Empowerment for Participation: Measuring Motivation, Stress, Defense Routines and Engagement

Abstract

Background : There has been increased attention in concepts such as meaning, self-care, work-life balance and others designed to address human sustainability in the workplace. Nonetheless, world-wide per capita increase in psychological related sick-leave costs companies approximately $748 Billion annually? Approximately 55% of company sick leave is psychosocial related and this is increasing annually. Finding the necessary tools to identify predictors related to psychological safety and ill-health is now more critical than ever before. Furthermore, increasing awareness and reducing the disconnection between an individual’s situational wellbeing and an organization’s need for productivity is paramount. Currently, corporate mental health consists of symptomatic related solutions. Unfortunately, these retroactive models are usually short-lived plasters. Objective : This study aims to present reliability and validity of the Empowerment for Participation (EFP) batch of assessments and its methodology to measure, predict and proactively monitor an individual’s mental health and wellbeing. The study will also briefly introduce three risk assessments: Risk for Burnout, Risk of Anxiety and Risk for Depression, as well as an employee Engagement Potential measure. Study Design, Setting and Method : The EFP batch of assessments, consists of 110 questions. They are used to measure employee motivation, stress, defense routines and motivational positioning (situational adaptiveness) on an individual and aggregate level within a company. This study looks at the reliability and validity of the EFP batch to effectively measure the sustainability or status of an individual in relation to their engagement potential, wellbeing, adaptability, potential risk for burnout, anxiety, and depression. A cohort from four small companies and several unbound individuals (employed but not belonging to the four companies) were included in this study. An empirical design using raw EFP psychometric data to measure value consistency correlated to anti-depressive prescription use or any related diagnosis was used. Results : Reliability and validity results for EFP batch of assessments (N = 73) were analyzed using Cronbach’s Alpha for internal consistency: Motivation (Items = 20, α = 0.939), Stress (Items = 20, α = 0.887), Defense Routines (Items = 20, α = 0.870), and PMP (Items = 50, α = 0.944). Discriminant analysis was used on the four risk assessments (extracted from 110 EFP questions) and showed excellent results: Risk for Burnout (α = 0.928, p < 0.001, Partial Eta Squared = 0.900, Cohen’s d = 0.900), Risk for Anxiety (α = 0.864, p < 0.001, Partial Eta Squared = 0.885, Cohen’s d = 0.885), Risk of Depression (α = 0.798, p < 0.001, Partial Eta Squared = 0.788, Cohen’s d = 0.787). Engagement Potential (α = 0.959, M = 3.849, SD = 0.967, Var = 0.935) is calculated from the mean of means from the Burnout, Anxiety and Depression values. External validity showed >0.885. Conclusion : This original study suggests that EFP Batch of Psychometrics and the subsequent derivate risk assessment reports have excellent reliability and validity. Diagnosis is not the primary objective, but rather to highlight a tool that can be used for proactive engagement with employees, and to introduce a sustainable psychosocial wellbeing methodology for employee psychological safety. The purpose of which is to assist individuals in improving their situational self-awareness and to manage their personal situational environments sustainably. As a mental health tool to identify and prevent psychosocial illnesses proactively, the EFP batch produces consistently reliable results to serve as both a diagnosis and counseling tool worthy of major research in the future.