Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Organizational Characteristics as Predictors of Work Disability: A Prospective Study Among Sick Employees of For-Profit and Not-For-Profit Organizations

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: This article reports a prospective study that focused on the influence of organizational structure and organizational culture on the outcome of sickness absence, return to work or work disability. Former studies of determinants of work disability hardly have given attention to organizational characteristics and, if so, not following a appropriate prospective design. Methods: The study population consisted of 455 employees of 45 for-profit and not-for-profit companies participating in the Maastricht Cohort Study on fatigue at work who were on sick leave for at least 6 weeks. Both independent variables which were type of company, size, centralization of decision making and organizational culture, and covariates, which were sex, age, educational level, fatigue, and chronic illness, were all measured before employees reported sick. The dependent variable outcome of the sickness absence, mainly return to work or work disability, was measured 15 months after reporting sick. Results: Multilevel logistic regression analysis, with organizational characteristics as level 2 independent variables and demographic and health characteristics as covariates, suggested that the type of company (for-profit/private or not-for-profit/public) is predictive of the outcome of sickness absence (crude OR = 2.21; CI: 1.16–4.20), but this may be partially due to a higher proportion of fatigued and chronically ill employees in not-for-profit companies (adjusted OR = 2.09; CI: 0.93–4.37). Findings about the role of some other organizational characteristics, like organizational culture, were inconclusive. Conclusions: Organizational characteristics should next to health characteristics be included in the models of studies which aim at predicting which sick employees are at risk for work disability. To prevent work disability not-for-profit companies might be stimulated to more active return-to-work policy by charging them with the costs of it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nijhuis F, Soeters J. Werk en ziekte. Een onderzoek naar afwezigheid wegens ziekte en arbeidsongeschiktheid bij 51 industriële en niet-industriële organisaties in Z-Limburg. [Work and sickness: a study of absence because of sickness and work disability at 51 industrial and non-industrial organizations in S-Limburg]. Maastricht: Rijksuniversiteit Limburg, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Broersen T, Klosse S, Knepper S, Vrooland V. Arbeidsongeschiktheid onder ambtenaren. Feiten, analyses, maatregelen. [Work Disability among civil servants. Facts, analyses, measures]. Den Haag: Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schröer CAP. Ziekteverzuim wegens overspanning: een onderzoek naar de aard van overspanning, de hulpverlening en het verzuimbeloop. [Sickness absence because of overstrain: A study of the nature, the care and the course of sickness]. Maastricht: UPM, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schröer CAP, Janssen M, Amelsvoort LGPM van, Heuvel WPM van den, Swaen GMH, Nijhuis FJN, Eijk, J. van. Work characteristics, chronic illness and fatigue as predictors of return to work within fifteen months. Submitted.

  5. Kirsh B. Organizational culture, climate and person-environment fit: relationships with employment outcomes for mental health consumers. Work 2000; 14: 109–122.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Friesen MN, Yassi A, Cooper J. Return-to-work: the importance of human interactions and organizational structures. Work 2001; 17: 11–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rousseau D. Assessing organizational culture. In: Schneider B, ed. Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco/Oxford: Jossey Bass, 1990, pp. 153–192.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schein, EH. What is culture? In: Frost PJ, Moore LF, Louis MR, Lundberg CC, Martin J, eds. Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park: Sage 1991, pp. 243–253.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Glisson C, James LR. The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human service teams. J Organ Behav 2002; 23: 767–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hofstede G. Attitudes, values and organizational culture: disentangling the concepts. Organ Stud 1998; 19: 477–492.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hofstede G, Neuijen B, Daval Ohayv D, Sanders, G. Measuring organizational culture: A qualitative and quantitative study among twenty cases. Adm Sci Q 1990; 35: 286–316.

    Google Scholar 

  12. O’Reilly III CA, Chatman J, Caldwell DF. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Acad Manage J 1991; 34: 487–516.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Krause N, Frank, JW, Dasinger LK, Sullivan, TJ, Sinclair, SJ. Determinants of duration of disability and return-to-work after work-related injury and illness: Challenges for future research. Am J Ind Med 2001; 40: 464–484.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Amick III BC, Habeck RV, Hunt A, Fossel AH, Chapin A, Keller RB, Katz, JN. Measuring the impact of organizational behaviors on work disability prevention and management. J Occup Rehabil 2000; 10: 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Crook J, Milner R, Schultz IZ, Stringer B. Determinants of occupational disability following a low back injury: a critical review of the literature. J Occup Rehabil 2002; 12: 277–295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dasinger LK, Krause N, Deegan LJ, Brand RJ, Rudolph L. Physical workplace factors and return to work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. J Occup Environ Med 2000; 42: 323–333.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Krause N, Dasinger LK, Deegan LJ, Rudolph L, Brand RJ. Psychosocial job factors and return-to-work after compensated low back injury: a disability phase-specific analysis. Am J Ind Med 2001; 40: 374–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Infante-Rivard C, Lortie M. Prognostic factors for return to work after a first compensated episode of back pain. Occup Environ Med 53: 488–494.

  19. Kant IJ, Bültmann U, Schröer KAP, Beurskens AJHM, Amelsvoort LGPM van, Swaen GMH. An epidemiological approach to study fatigue in the working population: The Maastricht Cohort Study. Occup Environ Med 2003; 60: i32–i39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall RH. Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Amelsvoort LGPM van, Kant IJ, Beurskens AJHM, Schröer CAP, Swaen GMH. Fatigue as a predictor of work disability. Occup Environ Med 2003; 59: 712–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baanders AN, Rijken PM, Peters L. Labour participation of the chronically ill. A profile sketch. Eu J Public Health 2002; 12: 124–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vercoulen JH, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, Meer JW van der, Bleijenberg G. Dimensional assessment of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res 1994; 38: 383–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bültmann U, Vries M de, Beurskens AJHM, Bleijenberg G, Vercoulen JHMM, Kant IJ. Measurement of prolonged fatigue in the working population: Determination of a cutoff point for the Checklist Individual Strength. J Occup Health Psychology 2000; 5: 411–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Beurskens AJHM, Bultmann U, Kant IJ, Vercoulen JH, Bleijenberg, G, Swaen, GM. Fatigue among working people: Validity of a questionnaire measure. Occup Environ Med 2000; 57: 353–357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vries J de, Michielsen HJ, Heck, GL van. Assessment of fatigue among working people: A comparison of six questionnaires. Occup Environ Med 2003; 60: i10–i15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Goldstein H. Multilevel statistical models. London: Edward Arnold, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Woodhouse G. Multilevel modeling applications. A guide for users of users of MLn. London: Multilevel Model Project, Institute of Education, University of London, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Karasek RA Jr. Job demands, job decisions and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q 1979; 24: 285–308.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Janssen N, Heuvel WPM van den, Beurskens AJHM, Nijhuis FJN, Schröer CAP, Eijk JTM van. The Demand-Control-Support model as a predictor of return to work. Int J Rehabil Res 2003; 26: 1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. A. P. Schröer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schröer, C.A.P., Janssen, M., Amelsvoort, L.G.P.M.v. et al. Organizational Characteristics as Predictors of Work Disability: A Prospective Study Among Sick Employees of For-Profit and Not-For-Profit Organizations. J Occup Rehabil 15, 435–445 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-5948-3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-005-5948-3

Keywords

Navigation