Conceptualizing the Healthy Organization with a Whole-Person Outlook

Conceptualizing the Healthy Organization with a Whole-Person Outlook | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Conceptualizing the Healthy Organization with a Whole-Person Outlook Victor Haines, Alain Marchand, Nancy Beauregard This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5932992/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study develops and tests an alternative conceptualization of the healthy organization that integrates organizational learning, training and development, work organization conditions, and human resource philosophy within a whole-person view of employee health. Defined as an organizational-level construct, the convergence of these workplace attributes evidenced by latent profile analysis (LPA) supported the healthy organization construct that has more rather than fewer of these health-significant attributes. The analysis conducted with a sample of 228 organizations from various industries further revealed positive associations between the healthy organization type and employer engagement in the provision of workplace health promotion initiatives. healthy organization work organization conditions organizational learning philosophy training and development health promotion Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Organizational learning practices improve employee learning (Barrette et al., 2007, 2012), commitment (Lauzier et al., 2018), flexibility (Camps et al., 2016), innovation (Alegre & Chiva, 2008; Amarakoon et al., 2018), and performance (Goh et al., 2012; Real et al., 2014). Organizational training and development practices are convincingly related to improvements in individual learning (Lacerenza et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2005). Work organization conditions convey strain-reducing and health-improving control, support, and rewards (Demerouti et al., 2001; Karasek, 1979; Marchand et al., 2015; Siegrist, 1996). An employee-centered human resource philosophy transmits a commitment to employee growth (Lepak et al., 2007). This philosophy is supportive of learning and work conditions that together favor overall health. The healthy organization might accordingly best be represented at the collective level of analysis by an employee-centered human resource philosophy that complements organizational learning and training and development practices as well as work organization conditions that favor autonomy, voice, constructive social relations, and gratifications. An equally integrated and current conceptualization of the healthy organization remains a desirable but unachieved goal in the arena of occupational health research. Not only would a clearer understanding of the healthy organization provide a better foundation for research into the organizational contextual factors that contribute to employee health (MacDonald et al., 2008), but it would also provide a useful framework for organizational development and change. The aim of this study is therefore to develop and test a conceptualization of the healthy organization that integrates such organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. Guided by a whole-person view of employee health, the proposed alternative conceptualization proceeds with a clear definition of the healthy organization that dissipates many of the ambiguities found in current research. We define the healthy organization as one that signals and supports employee overall mind (i.e., mental/psychological) and body (i.e., physical/physiological) health with mutually reinforcing health-supportive organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. The healthy organization is therefore not market-oriented (cf., Acuna, 2020), but rather employee-centered with a clear focus on the availability of organizational practices, conditions, and orientations that together signal and support whole-person health.[ 1 ] In the process of developing and testing this conceptualization of the healthy organization, the current study integrates distinct but related areas of scientific inquiry. Occupational health research has emphasized work organization conditions and we integrate meaningful perspectives stemming from organizational learning and human resource management research. This integration of complementary attributes is consistent with an emerging system’s view of the healthy organization (Day & Randell, 2014; DeJoy & Southern, 1993; Grawitch et al., 2006; Nigan et al., 2003). It is also a necessary step for occupational health research to achieve a comprehensive account of the organizational context that translates a concern for employee overall physical and mental health. Although research has tested models involving the healthy organization construct (e.g., Day & Randell, 2014; O’Donnell et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2004), an ongoing a persistent limitation identified by Shoaf et al. (2004) relays the need to better understand the macro-level attributes of organizations that may generate employee health (p. 83) (see also Beauchamp Legault & Chênevert, 2024; Roczniewska et al., 2022). This study breaks new ground by giving full consideration to the human resource philosophy that most likely characterizes the healthy organization. To the extent that the healthy organization is employee-oriented (Sauter et al., 1996), we expect that an employee-centered human resource philosophy will transpire as a critical system-level attribute of the healthy organization. This philosophy places a high value on human capital and reflects a positive orientation toward employees (Lepak et al., 2007). Another contribution of this study lies in an initial validation of this novel conceptualization with the expectation that the healthy organization type will engage in health promotion initiatives. In this initial construct validation, the healthy organization represents the fundamental character of the organization and punctual health promotion initiatives are what the organization does; the expectation being that the healthy organization will engage more in the provision of workplace health promotion initiatives that typically reach many employees. [ 1 ] We use the expression “whole-person health” to designate mind and body health considered together as united. This view stems from medical research (e.g., Vitetta et al., 2005) as well as from the many occupational health studies that show significant associations between work-related psychological strain (e.g., job burnout) and physical health (e.g., inflammation biomarkers: Toker et al., 2005). This outlook on employee health is also consistent with contemporary occupational health research (Danna & Griffin, 1999). Conceptual Development Organizational learning, training and development practices, work organization conditions, and an employee-centered human resource philosophy are addressed in this study as complementary workplace-level attributes of the healthy organization. These mutually reinforcing organizational practices, conditions, and orientations are expected to converge probalistically to represent what is deemed the healthy organization. Healthy Organization Organizational health and the healthy organization are often confounded. There is therefore value in making a neat distinction between these constructs. A review of the literature suggests that organizational health is most suitably defined in terms of effective organizational functioning and performance (Cox & Cox, 1992; Cox & Howarth, 1990; Griffin et al., 2000; McHugh & Brotherton, 2000; Miles, 1969; Singh & Jha, 2017). Effective organizational functioning and performance, however, includes a concern for employee health (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Cox & Cox, 1992; Lindström et al., 2000; Miller et al., 1999; Sauter et al., 1996). Organizational health is, in this way, “an expanded notion of organizational effectiveness” (Shoaf et al., 2004, p. 83). The healthy organization rather designates a workplace that favors whole-person health with mutually reinforcing stable organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. An important feature of the healthy organization construct is therefore its focus on employee health (Wilson et al., 2004). Employee health is, as such, not conceptualized as one of many components of an expanded notion of organizational effectiveness, but rather as a central concern within the healthy organization. Another defining characteristic of the healthy organization construct, as developed in the current study, is a shared emphasis on employee mind and body health. This feature is consistent with conceptualizations of the healthy organization that consider both mental and physical health (e.g., Day & Randell, 2014; Grawitch et al., 2006). Another feature of the healthy organization is that it is descriptive of the organizational context in which work is performed. Wilson et al. (2004) tested a healthy organization framework at the individual level of analysis. They however identified this as a limitation (i.e., “conceptual quandary”) given that the healthy organization was conceptualized at the organizational level (i.e., company level) but tested at the individual level (p. 583). We therefore adhere to an organizational level of analysis and focus on what are relatively stable workplace-level practices, conditions, and orientations. This level of analysis is supported by an emerging line of research on the healthy organization (Day & Randell, 2014; Grawitch et al., 2017; Grawitch et al., 2009; Kelloway & Day, 2005; Marchand et al., 2016; O’Donnell et al., 2019). The healthy organization construct also stems also from the understanding that organizational practices have meanings that signal what is important in the workplace (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff & Bowen, 2016) and foster employee behavior (Jackson et al., 2014; Schuler & Jackson, 1987). The current conceptualization of the healthy organization does not therefore stem from employee perceptions of how they experience work organization conditions such as autonomy or feedback (e.g., Salanova et al., 2012), but rather from assessments of the availability of mutually reinforcing, relatively stable, macro-level organizational practices, conditions, and orientations that signal a concern for employee overall health. These definitional components are consistent with how the words health and healthy are commonly understood. Indeed, health is a condition so that organizational health represents the health condition of an organization on a continuum possibly ranging from poor to excellent. The word healthy rather refers to what is conducive to health. Physical activity, for instance, is healthy because it is conducive to health (e.g., Sher & Wu, 2023). The healthy organization is therefore understood as a configuration of practices, conditions, and orientations that are conducive to employee health. With consideration of these definitional features, we expect that organizational learning practices, training and development practices, and work organization conditions are mutually and interdependently reflective of an organizational concern for employee overall health, especially when they are conjecturally associated with an employee-centered human resource philosophy. It is therefore expected that these attributes will converge in latent profile analysis (LPA) to jointly best represent the healthy organization. This statistical procedure does not assume linear relationships between variables, but rather identifies similarities and common characteristics in the data to identify groups. The convergence of the identified attributes into systematically interdependent and interpretable non-redundant configurations is expected to provide initial evidence of the healthy organization construct as supported by theory and research. We next address the organizational attributes that are considered resources that facilitate the achievement of goals, reduce demands, and stimulate personal growth and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Beyond these general health-related functions, the complementary health-related specificities of each attribute are outlined. Organizational Learning Practices Organizational learning is a dynamic process involving the acquisition, diffusion, interpretation and long-lasting implementation of new knowledge for the achievement of organizational objectives (Aragón-Correa et al., 2007; Huber, 1991; Slater & Narver, 1995). Organizational learning practices (e.g., organization encourages awareness of internal processes and external environment) support this cycle of new knowledge development. To do so, they rely on individual and collective learning processes (i.e., knowledge management systems) (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Barrette et al., 2007; Dodgson, 1993). Considered enablers of learning (Chiva et al., 2007; Dibella et al., 1996; Gho & Richards, 1997; Hult & Ferrell, 1997; Jerez-Gómez et al., 2005; Mbengue & Sané, 2013), organizational learning practices have not yet been adequately considered as health related even if there is much research evidence suggesting that learning and skills acquisition foster healthy minds (e.g., Schultz et al., 2015; Valenzuela & Sachdev, 2006; Ware et al., 2021). Two potential pathways relate organizational learning practices to employee health. The first suggests that organizational learning practices shape how employees’ tasks are designed and performed. Task design and performance would, in turn, influence employee health. For example, organizations that facilitate risk acceptance, experimentation and collaborative work concurrently increase employee control and social support. Such work environments make available more resources, yielding better employee health outcomes (Beauregard et al., 2020). The second pathway suggests that organizational learning practices improve cognitive abilities. In turn, cognitive abilities are associated with better mental health. Valenzuela and Sachdev (2006), for instance, found higher behavioral brain reserve (i.e., education level, occupation, premorbid IQ, mental activities) to be associated with lowered risk for incident dementia. Organizational learning practices that support the cognitive processes associated with knowledge development therefore favor employee learning and health. In light of these modes of influence, some convergence between organizational learning practices, training and development practices, work organization conditions, and human resource philosophy is expected. Training and Development Practices Previous conceptual elaborations about the healthy organization have sparingly recognized learning and knowledge development as contributing to employee health (e.g., Day & Randell, 2014; Grawitch et al., 2017). Alternatively, strategic human resource management research articulates skill-enhancing practices as essential components of high-performance work systems (e.g., Combs, 2006; Gardner et al., 2011; Posthuma et al., 2013; Saridakis et al., 2017). Although the overall influence of high-performance work systems on employee health remains uncertain (Peccei & Van de Voorde, 2019; Peccei et al., 2013; Shi et al., 2024; Van de Voorde et al., 2012), Guest (2017) presented theoretical arguments in support of a positive relationship between investments in training and development and employee health. One compelling argument is that training and development strengthen self-efficacy; an antecedent of employee health (Karademas, 2006). In a similar vein, Peccei and Van de Voorde (2019) argued that human resource management practices that include training and development are health resources. Training and development practices support the acquisition of knowledge and skills (Tharenou et al., 2007) and research conveys that learning fosters healthy minds (e.g., Schultz et al., 2015; Valenzuela & Sachdev, 2006; Ware et al., 2021). Greater organizational investments in training and development would therefore strengthen the mechanisms involved in organizational learning and enhance employee knowledge and skills acquisition on a positive pathway to employee growth and health. In the pursuit of an integrated conceptualization of the healthy organization, we next theorize that this process is supported by favorable work organization conditions as well as by an employee-centered human resource philosophy. Work Organization Conditions Task design, demands control, social relations, and gratifications are meaningful dimensions of the psychosocial work environment that have clear health implications (Marchand et al., 2016; Siegrist & Marmot, 2004; Theorell et al., 2015). These work organization conditions are therefore the most definitive attributes of the healthy organization that are considered workplace-level attributes of the healthy organization (Roczniewska et al., 2022). Task Design The health-related components of task design in this study involve increasing autonomy and participation. A long history of occupational health research supports associations between autonomy and health. Karasek (1979) identified employee control as health protective and findings suggest that more autonomy is associated with lower job burnout (Alarcon, 2011) and other health benefits (Egan et al., 2007). Employee participation is similarly supportive of employee health. Demands Control Demands control conveys employer actions to reduce some of the job demands associated with employee strain. These actions include workload control, a reduced work week, reductions of working time and of overtime, and job analysis. These are clearly health related with evidence of fewer mental health disability claims when they are highly developed (Marchand et al., 2016). Social Relations Social relations include teamwork, problem solving groups, a code of conduct for conflict management, a psychological harassment policy, a complaints committee, and a social club. These components of the organizational context have in common a concern for the development of positive interpersonal workplace relationships. They are considered resources in light of longstanding theoretical support for the health benefits of positive workplace social relations (Karasek et al., 1998). Empirical findings reviewed by an early meta-analysis accordingly found associations between more social support, team cohesion, and lower job burnout (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). Gratifications Gratifications include performance appraisals, health-day benefits, paid leave banks, promotion opportunities, and clear career paths. Such work organization conditions are central components of the effort-reward imbalance model proposed by Siegrist (1996) in which rewards are deemed protective factors in the psychosocial workplace environment. Conversely, the fulfillment of self-regulatory needs may be threatened when few rewards are available and this was found to result in impaired health in a review of 45 studies (van Vegchel et al., 2005). Employee-Centered Human Resource Philosophy Nigam et al. (2003) found a positive relationship between the importance the organization places on improving employee health and the presence of stress management programs. This finding hints that organizational values that emphasize caring are most conducive to employee health. This value-orientation is captured by what is deemed an employee-centered human resource philosophy that transmits an organizational commitment to employee growth and health (Lepak et al., 2007). This philosophy translates the espoused underlying logic for managing people and favors the adoption of innovative work practices (Osterman, 1994) and high-performance work systems (Arthur et al., 2016). Organizational values are not new to human resource management research (O’Neill et al., 2011), but they remain insufficiently examined in occupational health research (Dextras-Gauthier et al., 2012). Given the current organizational level of analysis, it is expected that an employee-centered human resource philosophy will be accompanied by the availability of organizational practices and conditions that are conducive to employee growth and health. An employee-centered human resource philosophy should therefore converge with other health-related attributes in a way that best qualifies the healthy organization. Validation The proposed conceptualization is supported by the nature of the attributes that are destined to be