Does Organizational Vision Really Matter? An Empirical Examination of Factors Related to Organizational Vision Integration Among Hospital Employees

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-97445/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Does Organizational Vision Really Matter? An Empirical Examination of Factors Related to Organizational Vision Integration Among Hospital Employees

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-97445/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 21 May, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: There seems to be a consensus that a vision for an organization is a valuable thing for organizations to have. However, research on organizational vision has predominantly been studied from a leadership perspective. In contrast to previous research, organizational vision in this paper takes an employee perspective. Specifically, the purpose is to examine factors associated with the integration of organizational vision among employees in hospital organizations. Consequently, it focuses on a relatively neglected domain within health services research.

Methods: A conceptual model, centred on the concept of organizational vision integration, was developed and tested on a sample (N = 1008) consisting of hospital employees. Partial least-squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to test the hypotheses, using SmartPLS 3 software. Furthermore, a bootstrapping test was used to inspect potential mediating effects. Specifically, the test assessed whether the proposed direct and indirect effects were statistically significant, and at the same time revealed the nature of the mediation effect.

Results: The results from the empirical study reveal three key findings: i) organizational vision integration among employees is directly and positively related to creative performance in their respective work role (β = 0.16). Organizational vision integration and employees’ psychological capital explains almost 40% (R² = 0.37) in employees’ creative performance, ii) psychological capital and employees’ perception of organizational attractiveness are directly and positively related to employees’ organizational vision integration (β = 0.19 and β = 0.41, respectively) and explains about 30% (R² = 0.29) of employees’ organizational vision integration, iii) employees’ organizational vision integration mediates the relationship between employees’ psychological capital, perception of organizational attractiveness and employees’ creative performance.

Conclusions: Taking an employee perspective, this study contributes to revealing whether and how organizational vision matters and its impact on hospital employees’ work performance. To achieve organizational vision integration among hospital employees successfully, this study shows that it is important for hospital leaders to be aware of the pattern of impact of both personal as well as environmental-related factors.

Health Economics & Outcomes Research

Health Policy

Organizational vision integration

Creative performance

Organizational attractiveness

Psychological capital

Employees

Hospital

Almost all of today’s organizations have developed a strategic vision for their organization. Hospital organizations are no exception to this trend. For example, the organizational vision of the Mayo Clinic in America, which is one of the most famous and best hospitals in the world, is: ‘Mayo Clinic will provide an unparalleled experience as the most trusted partner for health care’ [1]. Another example is the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, which is one of the world’s foremost medical universities. The organizational vision of Karolinska Institutet is: ‘to advance knowledge about life and strive towards better health for all’ [2]. There seems to be, both in practice and theory, a consensus and an agreement that a vision is a good and valuable aspect for organizations to have. The fundamental premises or basic idea for such an assumption is the belief that organizational vision works just like a lodestar for a ship that is used to guide a ship (in our case hospital organizations) towards its desired direction and preferred aim. However, on the other hand, some people question or wonder whether a vision of an organization really has an impact, expressing statements such as: ‘after all, a vision of an organization is just some few words written on a piece of paper or on the wall of a company’. According to Liu, only a ‘few companies produce vision statements that actually capture the hearts of the group members’ [3]. In a similar vein, Kantabutra and Avery timely ask: ‘some organizations already have a vision, but how effective is it?’ [4]. This signals a need to acquire more insight and knowledge about factors associated with organizational vision.

In previous research, one finds a variety of descriptions of the concept of organizational vision. However, most descriptions of organizational visions have a dominating leadership perspective in its orientation towards goal achievement. This dominating leadership focus can be criticized because it does not capture well or correspond satisfactorily to three aspects of how to integrate an organizational vision in today’s modern organizational business context. Regarding this, Kohles et al. state: ‘as organizations become increasingly horizontal … simply crafting a compelling vision may no longer be enough’ [5]. This horizontal approach implies that leaders should be and act more like ‘employee supporters than employee supervisors’ [6]. Leaders undoubtedly play an important and active role in developing a vision integration. However, it is not enough to just communicate or spread the vision throughout the organization. Kohles et al. stated that such approaches ‘assume that leaders need only to articulate a vision to achieve follower buy-in’ [5]. This stresses the importance to also consider the integration of organizational vision from an organizational member’s perspective. These ‘receivers’ of the proposed organization vision play a critical role because they ‘ultimately determine whether vision statements are ignored or accepted’ [5]. Although leaders follow all ‘how-to-do-it recipes’ to ensure that employees accept the organizational vision, it is not sufficient. Employees’ mental acceptance of an organizational vision does not necessarily mean it will guide them in how to perform their work. The acceptance should also include a behavioural manifestation of organizational vision in employees’ day-to-day work. Accordingly, organizational vision should be embedded in employees’ work role performance. Stated in another way: organizational vision should be integrated into the ‘minds and feet’ of organizational members. Therefore, an organizational vision integration can only be considered as successfully achieved when it provides conscious directions and acts as an ‘inner mental voice’ that ‘guides the behaviour of organizational actors’ [5]. Consequently, the following can be concluded: leaders can develop, create and persuasively ‘sell’ the most wonderful organizational vision in the world, but it takes employees to bring the organizational vision to (real) life and reality. Consequently, it becomes fundamentally important to take an employee perspective when studying the integration of organizational vision.

For the reasons above, this paper has five aims, all with their own associated contributions. First, and most importantly, it aims to take an employee perspective when studying organizational vision integration. As such, it contributes to the focus on group organizational members (referring to employees) that have been ‘only rarely mentioned in the visioning process … often relegated to a largely passive role in vision implementation’ [7]. Second, it aims to examine how organizational vision integration is associated with the achievement of desired organizational goals. Specifically, it focuses on whether an organizational vision can increase hospital employees’ level of creativity and innovative behaviour (referred to as creative performance) in such a way that it is beneficial to the performance of hospital employees’ work role. As such, it responds to the call for more research on ‘conditions that promote the innovative performance [which is an area of research]  that still remain to be explored more in depth’ [8]. Recently, Mutonyi et al. called for more research that links organizational vision to employees’ capability to be innovative [9]. Third, it aims to examine a selection of premises or factors that potentially trigger the integration of organizational vision among employees. Specifically, it includes both personal-related factors (in the study referred to as employees’ psychological capital) as well as environmental-related factors (in the study referred to as organizational attractiveness). Fourth, by conceptually suggesting organizational vision as a mediating factor, it contributes to our knowledge regarding the role organizational vision plays for hospital organizations. Five, and this aspect is a continuation of the previous aim, because this study is an integration of organizational vision among employees in a real hospital organization, it contributes to demonstrating empirically the main issue reflected in the title of this paper, namely: Does organizational vision really matter? To the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the pioneering studies within health services research that has focused on aspects associated with hospital employees’ integration of organizational vision. According to Liu [3], there is a ‘limited collection of materials relative to organizational vision … particularly those applicable to the service industry’s critical area of service quality’ [3]. Consequently, the paper contributes to both theory and practice, regarding organizational vision, within the domain of health services research.

The paper is organized as follows. First, there is a brief description of the conceptual model. Second, the different concepts and links between them are discussed. Third, the methodology, statistical analysis and results from the empirical tests of hypotheses are presented. Fourth, the paper concludes with a discussion of findings and suggestions for further research, as well as a short conclusion of the study.

In line with the purpose of this study, this paper focuses on the concept of organizational vision integration (OVI). This is visualized by purposely placing OVI in the middle of the conceptual model in Figure 1. The framework consists of three parts, organized in a causally related manner, and labelled triggering factors, vision implementation and service effort.

As seen in Figure 1, OVI is reflected in the vision implementation among employees. Service effort is manifested by employees’ creative performance (CP). The triggering factors are represented by psychological capital (PsyCap) and organizational attractiveness (OA). PsyCap and OA are two distinctive sources of triggering factors. OA is an external oriented triggering factor implying that it comes from outside the person and thus is an environmental-related factor. In contrast, PsyCap is labelled as an internal oriented triggering factor indicating that the source comes from within the person and consequently is a personal-related factor. Although OA and PsyCap are dissimilar, they have similarities because both are proposed to be initiators or generators of ‘vision implementation’ (reflected in OVI) and ‘service effort’ (reflected in CP).

