Pacific Business Review (International)
Volume 14 issue 7 January 2022
Organizational Health with Management Approach: A Scale
Development Study
Murat Ak
Assist. Prof.
Department of International
Trade and Business,
Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University,
Karaman, Turkey.
H.Tezcan Uysal
Assoc. Prof.
Department of Management
and Organization,
Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University,
Zonguldak, Turkey.
Fatma Yılmaz
Assist. Prof.
Department of Foreign Trade,
Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University,
Erzincan, Turkey.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to develop the "Organizational Health Scale"
for employees and test its validity and reliability. The experimental form
created for this purpose has been presented to the experts for their
opinions. In line with the feedback from experts, exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) has been conducted in a pilot study within a sample group
of 50 people, and 1 item has been removed from the survey consisting of
29 items. The data obtained by 354 participants working in the health
sector responding the 28-item test form have been analysed using the
SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 24.0 software. In exploring factor analysis, a
three-dimensional structure such as "career", "managerial ability" and
"social psychology" have been reached. Together, these three factors
explain 88.4% of the total variance. As a result of confirming factor
analysis for scale, fit values have been obtained as RMSEA= 0.055,
CFI= 0.926, TLI= 0.925, GFI= 0.901, AGFI=0.911, RMR= 0.062 and
the organizational health scale has been found to have good fit criteria.
Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients have been found to be 0.86 for
the whole scale, 0.76 for the career sub-dimension, 0.80 for the
managerial ability sub-dimension, and 0.64 for the social psychology
sub-dimension, and the scale has been found to have internal
consistency. The findings of the research have revealed that
organizational health scale is a valid and reliable measuring tool. T Test,
one-way variability analysis and Tukey Test have been carried out in
order to determine if the organizational health levels of the participants
are different in terms of demographic variables. As a result of the
analysis carried out; it has been found out that there are significant
differences between organizational health sub-dimensions according to
the variables of gender, age, marital status, education, title, working
time.
Keywords:Organizational Health, Scale Development, Work
Environment
118
www.pbr.co.in
Volume 14 issue 7 January 2022
Introduction
In order for businesses to develop continuously, achieve
change and succeed, all their units must be functional. One
of the concepts that stands out from this perspective
towards the businesses is organizational health (Doğanay
and Dağlı, 2020:128). Organizational health has been the
subject of scrutiny in different ways by various disciplines.
Educational scientists use the concept of organizational
health in relation to administrative and organizational
structure in schools, while industrial psychologists use the
concept of organizational health as a "state of well-being"
created by all kinds of psychological, physiological and
mental conditions that contribute to the ability of the
employees to create feelings of effectiveness, efficiency,
job satisfaction, commitment, etc. (Tutar, 2010:184).
Organizational health is a concept that addresses the
organization's compliance with all its internal components
and environment and its ability to achieve its goals and
objectives. Furthermore, organizational health addresses
the state of the physical environment of the organization
and the appropriate tools to realize the purpose of the
organization, communication status between the
organization and senior management, problem solving,
development, growth and innovation potential. It is also
concerned with the quality of inputs (state of competence)
and raw material safety, management and decision-making
activities of the organization, the moral, psychological and
physical health of its employees and the welfare,
performance and positions of the employees (AkbabaAltun, 2001; Xenidis and Theocharous, 2014).
The concept of organizational health has been first used by
Argyris in the 1950s, and its systemic examination has been
first carried out by Mathews Miles (1969). Miles used the
concept of organizational health to express the climate of
schools. Today, this concept is the subject of various
researches by academicians studying business psychology.
A healthy organizational structure means that the institution
is psychologically (organizational climate, organizational
culture) and physically well in general (Tutar, 2010:184).
Miles (1969) explained the concept of organizational health
using a model of a school's characteristics with 10
dimensions. These dimensions are being target-oriented,
www.pbr.co.in
communication competence, optimal power
synchronization, resource usage, consistency, morale,
innovation, autonomy, compliance and capability of
trouble shooting. According to Miles (1969),organizational
health is not only about surviving in their environments, but
also about organizations that continue to cope in the long
term while constantly improving and extending their ability
to survive and cope (Sezgin, 2008). In other words, he has
defined healthy organizations as organizations that not only
continue to survive in their environmental conditions, but
also continuously improve their basic talent and life in the
long term (Tsui and Cheng, 1999). Similarly, Hoy and
Tarter (1991) have expressed organizational health as the
ability of organizations to successfully adapt themselves to
their environment, to ensure association within the
members of the organization and to achieve their goals.
It is argued that the concept of organizational is a variable
that improves organizational performance and efficiency
(Buluç, 2008:574). It is stated that healthy organizations
have loyal employees who are affiliated with their
organization, morale and motivation in the business are
high, in-house and out-of-house communication channels
are constantly open, productivity is increasing and they
consist of employees with successful middle-level
managers. Healthy organizations are defined as places
where employees love to come to work and see themselves
as part of the institution and are proud of it (Lyden and
Klingele, 2000). The organization's health can affect both
the organization's operational systems and the design and
management of procedures. It can also change employee
behaviour, stress level and employee health in the
organization. Organizational health can also have a positive
impact by improving employee performance and business
relationships. There is effective communication between
employees and managers in a healthy organization. In
addition, employees in a healthy organization are
innovative. Healthy organizations are determined by three
factors. These factors are employees, the organization itself
and its working conditions (Özer et al., 2019). Xenidis and
Theocharous (2014) evaluate organizational health in four
stages. These stages include identifying processes within
the organization, identifying critical elements within
processes, assessing the health status of critical elements,
119
Pacific Business Review (International)
identifying problematic elements and processes, and
evaluating organizational health.
Method
The research performed is a scale development study. The
aim of the study is to develop an organizational health scale
that could be culturally valid in order to measure
participants' perceptions of organizational health. The
organizational health scale has been prepared through the
following stages as indicated by various experts; (1) Scale
Development, (2) Validity Study of Scale, (3) Reliance
Study of Scale (Karasar, 1998; Altunışık et al., 2005; Balcı,
2005; Rabbit, 2002).
Workgroup
This research has been applied to employees working in an
official health institution in Ankara province. When the
distribution of the workgroup by gender is examined; it is
observed that 41.7% are female and 58.3% are men. When
the distribution is examined in terms of age groups; 19% of
the people are aged 20-29, 36.2% of the people are aged 3039, 36.2% of the people aged 40-49, 8.6% of the people are
aged 50-59. 79.7% of participants are married and 20.3%
are single. 3.3% of the participants are high school
graduates, 10% of the participants are high school
graduates and 25% are associate degree graduates. The
ratio of people with bachelor's degree is 43.3%, and the
ratio of people with postgraduate degree is 18.3%. 1.7% of
the participants are managers, 71.2% are staff, 10.2% are
employees and 16.9% are of other status. According to the
period of employment in the occupation, the ratio of
respondents employed for 1-5 years is 21.7% and the ratio
of respondents employed for 11-15 years is 13.3%; the ratio
of respondents employed for 16-20 years is 30%, the ratio
of respondents employed for 21-30 years is 11.7% and the
ratio of respondents employed for 31 years and more is
3.3% When the distribution by income is examined; the
ratio of respondents with income below TRY 3000 is
12.1%, the ratio of respondents with income of TRY 30014000 is 46.6%, the ratio of respondents with income of TRY
4001-5000 is 24.1%, the ratio of respondents with income
of TRY 5001-6000 is 6.9% and the ratio of respondents with
income more than TRY 6000 is 6.9%.
120
Scale Development
In the first phase of the development of the organizational
health scale, a comprehensive literature review has been
carried out and the studies carried out at home and abroad
on organizational health and substances of similar scales
have been examined and expressions that are considered to
measure organizational health are organized as scale items.
A form of 29 items has been created taking into account all
indicators of organizational health. The 29-item form has
been evaluated by experts with knowledge of the subject to
get expert opinions. In the resulting form, each item has
been evaluated within the scope of measuring
organizational health, being associated with related subdimensions, the appropriateness of the language and the
comprehensiveness of the statements. First, a pilot
application has been carried out on a sample of 50 people
and as a result of the application, 1 item has been removed
from the scale. In order to determine the respondents' level
of agreement to the items in the scale a 5-type Likert scale
has been used as "5- strongly disagree, 4-disagree, 3-neither
agree nor disagree 2-agree, 1-strongly agree". Eventually, a
form consisting of 28 items and 3 sub-dimensions as
"career", "managerial ability" and "social psychology" has
been created.
Data Collection
The survey data has been collected between October 7-22
November 2019 by the researchers who conducted the
survey. The researchers visited the participants at work and
made the necessary explanations about the research
subject, the survey form has been left to the participants
who agreed to participate in the research, and the forms
have been collected after they have been filled out. The
survey has been conducted on 380 people who have been
easily identified by sampling method. However, 354 survey
forms have been included in the analysis. 26 survey forms
have been excluded from analysis for various reasons.
When determining the work group, it has been taken into
account that the participants volunteered. The form used as
a data collection tool consists of the first section including 7
statements that contain the demographic information of the
participants and the second section with 28 statements to be
evaluated by the participants.
www.pbr.co.in
Volume 14 issue 7 January 2022
Analysis of the Data
SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 24.0 package programs have been
used in statistical analysis of the data obtained from the
participants. Validity and reliance analyses have been
carried out to determine the psychometric properties of the
scale. It has been evaluated as to whether the data have been
suitable for factor analysis within the scope of the research
with Kaiser-Meyer Olkin [KMO] coefficient and Bartlett
Sphericity Test. The sample size required for factor analysis
has been examined and the determined working group has
been considered sufficient (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001).
In relation to the validity of the organizational health scale,
exploring factor analysis has been carried out within the
scope of structural validity. Factor loads have been
determined as at least 0.30 in the analysis (Büyüköztürk,
2006). Confirmatory factor analysis has been carried out
using AMOS 24.0 program to confirm the factor structure
of the organizational health scale determined by
exploratory factor analysis. Maximum likelihood
technique has been used in the study. In addition, the
standardized regression coefficients of the road diagram for
organizational health scale have been calculated.
Findings
Findings on the Structural Validity of Organizational
Health Scale
In the relevant literature, there are different opinions and
criteria on sample size in order to perform factor analysis in
scale development research. It is considered sufficient that
the sample size is generally 5 to 10 times the number of
items in the scale (Pett et al., 2003; Rabbit, 2005). In the
current study, with this in consideration, exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) has been carried out on 354 participants. In
order to examine the structural validity of the
organizational health scale, a pilot study has been carried
out on a sample of 50 people and appropriate arrangements
have been made according to the results and applied to the
main working group.
Table-1 Exploratory Analysis Results for Pilot Application
Factor
1
s1
0,832
s2
0,825
s3
0,804
s5
0,699
s4
0,599
s6
0,593
2
s7
0,586
s12
0,562
s13
0,793
s15
0,769
s9
0,570
s8
0,548
s10
0,522
s17
0,712
s18
0,601
s19
0,461
www.pbr.co.in
3
4
121
Pacific Business Review (International)
Factor
1
2
s20
0,428
s14
0,826
s16
0,506
s11
0,484
3
s23
0,879
s21
0,850
s29
0,700
s26
0,694
s28
0,573
s27
-0,688
s24
0,612
s25
0,461
4
s22
0,853
In order to determine the suitability of the data for factor
analysis as a result of the exploratory factor analysis
applied, the KMO coefficient and Bartlett Sphericity Test
significance level have been examined and the data has
been found suitable for factor analysis. When table 2 with
factor structure of 29 items is examined, it is observed that
29 items are weighted under 4 factors. However, item 22
has been excluded from the study due to the weighting of
this item on its own under the fourth factor. Other than that,
no problems have been observed in the remaining items,
therefore the questionnaire has been finally shaped.
In the second implementation of exploratory factor
analysis, 354 valid surveys have been obtained and the
suitability of scale data for factor analysis has been reexamined. Since the KMO coefficient is close to 1 (0.818)
and the Bartlett Sphericity Test significance level is less
than 0.05, the data set is suitable for factor analysis.
Table-2 Exploratory Analysis Results for Main Application
Factor
Factor Load
Average
Std. Deviation
In determining the duties of employees within the organization (corporation);
education level, merit, career and driver's license (giving the job to the
people) principles are respected.
0,825
2,00
0,97
Employees can easily use their own skills, knowledge and skills while
performing their duties in the organization.
0,818
2,77
1,27
Promotion of employees within the organization is made in line with merit,
career and competence principles.
0,808
2,30
1,05
The salaries and wages given to employees are directly proportional to their
knowledge, skills, abilities and performances.
0,721
2,35
0,94
Career (Eigenvalue = 5.62; Described Variance = 52.1%)
122
www.pbr.co.in
Volume 14 issue 7 January 2022
Factor
Factor Load
Average
Std. Deviation
The working environment provided within the organization (corporation) is
suitable for improving the knowledge, skills and capabilities of the
employees.
0,655
2,27
1,16
Through their knowledge, skills, capabilities and training, employees are able
to perform their current tasks effectively, efficiently and with a focus on
results and to achieve organizational goals easily.
0,606
2,63
0,82
Organizational (corporate) objectives, corporate performance, business and
operation are shared with employees and their opinions are taken.
0,852
2,4
1,1
There is strong cooperation, solidarity, solidarity, synergy and coordination
among the employees within the organization (corporation).
0,871
2,2
1,1
Importance is given to feedback as well as manager-employee and employeeemployee communication in the work and operations carried out within the
organization.
0,778
2,6
1,0
Audit activities carried out within the organization (corporation); they are
very strict, hard and extremely procedural.
0,766
2,8
1,2
Determined organizational (corporate) objectives, tasks, jobs and operations
are compatible and identical to corporate capacity and employee knowledge,
skills, capabilities and training levels.
0,625
2,7
1,1
Various practices, businesses and operations carried out by management
within the organization (corporation) are in line with the principles of
equality, justice, objectivity and fairness.
0,621
3,2
1,1
I believe that the organization (corporation) I work for is successful, effective
and efficient in achieving its goals.
0,606
2,8
1,1
Employees can easily get permission to meet their social and special needs,
provided that they do not disrupt their duties or avoid sloping.
0,555
2,9
1,0
Management cares about flexibility, functionality and rationality in their
policies, practices, business and operations.
0,608
2,4
0,9
I believe that my organization (corporation) is extremely healthy.
0,451
2,5
1,0
I have a strong confidence in my relations with management.
0,433
3,4
1,3
Within the organization (corporation), there is a weakness and gap in
supervision.
0,752
3,0
1,1
Very harsh and strict disciplinary practices are carried out within the
organization (corporation).
0,526
2,7
1,1
Within the organization (corporation), strong cooperation, solidarity,
solidarity, synergy and coordination are provided by the management for the
employees.
0,659
2,9
2,9
Managerial Capability (Eigenvalue = 3.32; Described Variance = 22.7%)
www.pbr.co.in
123
Pacific Business Review (International)
Factor
Factor Load
Average
Std. Deviation
Managers attach importance to special days such as birthdays and marriages
and employees are congratulated on such special days.
