechnie, B., Mamta, U., Ojha, C., Jacquelyn, B., & James, D. (2011). Schedule control, supervisor support and work engagement: A winning combination for workers in hourly jobs? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 613–624.
13-Karatepe, O.M.,  Beirami, E.,  Bouzari, M., & Pasha Safavi, H. (2014). Does work engagement mediate the effects of challenge stressors on job outcomes? Evidence from the hotel industry.International Journal of Hospitality Management. 36, 14- 22.
14- Kodden, B. (2011). DEDICATION: A study to analyse the effects of organizational design on employee engagement and knowledge productivity within Dutch legal service firms. Thesis: Breukelen: Nyenrode Business Univercity.
15- Liljander, V., Polsa, P., & Van Riel, A. (2009). Modeling consumer responses to an apparel store band: Store image as a risk reducer. journal of retailing and Consumer Services, 16, 281- 290.
16- Monavarian, A., Asgari, N., Ashena, M. (2007). Structural and conceptual aspects of knowledge-based organizations. The first national conference of knowledge management. (In Persian).
17- Rahmani, M., & Taboli, H. (2014). Identify the relationship between the dimentions of organizational structure and organizational commitment. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4 (S4), 565- 573.
18- Robbins, S. P. (1990). Organization theory: Structure, Design, and Applications. New York: Prentice Hall, 1990- Business & Economics - 552 pages.
19- Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A. (2003). UTRECHT WORK ENGAGEMENT SCALE. Preliminary Manual, Version 1, November 2003. Occupational Health Psychology Unit Utrecht University.
20- Seppala, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 459- 481.
21- Stam, C. D. (2007 a). Knowledge productivity: designing and testing a method to diagnose knowledge productivity and plan for enhancement. Thesis: University of Twente.
22- Stam, C.D. (2007 b)."Making sense of knowledge productivity: beta testing the KP- enhancer”. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(4), 628- 640.
23-Templeton, G. F., & Anthony B. T. (2003). Determinants of the relativeadvantage of a structured SDM during the adoption stage of implementation. Information Technology and Management, 20, 409-428.
24- Ugwu, F. O. (2013). Work engagement in nigeria: adaption of the utrekht work engagement scale for Nigerian samples. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Research, 1 (3), 16-26.
25-White, M., S.G. Wells, J., & Butterworth, T. (2014). The impact of a large-scale quality improvement programme on work engagement: Preliminary results from a national cross-sectional-survey of the ‘Productive Ward’ a Nursing & Midwifery Planning & Development Unit. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51, 1634- 1643.
26-Wixom, B.H., & Watson, H.J. (2001). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 25 (1), 17- 41.
27-Yuri, W., Ramirez, D., & Nembhard, A. (2004). Measuring knowledge workerproductivity. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5 (4), 602- 628.
28-Yusoff, R. B.M., Ali, A. M., Anwar, K., & Abu Bakar, S. (2013). Psychometric Evaluation of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale among Academic Staff in Universities of Pakistan. World Applied Sciences Journal, 28 (11), 1555-1560.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics