Pischel, Sarah Laura

The health-oriented leadership (HoL) intervention is an innovative leadership and team development measure to promote workplace health. This article outlines the steps of the HoL intervention, the necessary organizational conditions, and the benefits for leaders and teams. The HoL intervention is based on the HoL concept, which distinguishes between health-oriented leadership (staff-care) and health-oriented self-leadership (self-care) and emphasizes four pathways through which leadership affects employee health. The HoL intervention is a structured procedure consisting of the eight steps: 1) coordination meeting with top management, 2) general information event for leaders of an organization, 3) preliminary conversation with interested leader, 4) kick-off workshop with the team and leader, 5) diagnosis of health-oriented leadership using the HoL instrument, 6) intensive coaching session with the leader, 7) workshop with the team and leader, and 8) follow-up with the leader. Previous implementations in various sectors revealed positive evaluation results.

Background: Organisational and individual factors cause strain in the daily lives of nurses and other healthcare professionals, who have a high prevalence of stress-related disorders. Accordingly, there is a strong need for integrated occupational health promotion interventions that include both work-directed and person-directed interventions. The psychosocial safety climate is seen as an overarching occupational health objective and can potentially be improved by implementing integrated mental health interventions. Objective: Following an integrated approach, we developed an occupational e-mental health platform, Care4Care, which integrates both work- and person-directed interventions for promoting mental health in nurses. We evaluated the effects of the platform compared with those of an extended care-as-usual control condition. Design: Clustered randomised controlled trial. Setting: Healthcare service facilities in Germany nationwide. Participants: 347 nursing staff members (intervention: 211, control: 136) from 33 healthcare service facilities. Methods: The participants received either immediate access to the platform or access to two short subcomponents of the platform plus routine occupational health promotion offerings as well as delayed access to the whole platform after 6 months. The primary outcome was improvement in the psychosocial safety climate after 6 months. The secondary outcomes included perceived stress, depressive symptoms, and other strain-related indicators. Results: Bayesian multilevel analyses revealed an improvement of approximately 2 points (Cohen's d = 0.25) in the psychosocial safety climate in the intervention group compared with the control group. Applying a 95 % credible interval, this effect contained zero (− 0.32, 4.44), which indicated uncertainty about the effectiveness of the intervention on the psychosocial safety climate. The analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed effects in the expected direction with high credibility for a decreasing effect on perceived stress and considerable uncertainty with regard to all other secondary and tertiary outcomes. A total of 85 (40 %) participants in the intervention group used Care4Care, whereas 37 (27 %) participants in the control group used the two subcomponents of the platform. Conclusions: This study highlights the potential of an occupational e-mental health platform that combines work- and person-directed interventions with face-to-face components for nursing staff. The findings emphasise the necessity of conducting more in-depth implementation studies to identify the factors that facilitate the successful implementation and uptake of occupational e-mental health platforms. Registration: German Clinical Trials Register – DRKS (DRKS00027869). Registration date: February 23, 2022. Start of recruitment: June 21, 2022.

Leaders play a crucial role in employees’ health and job satisfaction. When employees show early warning signs that their physical or mental health is at risk, leaders’ responsibility gains even more importance. Recent health-specific leadership approaches (health-oriented leadership; HoL) emphasize the importance of leaders ability to perceive employees’ warning signals (staff care awareness) to take appropriate action (staff care behavior). However, little is known about the factors facilitating or hindering the transfer from leaders’ awareness to concrete behaviors. In an experimental study (N = 91), we examined and manipulated antecedents of staff care behavior: (a) employees’ disclosure, (b) leaders’ HoL skills, and (c) leaders’ goal conflict in a 2 × 2 × 2 mixed factorial design. Employees’ disclosure and leaders’ skills were positively related to staff care behavior. Leaders’ goal conflict was not directly related to staff care behavior but had an indirect effect and diminished the positive relationship between disclosure and staff care behavior. The findings deepen the theoretical understanding of the HoL concept. By studying the influence of employees’ disclosure on staff care behavior, our study complements a follower-centered perspective. We provide practical recommendations for workplace health promotion and how leaders’ staff care behavior can be fostered.

Due to growing demands, there is an increase in depression and burnout causing sickness absence and early retirement. Detecting depression and burnout at an early stage is a crucial task for leaders to allow for early support and prevent more severe illnesses. Within the health-oriented leadership concept, awareness is the ability to recognize followers’ warning signals as a potential health risk. Although it is widely accepted that awareness is a precondition to taking appropriate action, it is yet unclear to what extent leaders recognize the warning signals of followers and which factors facilitate or impede awareness. In an experimental study (N = 54) and a survey study (N = 215) we examined antecedents of awareness in followers and leaders: (a) clarity of displayed warning signals in followers, (b) leaders’ stressors, (c) leaders’ autonomy. Even under favorable conditions, only about half of the leaders recognized warning signals as a health risk. Leaders showed lower awareness during times of high stress and low autonomy and when followers displayed less clear warning signals. Autonomy moderated the effect of stress (workload) on awareness, but there was no buffering effect as expected. The findings deepen the theoretical understanding of awareness and suggest that leaders need to know how their awareness may be impeded. We provide practical recommendations for human resource management on how leaders’ awareness can be fostered.