Original article

Scand J Work Environ Health 2021;47(6):425-434    pdf

https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3966 | Published online: 19 May 2021, Issue date: 01 Sep 2021

Association of managerial position with cardiovascular risk factors: A fixed-effects analysis for Japanese employees

by Ikesu R, Miyawaki A, Svensson AK, Svensson T, Kobayashi Y, Chung UI

Objectives Although higher occupational classes have been reported to be associated with better health, researchers do not fully understand whether such associations derive from the position or individual characteristics of the person in that position. We examined the association between being a manager and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors using unique panel data in Japan that annually observed employees’ occupational class and health conditions.

Methods We analyzed data for 45 888 observations from a Japanese company from 2013 through 2017. The association between being a manager and CVD risk factors (metabolic risks and health-related behaviors) were evaluated using simple pooled cross-sectional analyses with adjustment for age, sex, marital status, and overtime-working hours. We further incorporated employee-level fixed-effects into the models to examine whether the associations were subject to individual time-invariant factors.

Results The pooled cross-sectional analyses showed that, compared to non-managers, managers had 2.0 mg/dl lower low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, 1.4 mmHg-lower systolic blood pressure, and 0.2 kg/m2 lower body mass index (BMI). After adjusting for employee-level fixed-effects, being a manager was associated with a significantly 2.2 mg/dl higher LDL-C level. However, the associations between an individual’s management status and blood pressure or BMI were not significant. Furthermore, managers were 5.5% less likely to exercise regularly and 6.1% less likely to report sufficient sleep in the fixed-effects models, although the pooled cross-sectional analyses did not demonstrate these significant associations.

Conclusions Our findings suggest the necessity of considering these unfavorable health risks associated with being promoted to a manager.

This article refers to the following text of the Journal: 2016;42(3):228-236

Health inequality among individuals who differ in socioeconomic status (SES) has been a critical concern for public health (1, 2). Previous studies have reported that higher SES (represented by higher household income, education level and occupational class) is correlated with better health status in terms of mortality and self-assessed health (36). Health disparity among occupational classes is drawing attention because of research examining stress in the workplace as a risk factor for cardiometabolic disease (7, 8). Evidence from European countries and the United States has consistently revealed that workers having a higher occupational status exhibit lower mortality and are in better health than those occupying a lower status (913).

When moving beyond correlation, however, it is unclear whether a higher occupational class has a positive net effect on an individual’s health. Some studies have argued for a cause-and-effect connection between higher occupational class and better health, possibly because of the potential for greater control and fewer psychosocial stressors for those in a higher occupational class. Nevertheless, previous cross-sectional or cohort studies have not accounted for the possibility that employees with some unobserved individual traits may have been more likely to be promoted (36, 913). For example, based on the famous Grossman model, those who have a lower time discount rate (ie, people who value the future) would spend more resources for their health and be more likely to invest in their skill development for promotion (14). Another study implied that the association between SES and health could be partly explained by individual traits such as tidiness (15). Dealing with these unobserved individual characteristics requires observing the same individuals as they experience changes in their occupational class over years.

Only a few studies have addressed this issue to date (1619). Anderson & Marmot suggested the positive impacts of occupational promotion on heart disease (16). Other studies have shown that promotion to a managerial position is associated with poorer mental health, possibly due to job stress (1719). Still, the association between occupational class and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors has not been evaluated while adjusting for individual traits, even though the association between SES and CVD has been a major concern (9, 16, 20). A better understanding of this association should help policymakers and employers implement effective measures to protect employees from unfavorable health risks.

In this context, we aimed to examine the association between being a manager and CVD risk factors (metabolic risks and health-related behaviors) by using unique panel data that observed employees’ occupational class and health conditions annually in a large Japanese company. Judging from the possible association of promotion to a manager with job stress, we hypothesized that being a manager is associated with unfavorable CVD risk factors.

