Empowerment and mentoring in nursing academia.

International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship 2014; 11(1): 101–111

Research Article Mina D. Singh*, F. Beryl Pilkington and Linda Patrick

Empowerment and Mentoring in Nursing Academia Abstract: In 2011, there was an expected shortage of 200 full-time faculty. While there are an estimated 322 graduate students in Nurse Practitioner and Masters/PhD programs in Canada today, the supply of potential new faculty falls short of the anticipated demand in the years ahead (Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing). This mixed method study explored how organizational culture and the perceived level of psychological and structural empowerment are associated with one’s work environment among Canadian nursing faculty and to explore the state of mentorship in schools of nursing. Keywords: empowerment, nursing academia, mentorship, Canada DOI 10.1515/ijnes-2013-0070

Across Canada, schools of nursing have responded to the projected nursing shortage by increasing enrollment in undergraduate and graduate programs to an all-time high in 2009–2010 (Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing [CASN], 2012). Simultaneously, the supply of faculty to educate the new generation of nurses is being impacted by retirement of faculty as over half of full-time faculty are over 50 years of age (CASN). In 2011, there was a expected shortage of 200 full-time faculty. While there are an estimated 322 graduate students in Nurse Practitioner and Masters/PhD programs in Canada today, the supply of potential new faculty falls short of the anticipated demand in the years ahead (CASN). Universities have been unable to fill faculty vacancies in part due to competition with health care organizations that need nurses with advanced degrees and offer higher salaries (Tourangeau et al., 2012). Together, these factors

*Corresponding author: Mina D. Singh, School of Nursing, York University, 4700 Keele St, Toronto, ON M3J1P3, Canada, E-mail: [email protected] F. Beryl Pilkington, School of Nursing, York University, 4700 Keele St, Toronto, ON M3J1P3, Canada, E-mail: [email protected] Linda Patrick, Faculty of Nursing, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada, E-mail: [email protected]

have escalated the importance of recruiting and retaining new faculty members. Newly hired faculty members who are testing the waters of academic life are particularly vulnerable to turnover because of work environment factors such as lack of support and resources and heavy workloads (Tournageau et al., 2012). Pre-tenure faculty members have a steep learning curve adjusting to the demands of teaching, service, and research in an era of highly competitive and limited research funding, expanding nursing education programs, and the need to support the profession and university through service activities. There is a paucity of research to describe the impact of current work environments and their associated cultures on the retention of new faculty members. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to understand how culture and structural and psychological empowerment in academic work environments support pre-tenure faculty in successful role integration as scholars within the Canadian context.

Literature review and theoretical perspective During the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in the study of workplace empowerment within the fields of organizational psychology and management, in part because of research whose conclusion is that empowerment increases organizational effectiveness (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). The term empowerment has been conceptualized as relational, motivational, and psychological constructs. As a relational construct, empowerment is based on the power or control an individual has in influencing others, either at organizational or at interpersonal level. Those with power are more likely to be productive members of the organization, bringing fulfillment to the individual and success to the organization. In this context, power, authority, and responsibility are relinquished to subordinates. Work empowerment as a motivational construct is based on the idea that employees feel energized (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) when they

Brought to you by | University of Iowa Libraries Authenticated Download Date | 5/24/15 8:33 PM

102

M. D. Singh et al.: Empowerment and Mentoring in Nursing Academia

perceive themselves to have power, control, and autonomy. These perceptions of empowerment lead to increased self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), and a sense of impact, meaningfulness, and choice (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).

Psychological empowerment It is unclear whether sharing power with subordinates automatically empowers them. Accordingly, empowerment is also conceptualized as a psychological construct. With this perspective, power and control are viewed as psychological processes, and individuals’ needs are met when they feel they have power and control over their lives; however, individuals become frustrated when they feel powerless. Therefore, psychological empowerment is promoted through strategies and techniques that strengthen self-determination and self-efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995). Thomas and Velthouse (as cited by Spreitzer, 1995) defined psychological empowerment as: “increased intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions reflecting an individual’s orientation to his or her work role: meaning, competence (or self-efficacy), selfdetermination, and impact” (p. 1443). From this work, Spreitzer argued that empowerment is a complex construct that cannot be defined with just one concept and developed and validated multidimensional measures of psychological empowerment in the workplace. These cognitive processes (meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact) reflect an active rather than passive attitude toward an individual’s own work role. Thus, empowerment is not a personality trait, but rather a set of cognitive processes shaped by an individual’s work environment (Spreitzer, 2006), i.e. the culture of the organization. Psychological empowerment is a significant predictor of job satisfaction and decreased intent to leave (Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999; Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk, 2004b). Culture refers to the collective values, assumptions, expectations, and beliefs of members of a group working together to “solve its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that [have] worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 2004, p. 17). The collective organizational values, in turn, influence the qualities of leaders (Spreitzer, 1996, 2006). To add to the complexity of culture, the power differences between leaders and followers may contribute to individual empowerment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Laschinger et al., 2004b).

