Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jan 19;16(1):e0245276. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245276

Associations between culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises: A cross-sectional study

Patrick Nekula 1,#, Clemens Koob 1,*,#
Editor: Andrew Soundy2
PMCID: PMC7815090  PMID: 33465159

Abstract

Introduction

The aging of staff and skill shortage are major challenges for social enterprises. Nurturing a workplace culture of health and fostering employee engagement could be starting points to combat these challenges. The associations between these two factors have received comparatively little attention from the scientific community, in particular with regard to social enterprises. Hence, this study aims to examine those associations, drawing on the job demands-resources theory and the social-ecological workplace culture of health model. It is hypothesized that employees’ self-rated health acts as a mediator in the relationship between culture of health and employee engagement and that health as personal value works as a moderator.

Method

The study used the Workplace Culture of Health scale to measure culture of health in social enterprises and UWES-9 to assess employee engagement. Data was collected administering a quantitative online survey among employees of social enterprises in Germany. The dataset for analyses comprised N = 172 employees in total. Data analyses included Pearson’s correlations, regression analysis, as well as mediation, moderation and moderated mediation analyses.

Results

Culture of health is a predictor of employee engagement in social enterprises. The analyses demonstrate a moderate association between culture of health and employee engagement. Indications were found that employees’ self-rated health acts as a mediator and that health as personal value acts as a moderator between culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises.

Discussion

This study suggests that fostering a culture of health in social enterprises does not only have a positive effect on employee health, but also on employee engagement. This applies in particular when employees attribute great value to their health, which is to be expected even more in future. Hence, nurturing a culture of health becomes a pivotal management task in social enterprises. Moreover, a comprehensive assessment of the benefits of health promotion programs in social enterprises should not only consider their health-related outcomes, but also factor in their impact on employee engagement.

Introduction

The aging of society is a well-documented phenomenon in developed countries [1] which has a tremendous impact on organizations as it leads to a constantly aging workforce [2]. This poses major challenges for organizations in general and social enterprises, i.e. organizations that primarily provide social services [3, 4], in particular [5]. The rising average age of employees is generally associated with increasing age-related health problems, implying a decreasing ability to work and a higher risk of prolonged sick leaves [6, 7]. These factors are in turn associated with, e.g., losses in productivity and performance and substantial cost burdens [6]. Another threat to organizations in the social work sector that is at least partially caused by a society-wide aging workforce is the continuously growing shortage of skilled professionals [8]. Taking these developments together, social enterprises are required to preserve their employees’ capacity to work, i.e. prevent or counter age-related or other kinds of illnesses and diseases. In addition, employee fluctuation needs to be prevented, while recruiting and motivating skilled professionals, to combat the threat of skill shortage.

Nurturing a workplace culture of health could be one starting point to meet these challenges. According to Schein’s conceptualization organizational culture is being shaped by a continuous learning process and comprises three levels: artifacts, values and assumptions [9]. A workplace culture of health denotes an organizational culture that prioritizes and promotes employee health and well-being at all of these three levels. In the case of a pronounced culture of health, health promotion programs may be an integral part of business on the artifact level, while on the level of values, health may be an essential aspect of guiding principles and strategies, positively influencing managers’ and employees’ assumptions regarding health and well-being at the deepest level of organizational culture [10, 11].

Another starting point for tackling the aforementioned challenges could be fostering employee engagement. This approach was generally found to be effective in prior studies, e.g. in attenuating turnover-intentions and thereby reducing employee fluctuation, or in improving the mental and physical health of employees [1214]. Employee engagement is usually defined as ‘a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption’ [15]. This definition conceptualizes engagement as comprising three dimensions. Whereas vigor describes high levels of energy and resilience regarding one’s work, dedication refers to work-related feelings of pride and significance and absorption denotes a particularly concentrated, flow-like working state during which it seems hard to disconnect from working [15].

While previous studies suggested that both promoting a workplace culture of health and encouraging employee engagement are potential remedies for the challenges social enterprises are facing, there are no studies yet about how these factors are related. Greater understanding of the relationship between these two factors may help extend research on workplace culture of health by exploring employee engagement as potential outcome, and may at the same time add to research on employee engagement by introducing health culture as possible antecedent. In addition, a more precise knowledge of the relationship between health culture and work engagement may help to further professionalize the management of social enterprises, which scholars have called for [16, 17]. Hence, this study aims to investigate the associations between workplace culture of health and employee engagement in the domain of social enterprises.

Theoretical background

Job demands-resources theory

To investigate the associations between a workplace culture of health and employee engagement, this study first draws on the job demands-resources (JD-R) theory. This model of occupational well-being is commonly used by researchers to examine potential antecedents of employee engagement [13]. As depicted in Fig 1, the model differentiates between two processes.

Fig 1. Job demands-resources (JD-R) model [14].

Fig 1

If job demands, which are defined as ‘physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job, that require sustained physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs’ [18], are too high or cannot be met, they can lead to strain or exhaustion which in turn can lead to negative health outcomes [13, 19, 20]. In the JD-R model, this is termed health impairment process. The other process of the model is based on job resources. Job resources are defined as ‘physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that may do any of the following: (a) be functional in achieving work goals; (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; (c) stimulate personal growth and development’ [18]. If adequate job resources are available to fulfill job demands, this can lead to engagement, which in turn can lead to positive performance outcomes. This is described as the motivational process of the JD-R model [13, 20]. It is important to add that, though not depicted in Fig 1, an interaction between job demands and job resources is assumed, since initiating motivation or health impairment processes is dependent on whether there are enough job resources available to meet the job demands, implying a relation between the two factors [21]. According to meta-analyses, there are further outcomes of high levels of employee engagement besides employees’ task performance, such as increased levels of organizational citizenship behavior and reduced turnover intentions [22]. Referring to these potentially beneficial outcomes of employee engagement, it seems plausible that social enterprises can take measures to increase levels of employee engagement in order to combat current challenges they are facing, as stated above. Based on various research efforts, it is also assumed that personal resources play a role in the JD-R model, but due to the diversity of studies attributing varying roles to these personal resources, so far no broad consensus on their position in the model has been reached [12, 23].

Since the goal of the present study is to examine the association between employee engagement and a workplace culture of health, we will conceptualize the latter in the next section.

Social-ecological workplace culture of health model

In line with prior research [e.g. 11, 24] we conceptualize a health culture as an organizational culture that prioritizes and promotes employee health and well-being on all cultural levels. We further draw on the workplace culture of health theory proposed by Kwon and colleagues [25], being one of the most comprehensive concepts elaborated in this domain so far. This concept resorts to a social-ecological model suggesting that individual behaviors are influenced by both environmental and social factors. Other influencing factors are personal characteristics and interpersonal processes [26]. Therefore, these multidimensional factors and their interactions should be taken into account when analyzing health and health promotion [26, 27]. Based on this social-ecological model Kwon and colleagues [25] describe a workplace culture of health as a construct consisting of environmental and social factors in and of organizations, that can influence the (health-)behavior and health of individuals. The derived factors supporting workplace health and their definitions are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1. Definitions of the culture of health dimensions [2,5].
Dimension Definition
Senior leadership Expressed vision and resource allocation from the senior leaders indicating the employee’s health is a priority for the organization
Policies and procedures Alignment to support and accomplish vision in matters of health; and serves as a catalyst to allow employees to benefit from available resources
Programs Initiatives and programs to support and improve employee health
Supervisor support Encouragement, concern, and support from supervisors regarding a support for individual health and health promotion initiative
Coworker Support Encouragement and support from peers regarding health
Role modeling Other’s practice of healthy behaviors or setting health as a priority; living evidence that certain achievements are possible
Mood Employee attitudes, feelings, and perceptions that can influence motivation; mood can enhance or inhibit program participation
Values* In general, values stem from the leaders of an organization, and are then cultivated among managers and employees. In a culture of health, employee health tends to be viewed as having intrinsic worth and is related to the organization’s success.

