IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7051-d834707.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Providing Safe Space for Honest Mistakes in the Public Sector Is the Most Important Predictor for Work Engagement after Strategic Clarity

Author

Listed:
  • Thais Gargantini

    (Department of Psychology, Reichman University, Herzliya 4610101, Israel)

  • Michael Daly

    (Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA)

  • Joseph Sherlock

    (Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA)

  • Teddy Lazebnik

    (Department of Cancer Biology, Cancer Institute, University College London, London WC1E 7HU, UK)

Abstract

Multiple studies highlight the link between engagement at work and performance, influencing organizations to put more effort into improving employee engagement levels. In this study, we begin to examine the influence of multiple psychological parameters on employees’ work engagement (WE) within the public sector. The idea is to break the concept of WE down into eight individually measurable parameters that will allow for a better understanding and development of stronger interventions. Based on this analysis, we reproduce the outcome that strategic clarity is the most connected property to WE. More importantly, we introduce a new concept, honest mistakes, and show that having a safe space for making mistakes and learning from it is the second most important property of WE. This result is of interest, as allowing mistakes, even if they were made innocently, is considered taboo in the public sector. These outcomes are based on the reports of n = 7682 public sector employees from Brazil. In particular, the analysis shows that these outcomes hold for both professional and management positions across the health, administrative, justice, police, social work, and education offices.

Suggested Citation

  • Thais Gargantini & Michael Daly & Joseph Sherlock & Teddy Lazebnik, 2022. "Providing Safe Space for Honest Mistakes in the Public Sector Is the Most Important Predictor for Work Engagement after Strategic Clarity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-12, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7051-:d:834707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7051/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7051/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sebastian Kube & Michel Andre Marechal & Clemens Puppe, 2012. "The Currency of Reciprocity: Gift Exchange in the Workplace," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1644-1662, June.
    2. Dur, Robert & Non, Arjan & Roelfsema, Hein, 2010. "Reciprocity and incentive pay in the workplace," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 676-686, August.
    3. Khawlah AL-TKHAYNEH & Sebastian KOT & Viktor SHESTAK, 2019. "Motivation And Demotivation Factors Affecting Productivity In Public Sector," REVISTA ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, Faculty of Administration and Public Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 2019(33), pages 77-102, December.
    4. On Amir & Dan Ariely & Ziv Carmon, 2008. "The Dissociation Between Monetary Assessment and Predicted Utility," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 1055-1064, 11-12.
    5. Ahmad, Naveed & Ullah, Zia & AlDhaen, Esra & Han, Heesup & Scholz, Miklas, 2022. "A CSR perspective to foster employee creativity in the banking sector: The role of work engagement and psychological safety," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aleksandar M. Damnjanovic & Vladimir Dimitrijevic & Sandra Nesic & Miroslav Miskic & Gordana Mrdak & Sinisa M. Arsic, 2023. "Risk Influence of Employee Productivity on Business Failure: Evidence Found in Serbian SMEs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christiane Bradler & Robert Dur & Susanne Neckermann & Arjan Non, 2013. "Employee Recognition and Performance: A Field Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-038/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Dur, Robert & Non, Arjan & Roelfsema, Hein, 2010. "Reciprocity and incentive pay in the workplace," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 676-686, August.
    3. Jin Di Zheng, 2017. "Homo Reciprocans Revisited," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-040/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Kvaløy, Ola & Nieken, Petra & Schöttner, Anja, 2015. "Hidden benefits of reward: A field experiment on motivation and monetary incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 188-199.
    5. Drouvelis, Michalis & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2015. "Are happier people less judgmental of other people's selfish behaviors? Experimental survey evidence from trust and gift exchange games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 111-123.
    6. Robert (A.J.) Dur & Ola Kvaloy & Anja Schottner, 2018. "Non-Competitive Wage-Setting as a Cause of Unfriendly and Inefficient Leadership," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 18-094/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Sauermann, Jan, 2015. "Worker Reciprocity and the Returns to Training: Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 9179, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Christiane Bradler & Susanne Neckermann, 2019. "The Magic of the Personal Touch: Field Experimental Evidence on Money and Appreciation as Gifts," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1189-1221, July.
    9. Tobias Gesche, 2022. "Reference‐price shifts and customer antagonism: Evidence from reviews for online auctions," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 558-578, August.
    10. Lambsdorff, Johann Graf & Grubiak, Kevin & Werner, Katharina, 2023. "Intrinsic Motivation vs. Corruption? Experimental Evidence on the Performance of Officials," MPRA Paper 118153, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Sliwka, Dirk & Werner, Peter, 2016. "How Do Agents React to Dynamic Wage Increases? An Experimental Study," IZA Discussion Papers 9855, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Kimbrough, E.O. & Vostroknutov, A., 2012. "Rules, rule-following and cooperation," Research Memorandum 053, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    13. Fuchs, Benjamin, 2016. "The effect of teenage employment on character skills, expectations and occupational choice strategies," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 14-2016, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.
    14. von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2013. "Intention-based reciprocity and the hidden costs of control," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-65.
    15. Boddewyn, Jean J. & Peng, Mike W., 2021. "Reciprocity and informal institutions in international market entry," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(1).
    16. Castaldo, Sandro & Ciacci, Andrea & Penco, Lara, 2023. "Perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction in grocery retail: A comparison between low- and high-productivity stores," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    17. Craig Landry & Andreas Lange & John List & Michael Price & Nicholas Rupp, 2011. "Is There a 'Hidden Cost of Control' in Naturally-Occurring Markets? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00593, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Marina Halac & Andrea Prat, 2016. "Managerial Attention and Worker Performance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(10), pages 3104-3132, October.
    19. Florian Englmaier & Stephen Leider, 2020. "Managerial Payoff and Gift-Exchange in the Field," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(2), pages 259-280, March.
    20. Bogliacino, Francesco & Grimalda, Gianluca & Pipke, David, 2021. "Kind or contented? An investigation of the gift exchange hypothesis in a natural field experiment in Colombia," OSF Preprints xmjaq, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7051-:d:834707. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.