In the spring of 2007, five students enrolled in UC Berkeley’s Undergraduate Business Administration 105 course conducted research into the organizational behavior of the Suitcase Clinic, authoring a 17-page document reporting their conclusions. Their study provides a valuable perspective on the structure of our community. You can read their report here. This study complements an earlier UGBA 105 report, authored in the spring of 2005, entitled “Strong Weak Culture – A Study of the Suitcase Clinic”, which can be read here.
Portions of the study can be read below in a search engine-friendly format:Suitcase Clinic
UGBA 105
Section 103
May 3, 2007
Matt Holtrust
John Semerdjian
Sherrie Song
Brian Van Meter Rose Yan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Methods 4
Results 4
Discussion 5
Recommendation 6
Appendix A
Questionnaire 8
Appendix B
Correlation Analysis 10
Appendix C
Means Analysis 11
Appendix D
Multiple Regression Analysis on Motivation 12
Appendix E
Multiple Regression Analysis on Satisfaction 14
Appendix F
Multiple Regression Analysis on Commitment 16
Introduction:
Founded in 1989, The Suitcase Clinic is an undergraduate volunteer organization in Berkeley that promotes “the health and overall wellbeing of underserved individuals” through three weekly drop-in general, youth, and women clinics. Here undergraduate volunteers, known as caseworkers, provide supplies, meals, foot washing, haircutting, and friendship to their clients. Prior to becoming a caseworker, the volunteers must participate in a 2 unit Health Medical Sciences course where undergraduate student instructors (UGSIs) teach issues relating to the homeless.
After attending a few weekly planning committee (PC) meetings where all the clinic coordinators, UGSIs, administrators, and other volunteers come together in a round table discussion to share lateral command, we identified that many members had low satisfaction with the organization. From this we formulated our hypothesis: unrealistic job preview, role ambiguities, and poor communication lead to low job satisfaction, fueling even less motivation and commitment to the program.
When volunteers sign up for HMS 198, they are unaware of the type of services they will provide to the homeless. Most students enrolled are pre-med students and think they will be doing real clinic work. The unexpected work has significant impact on the volunteers’ motivation to perform after they find out. According to the self-concordance theory, “people’s reasons to pursue goals should be consistent with their interests and values”. When their values are not fulfilled, individuals’ higher needs are not fulfilled hence hindering their drive and desire to perform (Robbins 196). The decrease in motivation further drives a lack of commitment to the organization. This is seen during PC as many came in late, some were sleeping, and during the clinics when the volunteers were unenthusiastic and did not interact with their clients.
We also observed that coordinators had ineffective meetings where even though volunteers shared lateral command, they lacked effective lateral communication, which is supposed to save time and facilitate coordination (Robbins 371). When asked to address problems, coordinators would respond with vague solutions; some simply wanted to move on. Because “job satisfaction is not a determinant of behavior, but rather it is an attitude” (Robbins 30), many in the organization have no satisfaction. According to the Hertzberg Theory, this is due to low motivators such as recognition, achievement, and responsibility.
Methods:
Initially, our project focused on the Youth Clinic section of the Suitcase Clinic. We conducted group interviews with two Youth Clinic coordinators during regular clinic hours. Following the interview, we decided to study the entire Suitcase Clinic through surveying all coordinators at the Planning Committee meeting and in HMS 198. Out of the 44 survey respondents, 28 were newly trained volunteers and 16 were coordinators, administrators, or UGSIs. A 5-point scale was used as the response format with anchors as “1” for “not at all” and “5” for “very much.” Questions were designed to measure the effects of job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment on factors such as unrealistic job preview, role ambiguity and communication. See Appendix A for survey.
Results:
We analyzed the quantitative data collected from the survey to test whether low commitment, motivation, and satisfaction are caused by unrealistic job preview, role ambiguity, and poor communication. None of the correlations between the dependent variables and the causal factors are significant or above 0.6, see Appendix B for results.
In addition, the average ratings on commitment, motivation, satisfaction, and role clarity are all relatively high, which negates our hypothesis. See Appendix C for the means result. However, the means on effective communication and realistic job preview are among the lowest. This disparity is puzzling as it suggests that communication and job preview are not determinants of commitment, motivation, and satisfaction.
For each dependent variable, regression analysis was performed using realistic job preview, clarity of role, and communication satisfaction as the explanatory variables. We also ran a second regression for each dependent variable with additional explanatory variables to control for omitted variable bias, see Appendix D through F for results. For the first regression on motivation, the r2 is 0.19 and the only significant factor affecting motivation with a p-value less than 0.05 is realistic job preview. R2 increases to 0.40 when additional variables are included, but satisfaction with clients becomes the only significant variable. For satisfaction, the only significant causal factor is role clarity, but it is statistically robust only in the second regression where the r2 is 0.46. Lastly, no explanatory variables are significant for commitment. The low r2 in all the regressions and the varying significance of the explanatory variables suggest that the regression analyses cannot be relied on to prove causal relationships. There are other factors affecting motivation, satisfaction, and commitment omitted from this study.
Discussion:
Even though the text supports our previous hypothesis, the results proved our hypothesis incorrect. An alternate hypothesis we propose is: the lack of accountability and procedures, and poor communication leads to low inter-clinic cooperation and therefore low productivity. From the results, there is a significant decrease in mean score for satisfaction with coworkers compared to satisfaction with the organization. This could be due to volunteers’ disorganized group dynamic caused by conflicting ideologies. “Cohesiveness within group dynamics is extremely important because it is highly related to a group’s productivity and performance norms.” (Robbins 318). Moreover, the lower scores of satisfaction with coworkers prompted us to look more closely at the effect of communication as there is “positive relationship between effective communication and worker productivity” (Robbins 393).
Recommendations:
Suitcase Clinic is looking for dedicated and effective volunteers. In order to pursue this, the committee should interview its applicants and select individuals who are motivated by helping the homeless rather than for résumé building purposes. This will create a positive team consensus where the clinic will have positive synergy and begin to act like a work group rather than a work team. In order to increase interaction between volunteers and coordinators, coordinators should attend the HMS class to update volunteers on recent decisions. They should also collect valuable information on involvement and cooperation through mid-semester performance evaluations. It should contain open-ended questions which force clinic members to answer specifically about their contributions to the organization. These evaluations also provide systematic feedback for the Planning Committee and allow volunteers to voice concerns. If issues are addressed before the end of the semester, volunteers will feel empowered by inducing changes in the organization. According to the employment involvement theory, by having volunteers be involved with the planning process, it increases productivity and reduces turnover (Robbins 235). Furthermore, evaluations create a performance standard, enabling the Planning Committee to see how well they have accomplished their goals and determine where further improvements are needed. This would allow meetings to be conducted more efficiently with volunteers communicating more clearly to each other. One constraint on evaluations would be the amount of time and effort on the coordinators part to implement these changes which may or may not have an impact on the organization.
Accountability is another viable issue which can be improved by monitoring the successes and failures of the clinic inside and outside the classroom. Sign-in sheets for everyone at clinic, not just for clients, could be an easy improvement which provides an official record of volunteer involvement, as well as a record of attendance from which to predict future attendance. It also allows for a system of formal recognition. For example, awards could be given out at the end of each semester as positive reinforcement for regular attendance. Another constraint is that the volunteers may not want the recognition because it is too self-serving, which defeats the purpose of the organization.
During the examination of the Suitcase Clinic, we encountered several limitations. First, at the PC Meeting, we were only able to survey the coordinators and administrators who choose to attend the meeting. Since these respondents are likely to be more committed to the organization, there is a selection bias in our results. Another limitation is the lack of experienced volunteers that we interviewed. Specifically, we were only able to survey volunteers who are currently taking the class for the first time. Finally, subjects might not care to answer the questionnaire truthfully and accurately as their responses to open-ended questions were frequently inconsistent with their answers to related questions using the five-point scale.
APPENDIX A
Suitcase Clinic Questionnaire
Age: ____
Major: _________________________
Clinic: _________________
Length of involvement: _________________________
Current position: _________________________
Please briefly describe your role and responsibilities.
What motivates you to volunteer at the organization? (Please rank the following motivators):
__ Passing HMS198/98 and/or obtaining the course units
__ Making friends/taking part in the social interactions
__ Building resume to pursue academic endeavors (grad school, med school, pharmacy school, etc.)
__ Helping the homeless population
__ Other, please specify: _____________________________________
What were your initial expectations of the organization and of your position before you joined? How do your current experiences differ from these expectations?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Not at all Very much
1. Do you feel well recognized for your work in the organization? 1 2 3 4 5
2. Do you feel your work is interesting? 1 2 3 4 5
3. Do you feel your work is difficult? 1 2 3 4 5
4. Would you rank Suitcase Clinic higher than your other extracurricular activities on your list of priorities?
1 2 3 4 5
5. How likely will you stay in the organization until you graduate? 1 2 3 4 5
6. Do you intend to pursue a leadership position in the organization? 1 2 3 4 5
7. How motivated do you feel when volunteering at the clinic? 1 2 3 4 5
8. How satisfied are you with your relationship with other volunteers? 1 2 3 4 5
9. How much do you enjoy interacting with clients? 1 2 3 4 5
10. How satisfied are you with the organization? 1 2 3 4 5
11. Do your experiences in the organization match your initial expectations?
1 2 3 4 5
12. Do you clearly understand your role and responsibilities in the organization?
1 2 3 4 5
13. Do you feel that decisions made at the top are communicated to you effectively and promptly?
1 2 3 4 5
14. How comfortable do you feel about communicating your ideas to coordinators?
1 2 3 4 5
15. Do you feel that your inputs are acknowledged and appreciated? 1 2 3 4 5
16. How satisfied are you with the degree of communication/interaction within the organization?
1 2 3 4 5
17. To what extent do you use the following media to communicate with your peers in the organization?
a. E-mail 1 2 3 4 5
b. Phone 1 2 3 4 5
c. Face-to-face conversations 1 2 3 4 5
d. Other, please specify:___________________ 1 2 3 4 5
18. What is the mostly used communication media in the organization (please circle one)?
a. e-mail b. phone c. face-to-face d. others, please specify: __________________
19. Which communication media do you prefer? ____________________
Suggestions
What would you like to see improved in the organization? What suggestions do you have for improvements?
APPENDIX B
Correlation Analysis
Correlation between Motivation and:
Realistic Job Preview 0.425
Clarity of Role 0.078
Overall Communication Satisfaction 0.222
Effective top-down communication 0.017
Comfortable communicating with coordinators 0.157
Inputs appreciated 0.153
Satisfaction with co-workers 0.371
Satisfaction with clients 0.412
Well-recognized 0.177
Interesting job 0.333
Difficult job 0.046
Correlation between Satisfaction and:
Realistic Job Preview 0.254
Clarity of Role -0.183
Overall Communication Satisfaction 0.258
Effective top-down communication 0.127
Comfortable communicating with coordinators 0.105
Inputs appreciated 0.438
Satisfaction with co-workers 0.335
Satisfaction with clients -0.111
Well-recognized 0.540
Interesting job 0.138
Difficult job -0.145
Correlation between Commitment to Stay and:
Realistic Job Preview 0.043
Clarity of Role 0.053
Overall Communication Satisfaction -0.017
Effective top-down communication -0.076
Comfortable communicating with coordinators 0.292
Inputs appreciated 0.237
Satisfaction with co-workers 0.381
Satisfaction with clients 0.282
Well-recognized 0.049
Interesting job 0.078
Difficult job 0.174
Note: Highlighted variables are those of main interest.
APPENDIX C
Means Analysis
Coords Volunteers
Q1 Well-recognized 3.909 4.000 3.857
Q2 Interesting job 4.545 4.688 4.464
Q3 Difficult job 3.159 3.750 2.821
Q4 Top priority 4.023 4.313 3.857
Q5 Commitment to stay 4.614 5.000 4.393
Q6 Commitment to take on leadership role 4.136 4.938 3.679
Q7 Motivation 4.386 4.688 4.214
Q8 Satisfaction with co-workers 3.841 4.250 3.607
Q9 Satisfaction with clients 4.455 4.688 4.321
Q10 Overall Satisfaction 4.205 4.125 4.250
Q11 Realistic job preview 3.727 3.875 3.643
Q12 Clarity of role 4.136 4.250 4.071
Q13 Effective top-down communication 3.795 3.750 3.821
Q14 Comfortable communicating with coordinators 4.091 4.625 3.786
Q15 Inputs appreciated 3.864 4.125 3.714
Q16 Satisfaction with communication 3.795 3.875 3.750
Note: Highlighted rows include the dependent and explanatory variables of main interest. Volunteers are significantly less committed and less motivated than coordinators, may be due to the fact that they are less satisfied with their relationships with co-workers and clients. Few volunteers think that the job is interesting and challenging. Volunteers also experience more problems related to job ambiguity and unrealistic job preview. In addition, they feel that they are not receiving enough recognition for their inputs. Lastly, they are less satisfied with the overall communication within the organization as many feel intimidated speaking to the leaders.
APPENDIX D
Multiple Regression Analysis on Motivation
Regression 1
Regression 2
APPENDIX E
Multiple Regression Analysis on Satisfaction
Regression 1
Regression 2
APPENDIX F
Multiple Regression Analysis on Commitment to Stay
Regression 1
Regression 2