* Note: Values was added according to the latest revision of the workplace culture of health scale.

Prior research demonstrated positive effects of a strong workplace culture of health on employee health and health-promotion-effectiveness [24, 28], but also suggested positive distal effects on employee [29] and stock performance [30, 31]. Referring to these potentially beneficial outcomes, it seems plausible to assume that promoting a workplace culture of health can be a legitimate strategy to counter the challenges social enterprises are confronted with, as outlined before. Hence, in what follows, we will discuss the possible associations between a workplace culture of health and employee engagement.

Research hypotheses

Workplace culture of health as antecedent of employee engagement

Based on the theoretical building blocks outlined before, we propose health resources to be the linking pin between a workplace culture of health and employee engagement. Health resources can be defined as resources that prevent or weaken the effect of health-related stressors on individuals and in turn may have a positive impact on individuals’ health and well-being, as well as recovery. In the context of work, examples for health resources on an individual level are professional health competencies or resilience, and examples on an organizational level are autonomy or learning opportunities [32]. As part of the JD-R model, health resources might help to reduce job demands and foster engagement. Since a workplace culture of health aims to promote health resources, we expect a strong workplace culture of health to positively affect employee engagement in social enterprises.

Taking a closer look at the dimensions of a workplace culture of health should help to further unfold this proposed mechanism. By crafting a compelling health-related vision senior leaders could clearly emphasize the importance of promoting health in the organization and lead to more awareness for health [33], and thus contribute to an increase in employees’ health resources. Organizational policies and procedures might work in a similar vein, allowing employees to benefit from available resources. An example would be catering policies focusing on educating employees in nutritional issues and increasing their health-related knowledge [34]. Health promotion programs refer to efforts to enrich health resources in organizations and are thus expected to be also positively related to employee engagement. Behavioral focused programs target individuals directly, e.g. through the means of company sport groups, and environmental-focused programs aim to change work conditions to promote employee health, e.g. through reducing overtime [32, 35]. Social support at work generally denotes the level of helping social interactions with management, supervisors, or coworkers at work [36], can be a way to access resources that are beyond those of individuals [20, 37] and is known to be positively related to employee engagement [38, 39]. We expect this positive relationship with engagement also to hold for health-related support, since supervisors’ and coworkers’ encouragement and concern in health matters are equivalent to an increase in an employee’s health resources. Referring to Bandura’s social-cognitive learning theory, individuals are able to adapt to their environment by observing and mimicking models surrounding them. In an organizational context, supervisors or colleagues could act as such role models for healthy behaviors, e.g. by dealing with stress in a sensible way, stimulating an employee’s personal growth and development in health matters [40, 41]. This corresponds to an accrual of health resources and should therefore have a positive effect on employee engagement. A positive mood can also function as an individual’s personal resource, since it refers to psychological ‘aspects of the self that are generally associated with resiliency and that refer to the ability to control and impact one’s environment successfully’ [12], and it is therefore expected to be positively related to work engagement. If, e.g., an employee is convinced that the social enterprise she is working for has her best health interests at heart, it can be expected that she is more persistent in dealing with work demands, and engagement is more likely to occur. Organizational values encourage certain practices, give meaning to actions and are apt to increase employees’ connectedness to their work environment [42]. Within the JD-R framework, values can function as job resources that can help achieving work goals, reducing job demands or stimulating personal growth and development. It can be expected that this also applies to health-related organizational values. If health is considered a core value, it means an increase in health-related resources for employees, since it enables them to take their own health into account and act in accordance with culture at the same time, which should contribute positively to employee engagement.

Taken together, we expect:

  • H1: A workplace culture of health is positively related to employee engagement in social enterprises.

Self-rated health as a potential mediator in the relation between culture of health and employee engagement

The central goal of the present study is to examine the relationship between a workplace culture of health and employee engagement. To do so, it is necessary to dig even deeper into the potential effects of a workplace culture of health. The social-ecological workplace culture of health model implies that a strong health culture is apt to positively influence employee’s health-related perceptions, in other words, their self-rated health. Self-rated health refers to a complex cognitive process including various influencing factors, ranging from personal aspects like physical activity, tobacco and alcohol use, diet or obesity, to the cultural environment as an influencing factor on individual’s self-perception [43, 44]. Kwan and Marzec [45], e.g., have argued that a strong culture of health makes employees more interested in practicing healthy behaviors which affects self-rated health.

According to the JD-R theory, a positively rated health in turn could act as a personal resource and is hence supposed to increase employee engagement. Prior research by Brauchli and colleagues [46] adds support to this line of argumentation, in finding that employees’ self-rated health can be an antecedent to employee engagement, as does a study from Persson and colleagues that demonstrated a positive relation between self-rated health and overall work experiences [47].

Consequently, it might be expected that employees’ self-rated health mediates the relationship between a workplace culture of health and employee engagement. In addition to a direct positive effect on employee engagement, an established workplace culture of health could have a positive effect on employees’ self-rated health, which in turn also could lead to a positive effect on employee engagement.

Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

  • H2: Self-rated health acts as mediator in the relationship between workplace culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises.

Health as a personal value as a possible moderator of the association between workplace culture of health and employee engagement

Previous research on organizational health culture has primarily purported positive effects of workplace culture of health initiatives. However, it is also known from past general research on cultural change, that the effects of change initiatives depend on the personal values of employees [48]. Prior studies have demonstrated that employees exposed to active efforts to change an organization’s culture may feel pushed to act inauthentically [49, 50] in cases when the intended culture makes it difficult for them to be true to themselves and act in accordance with their personal values [5153], leading to less acceptance and less energetic support of these efforts.

For the present study this means that we similarly expect that the effects of a culture of health on employee engagement will depend on the degree to which the culture allows employees to ‘just be themselves’, i.e. to act authentically. Following this perspective, employees that attribute great value to their health are likely able to act authentically under the conditions of a strong health culture, while employees that regard health as less important may find it not that easy to behave authentically. Hence, the former group of employees might experience stronger engagement uplifts with a more pronounced workplace culture of health than the latter group.

In other words, we expect the following:

  • H3: Health as personal value acts as a moderator between workplace culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises.

Method

Study design and setting

To test the proposed hypotheses, a cross-sectional research design was chosen. For collecting primary data, we relied on a structured questionnaire and used measures from previous research. All questions were asked in German language. The questionnaire was hosted on an online platform (SoSciSurvey) to fulfil the European Union’s data privacy rules. Data were collected in August and September 2019.

Participants

The target group of the study were employees of social enterprises in Germany. More specifically, criteria for inclusion were that the employing organization primarily provided social services and that social workers or social pedagogues were part of the workforce. Participants themselves did not have to be social workers or social pedagogues, since other professionals (e.g., administrative workers, psychologists) also work in social enterprises. Moreover, participants needed to be employed at the current social enterprise for at least 6 months, since it typically takes this time to ensure sufficient organizational socialization [54] which is required for understanding and reporting on an organization’s culture [9].

On the one hand, potential participants were directly contacted via social media using three well-known social work-related groups on Facebook. On the other hand, based on a systematic identification of social enterprises in different regions of each federal state in Germany, more than 150 organizations were contacted by phone and asked to support the study. Those who declared their willingness to support the investigation received an e-mail describing the study goals and procedure and were asked to forward the invitation for participation to employees.

Measurement of main variables

Employee engagement was measured with the German version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 (UWES-9). It is the short version of the UWES questionnaire consisting of three subscales (vigor, dedication, absorption) with three items each that are measured on a 7-point Likert type scale (ranging from never to always). In previous research, this scale showed high internal consistency and test-retest-reliability, as well as discriminant, convergent and construct-validity and therefore was deemed appropriate for this study [22, 55, 56].