As shown in Figure 1, both OVI and PsyCap are suggested to be directly related to employees’ CP, while OA is suggested to be indirectly related to employees’ CP. Moreover, employees’ perception of OA and employees’ PsyCap are proposed as direct triggering factors that promote employees’ OVI. In addition, the relationship between OA and OVI is assumed to be mediated by employees’ PsyCap. Finally, the relationships between OA, PsyCap and employees’ CP are both suggested to be mediated by OVI.

In the next section, the content of different concepts and links between them are elaborated in detail.

Organizational vision integration (OVI)

Organizational vision is described in various and multifaceted ways in the literature. To name a few examples, organizational vision is described in terms of being ‘an ideal and unique image of the future’ [10], ‘a mental image of a possible and desirable future state of the organization’ [11], ‘a business technology, or corporate culture in terms of what it should become over the long term and articulate a feasible way of achieving this goal’ [12], ‘a guide to what the organization should become rather than a description of what it is’ [13], ‘ideological goal that organization members can feel morally satisfied in pursuing’ [14], ‘the primary guiding force of all organizational activity’ [15]. Others suggest that an organizational vision should be motivational, build self-confidence and create a common purpose among those who are encompassed by the vision [16].

Previous research within the domain of organizational vision has, according to Testa [17], been dominated by three streams of research. First, research has taken a leader level and focused on vision as characteristics or traits of effective leaders. Second, research has focused on how vision is defined and the development of vision statements. Third, research has focused on the role vision plays in the ‘achievement of organizational goals as a by-product of leadership style’ [17]. A predominantly common trait across the three research streams is, as noted above, to take a leadership perspective. Consequently, an employee perspective when studying aspects related to organizational vision has to a large extent been neglected. Therefore, instead of considering a top-down approach, regarding such as how leaders communicate or diffuse the organizational vision through the organization, the approach of this study embraces how well the organizational vision actually is adopted, absorbed or integrated among individual members of the organization.

Employees’ focus and role in the process of OVI are ‘only rarely or tangentially discussed as passive recipients of the vision’ [5]. However, in contrast to this dominating leadership perspective in previous research, this study takes an employee perspective when studying the integration of organizational vision. By taking an employee perspective, it supports Kohles et al.’s assumption that the ‘realizations of vision [seen from an employee perspective] may be at least equal to, if not greater than, the importance of strategic leaders’ [5]. Specifically, in line with Kohles et al., OVI in this study refers to ‘whether or not followers [referring to employees] use the vision as a guiding framework when making decisions and discretionary behaviors in their daily work roles’ [7]. Consequently, the focus in this definition is on the implementation of the vision in employees ‘minds and feet’. The authors of this paper are not aware of any previous study within health services research that has taken an employee perspective when studying hospital employees’ OVI.

Two elements together constitute the concept of OVI. First, there is the attention and knowledge element. This is about employee’s perception of whether they have been informed and ‘know and understand the vision’ [7]. The second element of OVI is intention. This element embraces whether employees ‘use the vision as a guiding framework in their particular jobs’ [7]. Only when the two elements are present simultaneously and intertwined do they characterize and constitute a positive OVI. The way that OVI is defined and operationalized in this study is conceptually close to and matches well the concept Slåtten and Mehmetoglu refer to as strategic attention [18]. Similar to the concept of OVI, Slåtten and Mehmetoglu describe strategic attention as ‘how the firm’s strategy serves as a guiding principle or a compass for frontline employees in their work role’ [18]. Although the authors label their concepts as strategic attention, it is interesting to note that the items used for their concept focus exclusively on aspects related to the integration of organizational vision and thus overlap to a large extent how the concept of OVI is described and operationalized in this study. Considering the important role employees play in all so-called service organizations, such as hospital organizations (which is the empirical context of this study), it is reasonable to assume that it is of fundamental importance to integrate or implement organizational vision into each individual member of the organization. As Slåtten and Mehmetoglu noted: ‘Without implementation the organization’s strategy is useless … implementation is fundamental for a firm’s success’ [18]. In the following section, several factors are proposed to be related to OVI among organizational members.

The relationship between employees’ OVI and CP

In this study, employees’ OVI is suggested to be related to their CP. As presented in Figure 1, CP is categorized as a service effort which reflects that it is manifested in employees’ respective work roles. CP in this study refers to and embraces individual employees’ capability to be creative and innovative. Consequently, CP is a combination of both a cognitive element (think creatively) and a behavioural element (act innovatively). In the literature, one will find that creativity and innovative behaviour are two closely related concepts. For example, Gilmartin suggests that creativity is the fuel for innovation and asserts that creativity is a ‘basic building block of invention and thus innovation’ [19]. The two elements that constitute CP are manifested in employees’ respective work role in the organization. It is important to note that CP is not limited or directed towards any specific work role. In contrast, CP as one part of what in Figure 1 is labelled as employees’ ‘service effort’ could be manifested both internally in the organization (e.g. a new administrative routine) or externally (e.g. a new way that improves service quality provided to hospital patients). Consequently, CP could be potentially manifested in various work roles employees hold in the organization.

As also indicated in the previous discussion, an organizational vision is a ‘tangible representation of the long-term goals for the company and its idealized future state’ [5]. This means that a vision of an organization per definition communicates to organizational members the existence of a gap between the current situation and the ideal future state of an organization. The only way to close the gap is by undertaking changes that move the organization towards its desired direction and preferred aim. Consequently, when an organizational vision is appropriately designed it constitutes a form for freedom, encouragement and motivation for organizational members to make the necessary behavioural changes to become more in harmony and in accordance with the organization’s desired and idealized future state. This is in line with Kohles et al. who state: ‘while vision statements may be more or less novel, ranging from incremental shifts to drastic changes, all of them represent an attempt to change employee behaviors’ [7]. Consequently, OVI should enable employees to think creatively and be innovative and thus ‘act visionary’ within the boundaries of the formal vision articulated by the organization. In the presence of OVI, employees have both knowledge about organizational vision and consciously use the organizational vision as a guiding tool when performing their work role. Little research has attempted to explore the relationship between OVI and CP in health services research. For example, in a study by Slåtten and Mehmetoglu [18], which included 279 employees in hospitality organizations, the authors found that employees’ strategic attention (a concept similar to OVI) was positively associated with employees’ level of work engagement and level of innovative behaviour. Consequently, when OVI is present it is reasonable to assume that such employees have a larger potential to manifest a greater CP than those with less OVI. Consequently, the following first hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1:OVI is positively related to CP

The relationship between OVI, PsyCap and CP

In this study, employees’ OVI is suggested to be related to their PsyCap. As presented in Figure 1, PsyCap is categorized as an internal oriented triggering factor. The expression ‘internal oriented’ reflects that PsyCap is an individual or personal-related factor. PsyCap can be explained as the ‘positive psychological state of the individual towards positive development’ [20]. PsyCap consists of four personal-related resources, which are (i) hope, (ii) efficacy, (iii) resilience and (iv) optimism [20]. These four resources of a person have a synergistic association and collectively constitute a state-like resource of ‘who you are’ [21]. In line with previous research, this study defines PsyCap as an individual’s positive psychological state characterized by: ‘(1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on challenging tasks and put in the necessary effort to succeed at them; (2) having a positive feeling (optimism) about future success; (3) persevering towards goals, and when necessary redirecting paths to goals (hope) to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, bouncing back, sustaining or increasing one’s efforts (resilience) to attain success’ [20].

