Inge Houkes

BACKGROUND: To improve the sustainable employability (SE) of employees in low-skilled jobs, there is an urgent need to implement more effective approaches for this group. OBJECTIVE: This evaluation study aimed to get insight into the effect and implementation process of an organisational intervention called ‘Healthy HR’ (HHR), which promoted the job control and SE of employees in low-skilled jobs in two Dutch organisations. METHODS: An effect evaluation with a pretest-posttest design and a mixed-methods process evaluation were conducted. Quantitative data were collected at baseline ( N = 120) and at 12 months’ follow-up ( N = 71). Paired t-tests and dose-response analyses were performed ( N = 50). Mixed-methods process data were collected on the implementation process using questionnaires, individual interviews with employees and employer representatives ( N = 26), focus groups ( N = 4) and logbooks. RESULTS: A positive effect was found for job control at 12 months’ follow-up. An effect on the distal outcome SE was not significant. The dose-response analysis showed that a higher dose of HHR resulted in better job control. This positive effect was supported by the qualitative process analysis. HHR had a positive impact on the awareness level about health and healthy workplaces among all stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a promising participatory approach to improve job control for employees in low-skilled jobs by actively involving them in a genuine dialogue and giving them an active voice. Effects on SE might require a longer follow-up.

Background: Employers find it difficult to develop interventions for vitality and sustainable employability (SE), particularly for employees in low-skilled jobs. Measures based on the employee perspective on SE that would give direction to interventions fall short, and effective programs to improve vitality and SE in this group are lacking. This study aims (1) to get insight into the effect and implementation of an innovative organizational, dialogue-based approach ‘Healthy HR’ (HHR)* to promote job control and SE, and (2) to refine and further validate the Maastricht Instrument for SE (MAISE)-Easy (an HHR tool for needs assessment). Methods: (1) An effect evaluation with a pretest-posttest design with a 1 year follow up (N = 71), and a mixed-methods process evaluation were conducted. Data were collected using questionnaires, interviews with employees and employers (N = 26), focus groups (N = 4) and logbooks. (2) A questionnaire containing the MAISE-Easy-items, proxy variables (health and vitality) and demographics was answered by 1223 employees from 7 organizations. Construct validity, reliability and criterion validity were tested through PCA, CFA, Cronbach’s alpha and correlations. Results: (1) A higher dose of HHR resulted in better job control and SE (n.s.). HHR had a positive impact on the awareness level of vitality and healthy workplaces of all stakeholders. (2) Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the MAISE-Easy were good, and MAISE-Easy 2.0 was constructed. This tool consists of 8 scales and 20 items divided over 4 areas: (1) Level of SE; (2) Factors affecting my SE; (3) Overall responsibility for SE; and (4) Responsibility for factors affecting my SE. Conclusions: MAISE-Easy 2.0 is a valuable, valid and reliable tool in HHR which serves as a needs assessment for SE interventions. The innovative participatory approach HHR can improve job control and SE of employees in low-skilled jobs by giving them an active voice. *doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11278-7 Key messages: • Healthy HR (HHR) is an effective, organisational dialogue-based approach (online toolkit) to promote job control, vitality and sustainable employability (SE) of employees in low-skilled jobs. • MAISE-Easy-2.0 (Maastricht Instrument for SE) is a new and thoroughly validated HHR tool for needs assessment, which measures SE and the responsibility for SE from the employee perspective.

Purpose: Little is known about whether burnout can be stopped at an emerging stage. To develop this knowledge, we focus on line managers’ perspectives and responses when an employee who seems to be heading for burnout is still at work. Methods: We interviewed 17 line managers working in the educational and health care sectors, who had been confronted with the sickness absence of at least one employee due to burnout in the past. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically. Results: During the period that the employee seemed to be developing burnout while still at work, line managers experienced three different, successive phases: picking up signals, role-taking, and re-evaluation. Line managers’ personal frame of reference (e.g., having experience with burnout) seemed to influence whether and how they picked up signals of burnout. Line managers not picking up signals, did not take any action. When picking up the signals, the managers however generally took an active role: they started a conversation, changed work tasks, and - at a later stage - adapted the employee’s job description, sometimes without consulting the employee. The managers felt powerless yet learned from the experience when subsequently re-evaluating the period during which employees developed symptoms of burnout. These re-evaluations resulted in an adapted personal frame of reference. Conclusion: This study shows that improving line managers’ frame of reference, e.g., by organizing meetings and/or training, may help them to detect early signals of burnout and take action. This is a first step to prevent the further development of early burnout symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Dutch legislation encourages active participation of employees in their return-to-work (RTW) process. Empowering leadership may support employees’ self-direction in this process (i.e. by allowing and enabling their involvement in decision-making). OBJECTIVE: Building upon a previous study, we aimed to study (1) how representatives of a university, i.e. an employer for employees with high levels of education (EH), manage RTW, (2) the similarities and differences between the RTW management of employers (or representatives thereof) of employees with low (EL) and high levels of education, and (3) the degree to which the employers’ roles resemble empowering leadership. METHODS: Qualitative methodology was applied. A thematic analysis of interview transcripts (rq1) was followed by a comparison of themes (rq2) and pattern matching (rq3). RESULTS: (1) EH tend to engage in dialogue and accommodate their employees as much as possible. (2) EL and EH showed several similarities, such as aiming to meet legal requirements on RTW management. Compared to EL, EH tend to focus more on facilitating employees. (3) Empowering leadership seems to be more common among EH. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to employees with low levels of education, those with high levels of education may be granted more opportunity to self-direct their RTW. The study results provide starting points for employers for employees with both low and high levels of education who aim to enable employees’ self-direction in RTW, and help them to develop empowering leadership styles.