Workplace culture of health was measured with the most recent version of the Workplace Culture of Health Scale developed by Kwon and colleagues [25]. In order to use the latest version, the corresponding author of the scale development study was directly contacted. This scale was chosen because it was the only scale that explicitly surveys workplace culture of health from an employee perspective. Furthermore, it was validated several times in prior research and showed signs of high internal consistency with evidence of convergent and discriminant validity [25, 57]. The present study used those 36 items from the scale that are aimed at measuring a culture of health (i.e., items proposed by Kwon and colleagues [25] that are not geared towards measuring a workplace culture of health, but, e.g., towards capturing details of corporate wellness programs, were not included). All workplace culture of health items were measured on a 6-point Likert type scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). The items were divided into subscales representing leadership, policies and procedures, programs, supervisor support, coworker support, role modeling, values, and mood.

Self-rated health is frequently measured with a single item. A comparative study of three different single-item scales for measuring self-rated health concluded that all examined scales could be legitimately used to measure self-rated health [58]. Therefore, this study used one single-item measure that is commonly relied on in big scale surveys in Germany to measure self-rated health [59]. Study participants were asked to answer the question ‘How is your general state of health?’ using a 5-point Likert type scale (ranging from very bad to very good).

As in prior research in the workplace culture of health domain, health as a personal value was also measured using a single item. The item was drawn from the Workplace Culture of Health Scale [25]. Respondents were asked to state on a 6-point Likert type scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) whether ‘taking care of my health is a strong priority in my life’.

Within the scope of the study, all items drawn from the Workplace Culture of Health Scale had to be translated into German language. The translation process followed the guidelines for cross-cultural adaption of self-report measures [60]. The scale items were first forward translated from English to German language by a bilingual translator and then translated back into English language by another bilingual translator blind to the original version. Afterwards, the translations were reviewed, and adjustments were made where needed to achieve semantic, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual equivalence. Before conducting the study, a pretest of the questionnaire was carried out. A content-related pretest, with a focus on comprehensibility, clarity and appropriateness of translation of those items that were translated as part of the study, was carried out with 10 people from the target group in 2 phases and the feedbacks were taken into account. A technical pretest did not show any problems.

In addition to the above variables, gender (binary coded) and age (years) were recorded to be included in the analyses as potential controls, since both factors may significantly relate to the variables under investigation [e.g., 55], possibly leading to a ‘mixing of effects’.

Study size

We eliminated responses from the sample that failed to fit in the target group as described above. Furthermore, based on pretests, responses that took less than 5 minutes to complete were also eliminated from the sample, to counteract participants skimming over the questionnaire and not answering the questions seriously.

Statistical analyses

We used regression analyses including mediation and moderation analyses for hypotheses testing. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26. Mediation and moderation analyses were carried out with Hayes’ [61] PROCESS Macro version 3.5. The procedure comprised four steps: First, to evaluate the effect of a workplace culture of health on employee engagement, engagement was regressed on health culture. Second, the potential mediating effect of self-rated health was examined with regression analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Macro, model 4. Third, the possible moderating effect of health as personal value was examined with regression analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Macro, model 1. To finally jointly investigate the hypothesized effects of workplace culture of health, self-rated health and health as personal value on employee engagement, regression analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Macro, model 5, was carried out. A p-value of < .05 was considered significant.

Ethical considerations

Before realizing the study, the University Ethics Review Board regulations indicated that a research ethics review was not necessary. Reasons for this decision are that the investigation does not include any manipulations or vulnerable groups, and participants were guaranteed that their data is treated anonymously. Moreover, the data has been collected in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation. All participants provided informed consent by clicking on the link to start the study, participation was completely voluntary, and only data from participants were used who completed the study.

Results

Participant data

In total, data collection yielded 213 responses. After eliminating responses from the sample that failed to fit with the aforementioned inclusion criteria, the final sample for analyses comprised N = 172 employees from social enterprises. The sample consisted of 120 (69.8%) female participants, 51 (29.7%) male participants and 1 (0.6%) person identifying as neither female nor male. The high proportion of women in the study sample is characteristic for employees in social enterprises in Germany [62]. The average age of the respondents was 38.0 years (SD 11.25), which is only slightly lower than the mean age of employees in the social sector according to a nationwide survey (41.6 years, [63]), and 132 (76.7%) of the respondents had a degree in social work or social pedagogy. In sum, the characteristics of respondents were in line with expectations.

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table 2 lists the means, standard deviations, Pearson’s correlations, and Cronbach’s alphas of the study variables.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, correlations and Cronbach’s alphas of study variables.

Variables M (range) SD Items 1 2 3 4
1. Culture of health 4.01 (1–6) .73 36 .95
2. Engagement 5.10 (1–7) 1.04 9 .48** .94
3. Self-rated health 3.89 (1–5) .71 1 .18* .32** --
4. Personal value health 4.73 (1–6) 1.01 1 .28** .12 .27** --

Notes

* p < .05

** p < .01

Cronbach’s alphas for multi-item measures are in italics on the diagonal in the correlation matrix.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the multi-item measures workplace culture of health and employee engagement were .95 and .94, exceeding the recommended minimum of .70, indicating a very good reliability [64].

In line with expectations, employee engagement related positively to workplace culture of health (r = .48, p < .01) and to self-rated health (r = .32, p < .01), with the correlation coefficients indicating moderate relations [65] between the variables. In addition, workplace culture of health showed weak correlations with self-rated health (r = .18, p < .05) and health as a personal value (r = .28, p < .01), as did self-rated health and health as a personal value (r = .27, p < .01).

Hypothesis testing

To evaluate the effect of a workplace culture of health on employee engagement, regression analysis was used. Workplace culture of health explained a substantial proportion of variance in employee engagement (R2 = .23, F(1, 170) = 51.49, p < .001). In Hypothesis 1, we expected that there would be a positive association between a workplace culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises. The regression coefficient indicated that as we hypothesized, workplace culture of health was significantly and positively associated with engagement (b = .68, t(170) = 7.18, p < .001). Therefore, the data support Hypothesis 1.

With regard to Hypothesis 2, we predicted that self-rated health would act as mediator in the relationship between workplace culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises. The potential mediating effect of self-rated health was examined using Hayes’ PROCESS Macro, model 4. Results of the mediation analysis are presented in Fig 2.

Fig 2. Mediation model.

Fig 2

Self-rated health mediating the effect of workplace culture of health on employee engagement.

Workplace culture of health was positively associated with self-rated health (a = .17, t(170) = 2.33, p < .05), which in turn was positively related to employee engagement (b = .35, t(169) = 3.66, p < .001). Significance of the indirect effect was examined using bootstrapping. As recommended by Hayes [61], 5’000 bootstrapped samples and a confidence interval of 95 percent were used. The analysis yielded a positive and significant indirect effect of workplace culture of health on employee engagement through self-rated health of a x b = .06 with a 95 percent confidence interval from .002 to .130. At the same time, the residual direct effect of workplace culture of health on employee engagement was also significant (c’ = .62, t(169) = 6.67, p < .001). Therefore, self-rated health partially mediated the relation between a workplace culture of health and employee engagement. The model accounted for 29 percent of the variance in employee engagement (R2 = .29, F(2,169) = 34.30, p <. 001). Thus, Hypothesis 2 cannot be rejected.

Hypothesis 3 predicted a moderating role of health as personal value between culture of health and employee engagement. The moderating effect of health as personal value was examined using Hayes’ PROCESS Macro, model 1. Following recommendations by Hayes [61], we mean-centered the predictor (i.e. culture of health) and the moderator (i.e. health as personal value) prior to analysis to aid in interpretation. Results of the moderation analysis are presented in Fig 3.

Fig 3. Moderation model.

Fig 3

Health as personal value moderating the effect of workplace culture of health on employee engagement.