The concept of PsyCap is about the level of positive resources or internal strengths a person possesses that can be capitalized on or exploited. Thus, the resources of PsyCap constitute a person’s motivational state. As Abbas and Raja state, ‘psychological resources have … motivational … components’ [22]. Thus, regarding the role employees possess in the organizations, PsyCap should make employees more engaged, more open for changes and more eager ‘to get things done’ as prescribed by the organization (e.g. through the organizational vision). Previous research supports that PsyCap is positively linked to an increased level of employees’ work engagement as well as their job performance [23]. Based on this, there are good reasons to expect that the resources of employees’ PsyCap are also capable of contributing positively to increase OVI of members of an organization. As previously discussed, OVI has two elements, referring to (i) attention and (ii) intention. Only when both elements are present simultaneously do they constitute a positive OVI. This implies that to achieve OVI there must be an inherent willingness in place among employees, finally ‘determining whether vision statements are ignored or accepted’ [5].

Therefore, successfully to achieve OVI, employees must have an inner-motivational drive that pushes them to undertake changes in the direction of a continuously improved goal-fulfilment of an idealized future articulated through the vision of the company. A person’s level of PsyCap constitutes this necessary motivational driver to OVI. As Abbas and Raja state: ‘PsyCap is considered an individual-level higher-order factor that facilitates change’ [22]. Considering the four resources embraced in PsyCap (that is hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism [20]) it is reasonable to assume that each individual resource, as well as collectively, has a potential to contribute positively to the successful achievement of OVI. Therefore, the PsyCap of employees can be said to be a prerequisite for the achievement of OVI among organizational members. Consequently, depending on the level and content of employees’ PsyCap, it should either promote or inhibit the OVI among organizational members. In this study, we limit our focus to examining the positive aspects of PsyCap. Specifically, it is expected that the more PsyCap possessed by employees the more it positively relates to the OVI among organizational members. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2:PsyCap is positively related to OVI

This study also suggests that OVI mediates the relationship between PsyCap and CP. There are three interrelated underlying premises for proposing OVI as a mediator. First, a vision statement ‘represent attempts to change employee behaviors’ [7]. In the existence of OVI, employees are consciously aware of undertaken changes based on what is prescribed and communicated by the vision of the organization. Second, motivation is a prerequisite for making changes. This represents the important role of PsyCap as a motivational driver for both OVI and CP. Third, OVI and CP share a common feature because they both focus on changes in a specific work role. On the other hand, CP and OVI differ in that OVI is about attention and intention to change (and thus attitude-like) while CP is about the actual manifestation (and thus behaviour-like) changes in how the work role is done. Taken together, when OVI increases because of an increase of PsyCap (as proposed in Hypothesis 2) OVI should next cause an increase in the CP of employees. Consequently, OVI functions as the common denominator or nexus between PsyCap and CP. Therefore, driven by the PsyCap of employees, OVI becomes a central source to having a visionary mindset that in the next round could be reflected in new creative and innovative ideas (referring to CP) in employees’ respective work roles. OVI is also central, while it is a source to visionary mindset, it simultaneously functions as a boundary or a ‘gatekeeper’ between PsyCap and CP. Specifically, OVI contributes to select and decide what creative and innovative ideas should pass further in such a way that it matches and stands in harmony with the vision of the organization. Consequently, because of the central role that OVI seems to have, it is reasonable to assume it operates as a mediator in the relationship between PsyCap and CP. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3:OVI mediates the relationship between PsyCap and CP

Although the relationship between PsyCap and CP is suggested to be mediated through OVI, there is evidence in the literature that the resources of employees’ PsyCap are directly related to CP. For example, Abbas and Raja state that based on the four resources that constitute PsyCap: ‘these positive psychological resource capacities may help employees exhibit innovative behaviors’ [22]. Previous research has identified a positive direct relationship between PsyCap, both as an individual and a collective resource, and CP in a variety of employee contexts [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. Although little research has examined the relationship between PsyCap and CP using hospital employees as the empirical setting, in line with previous research, this study proposes PsyCap to have a direct effect on employees’ CP. Consequently, it is assumed that PsyCap will ‘provide a necessary repository of psychological resources that help effectively innovative work-related ideas’ [22]. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 4:PsyCap is positively related to CP

The relationship between OVI, OA and CP

In this study, employees’ OA is suggested to be related to employees’ OVI. As presented in Figure 1, OA is categorized as an external oriented triggering factor. The expression ‘external oriented’ reflects that OA embraces an individual employee evaluation and perception of the environment in the organization, whether it is considered as ‘good or bad’. Thus, OA in this study is defined as employees’ perception and the degree employees experience the organization as a great place to work and consider their organization as an attractive place of employment. Specifically, the concept of OA is about ‘people’s attitude toward the organization for which they work’ [28]. In line with previous definitions of OA [28, 29] the content of OA reflects two aspects of employees’ attitude, namely, (i) choosing the same organization or employer again if given the choice and (ii) recommending the organization or employer to someone you know well’ [28]. This definition ‘captures both the direction of the attitude (positive or negative) as well as the strength of the attitude of current employees in the organization’ [28]. Notably, the definition of OA does not focus on any specific or attribute-like aspects of the organization that employees would potentially find attractive (e.g. leadership support, co-operation etc). In contrast, the definition of OA takes a holistic perspective of what is included in the OA equation. Consequently, OA is an expression of employees’ attitude that embraces all aspects of the organization that employees find relevant to appraisal. The concept of OA is relatively similar to psychological climate in that it is about ‘individuals’ interpretation of the environment [e.g. organization] in a way that is psychologically meaningful’ [30]. Thus, OA reflects employees’ attitude ‘toward viewing the organization as a desirable entity with which to initiate some relationship’ [31]. As Slåtten et al. commented regarding the definition of OA chosen in this study: ‘it is reasonable to assume these two aspects [of OA] capture well the core objective for any company to strive toward’ [28].

There are good reasons to expect that OA is related to OVI. When employees perceive OA as favourable, it should lead to a positive attachment to the organization. Based on this, one should expect such employees to be engaged, willing to work harder and thus more proactive to do what is in the interest of the organization that employs them while the opposite would most likely be the case for those who have a negative perception of OA. Previous research on OA, undertaken in a hospital setting, has found that OA is positively related to employees’ engagement and level of service quality. OA is also found to decrease employees’ turnover intentions significantly [28]. Consequently, a positive perception of OA implies that employees have a strong identification with their organization. As Chen et al. noted ‘organizational identification reflects the general satisfaction of employees with their organization and their assessment of … attractiveness’ [32]. These employees are ‘likely to continue working for the organization and make their best effort to benefit the organization’ [32]. Following this, it is expected that those employees who perceive OA as positive are also more inclined to be more motivated to expend necessary effort regarding OVI in their respective work role. A study by Kirkpatrick and Locke supports this idea. In their laboratory study, the authors documented a positive relationship between the attitude of employees and vision implementation [33]. Similarly, in a study by Liu, which included 600 employees, the authors found a positive relationship between employees’ perception of organizational vision and employees’ job satisfaction [3]. The concept of satisfaction in the study by Liu captured employees’ perception of company factors and supervisor factors [3] and thus shares some similarities with the concept of OA. The assumption of a link between OA and OVI can also be drawn from the psychological-contract theory which is ‘one of the most influential theories to understand organizational behavior’ [29]. Psychological-contract theory focuses on how ‘working relationship is interpreted, understood and enacted’ [29]. Slåtten et al. commented on the relevance of psychological-contract theory for OA: ‘it is reasonable to assume that OA implicitly includes a psychological-contract element that potentially binds the employee to his or her organization’ [28]. A consequence of this positive ‘binding’ is, according to Lee et al., that ‘employees’ psychological contracts influence their efforts on behalf of the employer’ [34]. When employees perceive their working relationship in the organization as favourable (e.g. perceive OA in a positive way), this has a positive impact on employees’ effort and motivation to engage more actively in what constitutes an extra-role effort of workers. As such, the OVI of employees stems from a voluntary ‘will do’ (or psychological contract), and thus not part of a formal written ‘have to do’ contract (or employment contract). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that OA acts as an external oriented motivational triggering factor (as presented in Figure 1) to the OVI of employees. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 5:OA is positively related to OVI

