PRO Dynamics
Patterns of Bivariate Associations
This analysis provides a broad view of the bivariate associations between variables. Based on prior inspection of the correlation matrix, we consolidated Team Psychological Safety, Work Identity, and Trust into unidimensional composite measures (all Cronbach’s Alphas > 0.70). Given the large sample size, we used r ≥ |0.30| to identify statistically meaningful correlations, marked in grey-to-dark-bold according to their magnitude.
The results reveal several key patterns:
- Work Quantity Does Not Drive Outcomes. Hours of work (both contracted and effective) do not correlate with any PRO variables. This suggests that personal factors (Burnout, Engagement, Work-Life Balance), role factors (Conflict, Ambiguity, Valuation, Performance), and organizational factors (Congruence, Psychological Safety, Trust) are not determined by the quantitative amount of work. This aligns with literature demonstrating that scheduled hours, physical presence, and substantive value generated are independent.
- Emotional Exhaustion Is a Key Indicator. Emotional Exhaustion correlates with most PRO variables, including Perceived Health, Happiness, Role Ambiguity, Conflict, Valuation, Stress, Value Congruence, Demands, Resources, Psychological Safety, and Trust. This suggests Emotional Exhaustion is the single most sensitive variable in our model, co-varying with a diversity of PRO variables. Simply monitoring Emotional Exhaustion allows us to infer how other PRO variables are performing.
- A Cycle of Positive Motivation. Engagement, Work Identity, Professional Efficacy, and Positive Spillover correlate with each other, indicating a multidimensional motivation loop linking feelings of engagement, identity, and efficacy to the positive spillover of work into life. Importantly, these variables also show lower but suggestive correlations with potential “motivation killers,” particularly Role Ambiguity, Conflict, Reasonable Demands, and Adequate Resources.
- Role Experience Feeds on Organizational Culture and Shapes Well-being. Role Ambiguity, Conflict, and Valuation form a multidimensional circle focused on role experience. These associate with most organizational variables, namely Approach to Practice, Value Congruence, Psychological Safety, and Trust. Beyond Emotional Exhaustion, Role Experience also relates to Perceived Performance, Happiness, and (to a lesser extent) Health. This suggests that Role Experience and Organizational Culture may amplify negative or positive work experiences with a direct impact on individual well-being.
- Organizational Culture Gradient. Psychological Safety, Demands, Resources, and Trust show strong associations. This suggests a gradient of organizational cultures rating higher or lower on all three dimensions. As noted above, these variables seem related to many Person and Role dimensions of our model.
Well-being, Motivation, and Role Experience Indices
Three composite indices were constructed to measure Well-being, Motivation, and Role Experience with he following composition:
- Well-being Index: two Burnout dimensions (Emotional Exhaustion and Cynicism), three items measuring Negative Work-to-Life Spillover, and the two Perceived Happiness and Health items;
- Motivation Index: one Burnout dimension (Professional Efficacy), the three Engagement items (measuring Vigor, Dedication, and Absorption), the three Work Identity items (measuring Centrality, In-group Affection, In-group Ties), and the three items measuring Positive Work-to-Life Spillover; and
- Role Experience: three items measuring Role Ambiguity, four items measuring Role Conflict, five items measuring Role Valuation, and four items measuring Role Stress.
To ensure comparability across items measured on different Likert-type scales (0–3 and 1–5), all variables were first re-coded into a unified metric ranging from -2 to +2 (for 0-3 scales 0 = -2, 1 = 0.5, 2 = 1, 3 = 2; for 0-5 scales 1 = -2, 2 = -1, 3 = 0, 4 = 1, 5 = 2). Importantly, positive indicators were mapped directly, while negative indicators (e.g., exhaustion, role conflict, negative spillover) were reverse-coded using inverted mapping schemes. The re-coded items were summed to generate a raw index score, which was subsequently normalized by dividing by the theoretical maximum positive sum (20 for Motivation, 14 for Well-Being, and 32 for Role Experience). This final transformation standardizes all three indices to a common range of -1 to +1 with the following interpretation:
- Negative values are indicative of negative performance, specifically, that professional show signs of lack of well-being, low motivation, and negative role experiences.
- Positive values, conversely, are indicative of positive performance, specifically, that professional show signs of well-being, motivation and positive role experiences.
Indices by Demographics
Organizational Culture Profiles
One key question we are interested in address is whether there are specific organizational profiles based on professionals’ perceptions about the organisations where they work. We consider this as a proxy for organizational culture - shared values, beliefs, and everyday behaviors that shape how people in an organization work together and make decisions. To explore these latent organizational culture profiles, we conducted a cluster analysis with:
- Team Psychological Safety;
- Trust;
- Reasonable Demands; and
- Adequate Resources.
We retained only cases with complete data on all four variables and standardized scores (z-transformation) to ensure equal weighting in distance calculations. Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) clustering with Euclidean distance was used as it is well-suited for Likert-type data. We reached an optimal number of 3 clusters through exploratory hierarchical clustering (Ward’s method), visual inspection of dendrograms, and evaluation of within-cluster sum of squares.
Cluster profiles have a clear-cut interpretation when crossed with cluster profile variables. We have identified three Organizational Culture groups labeled:
- High Safety, Trust, and Balance to the cluster showing high safety, trust, and resources with reasonable demands (N = 107);
- Mid Safety, Trust, and Balance to the cluster with moderate scores across indicators (N = 71); and
- Low Safety, Trust, and Balance” to the cluster with reduced scores across indicators (N = 61).
Demographics’ Prevalence
Demographics’ prevalence analysis tests if the organizational clusters are similarly distributed across different demographic characteristics.
Influence on Well-being, Motivation, and Role Experience