The analysis yielded a significant model accounting for 27 percent of the variance in employee engagement (R2 = .27, F(3,167) = 20.91, p < .001). We found a significant interaction between workplace culture of health and health as personal value on employee engagement (b3 = .23, t(167) = 2.83, p < .01; ΔR2 = .03, F(1,167) = 8.00, p < .01). Thus, health as personal value was a significant moderator of the relationship between workplace culture of health and employee engagement.

To explore the interaction pattern, simple slopes for culture of health predicting employee engagement depending on the level of health as personal value were investigated. Results suggest that for employees who were low in health as personal value (those with scores 1 standard deviation below the mean), the simple slope was b = .41 (t(167) = 3.00, p <. 01), while for employees with a mean level of health as personal value the simple slope was b =. 65 (t(167) = 6.59, p <. 001). For employees high in health as personal value (those with scores 1 standard deviation above the mean), the simple slope was b = .88 (t(167) = 7.51, p <. 001). Hence, the relationship between workplace culture of health and employee engagement was stronger for employees that attribute great value to their health than it was for employees regarding health as less important. These results are in line with our proposed moderation Hypothesis 3.

To finally jointly investigate the hypothesized effects of workplace culture of health, self-rated health and health as personal value on employee engagement, Hayes’ PROCESS Macro, model 5, was used. This is a mediation model that allows the direct effect of workplace culture of health on employee engagement to be moderated. Following recommendations by Hayes [61], we again mean-centered the predictor (i.e. culture of health) and the moderator (i.e. health as personal value) prior to analysis to aid in interpretation. Results of this analysis are presented in Fig 4.

Fig 4. Moderated mediation model.

Fig 4

Health as personal value moderating and self-rated health mediating the effect of workplace culture of health on employee engagement.

The moderated mediation model explained a substantial proportion of variance in employee engagement (R2 = .33, F(4,166) = 20.06, p <. 001). As before, workplace culture of health was positively associated with self-rated health (a = .17, t(169) = 2.32, p < .05), which in turn was positively related to employee engagement (b = .35, t(166) = 3.61, p < .001). Significance of the indirect effect was once more examined using bootstrapping as recommended by Hayes [61]. The analysis yielded a positive and significant indirect effect of workplace culture of health on employee engagement through self-rated health of a x b = .06 with a 95 percent confidence interval from .003 to .134.

Regarding moderation, the model showed a significant interaction between workplace culture of health and health as personal value on employee engagement after controlling for self-rated health (c3 = .20, t(4,166) = 2.53, p <. 05; ΔR2 = .03, F(1,166) = 6.42, p < .05). Hence, the direct relationship between workplace culture of health and employee engagement is moderated by health as personal value.

Again, simple slopes were investigated to explore the patterns of conditional direct effects. For employees low in health as personal value (those with scores 1 standard deviation below the mean), the effect of culture of health on employee engagement was c = .41 (t(166) = 3.10, p <. 01). For employees attributing medium value to health (mean level of health as personal value), the effect of culture of health on employee engagement was c = .62 (t(166) = 6.47, p <. 001). For employees attributing high value to health (those with scores 1 standard deviation above the mean), the effect of culture of health on employee engagement was c = .82 (t(166) = 7.15, p <. 001).

Fig 5 shows that the relationship between workplace culture of health and employee engagement was stronger for employees attributing high relevance to health than it was for employees low in health as personal value.

Fig 5. Interaction plot for employee engagement.

Fig 5

The slope was steeper for employees attributing high value to health, indicating relatively rapid increases in employee engagement with stronger workplace culture of health. On the other hand, the employee engagement slope was relatively lower for employees attributing less value to health. This indicated enhancing interactions, i.e. increasing the moderator increased the effect of workplace culture of health on employee engagement.

We also explored the crossing point of the set of lines depicted in Fig 5, representing the value for culture of health at which health as personal value has no effect on employee engagement, which is Xcross cent = .15 referring to the mean-centered predictor or Xcross = 4.16 with respect to uncentred workplace culture of health scores. For higher values of culture of health, employees attributing high value to health showed higher engagement than employees attributing less value to health. Likewise, for values of culture of health below this intersection, employees attributing less value to health showed higher engagement than employees attributing high value to health.

To rule out possible confounding effects of the sociodemographic variables gender and age on the associations studied, an additional sensitivity analysis was performed. The aforementioned moderated mediation model was supplemented by gender and age as covariates. Since the inclusion of these potential confounders did not result in any change of the effects reported above by more than 5%, they were not included in the final model.

Taking the aforementioned results together, they supported Hypothesis 1, 2 and 3.

Discussion

This study examined whether and how a workplace culture of health relates to employee engagement in social enterprises. We conceptualized and empirically tested a moderated mediation model that proposed that a workplace culture of health impacts employee engagement both directly and indirectly through self-rated health, and that the direct relation is moderated by the value employees attribute to health.

Theoretical implications

The present study advances research on employee engagement. We introduced a workplace culture of health as a novel factor that positively influences employee engagement in organizations. While previous research in the employee engagement domain showed several key antecedents of engagement in terms of specific job characteristics (e.g. task significance or task variety), leadership properties (e.g. transformational leadership), contextual factors (e.g. social support) or personality traits (e.g. conscientiousness, positive affect, optimism) [see, e.g., 22, 66], we add to this knowledge by incorporating an organization’s health culture as a contextual antecedent of employee engagement in organizations. Integrating health-related factors not only as potential outcomes of employee engagement (see, e.g., [67]), but also as antecedents, is vital for increasing our understanding about engagement in organizations and advancing theory building in this field, which scholars have called for [12, 22, 66].

Notably, in this regard our investigation also provided insights under which conditions a workplace culture of health is beneficial for employee engagement and thus individual employees as well as social enterprises. We found that employees’ personal values in terms of the importance they attribute to health shape the influence a workplace culture of health unfolds on employee engagement. While an organizational culture that prioritizes and promotes employee health and well-being was found to exert positive impact on engagement for employees attributing different value to health, it proved to be particularly influential for employees for whom taking care of health is a high priority in life. Attributing great value to health might help employees to derive positive meaning from a workplace culture of health and to act authentically in everyday work, which contributes to work engagement.

Furthermore, our theoretical considerations and empirical investigation extend research on health promotion in general and workplace culture of health in particular. Prior research in the field of workplace culture of health already demonstrated that such an organizational culture can in principle have positive implications beyond employees’ health as it was found, e.g., to impact job satisfaction [57]. Our results on the one hand substantiate this line of reasoning. On the other hand, by providing evidence that a workplace culture of health also influences employee engagement, we expand these elaborations, as engagement is an organizational behavior construct fundamentally different from job satisfaction [12]. Our work suggests that a workplace culture of health is not only related to evaluative judgments employees make about their jobs or job situations, i.e. contentment with status quo and therefore an aspect of satiation, but also to employees’ activation.

In addition, by demonstrating that there is a positive direct link between culture of health and engagement as well as an indirect link through employees’ self-rated health, this study adds to better understanding the possible mechanisms by which a culture of health unfolds positive motivational effects. The direct link corroborates the reciprocity mechanism proposed, e.g., by Gubler and colleagues [29], positing that employees feel grateful for an organization’s health-promotion measures and are thus inclined to reciprocate in terms of engagement. The established indirect link through self-rated health substantiates the existence of a capability mechanism [29], by which health-promotion measures help employees improving their health and thus their work capability, leading to higher engagement.

Furthermore, our study supports the claim (see, e.g. [68]), that health promotion efforts like establishing a culture of health should not only be investigated with a disease prevention focus, but also in the light of other individual and organizational outcomes. This might have implications for future research on health culture and health promotion.

Finally, this study advances research on the management of social enterprises, which scholars have called for [16, 17], in two important aspects. By emphasizing the importance of a workplace culture of health, it adds a new perspective to the library of works dealing with organizational culture in social enterprises, and it also contributes to research regarding further professionalization of human resource management practices in this type of organizations.