This study also suggests that OVI mediates the relationship between OA and CP. The reasons for this proposition share many of the same underlying premises and mechanisms for proposing OVI as a mediator as discussed in Hypothesis 3. However, in contrast to having PsyCap as an initiator of the ‘domino-effect’ affecting OVI and CP (which was suggested in Hypotheses 2 and 4) it is now suggested that OA functions as the initiator, affecting OVI and CP. OA is, as also mentioned in the previous discussion and presented in Figure 1, an external oriented triggering factor (referring to employees’ perception of their organizational environment). Thus, OA represents just another initiating source. However, OA differs from PsyCap, which is described as an internal oriented triggering factor (referring to an individual or personal-related condition or state). Consequently, when OVI increases because of an increase in OA (as proposed in Hypothesis 5) OVI should next cause an increase in the CP of employees. Therefore, as the common denominator or nexus in the relationship, OVI is both a source in having a visionary mindset and simultaneously functions as a boundary or an inner mental ‘gatekeeper of vision’ between OA and CP. This latter aspect deals with how OVI selects what creative and innovative ideas are acceptable and could be passed further in such a way it becomes in accordance with the vision of the organization. Consequently, because of this central role, it is expected that OVI will operate as a mediator between OA and CP of employees. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 6:OVI mediates the relationship between OA and CP

The role of OA and PsyCap in managing OVI and CP

The last three hypotheses focus on how OA can ‘manage’ employees’ PsyCap and what role PsyCap seems to have in the relationship between OA, OVI and CP.

As previously mentioned, this paper defines PsyCap as a ‘positive psychological state of the individual towards positive development’ [20]. When defining the concept as a psychological state, it implies that PsyCap is dynamic and prone to change. Specifically, it means that all four resources embraced in PsyCap (referring to (i) hope, (ii) efficacy, (iii) resilience and (iv) optimism [20]) are all potentially changing as time passes. An implication of this is that PsyCap is open for development and therefore is ‘manageable’. Luthans et al. support this assumption by stating that PsyCap is ‘open to development and can be managed for effective work performance’ [21]. By this line of reasoning, it is expected that OA has the potential to positively develop or ‘manage’ employees’ PsyCap. To the authors’ knowledge, no previous research has examined this specific relationship. However, OA is an employee’s ‘interpretation of the environment’ [30] and is reflected in their attitude, which embraces all aspects of the organization that employees find relevant to appraisal. When employees have a positive perception of OA, it implicitly means they experience a state of well-being and/or thriving, both of which have been found to be related to PsyCap in previous studies. Therefore, one should expect OA to have similar direction and association with PsyCap as other positive and ‘attractive’ evaluated aspects of the organizational environment manifested in previous studies. Previous research has found that employees’ perception of an organization’s supportive climate, such as authentic leadership, can positively develop employees’ PsyCap [23]. In a study by Choi [35], the author found a positive association between employees’ perception of an organization’s autonomous work environment and employees’ PsyCap. The same positive pattern of relationships, as found in previous studies, is expected to be identified between employees’ perception of OA and their PsyCap. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 7:OA is positively related to PsyCap

In Hypotheses 2 and 4, it is proposed that PsyCap has a direct relationship with OVI and CP. However, there is also another potential route, in regard to the influence of PsyCap on OVI and CP. Specifically, PsyCap is proposed to act as a mediator. A mediator should explain the link between a predictor and a criterion variable. Based on this, and in a continuation of Hypothesis 7, PsyCap is proposed to have a mediating role between OA and both OVI and CP. As previously discussed, OA is assumed to be able to develop, manage and change employees’ PsyCap in a positive direction. Specifically, the more employees perceive OA as positive the more it should lead to an increase in the resource base or the overall size of the motivational ‘muscle’ that PsyCap comprises. Furthermore, when PsyCap increases, because of an increase of OA, another consequence should be an increase in both the engagement of OVI and CP among employees in the organization. Although previous research has yet to explore the mediating effect of PsyCap, as suggested in this study, there are three reasons to expect PsyCap as a mediator. First, the idea finds support in previous research. For example, in a study of 103 service sales representatives, it was found that the PsyCap of employees functioned as a mediator between employees’ perception of organizational resources (referring to climate and leadership) and their performance outcomes such as innovative behaviour, employees’ sales performance and sales representatives’ general job engagement [23]. Second, support for PsyCap as a mediator also finds support in the Heskett et al.’s service-profit chain model [36]. The basic idea and premises of the chain model are that internal factors of a service organization (e.g. OA) have an impact on how people think and feel (e.g. PsyCap) about their organizations, which next have an impact on their work engagement and performance (e.g. OVI and CP). Third, further support for PsyCap as a mediator stems from the previously mentioned psychological-contract theory. Considering OA as part of employees’ psychological contract, it has impact or influence on what Lee et al. mentioned as employees’ ‘efforts on behalf of the employer’ [34]. As such, it is reasonable to assume that PsyCap, rooted in employees’ positive perception of OA, plays a central role for their motivational ‘effort’ manifested in their OVI and CP. Consequently, the following two final hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 8:PsyCap mediates the relationship between OA and OVI

Hypothesis 9:PsyCap mediates the relationship between OA and CP

This study has aimed to examine factors related to OVI, how OVI is adopted, absorbed or integrated among individual members of the organization, with a focus on the implementation of the vision among hospital employees. Consequently, as part of the health services research that focuses on individual-level innovations, we conducted a cross-sectional study in which Norwegian hospital employees (N = 2000) were invited to participate. Participants in the study were all employed at hospitals situated in the inland counties of Norway. With over 10,000 employees, with a coverage of over 40 sites, the hospital organization is one of the largest health expert communities in its region. Initial contact was sought through the Director of Research (DOR), who disseminated all the information about the survey to division managers, staff unit and department managers. After several meetings and exchange of emails, the survey was developed to test the hypothesized relationships. Before sending out the survey to potential respondents, several pretests with two experts were performed to ensure the overall quality of the survey. As such, some redundant or ambiguous items were modified or deleted.

With the help of the DOR, an information email was sent to division managers and department managers to inform their employees of the study. Division managers and department managers were viewed as ambassadors to encourage and motivate employee participation in the survey. The survey information and URL were distributed by the DOR through emails to division managers and department managers, who furthered it to their employees. To maintain participant anonymity and avoid nonresponse bias, the study used a platform called Nettskjema (www.nettskjema.no). Irrespective of their degree of qualification, all hospital employees (n = 2000) across 7 staff units and 10 divisions were encouraged to participate because the goal of this study was to examine generally the role of OVI in hospital organizations. Therefore, all specialized categories were summarized under a general category. For example, specialized nurse or senior nurse were summarized under the category Nurse, and specialized doctors or senior doctors were summarized under the category Doctor. Furthermore, we collected a total of n = 1008 completed questionnaires, a response rate of 50.4%. As shown in Table 2, personal characteristics were included in the survey. From Table 2, we can see that of the respondents in the study, 73% were female, reflecting the Norwegian context where the health sector is dominated by female workers [37]. About 37% of the hospital employees were under the age of 45 years, 77% worked full time, and over 55% had been employed at the organization for more than 10 years.

Instruments

This study covered four constructs: PsyCap, OA, OVI and CP. The claims used for the constructs in this study are listed in Table 3. All claims used for the constructs are based on previous research. However, because none of the instruments have specifically been used in a Norwegian healthcare context before, there was a need to adapt claims to the study context, here Norwegian hospital organizations. The items used to capture the concept of PsyCap were adopted from Luthans et al. [38]. Items used to capture the concept of OA were adopted from Trybou et al. [29]. Items used to capture the concept of OVI were adopted from Liu [3] and Slåtten and Mehmetoglu [39]. Finally, items used to capture CP were adopted from Zhou and George [40], Janssen [41] and Scott and Bruce [42]. It is important to note that in this study, the items used for the constructs PsyCap, OA, OVI and CP have all previously been validated in the healthcare setting [8, 43, 44]. However, the items were further adapted to fit the healthcare setting in the Norwegian context. A Likert scale from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree was used for all items. More importantly, the survey and all of its items used in this study are a part of a larger survey research project focusing on various aspects of employee-relations in hospital organizations. As such, the claims used in this study are appended accordingly (see Appendix 1).