Structural empowerment Motivation and organizational effectiveness are linked to structural power that has dimensions of opportunity, resources, information, and support. When individuals feel they have the resources they need for their work and personal lives they will do their jobs more effectively (Kanter, 1977, 1979, 1993). Kanter devised a theory and conducted research that showed that structural opportunity and power greatly influence employees’ behavior. Through an ethnographic study of an entire organization, she found that employees often cope with their lack of opportunity for growth and input by resisting change and innovation in their work. In contrast, when employees have opportunities for growth and learning they feel empowered and are innovative and productive (Kanter, 1993). Structural empowerment describes workplace conditions and not individuals’ perceptions of the workplace (Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001), but measuring psychological empowerment can be a proxy or indirect measure of the structure of the workplace.

Organizational culture “Organizational culture refers to the collective values, assumptions, expectations, and beliefs of members of an organization or group” (Johnson, 2009, p. 9). Drawing from Spreitzer’s (1995) theory of psychological empowerment and the competing values framework (CVF) (Cameron & Quinn, 1999), Johnson explored how organizational culture influences psychological empowerment in a descriptive correlational study. In a convenience sample of 407 Associate Degree (AD) nursing faculty in the United States, high rank and longer years of employment were both positively related to empowerment. This could be interpreted as a form of hierarchal culture. A change in program philosophy was the only variable found to be a significant contributor to organizational culture. Curriculum revision was the only variable found to contribute to empowerment, i.e. faculty involved in curriculum revision felt more empowered. Overall regression analyses showed that organizational culture had a moderate impact on faculty empowerment.

Competing values framework The CVF (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) consists of two dimensions illustrated as vertical and horizontal axes on a fourquadrant grid (see Figure 1). The vertical axis focuses on



TOP = FLEXIBILITY AND DISCRETION Culture Type: Clan

Culture Type: Adhocracy

Orientation: COLLABORATE

Orientation: CREATE

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL

Culture Type: Hierarchy

Culture Type: Market

Orientation: CONTROL

Orientation: COMPETE

BOTTOM = STABILITY AND CONTROL

Figure 1 The CVF. Adapted from Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983, p. 369)

the distinction between the competing values of stability and control versus flexibility and discretion. The competitive interplay between the internal and the external environments forms the horizontal axis. The four effectiveness criteria models in the CVF are also called four organizational culture types, specifically, Clan, Adhocracy, Market, and Hierarchy. Each culture has a different focus (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). The Clan culture focuses on an atmosphere of collectivity and mutual help, with an emphasis on flexibility, discretion, teamwork, partnership, and shared values and common goals. The organizational orientation is to collaborate in a clan culture with the purposes of commitment and cohesion. The Adhocracy culture is innovative, creative and takes risks. Change is highly valued, and new teams are formed as new tasks emerge with a sense of adventure toward accomplishing the goals and ideas. The Market culture focuses on the transactions with the environment outside the organization instead of on the internal management. The organizational goal is to earn profits through efficiency and market competition. The Hierarchy culture has a clear organizational structure, focuses on internal issues, and emphasizes a structured work environment with standardized rules and procedures, strict control, and well-defined responsibilities.

Empowering work environments in nursing academia Nursing programs are under threat as budget cuts and rising enrollments have led to increased role burden on faculty members. The current cohort of experienced faculty will continue to decline as aging members retire and are not replaced. Due to high job stress, many nursing educators experience burnout, manifested by emotional exhaustion, indifferent feelings about their students’ growth, and a lack of personal accomplishment (Sarmiento, Laschinger, & Iwasiw, 2004). In a study of Canadian full-time college instructors, Sarmiento et al. (2004) found that the work environments of faculty were moderately empowering and

103

that access to empowering structural factors was negatively related to the experience of burnout. Similarly, Baker, Fitzpatrick, and Griffin (2009) reported that job satisfaction is highly positively correlated with psychological empowerment and moderately and positively correlated with structural empowerment in nursing faculty members Hebenstreit (2012) studied the relationship between structural empowerment and innovative behavior in 221 baccalaureate nursing program educators in the United States. Faculty were moderately empowered and had high levels of opportunity, but low levels of resources. Faculty in private institutions felt more empowered than those in public institutions. Innovative behaviors were weakly positively correlated with structural empowerment. Structural and psychological empowerment along with the organizational culture of the academic work environment formed the theoretical framework of this study.