Practical implications

The present study also has important implications for management practice. The demonstrated positive relation between workplace culture of health and employee engagement implies that managers in social enterprises have one more option to foster engagement and thus improve employees’ work performance and organizational citizenship behavior and prevent employee fluctuation. Consequently, we first advise practitioners to become aware of and responsive for this positive link, and to systematically and regularly assess and evaluate the social enterprise’s culture with respect to the degree by which employee health and well-being are prioritized and promoted on all cultural levels.

Second, we highly recommend nurturing a workplace culture of health in social enterprises. To do so, crafting a compelling health-related vision, establishing clear health policies and procedures, initiating initiatives and programs to support and improve employee health, encouraging and supporting employees in health matters on a daily basis, acting as a role model regarding healthy behaviors, and allocating adequate resources to the aforementioned endeavors and measures would seem to be beneficial. In doing so, however, managers need to be aware that presumably not all measures promoting a workplace culture of health necessarily also contribute to fostering employee engagement. Health policies like a ban on smoking, e.g., may have a positive effect on employee health [69], but may not have any effect on employee engagement. Thus, measures should be planned carefully with objectives in mind.

Importantly, our finding that the relationship between workplace culture of health and employee engagement is moderated by the importance employees attribute to health does not imply, that social enterprises should only pursue on nurturing a health culture if employees are highly health conscious. The study results indeed suggest that a workplace culture of health is particularly relevant in this case, since employees attributing high value to health exhibit comparatively low engagement if a health culture is weakly developed, while a more pronounced health culture has a strong leverage on engagement. However, based on our empirical findings we also recommend nourishing a workplace culture of health if employees are less health-oriented, since there is a positive association between health culture and employee engagement in this case as well.

Our findings also demonstrated that a workplace culture of health is positively linked to employees’ health perceptions. From this point of view, managers in social enterprises should not only strive for fostering a workplace culture of health as a means to increase employee engagement, but also regard it as a lever to prevent or counter health impairments and improve employees’ health. Against the background of the challenges social enterprises are facing, nurturing a workplace culture of health would thus offer social enterprises a rational business advantage since it would quite certainly help to preserve employees’ working capacity. At the same time, doing so would be an ethically appropriate approach, as the respective social enterprise would take responsibility for its employees’ health.

Taken together, based on this study, better management strategies can be devised to simultaneously improve employees’ health and engagement in social enterprises, hitting two birds with one stone.

Limitations and future research

Like any empirical study, the present investigation is not without shortcomings. A first limitation is associated with the cross-sectional design of our study. This research used workplace culture of health as an explanatory variable and employee engagement as a dependent variable, but cross-sectional data generally allows for reverse causality. Employee engagement could very well have an influence on a workplace culture of health. It would be conceivable, e.g., that highly engaged employees strongly advocate for and work towards establishing a culture of health. Although, based on the theoretical argumentation provided above, the directions of causality implied in this study are likely, we must, therefore, remain cautious in inferring causal, unidirectional relationships. Future research might thus create an even firmer base for the direction of the association between workplace culture of health and employee engagement via longitudinal or experimental study designs.

A second limitation is that all of the study’s participants were working for social enterprises located in Germany. Hence, the sample was relatively homogeneous with regard to the general social culture in which the culture of the respective social enterprise was embedded in. The associations identified in this study might present different patterns when investigated in other countries with different cultures and other health-related values. Therefore, scholars could investigate the suggested relationships in other contexts in order to further generalize the current findings.

Third, though we relied on approaches proven in prior research, the measurement of the study constructs could be a potential limitation of this investigation. In operationalizing workplace culture of health, e.g., the present study employed the Workplace Culture of Health Scale developed by Kwon and colleagues [25]. Looking at this scale from the perspective of Schein’s [9] theory of organizational culture, the scale seems to particularly focus on the relatively well perceptible artifact level of health culture (such as health promotion programs), while deeper cultural layers of values and assumptions are examined in less detail. While this approach is common considering how other cultural constructs such as an ethical culture [e.g. 70] or a market-oriented culture [e.g. 71, 72] are usually operationalized, relying on measurement instruments of a culture of health that pay more attention to deeper cultural levels could provide additional insights. Since such measurement instruments are not yet available, scholars might embark on developing more refined workplace culture of health scales, e.g. by drawing on research on scales for measuring organizational culture [73]. In a similar vein, this study’s reference to self-rated health and thus subjective assessments of health status rather than objective health data could be a potential limitation. We had to refrain from taking such objective data into account for reasons of research economy. Although research in favor of our approach has demonstrated that self-rated health is generally consistent with objective health status [e.g. 74, 75], researchers might validate our findings incorporating objective health data such as fitness level, physical activity level or BMI in future research efforts.

Finally, only gender and age were analyzed as potential confounders. Failure to adequately evaluate factors as potential confounders can bias study results and lead to erroneous conclusions. Hence, it would be an achievement if future studies would consider other possible confounding factors.

Beyond addressing limitations, this study opens up a number of avenues for future research. With regard to health as a personal value this investigation focused on the moderating role of the importance of health for employees. However, it may not only be the case that different employees attach different importance to this value, but that employees also consider various aspects to be desirable when it comes to health issues. While some employees in this regard may, e.g., value disciplined health enhancement, others may value enjoyment and pleasure as sources of health [76, 77]. In other words, there might be various health values and specific preferences at the individual level, and future studies may explore their role in more detail. It could be worth investigating whether a health culture exerts the more influence on employee engagement the more it is fitted towards employees’ specific health values. In addition, future studies may investigate in more detail the influence of the various dimensions of a workplace culture of health on employee engagement, also considering their potential interactions.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Dataset of the study.

