Psychological health and safety in the Canadian Defence Team

Alla Skomorovsky; Justin Chamberland; Nadine Charanek

doi:10.3138/jmvfh-2024-0043

. 2025 Apr 24;11(2):65–83. doi: 10.3138/jmvfh-2024-0043

Show available content in

Psychological health and safety in the Canadian Defence Team

Alla Skomorovsky ^a, Justin Chamberland ^a, Nadine Charanek ^a

PMCID: PMC13292986 PMID: 42533966

Abstract

Introduction:

Canada’s defence policy, Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence, aims to ensure its Defence Team (DT) personnel’s needs are met. Various Department of National Defence (DND) and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) strategies focus on enhancing personnel well-being and organizational culture. This study assessed perceptions and experiences related to psychological health, organizational culture, and retention among DT personnel. The goal was to explore relationships between workplace factors and outcomes among Regular Force (Reg F) CAF members, Primary Reserve (P Res) CAF members, and DND public service (PS) personnel, and to determine whether associations between certain workplace factors and outcomes of interest differed across the three groups.

Methods:

An online survey was administered to stratified random samples from each component in the spring or summer of 2022. The final sample included 4,463 Reg F members, 1,318 P Res members, and 2,866 DND PS personnel.

Results:

Despite moderate morale, burnout, psychological distress, and affective commitment to the CAF/DND, DT personnel are generally satisfied, engaged, and not planning to leave within the next 12 months. Several workplace factors, particularly pride in organizational membership and perceptions of organizational support, were associated with outcomes of interest among all groups. Meaningful work was a key driver only among CAF members. The strength of associations between workplace factors and outcomes of interest varied across components.

Discussion:

These results aim to help CAF/DND leadership foster DT personnel’s well-being and improve the organizational culture, with tailored recommendations that address the specific needs of each component.

Key words: Canadian Armed Forces, group climate, healthy work environment, military personnel, perceived organizational support, psychological distress, psychological well-being, team psychological safety, transformational leadership

Lay Summary

This study assessed attitudes, perceptions, and experiences related to psychological health, organizational culture, and retention among Defence Team (DT) personnel. The goal was to explore relationships between workplace factors and outcomes among Regular Force (Reg F) CAF members, Primary Reserve (P Res) CAF members, and DND Public Service (PS) personnel, and to determine whether associations between certain workplace factors and outcomes of interest differed across the three groups. The results aim to help the leadership foster DT personnel’s well-being and improve the organizational culture, with tailored recommendations that address the specific needs of each component.

Abstract

Introduction:

La politique de défense du Canada, Notre Nord, fort et libre : Une vision renouvelée pour la défense du Canada, vise à garantir le respect des besoins du personnel de l’Équipe de Défense (ÉD). Diverses stratégies du ministère de la Défense nationale (MDN) et des Forces armées canadiennes (FAC) visent à améliorer le bien-être du personnel et la culture organisationnelle. Cette étude a évalué les perceptions et les expériences liées à la santé psychologique, la culture organisationnelle et la rétention au sein du personnel de l’ÉD. Elle visait à explorer les relations entre les facteurs en milieu de travail et les résultats chez les membres de la Force régulière (F rég) des FAC, les membres de la Première réserve (P rés) des FAC et le personnel de la fonction publique (FP) des FAC, ainsi qu’à déterminer si les associations entre certains facteurs en milieu de travail et les résultats d’intérêt différaient entre les trois groupes.

Méthodologie :

Un sondage en ligne a été distribué à des échantillons randomisés stratifiés de chaque volet au printemps ou pendant l’été 2022. L’échantillon définitif incluait 4 463 membres de la F rég, 1 318 membres de la P rés et 2 866 membres du personnel de la FP du MDN.

Résultats :

Malgré un moral modéré, l’épuisement professionnel, la détresse psychologique et l’engagement affectif envers les FAC et le MDN, le personnel de l’ÉD est généralement satisfait, engagé et ne planifie pas de partir avant les 12 prochains mois. Plusieurs facteurs en milieu de travail, notamment la fierté envers l’adhésion organisationnelle et les perceptions de soutien organisationnel, ont été associés aux résultats d’intérêt entre tous les groupes. Un travail intéressant était un facteur déterminant seulement chez les membres des FAC. La force d’association entre les facteurs en milieu de travail et les résultats d’intérêt variait entre les éléments.

Discussion :

Ces résultats visent à aider la direction des FAC et du MDN à se concentrer sur le bien-être du personnel de l’ÉD et à améliorer la culture organisationnelle, grâce à des recommandations personnalisées qui traitent à l’aide de besoins spécifiques de chaque élément.

Mots-clés : bien-être psychologique, climat de groupe, détresse psychologique, environnement de travail sain, Forces armées canadiennes, leadership transformationnel, personnel militaire, sécurité psychologique de l’équipe, soutien organisationnel perçu

Psychological health and safety in the Canadian Defence Team

According to Canada’s defence policy, Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence, the CAF/DND’s first priority must be its people and their well-being.¹ Consistent with this, various strategies have been implemented, such as the CAF Human Resources Strategy² and the Defence Team (DT) Total Health and Wellness Strategy,³ to ensure the well-being of the DT. Recognizing that an organization’s most valuable resource is its human resource,⁴ fostering employee well-being not only encourages motivation and creativity but also bolsters long-term retention.^5–11 Failing to prioritize employee well-being can result in decreased morale, increased absenteeism, and higher turnover rates, ultimately hindering organizational success and reputation.^11–13 Among military members, neglecting well-being can also contribute to decreased unit cohesion, impaired operational effectiveness, and heightened risks of mental health issues.^14–17 Therefore, this article aims to examine personnel attitudes, perceptions, and experiences related to well-being in the Canadian DT.

The National Standard on Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace

The National Standard on Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace (hereafter the Standard) highlights the necessity for organizations to proactively monitor and improve the well-being of their workforce.¹⁸ The Standard outlines 13 workplace aspects (i.e., domains) for an organization to evaluate in order to identify potential hazards to the psychological health and safety of their workforce. These domains are balance, civility and respect, clear leadership and expectations, engagement, growth and development, involvement and influence, organizational culture, protection of physical safety, psychological and social support, psychological competency and requirements, psychological protection, recognition and rewards, and workload management. Improvements in these domains can lead to positive outcomes such as enhanced job satisfaction and decreased psychological distress as well as enhanced productivity and lower turnover rates.^15,18 Addressing these domains holistically is crucial for fostering a healthy and resilient workforce and maintaining the well-being of the personnel.

The application of the Standard in defence research¹⁹ highlights the connection between workplace domains¹⁸ and outcomes of interest.¹⁹ This model provided an evidence-based framework that served as the foundation for the 2018 Defence Workplace Well-Being Survey, uncovering several key drivers of psychological health and safety among DT personnel.¹⁵ For instance, lower levels of meaningful work and relatedness, along with higher levels of job stress, were the strongest predictors of lower psychological health and increased psychological distress in DT personnel.¹⁵ The information derived from the 2018 survey has informed targeted interventions.

In line with the Standard’s recommendation to proactively monitor personnel psychological health and safety, the current study sought to reassess the workplace domains contributing to the well-being of DT personnel. This was particularly important considering the tumultuous context in which the study was conducted; specifically, the CAF was enacting new directives and policies in response to the COVID-2019 pandemic (e.g., vaccine mandates and return-to-work initiatives), responding to serious sexual misconduct accusations, and responding to Russia’s attack on Ukraine.^20–23 Each of these events may affect the perceptions and needs of DT personnel. Further, although previous research using the Standard’s model has provided insight into the workplace factors contributing to the well-being of DT personnel,¹⁵ it did not examine differences across components.

Examining the differences across components is crucial given that the DT comprises a diverse workforce including Regular Force (Reg F) and Primary Reserve (P Res) Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members, as well as Department of National Defence (DND) Public Service (PS) personnel. DND and CAF members have fundamentally different responsibilities,²⁴ and Reg F and P Res members experience unique challenges.²⁵ Specifically, civilian personnel are mostly involved in the more bureaucratic and civilian-oriented culture of National Defence Headquarters, while Reg F members’ well-being may be more affected by their experiences during deployments and relocations.²⁶ Conversely, most P Res members face a unique trio of responsibilities — family, military duties, and civilian employment — creating significant pressures as they juggle these competing demands.²⁷ As a result of these varying cultural and organizational contexts, differences are expected between components across the 13 Standard domains associated with psychological health and safety. Therefore, the current exploration of component differences is crucial to providing more tailored interventions, ensuring operational effectiveness, and enhancing reconstitution efforts.²⁸

The current study

The aims of the study were twofold: 1) to compare the state of psychological health and safety of DT personnel across components (Reg F, P Res, and DND PS) by examining the workplace factors identified within the 13 Standard domains and 2) to identify which workplace factors are most strongly associated with promoting good psychological health and safety (i.e., the key drivers) across the 13 Standard domains. Consistent with previous research, we expected that workplace factors across the 13 Standard domains would be associated with the outcomes of interest, namely job satisfaction, job engagement, burnout, morale, psychological distress, affective commitment, and turnover intention. Although psychological health and safety is anticipated to vary across components because of the unique work obligations and organizational contexts of each component, previous research has not explicitly identified the key drivers specific to components. Consequently, this study employs an exploratory approach to assess the workplace factors associated with psychological health and safety among three components (Reg F, P Res, and DND PS), as it is the first comprehensive assessment of these component differences. By uncovering these foundational insights, we aim to provide a data-driven basis for future research and interventions tailored for each component.

Methods

Procedure and participants

A stratified random sample was selected from a sampling frame of DT personnel, with distinct strata for Reg F members, P Res members, and DND PS personnel (see Chamberland et al.²⁹ for details). The sampling frame excluded DT personnel with less than one year of service, on deployment or foreign exchange posting, included on the Basic Training List or Supplementary Training List, or commencing maternity or parental leave after May 30, 2021. This study was approved by the Social Science Research Review Board (SSRRB).

The Your Say Matters: Defence Team Well-Being Survey was administered to DT personnel by email and completed online in their official language of choice (English or French). The survey was available to CAF members (i.e., Reg F and P Res members) between March and May 2022, and to DND PS personnel between May and June 2022. After data cleaning, there was a final stratified sample comprising 4,463 Reg F members (response rate of 30.9%), 1,318 P Res members (response rate of 18.0%), and 2,866 DND PS personnel (response rate of 30.3%).

Measures

A list of the constructs measured in the current study are included in Table 2, including a variety of workplace factors associated with the 13 Standard domains and outcomes of interest (see Appendix for more details regarding the measures). The outcomes selected for this study were based on prior literature;¹⁵ affective commitment was added to this list of outcomes of interest owing to its relevance to CAF reconstitution efforts.

Table 2.

Constructs measured in the YSM organized by the standard domains

YSM measured constructs

Domains in the national standard of Canada for psychological health and safety in the workplace

Balance

Civility and respect

Clear leadership and expectations

Engagement

Growth and development

Involvement and influence

Organizational culture

Protection and physical safety

Psychological and social support

Psychological competencies and requirements

Psychological protection

Recognition and reward

Workload management

Life-work conflict

Distributive justice

Organizational leadership

Meaningful work

Career and occupational training

Flexible work arrangements

Masculinity contest culture

Physical risk

Perceived Organizational support

Person-job fit

Ethical culture

Contingent reward

Perceived job stress

Work-life conflict

Micro-aggressive behaviours

Role ambiguity

Organizational identity

Career management

Job control

Organizational group climate

Supervisor safety actions

Relatedness

Person-organization fit

Team psych. Safety

Pay and benefits

Role overload

Organizational diversity and inclusion

Role conflict

Pride in organizational membership

Career progression

Perceived impact

Support for family

Toxic leadership

Organizational policies are equally fair

Transformational leadership

Feedback

Procedural justice

Second language training

Supervisor interpersonal justice

Open in a new tab

Outcomes of interest: affective commitment, burnout, job engagement, job satisfaction, morale, psychological distress, turnover intentions.

Table 1.

Basic demographic characteristics of survey respondents

	Percentage of respondents
	Regular Force CAF	Primary Reserve CAF	DND Public service personnel
Gender
Men	70.0	69.0	47.4
Women	27.5	29.0	50.2
Other	2.6	2.9	2.3
Age, y
≥24	3.2	4.3	0.4
25–34	28.2	20.1	7.0
35–44	36.5	23.9	19.8
45–54	26.2	31.1	31.7
≤55	5.9	20.7	35.4
First official language^*
English	76.4	75.5	75.0
French	23.6	24.5	25.0

Open in a new tab

Note: The gender differences for the “Other” category include both gender-diverse individuals and those who preferred not to disclose their gender. These groups were combined because of to small sample sizes, which could otherwise risk making the participants identifiable.

CAF = Canadian Armed Forces; DND = Department of National Defence.

^*Language of choice for survey completion from Canada’s official languages.

Statistical analyses

Survey data were analyzed using IBM’s Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL), specifically employing the Complex Samples module. Complex samples general linear models were computed to investigate mean differences across DT components. Statistically significant differences among pairs of groups are indicated in Table 3 using symbols. In accordance with prior literature,³⁰ significant differences were only interpreted as having practical implications when the effect size exceeded the minimum threshold (i.e., R² ≥ 0.04). However, as authors caution against strict adherence to thresholds,^30,31 notable trends were identified when the effect size was approaching the threshold (i.e., 0.04 > R² ≥ 0.03).

Table 3.

Defence Team component comparisons

		Reg F [A]		P Res [B]		DND PS [C]
Factor	Range	Mean (95% CI)	n	Mean (95% CI)	n	Mean (95% CI)	n	Adj. F	p	R ²
Outcomes of interest
Job satisfaction	1–5	3.47BC (3.42, 3.53]	4,472	3.88A (3.70, 4.06]	1,320	3.97A (3.93, 4.02]	2,788	25.40	< .001	.050
Job engagement	1–5	3.85BC (3.82, 3.89]	4,379	4.03A (3.91, 4.15]	1,292	4.06A (4.03, 4.09]	2,755	10.21	< .001	.019
Affective commitment	1–6	3.56BC (3.50, 3.62)	4,474	4.24AC (3.98, 4.50)	1,320	3.91AB (3.86, 3.96)	2,879	22.14	< .001	.051
Morale	1–5	2.77C (2.71, 2.83)	4,240	2.98 (2.77, 3.20)	1,268	3.02A (2.97, 3.07)	2,687	5.27	.016	.012
Psychological distress	10–50	21.63C (21.14, 22.12)	4,274	19.72 (17.90, 21.54)	1,272	18.99A (18.61, 19.37)	2,695	7.12	.005	.017
Burnout	1–4	2.54BC (2.51, 2.58)	4,237	2.34A (2.19, 2.50)	1,268	2.29A (2.26, 2.32)	2,682	11.14	< .001	.028
Turnover intentions	1–5	2.59BC (2.53, 2.66)	3,982	2.18A (1.93, 2.43)	1,156	2.34A (2.29, 2.40)	2,658	8.85	.002	.024
Balance
Life-work conflict	1–7	2.80C (2.72, 2.87)	4,457	3.01C (2.69, 3.34)	1,321	2.26AB (2.19, 2.32)	2,785	14.94	< .001	.033
Work-life conflict	1–7	4.43C (4.35, 4.52)	4,463	4.14C (3.78, 4.50)	1,321	2.90AB (2.82, 2.97)	2,791	61.68	< .001	.117
Civility and respect
Microaggressive behaviours	1–7	2.47 (2.40–2.53)	4,468	2.43 (2.15–2.71)	1,319	2.39 (2.34–2.45)	2,866	0.25	0.654	< .001
Organizational diversity and inclusion	1–5	3.31 (3.27–3.36)	4,475	3.42 (3.22–3.62)	1,322	3.36 (3.32–3.40)	2,881	1.00	0.332	.002
Organizational policies are equally fair	1–7	3.20 (3.14–3.26)	4,472	3.21 (2.94–3.48)	1,319	3.27 (3.22–3.32)	2,875	0.32	0.608	< .001
Distributive justice	1–7	3.75C (3.65–3.84)	4,480	4.18 (3.78–4.58)	1,318	4.10A (4.01–4.18)	2,882	4.71	0.024	.011
Procedural justice	1–7	3.81C (3.72–3.90)	4,470	4.31 (3.91–4.70)	1,316	4.00A (3.92–4.08)	2,867	4.90	0.022	.012
Supervisor interpersonal justice	1–5	4.10 (4.05–4.16)	4,475	4.23 (4.05–4.40)	1,316	4.20 (4.16–4.24)	2,880	1.73	0.188	.003
Clear leadership and expectations
Org. leadership	1–7	3.18C (3.12–3.25)	4,463	3.27C (3.03–3.51)	1,319	3.55AB (3.49–3.60)	2,863	7.34	0.004	.015
Role ambiguity	1–5	2.10C (2.05–2.15)	4,469	2.14 (1.92–2.36)	1,318	1.83A (1.79–1.87)	2,813	6.56	0.007	.016
Role conflict	1–5	2.43C (2.38–2.48)	4,431	2.44 (2.18–2.69)	1,315	2.16A (2.12–2.20)	2,790	4.95	0.022	.013
Transformational leadership	1–5	3.65 (3.60–3.70)	4,477	3.66 (3.47–3.85)	1,320	3.63 (3.59–3.67)	2,880	0.04	0.880	< .001
Engagement
Meaningful work	1–5	3.57C (3.52–3.63)	4,379	3.86 (3.62–4.10)	1,291	4.09A (4.05–4.13)	2,754	18.13	< 0.001	.047
Org. identity	1–6	4.05B (3.97–4.13)	4,468	4.84AC (4.61–5.07)	1,321	3.93B (3.86–3.99)	2,876	40.98	< 0.001	.053
Pride in organizational membership	1–5	3.65BC (3.59–3.71)	4,370	4.07A (3.79–4.35)	1,289	3.96A (3.91–4.00)	2,749	8.84	0.002	.027
Growth and development
Career progression	1–6	3.49C (3.42–3.55)	3,938	3.80 (3.49–4.11)	1,151	3.89A (3.82–3.95)	2,549	6.71	0.007	.023
Career management^*	1–6	3.51 (3.44–3.57)	3,906	3.57 (3.33–3.81)	1,018	-	-	0.27	0.604	< .001
Feedback	1–5	3.40C (3.34–3.45)	4,464	3.58 (3.35–3.81)	1,318	3.65A (3.61–3.69)	2,810	4.68	0.025	.013
Career and occupational training^*	1–6	3.47 (3.41–3.53)	4,135	3.63 (3.37–3.90)	1,204	-	-	1.39	0.239	.004
Ease of accessing training opportunities	1–6	3.64C (3.56–3.71)	4,089	3.68 (3.33–4.04)	1,206	3.94A (3.86–4.01)	2,573	2.33	0.122	.007
Second language training	1–6	3.67 (3.56–3.77)	2,065	3.48 (2.46–4.49)	445	3.69 (3.57–3.80)	1,179	0.13	0.736	.002
Involvement and influence
Flexible work arrangements	1–7	4.78C (4.69–4.86)	4,433	5.20 (4.79–5.60)	1,313	5.55A (5.47–5.63)	2,638	11.93	< 0.001	.033
Job control	1–5	3.51 (3.46–3.56)	4,467	3.64 (3.40–3.88)	1,316	3.62 (3.58–3.67)	2,805	1.27	0.265	.004
Perceived impact	1–5	2.11C (2.06–2.15)	4,376	2.32 (2.07–2.58)	1,291	2.36A (2.32–2.40)	2,754	4.96	0.022	.014
Organizational culture
Masculinity contest culture	1–5	2.32C (2.27–2.38)	4,473	2.16C (2.00–2.31)	1,322	1.80AB (1.76–1.83)	2,876	38.23	< 0.001	0.052
Org. group climate	1–5	2.99 (2.94–3.03)	4,469	3.21 (3.02–3.41)	1,321	3.10 (3.06–3.15)	2,871	4.43	0.029	.011
Protection of physical safety
Physical risk	1–5	2.30BC (2.25–2.35)	4,459	1.99AC (1.82–2.16)	1,317	1.74AB (1.70–1.77)	2,803	31.30	< 0.001	0.058
Supervisor safety actions	1–5	3.62C (3.57–3.66)	3,579	3.58 (3.40–3.75)	1,034	3.43A (3.40–3.47)	2,296	3.64	0.048	0.009
Psychological and social support
Perceived organizational support	1–5	3.93C (3.87–4.00)	4,477	4.26 (3.89–4.62)	1,321	4.42A (4.37–4.48)	2,884	8.07	0.003	0.024
Relatedness	1–5	3.54BC (3.50–3.58)	4,473	3.83AC (3.65–4.00)	1,312	3.61AB (3.57–3.65)	2,876	8.45	0.002	0.018
Support for family^*	1–5	3.74 (3.66–3.82)	3,256	3.99 (3.74–4.23)	815	-	-	3.39	0.066	0.007
Psychological competencies and requirements
Person-job fit	1–6	4.19C (4.12–4.25)	4,470	4.43 (4.14–4.71)	1,320	4.65A (4.60–4.70)	2,880	9.94	< 0.001	0.027
Person-organization fit	1–6	4.19BC (4.14–4.25)	4,466	4.56A (4.27–4.84)	1,318	4.40A (4.35–4.44)	2,867	5.81	0.013	0.019
Psychological protection
Ethical culture	1–6	4.32C (4.26–4.37)	4,473	4.44C (4.26–4.63)	1,321	4.14AB (4.09–4.18)	2,876	5.83	0.010	0.009
Team psychcological safety	1–7	5.08C (5.02–5.14)	4,472	5.27 (5.08–5.46)	1,313	5.29A (5.23–5.34)	2,868	4.73	0.021	0.007
Toxic leadership	1–5	2.19 (2.14–2.23)	4,476	2.16 (1.99–2.34)	1,321	2.09 (2.05–2.12)	2,882	1.08	0.310	0.002
Recognition and reward
Contingent reward	1–6	3.42 (3.36–3.48)	4,309	3.48 (3.21–3.74)	1,280	3.68 (3.63–3.73)	2,723	3.26	0.064	0.008
Pay and benefits	1–6	4.34C (4.29–4.39)	4,301	4.10C (3.86–4.35)	1,238	4.47AB (4.42–4.52)	2,708	5.33	0.016	0.014
Workload management
Perceived job stress	1–5	3.09C (3.04–3.14)	4,474	3.07 (2.86–3.29)	1,320	2.85AB (2.81–2.90)	2,815	4.15	0.036	0.010
Role overload	1–5	3.43C (3.37–3.48)	4,474	3.50C (3.32–3.68)	1,320	3.22AB (3.17–3.26)	2,816	6.22	0.008	0.012

