Health-Promoting Leadership. The Influence of Leaders on Employee Health

Table of contents

Summary

List of figures

1. Introduction

2. Introduction and overview of health-promoting leadership
2.1. Current state of research
2.2. Health
2.3. Leadership
2.4. Theoretical foundations
2.4.1. The emergence – socio-technical system approaches
2.4.2. The "Health-oriented Leadership" concept according to Franke & Felfe
2.4.3. The four-level model according to Spieß & Stadler
2.5. Limit

3. Root cause analysis of the situation description
3.1. Absenteeism
3.1.1. Definition of terms
3.1.2. Consequences of absenteeism
3.1.3. Causes of absenteeism
3.2. Influence of the manager
3.2.1. Direct influence
3.2.2. Indirect influence

4. Recommendations for action and practical transfer
4.1. Determination of the current situation
4.2. Concrete measures
4.2.1. Coaching – Change in leadership behavior
4.2.2. Employee appraisal
4.2.3. Change in the working environment and the organization of tasks

5. Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendix:
Annex A: Checklists
Annex B: Interview Guide Employee Appraisal Interview

Summary

The present work deals with the question of the extent to which the concept of health-promoting leadership is suitable for reducing absenteeism of one's own employees. Despite the relatively young field of research and the factors, some of which are examined one-sidedly, the available results read promisingly.

To answer the key question, an overview of the current state of research is first given. Subsequently, the relevant terms "health" and "leadership" are narrowed down. After a short retrospective on the history of health-promoting leadership using socio-technical system approaches, two instruments – the "Health-oriented Leadership" concept of Franke & Felfe and the four-level model of Spieß & Stadler – will also be presented.

Although the focus of the remarks is on the potential of the health-promoting leadership approach, a critical appreciation should also show its limits; after all, the effects of management components on the health of employees have not been researched for very long.

The subsequent situation analysis of a case study shows on the one hand possible effects of absenteeism for companies as well as their potential causes. On the other hand, it describes the ways in which a manager can exert direct or indirect influence on his employees, or their health.

Based on this, recommendations for action for managers, which can also be used beyond the purpose of reducing absenteeism, provide an idea of the practical applicability of health-promoting leadership.

List of figures

Fig. 2.1: Effects of leadership behaviour

Fig. 2.2: The four-level model of leadership

Fig. 3.1: Development of days of incapacity for work due to psychological Diagnoses in Germany

Fig. 4.1: Options for action of the manager

Fig. 4.2: Guidelines for preparing for an employee appraisal

1. Introduction

"Employees do not leave the company, but their superiors." (Knoblauch, 2013, p. 46)

This statement gives an idea of the influence that executives have¹ nowadays, for example, on the job satisfaction or the well-being of their employees. However, the response from employees is now coming back much faster than it did a few decades ago.

The continuous and ever faster changes in markets – due to globalization or innovation – as well as demographic change are forcing companies to adapt to their environment in order to remain competitive.

The managers of these companies no longer "only" have to push themselves and their employees to a good work result under the protection of the office or the production hall. Now, in the digital age, their tasks are much more complex than they were in the days of industrialization: They must also be available outside working hours, they should be mobile, flexible, motivating, supportive and, above all, a positive role model for their employees.

However, the high and continuously growing demands are passed on to the employees – consciously or unconsciously – and must be implemented by them in the best possible way in order to ensure the company's success.

This inevitably leads to increased time and performance pressure, to which employees are exposed and perceive as stress.

This often results in illness-related or motivational downtimes that cause companies high costs (cf. Meyer & Meschede, 2016; DAK, 2017). The steadily increasing cases of mental illness, such as depression or burn-out symptoms as potential consequences of stress, illustrate the explosive nature of this topic (cf. Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2017).

In order to avoid downtime costs and to ensure the productivity, performance and willingness of employees, managers must therefore be able to take care of both their own well-being and that of their employees.

The approach of health-promoting leadership assumes that direct superiors can influence health-relevant behavior in their department with the help of various leadership components (leadership style, behavior, etc.).

Only in recent years has research on the effects of leadership behavior on the health of employees been gradually intensified. Among other things, correlations between positive management aspects and good health of employees have been demonstrated several times (see, for example, Skakon et al., 2010; Franke & Felfe, 2011, p. 4; Gregersen et al., 2011).

The extent to which the approach of health-promoting leadership can also be used to reduce absenteeism will be determined on the following pages.

2. Introduction and overview of health-promoting leadership

In order to introduce the concept, the relevance of the topic is first clarified by means of current research findings. After defining the terms, the development over the last decades is discussed in order to finally shed light on the cornerstones of the concept.

2.1. Current state of research

An overview of the relationships between various leadership dimensions with different health effects is provided, among other things. Gregersen et al. (2010) or Skakon et al. (2010). The various research papers mainly shed light on positive leadership behavior (e.B. social support) as well as positive leadership styles and concepts (e.B. transformational or employee-oriented leadership). These show positive effects on health and result in less stress or health complaints (Franke & Felfe, 2011, p. 4).

Thus, the transformational leadership approach – as well as social support or task and employee orientation – correlates with mental health and job satisfaction in all studies considered (Gregersen et al., 2011, p. 6).

Some research focused on negative supervisor behavior such as offensive comments to employees, disagreements, etc. Stressors had a negative effect on job satisfaction and [...] State of health of the employees. They can also lead to an increase in absenteeism [...]." (Gregersen et al. 2011, p. 8).

2.2. Health

The concept of health is not uniformly defined, as it can be interpreted differently depending on the person, his environment and the age.

An approach succeeds via the original definition of the WHO²: "Health is a State of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not just the absence of illness or infirmity." (World Health Organisation, 1946).

Both the WHO and many researchers expanded this definition due to the complexity of the concept of health in recent decades, although even the early formulation takes into account the psyche and the social environment in addition to the purely physical aspect.

2.3. Leadership

"Leadership" is also defined differently depending on the context.

"Leadership means [...] To recognize and promote talents, strengths and resources" and to provide support to employees (Holzer, 2013, p. 191).

Spieß & Stadler (2007) once again reproduce the most common definition of the local leadership literature: "Accordingly, leadership is understood as a goal-oriented influence that takes place communicatively and in interaction with the structures of the organization, personality traits of the person and situational aspects." (Spieß & Stadler, 2007, p. 259).

Due to the proven connections between leadership facets and health, it must be the task of the manager to ensure the preservation of his own and also the employee's health (cf. e.g. Spieß & Stadler, 2007; Franke & Felfe, 2011; Rudow, 2014).

Leadership can affect different areas of working life that have a significant impact on employee well-being. These factors – e.g. Leadership and health – are related to each other and influence each other (Fig. 2.1.).

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.1. Effects of leadership behaviour (figure modified from Rudow, 2014, p. 324, own presentation)

2.4. Theoretical foundations

2.4.1. The emergence – socio-technical system approaches

The concept of health-promoting leadership has become increasingly important in recent decades.

Prior to this, studies mainly focused on performance and productivity as a desirable result of effective leadership behavior.

Until the end of the last century, humans were seen more as a disruptive factor in production and should be substituted by machines (Beck et al., 1996, p. 16).

In contrast to technical-economic concepts such as Taylorism, there were also approaches to the humanization of labor, in which productions were understood as social systems. The researchers Fred Emery and Eric Trist developed the holistic approach of socio-technical systems in the early 50s, which represented a middle way to the previous, very contrary concepts. (cf. Freimuth & Freimuth, 2017; Semmer & Udris, 2007). Here, people, technology and organization are seen in symbiotic relationship to each other.

The image of the employee changed and the individual was increasingly regarded as at least an equivalent production factor, whose health has a significant impact on the company's success and is considered worthy of protection. As a result, different approaches to health-promoting leadership have emerged in recent decades.

2.4.2. The "Health-oriented Leadership" concept according to Franke & Felfe

"Health-oriented Leadership" (HoL) is a current approach that builds on the transformational leadership concept of Franke & Felfe and tries to capture health-promoting leadership by means of the following four components:

1) Health-oriented leadership behavior (behavior)

The instrument considers the health-related self-management of the manager as well as the health-promoting employee management and relates these two aspects – with regard to the role model function – to each other (Franke & Felfe, 2011, p. 5). The different levels of influence are presented in Chapter 3.

2) Health-related mindfulness

The sooner a manager is willing to consciously deal with his own health or health risks (self-care) and perceive changes, the sooner he will act health-consciously and the more likely he is to be attentive to the health of the employees (StaffCare), which has a positive effect on them (cf. Franke, Felfe, & Pundt, 2014).

3) Health-related self-efficacy

The probability that a manager will exhibit health-promoting behavior increases if he knows appropriate measures and behaviors and dares to use them (Franke & Felfe, 2011, p. 6).

