In contrast study strengths include a diverse set of worksites, a range of demographic, behavioral, and health literacy indicators; the study of both survey and program participation; and adjustments for clustering of employees within worksites.
That decentralized framework defies a popular view on Wall Street that there are great benefits in clustering groups of employees.
The clusters were naturally occurring groups of employees, thereby also minimizing contamination between clusters.
In the thematic cluster referring to "responsibilities of employees", HRM focus on "shared" responsibilities between managers and employees, but LMs refer only to the employees.
In short, the clusters were naturally occurring groups of employees working together on a daily basis, being located at the same floor, same office or the like.
Notably, both clusters had a large proportion of employees who scored above the accepted caseness threshold on the GHQ, 39% in the control and 35% in the intervention cluster.
A relatively high priority was also assigned to the "role of employees themselves" (Cluster 3).
Then, the emergent categories were used to organize group codes into meaningful clusters [ 35], expressing the experiences of employees with CANS.
A company culture that allows for openness and trust could facilitate shared responsibility on the part of employees and managers (Cluster 3) and enable managers and personnel officers to gain sufficient knowledge regarding the management of chronically ill workers (Cluster 4).
In workplace interventions involving the majority of employees, randomisation at the cluster level (eg, department) is preferred to avoid contamination of interventions.
This requires both managers who have sufficient knowledge regarding the management of employees with a chronic disease (Cluster 2) and employees who assume responsibility for decisions regarding their work, including the disclosure of their condition (Cluster 3).