Open in a new tab

Note: F-tests were evaluated at an alpha of .05. Follow-up contrasts were evaluated at the Bonferroni-corrected alpha of 0.0167. Green was used to highlight the group comparisons with practical significance (R² ≥ 0.04), and blue was used to highlight the group comparisons approaching practical significance (0.04 > R² ≥ 0.03).

^*Only presented to CAF members.

Next, bivariate, unweighted, zero-order correlations were conducted separately for all components to quantify relationships between workplace factors and outcomes of interest. To gain insight into the workplace factors most strongly associated with the outcomes of interest, the strength of the associations were interpreted — magnitudes between 0.10 and 0.29 were interpreted as small, between 0.30 and 0.49 as medium, and greater than 0.50 and as large.^32,33 A workplace factor was only deemed a driver of a specific outcome if there was a strong association (i.e., |r| ≥ 0.50). Further, for all workplace factors, the average absolute correlation magnitude ( $| \bar{r} |$ ) was computed across the outcomes of interest to determine the general strength of the association between the workplace factor and all the outcomes of interest. A workplace factor was then deemed a key driver of the outcomes of interest if it had a large effect size overall (i.e., $| \bar{r} | \geq 0.50$ ) or was a driver of at least half of the seven outcomes of interest.

Finally, whenever a workplace factor and an outcome of interest had a strong correlation (|r| ≥ 0.50) among at least one component, but not all components, z-tests were conducted with Fisher’s z-transformed correlation coefficients to compare the magnitudes across components in order to identify which factors were more important for each of the outcomes of interest.

Results

Psychological health and safety across components

Analyses were conducted to compare the psychological health and safety across components (see Table 3).¹ CAF members (i.e., Reg F and P Res members) reported higher levels of work-life conflict, masculinity contest culture, and physical risk compared to DND PS personnel; Reg F members further reported higher levels of physical risk compared to P Res members. Reg F members also reported lower perceptions of meaningful work compared to DND PS personnel, and both Reg F members and DND PS personnel reported lower organizational identity compared to P Res members. Finally, although the differences did not quite reach the threshold for practical significance, a trend was observed whereby CAF members reported that their personal life conflicted with their work to a greater degree compared to DND PS personnel, and Reg F members expressed lower satisfaction with and support for flexible work arrangements than P Res members and DND PS personnel.

Furthermore, two significant and practical differences in outcomes were observed between the components. Specifically, Reg F members expressed lower job satisfaction and affective commitment to the organization compared to P Res members and DND PS personnel, and DND PS personnel exhibited lower affective commitment to the organization compared to P Res members.

Drivers of outcomes of interest

One of the main objectives of this study was to identify the factors most strongly and consistently associated with the outcomes of interest among Reg F, P Res, and DND PS personnel, and to compare the magnitude of these associations across components (see Table 4). The examined outcomes of interest were job satisfaction, job engagement, affective commitment, morale, psychological distress, burnout, and intentions to leave the organization. Most workplace factors, with some exceptions (see Table 4), were significantly related to all seven outcomes of interest among Reg F members, P Res members, and DND PS personnel.

Table 4.

Correlations between domains of the National Standard on Psychological Health and Safety and Outcomes for Regular Force (RegF) members, Primary Reserve (PRes) members, and DND public service (PS) personnel

	Job satisfaction			Job engagement			Affective commitment			Morale			Psychological distress			Burnout			Turnover Intentions			Outcomes overall*
Factors	RegF	PRes	PS	RegF	PRes	PS	RegF	PRes	PS	RegF	PRes	PS	RegF	PRes	PS	RegF	PRes	PS	RegF	PRes	PS	RegF	PRes	PS
Outcomes of interest
Job satisfaction	-	-	-	0.56	0.55	0.53	0.56	0.56	0.60	0.66	0.64	0.61	−0.47	−0.44	−0.40	−0.64	−0.64	−0.61	−0.58	−0.65	−0.68	0.58	0.58	0.57
Job engagement	0.56	0.55	0.53	-	-	-	0.46	0.46	0.46	0.40	0.39	0.42	−0.22	−0.14	−0.18	−0.34	−0.32	−0.34	−0.36	−0.38	−0.36	0.39	0.38	0.38
Affective commitment	0.56	0.56	0.60	0.46	0.46	0.46	-	-	-	0.50	0.46	0.47	−0.32	−0.29	−0.26	−0.47	−0.42	−0.43	−0.57^AB	−0.49^A	−0.53^B	0.48	0.44	0.46
Morale	0.66	0.64	0.61	0.40	0.39	0.42	0.50	0.46	0.47	-	-	-	−0.58	−0.55	−0.50	−0.69	−0.68	−0.65	−0.50	−0.55	−0.54	0.55	0.54	0.53
Psychological distress	−0.47	−0.44	−0.40	−0.22	−0.14	−0.18	−0.32	−0.29	−0.26	−0.58	−0.55	−0.50	-	-	-	0.70	0.69	0.64	0.37	0.40	0.39	0.44	0.42	0.39
Burnout	−0.64	−0.64	−0.61	−0.34	−0.32	−0.34	−0.47	−0.42	−0.43	−0.69	−0.68	−0.65	0.70	0.69	0.64	-	-	-	0.52	0.55	0.58	0.56	0.55	0.54
Turnover Intentions	−0.58	−0.65	−0.68	−0.36	−0.38	−0.36	−0.57	−0.49	−0.53	−0.50	−0.55	−0.54	0.37	0.40	0.39	0.52	0.55	0.58	-	-	-	0.48	0.50	0.51
Balance
Work-life conflict	−0.32	−0.33	−0.34	0.01^†	-0.02^†	−0.05^‡	−0.18	−0.14	−0.19	−0.37	−0.39	−0.34	0.38	0.43	0.38	0.49	0.51	0.50	0.29	0.22	0.37	0.29	0.29	0.31
Life-work conflict	−0.18	−0.21	−0.20	−0.13	−0.18	−0.19	−0.14	−0.12	−0.16	−0.22	−0.29	−0.24	0.29	0.34	0.31	0.30	0.37	0.34	0.17	0.14	0.23	0.20	0.23	0.24
Civility and respect
Procedural justice	0.47	0.46	0.46	0.25	0.22	0.26	0.42	0.39	0.43	0.50	0.54	0.51	−0.37	−0.39	−0.29	−0.46	−0.48	−0.44	−0.38	−0.40	−0.45	0.41	0.41	0.40
Distributive justice	0.43	0.42	0.44	0.22	0.20	0.25	0.38	0.35	0.40	0.46	0.48	0.50	−0.34	−0.36	−0.28	−0.42	−0.43	−0.43	−0.35	−0.37	−0.44	0.37	0.37	0.39
Organizational diversity and inclusion	0.36	0.42	0.39	0.23	0.25	0.26	0.38	0.39	0.44	0.40	0.44	0.41	−0.30	−0.32	−0.27	−0.37	−0.39	−0.39	−0.31	−0.33	−0.39	0.34	0.36	0.36
Organizational policies are equally fair	0.36	0.42	0.41	0.20	0.22	0.25	0.36	0.35	0.42	0.38	0.42	0.44	−0.30	−0.30	−0.28	−0.37	−0.37	−0.38	−0.30	−0.33	−0.38	0.32	0.34	0.37
Supervisor interpersonal justice	0.38	0.47	0.42	0.21	0.24	0.23	0.25	0.29	0.31	0.37	0.42	0.40	−0.30	−0.32	−0.23	−0.34	−0.40	−0.36	−0.24	−0.37	−0.37	0.30	0.36	0.33
Microaggressive behaviours	−0.26	−0.38	−0.34	−0.14	−0.19	−0.18	−0.18	−0.27	−0.29	−0.27	−0.38	−0.33	0.26	0.30	0.26	0.28	0.36	0.35	0.20	0.28	0.35	0.23	0.31	0.30
Clear leadership and expectations
Organizational leadership satisfaction	0.45	0.47	0.46	0.26	0.26	0.29	0.48	0.46	0.45	0.49	0.49	0.51	−0.35	−0.34	−0.32	−0.48	−0.46	−0.46	−0.39	−0.36	−0.46	0.41	0.41	0.42
Role ambiguity	−0.47	−0.50	−0.50	−0.35	−0.31	−0.34	−0.29	−0.28	−0.31	−0.42	−0.43	−0.45	0.32	0.35	0.31	0.40	0.41	0.42	0.29	0.34	0.41	0.36	0.38	0.39
Role conflict	−0.41	−0.41	−0.41	−0.18	−0.16	−0.18	−0.26	−0.26	−0.26	−0.38	−0.43	−0.37	0.35	0.38	0.29	0.43^A	0.50^AB	0.41^B	0.29	0.34	0.40	0.33	0.35	0.33
Transformational leadership	0.43	0.48	0.47	0.21	0.21	0.25	0.26	0.28	0.35	0.41	0.44	0.46	−0.29	−0.29	−0.23	−0.37	−0.40	−0.41	−0.28	−0.40	−0.41	0.32	0.36	0.37
Engagement
Meaningful work	0.69	0.68	0.62	0.66	0.68	0.64	0.53^A	0.50	0.48^A	0.53^AB	0.47^A	0.45^B	−0.38	−0.31	−0.28	−0.50^A	−0.46	−0.42^A	−0.46	−0.44	−0.45	0.53	0.51	0.48
Pride in organizational membership	0.56	0.59	0.61	0.44^A	0.46	0.51^A	0.68	0.66	0.63	0.51	0.50	0.47	−0.37	−0.34	−0.29	−0.47	−0.46	−0.45	−0.52	−0.47	−0.50	0.51	0.50	0.50
Organizational identity	0.41	0.41	0.45	0.38	0.42	0.40	0.68	0.68	0.66	0.33	0.29	0.33	−0.20	−0.15	−0.16	−0.30	−0.25	−0.29	−0.39	−0.31	−0.39	0.38	0.36	0.38
Growth and development
Career management	0.50	0.48	-	0.30	0.24	-	0.43	0.38	-	0.52	0.51	-	−0.39	−0.39	-	−0.47	−0.47	-	−0.42	−0.38	-	0.43	0.41	-
Career and occupational training^§	0.45	0.48	0.43	0.27	0.27	0.26	0.40	0.40	0.36	0.48	0.47	0.48	−0.36	−0.40	−0.29	−0.45	−0.48	−0.41	−0.35	−0.34	−0.41	0.39	0.41	0.38
Feedback	0.51	0.51	0.51	0.33	0.29	0.32	0.34	0.31	0.37	0.46	0.46	0.47	−0.34	−0.32	−0.28	−0.44	−0.44	−0.44	−0.33	−0.36	−0.42	0.39	0.38	0.40
Career progression^§	0.41	0.45	0.49	0.25	0.22	0.26	0.38	0.35	0.39	0.44	0.46	0.49	−0.32	−0.32	−0.30	−0.39	−0.46	−0.45	−0.36^A	−0.39^B	−0.53^AB	0.36	0.38	0.42
Ease of accessing training opportunities	0.34	0.36	0.36	0.20	0.18	0.21	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.37	0.38	0.40	−0.27	−0.32	−0.27	−0.33	−0.38	−0.37	−0.25	−0.22	−0.35	0.29	0.31	0.32
Second language training	0.26	0.33	0.29	0.18	0.21	0.17	0.27	0.28	0.23	0.30	0.31	0.35	−0.22	−0.31	−0.20	−0.27	−0.34	−0.29	−0.23	−0.28	−0.30	0.25	0.29	0.26
Involvement and influence
Perceived impact	0.44	0.41	0.35	0.36	0.34	0.36	0.48	0.43	0.39	0.46	0.40	0.35	−0.29	−0.24	−0.18	−0.41	−0.35	−0.27	−0.33	−0.28	−0.25	0.40	0.35	0.31
Job control	0.45	0.44	0.46	0.39	0.34	0.31	0.32	0.30	0.37	0.39	0.37	0.40	−0.29	−0.27	−0.24	−0.34	−0.33	−0.35	−0.26	−0.27	−0.36	0.35	0.33	0.35
Flexible work arrangements	0.45	0.47	0.35	0.21	0.20	0.22	0.30	0.34	0.28	0.42	0.48	0.36	−0.32	−0.38	−0.24	−0.42	−0.49	−0.37	−0.30	−0.35	−0.31	0.35	0.39	0.30
Organizational culture
Organizational group climate	0.44	0.50	0.45	0.28	0.28	0.28	0.48	0.48	0.49	0.49	0.53	0.48	−0.39	−0.42	−0.30	−0.47	−0.48	−0.43	−0.39	−0.39	−0.44	0.42	0.44	0.41
Masculinity contest culture	−0.39	−0.43	−0.42	−0.13	−0.13	−0.20	−0.27	−0.25	−0.34	−0.41	−0.42	−0.42	0.42	0.42	0.37	0.45	0.50	0.46	0.33	0.38	0.41	0.34	0.36	0.37
Protection of physical safety
Supervisor safety actions	0.35	0.37	0.35	0.21	0.20	0.25	0.23	0.28	0.30	0.33	0.35	0.35	−0.20	−0.25	−0.18	−0.26	−0.30	−0.27	−0.22	−0.33	−0.29	0.26	0.30	0.28
Physical risk	−0.23	−0.20	−0.23	−0.05^‡	0.02^†	−0.13	−0.18	−0.11	−0.19	−0.24	−0.21	−0.24	0.30	0.26	0.23	0.32	0.29	0.30	0.22	0.21	0.21	0.22	0.19	0.22
Psychological and social support
Perceived organizational support	0.54	0.56	0.53	0.30	0.30	0.31	0.53	0.52	0.52	0.58	0.59	0.57	−0.45	−0.43	−0.37	−0.54	−0.57	−0.52	−0.44^A	−0.44^B	−0.51^AB	0.48	0.49	0.47
Support for family^§	0.45	0.46	-	0.24	0.23	-	0.39	0.39	-	0.48	0.48	-	−0.37	−0.36	-	−0.44	−0.44	-	−0.37	−0.34	-	0.39	0.39	-
Relatedness	0.46^AB	0.52^A	0.52^B	0.33	0.35	0.35	0.37	0.44	0.45	0.42	0.48	0.46	−0.38	−0.36	−0.33	−0.39	−0.45	−0.41	−0.29	−0.33	−0.42	0.38	0.42	0.42
Psychological competencies and requirements
Person-job fit	0.59	0.54	0.66	0.49^A	0.43^AB	0.50^B	0.49	0.44	0.48	0.44	0.39	0.47	−0.35	−0.33	−0.26	−0.45	−0.41	−0.43	−0.43^A	−0.39^B	−0.51^AB	0.46	0.42	0.47
Person-organization fit	0.42	0.45	0.43	0.39	0.40	0.39	0.57	0.52	0.55	0.40	0.38	0.40	−0.31	−0.25	−0.23	−0.38	−0.36	−0.36	−0.39	−0.33	−0.38	0.41	0.39	0.39
Psychological protection
Team psych. safety	0.50	0.54	0.54	0.26	0.24	0.29	0.35	0.35	0.44	0.45^A	0.51	0.50^A	−0.41	−0.44	−0.35	−0.45^AB	−0.52^A	−0.50^B	−0.34	−0.40	−0.48	0.39	0.43	0.44
Ethical culture	0.43	0.49	0.47	0.26	0.29	0.33	0.37	0.38	0.41	0.43	0.46	0.48	−0.33	−0.33	−0.27	−0.40	−0.45	−0.42	−0.30	−0.36	−0.41	0.36	0.39	0.40
Toxic leadership	−0.35	−0.40	−0.41	−0.16	−0.16	−0.19	−0.21	−0.23	−0.32	−0.33	−0.37	−0.39	0.30	0.30	0.25	0.36	0.40	0.41	0.25	0.35	0.41	0.28	0.31	0.34
Recognition and reward
Contingent reward	0.46	0.46	0.47	0.20	0.19	0.23	0.35	0.36	0.38	0.47	0.50	0.51	−0.36	−0.35	−0.31	−0.51	−0.50	−0.49	−0.34	−0.40	−0.44	0.38	0.39	0.40
Pay and benefits satisfaction^§	0.33	0.30	0.29	0.17	0.13	0.15	0.32	0.26	0.25	0.35	0.33	0.32	−0.29	−0.25	−0.26	−0.35	−0.32	−0.32	−0.31	−0.26	−0.31	0.30	0.26	0.27
Workload management
Perceived job stress	−0.30	−0.30	−0.30	0.06	0.05^†	0.03^†	−0.12	−0.14	−0.14	−0.35	−0.39	−0.34	0.44	0.47	0.41	0.53	0.55	0.50	0.23	0.29	0.33	0.29	0.31	0.29
Role overload	−0.20	−0.19	−0.18	0.20	0.17	0.17	−0.06	−0.08^‡	−0.08	−0.23	−0.28	−0.21	0.25	0.31	0.25	0.37	0.41	0.35	0.18	0.20	0.27	0.21	0.23	0.21

Open in a new tab

Regular Force members

Meaningful work and pride in organizational membership were key drivers across the outcomes of interest among Reg F members. Furthermore, perceived organizational support may be considered a key driver among Reg F members because it had strong associations with four of the seven outcomes of interest despite it not having a strong average correlation across all the outcomes (i.e., $| \bar{r} | = 0.48$ ). Additionally, several workplace factors were associated with specific outcomes of interest. For instance, career management satisfaction, supervisor feedback, person-job fit, and team psychological safety had strong positive associations with Reg F members’ job satisfaction. Organizational identity and person-organization fit had strong positive associations with Reg F members’ affective commitment. Procedural justice and career management satisfaction had strong positive associations with Reg F members’ morale. Contingent rewards had a strong negative correlation with Reg F members’ burnout, while perceived job stress had a strong positive correlation with Reg F members’ burnout. Finally, there were strong associations between the outcomes of interest themselves. Of particular interest, turnover intentions had strong negative associations with job satisfaction, affective commitment, and morale and a strong positive association with burnout.

Primary Reserve members

Similar to Reg F members, meaningful work and pride in organizational membership were key drivers across the outcomes of interest among P Res members. Perceived organizational support may also be considered a key driver despite it not having a strong average correlation across all the outcomes of interest ( $| \bar{r} | = 0.49$ ), as it had strong associations with four of the seven outcomes of interest. Additionally, various workplace factors demonstrated strong associations with specific outcomes of interest. For instance, P Res members’ job satisfaction had a strong negative association with role ambiguity, and strong positive associations with supervisor feedback, organizational group climate, relatedness, person-job fit, and team psychological safety. P Res members’ affective commitment had strong positive associations with organizational identity and person-organization fit. P Res members’ morale had strong positive association with procedural justice, career management satisfaction, organizational group climate, team psychological safety, and contingent rewards. P Res members’ burnout had strong positive associations with work-life conflict, role conflict, masculinity contest culture and perceived job stress, and strong negative associations with team psychological safety and contingent rewards. Finally, strong associations were observed between the outcomes of interest among P Res members; in particular, their turnover intentions being positively associated with burnout and negatively associated with job satisfaction and morale.

DND public service personnel

Pride in organizational membership and perceived organizational support are the only workplace factors considered key drivers across the outcomes of interest among DND PS personnel. However, it should be noted that, although the latter did not have a strong average correlation across the outcomes of interest ( $| \bar{r} | = 0.47$ ), perceived organizational support was included as a key driver because it had strong associations with five of the seven outcomes of interest. Beyond these key drivers, various workplace factors showed strong associations with specific outcomes of interest. For instance, DND PS personnel’s job satisfaction had a strong negative association with role ambiguity and strong positive associations with meaningful work, supervisor feedback, relatedness, person-job fit, and team psychological safety. DND PS personnel’s job engagement had strong positive associations with meaningful work and person-job fit. DND PS personnel’s affective commitment had strong positive associations with organizational identity and person-organization fit. DND PS personnel’s morale had strong positive associations with procedural justice, distributive justice, organizational leadership satisfaction, team psychological safety, and contingent rewards. DND PS personnel’s burnout had strong positive associations with work-life conflict and perceived job stress, and a strong negative association with team psychological safety. Finally, DND PS personnel’s turnover intentions had strong negative associations with career progression satisfaction and person-job fit. Additionally, DND PS personnel’s turnover intentions had strong negative associations with job satisfaction, affective commitment and morale, and a strong positive association with burnout.

Discussion

Previous literature has underscored the significant impact of workplace factors on psychological health and safety outcomes in both the general working population^{7,12,13,34,35} and military-specific contexts.^{5,7,14–17,36–41} Building upon this research and rooted in the comprehensive Standard framework,¹⁹ the current study compared the state of psychological health and safety in Reg F, P Res, and DND PS components and examined whether the workplace factors are contributing to the outcomes of interest among the three components.

The current findings indicate that notable differences emerged across components. Further, consistent with expectations, all the measures assessing workplace factors outlined by the 13 Standard domains correlated with the outcomes of interest, namely job satisfaction, job engagement, affective commitment, morale, psychological distress, burnout, and turnover intentions. Specifically, the examination of each outcome reveals a nuanced understanding of the overall well-being across DT components, with attention to the distinctive roles that workplace factors play.

Job satisfaction

The current findings first reveal that P Res members and DND PS personnel are more satisfied with their jobs compared to Reg F members, and this satisfaction is associated with different workplace factors. For instance, relatedness appears to be more strongly linked to the job satisfaction of the P Res members and DND PS personnel compared to Reg F members. Conversely, meaningful work had a strong association with job satisfaction across all components, and Reg F members reported lower perceptions of meaningful work compared to DND PS personnel. As such, to bolster Reg F members’ job satisfaction, it is important to improve their perceptions of the meaningfulness of their work.

Job engagement

The current findings revealed several moderate correlations between job engagement and workplace factors, such as perceived organizational support, organizational identity, role ambiguity, and job control across all components. The strong correlations provide a deeper understanding of the driving forces behind job engagement. For instance, meaningful work had a strong relationship with job engagement across all components, highlighting its universal importance. It is therefore important to improve perceptions of meaningful work across all components.

Affective commitment

P Res members reported the highest levels of affective commitment compared to Reg F members and DND PS personnel. Similarly, P Res members reported higher levels of organizational identity compared to Reg F members and DND PS personnel. These results highlight that a stronger sense of belonging and identification with the organization may be greatly important to affective commitment across all the components, and P Res members’ greater affective commitment is likely associated with their greater organizational identity. Indeed, previous literature has suggested that P Res members may have high levels of affective commitment because they perceive the CAF as their primary employment or feel that they have a psychological contract (and a sense of obligation to fulfill this contract) with the CAF.^42–45

Morale

Morale is a concept deeply embedded in military history and essential for operational success.^46,47 Consistent with previous research, factors like positive perceptions of organizational support are strongly linked to higher morale.^16,47–49 Additionally, perceptions of meaningful work are more strongly linked to Reg F members’ morale compared to that of P Res members and DND PS personnel, highlighting the unique importance of job significance and fulfillment in maintaining high morale levels within this component as depicted in previous research.^40,50 This raises some concern because Reg F members reported significantly lower levels of meaningful work compared to DND PS personnel.

Psychological distress

Overall, all DT components indicated moderate levels of psychological distress,^51,52 and Reg F members demonstrated a trend to report higher levels of distress compared to DND PS personnel. In addition, further analyses reveal that, although psychological distress was not strongly related to any workplace factors, there were several moderate correlations between psychological distress and workplace factors (e.g., masculinity contest culture) and it was strongly related to other outcomes of interest. This provides some insights into potential areas for organizational focus and improvement.

Burnout

While burnout was more strongly linked to team psychological safety among both P Res members and DND PS personnel compared to Reg F members, other workplace factors were more relevant to burnout among Reg F members. Specifically, meaningful work appeared more crucial for Reg F members’ burnout experiences, and Reg F members reported lower perceptions of meaningful work compared to DND PS personnel.

Turnover intentions

Finally, turnover intentions were more strongly associated with career progression satisfaction, perceived organizational support, and person-job fit among DND PS personnel compared to both Reg F and P Res members. Further, while turnover intentions were moderately associated with psychological distress, they were more strongly associated with burnout across all components. The link between burnout and turnover intentions was previously attributed to the demanding nature of military life, including excessive workloads, work-life conflicts, and job stress,^53,54 as well as reduced organizational commitment.^55–57

Key drivers and general recommendations

In summary, several workplace factors were identified as strongly linked to specific outcomes of interest among select components. Importantly, perceived organizational support and pride in organizational membership were key drivers for all outcomes among all components. Given the important role these two workplace factors play in the overall well-being of DT personnel, the organization should work on enhancing awareness and clarity around its current measures aimed at enhancing perceptions of organizational support and pride in organizational membership. For instance, improving current perceptions of organizational support can be achieved by consistently demonstrating that the organization cares about the personnel by reinforcing respect, transparency, and consistency in all interactions. Additionally, fostering a stronger sense of pride in the organization could be further supported by more prominently promoting organizational identity through clear and frequent communication of the CAF/DND mission and vision. Increasing the frequency of team-building events to strengthen unity and hosting webinars and lectures on topics related to the organization’s missions and achievements could also help reinforce this sense of belonging. The organization could improve personnel’s organizational identity by regularly sharing the organization’s mission and vision and reward behaviours that exemplify organizational values. Finally, implementing tailored career development programs and enhancing communication channels for organizational support can reduce turnover intentions among personnel.

Perceived meaningful work was an additional key driver among Reg F and P Res members. In addition, as described above, Reg F members’ lower perceptions of meaningful work may contribute to their lower job satisfaction, job engagement, affective commitment, and morale as well as higher burnout. The organization should prioritize initiatives that provide more opportunities for meaningful contributions, which are proposed to generate a more motivated and committed workforce.⁵⁸ The organization could ensure work remains meaningful by aligning members’ skills and interests with their roles, highlighting individual contributions to the CAF’s goals, and promoting a sense of purpose through clear communication of the organizational strategy and policy changes.

Limitations and future directions

The study has several methodological limitations. Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between the key factors of the 13 Standard domains and the well-being of the DT personnel. However, correlation analyses cannot fully elucidate complex relationships among variables or assume the direction of a causal relationship between workplace factors and outcomes of interest. Although we refer to drivers as the strongest factors related to outcomes of interest, we cannot assume causation. For instance, higher psychological distress may reduce perceived organizational support, and lower affective commitment may affect perceptions of meaningful work. Moreover, certain outcomes of interest may function as both predictors and intermediate outcomes, requiring more nuanced analysis. Job satisfaction, for instance, can be an outcome by itself or a contributing factor to burnout, affective commitment, or retention intentions.^59–62

In addition, due to the large number of workplace factors across the 13 Standard domains, the discussion focuses on the variables with strong correlations with outcomes of interest. However, it is important to note that other workplace factors are still significantly associated with the outcomes of interest (with a small or moderate correlation). For example, relatedness had a stronger association with job satisfaction among P Res members and DND PS personnel compared to Reg F members. However, the study showed that relatedness was still moderately correlated with job satisfaction among Reg F members and was one of the top two sources of employment satisfaction among both Reg F and P Res members.

Future research could focus on each of the outcomes of interest separately to conduct an in-depth analysis and determine the unique contribution of each of the factors related to the outcome of interest. These investigations would enhance the understanding of the complex interplay between organizational and individual factors, contributing to a more comprehensive view of the studied outcomes of interest. Finally, future research could address these limitations through conducting longitudinal research, examining relationships over time, and exploring the directionality of predictors and outcomes. Additionally, structural equation modelling or model-based and machine learning algorithms could be considered to better understand which workplace factors most influence outcomes of interest.

Conclusion

This article sheds light on the intricate relationship between workplace factors across the Standard’s 13 domains and the outcomes of interest among the DT. The results show that, across the DT, all workplace factors were related to the outcomes of interest used as indicators of psychological health and safety. Nonetheless, there were notable differences between components not only in their overall well-being but also in the associated workplace factors and key drivers of the outcomes of interest. Recognizing these distinct patterns among Reg F, P Res, and DND PS personnel enables leaders to implement tailored interventions that address specific concerns and enhance psychological health and safety in the DT. In conclusion, the insights gained from this study provide a foundation for evidence-based decision-making and strategic planning to enhance the overall well-being and retention efforts of the DT and its specific components.

Acknowledgments

Competing Interests

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Ethics Approval

The study protocol was approved by an ethics committee and the ethics certificate information is available from the authors upon request.

Informed Consent

N/A

Registry and Registration no. of the Study/Trial

N/A

Animal Studies

N/A

Peer Review

The manuscript has been peer reviewed.

Biographies

Alla Skomorovsky, PhD, is a defence scientist at Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada. Currently, she is a section head leader of the Organizational Effectiveness and Performance section in DGMPRA. She conducts quantitative and qualitative research in the areas of organizational health and well-being as well as stress and resilience of military families. Email: alla.skomorovsky@forces.gc.ca

Justin Chamberland, PhD,is a defence scientist with Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada. Dr. Chamberland’s current research areas include organizational culture, workplace well-being, and retention of Defence Team personnel. Email: justin.chamberland@forces.gc.ca

Nadine Charanek is a doctoral candidate in the cognitive science program at Carleton University, where research examines memory differences between humans and chimpanzees. Her research has direct implications for military helicopter pilots. She has been working as a research assistant at the Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada, since 2023. Her research interests include work-family conflict, organizational support, and well-being outcomes among military members. Email: nadine.charanek@forces.gc.ca

Appendix

Standard Domain	YSM Measure	Source(s)	# Items	Range	Cronbach’s α
Standard Domain	YSM Measure	Source(s)	# Items	Range	English	French
Balance	Life-work conflict	Netemeyer et al. ^A	3	1–7	.87	.87
Balance	Work-life conflict	Netemeyer et al.^1 A	3	1–7	.92	.91
Civility and respect	Microaggressive behaviours	DGMPRA^B	5	1–7	.85	.85
	Organizational diversity and inclusion	DGMPRA^B	3	1–5	.84	.85
	Organizational policies are equally fair	DGMPRA^B	1	1–5	-	-
	Distributive justice	Colquitt ^A	1	1–7	-	-
	Procedural justice	Colquitt^2 A	1	1–7	-	-
	Supervisor interpersonal justice	Colquitt^2 A	6	1–5	.96	.95
Clear leadership and expectations	Organizational leadership	DGMPRA^B	6	1–7	.96	.94
	Role ambiguity	Osipow & Spokane;³ Villeneuve et al.;⁴ Woycheshin^5 A	2	1–5	-	-
	Role conflict	Osipow & Spokane;³ Villeneuve et al.;⁴ Woycheshin^5 A	2	1–5	-	-
	Transformational leadership	Carless et al.⁶	7	1–5	.94	.86
Engagement	Meaningful work	Bernard^7 A	3	1–5	.91	.89
	Organizational identity	Cameron^8 A	1	1–6	-	-
	Pride in organizational membership	Wensing⁹	1	1–5	-	-
Growth and development	Career progression	DGMPRA^B	5 (CAF), 4 (DND)	1–6	.86 (CAF), 80 (DND)	.86 (CAF), .83 (DND)
	Career management	DGMPRA^B	6 (CAF)	1–6	.94	.92
	Feedback	van Veldhoven et al.^10 A	2	1–5	-	-
	Career and occupational training satisfaction	DGMPRA^B	6	1–6	.92	.92
	Second language training satisfaction	DGMPRA^B	2	1–6	.85	.87
Involvement and influence	Flexible work arrangements	DGMPRA^B	2	1–7	-	-
	Job control	van der Doef & Maes^11 A	2	1–5	-	-
	Perceived impact	Spreitzer^12 A	4	1–5	.90	.92
Organizational culture	Masculinity contest culture	Glick et al.¹³	8	1–5	.89	.88
Organizational culture	Organizational group climate	Marchand et al.;¹⁴ O’Reilly et al.^15 A	5	1–5	.92	.91
Protection of physical safety	Perceived physical risk	DGMPRA^B	2	1–5	-	-
Protection of physical safety	Supervisor safety actions	Zohar¹⁶	5	1–5	.81	.83
Psychological and social support	Perceived organizational support	Eisenberger et al.,^17,18 A	8	1–7	.91	.87
	Relatedness	Van den Broeck et al.¹⁹	6	1–5	.88	.86
	Support for family	DGMPRA^B	7	1–6	.92 (Reg F) .93 (P Res)	.94 (Reg F) .92 (P Res)
Psychological competencies and requirements	Person-job fit	Cable & DeRue;²⁰ Saks & Ashforth^21 A	5	1–6	.93	.93
Psychological competencies and requirements	Person-organization fit	Cable & DeRue;²⁰ Cable & Judge^22 A	3	1–6	.80	.87
Psychological protection	Ethical culture	DeBode et al.^23 A	4	1–6	.84	.84
	Team psychological safety	Edmondson²⁴	7	1–7	.87	.83
	Toxic leadership	Schmidt,^25,26 A	9	1–5	.91	.90
Recognition and reward	Contingent reward	Spector^27 A	4	1–6	.84	.79
Recognition and reward	Pay and benefits	DGMPRA^B	6	1–6	.85 (CAF) .86 (DND)	.81 (CAF) .87 (DND)
Workload management	Perceived job stress	Lehman et al.^28 A	4	1–5	.85	.84
Workload management	Role overload	Osipow & Spokane;³ Villeneuve et al.;⁴ Woycheshin^5A	3	1–5	.81	.79
Organizational and Individual Outcomes	Job satisfaction	Cammann et al.^29,30	3	1–5	.89	.89
	Job engagement	Houle et al.³¹	9	1–5	.91	.91
	Affective commitment	Meyer et al.^32,33 A	4	1–6	.79	.79
	Morale	DGMPRA^B	1	1–5	-	-
	Psychological distress	Kessler et al.³⁴	10	10–50^C	.94	.93
	Burnout	Demerouti et al.;³⁵ Therrien & Blanc³⁶	8	1–4	.91	.91
	Turnover intentions	Coralli³⁷	3	1–5	.79	.81

Open in a new tab

Note: DGMPRA = Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis.

^AMeasure was adapted from source(s).

^BMeasure developed within DGMPRA.

^CRange is based on the sum across items.

References

1.Netemeyer RG, Boles JS, McMurrian R. Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. J Appl Psychol. 1996;81(4):400–10. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.Colquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):386–400 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.386 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Osipow SH, Spokane AR. A manual for measures of occupational stress, strain, and coping. PAR, Inc.; 1983. [Google Scholar]
4.Villeneuve LCol M, Dobreva-Martinova T, Currie JG. Buying low attrition or building high retention? That is the question. DMEP-A/RT Report 2004–06. Defence Research and Development Canada; 2004. [Google Scholar]
5.Woycheshin DE. Review of the unit morale profile core measures. Technical Note, DMPORA TN 2007–11. Ottawa, ON: Director Military Personnel Operational Research and Analysis; 2007. [Google Scholar]
6.Carless SA, Wearing AJ, Mann L. A short measure of transformational leadership. J Bus Psychol. 2000;13(3):389–405. Available from: 10.1023/A:1022991115523 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7.Bernard JA. Les facteurs explicatifs de la rétention du personnel d’officiers au sein du commandement aérien des Forces canadiennes [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Université du Québec en Outaouais; 2004. [Google Scholar]
8.Cameron JE. A three-factor model of social identity. Self Identity. 2004;3(3):239–62. 10.1080/13576500444000047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Wensing E. Comparative attitudinal data set: 2015 results. The technical cooperation program document. HUM-TP23; 2016. [Google Scholar]
10.van Veldhoven MJPM, Meijman TF, Broersen JPJ, et al. Handleiding VBBA [Manual QEEW]. SKB Vragenlijst Services; 2002. [Google Scholar]
11.van der Doef M, Maes S. The Leiden quality of work questionnaire: its construction, factor structure, and psychometric qualities. Psychol Rep. 1999;85(3):954–62. 10.2466/pr0.1999.85.3.954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Spreitzer GM. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad Manag J. 1995;38(5):1442–65. 10.5465/256865 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Glick P, Berdahl JL, Alonso NM. Development and validation of the masculinity contest culture scale. J Soc Issues. 2018;74(3):449–76. 10.1111/josi.12280 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Marchand A, Haines III VY, Dextras-Gauthier J. Quantitative analysis of organizational culture in occupational health research: a theory-based validation of 30 workplaces of the organizational culture profile instrument. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:443. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.O’Reilly CA, Chatman J, Caldwell DF. People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal. 1991;34(3), 487–516. 10.2307/256404 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Zohar D. A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on micro-accidents in manufacturing jobs. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(4):587–96. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.587 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, et al. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1986;71, 500–7. 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Eisenberger R, Shanock LR, Wen X. Perceived organizational support: why caring about employees counts. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2020;7:101–24. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044917 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19.van den Broeck A, Vansteenkiste M, De Witte H, et al. Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2010;83(4):981–1002. 10.1348/096317909X481382 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Cable DM, DeRue DS. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(5):875–84. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Saks AM, Ashforth BE. A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology. 1997;50(2), 395–426. [Google Scholar]
22.Cable DM, Judge TA. Person – organization fit, job-choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;67(3):294–311. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
23.DeBode JD, Armenakis AA, Feild HS, et al. Assessing ethical organizational culture: refinement of a scale. J Appl Behav Sci. 2013;49(4):460–484. 10.1177/0021886313500987 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2): 350–83. 10.2307/2666999 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25.Schmidt AA. Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale [Master’s thesis]. University of Maryland; 2008. Publication No. 1453699. Available from: www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-Examination-of-Toxic-Leadership%2C-Job-Outcomes%2C-Schmidt/a68324fe444d0fbf53cf82b10358448a67d04bce [Google Scholar]
26.Schmidt AA. An examination of toxic leadership, job outcomes, and the impact of military deployment [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland; 2014. Publication No. 3627674. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]
27.Spector PE. Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. Am J Community Psychol. 1985;13(6): 693–713. 10.1007/BF00929796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Lehman KA, Burns MN, Gagen EC, Mohr DC. Development of the brief inventory of perceived stress. J Clin Psychol. 2012;68(6):631–44. 10.1002/jclp.21843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Cammann C, Fichman M, Jenkins GD, et al. The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; 1979. [Google Scholar]
30.Cammann C, Fichman M, Jenkins GD, et al. Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. In: Seashore SE, Lawler EE, Mirvis PH, Cammann C, editors. Assessing organizational change: a guide to methods, measures, and practices. Wiley-Interscience; 1983. p. 71–138. [Google Scholar]
31.Houle SA, Rich BL, Comeau CA, et al. The job engagement scale: development and validation of a short form in English and French. J Bus Psychol. 2022;37:877–96. 10.1007/s10869-021-09782-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32.Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA. Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993;78(4):538–51. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Meyer JP, Kam C, Goldenberg I, et al. Organizational commitment in the military: application of a profile approach. Military Psychology 2013;25(4):381–401. 10.1037/mil0000007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):959–76. 10.1017/S0033291702006074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Vardakou I, et al. The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: a multitrait-multimethod analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2003;19(1):12–23. Available from: 10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
36.Therrien M, Blanc J-R S. Development and validation of a short version of the Oldenburg burnout inventory. Paper presented at: Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society (IUS); 2014; Ottawa, ON. [Google Scholar]
37.Coralli SM. Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job previews. J Appl Psychol. 1984;69:633–42. 10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.633 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Funding Statement

This study received funding from the Department of National Defence.