Data analysis

Based on the conceptual model, partial least-squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to test the hypotheses, using SmartPLS 3 software [45]. The first step in evaluating the PLS-SEM results involved examining a set of criteria for the reflective measurement model. When the reflective measurement model assessment was satisfactory, the next step was to assess the structural model. We followed the ‘rules of thumb’ of Hair et al. [46, 47] to assess the quality of the measurement and structural model results. Based on the PLS-SEM results, mediating effects were also estimated and analysed using the bootstrapping test of Zhao et al. [48]. This bootstrapping test assesses whether the direct and indirect effects are statistically significant, and the combination of these two tests determines the degree of the mediation effect.

Measurement model

To assess the reflective measurement model, we examined convergent validity, internal consistency reliability and discriminant validity. Convergent validity is the extent to which a claim correlates positively with alternative measures based on the same construct, and this was evaluated with loadings of the measures and average variance extracted (AVE). Internal consistency reliability is an estimate of the construct reliability based on the size of the correlations of the observed measures and was evaluated using composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha. Discriminant validity is the extent to which a construct is distinct from other constructs; in this study, as recommended by Hair and colleagues [46, 49], it is assessed using the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlation between constructs. As we can see from Table 4, the evaluations of convergent validity, internal consistency reliability and discriminant validity all satisfy the rules of thumb criteria, and the tests support the view that this is a reliable and valid measurement model.

Structural model

The direct effects in the structural model are shown in Figure 2.[1] For the endogenous constructs, the model’s in-sample predictive power was examined using R². Based on the ‘rules of thumb’ [46, 49], the R² values for PsyCap (0.34), OVI (0.29) and CP (0.39) were moderate. All the standardized direct-path coefficients were statistically significant at the 1 per cent significance level. The path coefficient between OA and PsyCap was the highest at 0.59, the second-highest of 0.52 was between PsyCap and CP and the third-highest, 0.41, was between OA and OVI. The relationship between OVI and CP was positive (β = 0.16), supporting H1. H2 and H4 were also supported because the relationships between PsyCap and OVI and between PsyCap and CP were positive ( β = 0.19 and β = 0.52, respectively). Finally, there was a positive relationship between OA and OVI (β = 0.41) and between OA and PsyCap (β = 0.59), supporting H5 and H7.

As previously mentioned, when testing the mediation effect of the proposed hypothesis, as summarized in Table 1, we followed the proposed process by Zhao et al. [48]. Simply stated, utilizing bootstrapping to assess whether the direct and indirect effects are statistically significant, we can determine whether there exist direct effects only—without mediation, no-effect non-mediation, complementary mediation, competitive mediation (direct and indirect effects are significant, but opposite direction) or indirect-only mediation. We tested two mediator effects of OVI and two mediator effects of PsyCap (Table 5). OVI had a significant positive indirect effect (β = 0.028) and a complementary mediation effect on the relationship between PsyCap and CP, supporting H3. OVI indirect-only mediates the relationship between OA and CP (with an indirect positive effect of β = 0.061), supporting H6. The positive indirect effect of PsyCap on the relationship between OA and OVI was significant (β = 0.108), implying a complementary mediation effect and support for H8. PsyCap showed a significant positive indirect effect (β = 0.293) and an indirect-only mediation effect between OA and CP, and thus H9 received support.

Footnote:

[1] Before the structural model was assessed, multicollinearity between the latent constructs was examined by looking at the variance inflation factor (VIF) values, where VIF values above 5 indicate multicollinearity issues [49]. All VIF values were lower than 2, indicating no multicollinearity problems.

This study aimed to examine factors linked to OVI. Consequently, the paper adds to the current research on organizational vision which is described as a ‘key concept in the strategy and leadership literature’ [50]. Specifically, the study offers three main contributions. First, in contrast to the leadership perspective that has dominated previous research, this study examines the integration of organizational vision from an employee perspective. Second, it contributes to revealing the role that OVI plays for employees’ work performance, in this study manifested in their CP. As such it contributes to revealing whether OVI really matters and to what extent OVI can be described as a ‘guiding force’ [15] to hospital employees’ work role activities. Third, it adds to our understanding of and insight into the direct impact of different types of triggering factors to OVI. Simultaneously, it contributes to revealing how different types of triggering factors indirectly (through OVI) are linked to employees’ work performance (represented by CP). To the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the pioneering studies to focus on OVI, as well as its antecedents (represented by OA and PsyCap) and effects (represented by CP), from a (hospital) employee perspective. Accordingly, this study offers a novel contribution to health services research.

Organizational vision is often referred to as ‘the primary guiding force of all organizational activity’ [15]. Following this idea, OVI in this study is about whether hospital employees use the hospital vision ‘as a guiding framework when making decisions and discretionary behaviors in their daily work roles’ [7]. The findings show that OVI has a direct impact on employees’ service effort manifested in their CP (β = 0.16). The impact of OVI, together with the direct impact of PsyCap (β = 0.52), explains almost 40% (R² = 0.37) in employees’ service effort manifested in their CP. Consequently, hospital managers should be aware that OVI among hospital employees matters because it, together with PsyCap, constitutes a substantial power to guide CP of employees in hospital organizations.

Although few studies within health services research have examined the impact of OVI on CP in a hospital context, the results are supported within research undertaken in other types of service organizations where the ‘human factor’ is important. One example of this is the study by Slåtten and Mehmetoglu [18]. In their study, a total of 279 frontline employees in hospitality organizations participated. The findings revealed that employees’ level of strategic orientation (a similar concept to OVI) was positively associated with frontline employees’ work engagement and their innovative behaviour (a related concept to CP) as a part of their work role [18]. The value of organizational vision for employee’s performance is also supported in the study by Liu [3]. In their study, a total of 560 customer-contact employees from 50 branches (fast-food outlets) nationwide participated. The findings revealed that customer-contact positive perception of organizational vision was directly related to employees’ level of service effort in their respective work role. Similar to the concept of service effort in the study by Liu [3], service effort of CP in this study is manifested in the work performance of employees in their respective work role. However, CP in this study is an expanded type of service effort compared with the one in the study by Liu [3] and can best be described as an extra-role service effort. Because CP is not normally included in a formal work contract or as part of an in-role responsibility, CP goes beyond what is expected or ‘should-do’ and thus it is about employees volunteering and their ‘want-to-do’ extra effort reflected in their capability to think creatively and act innovatively (referring to CP). As found in this study, the OVI among employees is, together with their PsyCap, significantly related to employees’ extra-role service effort manifested in their CP.

The impact of OVI on CP also parallels ideas proposed in the study by Koryak et al. [50]. In their study, the authors examined, among several other factors, the impact of firms’ written vision on followers’ perception of their firm’s explorative activities. In their study, explorative activities referred to whether firms sought out new ideas, and were measured using items such as looking for novel technological ideas, exploring new technologies, creating products or services that are innovative. Thus, explorative activities in the study by Koryak et al. [50] match well what is embraced and constitutes core aspects of CP in this study. CP, which refers to thinking creatively and acting innovatively, is by its nature focused on performing explorative activities. Similar to our study, Koryak et al. [50] assumed that organizational vision should motivate, guide attention and action and lead to more explorative activities following daily operations. Although these reasons are both plausible and logical from a theoretical point of view, the authors did not receive empirical support in their study results. Consequently, the findings in our study differ from Koryak et al. [50] because we found a significant relationship between OVI and CP. However, some potential reasons could explain why Koryak et al. [50], in contrast to our study, did not receive empirical support. Specifically, we suspect two plausible reasons could potentially explain the insignificant findings in Koryak et al. Both reasons are based on how organizational vision is focused on in Koryak et al., which constitute a major contrast to this study. First, in the study by Koryak et al., a majority of participants (85%) were top executives (CEO). Consequently, the authors of the study took a leadership perspective and not an employee perspective as done in this study. Second, the concept of organizational vision in Koryak et al. [50] focused solely on the communicative aspect of organizational vision. Participants (referring to leaders) were asked two questions about firms’ vision, namely, (i) does your company have a written vision? and (ii) have you talked to your employees about your vision for the company in the last 6 months? Consequently, the focus on organizational vision in Koryak et al. [50] is on the ‘senders’ (referring to leaders) and not on the ‘receivers’ (referring to employees) of organizational vision which is done in this study. Although it is important to communicate organizational vision well throughout the organization, it is fundamental and critical that organizational members themself perceive if they are informed, familiar with and conscious about doing their job in line with the company’s vision and aim. This latter aspect is what OVI is about in this current study. Based on this reasoning, one way to interpret or understand the insignificant findings between organizational vision and explorative activities in Koryak et al. [50] is to say the findings (just) confirm that it is not satisfactory enough for leaders to just communicate the vision throughout the organization. Specifically, it confirms that communication of organizational vision is not the same as achieving OVI among employees. Consequently, the relationship between OVI and CP revealed in this study is an implication for hospital leaders to have a clear focus on how well OVI is understood among organizational members. Thus, an explicit formula to potentially achieve success for hospital leaders, regarding organizational vision, can be pronounced by living (or leading) the following slogan: ‘Communicate to integrate’.

