Leaders engaging in health-promoting leadership can influence their employees’ health directly by showing health awareness or indirectly by changing working conditions. With health-promoting leadership, leaders are able to support a healthy working environment by providing resource-oriented working conditions for their employees to support their health. Changing working conditions in a health-supportive way can prevent possible negative consequences from critical working conditions (e.g., burnout risk). The present study examined the relationship between health-promoting leadership and the employees’ resources, stress and burnout. To analyze our proposed model, structural equation modelling was conducted in two samples. The resulting model from the first sample of 228 Austrian workers was cross-validated and could be verified with the second sample (N = 263 Austrian workers). The results supported a model in which health-promoting leadership has a strong direct effect on the employees’ resources and an indirect effect on stress and burnout, which was mediated by resources. The results indicate that health-promoting leadership describes the leaders’ capability and dedication creating the right working conditions for their employees by increasing the employees’ resources at the workplace. This in turn minimizes the risk of experiencing burnout.

The measurement of job satisfaction as a central dimension for workplace health and well-being is crucial to set suitable health- and performance-enhancing management decisions. Measuring different facets of job satisfaction leads to a more precise understanding about job satisfaction in research as well as to more specific interventions in companies. This study examines the measurement of job satisfaction with facet scales (multiple-items for one facet) and facet-items (one item for one facet). Facet-items are a cost-effective and fast way to measure job satisfaction in facets, whereas facet scales are more detailed and provide further information. Results from 788 bank employees showed that facet-items of job satisfaction were significantly correlated with the corresponding facet scales and had high factor loadings within the appropriate factor. Furthermore, the same correlational pattern between facet scales and external criteria was found for facet-items and external criteria (identification with the company, work engagement, stress, resources). The findings support the usage of facet-items in companies and in research where cost- and time-effectiveness is imperative and the usage of facet scales where an even deeper understanding of job satisfaction is needed. In practice, the usage of efficient measurements is evident, especially in the upcoming field of eHealth tools.

Abstract:Organizations should support leaders in promoting their employees' health in every possible way to achieve a sustainable workplace. A good way to support leaders could include getting feedback about their health-promoting behavior from their employees. The present study introduces an instrument (Health-Promoting Leadership Conditions; HPLC) that enables the provision of feedback about the leaders' efforts to create health-promoting working conditions in seven key aspects: health awareness, workload, control, reward, community, fairness and value-fit. The instrument was used in employee surveys and in an online study, obtaining a sample of 430 participants. The results showed that all seven key aspects of health-promoting leadership can be assigned to a main factor of health-promoting leadership. In addition, the HPLC shows high construct validity with dimensions of stress, resources and burnout (Recovery-Stress-Questionnaire for Work [RESTQ-Work] and Maslach Burnout Inventory General Survey [MBI-GS]). The results indicate that the HPLC can be used as a basis on which to assess health-promoting leadership behavior with a focus on changing working conditions. By getting feedback about their leadership behavior from their employees, leaders can identify their potential and fields for improvement for supporting their employees' health and developing a sustainable workplace.

BackgroundElectronic health (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) tools can support and improve the whole process of workplace health promotion (WHP) projects. However, several challenges and opportunities have to be considered while integrating these tools in WHP projects. Currently, a large number of eHealth tools are developed for changing health behavior, but these tools can support the whole WHP process, including group administration, information flow, assessment, intervention development process, or evaluation.ObjectiveTo support a successful implementation of eHealth tools in the whole WHP processes, we introduce a concept of WHP (life cycle model of WHP) with 7 steps and present critical and success factors for the implementation of eHealth tools in each step.MethodsWe developed a life cycle model of WHP based on the World Health Organization (WHO) model of healthy workplace continual improvement process. We suggest adaptations to the WHO model to demonstrate the large number of possibilities to implement eHealth tools in WHP as well as possible critical points in the implementation process.ResultseHealth tools can enhance the efficiency of WHP in each of the 7 steps of the presented life cycle model of WHP. Specifically, eHealth tools can support by offering easier administration, providing an information and communication platform, supporting assessments, presenting and discussing assessment results in a dashboard, and offering interventions to change individual health behavior. Important success factors include the possibility to give automatic feedback about health parameters, create incentive systems, or bring together a large number of health experts in one place. Critical factors such as data security, anonymity, or lack of management involvement have to be addressed carefully to prevent nonparticipation and dropouts.ConclusionsUsing eHealth tools can support WHP, but clear regulations for the usage and implementation of these tools at the workplace are needed to secure quality and reach sustainable results.

Background In today’s world of work, the digitalization of work and communication processes is increasing, and will increase even further. This increase in digitalization at the workplace brings many new aspects of working life to light, such as working in virtual teams, mobile working, expectations of being constantly available, and the need for support in adapting and learning new digital tools. These changes to the workplace can contain risks that might harm the well-being of employees. Leaders can support the well-being of their employees in terms of protecting and replenishing their work-related resources to cope with critical work demands. This so-called health-promoting leadership could serve as a buffer between risk at the workplace and critical outcomes, such as stress, by amplifying work-related resources. Objective This study’s aims were twofold. First, we wanted to investigate if risk factors related to higher digitalization at the workplace can be identified and if these risk factors have an impairing effect on the well-being of employees (eg, higher stress and lower resources). Second, we wanted to investigate if the health-impairing effects of these risk factors can be reduced by health-promoting leadership. Methods A total of 1412 employees from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland took part in this online study and provided information on their perceived risks at the workplace, their leaders’ health-promoting behaviors, and their work-related stress and resources. Results The results of a hierarchical regression analysis showed that all four risk factors of digital work (distributed team work, mobile work, constant availability, and inefficient technical support) were related to higher stress at the workplace. In addition, distributed team work and inefficient technical support were associated with lower work-related resources. A possible buffer effect of health-promoting leadership between these risks and employee well-being was visible for inefficient technical support. In particular, in the case of having fewer support opportunities in learning and using digital tools, leaders could weaken the potential critical effects on stress. As for the other risk factors, leaders might engage in a different leadership behavior to improve their employees’ well-being, as the physical distance between leaders and employees in virtual team work or mobile work could make health-promoting leadership more difficult. Conclusions In a digitalized working world, solutions are needed to create working conditions that benefit employees. The results of this study strongly support the importance of investigating risk factors associated with an increase in digitalization at the workplace in addition to traditional risk factors. As for leadership, leaders need to show leadership behavior adapted to a digitalized workplace in order to reduce employee stress and increase work-related resources.