Methods

Study sample

We used unique panel data for a large Japanese company in the financial sector from 2013 through 2017. The panel data included basic registration data and data from an annual health checkup, which was required by the Japanese Government (21). The basic registration data comprised such variables as age, sex, marital status, occupational class, years of employment, and overtime-working hours. Medical claims data were also used for information on hospitalization. For our analyses, we included all employees observed in the longitudinal dataset during the period spanning fiscal 2013–2017. Of the 72 821 initial observations, we excluded (i) 4989 observations (6.9%) that were missing any variable in the registration data, or (ii) 22 375 observations (30.7%) for missing ≥1 of the following variables in the annual health checkup data: body mass index (BMI), abdominal circumference, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), fasting blood sugar, HbA1c, smoking status, exercise habits, and self-reported sufficiency of sleep. We excluded 26 933 observations [15 014 men and 11 919 women; mean age (SD) 34.0 (11.6) years at time of their exclusion]. Overall, we analyzed the data of 45 888 observations (63.0%) for 12 094 employees for five consecutive years during the study period. The number and mean age of participants in 2013 were 7568 (4323 men and 3245 women) and 43.7 (SD 8.3) years. The number of observations for each year is shown in table 1. The excluded 26 933 observations tended to be somewhat younger at the time of their exclusion (mean age: 34.0 versus 44.3 years), but the proportion of men was similar to those without missing variables (55.7% versus 58.1%). We also found that the excluded sample was somewhat healthier than the analytic sample (eg, 22.4 kg/m2 versus 23.1 kg/m2 for BMI and 112.2 mg/dl versus 120.6 mg/dl for LDL-C). The characteristics of the excluded sample are shown in the supplementary material (www.sjweh.fi/article/3966), table S1. All the employees included in our study consented to provide their information to our research group. The ethics committee at the Graduate School of Engineering, University of Tokyo approved this study (no. KE18-44, approved on November 6, 2018).

Table 1

Number of observations (obs) at annual health checkup of each year by sex and class.

Year Sex Class


Men Women Non-manager Manager




(Obs=26 648) (Obs=19 240) (Obs=30 390) (Obs=15 498)
2013 4323 3245 4986 2582
2014 4711 3440 5379 2772
2015 5566 4017 6389 3194
2016 5897 4185 6707 3375
2017 6151 4353 6929 3575

Measures

Managerial position

The status of being a manager (including executive and middle managers) was the exposure of our study. From the occupational class variable in the registration data, we identified whether each employee was a manager or not in each of the study years.

CVD risk factors

We obtained two types of CVD risk factors as outcomes from the annual health checkup data: metabolic risks and health-related behaviors. Metabolic risks were measured as seven laboratory variables and two body metrics, which were extracted from the annual health checkup data. The laboratory variables included systolic blood pressure (mmHg), diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), fasting blood sugar (mg/dl), HbA1c (%), LDL-C (mg/dl), HDL-C (mg/dl), and TG (mg/dl). The body metrics were BMI (kg/m2) and abdominal circumference (cm). Under the Japan’s health checkup schema, blood tests were conducted under accuracy control. Health professionals measured blood pressure and abdominal circumference using the standardized protocol set regulated by the government (22).

For health-related behaviors, we included binary answers to annual health checkup questionnaires regarding smoking habit [yes/no answers to “Do you habitually smoke? (You habitually smoke if you have ever smoked over 100 cigarettes in total or for six months or more and have also smoked in the last month.)”], exercise habits (yes/no answers to “Do you exercise more than 30 minutes, more than twice in a week and have continued this exercise habit for more than one year?”), and self-reported sufficiency of sleep (yes/no answers to “Getting enough sleep?”). We included the self-reported sufficiency of sleep as a CVD risk factor because of a previous study’s suggestion that self-reported lack of sleep was associated with impaired glucose tolerance (23).

Covariates

We extracted the following covariates from the registration data: age as a categorical variable (3039, 40–49, 50–59, or 60–69 years old), sex, average overtime-working hours as a continuous variable (hours per month, calculated for each of the fiscal years), years of employment as a categorical variable (<10, 10–19, 20–29, 30–39, or ≥40 years), and marital status as a categorical variable (currently married or not).

Besides these covariates, we examined whether each employee experienced hospitalization in each year throughout the study period from the claims data because hospitalization could be a confounder in our analyses (while individuals who were hospitalized might be urged to have better health-related behaviors, they would be less likely to be promoted due to leave of work during the hospitalization). In the main analyses, we did not adjust for this variable because (i) the incidence of hospitalizations could also be a mediator (eg, busy managers might not have enough time to be hospitalized and undergo test, resulting in deteriorated health) and (ii) the incidence of hospitalizations was rare in the study population (around 4%) as shown in table 2, similar to the general population (working age) (24). We adjusted for hospitalizations in the secondary analyses.