Academic career mentoring In response to the nursing faculty shortage, Chung and Kowalski (2012) studied the effect of mentoring on job stress, job satisfaction, and psychological empowerment. They used a descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study design and collected data from 959 nursing faculty through an online survey. They found that 40.5% of the sample had a current mentor, and 75% of these individuals felt the quality of their mentorship was good. Job satisfaction was significantly higher in mentored nursing faculty and job stress lower. However, increased psychological empowerment had a larger effect on job satisfaction than did mentorship. Yet, the literature suggests that mentoring would be useful in nursing academia to promote a healthy, productive work environment and to aid new faculty members in achieving tenure (Cangelosi, 2006; Driscoll, Parkes, Tilley-Lubbs, Brill, & PittsBannistera, 2009; Hinkle & Kopp, 2006; Lee-Kilty, 2006; National League for Nursing [NLN], 2006). The traditional mentoring model is a one-on-one, mentor–protégé relationship that is most often arranged by an organization to facilitate learning and transition into a new position or career, decrease attrition, and improve job satisfaction (Lee-Kilty, 2006; Kosoko-Lasaki, Sonnino, & Voytko, 2006; Moss, Teshima, & Leszcz, 2008). When this model is used within nursing academia, the protégé (mentee) is usually a nursing student or new faculty member while the mentor is likely to be a senior team member who possesses a great deal of knowledge, wisdom, and experience with the organization (Lee-Kilty,


104


2006). The relationship between the mentor and mentee is typically beneficial to both: the mentee learns the tools and skills needed to succeed in academia and the mentor gets the satisfaction of helping someone learn and grow (Hessler & Ritchie, 2006; Hinkle & Kopp, 2006; Lee-Kilty, 2006). While the traditional dyadic mentoring model is most common, mentoring relationships can take multiple forms including peer mentoring (i.e. people of similar levels collaborating, supporting each other, and sharing resources; Lee-Kilty, 2006; Moss et al., 2008; NLN, 2006; Santucci et al., 2008; Seritan, Bhangoo, Garma, DuBe, & Hales, 2007), group mentoring, (i.e. one mentor supporting a group of mentees who have common learning goals; Hinkle & Kopp, 2006; Lee-Kilty, 2006), and multiple mentoring (i.e. a mentee having several mentors who offer support and guidance for specific needs or at various times; Lee-Kilty, 2006). Mentoring programs can be formal or informal, longor short-term, and communication can be in person or via electronic means (Lee-Kilty, 2006). Recommendations for developing mentoring programs include ensuring both the mentor and the mentee understand the importance or collaboration, providing training and support to the mentor (Gardinera, 2010), ensuring frequent meetings between the mentor and mentee where goals can be discussed (Hessler & Ritchie, 2006; Hinkle & Kopp, 2006), and appointing someone to be in charge of the mentoring program (Hinkle & Kopp, 2006). However, the main predictor of a successful mentoring program is a strong, supportive relationship between the mentor and the mentee (Smith & Zsohar, 2007). Nick et al. (2012) propose a set of best practices in academic mentoring that reflect the above strategies, but also emphasize the importance of creating appropriately matched mentee–mentor dyads, establishing a clear purpose and goals for the relationship, integrating the mentee into the school’s culture, and securing institutional resources (e.g. release time, mentor training programs etc.) to support mentoring. While there is ample evidence supporting the benefits of mentoring in nursing, including nursing academia, not much is known about how it is being used in the Canadian nursing academic context. Moreover, how mentoring contributes to empowering work environments and faculty success in nursing academia has not been explored.

Research questions The following research questions guided this study: 1. How do organizational culture and the perceived level of psychological and structural empowerment

2.

associated with one’s work environment impact nursing faculty? What is the current state of mentorship in Canadian nursing faculties and can mentorship programs help improve the success of new scholars?

Methods This mixed methods study utilized both an online survey and semi-structured interviews. Convenience sampling was used to recruit both English- and French-speaking nursing faculty. After obtaining approval from the researchers’ university research ethics boards, subjects were recruited in two ways. An invitation to participate in the study and link to the online survey were included in a newsletter of a national nursing education professional body. A similar notice was sent to a selection of Directors of university schools of nursing who then distributed the information about the study to their faculty members. The Directors were selected based on geographical location to ensure most regions of Canada were represented. In total, 74 nursing educators responded; however only 60% of these (n ¼ 45) completed the survey. Informed consent was obtained electronically at the beginning of the survey. A power analysis for multiple regression based on a moderate effect size ¼ 0.15, power ¼ 0.80 revealed that a sample of 85 was needed. The low sample size indicates that the results must be viewed with caution.

Instruments Structural empowerment The Conditions of Workplace Effectiveness Questionnaire-II (CWEQ-II) (Laschinger et al., 2004b) was used to measure access to six structural factors that empower nursing faculty to perform in their role. This tool measures the four dimensions of structural empowerment described by Kanter (1977, 1993): opportunity, information, support, and resources, and two measures of power (formal and informal), with a 5-point Likert scale where 1 ¼ not at all and 5 ¼ a great deal. There are three- to four-item subscales for each of the six components and a two-item global empowerment scale used for construct validation. Items were summed and averaged to provide a score for each subscale; then the six subscales were summed to create a total empowerment scale. On 19 items, participants were asked to respond to the question, To what extent is each of the


105


following present in your jobs? Sample items are opportunity for challenging work, helpful hints or problem solving advice, and amount of flexibility in my job. Of the 19 items, four were changed to reflect the academic context. They are: (a) Item 4: Information about the current state of the nursing academic unit; (b) Item 10: Time available to do necessary writing; Item 15: Amount of visibility of my work related activities within the nursing academic unit; and Item 16: Collaboration with other nursing faculty.

Psychological empowerment The Psychological Empowerment Scale (Spreitzer, 1995) was used to measure psychological empowerment in nursing educators. This 12-item instrument uses a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) to measure the four dimensions of psychological empowerment: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact.

Organizational culture instrument (OCAI) Based on the CVF, Cameron and Quinn (1999, 2006) developed a matched scale, the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. It is an ipsative or forced distribution scale to rate an organization on six characteristics: the dominant characteristics, organizational leadership, management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphases, and criteria of success. Each of these has four statements where the individual rates each statement by dividing 100 points between the A, B, C, and D. The rating is done twice, on how the individual perceives their organization NOW and again the perception for the FUTURE. The results are coded according to the four quadrants of collaborate, create, compete, and control for NOW and the FUTURE. A researcher-generated questionnaire requested demographics (i.e. age, gender, education, years in academia, and rank), workplace demographics (e.g. degrees offered, faculty size, length of tenure track, enrollment etc.), information on work satisfaction and work stability, current orientation and mentoring practices (e.g. orientation process for new faculty members, the mentorship model used etc.).

Results Only the quantitative results are presented in this report. Findings from the qualitative component of the study will be reported separately.

Demographics Demographic data are presented in Table 1. Most respondents (N ¼ 60) were women (71%) and answered the survey in English (87%). Thirty-three reported their age and this ranged from 29 to 70 years (M ¼ 52.1, SD ¼ 9.86). In line with the wide age range, the sample had spent 1–32 years in academia (M ¼ 12.17, SD ¼ 8.65). Most had Doctorate degrees (62%) and the rank of Associate (26%) or Assistant (21%) Professor. The majority was tenured (47%) and reported that their tenure-track colleagues were successful in obtaining tenure. An Table 1

Demographics and school characteristics (n ¼ 45) Means/ frequencies

Age (n ¼ 33) Years in academia Gender – Female Education – Masters Doctorate Rank – Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Dean Senior Instructor Clinician Missing Tenured Tenure track Length of tenure track period – 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years other Number of new faculty within last 5 years Percent of faculty success with tenure and promotion Number of faculty who left Number of faculty in your unit Number of BScN students – < 100 100–300 301–500 501–1,000 > 1,000 Number of MScN students – < 100 100–200 > 200 Number of PhD students – < 10 10–20 > 20 Change in administration in your academic unit in last 2 years Note: n for age ¼ 33, other variables n ¼ 45.


52.1 12.2 71% 18% 62% 21% 26% 15% 13% 1% 15% 9% 47% 31% 2% 2% 22% 42% 2% 5.3 95%

SD

9.9 8.7

3.12

1.77 1.9 30.58 14.31 4% 20% 22% 11% 24% 47% 27% 9% 49% 38%

106


average of five faculty were hired in the schools represented by the sample over the previous 5 years. The size of the schools varied greatly and many (38%) reported changes in administration over the previous 2 years.

Empowerment and culture The participants’ perceptions of structural empowerment in the workplace were not high (Mean ¼ 19.2, SD ¼ 4.4), with less access to supports (Mean ¼ 2.9, SD ¼ 0.91), and resources (Mean ¼ 2.6, SD ¼ 0.75) to help them perform in their role. They felt that their work was meaningful (Mean 4.3, SD 0.89), provided autonomy (Mean ¼ 4.1, SD ¼ 0.94), and resulted in high levels of feeling competent (Mean ¼ 4.1, 0.91). The perceived impact of their work was less obvious (Mean ¼ 3.1, SD ¼ 1.1). The reliability and internal consistency of the instruments were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and the results were deemed satisfactory (r ¼ 0.74–0.97). Only

the “control” subscale of the OCAI measure (current situation) was tentative at r ¼ 0.66. The Cronbach’s alphas of the CWEQ-II were similar to previously reported reliability estimates of 0.78–0.93 (Spence-Laschinger, Leiter, Day, & Gilin, 2009), while the reliability estimates of the PES are higher than previously reported by Laschinger et al. (2001) of 0.85–0.91. Refer to Table 2 for more detailed results. The dominant culture in the academic organizations represented by the respondents was the competitive culture (Mean ¼ 32.2, SD ¼ 20.8) where the focus is on achieving results and doing work fast. In contrast, the preferred culture for the organization to be successful in the future was a collaborative culture (Mean ¼ 33.2, SD ¼ 15.34) where faculty concentrate on working together. The biggest difference between the current and future states was related to a competitive culture (32.2–21.4 ¼ 10.1) where a less competitive culture was preferred in the future. The discrepancies between current and future cultures are depicted in the culture assessment plot in Figure 2.

Table 2 Means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients for structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, and culture instruments CWEQ-II Structural empowerment

Mean (range 1–5)

SD

Reliability coefficients

3.5 3.6 2.9 2.6 3.2 3.3 19.2*

0.77 0.95 0.91 0.75 0.86 0.93 4.4

0.87 0.93 0.89 0.75 0.77 0.86 0.95

Mean (range 1–5)

SD


0.89 0.91 0.94 1.1 0.77

0.97 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.93

Opportunity Information Support Resources Formal power Informal power Total empowerment (range 6–30) PES Psychological empowerment Meaning Competence Autonomy Impact Total psychological empowerment

4.3 4.1 4.1 3.1 3.9 OCAI Culture

Culture type

Collaborate Create Compete Control

Mean for current situation

SD


Mean for future situation

SD


25.3 18.2 32.2 25.1

17.45 9.64 20.8 12.4

0.96 0.78 0.88 0.66

33.2 27.3 21.4 19.3

15.34 11.62 17.4 9.66

0.89 0.86 0.92 0.74

Note: *Summated means of each subscale.



The Competing Values Culture Assessment Plot

Collaborate 33

Table 3 Satisfaction with work conditions and future employment plans (n ¼ 37)

Create

Satisfied – Neutral very satisfied

27

25

107

Dissatisfied – very dissatisfied

18

19

21

25 32 Control

Compete Now

Future

Figure 2 The competing values culture assessment plot

Working conditions and satisfaction Satisfaction with the overall working conditions is presented in Table 3. A small majority of faculty was satisfied with their pay levels but only 18% were satisfied with their workload. Only 29% were satisfied with support from senior faculty and yet, a slight majority (51%) was confident that they would continue working at the same institution. The majority (73%) was not looking for other jobs, and only one individual was looking for a nonacademic position.

Orientation and mentoring The orientation process for new faculty members mostly included an orientation to the university and/or to the school (n ¼ 9), or to the school alone (n ¼ 9). Five respondents noted the absence of a formal orientation. Some programs (n ¼ 8) included faculty members as mentors who were assigned or left to the new faculty member to identify. Orientation and mentoring needs related to establishing a program of research included how to plan a program of research, creating partnerships, developing an awareness of funding mechanisms, hiring research and graduate assistants, grantsmanship, publishing, and time management to balance demands of teaching, research, service, and a personal life. Some noted a need to become involved in other faculty members’ projects and join appropriate on-campus research centers. One respondent felt that these needs should be

Pay Workload University tenure and promotion procedure Support from senior faculty In next 5 years, confidence in working at same institution Very confident Confident Somewhat confident Not confident Undecided In next 5 years, confidence in working in academia Very confident Confident Somewhat confident Not confident Undecided Looking for another job Yes No New job search setting Outside academia Within academia

56% 18% 37%

9% 16% 24%

18% 49% 22%

29%

22%

31%

4% 40% 7% 9% 22%

4% 38% 9% 9% 22% 6.7% 73.3% 2% 7%

addressed on an ongoing basis until tenure is obtained. Supports that faculty had received included services from the university research office (e.g. reviews and feedback, funding announcements, the mechanics of grant submission etc.). Support from more experienced colleagues was also deemed valuable (e.g. serving as a sounding board for ideas, encouragement, navigating issues etc.) as was an overall strong research culture within the school. To ensure success of new faculty members regarding teaching and scholarship, an appropriate workload and strong mentors were identified. Administrative support and consistent teaching assignments were also deemed useful supports for new faculty. Perceived barriers to obtaining tenure and promotion included the need to find structured time for scholarship, including grant preparation and writing for publication (e.g. “too much workload too soon”) and limited funding options for new researchers. While the need for mentors was evident in the description of orientation and supports for scholarship, only 44%


108


of faculty was currently engaged in a mentoring relationship. Most mentoring was informal (53%) and mentor– mentee meetings were ongoing (27% met weekly or monthly) while others met infrequently (18% met only a few times per term or year). Approximately one-third of faculty expressed satisfaction with the mentoring experience. A small majority of faculty had received support for grant preparation but only 18% reported that support of this nature came from peers or senior faculty within their schools. While 71% of faculty understood the tenure process, only one-third of the untenured group was confident that they would be successful in securing tenure. Overall, only 51% of the respondents felt that they had sufficient support for success in their academic role. See Table 4 for additional details. (Please note that all questions were not answered, thus the number for the analysis is noted.)

Correlational analyses The perception of structural empowerment was highly correlated (r ¼ 0.82, p< 0.01) with psychological empowerment: i.e. the cognitive response to workplace conditions. Both structural and psychological empowerment (r ¼ 0.53, p< 0.01 and r ¼ 0.35, p< 0.05, respectively) were positively associated with a current collaborative culture although not in future situations. A moderate association was found between a collaborative and creative culture in the present (r ¼ 0.42, p< 0.01) and future (r ¼ 0.56, p< 0.01). On the other hand, a competitive culture was negatively correlated with a collaborative (r ¼ –0.58, p< 0.01) and creative culture (r ¼ –0.37, p< 0.05) in the present situation and to a greater extent in the future (r ¼ –0.72 and –0.55, p< 0.01, respectively). No significant correlation was found between these variables and demographic characteristics of age, years in Table 5

Table 4

Mentoring experiences and support needs

Question

%

Engaged in a mentoring relationship (n ¼ 20) Frequency of mentoring meetings (n ¼ 37) 1–2 times/week 1–2 times/month 1–2 times/term or semester 1–2 times/year Informal structure (n ¼ 24) Satisfied with mentorship relationship Satisfied–very satisfied (n ¼ 12) Neutral (n ¼ 14) Dissatisfied–very dissatisfied (n ¼ 11) Receive support in submitting research grants (n ¼ 26) Support in submitting research grants provided from (n ¼ 23): Peers Senior faculty University department Other Understand tenure and promotion process (yes) (n ¼ 32) Confidence in obtaining tenure and promotion (n ¼ 29) Confident Somewhat confident Not confident Undecided

44% 18% 9% 16% 2% 53% 27% 31% 24% 58%

9% 9% 20% 13% 71% 20% 11% 4% 29%

Receiving sufficient support for success in academia (n ¼ 23) 51%

academia, or number of faculty in the school (see Table 5).

Psychological empowerment, structural empowerment, and culture Regression analyses were conducted to predict psychological empowerment using structural empowerment and the culture variables (see Table 6). Psychological

Correlation between work environment and culture variables

1. Structural empowerment 2. Psychological empowerment 3. Collaborate now 4. Create now 5. Compete now 6. Control now 7. Collaborate future 8. Create future 9. Compete future 10. Control future

1

2

0.82** 0.53**

0.35*

3

4

0.42** −0.58**

−0.37*

5

6

7

8

0.56** −0.72**

−0.55**

0.38* 0.38* 0.55**

Note: *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01.


9

10


Table 6

109

Regression results

Coefficients 1) (Intercept) 5) Structural empowerment 6) Culture now: collaborate Culture now: create Culture now: compete Culture now: control

Estimate

Std. error

t value

Prð>jt jÞ

p

0.5998 0.6086 2.7641 4.3828 2.933 3.0827

2) 0.7907 0.1027 1.0468 1.48 1.0452 0.9626

3) 0.759 5.926 2.64 2.961 2.806 3.202

4) 0.45405 1.72E–06 0.01302 0.00594 0.00872 0.00322

0.000 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.01

empowerment increases 0.6086 units when structural empowerment increases one unit. All four types of “culture now” variables have a significant linear effect on psychological empowerment comparing to the baseline case of an even culture structure. The “create now” contributes 4.38 units for each unit of psychological empowerment. There is no significance of the “culture future” variables on psychological empowerment.

where a collaborative culture was more prominent. This difference may be attributed to the fact that in our study, the sample was Canada-wide while in the Johnson study the sample was in a specific geographic region and was larger. Future studies should focus on determining whether there is a dominant culture in nursing academia.

Implications for nursing academic units

Discussion The perception of psychological empowerment was found to be higher than previously found in studies of collegelevel nurse educators (Sarmiento et al., 2004) and staff nurses (Purdy, Laschinger, Finegan, Kerr, & Olivera, 2010) although not quite as high as in nurse managers (Laschinger, Almost, Purdy, & Kim, 2004a). The weakest dimension was access to resources which is common across these samples. Faculty experienced high levels of psychological empowerment, although the perceived impact of their work was only moderate. With the exception of impact, all other dimensions of psychological empowerment were higher than in a study of Associate Degree faculty in the United States (Johnson, 2009). Access to empowering work conditions was strongly associated with feelings of meaningful work, competence and autonomy of faculty, and a collaborative culture. Our findings are consistent with those of previous research indicating that a supportive work environment was a key determinant in choosing to stay in a faculty role at a university school of nursing (Foxall, Megel, Grigsby, & Billings, 2009) and also that work environments and organizational characteristics influence recruitment (Tourangeau et al., 2012). The regression analyses also support previous research that organizational culture is a contributor to psychological empowerment (Johnson, 2009). Currently, the culture (culture now) of schools of nursing is primarily competitive; this finding differs that from Johnson’s study of Associate Degree faculty (2009)

The results of this study highlight the importance of developing an academic workplace culture that can empower faculty members, especially new faculty going forward for tenure and promotion. Three factors contribute to the power of academic nursing faculty members: a collaborative workplace with the necessary structures that promote empowerment; a psychological belief in one’s ability to be empowered; and a wish to have a culture that is creative rather than competitive. A culture of creativity and collaboration will contribute to the development of mentoring supports needed by new faculty to succeed and hence, for successful retention. This is a call to increase psychological empowerment through developing collaborative and creative academic structures with access to resources. In particular, there is a need to develop formal mentoring programs with at least monthly meetings.

Conclusions and recommendations for future study The limitations of this study are self-selection of participants which may lead to self-report bias, the low response rate, and the small sample size; these factors contribute to the low generalizability of the quantitative results. The findings of this study contribute to understanding the impact of academic workplace culture on empowerment. These concepts have been widely researched in


110


nursing practice environments and are now gaining momentum in nursing academia. Replication of this study with a larger sample size is recommended. This study adds to the work on the CVF (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) and psychological empowerment. Acknowledgements: We thank Nancy Purdy, RN, PhD (Associate Professor, Ryerson University) for her extraordinary support on this project.

References Avolio, B., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 951–968. Baker, S. L., Fitzpatrick, J. J., & Griffin, M. Q. (2009). Empowerment and job satisfaction in associate degree nurse educators. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32, 234–239. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing (CASN). (2012). Registered Nurses Education in Canada Statistics 2009–2010. Ottawa, ON: Author. Cangelosi, P. (2006). Mentoring program for tenure-track faculty: One school’s experience. Annual Review of Nursing Education, 4, 375–391. Chung, C. E., & Kowalski, S. (2012). Job stress, mentoring, psychological empowerment, and job satisfaction among nursing faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 51, 381–388. Conger J. A., & Kanungo R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482. Driscoll, L., Parkes, K., Tilley-Lubbs, G., Brill, J., & Pitts-Bannistera, V. (2009). Navigating the lonely sea: Peer mentoring and collaboration among aspiring women scholars. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17, 5–21. Foxall, M., Megel, M. E., Grigsby, K. & Billings, J. S. (2009). Faculty retirement: Stemming the tide. Journal of Nursing Education, 48, 172–175. Gardinera, W. (2010). Mentoring two student teachers: Mentors’ perceptions of peer placements. Teaching Education, 21, 233–246. Hebenstreit, J. J. (2012). Nurse educator perceptions of structural empowerment and innovative behavior. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33, 297–301. Hessler, K., & Ritchie, H. (2006). Recruitment and retention of novice faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 45, 150–154. Hinkle, J., & Kopp, E. (2006). Academic mentoring opportunities. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 38, 196–199.

Johnson, B. (2009). Empowerment of nurse educators through organizational culture. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30, 8–13. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57, 65–75. Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group & Organization Management, 24, 71–90. Kosoko-Lasaki, O., Sonnino, R., & Voytko, M. (2006). Mentoring for women and underrepresented minority faculty and students: Experience at two institutions of higher education. Journal of the National Medical Association, 98, 1449–1459. Laschinger, H., Almost, J., Purdy, N., & Kim, J. (2004a). Predictors of nurse managers’ health in Canadian restructured health care settings. Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 17, 88–105. Laschinger, H. K., Finegan, J., & Shamian, J. (2001). The impact of workplace empowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment. Health Care Management Review, 26, 7–23. Laschinger, H., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004b). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 527–545. Lee-Kilty, H. (2006). The nurse mentorship pilot project: The final report of the nurse mentorship project steering committee; Prepared for the Ontario Hospital Association. Retrieved November 30, 2009, from www.oha.com/ Client/OHA/OHA_LP4W_LND_WebStation.nsf/resources/ Nurse þ Mentorship þ Pilot þ Project/file/ Resources þ for þ Mentors þ - þ FINAL þ - þ April ¼ 2006.pdf Moss, J., Teshima, J., & Leszcz, M. (2008). Peer group mentoring of junior faculty. Academic Psychiatry, 32, 230–235. National League for Nursing [NLN]. (2006). Position statement: Mentoring of nurse faculty. Nursing Education Perspectives, 27, 110–113. Nick, J., Delahoyde, T., Del Prato, D., Mitchell, C., Ortiz, J., Ottley, C., … Sikterg, L. (2012). Best practices in academic mentoring: A model for excellence. Nursing Research and Practice. doi:10.1155/2012/937906. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/nrp/2012/937906/ Purdy, N., Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Kerr, M., & Olivera, F. (2010). Effect of work environments on nursing and patient outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 901–913. Quinn, R. E., & J. Rohrbaugh. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–377. Santucci, A., Lingler, J., Schmidt, K., Nolan, B., Thatcher, D., & Polk, D. (2008). Peer-mentored research development meeting: A model for successful peer mentoring among junior level researchers. Academic Psychiatry, 32, 493–497. Sarmiento, T., Laschinger, H., & Iwasiw, C. (2004). Nurse educators’ workplace empowerment, burnout, and job satisfaction: Testing Kanter’s theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 46, 134–143.



Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Seritan, A., Bhangoo, T., Garma, S., DuBe, J., & Hales, R. (2007). Society for women in academic psychiatry: A peer mentoring approach. Academic Psychiatry, 31, 363–366. Smith, J., & Zsohar, H. (2007). Essentials of neophyte mentorship in relation to the faculty shortage. Journal of Nursing Education, 46, 184–186. Spence-Laschinger, H. K., Leiter, M., Day, A., & Gilin, D. (2009). Workplace empowerment, incivility, and burnout: Impact on staff nurse recruitment and retention outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 17, 302–311. Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1462. Spreitzer G. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.

111

Spreitzer, G. (2006). Empowerment at work. [Monograph]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from http://www.salutare.ee/files/ettekanded/Empowerment %20at%20Work.pdf Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681. Tourangeau, A., Thomson, H., Saari, M., Widger, K.Ferron, E., & MacMillan, K. (2012). Determinants of nurse faculty intention to remain employed. Open Journal of Nursing, 2, 254–261. doi:10.4236/ojn.2012. 23039

Note: This research was funded by the Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing and the 2012 Pat Griffin Research Scholar Award.


Mentoring leaders in perinatal nursing.

Nursing education administrators: level of career development and mentoring.

Mentoring nursing students in the sexual health setting.

Feminist theory and nursing: an empowerment model for research.

Mentoring: Some cautionary notes for the nursing profession.

We Want You: Nurse educators. A message for nursing academia in the U.S.

Turning the tables: the growth of upward bullying in nursing academia.

Networking in academia.

Drug discovery in academia.

Academia and big pharma United.

Relationships among structural empowerment, psychological empowerment, intent to stay and burnout in nursing field in mainland China-based on a cross-sectional questionnaire research.

Speed mentoring: establishing successful mentoring relationships.

Whither mentoring in training?

Empowerment and engagement.

Wheelchair service provision education in academia.

Mentoring in surgical training.

On mentoring.

Academia Ophthalmologica Internationalis.

Mentoring in higher education.

On mentoring.

Career mentoring.

Early retirement in academia. Making the decision.

Anesthesiology mentoring.

Mentoring matters.