0,882
3,0
1,1
There are problems of dissonance, conflict and disagreement among the
employees within the organization (corporation).
0,825
3,1
1,1
Conflicts, dissonances, disputes within the organization (corporation) can be
resolved within the framework of mutual dialogue, empathy and respect.
0,712
3,0
1,1
The working environment provided in the organization helps to create
intimate, social, warm, sincere relationships for employees.
0,695
2,4
1,2
There is a high level of trust and sincerity among the employees of the
organization (corporation).
0,578
3,2
1,3
The type of communication of employees within the organization
(corporation) is mostly formal, procedural and hierarchical.
0,696
2,8
1,1
Employees attach importance to special days such as birthdays and marriages
of their colleagues and they are congratulated on such special days.
0,606
2,1
0,9
The working environment provided in the organization helps to create
intimate, social, warm, sincere relationships for employees.
0,512
3,0
1,1
Social Psychology (Eigenvalue = 1.29; Described Variance = 13.6%)
According to the results of the exploratory factor analysis
given in Table 2; since the value of 28 items is three factors
greater than one, it can be said that the substances are
weighted under three factors. The first factor individually
describes 52.1% of the total variance, the second factor
alone explains 22.7% of the total variance, and the third
factor individually describes 13.6% of the total variance,
and the three factors collectively explain 88.4% of the total
variance. When the common characteristics of the
substances under the same factor are examined; the first
factor is named "career", the second factor is named
"managerial ability", and the third factor is named "social
psychology".
Confirmatory Factor Analysis has been carried out using
AMOS 24.0 program to confirm the factor structure of the
organizational health scale determined by exploratory
factor analysis. As a result of this; the ratio of the scale of the
124
perception of innovation to the degrees of freedom of the
chi-square statistic (2ﯼ/df) is 3.67; root mean square
approach error (RMSEA) is 0.055; the Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI) is 0.925 and the comparative compliance index (CFI)
is 0.926 (see Table 3). The fact that a model has a
particularly comparative aligning index (CFI) and TuckerLewis index (TLI) values of 0.90 or above means that it
achieves a good fit.
Goodness of fit indices are usually a measure of variance
and covariance described by the model. The specifying
coefficient calculated in multiple regression can be
interpreted as R2. The closer the value of goodness of fit
indices to 1, the more compatible the model can be said to
be in the data. For goodness of fit indices, the acceptability
of 0.90-0.95 and the fact that it is above 0.95 shows a high
compatibility (Dickey, 1996; Stapleton, 1997; Byrne,
1998).
www.pbr.co.in
Volume 14 issue 7 January 2022
Table-3.Confirmatory Factor Analysis Goodness of Fit
Acceptable Fit Indices
Calculated Fit Indices
χ2/sd<5
3.667
GFI >0.90
0.901
AGFI >0.90
0.911
CFI >0.90
0.926
TLI>0.90
0.925
RMSEA <0.08
0.055
RMR <0.08
0.062
The track diagram of the organizational health scale is
given in Figure 1 and the standardized regression
coefficients are given in Table 4.
Figure-1 Standardized Regression Coefficients
When the standardized regression coefficients in Table 4
are examined; it is observed that values range between
0.122 and 0.770. However, it is understood that items S1-S6
affect the sub-dimension of the career in a positive way.
Between the items S7 and s20, only item S16 negatively
affects the level of managerial ability, while other items are
observed to have a positive effect. Items 21 and 22 of the
items between S21-S28 under the sub-dimension of social
psychology affect the sub-dimension of social psychology
positively, while other items negatively affect them.
Table-4 Standardized Regression Coefficients
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
www.pbr.co.in
<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<---
Dimension
Career
Career
Career
Career
Career
Career
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Value
0,642
0,672
0,652
0,551
0,462
0,600
0,689
0,647
0,767
0,717
0,732
0,768
0,565
0,228
0,122
-0,311
0,765
0,695
125
Pacific Business Review (International)
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<---
Dimension
Managerial Ability
Managerial Ability
Social Psychology
Social Psychology
Social Psychology
Social Psychology
Social Psychology
Social Psychology
Social Psychology
Social Psychology
"career" sub-dimension (6 items) is 0.76, for "managerial
ability" sub-dimension (14 items) is 0.80, and for "social
psychology" sub-dimension (8 items) is 0.64. The internal
consistency coefficient for the entire scale is 0.86. The
resulting values indicate that this scale is a reliable
measuring tool for measuring organizational health
perception.