Footnotes

The component differences were presented in greater detail in an internal reference document (see Chamberland, J., Skomorovsky, A., and Laplante, L. (2024). Your Say Matters: Defence Team Well-Being Survey. Associations Between Job Demands/Resources and Outcomes Across Components).

References

1.National Defence . Our north, strong and free: a renewed vision for Canada’s defence. 2024. [Internet]. Canada: National Defence. 2024 [cited 2024 Apr 19]. Available from: www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/north-strong-free-2024.html [Google Scholar]
2.Department of National Defence . Canadian Armed Forces human resources strategy: modernizing military personnel management beyond 2030. Ottawa: Department of National Defence; 2022. NDID: A-PP-106–000/AF-001. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/army-armee/migration/assets/army_internet/docs/en/national/2021-01-canadian-army-modernization-en.pdf [Google Scholar]
3.Department of National Defence . Defence team total health and wellness strategy. Ottawa: Department of National Defence; 2022. Available from: www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/images/thaw/DGM-24820-L0S_The%20Defence%20Team%20Total%20Health%20and%20Wellness%20Strategy_v26_EN.pdf [Google Scholar]
4.Bates J, Thompson N. Workplace well-being: an occupational social work approach. Illn Crisis Loss. 2007. Jul 1;15(3):273–84. 10.1177/105413730701500308 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5.Brooks SK, Greenberg N. Non-deployment factors affecting psychological wellbeing in military personnel: literature review. J Ment Health. 2018. Jan 2;27(1):80–90. 10.1080/09638237.2016.1276536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Bowles SV, Bartone PT, Ross D, et al. Well-being in the military. In: Bowles SV, Bartone PT, editors. Handbook of military psychology: clinical and organizational practice. Springer Nature; 2017. p. 213–38. [Google Scholar]
7.Cvenkel N. Workplace well-being: understanding psychologically ‘well’ employees and the sustainable healthy workplace. In: Well-Being in the workplace: governance and sustainability insights to promote workplace health. Springer; 2020. p. :25–62. [Google Scholar]
8.De Simone S. Conceptualizing wellbeing in the workplace. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 2014;5(12):118–22. [Google Scholar]
9.Ford MT, Cerasoli CP, Higgins JA, et al. Relationships between psychological, physical, and behavioural health and work performance: a review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress. 2011. Jul 1;25(3):185–204. 10.1080/02678373.2011.609035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Renee Baptiste N. Fun and well-being: insights from senior managers in a local authority. Empl Relat. 2009. Jan 1;31(6):600–12. 10.1108/01425450910991758 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11.Warr P, Nielsen K. Wellbeing and work performance. In: Handbook of well-being. Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield; 2018. p. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
12.Jex SM, Crossley CD. Organizational consequences. In: Barling J, Kelloway EK, Frone MR, editors. Handbook of work stress. Sage: 2005. p. 575–99. 10.4135/9781412975995.n24 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Leontaridi RM, Ward-Warmedinger ME. Work-related stress, quitting intentions and absenteeism. IZA Discussion Paper. May 2002. [Google Scholar]
14.Anderson BK, Meyer JP, Goldenberg I, et al. Development and evolution of commitment profiles among military recruits: implications for turnover intention and well-being. Mil Psychol. 2022;34(5):570–90. 10.1080/08995605.2021.2022910 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Blais AR, Howell G, Wang Z, et al. Leader interventions for psychological health and safety solutions. Ottawa: Department of National Defence. 2018. [Google Scholar]
16.Langkamer KL, Ervin KS. Psychological climate, organizational commitment and morale: implications for army captains’ career intent. Mil Psychol. 2008. Sep 30;20(4):219–36. 10.1080/08995600802345113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Wright PJ, Kim PY, Wilk JE, et al. The effects of mental health symptoms and organizational climate on intent to leave the military among combat veterans. Mil Med. 2012. Jul;177(7):773–9. 10.7205/milmed-d-11-00403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Canadian Standards Association & Bureau de normalisation du Québec (CSA Group & BNQ) . The national standard of Canada: psychological health and safety in the workplace – prevention, promotion, and guidance to staged implementation [Internet]. Mental Health Commission of Canada; 2013. [cited 2024 Apr 30]. Report No.: CAN/CSA-Z1003–13/BNQ 9700–803/2013. Available from: www.csagroup.org/article/can-csa-z1003-13-bnq-9700-803-2013-r2022-psychological-health-and-safety-in-the-workplace/ [Google Scholar]
19.Ivey GW, Blanc JRS, Michaud K, et al. A measure and model of psychological health and safety in the workplace that reflects Canada’s national standard. Can J Adm Sci Rev Can Sci Adm. 2018;35(4):509–22. 10.1002/cjas.1500 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Department of National Defence . CDS/DM message to staff on the directive on CAF reconstitution. The Maple Leaf. 2022. Oct 6. Available from: www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2022/10/cds-dm-message-directive-caf-reconstitution.html [Google Scholar]
21.Department of National Defence . Canadian Armed Forces retention strategy. Ottawa: Department of National Defence; 2022. National Defence Cat. No. D2–615/2022E-PDF. Available from: www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/reports/caf-retnetion-strategy/caf-retention-strategy-en-2022.pdf [Google Scholar]
22.Department of National Defence . CDS/DM directive on DND/CAF operating and reconstituting in a persistent COVID-19 environment. Ottawa: Department of National Defence; 2022. Feb. Available from: CDS/DM Directive on DND/CAF Operating and Reconstituting in a Persistent COVID-19 Environment - Canada.ca [Google Scholar]
23.Department of National Defence . Minister Anand announces the immediate deployment of Canadian Armed Forces personnel to Poland in response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis. Canada.ca. 2022. Apr 14. Available from: www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2022/04/minister-anand-announces-the-immediate-deployment-of-canadian-armed-forces-personnel-to-poland-in-response-to-the-ukrainian-refugee-crisis.html [Google Scholar]
24.Goldenberg I, Hujaleh F. Partnership between military and civilian personnel in defence organizations: an annotated bibliography. Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis Technical Memorandum 012–020. Ottawa, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada; (2012). [Google Scholar]
25.Goldenberg I, Febbraro AR, et al. , editors. The Defence Team: military and civilian Partnership in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. DRDC-RDDC-2015-P120. May 2015. [Google Scholar]
26.Coulthard J, Goldenberg I. Civilian and military personnel work culture and relations in DND/CF. Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis Technical Memorandum 2011–008. Ottawa, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada; (2011). [Google Scholar]
27.Anderson JE, Goldenberg I. Balancing act: the demands of family, military service, and civilian employment for reservists. In: The politics of military families. Routledge; 2019. p. 152–68. [Google Scholar]
28.Fillion A. The integration of defence civilians within the defence team: how far can we go. [research paper] Canadian Forces College, North York, ON: (2007). [Google Scholar]
29.Chamberland J, Skomorovsky A, Laplante J. Development of the 2022 your say matters: defence team well-being survey. 2023. Report No.: DRDC-RDDC-2023-L189. [Google Scholar]
30.Ferguson CJ. An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. In: Kazdin AE, editor. Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2016. p. 301–10. Available from: 10.1037/14805-020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992; 112(1):155–9. 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1992. Jun 1;1(3):98–101. 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Routledge; 1988. Available from: 10.4324/9780203771587 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Dalgard OS, Sørensen T, Sandanger I, et al. Job demands, job control, and mental health in an 11-year follow-up study: normal and reversed relationships. Work Stress. 2009. Jul 1;23(3):284–96. 10.1080/02678370903250953 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Kitts J. Psychological health and safety in Canadian healthcare settings. Healthc Q Tor Ont. 2013;16(4): 6–9. 10.12927/hcq.2014.23643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Taylor MK, Hernández LM, Clinton-Sherrod AM. Toward a “dashboard” indicator of retention in U.S. navy personnel. Mil Med. 2021. Jan 1;186(1–2):119–26. 10.1093/milmed/usaa278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Dupré KE, Day AL. The effects of supportive management and job quality on the turnover intentions and health of military personnel. Hum Resour Manage. 2007;46(2):185–201. 10.1002/hrm.20156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
38.Zangaro GA, Kelley PAW. Job satisfaction and retention of military nurses: a review of the literature. Annu Rev Nurs Res. 2010;28:19–41. 10.1891/0739-6686.28.19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Daniel S, Neria A, Moore A, et al. The impact of leadership responses to sexual harassment and gender discrimination reports on emotional distress and retention intentions in military members. J Trauma Dissociation. 2019;20(3):357–72. 10.1080/15299732.2019.1571887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Ivey GW, Blanc JRS, Mantler J. An assessment of the overlap between morale and work engagement in a nonoperational military sample. J Occup Health Psychol. 2015. Jul;20(3):338–47. 10.1037/a0038559 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Meyer JP, Kam C, Goldenberg I, et al. Organizational commitment in the military: application of a profile approach. Mil Psychol. 2013. Jul 1;25(4):381–401. 10.1037/mil0000007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42.Zickar MJ, Gibby RE, Jenny T. Job attitudes of workers with two jobs. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2004. Feb 1;64(1):222–35. 10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00047-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Pohl S, Bertrand F, Ergen C. Psychological contracts and their implications for job outcomes: a social exchange view. Military Psychology. 2016;28(6): 406–17. 10.1037/mil0000127 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44.Gazit N, Lomsky-Feder E, Ari EB. Military covenants and contracts in motion: reservists as transmigrants 10 years later. Armed Forces & Society. 2021;47(4):616–34. Available from: 10.1177/0095327x20924034 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
45.Goldenberg I, Ben-Ari E. Transmigration, voluntary service and complementary careers: a comparison of Canadian Regular and Reserve Force military members. In: Ben-Ari E, Connelly V, editors. Contemporary Military Reserves. 1 ed. London: Routledge; 2022. p. 39–62. [Google Scholar]
46.Dobreva-Martinova T, Villeneuve M, Strickland L, et al. Occupational role stress in the Canadian forces: its association with individual and organizational well-being. Can J Behav Sci Rev Can Sci Comport. 2002;34(2): 111–21. 10.22215/etd/2002-05045 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
47.Britt TW, Dickinson JM, Moore D, et al. Correlates and consequences of morale versus depression under stressful conditions. J Occup Health Psychol. 2007;12(1):34–47. 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.34 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.van Heerden R, Naicker V. The mitigating consequences of perceived organisational support on the influence of worker morale in a distributed work landscape. Technol Audit Prod Reserv. 2023;6(4/74):51–7. 10.15587/2706-5448.2023.292872 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
49.Van Boxmeer LE, Verwijs C, Euwema M, et al. Assessing morale and psychological distress during modern military operations. In: 52nd Conference of the International Military Testing Association 2010. Sep 27 (Vol. 27). [Google Scholar]
50.Ivey GW. How’s morale? What is morale? In: the human dimensions of operations: a personnel research perspective. Kingston, Ontario: Canadian Defence Academy Press; 2014. p. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
51.Australian Bureau of Statistics . Chapter – K10 Scoring [Internet]. AU; Commonwealth of Australia; Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2012. [cited 2024 Apr 30]. Available from: www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4817.0.55.001Chapter92007-08 [Google Scholar]
52.Slade T, Grove R, Burgess P. Kessler Psychological Distress Scale: normative data from the 2007 Australian national survey of mental health and wellbeing. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011. Apr 1;45(4):308–16. 10.3109/00048674.2010.543653 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Murphy PJ, Farley KMJ. Morale, cohesion, and confidence in leadership. In: McCann C, Pigeau R, editors. The human in command [Internet]. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2000. [cited 2024 May 2]. p. 311–31. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4615-4229-2_21 [Google Scholar]
54.Shields B, Chen C. Examining the relationship between work-life conflict and burnout. J Natl Inst Career Educ Couns. 2021. Oct 1;47(1):67–76. 10.20856/jnicec.4710 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
55.Vojvodic AR, Dedic G. Correlation between burnout syndrome and anxiety in military personnel. Experimental and Applied Biomedical Research (EABR). 2020;21(1):59–65. 10.2478/sjecr-2018-0004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
56.Hosseini SM, Hesam S, Hosseini SA. Burnout among military personnel: a systematic review. Iran J Psychiatry. 2023. Apr;18(2):213–36. 10.18502/ijps.v18i2.12371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Sarisik M, Bogan E, Zengin B, et al. The impact of burnout on organizational commitment: a study of public sector employees in Turkey. Journal of Global Business Insights. 2019;4(2):106–18. 10.5038/2640-6489.4.2.1066 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
58.Kahn WA, Fellows S. Employee engagement and meaningful work. In: Dik BJ, Byrne ZS, Steger MF, editors. Purpose and meaning in the workplace. American Psychological Association; 2013. p. 105–26. Available from: 10.1037/14183-006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
59.Kim WH, Ra YA, Park JG, et al. Role of burnout on job level, job satisfaction, and task performance. Leadersh Organ Dev J. 2017. Jan 1;38(5):630–45. 10.1108/lodj-11-2015-0249 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
60.Ali N, Ali A. The mediating effect of job satisfaction between psychological capital and job burnout of Pakistani nurses. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS). 2014;8(2):399–412. [Google Scholar]
61.Liu J, Zhu B, Wu J, et al. Job satisfaction, work stress, and turnover intentions among rural health workers: a cross-sectional study in 11 western provinces of China. BMC Fam Pract. 2019. Jan 14;20(1):9 10.1186/s12875-019-0904-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Yukongdi V, Shrestha P. The influence of affective commitment, job satisfaction and job stress on turnover intention: a study of Nepalese bank employees. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research 9(Supplementary issue 1):88–98. [Google Scholar]