4) Health valence (health-related attitudes and value orientation)

Health should take on a relatively high priority so that the manager is prepared to make health-promoting behavioral optimizations at all (Franke & Felfe, 2011, p. 6).

The items for recording health-relevant management aspects are specifically formulated and enable very concrete recommendations for action. Not only direct interactions between the employee and the supervisor are taken into account, but also indirect factors such as a health-promoting workplace design (Franke & Felfe, 2011, p. 6).

2.4.3. The four-level model according to Spieß & Stadler

'With the term Health-promoting leadership refers to the totality of leadership techniques, styles and behaviors that are reflected in the well-being and the Bless you of employees and thus form the central prerequisite for efficient and those willing to perform" (Spieß & Stadler, 2007, p. 258).

Spieß & Stadler (2007, p. 258 ff.) describe in their four-level model in Figure 2.2. the essential dimensions of health-promoting leadership and their implementation possibilities in practice.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2.2. The four-level model of leadership (illustration modified from Spieß & Stadler, 2007, p. 258, own presentation)

Goal- and task-oriented leadership (1) forms the cornerstone. This elementary management task is consistently geared to the employee and includes the cycle of objectives, implementation and control.

Employee-oriented leadership (2) focuses the employee with his needs, who must be motivated, involved and promoted. The manager acts as a role model here and should above all offer social support.

When designing work and organizational processes (3), the supervisor should ensure that the framework conditions of the working environment are designed to promote health (e.B ergonomic workplace design, transparent decision-making processes, etc.).

Ultimately, the goal is to create a health-promoting leadership and corporate culture (4), to internalize the corresponding behavior operationally and to anchor it strategically in the company.

2.5. Limit

In addition to their organizational tasks, managers are responsible for both their own health and that of their employees. However, if superiors are destructive with their health, this can have a negative impact on the well-being of employees, as the role model function also extends to negative leadership behavior.

The motivational ability of the manager also decreases if the authenticity is missing. If, for example, the manager behaves contrary to his own instructions, he becomes implausible. In addition, health-promoting leadership only works if there is a basis of trust. This is a prerequisite for employees to open up in conversation and to recognize early warning signs of excessive demands.

It is also important that companies create appropriate framework conditions so that managers can use the health-relevant potential of their employees (cf.B. Franke & Felfe, 2011; Elprana, Felfe, & Franke, 2016).

Lack of time or a tense economic situation can also mean that health-promoting management measures do not enjoy top priority in day-to-day business (Ducki & Felfe, 2011, p. xii)

3. Root cause analysis of the situation description

This chapter will explore the question of what consequences absenteeism has, what could have led to absenteeism and how a manager can counteract absenteeism.

3.1. Absenteeism

3.1.1. Definition of terms

In order to interpret the situation correctly, it makes sense to distinguish between the terms "absenteeism" and "sick leave". Sick leave refers to "absence from work due to a physical or mental condition that requires treatment or leads to incapacity for work" (Rudow, 2014, p. 357).

Absenteeism, on the other hand, implies sick days and, in addition, a absence without a certificate of incapacity for work. Especially in the case of motivation-related absence, the so-called absenteeism, the intervention of the direct superior is necessary, since this type of absence can be a sign of an unsatisfactory work situation (Brandenburg & Nieder, 2003, p. 37).

3.1.2. Consequences of absenteeism

In 2015, 1.6 million years of employment were spent in Germany solely due to incapacity for work. The multiplication by the average compensation of employees resulted in a loss of production of 64 billion euros. If the added value of work (gross value added) is taken into effect, a loss of 133 billion euros was incurred (Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2017, p. 1).

In addition to direct costs, the consequences for companies are also indirect in nature such as loss of image, weakening of competitiveness, declining morale or high fluctuation (Rudow, 2014, p. 355).

3.1.3. Causes of absenteeism

A high absenteeism rate can be an indicator of a permanently heavy strain on employees (Spieß & Stadler, 2002, p. 12). Studies have also shown that managers tend to transfer their own stress to their employees (Skakon et al., 2010, p. 131). This stress can lead to physical and mental impairments, which then manifest themselves in days of incapacity for work.

"Mental illness is on the rise as a cause of absenteeism among workers and is usually associated with longer downtime than physical illness." (Kauffeld & Hoppe, Arbeit und Gesundheit, 2014, p. 242).

[...]

---

¹ hint: For reasons of better readability, only the male form is used in the present work. The remarks refer equally to the male and female sex.

² World Health Organization: World Health Organization (WHO)