Value
0,716
0,237
0,121
0,131
-0,673
-0,481
-0,498
-0,770
-0,446
-0,290
Change of Organizational Health by
Demographics
Findings on The Reliability of Organizational
Health Scale
According to the reliance analysis, a general rule accepted
in the field of social sciences is that Cronbach's Alpha value
of 0.6-0.7 shows an acceptable level of reliability, while a
level of 0.8 or higher shows a very good level (Hulin et al.,
2001). If the alpha coefficient is between 0.80 and 1, the
scale has high reliability (Rabbit, 2002; Alpar, 2001). The
reliance of the 28-item scale developed in this context has
been calculated by Cronbach alpha internal consistency
coefficient. The internal consistency coefficient for
Independent-Sample T Test and one-way variance analysis
(One-Way ANOVA Test) have been conducted in
independent groups to determine the averages of
organizational health scale sub-dimensions based on
demographic information and whether the difference
between these averages has been significant. Table 5
examines the change in organizational health scale subdimensions by gender. According to this table; the subdimensions of career, managerial ability and social
psychology vary significantly by gender. It has been
determined that women's career, managerial ability and
social psychology levels are significantly higher than that
of men.
Table-5 Organizational Health Sub-Dimensions and Gender Variable Test
N
Average
Std.
Deviation
Female
150
2,67
0,62
Male
210
2,19
0,69
Female
150
2,94
0,54
Male
210
2,61
0,74
Female
150
3,08
0,41
Male
210
2,63
0,58
Independent-Sample T
Career
Managerial Ability
Social Psychology
T
p
45,641
0,000*
21,519
0,000*
64,556
0,000*
*p<0,05
Table 6 shows the change of organizational health scale
according to age groups. When this table is examined;
while career sub-dimension does not differ significantly
according to age groups, it is observed that the subdimensions of managerial ability and social psychology
vary significantly according to age groups. According to
TUKEY test results to determine which group the
difference originated from for sub-dimensions that differ
126
significantly; the administrative ability of people aged 2029 and 30-39 is significantly higher than that of people aged
40-49 and 50-59. In addition, the managerial ability level of
people aged 40-49 is significantly higher than that of people
aged 50-59. For social psychology sub-dimension; social
psychology level of people aged 30-39 years old is
significantly higher than that of people aged 40-49 and 5059 years old. There is no significant difference in the third
career sub-dimension and age variable.
www.pbr.co.in
Volume 14 issue 7 January 2022
Table-6 Test on Organizational Health Sub-Dimensions and Age Variable
One-Way ANOVA
Career
Managerial Ability
Social Psychology
Age
N
Average
Std. Deviation
20-29
66
2,53
0,96
30-39
126
2,35
0,65
40-49
126
2,39
0,66
50-59
30
2,50
0,32
20-29
66
2,90
0,82
30-39
126
2,90
0,55
40-49
126
2,69
0,65
50-59
30
2,43
0,63
20-29
66
2,85
0,74
30-39
126
2,96
0,46
40-49
126
2,70
0,57
50-59
30
2,62
0,43
F
p
1,164
0,324
5,867
0,001*
5,656
0,001*
*p<0,05
Table 7 indicates that the sub-dimensions of the
organizational health scale change according to the marital
status. When the table is examined; while the subdimensions of career and managerial ability do not differ
significantly depending on marital status (p>0.05), the
social psychology sub-dimension differs significantly
depending on marital status (p<0.05). Accordingly, it has
been determined that the level of social psychology of
married employees is higher than the level of social
psychology of singles.
Table-7 Test on Organizational Health Sub-Dimensions and Marital Status Variable
N
Average
Std.
Deviation
Married
282
2,33
0,64
Single
72
2,51
0,90
Married
282
2,74
0,68
Single
72
2,76
0,70
Married
282
2,77
0,59
Single
72
2,96
0,42
Independent-Sample T
Career
Managerial Ability
Social Psychology
When the change of the organizational health scale
expressed in Table 8 according to the level of education is
examined; the sub-dimensions of career, managerial ability
and social psychology vary significantly according to the
level of education (p<0.05). According to TUKEY test
results to determine which group the difference originated
from for these sub-dimensions that differ significantly;
www.pbr.co.in
T
p
3,859
0,050
0,054
0,816
6,595
0,011
career sub-dimension of primary school graduates is
significantly higher than the career sub-dimension of
bachelor's and post-graduate degree holders and the career
sub-dimension of high school, associate degree and
bachelor's degree holders are significantly higher than postgraduate degree holders. For managerial ability subdimension, the managerial ability of primary school and
127
Pacific Business Review (International)
associate degree holders is significantly higher than that of
postgraduate degree holders, and the managerial ability of
high school graduates is significantly higher than that of
bachelor's and postgraduate degree holders. For social
psychology sub-dimension; the level of social psychology
sub-dimension level of high school and postgraduate
degree holders is significantly higher than associate degree
holders and the social psychology sub-dimension level of
postgraduate degree holders is significantly higher than
bachelor's degree holders.
Table-8 Test on Organizational Health Sub-Dimensions and Education Level Variable
N
Average
Primary School
12
2,83
Std.
Deviation
0,00
High School
36
2,47
0,81
Associate degree
90
2,42
0,62
Bachelor’s Degree
156
2,40
0,74
Postgraduate
66
2,18
0,69
Primary School
12
3,08
0,22
High School
36
2,98
0,60
Associate degree
90
2,83
0,70
Bachelor’s Degree
156
2,70
0,68
Postgraduate
66
2,58
0,69
Primary School
12
2,78
0,46
High School
36
2,98
0,57
Associate degree
90
2,66
0,48
Bachelor’s Degree
156
2,80
0,62
Postgraduate
66
2,98
0,48
One-Way ANOVA
Career
Managerial Ability
Social Psychology
F
p
2,841
0,024*
3,311
0,011*
4,134
0,003*
*p<0,05
Table 9 shows the change of organizational health scale
according to the working status. When this table is
examined; it is observed that the sub-dimensions of career,
managerial ability and social psychology vary significantly
according to the level of education (p<0.05). According to
TUKEY test results to determine which group the
difference originated from for these sub-dimensions that
differ significantly; the career sub-dimension of managers
and people with other status are significantly higher than
personnel and career sub-dimension of employees are
significantly higher than personnel and people with other
status. For managerial capability sub-dimension; the level
of managerial ability sub-dimension for workers is
significantly higher than that of staff and people with other
work status. For social psychology sub-dimension; the
level of social psychology sub-dimension of managers and
workers is significantly higher than that of staff.
Table-8 Test on Organizational Health Sub-Dimensions and Education Level Variable
One-Way ANOVA
Career
128
N
Average
Std. Deviation
Manager
6
3,00
0,00
Personnel
252
2,27
0,70
Worker
36
2,86
0,49
Other
60
2,48
0,73
F
p
10,292
0,000*
www.pbr.co.in
Volume 14 issue 7 January 2022
One-Way ANOVA
Managerial Ability
Social Psychology
N
Average
Std. Deviation
Manager
6
2,93
0,00
Personnel
252
2,67
0,59
Worker
36
3,22
0,47
Other
60
2,79
1,02
Manager
6
3,33
0,00
Personnel
252
2,75
0,55
Worker
36
3,06
0,51
Other
60
2,88
0,64
F
p
7,429
0,000*
5,349
0,001*
*p<0,05
Table 10 shows how the organizational health scale changes
depending on the working time in the profession. When this
table is examined; it is observed that the sub-dimensions of
career, managerial ability and social psychology vary
significantly according to the level of education (p<0.05).
According to TUKEY test results to determine which group
the difference originated from for these sub-dimensions
that differ significantly; the career sub-dimension is
significantly higher for employees working for 31 years and
more compared to employees working for 6-10 years,
higher for employees working for 11-15 years compared to
employees working for 6-10 years and 21-30 years and
higher for employees working for 1-5 years compared to
employees working for 6-10 years, 16-20 years and 21-30
years. The managerial ability sub-dimension is
significantly higher for employees working for 31 years and
more compared to employees working for 21-30 years,
higher for employees working for 16-20 years compared to
employees working for 21-30 years and 21-30 years and
higher for employees working for 1-5 years compared to
employees working for 6-10 years, 16-20 years and 21-30
years. Social psychology sub-dimension level significantly
is higher in employees working for 1-5 years than 6-10
years, 21-30 years and 31 years and more. The average level
of employees working for 6-10 years is significantly higher
than those working for 21-30 years and the level of
employees working for 6-10 year and 21-30 year is
significantly higher than employees working for 31 years
and more. The average level of employees for a period of
16-20 years is significantly higher than those who work for
6-10 years, 21-30 years and 31 years and above.
Table-10 Test on Organizational Health Sub-Dimensions and Working Time in the Profession
One-Way ANOVA
Career
Managerial Ability
www.pbr.co.in
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-30 years
31 years and
more
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-30 years
31 years and
more
N
Average
78
72
48
108
42
2,68
2,15
2,52
2,31
2,21
Std.
Deviation
0,84
0,74
0,51
0,66
0,51
12
2,58
0,26
78
72
48
108
42
3,04
2,81
2,89
2,66
2,19
0,74
0,67
0,69
0,60
0,48
12
2,79
0,08
F
p
5,917
0,000*
10,727
0,000*
129
Pacific Business Review (International)
N
Average
78
72
48
108
42
2,96
2,70
3,01
2,86
2,49
Std.
Deviation
0,51
0,60
0,34
0,63
0,46
12
2,50
0,18
One-Way ANOVA
Social Psychology
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
21-30 years
31 years and
more
F
p
7,062
0,000*
*p<0,05
Table 11 states that the organizational health scale changes
according to income status. When this table is examined; it
is observed that the sub-dimensions of career, managerial
ability and social psychology vary significantly according
to income level (p<0.05). According to TUKEY test results
to determine which group the difference originated from for
these sub-dimensions that differ significantly; the career
sub-dimension of people with an income of TRY 3000 and
lower is significantly higher than all other groups. The level
of managerial capability sub-dimension of those with
income of TRY 3,000 and below is significantly higher than
all other groups. In addition, the managerial capability subdimension level of those with income of TRY 3001-4000 is
significantly higher than those with income of TRY 50016000. For social psychology sub-dimension, the career subdimension of people with an income of TRY 3000 and
lower is significantly higher than all other groups. In
addition, the social psychology sub-dimension level of
those with income of TRY 3001-4000, TRY 5001-6000 and
more than TRY 6000 TL is significantly higher than those
with income of TRY 4001-5000.
Table-11 Test on Organizational Health Sub-Dimensions and Income Level Variable
One-Way ANOVA
Career
Managerial Ability
Social Psychology
N
Average
Std. Deviation
TRY 3000 and below
42
3,12
0,61
TRY 3001-4000
162
2,30
0,57
TRY 4001-5000
84
2,26
0,77
TRY 5001-6000
24
2,38
0,71
TRY 6000 and above
36
2,20
0,81
TRY 3000 and below
42
3,28
0,43
TRY 3001-4000
162
2,72
0,42
TRY 4001-5000
84
2,61
0,76
TRY 5001-6000
24
2,34
1,01
TRY 6000 and above
36
2,85
1,07
TRY 3000 and below
42
3,06
0,43
TRY 3001-4000
162
2,86
0,49
TRY 4001-5000
84
2,51
0,58
TRY 5001-6000
24
3,06
0,54
TRY 6000 and above
36
2,82
0,74
F
p
15,051
0,000*
10,253
0,000*
10,588
0,000*
*p<0,05
130
www.pbr.co.in
Volume 14 issue 7 January 2022
Conclusions and Recommendations
In this study, an "Organizational Health Scale" has been
developed to determine the organizational health
perceptions of employees. Various scales related to the
concept of organizational health in the field writing have
been examined and it has been found that there is no
common consensus among the researchers. Furthermore, it
has been noted that the current studies on organizational
health are usually originating abroad, and domestically,
they are usually in the form of adaptations and only studies
aimed at determining the organizational health of schools.
Therefore, within the scope of this study, a new scale has
been developed to measure organizational health care on
the people who work. The scale developed is a five-digit
Likert scale, with 3 sub-dimensions and a total of 28 items.
Statistical analysis has revealed that these 3 factors explain
88.4% of the total variation and the factors on the scale;
named "career", "managerial ability" and "social
psychology". There are no reverse-encoded items in scale
items.
There are also studies in the literature that address the
organizational health scale in different dimensions.
According to these studies; Kimpston and Sonnebend
(1975) have defined organizational health in 6 dimensions
as decision-making, transactional relations, school-society
relationship, innovation, autonomy and coping; Hoy and
Feldman (1987) in 7 dimensions as organizational integrity,
manager effect, respect, initiative structure, resource
support, moral dimension and the importance of the job;
Neugebaur (1990) in 7 dimensions as planning and
evaluation, motivation and control, group function,
personnel function, decision-making and problem solving,
financial management and environmental interaction; Hoy,
Tarter and Kottkamp (1991) have defined it in 6 dimensions
as academic importance, corporate integrity, manager
effect, resource support, teacher dependency and
occupational leadership by working on the scale developed
by Hoy and Feldman in 1987 in order to measure and define
the organizational health levels of schools; in 5 dimension
as organizational leadership, environmental interaction,
organizational integrity, organizational identity and
organizational product in the scale developed by Akbaba
www.pbr.co.in
(1997) who was inspired by the scale developed by Hoy,
Tarter and Kottkamp (1991) in order to measure the
organizational health levels of schools; Lyden and Klinge
(2000) have defined it in 9 dimensions as communication,
loyalty and dependency, moral, participation, corporate
reputation, union of purpose, ethics, definition of
performance, leadership and resource usage; Korkmaz
(2006; 2007) has adapted the organizational health scale
developed by Hoy and Feldman (1987) to measure the
health of schools to Turkish education system and defined it
in 5 dimensions as academic emphasis, corporate integrity,
professional leadership, resource support and moral;
Doğanay and Dağlı (2020) have defined it in 4 dimensions
as academic emphasis, supportive leadership, moral and
environmental factors and World Health Organization
(WHO, 2020) has defined it in 4 dimensions as
environmental factors, physical health, psychological
health and social health. The organizational health scales
contained in the domestic literature have been developed to
measure the organizational health of schools, while the
current organizational health scale has been developed to
measure the organizational health of the people in 3
dimensions as career, managerial ability and social
psychology.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and
structural validity of organizational health scale are
discussed. When the fit index values obtained as a result of
these analysis results are taken into account, it is observed
that the fit indices are good as a result of the three subdimension models. Internal consistency reliance
coefficients of the developed scale are 0.76 for the career
sub-dimension, 0.80 for the sub-dimension of managerial
ability, 0.64 for the sub-dimension of social psychology and
0.86 for the entire scale. According to these results, it has
been determined that the scale developed has structural
validity and internal consistency. The results of the study
show that the resulting organizational health scale can be
used as a valid and reliable measuring tool. As a result of the
findings, it can be stated that the scale developed within the
scope of the current research can fill a significant gap in the
organizational health literature and will be an original
measuring tool that can be used in future research. The
developed organizational health scale can be used as a data
131
Pacific Business Review (International)
collection tool for further research. Furthermore, due to the
use of domestic and foreign literature during the
development of the organizational health scale, this
strengthens the universal nature of the organizational health
scale developed and suggests that the scale can be used in
different countries.
Buluç, B. (2008). Ortaöğretim okullarında örgütsel
sağlık ile örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları arasındaki
ilişki. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(4), 571-602.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi
elkitabı: istatistik, araştırma deseni, spss uygulamaları
ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with
lisrel, prelis and simlis: Basic concepts, aplications and
programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Dickey, D. (1996). Testing The Fit of Our Models of
Psychological Dynamics Using Confirmatory Methods:
An Introductory Primer. (Advances in Social Science
Methodology, 4 içinde. Editör: Bruce Thompson).
London: JAI press Ltd
Doğanay, E., & Dağlı, A. (2020). Organizational health
scale: A scale development study. International
Education Studies, 13(7), 128-144.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows
step by step: A simple Guide and reference.
NeedhamHeights: Allyn&Bacon.
Hoy, W. K., & Fedman, J. A. (1987). Organizational
health: The concept and its measure. Journal of research
and Development in Education, 20(4), 30-37.
Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Bliss, J. R. (1990).
O rg a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e , s c h o o l h e a l t h , a n d
effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational
administration quarterly, 26(3), 260-279.
Akbaba-Altun, S. (2001). Örgüt sağlığı. Ankara: Nobel
Yayın Dağıtım.
Hulin, C., Netemeyer, R., & Cudeck, R. (2001). Can a
reliability coefficient be too high? Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 10(1), 55-58.
Alpar, R. (2001). Spor bilimlerinde uygulamalı
istatistik. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Karasar, N. (1998). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi.
(Sekizinci Basım). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Kimpston, R. D., & Sonnabend, L. C. (1975). Public
secondary schools: The interrelationships between
organizational health and innovativeness and between
organizational health and staff characteristics. Urban
education, 10(1), 27-45.
Korkmaz, M. (2007). Örgütsel sağlık üzerinde liderlik
stillerinin etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim
Yönetimi Dergisi, 13(1), 57-91.
From an organizational point of view, organizations need to
be healthy in the first place to carry out their goals.
Therefore, the issue of organizational health is one of the
important issues that should be considered in the literature
of organizational behaviour. Consequently, the issue of
organizational health can be worked together with many
issues; various research on the causes and consequences
can be improved. It is predicted that the organizational
health scale developed within the scope of the research,
which is found to be acceptable in terms of structural
validity and internal consistency, can also be used in these
studies. However, examining the issue of organizational
health in future studies in terms of different variables and
discriminating the sectors (as public/private) will
contribute to the emergence of different outcomes and the
development of literature in this field. At the same time, the
validity and reliance values of the organizational health
scale developed on different sample groups can be tested in
these studies. Each study to be made with this scale will
contribute to the scale's capability to measure even more
strongly.
References
Akbaba, S. (1997). Ortaöğretim okullarının örgüt
sağlığı (Bolu ili örneği). Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilim Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Altunışık, R., Çoşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., &
Yıldırım, E. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma
yöntemleri SPSS uygulamalı. İstanbul: Sakarya
Kitabevi.
Balcı, A. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntem
teknik ve ilkeler. Ankara: Pegem A. Yayıncılık.
132
www.pbr.co.in
Volume 14 issue 7 January 2022
Korkmaz, M. 2006. The relationship between
organizational health and robust school vision in
elementary schools. Educational Research Quarterly,
30(1), 14–36.
Stapleton, C. D. (1997). Basic concepts and procedures
of confirmatory factor analysis. Educational Research
Association, Reports-Evaluative (142), Speeches /
Meeting Papers (150)
Lyden, J. A., & Klingele, W. E. (2000). Supervising
organizational health. Supervision, 61(12), 3-6.
Miles, M. B. (1969). Planned change and organizational
health: Figure and ground. In Organizations and human
behaviour: Focus on schools, Edited by: Carver, F. D.
and Sergiovanni, T. J. 375–391. New York: McGrawHill.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007).
Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, pp. 481-498).
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tavşancıl, E. (2005). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile
veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
Tsui, K. T., & Cheng, Y. C. (1999). School
organizational health and teacher commitment: A
contingency study with multi-level analysis.
Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(3), 249-268.
Tutar, H. (2010). İş gören yabancılaşması ve örgütsel
sağlık ilişkisi: Bankacılık sektöründe bir uygulama.
Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 65(01), 175-204.
W H O ( 2 0 2 0 ) . 1 0 Te m m u z 2 0 2 0 t a r i h i n d e
https://www.who.int/ adresinden erişildi.
Xenidisa, Y., & Theocharous, K. (2014). Organizational
health: Definition and assessment. Procedia
Engineering, 85, 562-570.
Neugebauer, R. (1990). Do you have a healthy
organization?. Child Care Information Exchange, 72,
38-41.
Özer, Ö., Uğurluoğlu, Ö., Saygılı, M., & Sonğur, C.
(2019). The impact of work alienation on organizational
health: A field study in health sector. International
Journal of Healthcare Management, 12(1), 18-24.
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003).
Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor
analysis for instrument development in health care
research. CA: Sage.
Sezgin, F. (2009). Examining the relationship between
teacher organizational commitment and school health in
Turkish primary schools. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 15(2), 185-201.
www.pbr.co.in
133