(SAV)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Hüther M. Langfristige wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und Fachkräftebedarf in Deutschland In: Salzmann T, Skirbekk V, Weiberg M, editors. Wirtschaftspolitische Herausforderungen des demographischen Wandels. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2010. p. 81–106. 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2010.01103.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mikrozensus. Durchschnittsalter von Erwerbstätigen nach ausgewählten Berufsgruppen [internet]; 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 11]. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2018/11/PD18_448_122.html
  • 3.Becker H. Das sozial-wirtschaftliche Sechseck. Soziale Organisationen zwischen Ökonomie und Sozialem. 2nd ed Wiesbaden: Springer; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Department for Trade and Industry (UK). Social Enterprise: a strategy for success [internet]; 2002 [cited 2020 Jul 11]. Available from: http://db.kosbi.re.kr/download.asp?uri=/attach_files/U10/U101002.pdf
  • 5.Priller E, Schmeißer C. Die Beschäftigungssituation in Dritte-Sektor Organisationen. Das Sozialwesen im Vergleich. Sozialer Fortschritt. 2013;(8–9):227–234. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Donders NCGM, Bos JT, van der Velden K , van der Gulden JWJ. Age differences in the associations between sick leave and aspects of health, psychosocial workload and family life: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000960 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Söderbacka T, Nyholm L, Fagerström L. Workplace interventions that support older employees’ health and work ability—a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:472 10.1186/s12913-020-05323-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.König M, Clausen H, Schrank C, Schmidt M. Fachkräftemangel in der Sozialwirtschaft. Eine empirische Studie [internet]; 2012. [cited 2020 Jul 11]. Available from: https://www.sonderpaedagogik.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/06040030/Downloads/Ratz/Studie_Fachkraeftemangel_2012_Ergebnisse_Langfassung_01.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Schein E, Schein P. Organizational culture and leadership. 5th ed Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Struhs-Wehr K. Betriebliches Gesundheitsmanagement und Führung Gesundheitsorientierte Führung als Erfolgsfaktor im BGM. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kent K, Goetzel RZ, Roemer EC, Prasad A, Freundlich N. (2016). Promoting Healthy Workplaces by Building Cultures of Health and Applying Strategic Communications. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;5(2):114–122. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schaufeli WB, Taris TW. A Critical Review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for Improving Work and Health In: Bauer H, Hämmig O, editors. Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health. Dodrecht: Springer; 2014. p. 43–68. 10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007;22(3):309–328. 10.1108/02683940710733115 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ravalier JM. Influence of work engagement in social workers in England. Occup Med. 2018;68:399–404. 10.1093/occmed/kqy087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá V, Bakker AB. The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout–A two Sample confirmatory Factor analytic Approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002;3(1):71–92. 10.1023/A:1015630930326 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Newman A, Mayson S, Teicher J, Barrett R. Special issue of international journal of human resource management: Recruiting, managing and rewarding workers in social enterprises. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2015;26:1907–1909. 10.1080/09585192.2015.1035086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gupta P, Chauhan S, Paul J, Jaiswal MP. Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda. J Bus Res. 2020;113:209–229. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The Job Demands-Resources Model of Burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):499–512. doi: 0.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Travis DJ, Lizano EL, Mor Barak ME. ‘I’m So Stressed!’: A Longitudinal Model of Stress, Burnout and Engagement among Social Workers in Child Welfare Settings. Br J Soc Work. 2016;46:1076–1095. 10.1093/bjsw/bct205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25(3):293–315. 10.1002/job.248 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Taris TW, Leisink PLM, Schaufeli WB. Applying Occupational Health Theories to Educator Stress: Contribution of the Job Demands-Resources Model In: McIntyre T, McIntyre S., Francis D, editors. Educator Stress. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 237–259. 10.1007/978-3-319-53053-6_11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Christian MS, Garza AS, Slaughter J. Work Engagement: A Quantitative Review and Test of its Relations with Task and contextual Performance. Pers Psychol. 2011;64(1):89–136. doi: 0.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Xanthopoulou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. The Role of Personal Resources in the Job Demands-Resources Model. Int J Stress Manag. 2007;14(2):121–141. 10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Aldana SG, Anderson DR, Adams TB, Whitmer RW, Merril RM, George V, et al. A Review of the Knowledge Base on Healthy Worksite Culture. J Occup Environ Med. 2012;54(4):414–419. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31824be25f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kwon Y, Marzec ML, Edington DW. Development and Validity of a Scale to Measure Workplace Culture of Health. J Occup Environ Med. 2015;57(5):571–577. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Establishing Stokols D. and maintaining healthy environments: toward a social ecology of health promotion. Am Psychol. 1992;47:6–22. 10.1037//0003-066x.47.1.6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;14:351–377. 10.1177/109019818801500401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Terry PE, Seaverson ELD, Grossmeier J, Anderson DR. Association Between Nine Quality Components and Superior Worksite Health Management Program Results. J Occup Environ Med. 2008:50(6):633–641. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31817e7c1c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gubler T, Larkin I, Pierce L. Doing Well by Making Well: The Impact of Corporate Wellness Programs on Employee Productivity. Manage Sci. 2017;64(11):4967–4987. 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2883 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fabius R, Thayer RD, Konicki DL, Yarborough CM, Peterson KW, Isaac F et al. The Link Between Workforce Health and Safety and the Health of the Bottom Line–Tracking Market Performance of Companies that Nurture a “Culture of Health”. J Occup Environ Med. 2013;55(9):993–1000. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182a6bb75 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Goetzel RZ, Fabius R, Roemer EC, Kent KB, Berko J, Head MA, et al. The Stock Performance of American Companies Investing in a Culture of Health. Am J Health Promot. 2019;33(3):439–447. 10.1177/0890117118824818 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Osterspey A. Gesundheitskultur: Entwicklung und Verankerung durch Personalmanagement. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2012. 10.1007/s00059-012-3619-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Z5. Hoert J, Herd AM, Hambrick M. The Role of Leadership Support for Health Promotion in Employee Wellness Program Participation, Perceived Job Stress, and Health Behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 2018;32(4):1054–1061. 10.1177/0890117116677798 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kahn-Marshall JL, Gallant MP. Making Healthy Behaviors the Easy Choice for Employees: A Review of Literature in Environmental and Policy Changes in Worksite Health Promotion. Health Educ Behav. 2012;39(6):752–776. 10.1177/1090198111434153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Welch A, Healy G, Straker L, Comans T, O’Leary S, Melloh M, et al. Process evaluation of a workplace-based health promotion and exercise cluster-randomised trial to increase productivity and reduce neck pain in office workers: a RE-AIM approach. BMC Public Health. 2020; 20:180 10.1186/s12889-020-8208-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hobfoll S, Shirom A. Conservation of resources theory: applications to stress and management in the workplace In: Golembiewski RT, editor. Handbook of Organization Behaviour. 2nd ed New York, NY: Dekker; 2000: p. 57–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Othman N, Nasurdin AM. Social support and work engagement: a study of Malaysian nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2013;21(8):1083–1090. 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01448.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sarti D. Job Resources as Antecedents of Engagement at Work: Evidence From a Long-Term Care Setting. Hum Resour Dev Q. 2014;25(2):213–237. 10.1002/hrdq.21189 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wegge J, Shemla M, Haslam SA. Leader behavior as a determinant of health at work: Specification and evidence of five key pathways. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung. 2014;28(1–2):6–23. 10.1688/ZfP-2014-01-Wegge [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bandura A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Valentine S, Godkin L, Fleischman GM, Kidwell R. Corporate Ethical Values, Group Creativity, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: The Impact of Work Context on Work Response. J Bus Ethics. 2011;98:353–372. 10.1007/s10551-010-0554-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Darviri C, Artemiadis A, Tigani X, Alexopoulos E. Lifestyle and self-rated health: a cross-sectional study of 3,601 citizens of Athens, Greece. BMC Public Health. 2011:11;619 10.1186/1471-2458-11-619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jia Y, Gao J, Dai J, Zheng P, Wu X, Li G et al. Difference of the associations between self-rated health and demographic characteristics, lifestyle and psychosocial work environment between two types of Chinese worksite. BMC Public Health. 2014:14;841 10.1186/1471-2458-14-841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kwon Y, Marzec ML. Unpacking the Associations Between Perceived Cultural Support and Employee Health. The Approach of Social Capital. JOEM. 2019;61(11):910–915. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001698 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Brauchli R, Jenny GJ, Füllemann D, Bauer GF. Towards a Job Demands-Resources Health Model: Empirical Testing with Generalizable Indicators of Job Demands, Job Resources, and Comprehensive Health Outcomes. Biomed Res Int. 2015;959621:1–12. 10.1155/2015/959621 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Persson S, Lindström PN, Pettersson P, Andersson I. Workplace relationships impact self-rated health: A survey of Swedish municipal health care employees. Work. 2018;60:85–94. 10.3233/WOR-182721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sagiv L, Schwartz SH, Arieli S. Personal Values, National Culture, and Organizations: Insights Applying the Schwartz Value Framework In: Ashkanasy NM, Wilderom CPM, Peterson MF, editors. The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010. p. 515–537. 10.4135/9781483307961.n29 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Garrety KH. Organisational Control and the Self: Critiques and Normative Expectations. Journal of Business Ethics. 2008;82(1):93–106. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hochschild A. The Managed Heart–Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wood AM, Linley PA, Maltby J, Baliousis M, Joseph S. The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. J Couns Psychol. 2008;55:385–399. 10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.White N. An examination of dispositional authenticity [internet]. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University; 2011. [cited: 2020 Jul 11]. Available from: https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/56345/content/White_asu_0010E_10304.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Van den Bosch R, Taris TW, Schaufeli WB, Peeters MC, Reijseger G. Authenticity at Work: A Matter of Fit? J Psychol. 2009;153(2):247–266. 10.1080/00223980.2018.1516185 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Thomas HDC, Anderson N. Changes in newcomers' psychological contracts during organizational socialization: a study of recruits entering the British Army. J Organ Behav. 1998;19(1):745–767. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire. A Cross-National Study. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66(4):701–716. 10.1177/0013164405282471 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Shantz A, Alfes K, Truss C, Soane E. The role of employee engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviour. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2013;24(13):2608–2627. 10.1080/09585192.2012.744334 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kwon Y, Marzec ML. Does Worksite Culture of Health (CoH) Matter to Employees? Empirical Evidence Using Job-Related Metrics. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58(5):448–454. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Eriksson I, Undén AL, Elofsson S. Self-rated health. Comparisons between three different measures. Result from a population study. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:326–333. 10.1093/ije/30.2.326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Hasselhorn H, Ebener M. Gesundheit, Arbeitsfähigkeit und Motivation bei älter werdenden Belegschaften In: Badura B, Ducki A, Schröder H, Klose J, Meyer M, editors. Fehlzeiten-Report 2014. Erfolgreiche Unternehmen von morgen–gesunde Zukunft heute gestalten. Berlin: Springer; 2014. p. 75–84. 10.1007/978-3-662-43531-1_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. SPINE. 2000;25(24):3186–3191. 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hayes A. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach. 2nd ed New York, NY: Guilford Publications; 2017. PROCESS Version 3.5 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Bundesagentur für Arbeit. Die Arbeitsmarktsituation von Frauen und Männern 2018 [internet]; 2018 [cited 2020 Jul 11]. Available from https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/Statischer-Content/Arbeitsmarktberichte/Personengruppen/generische-Publikationen/Frauen-Maenner-Arbeitsmarkt.pdf
  • 63.Mikrozensus. Durchschnittsalter von Erwerbstätigen nach ausgewählten Berufsgruppen [internet]; 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 11]. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2018/11/PD18_448_122.html
  • 64.Hair HF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Garcia-Sierra R, Fernández-Castro J, Martínez-Zaragoza F. Work engagement in nursing: an integrative review of the literature. J Nurs Manag. 2015;24(2):101–111. 10.1111/jonm.12312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel AI. Burnout and Work Engagement: the JD-R Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2014;1(1):389–411. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Torp S, Grismo A, Hagen S, Duran A, Gudbergsson SB. Work engagement: a practical measure for workplace health promotion? Health Promot Int. 2012;28(3),387–396. 10.1093/heapro/das022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. Br Med J. 2002;325(7357):188–195. 10.1136/bmj.325.7357.188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Debode JD, Armenakis AA, Gield HS, Walker AG. Assessing Ethical Organizational Culture. J Appl Behav Sci. 2013;49(4):460–484. 10.1177/0021886313500987 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Narver JC, Slater SF. The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability. J Mark. 1990;54(4):20–35. 10.1177/002224299005400403 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Modi P, Mishra D. Conceptualising market orientation in non-profit organisations: definition, performance, and preliminary construction of scale. Journal of Marketing Management. 2010;26(5–6):548–569. 10.1080/02672570903485113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Ettl C. Organisationskultur–Aufbau, Modelle, und Messbarkeit In: Herget J, Stobl H, editors. Unternehmenskultur in der Praxis. Grundlagen–Methoden–Best Practices. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2018. p. 39–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Wu S, Wang R, Zhao Y, Ma X, Wu M, Yan X, et al. The relationship between self-related health and objective health status: a population-based study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1). 10.1186/1471-2458-13-320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Nielsen TH. The Relationship Between Self-Rated Health and Hospital Records. Health Econ. 2015;25(4):497–512. 10.1002/hec.3167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Jallinoja P, Pajari P, Absetz P. Negotiated pleasures in health-seeking lifestyles of participants of health promoting intervention. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine. 2010;14(2):115–130. 10.1177/1363459309353292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Coveney J, Bunton R. In Pursuit of the Study of Pleasure: Implications for Health Research and Practice. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine. 2003;7(2):161–179. 10.1177/1363459303007002873 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Andrew Soundy

