Search results1 – 6 of 6
Employee mental health problems are among the most costly issues facing employers in the developed world. Recognizing this, many employers have introduced resources…
Employee mental health problems are among the most costly issues facing employers in the developed world. Recognizing this, many employers have introduced resources designed to help employees cope with stressors. Yet, most employees fail-to-use these resources, even when they need them and could benefit from using them. We seek to understand this resource underutilization by (a) drawing on and expanding resource theories to explain why employees do not use existing resources and (b) proposing that leaders, managers, and supervisors can play a key role in facilitating the utilization of available resources. In doing so, we introduce resource utilization theory (RUT) as a complementary perspective to conservation of resources (COR) theory. We propose that RUT may provide the framework to describe patterns of resource utilization among employees, and to explain why employees do not use available resources to deal with existing stressors and demands.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature assessing the return-on-investment (ROI) of healthy workplace programs.
Used a narrative review to summarize and evaluate findings.
Although substantial ROI data now exist, methodological and logical weaknesses limit the conclusions that can be drawn.
A strategy for monetizing the benefits of healthy workplaces that draws on both human resource accounting and strategic human resource management is described.
The promotion of healthy workplaces is an important goal in its own right. To the extent that ROI estimates are important in advancing this goal, these estimates should be based on clear logic and strong methodology.
The paper suggests the need for stronger research designs but also note the difficulties in monetizing outcomes of the healthy workplace.
This paper investigates the extent to which disability type contributes to differential evaluation of employees by managers. In particular, the authors examined managerial…
This paper investigates the extent to which disability type contributes to differential evaluation of employees by managers. In particular, the authors examined managerial prejudice against 3 disability diagnoses (i.e. psychiatric, physical disability and pending diagnosis) compared to a control group in a return-to-work scenario.
Working managers (N = 238) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 scenarios containing medical documentation for a fictional employee that disclosed either the employee's psychiatric disability, physical disability, or a pending diagnosis. The authors also collected a separate sample (N = 42) as a control group that received a version of the medical documentation but contained no information about the disability diagnosis.
Compared with employees without stated disabilities, employees with a psychiatric disability were evaluated as more aggressive toward other employees, less trustworthy and less committed to the organization. Compared to employees with either physical disabilities or pending diagnoses, employees with psychiatric disabilities were rated as less committed to the organization. The authors discuss implications for future research and the trade-offs inherent in disability labeling and disclosure.
The current study extends prior research by examining a broader range of outcomes (i.e. perceived aggressiveness, trustworthiness and commitment) and moving beyond performance evaluations of employees with disabilities. The authors also assess the relative status of a “pending diagnosis” category—a type of disclosure often encountered by managers in many jurisdictions as part of accommodating employees returning to work from medical-related absence.