Facilitating job retention for chronically ill employees: perspectives of line managers and HR managers

Human Resource Management

Joke a Haafkens, Helen Kopnina, Martha GM Meerman, and Frank JH van Dijk.

"Facilitating job retention for chronically ill employees: perspectives of line managers and human resource managers." BMC Health Services Resources.

(2011) Vol. 11, No. 104. Published online 2011 May 17.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118107/

In two or three sentences, abstract the article. What is its major stated purpose?

Chronic disease is one of the most significant issues in the contemporary workplace because it is the single leading cause of loss of employment and disability that affects work adversely. Prior to this study, there had been no research into the approaches of line managers and human resource managers to mitigating the detrimental effects of chronic disease in the workplace. The purpose of this research was to identify issues and approaches considered important to the retention of employees suffering from chronic disease by both line managers and human resource managers.

2. Write down your immediate reaction (can be both intellectual and emotional) to the article.

On an emotional level, I was surprised and saddened to realize that chronic disease is such an issue in the lives of so many people and that it often is the main reason that people lose their jobs. In an intellectual level, I found it interesting to learn how the respective perspective of line managers and human resource managers dictates different approaches to the issues.

3. Does this article report on the findings of research?

Yes. Line managers and human resource managers shared certain perspectives: they agreed that knowledge about chronic disease and its effects on employees is important, that employees share responsibility for job retention, that certain adaptations are necessary, and that company policy must be clear. Meanwhile, line managers focused more on relations between management and employees and on knowledge transfer within organizations whereas human resource managers focused more on organizational culture and support for employees.

4. Does this article include an explicit research question, and/or specific hypotheses?

No. However, it is reasonable to assume that there was an implied hypothesis that line managers and human resource managers would value and focus on different elements and factors in relation to their respective understanding and approach to the issues.

5. Have the key concepts been operationalized into variables? If yes, which is the independent variable (causal) and which is the dependent variable (effect) and how will they be measured? If no, how would you go about making them measurable?

Yes. The key concepts were the different issues of focus as between different managers. The independent variable was the identity of the subjects as either line managers or human resource managers; the dependent variables were the respective statement clusters expressed in response to the same questions about chronic disease and employee retention.

6. Is an attempt made to test the hypothesis (es)?

Yes. To the extent the hypothesis was that different types of managers would express different views, that hypothesis was tested by the concept mapping methodology.

7. What is your assessment of how well the author(s) relate the findings to the original question or hypothesis?

The authors seem to have related the findings very directly to the implied hypothesis. The results presented the similarities and differences in the perspectives of the two subject groups.

8. Is the research design specifically stated; what design did they used?

Yes. The authors employed a concept mapping methodology to identify clusters of ideas that could be expressed as being characteristic beliefs and views of the two different groups of subjects and analyzed qualitatively.

9. Is there a comparison and/or control group?

No. The study was a direct comparison of the two groups of subjects.

10. Does the author discuss validity and/or reliability of the instrumentation used?

No.

11. Finally, summarize your assessment of the article, including whether you think the article achieves its originally stated purpose. How well written is it: Is it clear and coherent? Is it logical? What are its primary strengths and weaknesses? Is this article relevant to practice? The litmus test: a) Would you recommend this article to others, if yes, who? b) Could you replicate this study?