The results in this study further reveal that when OVI is clearly present in hospital employees’ ‘minds and feet’, it can have an impact on hospital employees’ CP manifested in their respective work role. Furthermore, it is also essential for hospital managers to understand those factors that positively foster employees’ OVI as well as employees’ CP. In this study, two types of triggering factors were proposed to be related to OVI and CP. PsyCap is proposed to be an internal or a personal-oriented triggering factor while OA represents an external or an environmental-oriented triggering factor. As explained in the previous discussion, the triggering factors differ in their orientation. However, the findings reveal that PsyCap and OA are interrelated, and in different ways, have an impact on both employees’ OVI and their CP.

PsyCap was found to have a direct impact on employees’ level of OVI (β = 0.19) as well as having a direct impact on CP (β = 0.52). Furthermore, based on the mediator test suggested in Zhao et al. [48], it was found that OVI operates as what Zhao et al. term ‘complementary mediation’ [48]. A complementary mediation signifies that two pathways lead to CP. The first works directly from PsyCap to CP and the second means that OVI has a mediating effect between PsyCap and CP. It is important to recognize that these two ‘routes’ do not substitute each other but co-exist and act as complementary impact. PsyCap is about a person’s ‘positive psychological state of the individual towards positive development’ [20]. Consequently, based on the findings in this study, those resources embraced in employees’ PsyCap are important triggering factors and motivators to both employees’ OVI and their CP. Previous research supports that PsyCap (or parts of PsyCap) is linked to aspects of employees’ CP [23, 24, 25]. However, to the authors’ knowledge, this is among the first studies in health services research to reveal the role PsyCap plays, both directly and indirectly, on employees’ OVI as well as employees’ CP. In the literature, PsyCap is described as a resource a person possesses. Furthermore, this resource embraced in a person’s PsyCap is characterized as being relatively controllable, which implies that PsyCap is ‘open to development’ [21] and manageable for ‘effective work performance’ [21]. An implication of this is the importance of hospital leaders continuously to cultivate and develop PsyCap among their hospital employees and specifically in a positive way manage those four resources that PsyCap consists of (referring to (i) hope, (ii) efficacy, (iii) resilience and (iv) optimism).

Although leaders can help develop those resources of PsyCap, the results of this study further reveal other types of triggering factors that are related to employees’ PsyCap. Specifically, OA was found to have a direct impact on PsyCap (β = 0.59) and explains 34% of the variance in PsyCap. OA, as an external oriented triggering factor, is about how employees’ attitude [28] towards the environment in the organization in which they are employed is considered as good or bad. OA has substantial influence or ‘managing impact’ on PsyCap. Although OA is highly central for employees’ PsyCap, the findings reveal that OA influences OVI and CP. When considering OVI, which is the most focused concept in this study, the findings reveal that OA has a direct impact on OVI (β = 0.41). It is important to note that the impact of OA (an external environmental-oriented trigger), is twice the size of the direct effect of PsyCap (an internal personal-oriented trigger) on OVI (β = 0.19). It reveals that OA is the primary triggering source for OVI among employees. Consequently, hospital leaders should be aware of the important role OA plays for the successful achievement of integrating the organizational vision among organizational members.

However, although OA have a dominating direct impact on OVI, OA together with PsyCap explain almost 30% (R² = 0.29) of the variance in OVI. Furthermore, the analysis shows that OA has another pattern that relates to OVI. Based on the mediation results presented in Table 4, this study found that OA also functions as what Zhao et al. term ‘complementary mediation’ [48]. Specifically, this means that in addition to having a direct impact on OVI, the impacting power of OA on OVI simultaneously works through the resources embraced in employees’ PsyCap.

Finally, OA also plays a role when it comes to employees’ CP. However, based on the mediation test of Zhao et al. [48], the findings reveal that OA does not act as a ‘complementary mediation’ but in contrast acts as an ‘indirect-only mediation’. In total, two ‘indirect-only mediations’ between OA and CP were found. The first ‘indirect-only mediation’ works through OVI and the second ‘indirect-only mediation’ works through PsyCap. When comparing the different patterns of relationship, it reveals that OA plays a multifaceted role and is highly central for OVI among employees. In addition, the mediation results in Table 4 reveal that OA has an indirect effect on OVI as well as on employees’ PsyCap and employees’ CP. Although limited research within health services research has examined the multiple impacts of OA, as done in this study, the findings highlight the importance of hospital leaders to focus on OA. As Trybou et al. noted: ‘hospital attractiveness is of major importance’ [29]. Consequently, hospital leaders should follow the recommendation by Slåtten et al. who advocate that OA is ‘something that needs to be focused on, maintained, and cultivated’ [28].

Limitations and future research

According to Kantabutra and Avery ‘more research is still needed into characteristics of power visions and vison realization factors’ [4]. This study has contributed to revealing that organizational vision really matters when considered from an employee perspective. However, research on this issue within health services research is relatively absent and can be described more or less as a ‘black box’. There is a need for substantial research on a range of aspects within the domain of organizational vision. Based on this study, three areas to be focused on in future research are suggested.

First, and this is most fundamental, considering the focus on OVI in this study. Although the way OVI is defined in this study functioned well, there is a need for more research to capture the true nature of the aspect ‘integration’ in the concept of OVI. ‘Integration’ is a relatively complex phenomenon. Integration can be described as the act of bringing together smaller components into a single system that functions as one. Based on this, future research should try to reveal whether the concept of OVI consists of one or several subdimensions. Should OVI be considered as a formative or reflective concept? Taking an employee perspective, future research on OVI should focus on the ‘act in time’ regarding ‘integration’. Specifically, research should focus on the process of how OVI is manifested among employees in an organization. What does a positive OVI process normally look like? Why is it that some employees do not integrate an organizational vision? Future research could also look at ‘integration’ by considering how employees perceive aspects related to the explicit formulation and aspiration communicated through the formal written vision of organizations. What are the ingredients of a formal written vision that are capable of capturing the ‘minds and feet’ of employees in a hospital organization? How does an organizational vision motivate and engage hospital employees? Is there a difference in OVI when employees contribute in the process to develop a new vision, compared with when they are just presented a new vision? Because of the complexity of OVI, it is highly recommended to do more qualitative research on OVI. Moreover, such qualitative studies could next be followed up and tested on a large scale, using quantitative methods, to reveal the generalizability of findings both within and across contexts.

