The Importance of Organizational Climate in Healthy Workplaces: Considerations for Disability Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: In 2013, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) released national, comprehensive guidelines for psychological health in the workplace. Nevertheless, follow-up surveys report poor uptake of the guidelines, particularly within the manufacturing sector, despite recent Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal (WSAIT) decisions that place greater responsibilities on employers to protect employees from psychological injury. Hence, this program of research has focused on the context of the work environment with a goal to better understand and inform current application of healthy workplace practices and policies. The overarching premise is that the full potential of a healthy workplace is optimised when set within a specific climate that values the health of workers. Therefore, Phase 1 reported the development of a workplace scale measuring a domain-specific climate for healthy practices in the workplace. Phase 2, reported here, tests the differential influence of culture, leadership and social climate on workers’ perceptions of healthy workplace practices and occupational bond. Method: Self-reported measures of culture, leadership social climate, healthy workplace practices and occupational bond from 162 participants were analysed to test the organisation’s culture, climate, leadership and practices as internal processes that influence the development of a healthy workplace Results: Adequately powered (N= 162), the mediational analyses demonstrated the significance of the proximal work environment of climate over the distal influence of culture and leadership. The key results demonstrate that the proximal environment has a significant influence on how workers perceive their workplaces. This has implications for the implementation of the guidelines for healthy workplaces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".