combined. These are all regarded as self-reinforcing resources with positive health implications and the healthy organization construct as defined by these attributes is supported by theory and research. Probabilistic convergence in LPA would further support that the selected attributes adequately reflect the proposed conceptualization of the healthy organization. This empirical test is expected to identify qualitatively different subgroups (i.e., healthy and unhealthy organizations) that share certain outward characteristics (Hagenaars & McCutcheon, 2002). We therefore proceeded accordingly with the understanding that work organization conditions are most central to occupational health research so that a convergence that is inclusive of these practices would provide stronger evidence still in support of the healthy organization construct. We also expect the healthy organization to actively engage in health promotion initiatives that target improvements in employee health. There is much evidence from research on organizational culture that the stable attributes of an organization determine its actions (e.g., Isensee et al., 2020; Schein, 2010). Construct validation therefore also involved testing how the stable attributes of the healthy organization identified as important by theory and research combine to engage the healthy organization in making available more health promotion initiatives. Methods This study was conducted at the organizational level of analysis with key informants providing information on organizational practices, conditions, orientations, and health promotion initiatives. Assessing such phenomena at the organizational level agrees with our conceptual development. Basing measurement on answers provided by the person responsible for human resource management within each participating organization is also consistent with this outlook. Questionnaires were sent to 1,118 organizations based in Canada during the year 2019. The surveyed organizations were the corporate clients of a human resource, health and wellbeing, and productivity solutions service provider. They were first contacted by the service provider who informed them that an independent university research program conducted by (information removed for blind review) was underway and that they would be formally invited to participate by the research team. The questionnaire was to be completed by the most senior person responsible for human resources. Informed consent was obtained, and responses were received from 217 organizations, for a response rate of 19.4%. During 2021, using a similar procedure, a second organizational survey was conducted with a mailing list that included 693 organizations not surveyed during 2019. Of the surveyed organizations from this list, responses were received from 79 organizations, for a response rate of 11.4%. The 2019 and 2021 data were combined and a final sample of 228 usable surveys were available for this study. On average, relatively large firms in terms of full-time equivalent employees ( M = 1,863.94; SD = 7,19.53) characterize this sample. About half of the participating organizations were from the tertiary sector (54.22%) and about half had union representation (50.75%). Measures Organizational Learning Practices Organizational learning practices were measured with a validated French-language version (Beauregard et al., 2020) of the 11-item scale developed by Yeung et al. (1999). A sample item from this instrument is: “My organization welcomes open inquiry and self-analysis.” Respondents reported their level or agreement with each statement on a scale ranging from 1 ( completely disagree ) to 7 ( completely agree ). Scale reliability was high (α = .93, with Mean = 58.17 and SD = 11.58). Training and Development Practices Training and development practices were measured with three items: Training investments, training as important for performance improvement, and a focus on employee development when conducting performance appraisals. Responses were recorded on a scale ranging from 1 ( totally disagree ) to 6 ( totally agree ) (α = .85, with Mean = 13.07 and SD = 3.77). Work Organization Conditions Work organization conditions were assessed using Marchand et al.’s (2015) list relating to task design (2 items), demands control (5 items), social relations (7 items), and gratifications (5 items). Higher scores reflected higher levels of development of these work organization conditions (0 = not developed , 1 = weakly developed , 2 = strongly developed ). Distributions were standardized (Mean = 0, SD = 1.00) to have a comparable metric. Employee-Centered Human Resource Philosophy Lepak et al.’s (2007) instrument measured employee-centered human resource philosophy. It contained four items recorded on a four-point scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 4 ( strongly agree ). A sample item is: “We invest heavily in our employees because we know that they determine the success of our establishment.” Higher scores therefore reflected a stronger employee-centered human resource philosophy. Scale reliability was adequate (α = .77, Mean = 15.60, SD = 2.76). Health Promotion Initiatives Health promotion initiatives (i.e., interventions) were measured with 32 items from Marchand et al. (2016). They assessed the degree of implementation (0 = not at all , 1 = weakly , 2 = strongly ) of six organizational health promotion initiatives relating to physical activity, of five relating to nutrition, of seven relating to general health, of eight relating to stress coping, and of six relating to work-life balance. Distributions were standardized (Mean = 0, SD = 1.00) to have a comparable metric. Covariates Firm size, economic sector, and unionization were included as covariates in the analysis. Firm size was estimated as the number of full-time equivalent employees log-transformed for regression analysis. Economic sector was assessed as a binary variable (0 = primary and secondary , 1 = tertiary ) as was unionization (0 = no , 1 = yes ). Analysis We applied LPA using Mplus 7.11 (Muthén, 2017) software to identify organizations sharing similar response patterns relating to organizational learning practices, training and development practices, work organization conditions (task design, demands control, social relations, gratifications), and employee-centered human resource philosophy. Variables (i.e., seven theorized attributes of the healthy organization) were treated as continuous so that LPA measurement type is assumed Gaussian with an identity link function (regression). Estimates were obtained using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with missing values and robust standard errors. Three statistical information criteria and two likelihood-based tests were examined to determine the number of latent profiles. Using this analytic strategy, the selected solution was ultimately justified based on statistical and theoretical considerations (Nylund et al., 2007; Spurk et al., 2020). The inspected statistical information criteria were the Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1987) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978). Following the procedure recommended by Sinha et al. (2021) for smaller sample sizes (< 300), we report both AIC and BIC, with lower values on these criteria indicating better model fit. The sample-size-adjusted BIC (SBIC; Sclove, 1987) was also scrutinized. The Lo, Mendell, and Rubin (2001) Likelihood Ratio Test (LMR-LRT) and the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (VLMR-LRT; Vuong, 1989) provided likelihood-based tests for one more class relative to k-1 classes. Entropy values denoting the adequacy of profile separation are also reported. Marginal predicted means were used to determine latent profile membership. In further analyses, the identified profiles were regressed on firm size, economic sector, unionization, and on employer engagement in workplace health promotion initiatives adjusted for firm size, economic sector, and unionization. Results The correlations between study variables are reported in Table 1. Latent Profiles Models We tested four LPA solutions ranging from 1 to 4 profiles. Table 2 presents statistical information criteria estimated according to the number of latent profiles included in each solution. Although the AIC, BIC, and SBIC decreased until the four-profile solution, they showed the steepest decrement at the two-profile solution, in support of this solution. This trend is illustrated in Figure 1 that shows a flattening of the BIC at the two-profiles solution. Although the levelling off is not as pronounced for the AIC and SBIC slopes, they still show a noticeable flattening at the two-profiles solution. Table 2 also includes two likelihood-based tests that support two profiles (or groups) as best fitting and most parsimonious. The three-profile model relative to the two-class model was not significant nor was the four-class model relative to the three-class model for both the LMR-LRT and VLMR-LRT tests. The entropy value for the two-profile solution is above the .80 threshold (Celeux & Soromenho, 1996), indicating high classification accuracy. Entropy values are slightly lower for the three-profile solution and slightly higher for the four-class solution. Statistical information criteria (i.e., AIC, BIC, and SBIC) and likelihood-based tests (i.e., LMR-LRT and VLMR-LRT), however, favor the two-profile solution over the four-profile solution. This analysis as well as agreement with substantive theory therefore supported a configuration of organizations into two latent profiles that appear to be free of redundancy. Table 3 reports the marginal means for the two profiles, the classification probabilities, and average latent profile probabilities as well as number of cases in each profile (i.e., class count). The differences between profiles are shown in Figure 2. Because the lines in this figure do not intersect, it can be noted that all of the seven attributes clearly distinguish the profiles and that the greatest differences between the two profiles are training and development practices and employee-centered human resource management philosophy. The classification and average latent profile probabilities reported in Table 3 for each profile are high, indicating that the cases are correctly classified into their correct profile. Moreover, a third of the organizations in our sample were included in the first profile that is deemed the “unhealthy organization” profile. The remaining two thirds of the organizations in our sample were included in the second profile that is deemed the “healthy organization” profile. According to the multivariate results presented in Table 4, the two identified latent profiles are not significantly related to firm size, economic sector, or unionization. This indicates that being assigned to the healthy organization profile is not determined by these contextual factors. Table 5 presents the logistic regression results pertaining to the associations between the probability of latent profile membership and the provision of health promotion initiatives. Compared to Profile 1, the “healthy organization” profile (i.e., Profile 2) was positively associated with employer engagement in all five categories of health promotion initiatives. This provides clear evidence that the healthy organization tends to be more engaged in making available a wide spectrum of health promotion initiatives. Discussion In the tradition of configurational organizational research (Missangyi et al., 2017), the healthy organization was conceptualized in this study as a system of mutually reinforcing favorable macro-level attributes that include organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. The configurations revealed by the current study suggest that we may confidently distinguish organizations based on their health-significant attributes. There is indeed both theoretical and empirical support for a conceptualization of the healthy organization that includes organizational learning practices, training and development practices, work organization conditions (i.e., task design, demands control, social relations, gratifications), and an employee-centered human resource philosophy. Moreover, this distinctive configuration of attributes does not appear to be a function of company size, economic sector, or unionization. Most notably, the healthy organization appears to provide a work environment that is conducive to health as can be observed by a higher organizational engagement in the provision of a wide spectrum of health promotion initiatives. Implications Categorizing provides the foundation for theorizing and testing (Pierce, 2025). Although research models and frameworks for understanding the antecedents and consequences of the healthy organization were developed and tested (Day & Randell, 2014; Kelloway & Day, 2005; Wilson et al., 2004), research has advanced without an adequate conceptualization of the construct. This line of research has therefore developed on a shaky foundation. The current study defined the healthy organization as one that signals and supports overall health with mutually reinforcing health-significant organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. Some of the premises that steered construct development were that the healthy organization could be assessed at an organizational level of analysis with consideration of the macro-level features of an organization and that an employee-centered human resource philosophy gives a clear caring orientation to the practices and conditions that have the potential to improve employee growth, learning, and overall health. These premises were supported by the response patterns that underscore the value of integrating different but complementary and converging health-related perspectives to form a unified representation of the healthy organization. It would therefore seem that the healthy organization is best described as a formative construct that includes mutually reinforcing favorable organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. Our findings further suggest that all of the pieces of the puzzle are required for it to come into view as each attribute appears to distinguish the healthy from the unhealthy organization. This conceptualization and empirical support for the chosen approach may assist in the development of a measurement strategy that would provide a solid foundation for an accumulation of knowledge about the healthy organization. Based on the current findings, we would recommend that scale development focus on the availability at the organizational level of mutually reinforcing practices, conditions, and orientations that together favor whole-person health. These stable and enduring organizational attributes were found in this study to converge in what was deemed the healthy organization and this configuration was associated with the provision of more punctual health promotion initiatives among participating organizations. Whereas these findings may guide occupational health research, they may also contribute to the development of other areas of research. It is indeed apparent that organizational learning research could better integrate the idea that organizational enablers of learning (e.g., Chiva et al., 2007; Jerez-Gómez et al., 2005; Mbengue & Sané, 2013) also favor employee growth, learning, and health. On the one hand, from an occupational health perspective, these enablers (e.g., open inquiry) are to be considered protective resources that attenuate psychological strain. From another medically inclined perspective, these enablers presumably favor mind health through learning and growth. For human resource management research, this study questions high-performance work systems and the functions of training and development. Deemed performance-enhancing components of human resource management systems, it may be that training and development practices aid in the development of self-efficacy (Guest, 2017); but a more straightforward argument is that learning is, in itself, conducive to overall health. Moreover, in support of research on employee attributions and human resource management system strength (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), it would seem that an employee-centered human resource philosophy conveys a unified message about the meanings of various practices and conditions. This hints that an expansion of high-performance work systems to include organizational learning practices, human resource philosophy, and work organization conditions might best capture the organizational context that is potentially conducive to both health and performance in the pursuit of what is deemed sustainable performance (de Jonge & Peeters, 2019). With regards to the most appropriate level of analysis for future research, we found much support for the organizational level. This is the level at which most strategic decisions are made concerning the implementation of organizational practices and work conditions. Moreover, the basic frameworks for decision-making throughout the ranks of the organization are set at this level of analysis. Our study thus complements past inquiries having tackled the concept of healthy organizations from an alternative individual-level viewpoint (e.g., Beauregard et al., 2020). Developing workplace health research at the organizational level of analysis may, however, require different theoretical frameworks. There is also evidence that judgments about entities may be formed based on different criteria than judgments about events (Hollensbe et al., 2008). This suggests a vast field of inquiry for future occupational health research. In terms of the most obvious practical implication, this study supports that the organization is to be considered an influential context in the analysis of occupational health issues (Aust et al., 2023; Kortum, 2014; Nielsen & Randall, 2013; Reynolds & Bennett, 2023; Rocziewska et al., 2022). It also supports the structuring of work by way of work organization conditions that favor autonomy, voice, constructive social relations, and gratifications. This study also favors interventions that provide opportunities for learning and growth. The need to consider the philosophy that guides talent management is also highlighted by our findings. Organizational change and development interventions that proceed with an emphasis on employee health may therefore best achieve their intended goals by paying close attention to these system-level attributes Limitations The results of this study should be interpreted with the understanding that single informants were used as the sole source of information. Respondents were human resource managers who are arguably the most knowledgeable of organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. However, although the use of single informants remains the primary research design in most of such organizational-level studies, multiple informants may enhance the validity of research findings. A second limitation is that this study did not include all the possible attributes that may characterize the healthy organization. Although the analysis was revealing of some of the distinct features of the healthy organization, we encourage replication and consideration of other macro-level attributes of organizations that typify a strong orientation toward employee whole-person health. A third limitation is the criterion used in this study to validate the healthy organization construct. We used organizational engagement in health promotion initiatives to test convergent validity. Although this was deemed a theoretically relevant macro-level outcome, a multi-level study with employee health data would make a stronger case for the criterion-related validity of the proposed conceptualization. Or, from an organizational level of analysis, it would also be of outmost interest to associate the healthy organization profile with, for instance, job burnout at the collective level (Molinar et al., 2005). Finally, the analysis was conducted with fewer than the recommended 300 cases (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). However, considering that the analysis was performed with a moderate number of attributes (i.e., seven indicators) that generated well-separated classes, we must conclude that the sample size was sufficient. Conclusion Higher-level constructs have distinct characteristics and the healthy organization might best be construed as one that conveys a concern for overall mind and body health by implementing mutually reinforcing organizational learning practices, training and development practices, work organization conditions that confer autonomy, voice, constructive social relations, and gratifications with an overarching concern for employee growth and health as reflected by an employee-centered human resource philosophy. There is growing research support for this conceptualization and our study evidenced the convergence of these attributes in what is deemed the healthy organization that is most engaged in the delivery of health promotion initiatives. Declarations Ethical approval obtained from the University of Montreal (Comité d’éthique de la recherche en sciences et en santé – CERSES – Projet # 2018-436). Consent to participate was given by each participant. Consent for publication was obtained. Proprietary data and material. No competing interests. This research was funded by the Observatory on Health and Well-Being at Work (University of Montreal). The first author developed the paper. The second author helped with the theoretical arguments and conducted the statistical analyses. The third author helped with the paper development. All authors reviewed the final version of the paper. No acknowledgements. References Acuna, D. (December 7, 2020). Five essential components of a healthy organization. Forbes . Retrieved November 12, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/12/07/five-essential-components-of-a-healthy-organization/?sh=2aa0a6b8348a Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika , 52 (3), 317-332. Alarcon, G. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 79 (2), 549-562. Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: An empirical test. Technovation , 28 (6), 315-326. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.technovation.2007.09.003 Amarakoon, U., Weerawardena, J., & Verreynne, M.-L. (2018). Learning capabilities, human resource management innovation and competitive advantage. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 29 (10), 1736-1766. https://doi.org/1.1080/09585192.2016.1209228 Aragón-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organizational learning’s role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain. Industrial Marketing Management , 36 (3), 349-359. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.indmarman.2005.09.006 Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective . Addison-Wesley. Arthur, J. B., Herdman, A. O., & Yang, J. (2016). How top management HR beliefs and values affect high‐performance work system adoption and implementation effectiveness. Human Resource Management , 55 (3), 413-435. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.21672 Aust, B., Møller, J. L., Nordentoft, M., Frydendall, K. B., Bengtsen, E., Jensen, A. B., Garde, A. H., Kompier, M., Semmer, N., Rugulies, R., & Jaspers, S. Ø. (2023). How effective are organizational-level interventions in improving the psychosocial work environment, health, and retention of workers? A systematic overview of systematic reviews. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health , 49 (5), 315. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4097 Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 22 (3), 309-328. https://doi.org/1.1108/02683940710733115 Barrette, J., Lemyre, L., Corneil, W., & Beauregard, N. (2007). Organizational learning among senior public-service executives: An empirical investigation of culture, decisional latitude and supportive communication. Canadian Public Administration/Administration Publique du Canada , 50 (3), 333-353. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1754-7121.2007.tb02131.x Beauchamp Legault, M. È., & Chênevert, D. (2024). From wasteland to bloom: Exploring the organizational profiles of occupational health and well-being strategies and their effects on employees’ health and well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 21 (8), 1008. https://doi.org/1.3390/ijerph21081008 Beauregard, N., Lemyre, L., & Barrette, J. (2020). The healthy learning organizations model: Lessons learned from the Canadian federal public service. Public Personnel Management , 49 (2), 218-238. https://doi.org/1.1177/0091026019855751 Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review , 29 (2), 203–221. https://doi.org/1.5465/amr.2004.12736076 Camps, J., Oltra, V., Aldás-Manzano, J., Buenaventura-Vera, G., & Torres-Carballo, F. (2016). Individual performance in turbulent environments: The role of organizational learning capability and employee flexibility. Human Resource Management , 55 (3), 363-383. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.21741 Celeux, G., & Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification , 13 , 195-212. Chiva, R., Alegre, J., & Lapierda, R. (2007). Measuring organizational learning capability among the workforce. International Journal of Manpower , 28 (3/4), 224-242. https://doi.org/1.1108/01437720710755227 Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high‐performance work practices matter? A meta‐analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology , 59 (3), 501-528. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1744-657.2006.00045.x Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind; healthy organization-A proactive approach to occupational stress. Human Relations , 47 (4), 455-471. https://doi.org/1.1177/001872679404700405 Cox, T., & Cox, S. (1992). Occupational health: Past, present and future. Work & Stress , 6 (2), 99-102. https://doi.org/1.1080/02678379208260343 Cox, T., & Howarth, I. (1990). Organizational health, culture and helping. Work & Stress , 4 (2), 107-11. https://doi.org/1.1080/02678379008256972 Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management , 25 (3), 357-384. https://doi.org/1.1177/0149206399025003 Day, A., & Randell, K. D. (2014). Building a foundation for psychologically healthy workplaces and well-being. In A. Day, E. K. Kelloway, & J. J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Workplace well-being: How to build psychologically healthy workplaces (pp. 3-26). John Wiley & Sons. de Jonge, J., & Peeters, M. C. (2019). The vital worker: Towards sustainable performance at work. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 16 (6), 91. https://doi.org/1.3390/ijerph16060910 DeJoy, D. M., & Southern, D. J. (1993). An integrative perspective on work-site health promotion. Journal of Occupational Medicine , 35 (12), 1221-123. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45015593 Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86 (3), 499. https://doi.org/1.1037/0021-901.86.3.499 Dextras-Gauthier, J., Marchand, A., & Haines, V. Y., III (2012). Organizational culture, work organization conditions, and mental health: A proposed integration. International Journal of Stress Management , 19 , 81- 104. https://doi.org/1.1037/a0028164 DiBella, A. J., Nevis, E. C., & Gould, J. M. (1996). Understanding organizational learning capability. Journal of Management Studies , 33 (3), 361-379. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00806.x Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies , 14 (3), 375-394. https://doi.org/1.1177/017084069301400303 Egan, M., Bambra, C., Thomas, S., Petticrew, M., Whitehead, M., & Thomson, H. (2007). The psychosocial and health effects of workplace reorganisation. 1. A systematic review of organisational-level interventions that aim to increase employee control. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health , 61 (11), 945-954. https://doi.org/1.1136/jech.2006.054965 Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology , 64 (2), 315-35. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1744-657.2011.01212.x Gho, S., & Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. European Management Journal , 15 (5), 575-583. https://doi.org/1.1016/S0263-2373(97)00036-4 Goh, S. C., Elliott, C., & Quon, T. K. (2012). The relationship between learning capability and organizational performance: A meta-analytic examination. The Learning Organization , 19 (2), 92-108. https://doi.org/1.1108/09696471211201461 Grawitch, M. J., Ballard, D. W., & Erb, K. R. (2017). Work and wellbeing: Creating a psychologically healthy workplace. In C. Cooper & M. Leiter (Eds.), The Routledge companion to wellbeing at work (Chapter 18). Routledge. Grawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D. C. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research , 58 (3), 129-147. https://doi.org/1.1037/1065-9293.58.3.129 Grawitch, M. J., Ledford, G. E., Jr., Ballard, D. W., & Barber, L. K. (2009). Leading the healthy workforce: The integral role of employee involvement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61 (2), 122–135. https://doi.org/1.1037/a0015288 Griffin, M. A., Hart, P. M., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2000). Using employee opinion surveys to improve organizational health. In L. R. Murphy & C. Cooper (Eds.), Healthy and productive work: An international perspective (pp. 15-36). CRC Press. Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well‐being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal , 27 (1), 22-38. https://doi.org/1.1111/1748-8583.12139 Hagenaars, J. A., & McCutcheon, A. L. (Eds.). (2002). Applied latent class analysis . Cambridge University Press. Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, A., & Masterson, S. S. (2008). How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal , 51 (6), 1099-1116. https://doi.org/1.5465/amj.2008.35732600 Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science , 2 (1), 88-115. https://doi.org/1.1287/orsc.2.1.88 Hult, G. T. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1997). Global organizational learning capacity in purchasing: Construct and measurement. Journal of Business Research , 40 (2), 97-111. https://doi.org/1.1016/S0148-2963(96)00232-9 Isensee, C., Teuteberg, F., Griese, K. M., & Topi, C. (2020). The relationship between organizational culture, sustainability, and digitalization in SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production , 275 , 122944. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jclepro.202.122944 Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Annals , 8 (1), 1-56. https://doi.org/1.5465/1941652.2014.872335 Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning and compensation strategies: Evidence from the Spanish chemical industry. Human Resource Management , 44 (3), 279-299. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.20071 Karademas, E. C. (2006). Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: The mediating role of optimism. Personality and Individual Differences , 40 (6), 1281-129. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.paid.2005.1.019 Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly , 24 (2), 285-308. https://doi.org/1.2307/2392498 Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 3 (4), 322-355. https://doi.org/1.1037/1076-8998.3.4.322 Kelloway, E. K., & Day, A. L. (2005). Building healthy workplaces: What we know so far. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement , 37 (4), 223-235. https://doi.org/1.1037/h0087259 Kortum, E. (2014). The WHO global approach to protecting and promoting health at work. In C. Biron, R. J. Burke, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Creating healthy workplaces (pp. 23–35). Gower Applied Business Research. Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (12), 1686-1718. https://doi.org/1.1037/apl0000241 Lauzier, M., Barrette, J., Kenny, S., & Lemyre, L. (2018). Validation of a short form of the inventory of organizational learning facilitators: A national survey of public service executives in Canada. Journal of Workplace Learning , 30 (4), 245-261. https://doi.org/1.1108/JWL-08-2017-0070 Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (2), 123-133. https://doi.org/1.1037/0021-901.81.2.123 Lepak, D. P., Taylor, M. S., Tekleab, A., Marrone, J. A., & Cohen, D. J. (2007). An examination of the use of high investment human resource systems for core and support employees. Human Resource Management , 46 (2), 223-246. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.20158 Lindström, K., Schrey, K., Ahonen, G., & Kaleva, S. (2000). The effects of promoting organizational health on worker well-being and organizational effectiveness in small and medium-sized enterprises. In L. R. Murphy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Healthy and productive work: An international perspective . CRC Press. Lo, Y., Mendell, N. R., & Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika , 88 (3), 767-778. https://doi.org/1.1093/biomet/88.3.767 MacDonald, L. A., Härenstam, A., Warren, N. D., & Punnett, L. (2008). Incorporating work organisation into occupational health research: An invitation for dialogue. Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 65 (1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2007.033860 Marchand, A., Durand, P., Haines, V. Y., III, & Harvey, S. (2015). The multilevel determinants of workers’ mental health: results from the SALVEO study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology , 50 (3), 445-459. https://doi.org/1.1007/s00127-014-0932-y Marchand, A., Haines, V. Y., III, Harvey, S., Dextras-Gauthier, J., & Durand, P. (2016). Health and stress management and mental-health disability claims. Stress and Health , 32 (5), 569-577. https://doi.org/1.1002/smi.2663 Mbengue, A., & Sané, S. (2013). Organizational learning capability: Theoretical analysis and empirical study in the context of official development aid project teams. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences , 30 (1), 26-39. https://doi.org/1.1002/cjas.1238 McHugh, M., & Brotherton, C. (2000). Health is wealth: Organizational utopia or myopia? Journal of Managerial Psychology , 15 (8), 744-77. https://doi.org/1.1108/02683940010379332 Miles, M. B. (1969). Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground. In E. A. Carver & T. J. Sergiovanni (Eds.), Organizations and human behavior (pp. 375-391). McGraw-Hill. Miller, R. L., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (1999). Personality and organizational health: The role of conscientiousness. Work & Stress , 13 (1), 7-19. https://doi.org/1.1080/026783799296156 Misangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., & Aguilera, R. (2017). Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management , 43 (1), 255-282. https://doi.org/1.1177/0149206316679252 Moliner, C., Martínez-Tur, V., Peiró, J. M., Ramos, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2005). Relationships between organizational justice and burnout at the work-unit level. International Journal of Stress Management, 12 (2), 99–116. https://doi.org/1.1037/1072-5245.12.2.99 Muthén, L. K. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide. Muthén & Muthén, 1998. Nielsen, K., & Randall, R. (2013). Opening the black box: Presenting a model for evaluating organizational-level interventions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 22 (5), 601-617. https://doi.org/1.1080/1359432X.2012.690556 Nigam, J. A. S., Murphy, L. R., & Swanson, N. G. (2003). Are stress management programs indicators of good places to work? Results of a national survey. International Journal of Stress Management , 10 (4), 345-36. https://doi.org/1.1037/1072-5245.1.4.345 Nylund-Gibson, K., & Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science , 4 (4), 440-461. https://doi.org/1.1037/tps0000176 Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthèn, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modelling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 14 (4), 535-569. https://doi.org/1.1080/10705510701575396 O’Donnell, M., Ruth-Sahd, L. A., & Mayfield, C. O. (2019). An expanded holistic model of healthy workplace practices. International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 27 (5), 1542-1561. O'Neill, O. A., Feldman, D. C., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2011). Organizational achievement values, high‐involvement work practices, and business unit performance. Human Resource Management , 50 (4), 541-558. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.20437 Osterman, P. (1994). How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it? Ilr Review , 47 (2), 173-188. Ostroff C. , & Bowen D. E . ( 2016) . Reflections on the 2014 decade award: Is there strength in the construct of HR system strength? Academy of Management Review, 41 (2), 196–214. https://doi.org/1.5465/amr.2015.0323 Peccei, R., Van de Voorde, K. (2019). Human resource management-well-being-performance research revisited: Past, present, and future. Human Resource Management Journal , 29 (4), 539-563. https://doi.org/1.1111/1748-8583.12254 Peccei, R., Van de Voorde, K, & van Veldhoven, M. (2013). HRM, well-being and performance: A theoretical and empirical review. In J. Paauwe, D. Guest, & P. Wright (Eds.), HRM and performance: Achievements and challenge s (pp. 15-45). Wiley. Pierce, J. R. (2025). Categorizing concepts and phenomena in management research: A four-phase integrative review and recommendations. Academy of Management Annals , 19 (1), 9-37. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2023.0052 Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masinova, M., & Campion, M. A. (2013). A high performance work practices taxonomy: Integrating the literature and directing future research. Journal of Management, 39 (5), 1184-122. https://doi.org/1.1177/0149206313478184 Real, J. C., Roldan, J. L., & Leal, A. (2014). From entrepreneurial orientation and learning orientation to business performance: Analysing the mediating role of organizational learning and the moderating effect of organizational size. British Journal of Management , 25 (2), 186-208. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00848.x Reynolds, G. S., & Bennett, J. B. (2023). The role of wellness climate in small business health promotion and employee wellbeing. Occupational Health Science , 7 (3), 417-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-023-00148-w Roczniewska, M., Smoktunowicz, E., Calcagni, C. C., von Thiele Schwarz, U., Hasson, H., & Richter, A. (2022). Beyond the individual: A systematic review of the effects of unit-level demands and resources on employee productivity, health, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27 (2), 240–257. https://doi.org/1.1037/ocp0000311 Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., & Martinez, M. (2012). We need a Hero! Toward a validation of the healthy and resilient organization (HERO) model. Group & Organization Management , 37 (6), 785-822. https://doi.org/1.1177/1059601112470405 Saridakis, G., Lai, Y., & Cooper, C. L. (2017). Exploring the relationship between HRM and firm performance: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Human Resource Management Review , 27 (1), 87-96. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.005 Sauter, S. L., Lim, S. Y., & Murphy, L. R. (1996). Organizational health: A new paradigm for occupational stress research at NIOSH. Japanese Journal of Occupational Mental Health , 4 , 248-254. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership , fourth edition. Jossey-Bass. Schuler, R.S., & Jackson, S. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive , 1 (3), 207-219. https://doi.org/1.5465/ame.1987.4275740 Schultz, S. A., Larson, J., Oh, J., Koscik, R., Dowling, M. N., Gallagher, C. L., Carlsson, C. M., Rowley, H. A., Bendlin, B. B., Asthana, S., Hermann, B. P., Johnson, S. C., Sager, M., LaRue, A., & Okonkwo, O. C. (2015). Participation in cognitively-stimulating activities is associated with brain structure and cognitive function in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Imaging and Behavior , 9 , 729-736. https://doi.org/1.1007/s11682-014-9329-5 Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics , 6 (2), 461-464. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2958889 Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika 52 ( 3), 333–343. https://doi.org/1.1007/BF0229436. Sher, C., & Wu, C. (2023). Physical activity and mental health: Comparing between-person and within-person associations in longitudinal analysis. Mental Health and Physical Activity , 25 , 100546. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.mhpa.2023.100546 Shi, L., Van Veldhoven, M., Kooij, D., Van De Voorde, K., & Karanika-Murray, M. (2024). High-performance work systems and individual performance: A longitudinal study of the differential roles of happiness and health well-being. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 , 1261564. https://doi.org/1.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261564 Shoaf, C., Genaidy, A., Karwowski, W., & Huang, S. H. (2004). Improving performance and quality of working life: A model for organizational health assessment in emerging enterprises. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing , 14 (1), 81-95. https://doi.org/1.1002/hfm.10053 Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1 (1), 27-41. https://doi.org/1.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27 Siegrist, J., & Marmot, M. (2004). Health inequalities and the psychosocial environment—two scientific challenges. Social Science & Medicine , 58 (8), 1463-1473. https://doi.org/1.1016/S0277-9536(03)00349-6 Singh, A., & Jha, S. (2017). Scale development of organizational health construct. Global Business Review, 19 (2), 357-375. https://doi.org/1.1177/0972150917713522 Sinha, P., Calfee, C. S., & Delucchi, K. L. (2021). Practitioner’s guide to latent class analysis: Methodological considerations and common pitfalls. Critical Care Medicine , 49 (1), e63-e79. https://doi.org/1.1097/CCM.0000000000004710 Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing , 59 (July), 63-74. https://doi.org/1.1177/002224299505900306 Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., Wang, M., Valero, D., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and “how to” guide of its application within vocational behavior research. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 120 , 103445. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jvb.202.103445 Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (4), 692–709. https://doi.org/1.1037/0021-901.9.4.692 Tharenou, P., Saks, A. M., & Moore, C. (2007). A review and critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes. Human Resource Management Review , 17 (3), 251-273. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.hrmr.2007.07.004 Theorell, T., Hammarström, A., Aronsson, G., Träskman Bendz, L., Grape, T., Hogstedt, C., Marteinsdottir, I., Skoog, I., & Hall, C. (2015). A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health , 15 , 1-14. https://doi.org/1.1186/s12889-015-1954-4 Toker, S., Shirom, A., Shapira, I., Berliner, S., & Melamed, S. (2005). The association between burnout, depression, anxiety, and inflammation biomarkers: C-reactive protein and fibrinogen in men and women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 10 (4), 344-362. https://doi.org/1.1037/1076-8998.1.4.344 Valenzuela, M. J., & Sachdev, P. (2006). Brain reserve and dementia: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine , 36 (4), 441-454. https://doi.org/1.1017/S0033291705006264 Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee well‐being and the HRM–organizational performance relationship: A review of quantitative studies. International Journal of Management Reviews , 14 (4), 391-407. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1468-237.2011.00322.x Van Vegchel, N., De Jonge, J., Bosma, H., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). Reviewing the effort-reward imbalance model: Drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies. Social Science & Medicine , 60 (5), 1117-1131. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.043 Vitetta, L., Anton, B., Cortizo, F., & Sali, A. (2005). Mind‐body medicine: Stress and its impact on overall health and longevity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1057 (1), 492-505. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1749-6632.2005.tb06153.x Vuong, Q. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica , 57 (2), 307–333. https://doi.org/1.2307/1912557 Ware, C., Dautricourt, S., Gonneaud, J., & Chételat, G. (2021). Does second language learning promote neuroplasticity in aging? A systematic review of cognitive and neuroimaging studies. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience , 13 , 706672. https://doi.org/1.3389/fnagi.2021.706672 Wilson, M. G., DeJoy, D. M., Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & McGrath, A. L. (2004). Work characteristics and employee health and well-being: Test of a model of healthy work organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 77 (4), 565-588. https://doi.org/1.1348/0963179042596522 Yeung A. K., Ulrich D. O., Nason S. W., & Von Glinow M. A. (1999). Organizational learning capacity . Oxford University Press. Tables Table 1 Correlations for Study Variables (N=228) Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. OL a 2. Training b .58 3. Task design c .34 .36 4. Demands control c .19 .35 .39 5. Social relations c .37 .57 .33 .30 6. Gratifications c .31 .50 .29 .29 .44 7. Philosophy d .56 .51 .36 .31 .31 .19 8. Physical activity e .03 .19 .03 .16 .23 .35 .04 9. Nutrition e .06 .25 .05 .21 .20 .28 .01 .56 10. General health e -.03 .19 -.13 -.02 .13 .26 -.09 .47 .62 11. Stress coping e .04 .24 .04 .20 .35 .22 .06 .64 .61 .45 12. Work-life balance e .25 .29 .32 .44 .36 .40 .23 .43 .28 .16 .42 13 Firm size -.21 -.07 -.15 -.08 -.02 .07 -.35 .36 .33 .52 .28 .09 14. Sector (tertiary) .08 .02 -.01 .07 .06 .09 .18 .18 .07 .13 .21 .13 -.06 15. Unionization (yes) -.10 -.08 -.06 -.10 -.08 -.11 -.23 .10 .03 .20 .02 -.12 .44 -.01 a Organizational learning practices. b Training and development practices. c Work organization conditions. d Employee-centered human resource philosophy. e Health promotion practices. All correlation coefficients greater than .15 in absolute values are significant at p < .05. Table 2 Fit Statistics and Classification Coefficients for Latent Profile Models Number of latent profiles AIC BIC SBIC LMR-LRT VLMR-LRT Entropy 1 6365.29 6413.30 6368.93 - - - 2 6069.77 6145.21 6075.49 p < .00 p < .00 .83 3 6024.27 6127.15 6032.07 p = .33 p = .32 .80 4 5981.01 6111.33 5990.89 p = .45 p = .44 .86 Note. AIC = Akaike’s information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SBIC = sample-size-adjusted BIC; LMR-LRT = Lo, Mendell, and Rubin likelihood ratio test; VLMR-LRT = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test. LMR-LRT and VLMR-LRT are for a difference in 8 parameters. Table 3 Marginal Means of Attributes Within Each Latent Profile Profile 1 Profile 2 Attributes MM 95% CI MM 95% CI OL a 49.51 (47.03; 51.99) 64.16 (62.76; 65.55) Training b 9.19 (8.33; 1.06) 15.10 (14.72; 15.49) Task design c -.53 (-0,73; -.323) .28 (.14; .43) Demands control c -.48 (-.65; -.305) .26 (.10; .41) Social relations c -.79 (-.98; -.604) .44 (.31; .57) Gratifications c -.62 (-.80; -.447) .34 (.19; .50) Philosophy d 13.53 (12.89; 14.17) 16.67 (16.36; 16.99) Classification probability .92 .97 Average latent profile probability .94 .96 Class count (n) 76 152 Note . MM = marginal means; CI = confidence interval. a Organizational learning practices. b Training and development practices. c Work organization conditions. d Employee-centered human resource philosophy Table 4 Logistic Regression Predicting Latent Profile Membership Based on Organizational Correlates Correlates Profile 2 Estimate ( SE ) Firm size .257 (.335) Sector (tertiary) -.093 (.096) Unionization (yes) -.663 (.353) Note. Profile 1 is the reference category. Profile 2 is deemed the “healthy organization.” SE = standard error. Table 5 Logistic Regressions Predicting Latent Profile Membership based on for Health Promotion Initiatives Health initiatives Profile 2 Estimate ( SE ) Physical activity .861 (.248) ** Nutrition .753 (.251) ** General health .538 (.215) * Stress coping .848 (.262) ** Work-life balance .938 (.221) ** Note. Profile 1 is the reference category. SE = standard error. Logistic regression estimates adjusted for firm size, economic sector, and unionization. * p < .05. ** p < .01 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5932992","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":433663523,"identity":"de83c7b7-816f-40b5-970c-661892ac24a7","order_by":0,"name":"Victor Haines","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Montreal","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Victor","middleName":"","lastName":"Haines","suffix":""},{"id":433663524,"identity":"aaaebb2b-42c9-4ec5-8c5b-c237ef5e10bf","order_by":1,"name":"Alain Marchand","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Montreal","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alain","middleName":"","lastName":"Marchand","suffix":""},{"id":433663525,"identity":"f0a3408e-2abc-49a0-aa1a-8d1cbcec00c1","order_by":2,"name":"Nancy Beauregard","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Montreal","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nancy","middleName":"","lastName":"Beauregard","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-01-31 00:23:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5932992/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5932992/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79246265,"identity":"f69a886e-641e-48ed-8103-674142f5faf4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 07:07:44","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":44266,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlot of Changes in Information Criterion as a Function of Latent Profiles.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eAIC = Akaike’s information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SBIC = sample-size-adjusted BIC; LMR-LRT = Lo, Mendell, and Rubin likelihood ratio test; VLMR-LRT = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test. The AIC and SBIC lines are somewhat overlapping.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5932992/v1/dfcd32de8502505e46fff283.png"},{"id":79246263,"identity":"8058c47e-e556-4bd6-a30b-68722eb1fd68","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-03-26 07:07:44","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36637,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePatterns of Mean z-Standardized Scores of the Seven Attributes in Each Profile.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eOL = organizational learning practices; Training = training and development practices; Philosophy = employee-centered human resource philosophy.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5932992/v1/e24a4f094a4d7a8763646044.png"},{"id":103733760,"identity":"1f9d1035-a83a-45d3-8981-4a3c47d6e7cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-02 09:29:29","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1001298,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5932992/v1/85e35c00-399a-44a0-9ab4-1cfcd5986db4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Conceptualizing the Healthy Organization with a Whole-Person Outlook","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOrganizational learning practices improve employee learning (Barrette et al., 2007, 2012), commitment (Lauzier et al., 2018), flexibility (Camps et al., 2016), innovation (Alegre \u0026amp; Chiva, 2008; Amarakoon et al., 2018), and performance (Goh et al., 2012; Real et al., 2014). Organizational training and development practices are convincingly related to improvements in individual learning (Lacerenza et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2005). Work organization conditions convey strain-reducing and health-improving control, support, and rewards (Demerouti et al., 2001; Karasek, 1979; Marchand et al., 2015; Siegrist, 1996). An employee-centered human resource philosophy transmits a commitment to employee growth (Lepak et al., 2007). This philosophy is supportive of learning and work conditions that together favor overall health. The healthy organization might accordingly best be represented at the collective level of analysis by an employee-centered human resource philosophy that complements organizational learning and training and development practices as well as work organization conditions that favor autonomy, voice, constructive social relations, and gratifications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn equally integrated and current conceptualization of the healthy organization remains a desirable but unachieved goal in the arena of occupational health research. Not only would a clearer understanding of the healthy organization provide a better foundation for research into the organizational contextual factors that contribute to employee health (MacDonald et al., 2008), but it would also provide a useful framework for organizational development and change. The aim of this study is therefore to develop and test a conceptualization of the healthy organization that integrates such organizational practices, conditions, and orientations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGuided by a whole-person view of employee health, the proposed alternative conceptualization proceeds with a clear definition of the healthy organization that dissipates many of the ambiguities found in current research. We define the healthy organization as one that signals and supports employee overall mind (i.e., mental/psychological) and body (i.e., physical/physiological) health with mutually reinforcing health-supportive organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. The healthy organization is therefore not market-oriented (cf., Acuna, 2020), but rather employee-centered with a clear focus on the availability of organizational practices, conditions, and orientations that together signal and support whole-person health.[\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the process of developing and testing this conceptualization of the healthy organization, the current study integrates distinct but related areas of scientific inquiry. Occupational health research has emphasized work organization conditions and we integrate meaningful perspectives stemming from organizational learning and human resource management research. This integration of complementary attributes is consistent with an emerging system\u0026rsquo;s view of the healthy organization (Day \u0026amp; Randell, 2014; DeJoy \u0026amp; Southern, 1993; Grawitch et al., 2006; Nigan et al., 2003). It is also a necessary step for occupational health research to achieve a comprehensive account of the organizational context that translates a concern for employee overall physical and mental health.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough research has tested models involving the healthy organization construct (e.g., Day \u0026amp; Randell, 2014; O\u0026rsquo;Donnell et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2004), an ongoing a persistent limitation identified by Shoaf et al. (2004) relays the need to better understand the macro-level attributes of organizations that may generate employee health (p. 83) (see also Beauchamp Legault \u0026amp; Ch\u0026ecirc;nevert, 2024; Roczniewska et al., 2022). This study breaks new ground by giving full consideration to the human resource philosophy that most likely characterizes the healthy organization. To the extent that the healthy organization is employee-oriented (Sauter et al., 1996), we expect that an employee-centered human resource philosophy will transpire as a critical system-level attribute of the healthy organization. This philosophy places a high value on human capital and reflects a positive orientation toward employees (Lepak et al., 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother contribution of this study lies in an initial validation of this novel conceptualization with the expectation that the healthy organization type will engage in health promotion initiatives. In this initial construct validation, the healthy organization represents the fundamental character of the organization and punctual health promotion initiatives are what the organization does; the expectation being that the healthy organization will engage more in the provision of workplace health promotion initiatives that typically reach many employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e] We use the expression \u0026ldquo;whole-person health\u0026rdquo; to designate mind and body health considered together as united. This view stems from medical research (e.g., Vitetta et al., 2005) as well as from the many occupational health studies that show significant associations between work-related psychological strain (e.g., job burnout) and physical health (e.g., inflammation biomarkers: Toker et al., 2005). This outlook on employee health is also consistent with contemporary occupational health research (Danna \u0026amp; Griffin, 1999).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conceptual Development","content":"\u003cp\u003eOrganizational learning, training and development practices, work organization conditions, and an employee-centered human resource philosophy are addressed in this study as complementary workplace-level attributes of the healthy organization. These mutually reinforcing organizational practices, conditions, and orientations are expected to converge probalistically to represent what is deemed the healthy organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHealthy Organization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganizational health and the healthy organization are often confounded. There is therefore value in making a neat distinction between these constructs. A review of the literature suggests that organizational health is most suitably defined in terms of effective organizational functioning and performance (Cox \u0026amp; Cox, 1992; Cox \u0026amp; Howarth, 1990; Griffin et al., 2000; McHugh \u0026amp; Brotherton, 2000; Miles, 1969; Singh \u0026amp; Jha, 2017). Effective organizational functioning and performance, however, includes a concern for employee health (Cooper \u0026amp; Cartwright, 1994; Cox \u0026amp; Cox, 1992; Lindstr\u0026ouml;m et al., 2000; Miller et al., 1999; Sauter et al., 1996). Organizational health is, in this way, \u0026ldquo;an expanded notion of organizational effectiveness\u0026rdquo; (Shoaf et al., 2004, p. 83).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe healthy organization rather designates a workplace that favors whole-person health with mutually reinforcing stable organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. An important feature of the healthy organization construct is therefore its focus on employee health (Wilson et al., 2004). Employee health is, as such, not conceptualized as one of many components of an expanded notion of organizational effectiveness, but rather as a central concern within the healthy organization. Another defining characteristic of the healthy organization construct, as developed in the current study, is a shared emphasis on employee mind and body health. This feature is consistent with conceptualizations of the healthy organization that consider both mental and physical health (e.g., Day \u0026amp; Randell, 2014; Grawitch et al., 2006).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother feature of the healthy organization is that it is descriptive of the organizational context in which work is performed. Wilson et al. (2004) tested a healthy organization framework at the individual level of analysis. They however identified this as a limitation (i.e., \u0026ldquo;conceptual quandary\u0026rdquo;) given that the healthy organization was conceptualized at the organizational level (i.e., company level) but tested at the individual level (p. 583). We therefore adhere to an organizational level of analysis and focus on what are relatively stable workplace-level practices, conditions, and orientations. This level of analysis is supported by an emerging line of research on the healthy organization (Day \u0026amp; Randell, 2014; Grawitch et al., 2017; Grawitch et al., 2009; Kelloway \u0026amp; Day, 2005; Marchand et al., 2016; O\u0026rsquo;Donnell et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe healthy organization construct also stems also from the understanding that organizational practices have meanings that signal what is important in the workplace (Bowen \u0026amp; Ostroff, 2004; Ostroff \u0026amp; Bowen, 2016) and foster employee behavior (Jackson et al., 2014; Schuler \u0026amp; Jackson, 1987). The current conceptualization of the healthy organization does not therefore stem from employee perceptions of how they experience work organization conditions such as autonomy or feedback (e.g., Salanova et al., 2012), but rather from assessments of the availability of mutually reinforcing, relatively stable, macro-level organizational practices, conditions, and orientations that signal a concern for employee overall health.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese definitional components are consistent with how the words health and healthy are commonly understood. Indeed, health is a condition so that organizational health represents the health condition of an organization on a continuum possibly ranging from poor to excellent. The word healthy rather refers to what is conducive to health. Physical activity, for instance, is healthy because it is conducive to health (e.g., Sher \u0026amp; Wu, 2023). The healthy organization is therefore understood as a configuration of practices, conditions, and orientations that are conducive to employee health.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith consideration of these definitional features, we expect that organizational learning practices, training and development practices, and work organization conditions are mutually and interdependently reflective of an organizational concern for employee overall health, especially when they are conjecturally associated with an employee-centered human resource philosophy. It is therefore expected that these attributes will converge in latent profile analysis (LPA) to jointly best represent the healthy organization. This statistical procedure does not assume linear relationships between variables, but rather identifies similarities and common characteristics in the data to identify groups. The convergence of the identified attributes into systematically interdependent and interpretable non-redundant configurations is expected to provide initial evidence of the healthy organization construct as supported by theory and research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe next address the organizational attributes that are considered resources that facilitate the achievement of goals, reduce demands, and stimulate personal growth and development (Bakker \u0026amp; Demerouti, 2007). Beyond these general health-related functions, the complementary health-related specificities of each attribute are outlined.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOrganizational Learning Practices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganizational learning is a dynamic process involving the acquisition, diffusion, interpretation and long-lasting implementation of new knowledge for the achievement of organizational objectives (Arag\u0026oacute;n-Correa et al., 2007; Huber, 1991; Slater \u0026amp; Narver, 1995). Organizational learning practices (e.g., organization encourages awareness of internal processes and external environment) support this cycle of new knowledge development. To do so, they rely on individual and collective learning processes (i.e., knowledge management systems) (Argyris \u0026amp; Sch\u0026ouml;n, 1978; Barrette et al., 2007; Dodgson, 1993). Considered enablers of learning (Chiva et al., 2007; Dibella et al., 1996; Gho \u0026amp; Richards, 1997; Hult \u0026amp; Ferrell, 1997; Jerez-G\u0026oacute;mez et al., 2005; Mbengue \u0026amp; San\u0026eacute;, 2013), organizational learning practices have not yet been adequately considered as health related even if there is much research evidence suggesting that learning and skills acquisition foster healthy minds (e.g., Schultz et al., 2015; Valenzuela \u0026amp; Sachdev, 2006; Ware et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo potential pathways relate organizational learning practices to employee health. The first suggests that organizational learning practices shape how employees\u0026rsquo; tasks are designed and performed. Task design and performance would, in turn, influence employee health. For example, organizations that facilitate risk acceptance, experimentation and collaborative work concurrently increase employee control and social support. Such work environments make available more resources, yielding better employee health outcomes (Beauregard et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second pathway suggests that organizational learning practices improve cognitive abilities. In turn, cognitive abilities are associated with better mental health. Valenzuela and Sachdev (2006), for instance, found higher behavioral brain reserve (i.e., education level, occupation, premorbid IQ, mental activities) to be associated with lowered risk for incident dementia. Organizational learning practices that support the cognitive processes associated with knowledge development therefore favor employee learning and health. In light of these modes of influence, some convergence between organizational learning practices, training and development practices, work organization conditions, and human resource philosophy is expected.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTraining and Development Practices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevious conceptual elaborations about the healthy organization have sparingly recognized learning and knowledge development as contributing to employee health (e.g., Day \u0026amp; Randell, 2014; Grawitch et al., 2017). Alternatively, strategic human resource management research articulates skill-enhancing practices as essential components of high-performance work systems (e.g., Combs, 2006; Gardner et al., 2011; Posthuma et al., 2013; Saridakis et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the overall influence of high-performance work systems on employee health remains uncertain (Peccei \u0026amp; Van de Voorde, 2019; Peccei et al., 2013; Shi et al., 2024; Van de Voorde et al., 2012), Guest (2017) presented theoretical arguments in support of a positive relationship between investments in training and development and employee health. One compelling argument is that training and development strengthen self-efficacy; an antecedent of employee health (Karademas, 2006). In a similar vein, Peccei and Van de Voorde (2019) argued that human resource management practices that include training and development are health resources.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraining and development practices support the acquisition of knowledge and skills (Tharenou et al., 2007) and research conveys that learning fosters healthy minds (e.g., Schultz et al., 2015; Valenzuela \u0026amp; Sachdev, 2006; Ware et al., 2021). Greater organizational investments in training and development would therefore strengthen the mechanisms involved in organizational learning and enhance employee knowledge and skills acquisition on a positive pathway to employee growth and health.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the pursuit of an integrated conceptualization of the healthy organization, we next theorize that this process is supported by favorable work organization conditions as well as by an employee-centered human resource philosophy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWork Organization Conditions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTask design, demands control, social relations, and gratifications are meaningful dimensions of the psychosocial work environment that have clear health implications (Marchand et al., 2016; Siegrist \u0026amp; Marmot, 2004; Theorell et al., 2015). These work organization conditions are therefore the most definitive attributes of the healthy organization that are considered workplace-level attributes of the healthy organization (Roczniewska et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTask Design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe health-related components of task design in this study involve increasing autonomy and participation. A long history of occupational health research supports associations between autonomy and health. Karasek (1979) identified employee control as health protective and findings suggest that more autonomy is associated with lower job burnout (Alarcon, 2011) and other health benefits (Egan et al., 2007). Employee participation is similarly supportive of employee health.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemands Control\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDemands control conveys employer actions to reduce some of the job demands associated with employee strain. These actions include workload control, a reduced work week, reductions of working time and of overtime, and job analysis. These are clearly health related with evidence of fewer mental health disability claims when they are highly developed (Marchand et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSocial Relations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial relations include teamwork, problem solving groups, a code of conduct for conflict management, a psychological harassment policy, a complaints committee, and a social club. These components of the organizational context have in common a concern for the development of positive interpersonal workplace relationships. They are considered resources in light of longstanding theoretical support for the health benefits of positive workplace social relations (Karasek et al., 1998). Empirical findings reviewed by an early meta-analysis accordingly found associations between more social support, team cohesion, and lower job burnout (Lee \u0026amp; Ashforth, 1996).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGratifications\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGratifications include performance appraisals, health-day benefits, paid leave banks, promotion opportunities, and clear career paths. Such work organization conditions are central components of the effort-reward imbalance model proposed by Siegrist (1996) in which rewards are deemed protective factors in the psychosocial workplace environment. Conversely, the fulfillment of self-regulatory needs may be threatened when few rewards are available and this was found to result in impaired health in a review of 45 studies (van Vegchel et al., 2005).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployee-Centered Human Resource Philosophy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNigam et al. (2003) found a positive relationship between the importance the organization places on improving employee health and the presence of stress management programs. This finding hints that organizational values that emphasize caring are most conducive to employee health. This value-orientation is captured by what is deemed an employee-centered human resource philosophy that transmits an organizational commitment to employee growth and health (Lepak et al., 2007). This philosophy translates the espoused underlying logic for managing people and favors the adoption of innovative work practices (Osterman, 1994) and high-performance work systems (Arthur et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganizational values are not new to human resource management research (O\u0026rsquo;Neill et al., 2011), but they remain insufficiently examined in occupational health research (Dextras-Gauthier et al., 2012). Given the current organizational level of analysis, it is expected that an employee-centered human resource philosophy will be accompanied by the availability of organizational practices and conditions that are conducive to employee growth and health. An employee-centered human resource philosophy should therefore converge with other health-related attributes in a way that best qualifies the healthy organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eValidation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe proposed conceptualization is supported by the nature of the attributes that are destined to be combined. These are all regarded as self-reinforcing resources with positive health implications and the healthy organization construct as defined by these attributes is supported by theory and research. Probabilistic convergence in LPA would further support that the selected attributes adequately reflect the proposed conceptualization of the healthy organization. This empirical test is expected to identify qualitatively different subgroups (i.e., healthy and unhealthy organizations) that share certain outward characteristics (Hagenaars \u0026amp; McCutcheon, 2002). We therefore proceeded accordingly with the understanding that work organization conditions are most central to occupational health research so that a convergence that is inclusive of these practices would provide stronger evidence still in support of the healthy organization construct.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe also expect the healthy organization to actively engage in health promotion initiatives that target improvements in employee health. There is much evidence from research on organizational culture that the stable attributes of an organization determine its actions (e.g., Isensee et al., 2020; Schein, 2010). Construct validation therefore also involved testing how the stable attributes of the healthy organization identified as important by theory and research combine to engage the healthy organization in making available more health promotion initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted at the organizational level of analysis with key informants providing information on organizational practices, conditions, orientations, and health promotion initiatives. Assessing such phenomena at the organizational level agrees with our conceptual development. Basing measurement on answers provided by the person responsible for human resource management within each participating organization is also consistent with this outlook.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eQuestionnaires were sent to 1,118 organizations based in Canada during the year 2019. The surveyed organizations were the corporate clients of a human resource, health and wellbeing, and productivity solutions service provider. They were first contacted by the service provider who informed them that an independent university research program conducted by (information removed for blind review) was underway and that they would be formally invited to participate by the research team. The questionnaire was to be completed by the most senior person responsible for human resources.\u0026nbsp;Informed consent was obtained, and responses were received from\u0026nbsp;217 organizations, for a response rate of 19.4%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring 2021, using a similar procedure, a second organizational survey was conducted with a mailing list that included 693 organizations not surveyed during 2019. Of the surveyed organizations from this list, responses were received from 79 organizations, for a response rate of 11.4%. The 2019 and 2021 data were combined and a final sample of 228 usable surveys were available for this study. On average, relatively large firms in terms of full-time equivalent employees (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 1,863.94; \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 7,19.53) characterize this sample. About half of the participating organizations were from the tertiary sector (54.22%) and about half had union representation (50.75%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational Learning Practices\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganizational learning practices were measured with a validated French-language version (Beauregard et al., 2020) of the 11-item scale developed by Yeung et al. (1999). A sample item from this instrument is: \u0026ldquo;My organization welcomes open inquiry and self-analysis.\u0026rdquo; Respondents reported their level or agreement with each statement on a scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003ecompletely disagree\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003ecompletely agree\u003c/em\u003e). Scale reliability was high (\u0026alpha; = .93, with Mean = 58.17 and \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 11.58).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTraining and Development Practices\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraining and development practices were measured with three items: Training investments, training as important for performance improvement, and a focus on employee development when conducting performance appraisals. Responses were recorded on a scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003etotally disagree\u003c/em\u003e) to 6 (\u003cem\u003etotally agree\u003c/em\u003e) (\u0026alpha; = .85, with Mean = 13.07 and \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 3.77).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWork Organization Conditions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWork organization conditions were assessed using Marchand et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2015) list relating to task design (2 items), demands control (5 items), social relations (7 items), and gratifications (5 items). Higher scores reflected higher levels of development of these work organization conditions (0 = \u003cem\u003enot developed\u003c/em\u003e, 1 = \u003cem\u003eweakly developed\u003c/em\u003e, 2 = \u003cem\u003estrongly developed\u003c/em\u003e). Distributions were standardized (Mean = 0, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.00) to have a comparable metric.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEmployee-Centered Human Resource Philosophy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLepak et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2007) instrument measured employee-centered human resource philosophy. It contained four items recorded on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003estrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e) to 4 (\u003cem\u003estrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e). A sample item is: \u0026ldquo;We invest heavily in our employees because we know that they determine the success of our establishment.\u0026rdquo; Higher scores therefore reflected a stronger employee-centered human resource philosophy. Scale reliability was adequate (\u0026alpha; = .77, Mean = 15.60, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 2.76).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHealth Promotion Initiatives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHealth promotion initiatives (i.e., interventions) were measured with 32 items from Marchand et al. (2016). They assessed the degree of implementation (0 = \u003cem\u003enot at all\u003c/em\u003e, 1 = \u003cem\u003eweakly\u003c/em\u003e, 2 = \u003cem\u003estrongly\u003c/em\u003e) of six organizational health promotion initiatives relating to physical activity, of five relating to nutrition, of seven relating to general health, of eight relating to stress coping, and of six relating to work-life balance. Distributions were standardized (Mean = 0, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 1.00) to have a comparable metric.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCovariates\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirm size, economic sector, and unionization were included as covariates in the analysis. Firm size was estimated as the number of full-time equivalent employees log-transformed for regression analysis. Economic sector was assessed as a binary variable (0 = \u003cem\u003eprimary and secondary\u003c/em\u003e, 1 = \u003cem\u003etertiary\u003c/em\u003e) as was unionization (0 = \u003cem\u003eno\u003c/em\u003e, 1 = \u003cem\u003eyes\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe applied LPA using Mplus 7.11 (Muth\u0026eacute;n, 2017) software to identify organizations sharing similar response patterns relating to organizational learning practices, training and development practices, work organization conditions (task design, demands control, social relations, gratifications), and employee-centered human resource philosophy. Variables (i.e., seven theorized attributes of the healthy organization) were treated as continuous so that LPA measurement type is assumed Gaussian with an identity link function (regression). Estimates were obtained using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with missing values and robust standard errors. Three statistical information criteria and two likelihood-based tests were examined to determine the number of latent profiles. Using this analytic strategy, the selected solution was ultimately justified based on statistical and theoretical considerations (Nylund et al., 2007; Spurk et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe inspected statistical information criteria were the Akaike\u0026apos;s Information Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1987) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978). Following the procedure recommended by Sinha et al. (2021) for smaller sample sizes (\u0026lt; 300), we report both AIC and BIC, with lower values on these criteria indicating better model fit. The sample-size-adjusted BIC (SBIC; Sclove, 1987) was also scrutinized. The Lo, Mendell, and Rubin (2001) Likelihood Ratio Test (LMR-LRT) and the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test (VLMR-LRT; Vuong, 1989) provided likelihood-based tests for one more class relative to k-1 classes. Entropy values denoting the adequacy of profile separation are also reported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMarginal predicted means were used to determine latent profile membership. In further analyses, the identified profiles were regressed on firm size, economic sector, unionization, and on employer engagement in workplace health promotion initiatives adjusted for firm size, economic sector, and unionization.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe correlations between study variables are reported in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLatent Profiles Models\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe tested four LPA solutions ranging from 1 to 4 profiles. Table 2 presents statistical information criteria estimated according to the number of latent profiles included in each solution. Although the AIC, BIC, and SBIC decreased until the four-profile solution, they showed the steepest decrement at the two-profile solution, in support of this solution. This trend is illustrated in Figure 1 that shows a flattening of the BIC at the two-profiles solution. Although the levelling off is not as pronounced for the AIC and SBIC slopes, they still show a noticeable flattening at the two-profiles solution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 also includes two likelihood-based tests that support two profiles (or groups) as best fitting and most parsimonious. The three-profile model relative to the two-class model was not significant nor was the four-class model relative to the three-class model for both the LMR-LRT and VLMR-LRT tests. The entropy value for the two-profile solution is above the .80 threshold (Celeux \u0026amp; Soromenho, 1996), indicating high classification accuracy. Entropy values are slightly lower for the three-profile solution and slightly higher for the four-class solution. Statistical information criteria (i.e., AIC, BIC, and SBIC) and likelihood-based tests (i.e., LMR-LRT and VLMR-LRT), however, favor the two-profile solution over the four-profile solution. This analysis as well as agreement with substantive theory therefore supported a configuration of organizations into two latent profiles that appear to be free of redundancy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 reports the marginal means for the two profiles, the classification probabilities, and average latent profile probabilities as well as number of cases in each profile (i.e., class count). The differences between profiles are shown in Figure 2. Because the lines in this figure do not intersect, it can be noted that all of the seven attributes clearly distinguish the profiles and that the greatest differences between the two profiles are training and development practices and employee-centered human resource management philosophy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe classification and average latent profile probabilities reported in Table 3 for each profile are high, indicating that the cases are correctly classified into their correct profile. Moreover, a third of the organizations in our sample were included in the first profile that is deemed the \u0026ldquo;unhealthy organization\u0026rdquo; profile. The remaining two thirds of the organizations in our sample were included in the second profile that is deemed the \u0026ldquo;healthy organization\u0026rdquo; profile.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the multivariate results presented in Table 4, the two identified latent profiles are not significantly related to firm size, economic sector, or unionization. This indicates that being assigned to the healthy organization profile is not determined by these contextual factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 presents the logistic regression results pertaining to the associations between the probability of latent profile membership and the provision of health promotion initiatives. Compared to Profile 1, the \u0026ldquo;healthy organization\u0026rdquo; profile (i.e., Profile 2) was positively associated with employer engagement in all five categories of health promotion initiatives. This provides clear evidence that the healthy organization tends to be more engaged in making available a wide spectrum of health promotion initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the tradition of configurational organizational research (Missangyi et al., 2017), the healthy organization was conceptualized in this study as a system of mutually reinforcing favorable macro-level attributes that include organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. The configurations revealed by the current study suggest that we may confidently distinguish organizations based on their health-significant attributes. There is indeed both theoretical and empirical support for a conceptualization of the healthy organization that includes organizational learning practices, training and development practices, work organization conditions (i.e., task design, demands control, social relations, gratifications), and an employee-centered human resource philosophy. Moreover, this distinctive configuration of attributes does not appear to be a function of company size, economic sector, or unionization. Most notably, the healthy organization appears to provide a work environment that is conducive to health as can be observed by a higher organizational engagement in the provision of a wide spectrum of health promotion initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCategorizing provides the foundation for theorizing and testing (Pierce, 2025). Although research models and frameworks for understanding the antecedents and consequences of the healthy organization were developed and tested (Day \u0026amp; Randell, 2014; Kelloway \u0026amp; Day, 2005; Wilson et al., 2004), research has advanced without an adequate conceptualization of the construct. This line of research has therefore developed on a shaky foundation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current study defined the healthy organization as one that signals and supports overall health with mutually reinforcing health-significant organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. Some of the premises that steered construct development were that the healthy organization could be assessed at an organizational level of analysis with consideration of the macro-level features of an organization and that an employee-centered human resource philosophy gives a clear caring orientation to the practices and conditions that have the potential to improve employee growth, learning, and overall health. These premises were supported by the response patterns that underscore the value of integrating different but complementary and converging health-related perspectives to form a unified representation of the healthy organization. It would therefore seem that the healthy organization is best described as a formative construct that includes mutually reinforcing favorable organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. Our findings further suggest that all of the pieces of the puzzle are required for it to come into view as each attribute appears to distinguish the healthy from the unhealthy organization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis conceptualization and empirical support for the chosen approach may assist in the development of a measurement strategy that would provide a solid foundation for an accumulation of knowledge about the healthy organization. Based on the current findings, we would recommend that scale development focus on the availability at the organizational level of mutually reinforcing practices, conditions, and orientations that together favor whole-person health. These stable and enduring organizational attributes were found in this study to converge in what was deemed the healthy organization and this configuration was associated with the provision of more punctual health promotion initiatives among participating organizations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhereas these findings may guide occupational health research, they may also contribute to the development of other areas of research. It is indeed apparent that organizational learning research could better integrate the idea that organizational enablers of learning (e.g., Chiva et al., 2007; Jerez-G\u0026oacute;mez et al., 2005; Mbengue \u0026amp; San\u0026eacute;, 2013) also favor employee growth, learning, and health. On the one hand, from an occupational health perspective, these enablers (e.g., open inquiry) are to be considered protective resources that attenuate psychological strain. From another medically inclined perspective, these enablers presumably favor mind health through learning and growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor human resource management research, this study questions high-performance work systems and the functions of training and development. Deemed performance-enhancing components of human resource management systems, it may be that training and development practices aid in the development of self-efficacy (Guest, 2017); but a more straightforward argument is that learning is, in itself, conducive to overall health. Moreover, in support of research on employee attributions and human resource management system strength (Bowen \u0026amp; Ostroff, 2004), it would seem that an employee-centered human resource philosophy conveys a unified message about the meanings of various practices and conditions. This hints that an expansion of high-performance work systems to include organizational learning practices, human resource philosophy, and work organization conditions might best capture the organizational context that is potentially conducive to both health and performance in the pursuit of what is deemed sustainable performance (de Jonge \u0026amp; Peeters, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith regards to the most appropriate level of analysis for future research, we found much support for the organizational level. This is the level at which most strategic decisions are made concerning the implementation of organizational practices and work conditions. Moreover, the basic frameworks for decision-making throughout the ranks of the organization are set at this level of analysis. Our study thus complements past inquiries having tackled the concept of healthy organizations from an alternative individual-level viewpoint (e.g., Beauregard et al., 2020). Developing workplace health research at the organizational level of analysis may, however, require different theoretical frameworks. There is also evidence that judgments about entities may be formed based on different criteria than judgments about events (Hollensbe et al., 2008). This suggests a vast field of inquiry for future occupational health research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of the most obvious practical implication, this study supports that the organization is to be considered an influential context in the analysis of occupational health issues (Aust et al., 2023; Kortum, 2014; Nielsen \u0026amp; Randall, 2013; Reynolds \u0026amp; Bennett, 2023; Rocziewska et al., 2022). It also supports the structuring of work by way of work organization conditions that favor autonomy, voice, constructive social relations, and gratifications. This study also favors interventions that provide opportunities for learning and growth. The need to consider the philosophy that guides talent management is also highlighted by our findings. Organizational change and development interventions that proceed with an emphasis on employee health may therefore best achieve their intended goals by paying close attention to these system-level attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of this study should be interpreted with the understanding that single informants were used as the sole source of information. Respondents were human resource managers who are arguably the most knowledgeable of organizational practices, conditions, and orientations. However, although the use of single informants remains the primary research design in most of such organizational-level studies, multiple informants may enhance the validity of research findings. A second limitation is that this study did not include all the possible attributes that may characterize the healthy organization. Although the analysis was revealing of some of the distinct features of the healthy organization, we encourage replication and consideration of other macro-level attributes of organizations that typify a strong orientation toward employee whole-person health. A third limitation is the criterion used in this study to validate the healthy organization construct. We used organizational engagement in health promotion initiatives to test convergent validity. Although this was deemed a theoretically relevant macro-level outcome, a multi-level study with employee health data would make a stronger case for the criterion-related validity of the proposed conceptualization. Or, from an organizational level of analysis, it would also be of outmost interest to associate the healthy organization profile with, for instance, job burnout at the collective level (Molinar et al., 2005). Finally, the analysis was conducted with fewer than the recommended 300 cases (Nylund-Gibson \u0026amp; Choi, 2018). However, considering that the analysis was performed with a moderate number of attributes (i.e., seven indicators) that generated well-separated classes, we must conclude that the sample size was sufficient.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eHigher-level constructs have distinct characteristics and the healthy organization might best be construed as one that conveys a concern for overall mind and body health by implementing mutually reinforcing organizational learning practices, training and development practices, work organization conditions that confer autonomy, voice, constructive social relations, and gratifications with an overarching concern for employee growth and health as reflected by an employee-centered human resource philosophy. There is growing research support for this conceptualization and our study evidenced the convergence of these attributes in what is deemed the healthy organization that is most engaged in the delivery of health promotion initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthical approval obtained from the University of Montreal (Comit\u0026eacute; d\u0026rsquo;\u0026eacute;thique de la recherche en sciences et en sant\u0026eacute; \u0026ndash; CERSES \u0026ndash; Projet # 2018-436).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent to participate was given by each participant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for publication was obtained.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProprietary data and material.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by the Observatory on Health and Well-Being at Work (University of Montreal).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first author developed the paper. The second author helped with the theoretical arguments and conducted the statistical analyses. The third author helped with the paper development. All authors reviewed the final version of the paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo acknowledgements.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAcuna, D. (December 7, 2020). Five essential components of a healthy organization. \u003cem\u003eForbes\u003c/em\u003e. Retrieved November 12, 2022, https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/12/07/five-essential-components-of-a-healthy-organization/?sh=2aa0a6b8348a\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. \u003cem\u003ePsychometrika\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(3), 317-332.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlarcon, G. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(2), 549-562.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlegre, J., \u0026amp; Chiva, R. (2008). Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: An empirical test. \u003cem\u003eTechnovation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(6), 315-326. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.technovation.2007.09.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmarakoon, U., Weerawardena, J., \u0026amp; Verreynne, M.-L. (2018). Learning capabilities, human resource management innovation and competitive advantage. \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal of Human Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1736-1766. https://doi.org/1.1080/09585192.2016.1209228\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArag\u0026oacute;n-Correa, J. A., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Morales, V. J., \u0026amp; Cord\u0026oacute;n-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organizational learning\u0026rsquo;s role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain. \u003cem\u003eIndustrial Marketing Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 349-359. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.indmarman.2005.09.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArgyris, C., \u0026amp; Sch\u0026ouml;n, D. A. (1978). \u003cem\u003eOrganizational learning: A theory of action perspective\u003c/em\u003e. Addison-Wesley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArthur, J. B., Herdman, A. O., \u0026amp; Yang, J. (2016). How top management HR beliefs and values affect high‐performance work system adoption and implementation effectiveness. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(3), 413-435. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.21672\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAust, B., M\u0026oslash;ller, J. L., Nordentoft, M., Frydendall, K. B., Bengtsen, E., Jensen, A. B., Garde, A. H., Kompier, M., Semmer, N., Rugulies, R., \u0026amp; Jaspers, S. \u0026Oslash;. (2023). How effective are organizational-level interventions in improving the psychosocial work environment, health, and retention of workers? A systematic overview of systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eScandinavian Journal of Work, Environment \u0026amp; Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(5), 315. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4097\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, A. B., \u0026amp; Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Managerial Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/1.1108/02683940710733115\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarrette, J., Lemyre, L., Corneil, W., \u0026amp; Beauregard, N. (2007). Organizational learning among senior public-service executives: An empirical investigation of culture, decisional latitude and supportive communication. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Public Administration/Administration Publique du Canada\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(3), 333-353. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1754-7121.2007.tb02131.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeauchamp Legault, M. \u0026Egrave;., \u0026amp; Ch\u0026ecirc;nevert, D. (2024). From wasteland to bloom: Exploring the organizational profiles of occupational health and well-being strategies and their effects on employees\u0026rsquo; health and well-being. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1008. https://doi.org/1.3390/ijerph21081008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeauregard, N., Lemyre, L., \u0026amp; Barrette, J. (2020). The healthy learning organizations model: Lessons learned from the Canadian federal public service. \u003cem\u003ePublic Personnel Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(2), 218-238. https://doi.org/1.1177/0091026019855751\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBowen, D. E., \u0026amp; Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM\u0026ndash;firm performance linkages: The role of \u0026ldquo;strength\u0026rdquo; of the HRM system. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(2), 203\u0026ndash;221. https://doi.org/1.5465/amr.2004.12736076\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCamps, J., Oltra, V., Ald\u0026aacute;s-Manzano, J., Buenaventura-Vera, G., \u0026amp; Torres-Carballo, F. (2016). Individual performance in turbulent environments: The role of organizational learning capability and employee flexibility. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(3), 363-383. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.21741\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCeleux, G., \u0026amp; Soromenho, G. (1996). An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Classification\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 195-212.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChiva, R., Alegre, J., \u0026amp; Lapierda, R. (2007). Measuring organizational learning capability among the workforce. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Manpower\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(3/4), 224-242. https://doi.org/1.1108/01437720710755227\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCombs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., \u0026amp; Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high‐performance work practices matter? A meta‐analysis of their effects on organizational performance. \u003cem\u003ePersonnel Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(3), 501-528. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1744-657.2006.00045.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooper, C. L., \u0026amp; Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind; healthy organization-A proactive approach to occupational stress. \u003cem\u003eHuman Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(4), 455-471. https://doi.org/1.1177/001872679404700405\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCox, T., \u0026amp; Cox, S. (1992). Occupational health: Past, present and future. \u003cem\u003eWork \u0026amp; Stress\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 99-102. https://doi.org/1.1080/02678379208260343 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCox, T., \u0026amp; Howarth, I. (1990). Organizational health, culture and helping. \u003cem\u003eWork \u0026amp; Stress\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 107-11. https://doi.org/1.1080/02678379008256972 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDanna, K., \u0026amp; Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 357-384. https://doi.org/1.1177/0149206399025003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDay, A., \u0026amp; Randell, K. D. (2014). Building a foundation for psychologically healthy workplaces and well-being. In A. Day, E. K. Kelloway, \u0026amp; J. J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Workplace well-being: How to build psychologically healthy workplaces (pp. 3-26). John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Jonge, J., \u0026amp; Peeters, M. C. (2019). The vital worker: Towards sustainable performance at work. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(6), 91. https://doi.org/1.3390/ijerph16060910\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeJoy, D. M., \u0026amp; Southern, D. J. (1993). An integrative perspective on work-site health promotion. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1221-123. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45015593\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDemerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., \u0026amp; Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e86\u003c/em\u003e(3), 499. https://doi.org/1.1037/0021-901.86.3.499\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDextras-Gauthier, J., Marchand, A., \u0026amp; Haines, V. Y., III (2012). Organizational culture, work organization conditions, and mental health: A proposed integration. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Stress Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e, 81- 104. https://doi.org/1.1037/a0028164\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiBella, A. J., Nevis, E. C., \u0026amp; Gould, J. M. (1996). Understanding organizational learning capability. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(3), 361-379. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1467-6486.1996.tb00806.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. \u003cem\u003eOrganization Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(3), 375-394. https://doi.org/1.1177/017084069301400303\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEgan, M., Bambra, C., Thomas, S., Petticrew, M., Whitehead, M., \u0026amp; Thomson, H. (2007). The psychosocial and health effects of workplace reorganisation. 1. A systematic review of organisational-level interventions that aim to increase employee control. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Epidemiology \u0026amp; Community Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e(11), 945-954. https://doi.org/1.1136/jech.2006.054965\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., \u0026amp; Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of motivation, empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The mediating effect of collective affective commitment. \u003cem\u003ePersonnel Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(2), 315-35. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1744-657.2011.01212.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGho, S., \u0026amp; Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(5), 575-583. https://doi.org/1.1016/S0263-2373(97)00036-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoh, S. C., Elliott, C., \u0026amp; Quon, T. K. (2012). The relationship between learning capability and organizational performance: A meta-analytic examination. \u003cem\u003eThe Learning Organization\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 92-108. https://doi.org/1.1108/09696471211201461\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrawitch, M. J., Ballard, D. W., \u0026amp; Erb, K. R. (2017). Work and wellbeing: Creating a psychologically healthy workplace. In C. Cooper \u0026amp; M. Leiter (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge companion to wellbeing at work\u003c/em\u003e (Chapter 18). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., \u0026amp; Munz, D. C. (2006). The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. \u003cem\u003eConsulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(3), 129-147. https://doi.org/1.1037/1065-9293.58.3.129\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrawitch, M. J., Ledford, G. E., Jr., Ballard, D. W., \u0026amp; Barber, L. K. (2009). Leading the healthy workforce: The integral role of employee involvement. \u003cem\u003eConsulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61\u003c/em\u003e(2), 122\u0026ndash;135. https://doi.org/1.1037/a0015288\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGriffin, M. A., Hart, P. M., \u0026amp; Wilson-Evered, E. (2000). Using employee opinion surveys to improve organizational health. In L. R. Murphy \u0026amp; C. Cooper (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHealthy and productive work: An international perspective\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 15-36). CRC Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well‐being: Towards a new analytic framework. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 22-38. https://doi.org/1.1111/1748-8583.12139\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHagenaars, J. A., \u0026amp; McCutcheon, A. L. (Eds.). (2002). \u003cem\u003eApplied latent class analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, A., \u0026amp; Masterson, S. S. (2008). How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1099-1116. https://doi.org/1.5465/amj.2008.35732600\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. \u003cem\u003eOrganization Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 88-115. https://doi.org/1.1287/orsc.2.1.88\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHult, G. T. M., \u0026amp; Ferrell, O. C. (1997). Global organizational learning capacity in purchasing: Construct and measurement. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(2), 97-111. https://doi.org/1.1016/S0148-2963(96)00232-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIsensee, C., Teuteberg, F., Griese, K. M., \u0026amp; Topi, C. (2020). The relationship between organizational culture, sustainability, and digitalization in SMEs: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e275\u003c/em\u003e, 122944. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jclepro.202.122944\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., \u0026amp; Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-56. https://doi.org/1.5465/1941652.2014.872335\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJerez-G\u0026oacute;mez, P., C\u0026eacute;spedes-Lorente, J., \u0026amp; Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning and compensation strategies: Evidence from the Spanish chemical industry. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(3), 279-299. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.20071\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarademas, E. C. (2006). Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: The mediating role of optimism. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1281-129. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.paid.2005.1.019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 285-308. https://doi.org/1.2307/2392498\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., \u0026amp; Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(4), 322-355. https://doi.org/1.1037/1076-8998.3.4.322\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelloway, E. K., \u0026amp; Day, A. L. (2005). Building healthy workplaces: What we know so far. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(4), 223-235. https://doi.org/1.1037/h0087259\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKortum, E. (2014). The WHO global approach to protecting and promoting health at work. In C. Biron, R. J. Burke, \u0026amp; C. L. Cooper (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eCreating healthy workplaces\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 23\u0026ndash;35). Gower Applied Business Research.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., \u0026amp; Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 102\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1686-1718. https://doi.org/1.1037/apl0000241\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLauzier, M., Barrette, J., Kenny, S., \u0026amp; Lemyre, L. (2018). Validation of a short form of the inventory of organizational learning facilitators: A national survey of public service executives in Canada. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Workplace Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(4), 245-261. https://doi.org/1.1108/JWL-08-2017-0070\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, R. T., \u0026amp; Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 81\u003c/em\u003e(2), 123-133. https://doi.org/1.1037/0021-901.81.2.123\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLepak, D. P., Taylor, M. S., Tekleab, A., Marrone, J. A., \u0026amp; Cohen, D. J. (2007). An examination of the use of high investment human resource systems for core and support employees. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(2), 223-246. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.20158\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLindstr\u0026ouml;m, K., Schrey, K., Ahonen, G., \u0026amp; Kaleva, S. (2000). The effects of promoting organizational health on worker well-being and organizational effectiveness in small and medium-sized enterprises. In L. R. Murphy \u0026amp; C. L. Cooper (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHealthy and productive work: An international perspective\u003c/em\u003e. CRC Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLo, Y., Mendell, N. R., \u0026amp; Rubin, D. B. (2001). Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. \u003cem\u003eBiometrika\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(3), 767-778. https://doi.org/1.1093/biomet/88.3.767\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacDonald, L. A., H\u0026auml;renstam, A., Warren, N. D., \u0026amp; Punnett, L. (2008). Incorporating work organisation into occupational health research: An invitation for dialogue. \u003cem\u003eOccupational and Environmental Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2007.033860\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarchand, A., Durand, P., Haines, V. Y., III, \u0026amp; Harvey, S. (2015). The multilevel determinants of workers\u0026rsquo; mental health: results from the SALVEO study. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(3), 445-459. https://doi.org/1.1007/s00127-014-0932-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarchand, A., Haines, V. Y., III, Harvey, S., Dextras-Gauthier, J., \u0026amp; Durand, P. (2016). Health and stress management and mental-health disability claims. \u003cem\u003eStress and Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(5), 569-577. https://doi.org/1.1002/smi.2663\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMbengue, A., \u0026amp; San\u0026eacute;, S. (2013). Organizational learning capability: Theoretical analysis and empirical study in the context of official development aid project teams. \u003cem\u003eCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 26-39. https://doi.org/1.1002/cjas.1238\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcHugh, M., \u0026amp; Brotherton, C. (2000). Health is wealth: Organizational utopia or myopia? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Managerial Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(8), 744-77. https://doi.org/1.1108/02683940010379332\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiles, M. B. (1969). Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground. In E. A. Carver \u0026amp; T. J. Sergiovanni (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eOrganizations and human behavior\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 375-391). McGraw-Hill.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, R. L., Griffin, M. A., \u0026amp; Hart, P. M. (1999). Personality and organizational health: The role of conscientiousness. \u003cem\u003eWork \u0026amp; Stress\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 7-19. https://doi.org/1.1080/026783799296156\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMisangyi, V. F., Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., Crilly, D., \u0026amp; Aguilera, R. (2017). Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 255-282. https://doi.org/1.1177/0149206316679252\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoliner, C., Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Tur, V., Peir\u0026oacute;, J. M., Ramos, J., \u0026amp; Cropanzano, R. (2005). Relationships between organizational justice and burnout at the work-unit level. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Stress Management, 12\u003c/em\u003e(2), 99\u0026ndash;116. https://doi.org/1.1037/1072-5245.12.2.99 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuth\u0026eacute;n, L. K. (2017). Mplus User\u0026rsquo;s Guide. Muth\u0026eacute;n \u0026amp; Muth\u0026eacute;n, 1998.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNielsen, K., \u0026amp; Randall, R. (2013). Opening the black box: Presenting a model for evaluating organizational-level interventions. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(5), 601-617. https://doi.org/1.1080/1359432X.2012.690556\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNigam, J. A. S., Murphy, L. R., \u0026amp; Swanson, N. G. (2003). Are stress management programs indicators of good places to work? Results of a national survey. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Stress Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 345-36. https://doi.org/1.1037/1072-5245.1.4.345\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNylund-Gibson, K., \u0026amp; Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. \u003cem\u003eTranslational Issues in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(4), 440-461. https://doi.org/1.1037/tps0000176\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., \u0026amp; Muth\u0026egrave;n, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modelling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 535-569. https://doi.org/1.1080/10705510701575396\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Donnell, M., Ruth-Sahd, L. A., \u0026amp; Mayfield, C. O. (2019). An expanded holistic model of healthy workplace practices. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Organizational Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1542-1561.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Neill, O. A., Feldman, D. C., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., \u0026amp; Wilson, M. G. (2011). Organizational achievement values, high‐involvement work practices, and business unit performance. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(4), 541-558. https://doi.org/1.1002/hrm.20437\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOsterman, P. (1994). How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it? \u003cem\u003eIlr Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(2), 173-188.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOstroff C.\u003c/strong\u003e, \u0026amp; \u003cstrong\u003eBowen D. E\u003c/strong\u003e. (\u003cstrong\u003e2016)\u003c/strong\u003e. Reflections on the 2014 decade award: Is there strength in the construct of HR system strength? \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review, \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2), 196\u0026ndash;214. https://doi.org/1.5465/amr.2015.0323\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeccei, R., Van de Voorde, K. (2019). Human resource management-well-being-performance research revisited: Past, present, and future. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(4), 539-563. https://doi.org/1.1111/1748-8583.12254\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeccei, R., Van de Voorde, K, \u0026amp; van Veldhoven, M. (2013). HRM, well-being and performance: A theoretical and empirical review. In J. Paauwe, D. Guest, \u0026amp; P. Wright (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHRM and performance: Achievements and challenge\u003c/em\u003es (pp. 15-45). Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePierce, J. R. (2025). Categorizing concepts and phenomena in management research: A four-phase integrative review and recommendations. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 9-37. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2023.0052\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePosthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masinova, M., \u0026amp; Campion, M. A. (2013). A high performance work practices taxonomy: Integrating the literature and directing future research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 39\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1184-122. https://doi.org/1.1177/0149206313478184\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReal, J. C., Roldan, J. L., \u0026amp; Leal, A. (2014). From entrepreneurial orientation and learning orientation to business performance: Analysing the mediating role of organizational learning and the moderating effect of organizational size. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 186-208. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00848.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReynolds, G. S., \u0026amp; Bennett, J. B. (2023). The role of wellness climate in small business health promotion and employee wellbeing. \u003cem\u003eOccupational Health Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 417-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-023-00148-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoczniewska, M., Smoktunowicz, E., Calcagni, C. C., von Thiele Schwarz, U., Hasson, H., \u0026amp; Richter, A. (2022). Beyond the individual: A systematic review of the effects of unit-level demands and resources on employee productivity, health, and well-being. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27\u003c/em\u003e(2), 240\u0026ndash;257. https://doi.org/1.1037/ocp0000311\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., \u0026amp; Martinez, M. (2012). We need a Hero! Toward a validation of the healthy and resilient organization (HERO) model. \u003cem\u003eGroup \u0026amp; Organization Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(6), 785-822. https://doi.org/1.1177/1059601112470405\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaridakis, G., Lai, Y., \u0026amp; Cooper, C. L. (2017). Exploring the relationship between HRM and firm performance: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 87-96. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSauter, S. L., Lim, S. Y., \u0026amp; Murphy, L. R. (1996). Organizational health: A new paradigm for occupational stress research at NIOSH. \u003cem\u003eJapanese Journal of Occupational Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e, 248-254.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchein, E. H. (2010). \u003cem\u003eOrganizational culture and leadership\u003c/em\u003e, fourth edition. Jossey-Bass. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchuler, R.S., \u0026amp; Jackson, S. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Executive\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 207-219. https://doi.org/1.5465/ame.1987.4275740\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchultz, S. A., Larson, J., Oh, J., Koscik, R., Dowling, M. N., Gallagher, C. L., Carlsson, C. M., Rowley, H. A., Bendlin, B. B., Asthana, S., Hermann, B. P., Johnson, S. C., Sager, M., LaRue, A., \u0026amp; Okonkwo, O. C. (2015). Participation in cognitively-stimulating activities is associated with brain structure and cognitive function in preclinical Alzheimer\u0026rsquo;s disease. \u003cem\u003eBrain Imaging and Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e, 729-736. https://doi.org/1.1007/s11682-014-9329-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. \u003cem\u003eThe Annals of Statistics\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 461-464. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2958889\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. \u003cem\u003ePsychometrika\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e(\u003c/em\u003e3), 333\u0026ndash;343. https://doi.org/1.1007/BF0229436. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSher, C., \u0026amp; Wu, C. (2023). Physical activity and mental health: Comparing between-person and within-person associations in longitudinal analysis. \u003cem\u003eMental Health and Physical Activity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e, 100546. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.mhpa.2023.100546\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShi, L., Van Veldhoven, M., Kooij, D., Van De Voorde, K., \u0026amp; Karanika-Murray, M. (2024). High-performance work systems and individual performance: A longitudinal study of the differential roles of happiness and health well-being. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, 1261564. https://doi.org/1.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261564 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShoaf, C., Genaidy, A., Karwowski, W., \u0026amp; Huang, S. H. (2004). Improving performance and quality of working life: A model for organizational health assessment in emerging enterprises. \u003cem\u003eHuman Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/1.1002/hfm.10053\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 27-41. https://doi.org/1.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiegrist, J., \u0026amp; Marmot, M. (2004). Health inequalities and the psychosocial environment\u0026mdash;two scientific challenges. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science \u0026amp; Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1463-1473. https://doi.org/1.1016/S0277-9536(03)00349-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, A., \u0026amp; Jha, S. (2017). Scale development of organizational health construct. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Business Review,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(2), 357-375. https://doi.org/1.1177/0972150917713522\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSinha, P., Calfee, C. S., \u0026amp; Delucchi, K. L. (2021). Practitioner\u0026rsquo;s guide to latent class analysis: Methodological considerations and common pitfalls. \u003cem\u003eCritical Care Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(1), e63-e79. https://doi.org/1.1097/CCM.0000000000004710\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSlater, S. F., \u0026amp; Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e59\u003c/em\u003e(July), 63-74. https://doi.org/1.1177/002224299505900306\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpurk, D., Hirschi, A., Wang, M., Valero, D., \u0026amp; Kauffeld, S. (2020). Latent profile analysis: A review and \u0026ldquo;how to\u0026rdquo; guide of its application within vocational behavior research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e120\u003c/em\u003e, 103445. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.jvb.202.103445\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., \u0026amp; Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 90\u003c/em\u003e(4), 692\u0026ndash;709. https://doi.org/1.1037/0021-901.9.4.692\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTharenou, P., Saks, A. M., \u0026amp; Moore, C. (2007). A review and critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(3), 251-273. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.hrmr.2007.07.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTheorell, T., Hammarstr\u0026ouml;m, A., Aronsson, G., Tr\u0026auml;skman Bendz, L., Grape, T., Hogstedt, C., Marteinsdottir, I., Skoog, I., \u0026amp; Hall, C. (2015). A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. \u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e, 1-14. https://doi.org/1.1186/s12889-015-1954-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToker, S., Shirom, A., Shapira, I., Berliner, S., \u0026amp; Melamed, S. (2005). The association between burnout, depression, anxiety, and inflammation biomarkers: C-reactive protein and fibrinogen in men and women. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 344-362. https://doi.org/1.1037/1076-8998.1.4.344\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eValenzuela, M. J., \u0026amp; Sachdev, P. (2006). Brain reserve and dementia: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 441-454. https://doi.org/1.1017/S0033291705006264\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., \u0026amp; Van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee well‐being and the HRM\u0026ndash;organizational performance relationship: A review of quantitative studies. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Management Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 391-407. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1468-237.2011.00322.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Vegchel, N., De Jonge, J., Bosma, H., \u0026amp; Schaufeli, W. (2005). Reviewing the effort-reward imbalance model: Drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science \u0026amp; Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e60\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1117-1131. https://doi.org/1.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.043\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVitetta, L., Anton, B., Cortizo, F., \u0026amp; Sali, A. (2005). Mind‐body medicine: Stress and its impact on overall health and longevity. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1057\u003c/em\u003e(1), 492-505. https://doi.org/1.1111/j.1749-6632.2005.tb06153.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVuong, Q. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. \u003cem\u003eEconometrica\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(2), 307\u0026ndash;333. https://doi.org/1.2307/1912557\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWare, C., Dautricourt, S., Gonneaud, J., \u0026amp; Ch\u0026eacute;telat, G. (2021). Does second language learning promote neuroplasticity in aging? A systematic review of cognitive and neuroimaging studies. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 706672. https://doi.org/1.3389/fnagi.2021.706672\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, M. G., DeJoy, D. M., Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., \u0026amp; McGrath, A. L. (2004). Work characteristics and employee health and well-being: Test of a model of healthy work organization. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e77\u003c/em\u003e(4), 565-588. https://doi.org/1.1348/0963179042596522\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYeung A. K., Ulrich D. O., Nason S. W., \u0026amp; Von Glinow M. A. (1999). \u003cem\u003eOrganizational learning capacity\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorrelations for Study Variables (N=228)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"688\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOL \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraining \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTask design \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemands control \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial relations\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;c\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGratifications\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;c\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhilosophy \u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical activity \u003csup\u003ee\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNutrition\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneral health\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStress coping\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork-life balance\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirm size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSector (tertiary)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 32px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 136px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnionization (yes)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 37px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eOrganizational learning practices. \u003csup\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eTraining and development practices. \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e Work organization conditions. \u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e Employee-centered human resource philosophy. \u003csup\u003ee\u003c/sup\u003e Health promotion practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll correlation coefficients greater than .15\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003ein absolute values are significant at \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFit Statistics and Classification Coefficients for Latent Profile Models\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of latent profiles\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSBIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLMR-LRT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVLMR-LRT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEntropy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6365.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6413.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6368.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6069.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6145.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6075.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6024.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6127.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6032.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5981.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 90px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6111.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5990.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 76px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e AIC = Akaike\u0026rsquo;s information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; SBIC = sample-size-adjusted BIC; LMR-LRT = Lo, Mendell, and Rubin likelihood ratio test; VLMR-LRT = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test. LMR-LRT and VLMR-LRT are for a difference in 8 parameters.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarginal Means of Attributes Within Each Latent Profile\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"558\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProfile 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProfile 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAttributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95% CI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOL \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(47.03; 51.99)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(62.76; 65.55)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTraining \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(8.33; 1.06)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(14.72; 15.49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTask design \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-0,73; -.323)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.14; .43)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemands control \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-.65; -.305)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.10; .41)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial relations \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-.98; -.604)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.31; .57)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGratifications \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(-.80; -.447)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.19; .50)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhilosophy \u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(12.89; 14.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(16.36; 16.99)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClassification probability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage latent profile probability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClass count (n)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 170px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e152\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. MM = marginal means; CI = confidence interval.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eOrganizational learning practices. \u003csup\u003eb\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003eTraining and development practices. \u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e Work organization conditions. \u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e Employee-centered human resource philosophy\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLogistic Regression Predicting Latent Profile Membership Based on Organizational Correlates\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"292\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCorrelates\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 131px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProfile 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 131px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimate (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirm size\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 131px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.257 (.335)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSector (tertiary)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 131px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.093 (.096)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 161px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnionization (yes)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 131px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.663 (.353)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Profile 1 is the reference category. Profile 2 is deemed the \u0026ldquo;healthy organization.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = standard error.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLogistic Regressions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredicting Latent Profile Membership based on\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003efor Health Promotion Initiatives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHealth initiatives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProfile 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimate (\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical activity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.861 (.248)\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNutrition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.753 (.251)\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGeneral health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.538 (.215)\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStress coping\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.848 (.262)\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 204px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork-life balance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 140px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.938 (.221)\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Profile 1 is the reference category. \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e = standard error. Logistic regression estimates adjusted for firm size, economic sector, and unionization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05. \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .01\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"healthy organization, work organization conditions, organizational learning, philosophy, training and development, health promotion","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5932992/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5932992/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"This study develops and tests an alternative conceptualization of the healthy organization that integrates organizational learning, training and development, work organization conditions, and human resource philosophy within a whole-person view of employee health. Defined as an organizational-level construct, the convergence of these workplace attributes evidenced by latent profile analysis (LPA) supported the healthy organization construct that has more rather than fewer of these health-significant attributes. The analysis conducted with a sample of 228 organizations from various industries further revealed positive associations between the healthy organization type and employer engagement in the provision of workplace health promotion initiatives.","manuscriptTitle":"Conceptualizing the Healthy Organization with a Whole-Person Outlook","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-03-26 07:07:40","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5932992/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7faf33e6-2df0-479d-900e-ef56001252a0","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 26th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-02T09:28:14+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-03-26 07:07:40","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5932992","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5932992","identity":"rs-5932992","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}