An official website of the United States government
Purpose A critical aspect of understanding any culture is how it manifests in artifacts and social interactions, yet this understanding largely remains absent from the MCC literature. We explore one costly organizational artifact: the employee benefits package. Design/methodology/approach Using cross-sectional survey data (N = 486), we examine the relationships between MCC and benefit provision, communication, and knowledge confidence. Exploratory mediation analyses were conducted to explore the role of communication in MCC’s relations with employee benefit knowledge confidence. Findings MCC was significantly negatively associated with the provision of mental health benefits but showed no significant relationship with physical health benefits. MCC was negatively associated with benefits communication and confidence in mental health benefit knowledge, with communication partially mediating the relationship between MCC and knowledge confidence. Originality These findings demonstrate organizational culture is linked to access to healthcare resources, particularly benefits serving mental, but not physical, health. Benefit communication may play a pivotal role in bridging gaps in employee understanding of benefits. This research extends Schein’s framework of organizational culture by highlighting MCC’s relationship with both structural and social artifacts within organizations. MCC may be a fruitful intervention target for employee healthcare access.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on July 11, 2026
Organizational Healthcare Benefits as Signals of Values
Abstract Organizations spend trillions of dollars per year on their employee benefits packages. One reason for this may be that benefits packages are key tools for organizations to signal their values. We draw on signaling theory to understand how employees interpret and react to healthcare benefits as a function of (1) benefit universality, (2) benefit political contentiousness, and (3) individual political orientation. We collect two cross-sectional studies that capture reactions to four healthcare benefits: cancer treatment, reproductive care, abortion-facilitation, and gender-affirming care benefits. We find healthcare benefits signal several underlying organizational qualities, including support for employee health and well-being. Signaling support for employee health and well-being was less closely fitted to abortion-facilitative benefits and gender-affirming care benefits compared to more universal and less contentious benefits (cancer treatment and reproductive care benefits), especially among political conservatives. Similarly, abortion-facilitative benefits and gender-affirming care benefits were evaluated less positively and seen as less important and of lower utility than cancer treatment benefits and non-abortive reproductive care benefits, especially among those who identify as politically conservative. The findings extend knowledge of how and why employee reactions to benefits may differ, test under-developed aspects of signaling theory (signal fit, features and individual differences that modify fit), and inform organizational practice regarding benefit offerings.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2346233
- PAR ID:
- 10627721
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Business and Psychology
- ISSN:
- 0889-3268
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
While much of the transgender health literature has focused on poor health outcomes, less research has examined how trans people find reliable information on, and actually go about accessing, gender-affirming healthcare. Through qualitative interviews with creators of trans technologies, that is, technologies designed to address problems that trans people face, we found that digital technologies have become important tools for proliferating access to gender-affirming care and related health information. We found that technologists often employed different processes for creating their technologies, but they coalesced around the goal of enabling and increasing access to gender-affirming care. Creators of trans health technologies also encountered precarious conditions for creating and maintaining their technologies, including regional gaps left by national resources focused on the US east and west coasts. Findings demonstrated that trans tech creators were motivated to create and maintain these technologies as a means of caring for one another and forming trans communities in spite of the precarious conditions trans people face living under systemic oppression.more » « less
-
The advancement of biomedicine in a socioeconomically sustainable manner while achieving efficient patient-care is imperative to the health and well-being of society. Magnetic systems consisting of iron based nanosized components have gained prominence among researchers in a multitude of biomedical applications. This review focuses on recent trends in the areas of diagnostic imaging and drug delivery that have benefited from iron-incorporated nanosystems, especially in cancer treatment, diagnosis and wound care applications. Discussion on imaging will emphasise on developments in MRI technology and hyperthermia based diagnosis, while advanced material synthesis and targeted, triggered transport will be the focus for drug delivery. Insights onto the challenges in transforming these technologies into day-to-day applications will also be explored with perceptions onto potential for patient-centred healthcare.more » « less
-
Abstract State laws have influenced access to abortion in the 50 years since Roe v. Wade. The 2022 Dobbs decision returned questions about the legality of abortion to the states, which increased the importance of state laws for abortion access. The objective of this study is to illustrate trends in abortion-restrictive and abortion-supportive state laws using a unique longitudinal database of reproductive health laws across the United States from 1994 to 2022. This study offers a descriptive analysis of historical trends in state-level pre-viability abortion bans, abortion method bans, efforts to dissuade abortion, TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) laws, other laws that restrict reproductive choice, and laws that expand abortion access and support reproductive health. Data sources include state statutes (from Nexis Uni) and secondary sources. The data reveal that pre-viability bans, including gestation-based bans and total bans, became significantly more prevalent over time. Other abortion-restrictive laws increased from 1994 to 2022, but states also passed a growing number of laws that support reproductive health. Increasing polarization into abortion-restrictive and abortion-supportive states characterized the 1994–2022 period. These trends have implications for maternal and infant health and for racial/ethnic and income disparities.more » « less
-
Reddy, S.; Winter, J.S.; Padmanabhan, S. (Ed.)AI applications are poised to transform health care, revolutionizing benefits for individuals, communities, and health-care systems. As the articles in this special issue aptly illustrate, AI innovations in healthcare are maturing from early success in medical imaging and robotic process automation, promising a broad range of new applications. This is evidenced by the rapid deployment of AI to address critical challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including disease diagnosis and monitoring, drug discovery, and vaccine development. At the heart of these innovations is the health data required for deep learning applications. Rapid accumulation of data, along with improved data quality, data sharing, and standardization, enable development of deep learning algorithms in many healthcare applications. One of the great challenges for healthcare AI is effective governance of these data—ensuring thoughtful aggregation and appropriate access to fuel innovation and improve patient outcomes and healthcare system efficiency while protecting the privacy and security of data subjects. Yet the literature on data governance has rarely looked beyond important pragmatic issues related to privacy and security. Less consideration has been given to unexpected or undesirable outcomes of healthcare in AI, such as clinician deskilling, algorithmic bias, the “regulatory vacuum”, and lack of public engagement. Amidst growing calls for ethical governance of algorithms, Reddy et al. developed a governance model for AI in healthcare delivery, focusing on principles of fairness, accountability, and transparency (FAT), and trustworthiness, and calling for wider discussion. Winter and Davidson emphasize the need to identify underlying values of healthcare data and use, noting the many competing interests and goals for use of health data—such as healthcare system efficiency and reform, patient and community health, intellectual property development, and monetization. Beyond the important considerations of privacy and security, governance must consider who will benefit from healthcare AI, and who will not. Whose values drive health AI innovation and use? How can we ensure that innovations are not limited to the wealthiest individuals or nations? As large technology companies begin to partner with health care systems, and as personally generated health data (PGHD) (e.g., fitness trackers, continuous glucose monitors, health information searches on the Internet) proliferate, who has oversight of these complex technical systems, which are essentially a black box? To tackle these complex and important issues, it is important to acknowledge that we have entered a new technical, organizational, and policy environment due to linked data, big data analytics, and AI. Data governance is no longer the responsibility of a single organization. Rather, multiple networked entities play a role and responsibilities may be blurred. This also raises many concerns related to data localization and jurisdiction—who is responsible for data governance? In this emerging environment, data may no longer be effectively governed through traditional policy models or instruments.more » « less
