The Healthy Learning Organizations Model: Lessons Learned From the Canadian Federal Public Service

• DOI: 10.1177/0091026019855751
• Published date: 01 June 2020
• Author: Jacques Barrette,Louise Lemyre,Nancy Beauregard
• Date: 01 June 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019855751

Public Personnel Management

2020, Vol. 49(2) 218 –238

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0091026019855751

journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm

Article

The Healthy Learning

Organizations Model: Lessons

Learned From the Canadian

Federal Public Service

Nancy Beauregard1, Louise Lemyre2,

and Jacques Barrette3

Abstract

This study evaluates the predictive validity of the Healthy Learning Organizations

(HLO) model in explaining mental health and organizational commitment among

executives from the public sector. Data were derived from a cross-sectional sample of

executives from the Canadian federal public service (N = 1,601). Latent class analyses

(LCA) assessed whether (a) associative patterns in executives’ psychosocial work

environment and organizational learning process expressed a typology of healthy

and learning organizations; and (b) executives’ mental health and organizational

commitment varied according to this typology. LCA yielded a three-latent class

solution, supporting evidence of (a) differential arrangements in the healthy and

learning components of the HLO model; and (b) differential impacts on executives’

psychological distress and organizational commitment (i.e., affective, continuance).

The HLO model offers novel grounds to assess healthy and learning organizations in

the public administration sector.

Keywords

executives, organizational learning, psychosocial work environment, psychological

distress, organizational commitment

1School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada

2School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

3Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Nancy Beauregard, School of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, P.O. Box 6128, Downtown

Station, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3J7.

Email: nancy.beauregard.2@umontreal.ca

855751PPMXXX10.1177/0091026019855751Public Personnel ManagementBeauregard et al.

research-article2019

Beauregard et al. 219

The idea that individual and organizational health represent two sides of a same coin

is not new (Tetrick, 2002). At its core is the assumption that organizational sustain-

ability can be best achieved under circumstances fostering health and growth of the

workforce in time (MacIntosh, MacLean, & Burns, 2007). Although there is a wide

recognition that executives play a critical role in the strategic governance of organiza-

tions, little is known about the specific work determinants of executives’ health, orga-

nizational behaviors, and attitudes (Cartwright, 2000; Hambrick, Finkelstein, &

Mooney, 2005; Quick, Macik-Frey, & Cooper, 2007). This holds particularly true for

public sector organizations where studies examining executives’ reality have mainly

focused on work determinants and individual outcomes commonly shared with other

segments of the public service workforce (Goldberg et al., 2007; Marmot & Brunner,

2005). Accordingly, the aim of this study is to bridge these gaps in knowledge by pro-

viding a first empirical validation of the theoretical propositions put forth by the

Healthy Learning Organizations (HLO) model (Beauregard & Gaudet, 2018;

Beauregard & Lemyre, 2014) based on a national sample of 1,601 executives from the

Canadian federal public service.

Executives’ Work Stress

There is compelling evidence about the relationship between work stress and its nega-

tive effects on health (Kivimäki et al., 2006; Stansfeld & Candy, 2006). Psychosocial

features of the immediate work environment such as low levels of decision latitude,

rewards, and social support, and conversely, high levels of psychological demands,

have consistently been shown to act as chronic stressors contributing to the develop-

ment of mental and physical health problems in the workforce. Two complementary

explanations have been considered in that regard.

A first explanation is provided by the Demand–Control–Support model (Karasek &

Theorell, 1990). This model posits that exerting control over one’s immediate work

environment (e.g., decision authority, skill utilization) is a key resource facilitating

individual adaptation to demands from the work environment (e.g., workload).

According to the model, a fourfold typology results from variations in the psychoso-

cial features of the immediate work environment: (a) high strain jobs (i.e., high levels

of psychological demands, low levels of decision latitude), (b) passive jobs (i.e., low

levels of psychological demands and decision latitude), (c) low strain jobs (i.e., low

levels of psychological demands, high levels of decision latitude), and (d) active jobs

(i.e., high levels of psychological demands and decision latitude). Based on this typol-

ogy, active jobs are hypothesized to generate the most beneficial health outcomes, and

conversely for high strain jobs. Social support at work is further postulated to buffer

any of these configurations. To date, cumulative evidence most consistently corrobo-

rates the negative impact of high strain jobs on workers’ health only (de Lange et al.,

2003).

A second explanation is provided by the Effort–Reward Imbalance model (Siegrist,

2000). Here, variations in job rewards (i.e., esteem, promotion, job security) and

extrinsic efforts (i.e., psychological demands) lead to a differential patterning in work