Second, this study contributed to revealing two types of triggering factors that had an impact on OVI. Both PsyCap, as an internal (personal) oriented triggering factor, and OA, as an external (environmental) oriented triggering factor, have an impact on OVI. As previously mentioned, two types of triggering factors explained about 30% (R² = 0.29) of the variance in OVI. Consequently, there is considerable variance left in OVI to be explained. Based on this ‘explanation gap’ in OVI, future research should include other types of both internal and external triggering factors. Considering external oriented triggering factors, future research could examine how different types of organizational culture act as a triggering factor for OVI. For example, one could study the impact of the four culture types proposed by Cameron and Quinn [51]. The four mentioned in their framework are (i) clan culture, (ii) adhocracy culture, (iii) market culture and (iv) hierarchy culture. Other potential types of organizational culture would be to examine the impact of innovative culture [52] or internal market-oriented culture [28, 53] on OVI. Other dimensions of external oriented triggering factors to OVI would be to focus on how different leadership styles can foster OVI. In the literature, there is a range of possibilities of leadership styles to include such as leadership autonomy support, empowering leadership, authentic leadership, ambidextrous leadership or several other leadership styles mentioned in the literature. When considering internally oriented triggering factors, future research could examine how variation in employees’ inner attachment to the organization has an impact on OVI. One such factor would be to study the impact of what the literature labels as employees’ affective commitment. Affective commitment is defined as ‘employees’ positive emotional attachment to the organization’ [54]. Another internal oriented triggering factor is the relatively new concept of ‘thriving’ [55] which is defined as the ‘psychological state in which individuals experience both a sense of vitality and learning at work’ [56]. These external and internal oriented triggering factors are only a few examples, among several other potential triggering factors, that could be included as impacting factors to OVI in future research.

Third, this study found that OVI, based on the mediation test of Zhao et al. [48], acts as both ‘complementary mediation’ and ‘indirect-only mediation’ in relation to CP. It is highly recommended that future research uses sophisticated statistical tests to reveal types of mediating effects. Such statistical tests bring more nuanced knowledge and insight about both the role of OVI as well as identifying potential patterns on how OVI is related to service effort such as the level of CP among employees in organizations. Future research could also relate OVI to other types of service effort relevant to health care organizations such as the level of service quality, the level of productivity in the delivery of services or others. Consequently, based on the specific recommendations in each of the three areas regarding future research related to OVI, it is well reflected and is summarized in the following statement by Foster and Akdere: ‘There is much room for more research and investigation to be completed in the area of organizational vision’ [57].

Previous research has predominantly taken a leadership perspective when studying organizational vision. The contribution of this study is to examine factors related to OVI from an employee perspective using hospital organizations as the empirical setting. The findings reveal that to achieve OVI successfully among hospital employees, hospital leaders need to be conscious of the complex configuration of influences of both personal as well as environmental-related factors.

PsyCap: Psychological capital; OA: Organizational attractiveness; OVI: Organizational vision integration; CP: Creative performance; PLS-SEM: Partial least-squares structural equation modelling; HTMT: Heterotrait–monotrait; AVE: Average variance extracted; DOR: Director of research; NSD: Norwegian Centre for Research Data.

Ethics and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Data Research (NSD) (project number 239029). The NSD is a resource centre and ethics committee for academic research in Norway. In addition, the study was approved by the Data Protection Office of the hospital organization included in this study. In accordance with the Personal Data Act §§2–7 and 8 no. 1, the participants were given written information about the project and gave their consent by choosing to participate actively in the study by answering the online questionnaire.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

Not applicable

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

TS led the development and mainly drafted this manuscript. BRM contributed to the development of the questionnaire, data collection and input to the manuscript. GL contributed to the development of the questionnaire, statistical analysis, interpretation of data and general input to the manuscript. All three authors approved the final draft.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the study subjects for their participation in this research.

Authors’ information

¹ Inland School of Business and Social Science, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Lillehammer, Norway

https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/locations/la-crosse/about-us/mission (Downloaded 2 July 2020)
https://ki.se/en/about/karolinska-institutet-in-brief (Downloaded 2 July 2020)
Liu, CM. The effect of organizational vision on service quality delivery. Serv Ind J. 2006;26(8):849–859.
Kantabutra S, Avery GC. The power of vision: statements that resonate. J of Bus Strat. 2010;31(1):37–45.
Kohles JC, Bligh MC, Carsten MK. A follow-centric approach to the vision integration process. Lead Quart. 2012;23:476–487.
Hocine Z, Zhang J. Autonomy support: explaining the path from leadership to employee performance. Open J of Soc Sci. 2014;2(6):1–7.
Kohles JC, Bligh MC, Carsten MK. The vision integration process: applying Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory to leader-follower communications. Leadership. 2013;9(4):466–485.
Carlucci D, Mura M, Schiuma G. Fostering employees’ innovative work behavior in healthcare organisations. Int J of Innov Manag. 2020;24(02):1–28.
Mutonyi BR, Slåtten T, Lien G. Empowering leadership, work group cohesiveness, individual learning orientation and individual innovative behavior in the public sector: empirical evidence from Norway. Int J of Publ Lead. 2020.
Kouzes JM, Posner BZ. The leadership challenge. 1987; Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.
Bennis W, Nanus B. Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. 1985; Harper & Row. New York, NY.
Kotter JP. What leaders really do. Harvard Bus Rev. 1990;68(3):103–111.
James K, Lahti K. Organizational vision and system influences of employee inspiration and organizational performance. Crea and Innov Manag. 2011;20(2):108–120.
House RJ, Shamir B. Toward an integration of charismatic, transformational, and visionary theories. In Chemers, MM and Ayman, R. (eds), Leadership Theory and Research: perspectives and directions. 1993; Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Locke, EA, Kirkpatrick SA, Wheeler J, Schneider J, Nilse K, Goldstein H. The essence of leadership. 1991; Lexington Books, New York.
Tichy NM, Devanna MA. The transformational leader. 1986; Wiley, New York, NY.
Testa MR. Satisfaction with organizational vision, job satisfaction and service efforts: empirical investigation. Leadership & org Develop J. 1999;20(3):154–161.
Slåtten T, Mehmetoglu M. Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline employees – A study from the hospitality industry. Manag Serv Qual. 2011;21(1):88–107.
Gilmartin MJ. Creativity: The fuel of innovation. Nurs Admin Q. 1999;23(2):1–8.
Luthans F, Youssef-Morgan CM. Psychological capital: An evidence-based positive approach. Annual Rev of Org Psy and Org Beh. 2017;4:339–366.
Luthans F, Luthans KW, Luthans B. Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Bus Horizons. 2004;47(1):45–50.
Abbas M, Usman R. Impact of psychological capital on innovative performance and job stress. Canadian J Adm Sci. 2015;32:128–138.
Slåtten T, Lien G, Horn CMF, Pedersen E. The links between psychological capital, social capital, and work-related performance—a study of service sales representatives. Tot Qual Manag & Bus Exc. 2019;30(1):S195–S209.
Slåtten T. Determinants and effects of employee’s creative self-efficacy on innovative activities. Int J Qual and Serv Sci. 2014;6(4):326–347.
Tierney P, Farmer SM. Creative self-efficacy: potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy Manag J. 2002;45(6):1137–1148.
Rego A, Sousa F, Marques C, Cunha PM. Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological capital and creativity. J Bus Res. 2012;65:429–436.
Cai W, Lysova EI, Bossink, BAG, Khapova SN. Psychological capital and self-reported creativity: the moderating role of supervisor support and job characteristics. Crea Innov Manag. 2019;28:30–41.
Slåtten T, Lien G, Svenkerud PJ. The role of organizational attractiveness in an internal market-oriented culture (IMOC): a study of hospital frontline employees. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(307):1–15.
Trybou J, Gemmel P, Vaerenbergh YV, Annemans L. Hospital-physician relations: the relative importance of economic, relational and professional attributes to organizational attractiveness. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(232):1–15.
James LR, James LA. Psychological climate and affect: test of hierarchical dynamic model. In Cranny, CJ, Smith, PC and Stone, EF (eds), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. Lexington, New York: pp. 89–117.
Aiman-Smith L, Bauer T, Cable D. Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study. J of Bus and Psy. 2001;16(2):219–237.
Chen SY, Wu WC, Chang CS, Lin CT, Kung JY, Weng HC, Lin, YT, Lee SI. Organizational justice, trust, and identification and their effects on organizational commitment in hospital nursing staff. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(363):1–17.
Kirkpatrick SA, Locke EA. Direct and indirect effect of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. J of Appl Psy. 1996:89–117.
Lee C, Liu J, Rousseau DM, Hui C, Chen ZX. Inducements, contributions, and fulfillment in new employee psychological contracts. Human Res Manag. 2011;50(2):201–226.
Choi J. The mediating effect of positive psychological capital between autonomous work environment and self-directed behavior: evidence from South Korea. H Res Develop Int. 2019:1–21.
Heskett JL, Jonas TO, Loveman GW, Sasser EW, Schlesinger LA. Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harv Bus Rev.1994; 72(2):164–74.
Jensen RS, Øistad BS. Det kjønnsdelte arbeidsmarkedet på virksomhetsnivå [The gender-segregated labour market at the workplace level]. 2019; Fafo-rapport, Oslo.
Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers Psy, 2007;60(3):541–572.
Slåtten T, Mehmetoglu M. What are the drivers for innovative behavior in frontline jobs? A study of the hospitality industry in Norway. J of Hum Res in Hosp & Tou. 2011;10(3):254–272.
Zhou J, George JM. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Acad of Manag J. 2001;44(4):682–696.
Janssen O. Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. J of occup and org psy. 2000;73(3):287–302.
Scott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad of Manag J. 1994;37(3):580–607.
Luthans KW, Jensen SM. The linkage between psychological capital and commitment to organizational mission: A study of nurses. JONA: J Nurs Admin. 2005;35(6):304–310.
Hearld LR, Alexander JA. Governance processes and change within organizational participants of multi-sectoral community health care alliances: the mediating role of vision, mission, strategy agreement and perceived alliance value. Amer J of Comm Psy. 2014;53(1-2):185–197.
Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com. 2015.
Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2^nd 2017; SAGE, London.
Hair Jr. JF, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Gudergan, SP. Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. 2018; SAGE, London.
Zhao X, Lynch JGJ, Chen Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. J Consumer Research. 2010;37:197–206.
Hair Jr., JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Euro Bus Rev. 2019;31(1):2–24.
Koryak O, Lockett A, Hayton J, Nicolaou N, Mole K. Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: exploration and exploitation. Res Policy. 2018;47:413–427.
Cameron KS, Quinn RE. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: based on the competing value framework. 2012; Wiley, New York.
Mesfin D, Woldie M, Adamu A, Bekele F. Perceived organizational culture and its relationship with job satisfaction in primary hospitals of Jimma zone and Jimma town administration, correlational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(438):1–9.
Slåtten T, Lien G, Lupina E, Gravingen KA. Promoting an Internal Market-Oriented Culture (IMOC) in healthcare services. J of Serv Sci Res. 2019;11(2):157–182.
Jafri, MH. Organizational commitment and employees innovative behavior. J Manag Res. 2010;10(1):62–68.
Porath C, Spreitzer G, Gibson C, Garnett FG. Thriving at work: toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. J Organ Behav. 2012;33:250–275.
Spreitzer G, Sutcliffe K, Dutton J, Sonenshein S, Grant AM. A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Org Sci. 2005;16:537–549.
Foster RD, Akdere M. Effective organizational vision: implications for human resource development. J of Eur Ind. 2007;31(2):100–111.

Table 1 Hypotheses leading this study

Hypothesized relationships
H1	OVI is positively related to CP
H2	PsyCap is positively related to OVI
H3	OVI mediates the relationship between PsyCap and CP
H4	PsyCap is positively related to CP
H5	OA is positively related to OVI
H6	OVI mediates the relationship between OA and CP
H7	OA is positively related to PsyCap
H8	PsyCap mediates the relationship between OA and OVI
H9	PsyCap mediates the relationship between OA and CP

Note: PsyCap = Psychological Capital, OA = Organizational Attractiveness, OVI = Organizational Vision Integration, CP = Creative Performance.

Table 2 Personal characteristics of the study sample (N = 1008)

		%
Sex	Female	73.0
	Male	27.0
Staff role:	Nurse	33.0
	Doctor	8.7
	Others (adm. staff, other health professionals, etc.)	58.3
Employed:	less than 5 years	26.9
	between 6 and 10 years	18.0
	between 11 and 20 years	30.3
	more than 20 years	24.8
Part-time or full-time:	part-time job	22.5
	full-time job	77.5
Age:	younger than 45 years	37.3
	between 46 and 55 years	32.2
	older than 55 years	30.5

Table 3 Constructs (Psychological Capital (PsyCap), Organizational Attractiveness (OA), Organizational Vision Integration (OVI), Creative Performance (CP)) and claims used in the study

Construct	Claims label	Claims
PsyCap	PsyCap1	I feel confident that I can set goals for myself in my work area.
	PsyCap2	I am optimistic when it comes to my future at this organization.
	PsyCap3	When faced with challenges in my job, I can find alternative solutions to them.
	PsyCap4	I can find alternative ways to achieve my goals.
OA	OA1	(Hospital name) is attractive for me as a place for employment.
OA	OA2	I would recommend (Hospital name) as an employer for my friends.
OVI	OVI1	The management has informed me about the company’s vision and aim.
	OVI2	I am familiar with the organization’s vision and aim.
	OVI3	I am conscious of doing my job in line with the company’s vision and aim.
CP	CP1	I contribute creative ideas to solve challenges in my job.
	CP2	I contribute creative ideas to improve the quality of my job.
	CP3	I create new ideas to solve problems in my job.
	CP4	I search out new working methods or techniques to complete my work.
	CP5	I investigate and find ways to implement my ideas.
	CP6	I promote my ideas so others might use them in their work.
	CP7	I try out new ideas in my work.

Table 4 Results of the measurement model for the constructs of Psychological Capital (PsyCap), Organizational Attractiveness (OA), Organizational Vision Integration (OVI) and Creative Performance (CP)

		Convergent validity		Internal consistency reliability		Discriminant validity
Construct	Claims label	Indicator reliability	AVE^*	Composite reliability	Cronbach’s alpha	HTMT criterion^*
‘Rule of thumb’		Loading >0.7	>0.5	0.7–0.95	0.7–0.95	HTMT interval does not include 1
PsyCap	PsyCap1	0.82	0.74	0.92	0.88	Yes
	PsyCap2	0.82
	PsyCap3	0.89
	PsyCap4	0.90
OA	OA1	0.96	0.93	0.96	0.93	Yes
	OA2	0.96
OVI	OVI1	0.88	0.81	0.93	0.88	Yes
	OVI2	0.93
	OVI3	0.89
CP	CP1	0.76	0.68	0.94	0.92	Yes
	CP2	0.76
	CP3	0.82
	CP4	0.85
	CP5	0.87
	CP6	0.87
	CP7	0.85

^*AVE = Average variance extracted, HTMT = Heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations.

Table 5 Test of mediation effect of OVI and PsyCap

Hypothesis	Effect	Mediator	Direct effect^a	Indirect effect^a	Mediator effect^b
H3	PsyCap → CP	OVI	0.519^***	0.028^***	Complementary
H6	OA → CP	OVI	0.039	0.061^***	Indirect-only
H8	OA → OVI	PsyCap	0.408^***	0.108^***	Complementary
H9	OA → CP	PsyCap	0.039	0.293^***	Indirect-only

^a *** p < 0.01 is the significance level.

^b Mediation by bootstrapping [48]

APPENDIX1QUESTIONNAIREDEVELOPEDFORTHISSTUDY.docx

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 21 May, 2021

Read the published version in BMC Health Services Research →

Editorial decision: Major revision
02 Feb, 2021
Review #2 received at journal
24 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
10 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received at journal
05 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
18 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited by journal
21 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned by journal
15 Oct, 2020
Submission checks completed at journal
14 Oct, 2020
Editor invited by journal
14 Oct, 2020
First submitted to journal
11 Oct, 2020

You are reading this latest preprint version

Does Organizational Vision Really Matter? An Empirical Examination of Factors Related to Organizational Vision Integration Among Hospital Employees

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Conceptual Model Of The Study

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1