Analysis of the Workplace (Research Paper Sample)

I handed the Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory survey to 5 of my colleagues. As an acute care nurse, I was slightly biased as I chose one more nurse from my unit. The breakdown of colleagues who participated in the survey was as follows: me, another nurse from my unit, an anesthesiologist, a doctor from my department, and a nurse from the oncology unit. According to my survey, I gave the hospital a score of 75 for mildly healthy. The doctor gave a score of 80 for moderately healthy; the anesthesiologist gave a score of 65 for barely healthy, and my nurse colleague from my unit gave it a score of 85 for moderately healthy, while the nurse from the oncology unit gave it a score of 55 for barely healthy. Generally, the total scores were good, but while qualitatively going through the specific items, all employees seemed to agree that there was no comprehensive mentorship program that covered all employees. While this particular point was eye-catching, the other interesting, specific point that all survey-takers agreed on was that they would recommend the workplace to their colleagues and friends.
It surprised me that the results varied from person to person, and it was impossible to draw a pattern from the results. The other surprise was that there was even a single low score that indicated a barely healthy score. The one idea that I believed before the assessment that was confirmed was that the workplace was too big to have a homogenous sentiment about a matter. Before handing out the survey, I knew there would not be uniformity as people with different personalities headed different departments. While I found the overall sentiment was positive, I agreed with the idea that one can never generalize without wide research using statistical tools and research design.
The results show the presence of a discrepancy in the civility perception at the workplace. In statistical terms, the sample was not sufficient to conduct a proper statistical analysis; there was no deviation from the methodology since Clark's inventory provides for at least one person taking the survey. However, the results indicate that the workplace needs to develop a more comprehensive program to encourage civility. While the majority gave the hospital at least an average healthy environment score, the low scores indicate that there are workers who may be suffering in silence. Failing to speak is a negative aspect and is as bad as the primary agents themselves (incivility, bullying, and mobbing) in terms of impact on patient care (Armstrong, 2018). Silence is an indicator of communication breakdown between the workers and the management.
The lack of a mentorship program that covered all employees was a significant indictment of the workplace and is probably an indicator of a sentiment of deficit among all employees. Once more, the overall opinion indicates that the hospital management needs to establish a program for the entire facility. The point about all employees agreeing that they would recommend the company to their friends and family was a redeeming sentiment. This is because even the employee that rated the company as barely safe indicated that they would recommend it. This was probably a bigger indictment of themselves than the hospital, but that is why one needs to survey a larger sample.