[r63] 1.Netemeyer RG, Boles JS, McMurrian R. Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. J Appl Psychol. 1996;81(4):400–10. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r64] 2.Colquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):386–400 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.386 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r65] 3.Osipow SH, Spokane AR. A manual for measures of occupational stress, strain, and coping. PAR, Inc.; 1983. [Google Scholar]

[r66] 4.Villeneuve LCol M, Dobreva-Martinova T, Currie JG. Buying low attrition or building high retention? That is the question. DMEP-A/RT Report 2004–06. Defence Research and Development Canada; 2004. [Google Scholar]

[r67] 5.Woycheshin DE. Review of the unit morale profile core measures. Technical Note, DMPORA TN 2007–11. Ottawa, ON: Director Military Personnel Operational Research and Analysis; 2007. [Google Scholar]

[r68] 6.Carless SA, Wearing AJ, Mann L. A short measure of transformational leadership. J Bus Psychol. 2000;13(3):389–405. Available from: 10.1023/A:1022991115523 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r69] 7.Bernard JA. Les facteurs explicatifs de la rétention du personnel d’officiers au sein du commandement aérien des Forces canadiennes [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Université du Québec en Outaouais; 2004. [Google Scholar]

[r70] 8.Cameron JE. A three-factor model of social identity. Self Identity. 2004;3(3):239–62. 10.1080/13576500444000047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r71] 9.Wensing E. Comparative attitudinal data set: 2015 results. The technical cooperation program document. HUM-TP23; 2016. [Google Scholar]

[r72] 10.van Veldhoven MJPM, Meijman TF, Broersen JPJ, et al. Handleiding VBBA [Manual QEEW]. SKB Vragenlijst Services; 2002. [Google Scholar]

[r73] 11.van der Doef M, Maes S. The Leiden quality of work questionnaire: its construction, factor structure, and psychometric qualities. Psychol Rep. 1999;85(3):954–62. 10.2466/pr0.1999.85.3.954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r74] 12.Spreitzer GM. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad Manag J. 1995;38(5):1442–65. 10.5465/256865 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r75] 13.Glick P, Berdahl JL, Alonso NM. Development and validation of the masculinity contest culture scale. J Soc Issues. 2018;74(3):449–76. 10.1111/josi.12280 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r76] 14.Marchand A, Haines III VY, Dextras-Gauthier J. Quantitative analysis of organizational culture in occupational health research: a theory-based validation of 30 workplaces of the organizational culture profile instrument. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:443. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r77] 15.O’Reilly CA, Chatman J, Caldwell DF. People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal. 1991;34(3), 487–516. 10.2307/256404 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r78] 16.Zohar D. A group-level model of safety climate: testing the effect of group climate on micro-accidents in manufacturing jobs. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(4):587–96. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.587 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r79] 17.Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, et al. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1986;71, 500–7. 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r80] 18.Eisenberger R, Shanock LR, Wen X. Perceived organizational support: why caring about employees counts. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2020;7:101–24. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044917 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r81] 19.van den Broeck A, Vansteenkiste M, De Witte H, et al. Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2010;83(4):981–1002. 10.1348/096317909X481382 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r82] 20.Cable DM, DeRue DS. The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(5):875–84. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r83] 21.Saks AM, Ashforth BE. A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology. 1997;50(2), 395–426. [Google Scholar]

[r84] 22.Cable DM, Judge TA. Person – organization fit, job-choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;67(3):294–311. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r85] 23.DeBode JD, Armenakis AA, Feild HS, et al. Assessing ethical organizational culture: refinement of a scale. J Appl Behav Sci. 2013;49(4):460–484. 10.1177/0021886313500987 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r86] 24.Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2): 350–83. 10.2307/2666999 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r87] 25.Schmidt AA. Development and validation of the toxic leadership scale [Master’s thesis]. University of Maryland; 2008. Publication No. 1453699. Available from: www.semanticscholar.org/paper/An-Examination-of-Toxic-Leadership%2C-Job-Outcomes%2C-Schmidt/a68324fe444d0fbf53cf82b10358448a67d04bce [Google Scholar]

[r88] 26.Schmidt AA. An examination of toxic leadership, job outcomes, and the impact of military deployment [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland; 2014. Publication No. 3627674. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]

[r89] 27.Spector PE. Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. Am J Community Psychol. 1985;13(6): 693–713. 10.1007/BF00929796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r90] 28.Lehman KA, Burns MN, Gagen EC, Mohr DC. Development of the brief inventory of perceived stress. J Clin Psychol. 2012;68(6):631–44. 10.1002/jclp.21843 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r91] 29.Cammann C, Fichman M, Jenkins GD, et al. The Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire [Unpublished manuscript]. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; 1979. [Google Scholar]

[r92] 30.Cammann C, Fichman M, Jenkins GD, et al. Michigan organizational assessment questionnaire. In: Seashore SE, Lawler EE, Mirvis PH, Cammann C, editors. Assessing organizational change: a guide to methods, measures, and practices. Wiley-Interscience; 1983. p. 71–138. [Google Scholar]

[r93] 31.Houle SA, Rich BL, Comeau CA, et al. The job engagement scale: development and validation of a short form in English and French. J Bus Psychol. 2022;37:877–96. 10.1007/s10869-021-09782-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r94] 32.Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA. Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993;78(4):538–51. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r95] 33.Meyer JP, Kam C, Goldenberg I, et al. Organizational commitment in the military: application of a profile approach. Military Psychology 2013;25(4):381–401. 10.1037/mil0000007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r96] 34.Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):959–76. 10.1017/S0033291702006074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[r97] 35.Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Vardakou I, et al. The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: a multitrait-multimethod analysis. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2003;19(1):12–23. Available from: 10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[r98] 36.Therrien M, Blanc J-R S. Development and validation of a short version of the Oldenburg burnout inventory. Paper presented at: Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society (IUS); 2014; Ottawa, ON. [Google Scholar]

[r99] 37.Coralli SM. Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job previews. J Appl Psychol. 1984;69:633–42. 10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.633 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Psychological health and safety in the Canadian Defence Team

Alla Skomorovsky

Justin Chamberland

Nadine Charanek

Roles

Abstract

Introduction:

Methods:

Results:

Discussion:

Lay Summary

Abstract

Introduction:

Méthodologie :

Résultats :

Discussion :

Psychological health and safety in the Canadian Defence Team

The National Standard on Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace

The current study

Methods

Procedure and participants

Measures

Table 2.

Table 1.

Statistical analyses

Table 3.

Results

Psychological health and safety across components

Drivers of outcomes of interest

Table 4.

Regular Force members

Primary Reserve members

DND public service personnel

Discussion

Job satisfaction

Job engagement

Affective commitment

Morale

Psychological distress

Burnout

Turnover intentions

Key drivers and general recommendations

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Competing Interests

Ethics Approval

Informed Consent

Registry and Registration no. of the Study/Trial

Animal Studies

Peer Review

Biographies

Appendix

References

Funding Statement

Footnotes

References

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases