Employee perceptions of high involvement work practices and burnout in health care: a conservation of resources theory perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of high involvement work practices (HIWPs) on employee well-being outcomes is unclear as the research evidence records both positive and negative effects. However, the majority of research studies have examined the impact of HIWPs on positive well-being outcomes with scant research dedicated to examining their influence on employees health related outcomes such as burnout. Another major research gap concerns the lack of theorising and empirical work dedicated to understanding the relationship between HIWPs and well-being. This thesis introduces the very relevant and timely Conservation of Resources (COR) theory from the occupational health psychology literature to the research on HIWPs in order to explain the underlying mechanisms through which HIWPs influences a critical well-being outcome i.e. burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalisation). Specifically, using data from Canadian hospitals, the author tested the HIWPs-burnout link and possible mediators in three research studies. Study 1 employed a cross-sectional design in a Canadian hospital and showed that perceived HIWPs are directly and indirectly associated with lower burnout via job demands (role conflict and role overload). Study 2 employed a time lagged research design and demonstrated that perceived HIWPs do not directly impact burnout three years later. Rather, the effect of HIWPs on burnout is fully mediated by person-organisation fit. Finally, Study 3 which sampled nurses, investigated and found support for the simultaneous mediating role of a job resource (procedural justice) and job demand (role overload) in the HIWPs-burnout relationship. Further, colleague support moderated the effects of these mediators on emotional exhaustion but not depersonalisation. Overall, the three presented studies demonstrate support for the positive effects of HIWPs in the health care context while theoretically and empirically depicting the underlying mechanisms for this relationship. The implications for research and practice are illustrated by highlighting the importance of HIWPs as a critical resource for employees.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".