Organisational politics, sense of coherence and work wellness of protection services members

The objective of this study was to develop and test a causal model of work wellness of employees in the protection services in South Africa. A cross-sectional survey design was used. An availability sample of (N = 341) was taken from protection services members. The POPS, MBI-GS, UWES and OTLQ were administered. The result showed that work wellness comprises of burnout (exhaustion and cynicism) and work engagement (vigour and dedication). Negative perceptions of organisational politics increase the levels of burnout experienced, ultimately impacting work wellness. Sense of coherence mediated the effects of organisational politics on work wellness. OPSOMMING Die doelstelling van hierdie studie was om 'n oorsaaklike model van werkswelstand vir werknemers in beskermingsdienste in Suid-Afrika te ontwikkel en te toets. 'n Dwarssneeopname-ontwerp met 'n beskikbaarheidsteekproef (N = 341) is gebmik. Die POPS, MBI-GS, UWES en OTLQ is afgeneem. Die resultate het getoon dat werkswelstand uit uitbranding (uitputting en sinisme) en werksbegeestering (energie en toewyding), bestaan. Negatiewe persepsies van orgauisasie politiek dra by tot die vlakke van uitbranding wat beleef word en gevolglik werkswelstand belnvloed. Kohereusiesin medieer die effek van organisasie politiek op werkswelstand. Security has become an intense focus of public debate and concern (Lippert & O'Connor, 2003). In providing a service in terms of the safeguarding of businesses and buildings against theft, vandalism, illegal entry or against fire, screening people for weapons, explosives or contraband and working as bodyguards to protect others (Silva, Leong & Weinstock, 1993), security officers or protection services members are routinely placed in harm's way. They are continuously on the threshold between the possible victim and violence, facing sometimes life threatening situations (June, 2000). This requires from them to be vigilant, but also to strive for excellence through innovation and education. The roles and functions of protection services members are inclusive of all kinds of violence (June, 2000). The main responsibility of security guards or protection services members is the protection of individuals or the protection of property (Silva et a]., 1993). The traditional uniformed security guard is usually a person who is recruited from the lowest socio-economic level with basic formal education and limited basic skills (Ackerman, 1999). Security guards are primarily involved with physical security that is produced by the actual or potential use of force but they also provide security through symbolic means and through the use of information technology (Lippert & O'Connor, 2003). The key to effective operation of any security system is an efficient, well-trained, equipped, supervised, and properly placed security force to react and respond to and neutralise the immediate, actual or perceived hazard (June, 2000). All of this requires that the protection services within any country should undergo major changes to be able to adhere to the expectations and requirements of the public and the environment. These changes are particularly relevant for South African circumstances, where high levels of crime and violence are prevalent (Gulle, Tredoux & Foster, 1998; Marks, 1995; Nel & Burgers, 1996). The impact of change on organisations and the transforming role of the protection services member, security and law enforcement officers, private or public, imply that protection services members perform under more stress than members of almost any other profession (June, 2000). Silva et al. (1993) indicated that the people responsible for protecting society from criminal behaviour of others, such as police officers, experience significant stress and even psychiatric disorders. As a result, protection services members sometimes experience the same and in some cases even more severe forms of depression, anxiety, and other symptoms experienced by all employees (Collins, 2000). A factor found to be associated to lower levels of organisational commitment (Maslyn & Fedor, 1998), job satisfaction (Kacmar, Bozeman, Carlson & Anthony, 1999), job performance (Anderson, 1994) and higher levels of job anxiety (Kacmar et al., 1999) and intention to leave the organisation (Kacmar et al., 1999). ultimately contributing to a stressful work environment, is the perception of organisational politics. Ferris, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar & Howard (1996) have found a relationship between organisational politics and strain. Organisational politics is defined by Kacmar and Fenis (1991) as the degree to which respondents view their work environment as political, therefore unjust and unfair. Ferris and King (1991) and Pfeffer (1992) support this viewpoint by defining organisational politics as activities carried out to acquire, enhance, and use power and other resources to achieve specific outcomes where a situation exists in terms of uncertainty andlor disagreement. Organisational politics refer to behaviours that occur on an informal basis within an organisation and involve intentional acts of influence that are designed to protect or enhance individuals' professional careers when conflicting courses of action are possible (Drory, 1993). According to Mintzberg (1983) 'politics' refer to individual or group behaviour that is informal, ostensibly parochial, typically divisive, and above all, technically illegitimate. It is sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise. Most definitions of organisational politics correlate with personal struggles, conflicts, influential activities, and inequity and unfairness, which result from the strong ambitions or aspirations of those who hold power in the workplace (Vigoda, 2000). Organisational politics is both helpful and harmful for members of the organisation (Kumar & Ghadially, 1989). The positive outcomes of organisational politics are career advancement, recognition and status, enhanced power and position, accomplishment of personal goals, getting the job done, feelings of achievement, enhanced sense of control, and success. The negative outcomes are loss of strategic power and position credibility, negative feelings toward others, internal feelings of guilt, and hampered job performance of various kinds (Kumar & Ghadially, 1989). According to studies done by Folger, Konovsky and Cropanzano (1992) some people quit their job because they feel that they can't cope with a politically unfair and unjust environment. Many of those who stay in the organisation are exposed to a higher risk of stress and burnout due to their inability or unwillingness to play the political game as directed by others and still be happy about it (Vigoda, 2002). Behaviour in organisations is often political in nature (DuBrin, 1991). Organisational politics warrants empirical investigation because it may further the understanding of dysfunctional work environments (Parker, Dipboye & Jackson, 1995). Studies proposed organisational politics as one source of stress and conflict in the work environment with the potential for dysfunctional outcomes at both the individual and the organisational level (Gillmore, Ferris, Dulebohn & Harrell-Cook, 1996). Even though it is important to assist individual members whose psychological well-being is affected by their work, an organisational rather than an individual approach is more likely to be effective, as most stressors were found to be at an organisational level (Storm & Rothmann, in press). Ferris et al. (1996) found strong relationships between employees' perceptions of a negative political climate within their organisation and experience of psychological strain. According to Violanti (1996) police members' experiences of organisational practices and the inherent nature of police work seem to be related to stress. Cropanza, Howes, Grandley and Toth (1997) also found a significant relationship between organisational politics and employees' levels of strain. Studies showed three groups of influences when they examined the antecedents of perceptions of organisational politics (Vigoda, 2000). The first group consisted of general personal influences like age and gender. The second group was termed organisational influences and included variables like centralisation, formalisation, hierarchical level, and span of control. The third group of antecedents named job/work environment influences was based on variables such as job autonomy, job variety, feedback, advancements, opportunity, and interaction with others. Organisational politics encourages and preserves a situation of inequity, unfairness, and disharmony among members of the organisation (Kacmar & Ferris, 1991). Van Dierendonck, Schaufeli and Buunk (1998) showed that reduced perceptions of inequity in the relationship with the organisation and with other individuals cause burnout, absenteeism, and deprived feelings to diminish among the experimental group, with significant differences from the control groups. These findings support the central role of equity and fairness, as highly reflected by organisational politics, in relating with job stressors and job burnout as well as other work outcomes. As indicated above, organisational politics may cause stress-related aftermaths that are beyond conventional work-related results (Valle & Perrewe, 2000), impacting the overall work wellness of an organisation. A research question is, therefore, that there are certain occupational stressors within the protection services occupations and that these stressors can impact the overall work wellness of protection services members, leading to job distress and bumout. It is therefore important to identify the role and impact of organisational politics as a potential occupational stressor on the work wellness of protection services members.