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

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

What's Gender Got to Do with It? Incivility in the Federal Courts

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72366/1/j.1747-4469.2002.tb00804.x.pd

Personal and Workgroup Incivility: Impact on work and Health Outcomes

This article develops a theoretical model of the impact of workplace incivility on employees ’ occupational and psychological well-being. In Study 1, the authors tested the model on 1,158 employees, finding that satisfaction with work and supervisors, as well as mental health, partially mediated effects of personal incivility on turnover intentions and physical health; this process did not vary by gender. Study 2 cross-validated and extended these results on an independent sample of 271 employees, showing negative effects of workgroup incivility that emerged over and above the impact of personal incivility. In both studies, all results held while controlling for general job stress. Implications for organizational science and practice are discussed

Don’t let COVID-19 disrupt campus climate surveys of sexual harassment

Surveying a campus community about sexual harassment can be a daunting task during normal times. It’s especially daunting during a pandemic. Institutional leaders may balk at committing scarce resources to survey efforts. Some may wonder how to interpret results that look dramatically different from prior assessments. Also, they may worry about adding to the burdens of already stressed staff, faculty, and students. Indeed, these concerns and complexities came up recently within the work of the National Academies’ Action Collaborative on Preventing Sexual Harassment in Higher Education (1). This Action Collaborative grew out of the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) consensus study report on sexual harassment in academic science, engineering, and medicine (2). Over 60 academic and research institu- tions and key stakeholders sought to work together to identify, develop, implement, and evaluate ways of preventing and addressing sexual harassment in higher education. Action Collaboratives are a rela- tively new type of activity at the National Academies [others include Clinician Well-Being and Resilience (3) and Countering the US Opioid Epidemic (4)]. Building on the National Academies’ long history of convening stakeholders and gathering research to inform decision makers and the public, Action Collaboratives provide a space for organizations and individuals to exchange information, ideas, and strategies around topics of mutual interest and concern, create new and innovative solutions, and take collective action. When COVID-19 disrupted plans for learning and work in higher education, representatives from member institutions in our Action Collaborative asked whether they should continue campus climate surveys, and if so, how they should proceed. Here we address these questions using our extensive experience with sexual harassment research and policy. Three of us are members of the Action Collaborative’s Advisory Committee (K.J.H., L.M.C., and V.J.M.) and specialize in the psychological study of sexual harassment and violence. Two of us (A.L.B. and F.F.B.) are program officers at NASEM and currently direct and manage the Action Collaborative. We understand and appreciate the concerns institutions have about conducting campus climate surveys during the current circumstances. However, we recom- mend that these surveys nevertheless move forward without delay. Here we explain why and how to do so. Although our advice is specific to institutions of higher education, it would apply just as well to nonacademic organizations wanting to understand member experiences of sexual harassment. While climate surveys can cover a number of topics (e.g., discrimination, safety, bullying, etc.), our focus here is on climate surveys that examine sexual harassment. Consistent with the 2018 NASEM report, we use the term “sexual harassment” in its broadest sense, referring to behaviors that derogate, humiliate, or violate people because of their sex or gender. These behaviors include many forms of wrongdoing, from gender-based insults to pornographic displays to unwanted sexual pursuit to sexual assault and rape (5)

Climate of Accountability and Interpersonal Respect (CAIR): Development and Validation of a New Organizational Survey

Background This research describes the development and validation of the CAIR Climate Survey, a 22-item measure designed to assess interpersonal dimensions of work-unit climates. Dimensions of work-unit climates are identified through work-unit member perceptions and include civility, interpersonal accountability, conflict resolution, and institutional harassment responsiveness. Methods Two samples (N=1384; N=868) of academic researchers, including one from the North American membership of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and one from a large research-intensive university, responded to the CAIR and additional measures via an online survey. Results Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded four dimensions of interpersonal climate, and we find evidence for the internal consistency, and convergent and discriminant validity of the CAIR, and excellent sub-group invariance. Conclusions The CAIR is a brief, psychometrically sound instrument that can be used by researchers, institutional leaders, and other practitioners to assess interpersonal climates in organizational work-units. Originality/Value This is the first study to develop and validate such a measure of interpersonal climates specifically in research-intensive organizations, using rigorous psychometric methods, grounded in both theory and prior research on work-unit climates