Work Environment Assessment Results of the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory

Work Environment Assessment Results of the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory

My workplace scored 67/100 on the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory. The result suggests that the workplace environment is Barely Healthy (Clark, 2015). This was an unexpected score, as I expected to have at least a score in the moderately healthy range.  I was surprised that we only scored 5 points in only four items. It is somewhat surprising that our organization could only score the maximum points in only four items, which means that we have a long way to promote a healthier workplace. The four items include: Promotion of Teamwork and collaboration, Treating employees fairly and respectfully, using effective conflict-resolution skills, and Providing competitive salaries, benefits, compensations, and other rewards.

I was also surprised that my workplace scored 1 point in two items in the Clark Inventory. This was surprising because our organization belongs to a caliber that should not have very low scores on matters associated with healthy workplaces.  The two items that had the lowest score were: The workload being reasonable, manageable, and fairly distributed and Organization attracting and retaining the best and the brightest.

Before completing the Clark Inventory, I assumed that unreasonable and unmanageable workload is a primary cause of failing to retain the organization’s best staff. I believed that unbearable nursing workloads and nurses shortages are interconnected, in that each leads to the other. This was confirmed by the assessment, where I established that the high unmanageable nursing workload in our workplace is the primary reason for failing to retain staff.

What the Results Suggest About the Health and Civility of My Workplace

The assessment results indicate a stressful work environment that can be attributed to an unreasonable, unmanageable, and unfairly distributed workload.  A Barely Healthy workplace suggests a problem with the organization’s leadership; in that, the leaders are more goal-oriented than people-oriented. This results in the management focusing more on meeting its clients’ needs at the expense of the staff needs (Abdollahzadeh et al., 2017).  The results also mean that the staff’s needs may be overlooked, and their voice is not often considered during policy-making. Furthermore, they suggest that the staff may not be adequately engaged in making decisions that affect them, and the leadership does not recognize shared governance.

Despite the average results, the organization scored highly in items that indicate high civility in the workplace. These items include: Promotion of Teamwork and collaboration, Treatment of employees fairly and respectfully, and Use of effective conflict-resolution skills (Clark, 2015). The high scores in these items suggest that a culture of civility has been developed in the workplace.  It also means that the employees have strived to create and maintain civil, healthy work environments by communicating clearly and effectively, despite the harsh working environment. Besides, it shows that the staff manages conflict in the workplace respectfully and responsibly.

Reviewing the Literature

The article by Clark (2015) presents the concept of healthy work environments. The article mentions the six standards by AACN that are vital in establishing and sustaining healthy work environments, namely, skilled communication, effective decision-making, true collaboration, appropriate staffing, meaningful recognition, and authentic leadership (Clark, 2015). Clark also presents other standards from her research, crucial in promoting healthy work environments, which include: A common organizational vision, values, and team norms; Emphasis on both formal and informal leadership; Creation and sustenance of a high level of the individual, team, and organizational civility; and Civility conversations at all organizational levels.

Clark argues that when an uncivil encounter occurs, we may require to address it by having a critical conversation with the uncivil person. One needs to be well-prepared for this critical conversation, speak with confidence, and use respectful expressions (Clark, 2015). Critical conversations are often stressful. Thus, while taking a direct approach to resolving a conflict, it requires courage, know-how, and lots of practice. By having this conversation, one can end the silence that surrounds incivility. The article presents the DESC model, which can be used to address incivility in the workplace. The DESC model has four elements: D-Describe the specific situation, E-Express your concerns, S-State other alternatives; and C-Consequences stated (Clark, 2015). The critical conversations can occur more effectively when one is well-equipped with tools like this DESC model.