A double-edged sword: The effects of social network ties on job satisfaction in primary care organizations.
Journal
Health care management review
ISSN: 1550-5030
Titre abrégé: Health Care Manage Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7611530
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
10
5
2021
medline:
31
5
2022
entrez:
9
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Social ties between health care workers may be an important driver of job satisfaction; however, research on this topic is limited. We used social network methods to collect data describing two types of social ties, (a) instrumental ties (i.e., exchange of advice that enables work) and (b) expressive ties (i.e., exchange of social support), and related those ties to workers' job satisfaction. We surveyed 456 clinicians and staff at 23 primary care practices about their social networks and workplace attitudes. We used multivariable linear regression to estimate the relationship between an individual's job satisfaction and two network properties: (a) eigenvector centrality (a measure of the importance of an individual in a network) and (b) ego network density (a measure of the cohesiveness of an individual's network). We examined this relationship for both instrumental and expressive ties. Individuals who were more central in the expressive network were less satisfied in their job, b = -0.40 (0.19), p < .05, whereas individuals who had denser instrumental networks were more satisfied in their job, b = 0.49 (0.21), p < .05. Workplace relationships affect worker well-being. Centrality in an expressive network may require greater emotional labor, increasing workers' risk for job dissatisfaction. On the other hand, a dense instrumental network may promote job satisfaction by strengthening workers' access to full information, supporting competence and confidence. Efforts to increase job satisfaction should consider both the positive and negative effects of social networks on workers' sense of well-being.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Social ties between health care workers may be an important driver of job satisfaction; however, research on this topic is limited.
PURPOSE
We used social network methods to collect data describing two types of social ties, (a) instrumental ties (i.e., exchange of advice that enables work) and (b) expressive ties (i.e., exchange of social support), and related those ties to workers' job satisfaction.
METHODOLOGY
We surveyed 456 clinicians and staff at 23 primary care practices about their social networks and workplace attitudes. We used multivariable linear regression to estimate the relationship between an individual's job satisfaction and two network properties: (a) eigenvector centrality (a measure of the importance of an individual in a network) and (b) ego network density (a measure of the cohesiveness of an individual's network). We examined this relationship for both instrumental and expressive ties.
RESULTS
Individuals who were more central in the expressive network were less satisfied in their job, b = -0.40 (0.19), p < .05, whereas individuals who had denser instrumental networks were more satisfied in their job, b = 0.49 (0.21), p < .05.
CONCLUSION
Workplace relationships affect worker well-being. Centrality in an expressive network may require greater emotional labor, increasing workers' risk for job dissatisfaction. On the other hand, a dense instrumental network may promote job satisfaction by strengthening workers' access to full information, supporting competence and confidence.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
Efforts to increase job satisfaction should consider both the positive and negative effects of social networks on workers' sense of well-being.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33965998
doi: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000314
pii: 00004010-900000000-99613
pmc: PMC9709695
mid: NIHMS1851896
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
180-187Subventions
Organisme : AHRQ HHS
ID : R01 HS024859
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Hosp Health Serv Adm. 1997 Summer;42(2):221-41
pubmed: 10167456
J Appl Psychol. 2008 Jul;93(4):744-57
pubmed: 18642981
Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Dec;71(6):619-60
pubmed: 25380607
Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397-422
pubmed: 11148311
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jun;255:113002
pubmed: 32353652
Health Policy. 2010 Mar;94(3):183-95
pubmed: 19857910
BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Oct;24(10):608-10
pubmed: 26038586
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 25;382(26):2485-2487
pubmed: 32356624
J Appl Psychol. 1997 Apr;82(2):247-52
pubmed: 9109282
Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Sep;46(9):1236-44
pubmed: 19345946
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 25;10(6):e0131712
pubmed: 26110842
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Feb 1;177(2):195-205
pubmed: 27918798
J Gen Intern Med. 2010 Jun;25(6):601-12
pubmed: 20467909
Ann Fam Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;12(6):573-6
pubmed: 25384822
Mayo Clin Proc. 2017 Jan;92(1):129-146
pubmed: 27871627
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Aug 7;19(1):136
pubmed: 30086722
J Occup Health Psychol. 2007 Apr;12(2):93-104
pubmed: 17469992
Ann Fam Med. 2014 Jul;12(4):331-7
pubmed: 25024241
J Stat Softw. 2008;24(1):1548-7660
pubmed: 18618019
Am J Med Qual. 2011 Jan-Feb;26(1):18-25
pubmed: 20935270
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 May;29(5):773-8
pubmed: 20439860
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jun 16;172(12):822-823
pubmed: 32251512
J Patient Saf. 2022 Jan 1;18(1):e249-e256
pubmed: 32740134
J Nurs Adm. 2001 Feb;31(2):91-6
pubmed: 11271685
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Feb;30(2):202-10
pubmed: 21289340
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 08;11(7):e0159015
pubmed: 27391946
Health Care Manage Rev. 2011 Oct-Dec;36(4):327-37
pubmed: 21697719
J Appl Psychol. 2001 Feb;86(1):80-92
pubmed: 11302235
J Occup Health Psychol. 2006 Jan;11(1):100-18
pubmed: 16551178
J Nurs Manag. 2010 Nov;18(8):938-47
pubmed: 21073567
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e41911
pubmed: 22870261