4 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-22143

Associations between culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises: A cross-sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Koob,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please consider my comments below around structure and content of information given. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by 3 December 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrew Soundy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Introduction

This section is too long and you need to consider how you lead the reader into this area in a succinct way. I quite like the sentences from the abstract in how you lead the reader in so may be think what would a bullet point plan look like.

Line 56-58 just some further explanation as why aging of the workforce present major peril? Can you explain for the reader – you link it to age related illness and diseases – but so what is the problem do they prevent work?

The three paragraphs from line 54-66 could be condensed

Line 69 Can you define cultural anchoring for the reader

Line 80 consider the word proven if statistics are involved detail the stats

Line 90 for me more is needed around what is limited about past work references 17,18

Lines 94-97 – move higher, end the section with your aim – so re-integrate this information above

Within the abstract you mention job demand resource theory but don’t mention it here – think about where it comes and in what order.

Think about this section because your aim to consider associations between workplace culture and health - the reader needs to understand the importance and need for this as a primary focus – so what is known, not known and what further needs to be done should form the major component of the later sections

Looking at the later sections as you lead to your three hypothesis – this needs to be shortened with a consideration of literature which explains and considers past literature. I would like the introduction to end with a consideration of past literature so I would think about the location of introducing the theory aspects.

Think about the outcome measures you use and make sure you consider each of these areas represented by the outcome measure so the reader understands the need to bring this set of outcome measures together

Method

Can you follow a checklist like STROBE for how you present – make sure you consider/address any confounding variables that may influence the results

Introduce healings like sampling, sample size, eligibility criteria and give details within these sections

Results are presented can these be placed in results

Outcomes measures section needs a consideration as to what demographics you obtained and make sure you identify any confounding variables with in this. E.g., if you are considering health should you measure fitness level or physical activity level – surely this will impact on the responses you want? What about BMI?

You are missing your analysis section I see it in the results – but you need more detail regarding your analysis.

For the process of translation of the workplace culture of health scale please included in a supplementary page

Line 331 – when you refer to this work as a survey – for me that is different than what you have done you have done a cross sectional study using validated outcome measures? Please consider this.

Results

Consider presenting this section according to STROBE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am quite glad that I have opportunity to review this paper. It is cleverly designed and produced well fashioned. Actually, while reading it I was under impression that this paper is part of some long and meticulous work (dissertation?) and that authors are describing findings sometimes in a way that is showing their "joy of finding new knowledge". I enjoyed that.

Altogether, my impression is that this is one meticulous paper giving sound answers and opening some important questions in the area of health culture and workplace.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Brborovic, Ognjen

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 19;16(1):e0245276. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245276.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Nov 2020

Clemens Koob (corresponding author) | Catholic University of Applied Sciences Munich

Preysingstraße 95 | 81667 Munich | Germany | clemens.koob@ksh-m.de

November 24, 2020

Dear Dr. Soundy,

we thank you and the reviewer for a thorough reading and constructive criticism of our manuscript entitled “Associations between culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises: A cross-sectional study” (PONE-D-20-22143) and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit.

In the revised manuscript, we have carefully considered the suggestions and we have edited the manuscript accordingly to address the concerns regarding structure and content of information given. In particular, we have significantly condensed and restructured the introduction, including the later sections leading to the hypotheses, so that the reader better understands the aim of our study, its importance, and the need to bring our outcome measures together. Also, we aligned the method and results sections according to STROBE.

On the following pages, you will find our responses to the editor and reviewer comments. The responses are coded as follows:

a) Comments from the editor or reviewer are in italics.

b) Our responses are shown under each comment in blue and bold.

c) Where beneficial, there are specific references to certain lines in the manuscript in the format “LXXX”; the line numbers refer to the unmarked version of the revised paper without tracked changes (“Manuscript“).

The inputs were very helpful overall, and we are appreciative of such feedback.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.

Sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Clemens Koob

Professor of Management

Responses to editor’s comments:

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Level 1, 2 and 3 heading formats and the main text body format were adjusted according to the manuscript body formatting guidelines.

Figure citations and captions were adjusted to “Fig X”.

The symbol used to indicate equal contributions of the authors was adjusted to “Pilcrow (paragraph symbol)” according to the title, author, affiliations formatting guidelines.

Corresponding author’s initials were added in parentheses after the email address.

We hope that it now fits the style requirements, as described in the referred templates.

2. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an af-filiation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as neces-sary).

Thank you for the comment. We added the affiliation of the first author, so that now all authors are correctly linked.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors would like to thank the editor for his comments. Care has been taken to improve the work and address the concerns as per the specific comments below.

Introduction

This section is too long and you need to consider how you lead the reader into this area in a succinct way. I quite like the sentences from the abstract in how you lead the reader in so may be think what would a bullet point plan look like.

In response to your concerns about the length, we have substantially shortened the introductory part by approximately 22% (50 lines --> 39 lines).

With regard to your concerns about the structure, we have adapted the structure according to the line of argumentation in the abstract.

Line 56-58 just some further explanation as why aging of the workforce present major peril? Can you explain for the reader – you link it to age related illness and diseases – but so what is the problem do they prevent work?

We have expanded the explanation for the reader accordingly (lines 51-54).

The three paragraphs from line 54-66 could be condensed

This text passage has been significantly condensed in the course of the shortening of the entire introductory part.

Line 69 Can you define cultural anchoring for the reader

The corresponding text passage has been crossed out in the course of the streamlining of the introductory part.

Line 80 consider the word proven if statistics are involved detail the stats

Thank you for the comment. We have replaced “proven” with the phrase “was generally found to be effective in prior studies”. Though backing statistics would be available, we have decided to refrain from providing numbers, because from our point of view they would lead away from a succinct introduction at this point.

Line 90 for me more is needed around what is limited about past work references 17,18

We have reformulated this passage in the course of the restructuring of the introductory part. The focus is now on the assessment that there are no studies yet about how a workplace culture of health is related to employee engagement.

Lines 94-97 – move higher, end the section with your aim – so re-integrate this information above

We have re-integrated this information as suggested, so that the section now ends with the aim of the study.

Within the abstract you mention job demand resource theory but don’t mention it here – think about where it comes and in what order.

Please see the following comment.

Think about this section because your aim to consider associations between workplace culture and health - the reader needs to understand the importance and need for this as a primary focus – so what is known, not known and what further needs to be done should form the major component of the later sections

We agree with the editor’s judgment that the introductory text passages should focus on the importance of investigating the associations between a workplace culture of health and employee en-gagement and on highlighting this aim. Hence and as explained above, we have restructured the first introductory part accordingly.

In addition, we have restructured the further manuscript so that it becomes clearer that (in accordance with the STROBE checklist) the next text section within the introduction outlines the conceptual background for our study (“Theoretical background”). This comprises the job demands-resources theory and the social-ecological workplace culture of health model as the two major building blocks. Accordingly, these two building blocks can be found as subsections, and we consider this is to be the right place to mention and explain the JD-R theory. To be consistent, the social-ecological workplace culture of health model as second theoretical building block is now also mentioned in the abstract (lines 28-29).

Looking at the later sections as you lead to your three hypothesis – this needs to be shortened with a consideration of literature which explains and considers past literature. I would like the introduction to end with a consideration of past literature so I would think about the location of introducing the theory aspects.

Please see the following comment.

Think about the outcome measures you use and make sure you consider each of these areas repre-sented by the outcome measure so the reader understands the need to bring this set of outcome measures together

According to the STROBE checklist, we have now assigned a separate subsection to the derivation of the hypotheses (“Research hypotheses”) to further clarify the structure for the reader.

In response to your concerns about the length of this subsection, we have substantially shortened this part by approximately 20% (110 lines --> 88 lines).

To further clarify the argumentation for the reader, each of the three hypotheses is now specified considering the relevant literature in a separate sub-point, and the respective sub-points have been titled in such a way that the reader better understands how the set of outcome measures relates to each other. In addition, we have also made amendments to the text to support the reader in understanding the need of bringing the different outcome measures together.

Method

Can you follow a checklist like STROBE for how you present – make sure you consider/address any confounding variables that may influence the results

We have now adjusted the presentation of the method according to the STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.

Thank you for the note regarding potential confounders; please take a look at the corresponding comment below in this regard.

Introduce healings like sampling, sample size, eligibility criteria and give details within these sections

We have added subheadings aligned with the STROBE checklist (“Study design and setting”, “Participants”, …), and have provided the respective details within the sections.

Results are presented can these be placed in results

The results regarding the participants are now presented in the results section (“Participant data”).

Outcomes measures section needs a consideration as to what demographics you obtained and make sure you identify any confounding variables with in this. E.g., if you are considering health should you measure fitness level or physical activity level – surely this will impact on the responses you want? What about BMI?

We have supplemented the subsection “Measurement of main variables” with information on the two demographic factors that were recorded and investigated as potential confounders (gender, age; s. lines 287-289).

Thank you also for the valuable comment regarding the consideration of more objective health data such as fitness level, physical activity or BMI. Within the scope of this study, we had to refrain from taking such objective data into account for reasons of research economy, and thus had focused on self-rated health and insofar subjective assessments of health status. Although research in favor of our approach has demonstrated that self-rated health is generally consistent with objective health status (see e.g. references 74, 75]), this certainly is a potential limitation; hence, this aspect is addressed in the “Limitations and future research” section, lines 553-559.

You are missing your analysis section I see it in the results – but you need more detail regarding your analysis.

The respective information is now provided within the method section under the subsection “Statistical analyses”. We have also provided further details regarding the analyses.

For the process of translation of the workplace culture of health scale please included in a supple-mentary page

The workplace culture of health scale can and needs to be licensed from the University of Michigan Health Management Research Center. The license was obtained for this study, with the question set not to be disclosed. From our perspective, the inclusion of a supplementary page describing the translation process would largely amount to a paraphrasing of Beaton et al. (2000) (reference [60]). Hence, instead of including such a page we have provided more details directly in the manuscript (s. lines 279-283).

Line 331 – when you refer to this work as a survey – for me that is different than what you have done you have done a cross sectional study using validated outcome measures? Please consider this.

We have adjusted the formulation accordingly.

Results

Consider presenting this section according to STROBE

We have adjusted the presentation of the results taking the STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies into account as following:

• “Participant data” provides details on the study participants (number, characteristics …)

• “Descriptive statistics and correlations” reports means, standard deviations etc. of main study variables

• “Hypothesis testing” reports the main results with regard to our three hypotheses and also provides information on the sensitivity analysis including the potential demographic confounders (lines 428-432).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Responses to reviewer’s comments:

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, repli-cation, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availabil-ity Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am quite glad that I have opportunity to review this paper. It is cleverly designed and produced well fashioned. Actually, while reading it I was under impression that this paper is part of some long and meticulous work (dissertation?) and that authors are describing findings sometimes in a way that is showing their "joy of finding new knowledge". I enjoyed that.

Altogether, my impression is that this is one meticulous paper giving sound answers and opening some important questions in the area of health culture and workplace.

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for these comments.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, in-cluding consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Brborovic, Ognjen

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conver-sion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

In compliance with data protection regulations, you may request that we remove your personal reg-istration details at any time. (Remove my information/details). Please contact the publication office if you have any questions.

-----

Thank you again to the editor and the reviewer for the time and effort.

Decision Letter 1

Andrew Soundy

28 Dec 2020

Associations between culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-20-22143R1

Dear Dr. Koob,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Andrew Soundy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Andrew Soundy

8 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-22143R1

Associations between culture of health and employee engagement in social enterprises: A cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Koob:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrew Soundy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Dataset of the study.

    (SAV)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES