Limits...
Considering the Differential Impact of Three Facets of Organizational Health Climate on Employees' Well-Being.

Zweber ZM, Henning RA, Magley VJ, Faghri P - ScientificWorldJournal (2015)

Bottom Line: Two samples are used in this study to examine health climate at the individual level and group level in order to provide a clearer picture of the impact of the three health climate facets. k-means cluster analysis was used on each sample to determine groups of individuals based on their levels of the three health climate facets.Results provide evidence that having strength in all three of the facets is the most beneficial in terms of employee well-being at work.Findings from this study suggest that organizations must consider how health is treated within workgroups, how supervisors support employee health, and what the organization does to support employee health when promoting employee health.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA.

ABSTRACT
One potential way that healthy organizations can impact employee health is by promoting a climate for health within the organization. Using a definition of health climate that includes support for health from multiple levels within the organization, this study examines whether all three facets of health climate--the workgroup, supervisor, and organization--work together to contribute to employee well-being. Two samples are used in this study to examine health climate at the individual level and group level in order to provide a clearer picture of the impact of the three health climate facets. k-means cluster analysis was used on each sample to determine groups of individuals based on their levels of the three health climate facets. A discriminant function analysis was then run on each sample to determine if clusters differed on a function of employee well-being variables. Results provide evidence that having strength in all three of the facets is the most beneficial in terms of employee well-being at work. Findings from this study suggest that organizations must consider how health is treated within workgroups, how supervisors support employee health, and what the organization does to support employee health when promoting employee health.

No MeSH data available.


Sample 1 k-means cluster solution.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4561991&req=5

fig1: Sample 1 k-means cluster solution.

Mentions: In the k-means analysis, a 6-cluster solution was retained after examining 2- through 7-cluster solutions. A 6-cluster solution was determined based on adequate cluster size and maximizing meaningful differences between clusters; see Table 3 for cluster sizes. As shown in Figure 1, there were three pairs of clusters that emerged, two clusters that were marked as mostly positive, two that were marked as mostly on average, and two that were marked as mostly negative. In the pair of mostly positive, one cluster of employees (entitled “Consistently Positive”) reported high levels of all three of the health climate facets, whereas another cluster of employees (“Interpersonally Positive”) reported high levels of both the workgroup and supervisor facets yet a lower organization facet. In the pair of average clusters, the “Consistently Average” cluster has average levels of all three of the facets while the “Workgroup-Plus Average” cluster is on average in the supervisor and organization facets yet higher in the workgroup facet. Lastly, in the negative pair of clusters, the “Consistently Negative” cluster reported low levels of all three of the health climate facets and the “Workgroup-Plus Negative” cluster is relatively high in the workgroup facet but low in the supervisor and organization facets.


Considering the Differential Impact of Three Facets of Organizational Health Climate on Employees' Well-Being.

Zweber ZM, Henning RA, Magley VJ, Faghri P - ScientificWorldJournal (2015)

Sample 1 k-means cluster solution.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4561991&req=5

fig1: Sample 1 k-means cluster solution.
Mentions: In the k-means analysis, a 6-cluster solution was retained after examining 2- through 7-cluster solutions. A 6-cluster solution was determined based on adequate cluster size and maximizing meaningful differences between clusters; see Table 3 for cluster sizes. As shown in Figure 1, there were three pairs of clusters that emerged, two clusters that were marked as mostly positive, two that were marked as mostly on average, and two that were marked as mostly negative. In the pair of mostly positive, one cluster of employees (entitled “Consistently Positive”) reported high levels of all three of the health climate facets, whereas another cluster of employees (“Interpersonally Positive”) reported high levels of both the workgroup and supervisor facets yet a lower organization facet. In the pair of average clusters, the “Consistently Average” cluster has average levels of all three of the facets while the “Workgroup-Plus Average” cluster is on average in the supervisor and organization facets yet higher in the workgroup facet. Lastly, in the negative pair of clusters, the “Consistently Negative” cluster reported low levels of all three of the health climate facets and the “Workgroup-Plus Negative” cluster is relatively high in the workgroup facet but low in the supervisor and organization facets.

Bottom Line: Two samples are used in this study to examine health climate at the individual level and group level in order to provide a clearer picture of the impact of the three health climate facets. k-means cluster analysis was used on each sample to determine groups of individuals based on their levels of the three health climate facets.Results provide evidence that having strength in all three of the facets is the most beneficial in terms of employee well-being at work.Findings from this study suggest that organizations must consider how health is treated within workgroups, how supervisors support employee health, and what the organization does to support employee health when promoting employee health.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA.

ABSTRACT
One potential way that healthy organizations can impact employee health is by promoting a climate for health within the organization. Using a definition of health climate that includes support for health from multiple levels within the organization, this study examines whether all three facets of health climate--the workgroup, supervisor, and organization--work together to contribute to employee well-being. Two samples are used in this study to examine health climate at the individual level and group level in order to provide a clearer picture of the impact of the three health climate facets. k-means cluster analysis was used on each sample to determine groups of individuals based on their levels of the three health climate facets. A discriminant function analysis was then run on each sample to determine if clusters differed on a function of employee well-being variables. Results provide evidence that having strength in all three of the facets is the most beneficial in terms of employee well-being at work. Findings from this study suggest that organizations must consider how health is treated within workgroups, how supervisors support employee health, and what the organization does to support employee health when promoting employee health.

No MeSH data available.