BACKGROUND: To achieve adequate return to work (RTW) after sickness absence, Dutch legislation prescribes cooperation between absent employees and employers. Yet, we lack insight into how employees with low levels of education exercise influence over (i.e. self-direct) RTW. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to enhance our understanding of: (A) the role that employers play in the self-direction of employees with low levels of education over their RTW; (B) how employers perceive these employees’ efforts (or lack thereof) to self-direct their own RTW; and (C) how employers understand and interpret the behaviours of these employees. Social cognitive theory served as a framework. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted with 13 employer representatives using semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed in NVivo12 using a template approach. RESULTS: Employers tend to play a guiding, directive role in employees’ RTW. According to employers, employees generally comply with the employers’ decisions and suggestions, whether or not they have tried to realise their own preferences regarding mode and timing of RTW. Employers interpret such employee behaviours from the perspective of environmental (e.g. financial pressures to RTW) and person-related factors (e.g. sickness and RTW perceptions). CONCLUSIONS: Employers, rather than employees direct the employees’ RTW. Employers should give voice to employees and enable them to have more control over their RTW. Future research should acquire more insight in the employees’ perspective.

Background: Sustainable employability (SE) is important for work organizations. Recently, the MAastricht Instrument for Sustainable Employability (MAISE-NL) was developed and validated. This study describes the development and validation of an adapted version of the MAISE-NL, the MAISE-Easy, which can be used for employees in low-skilled jobs. Methods: The adaptation of the MAISE-NL was based on six focus groups with employees in low-skilled jobs in various sectors. The MAISE-Easy was distributed among employees in five organizations. The response rate (n = 1033) was 53%. Construct validity, reliability and criterion validity were analyzed by means of principal component analysis (PCA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach’s alpha and correlational analyses. Results: The MAISE-Easy included 17 scales divided over four main areas: (1) level of SE; (2) factors affecting SE; (3) overall responsibility for SE; (4) responsibility for factors affecting SE. Construct validity, reliability and criterion validity were adequate to good. Conclusions: The MAISE-Easy is a well-validated instrument for measuring SE among employees in low-skilled jobs in terms of the level of SE, factors affecting SE, responsibility for SE and responsibility for factors affecting SE. MAISE-Easy is recommended for both needs assessments and evaluation research in as yet underserved groups of low-skilled workers.

Governments and employers aim to promote sustainable employability (SE) in aging societies. In the Netherlands, an instrument for capturing the employee perspective on SE, the MAastricht Instrument for Sustainable Employability (MAISE-NL), has recently been developed. This study seeks to validate the Italian version of the MAISE (MAISE-IT). The MAISE-IT (a translated and culturally adapted version of the MAISE for the Italian population), the Work-Health Balance questionnaire and a demographic survey (age, gender, education, and occupational activity) were completed online by 455 respondents (328 public administration workers and 127 respondents recruited from social networks). Construct and criterion validity were tested by CFA; reliability, correlational analyses and subgroup differences with ANOVAs. The CFA analysis revealed that the MAISE-IT consists of 12 scales distributed in four areas: (1) Meaning of SE; (2) Level and Factors affecting SE; (3) Overall responsibility for SE; and (4) Responsibility for factors affecting SE. Construct and criterion validity and reliability were good. Italian workers reported a moderately high level of SE. They regarded employers to be somewhat more responsible for SE than employees. This study showed the validity of the MAISE-IT in the Italian context. The MAISE-IT is valuable for tapping employees’ needs in order to develop SE interventions tailored to the employee perspective.