This study focused on the systems of structure, meaning, knowledge-power, and process in place at organizations that are favorably rated by their employees compared to those same systems in place at organizations that have not been rated by their employees. A comparative case study of four companies was undertaken using the organization itself as the unit of analysis. Data were collected on nine factors within the four systems of structure, meaning, knowledge-power, and process. The data were analyzed and mapped to an organizing framework to facilitate cross analysis between the four companies. The literature review indicated that groups and organizations are similar, yet that group characteristics are expressed in a tight range on the nine factors under consideration in the systems of strucutre, meaning, knowledge-power, and process while organizational characteristics can be expressed over a wider range. Therefore, it was anticipated that the nine factors under consideration within the two companies in the study that have been rated as good places to work would tend to express themselves in the range associated with groups, whereas the nine factors within the companies not rated as good places to work would express themselves outside of the range associated with groups. And, indeed, the study results indicated that companies rated as good places to work tend to structure themselves into configurations that enhance group processes. The implication for organizations is that they may be able to increase employee satisfaction by configuring their organizational structures to enhance group processes.
|Commitee:||Corlett, John G., Southern, Nancy|
|School Location:||United States -- California|
|Source:||DAI-A 73/04, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Management, Organization Theory, Organizational behavior|
|Keywords:||Business psychology, Employee satisfaction, Great places to work, Group processes, Organizational systems, Positive work environments|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be