Table 2

Basic characteristics among employees registered through the study period a, b [Obs=observations; SD=standard deviation; BMI=body mass index; BP=blood pressure; LDL-C=low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C=high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG=triglycerides].

Characteristics Sex Class


Men (Obs=26 648) Women (Obs=19 240) P Value c Non-manager (Obs=30 390) Manager (Obs=15 498) P Value c




% Mean (SD) % Mean (SD) % Mean (SD) % Mean (SD)
Age (years)
 30–39 33.5 33.3 <0.001 41.8 17.0 <0.001
 40–49 32.2 41.9 32.5 43.7
 50–59 29.1 19.4 17.7 39.4
 60–69 5.2 5.4 8.0 0.0
Sex
 Men 100 0 <0.001 40.4 92.7 <0.001
 Women 0 100 59.6 7.3
 Overtime-work, hours/month 38.0 (22.6) 20.5 (16.7) <0.001 22.6 (17.7) 46.5 (21.3) <0.001
Years of employment
 <10 30.8 33.2 <0.001 39.8 16.0 <0.001
 10–20 24.2 29.6 28.5 22.5
 20–30 31.4 28.8 22.7 45.2
 30–40 12.4 7.9 7.6 16.2
 >40 1.2 0.5 1.4 0.1
Marital status
 Not married 12.8 52.5 <0.001 38.4 11.9 <0.001
 Married 87.2 47.5 61.6 88.1
Smoking habit
 Current 29.7 8.5 <0.001 17.6 27.1 <0.001
 Not currently 70.3 91.5 82.4 72.9
Exercise habit
 Yes 38.8 27.1 <0.001 32.3 37.1 <0.001
 No 61.2 72.9 67.7 62.9
Sufficient sleep
 Enough 62.4 53.8 <0.001 58.5 59.3 0.108
 Not enough 37.6 46.2 41.5 40.7
BMI, kg/m2 24.3 (3.4) 21.4 (3.4) <0.001 22.5 (3.8) 24.2 (3.3) <0.001
Abdominal circumference, cm 85.8 (9.2) 76.6 (9.3) <0.001 80.2 (10.3) 85.4 (9.3) <0.001
Systolic BP, mmHg 118.7 (14.9) 109.0 (15.1) <0.001 112.8 (15.7) 118.1 (15.0) <0.001
Diastolic BP, mmHg 75.6 (11.8) 67.8 (11.3) <0.001 70.5 (11.9) 75.9 (11.9) <0.001
Fasting blood sugar, mg/dl 99.7 (17.9) 92.2 (12.2) <0.001 94.6 (14.3) 100.5 (18.7) <0.001
HbA1c, % 5.6 (0.6) 5.4 (0.4) <0.001 5.5 (0.5) 5.6 (0.6) <0.001
LDL-C, mg/dl 125.4 (30.9) 114.0 (30.2) <0.001 118.3 (31.0) 125.2 (30.9) <0.001
HDL-C, mg/dl 57.1 (14.3) 72.2 (16.2) <0.001 65.8 (17.1) 58.7 (15.2) <0.001
TG, mg/dl 127.5 (104.0) 74.2 (48.5) <0.001 94.2 (78.6) 126.5 (103.7) <0.001
Hospitalization d
 No 96.5 94.9 <0.001 95.5 96.4 <0.001
 Yes 3.5 5.1 4.5 3.6

a For the study period, 12 094 employees were included in this study (4323 men and 3245 women; age mean [SD]: 43.7 [8.3] years in 2013).

b The numbers of employees included were: 7568 in 2013, 8151 in 2014, 9583 in 2015, 10 082 in 2016, and 10 504 in 2017.

c P values were derived using t-test for overtime work, BMI, abdominal circumference, systolic BP, diastolic BP, fasting blood sugar, HbA1c, LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG. Pearson’s chi-squared test was applied to the other variables.

d Figures indicate the number of observations where an employee was hospitalized during each of the fiscal years.

Statistical analysis

We first assessed the association between the status of being a manager and CVD risk factors using a pooled cross-sectional approach. We adopted a linear model specification for both the metabolic risk factors (continuous value outcomes) and the health-related behaviors, which took a dichotomous value (linear probability model: LPM). This LPM specification facilitated interpretation; that is, the coefficients, if multiplied by 100, showed the difference in the percentages of having each health-related behavior between managers and non-managers. Furthermore, it has been advocated that the marginal treatment effect derived by LPM is comparable to those based on models with better fit (25). We adjusted for age (in ten-year increments), sex, years of employment (in ten-year increments), and marital status in this analysis. We used heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors, HC3 (26).

Next, to adjust for individual time-invariant factors, we applied a fixed-effects model for each outcome variable. We supposed the following specification:

SJWEH-47-425-g001.tif

where i and t denoted individual and year, respectively. yit represented each of the outcomes measured for employee i in fiscal year t. αi was the individual time-invariant fixed-effects, whether they were observed or not. The individual fixed-effects (αi ) accounted for both the observed trait, such as sex, and unobserved individual traits, such as time discount rate and education. (manager)it was a dummy variable, which took one if employee i was a manager in the fiscal year t, and took zero otherwise. γt represented the year fixed-effects. X it included exogenous time-varying covariates: age (in ten-year increments), years of employment (in ten-year increments), and marital status.

Finally, in order to account for the possibility that the impact of being a manager could differ depending on whether employees were “promoted” from non-manager to manager or “demoted” from manager to non-manager, we adopted an asymmetric fixed-effects model (27). In this analysis, we aimed to distinguish the effect of being “promoted” from being “demoted” through different coefficients in the model. In contrast, the traditional fixed-effects model assumes that these two effects are symmetric and thus represented by an identical coefficient. The supplementary appendix presents the model specification for the asymmetric fixed-effects analysis.

P-values <0.05 were statistically significant. We used R 3.6.2 for all analyses in this study (28). The “plm” package in R was used for the analyses (29).

Secondary analysis

We conducted several secondary analyses. First, we additionally adjusted for average overtime-working hours in fiscal year t. Because employees’ work time may depend on whether or not they are managers, we added average overtime-working hours to the covariates to separate the association between a managerial position and our outcomes from the association mediated through overtime-working hours. Second, we additionally adjusted for the incidence of hospitalization in the year t. Third, we performed cross-sectional and fixed-effects analyses with the stratification according to each employee’s sex because the association between occupational class and CVD risk factors may differ according to sex. We preliminarily analyzed the pooled cross-sectional data with the interaction term between being a manager and sex; the interaction was statistically significant for some outcomes, such as TG and self-reported sufficiency of sleep. Moreover, a previous study revealed that a lower occupational class was associated with poor mental functioning among male workers, but not among female workers (30).

Results

Among the 45 888 observations (covering 12 094 employees) registered over the fiscal years 2013–2017, 15 498 observations (33.8%) were in a managerial position (table 2). Overall, observations with manager status were more likely to involve men than those without manager status (92.7% versus 40.4%) and displayed higher levels for blood pressure, LDL-C and TG, fasting blood sugar, HbA1c, BMI, abdominal circumference, and current smoking habit. Managers were also more likely to have regular exercise habits. For our analyses, almost 80% of the 12 094 employees contributed to ≥3 of 5 observations (supplementary table S2).

Metabolic risks

Table 3 illustrates the associations between being a manager and various metabolic risks. In the pooled cross-sectional analyses, managers’ BMI was 0.2 kg/m2 lower [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.0–0.3], systolic blood pressure was 1.4 mmHg lower (95% CI 0.8–2.1), and LDL-C level was 2.0 mg/dl lower (95% CI 0.7–3.3). However, they had a 1.0 mg/dl (95% CI 0.3–1.6) higher fasting blood sugar level. After adjusting for employee-level fixed effects, being a manager was associated with a 2.2 mg/dl (95% CI 0.8–3.7) significantly higher LDL-C level. The association between manager status and BMI, blood pressure, or fasting blood sugar was not significant.

Table 3

Association between being a manager and metabolic risks. [BMI=body mass index; BP=blood pressure; LDL-C=low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C= high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG=triglycerides; CI=confidence interval]

Pooled cross-sectional Fixed-effects


Model 1 a Model 2 b Model 3 c Model 4 d




Estimates e 95% CI Estimates e 95% CI Estimates e 95% CI Estimates e 95% CI
BMI, kg/m2 -0.2 f -0.3–0.0 -0.2 f -0.4–0.0 0.0 0.0–0.1 0.0 -0.1–0.1
Abdominal circumference, cm -0.2 -0.6–0.2 -0.1 -0.6–0.3 0.2 -0.1–0.4 0.1 -0.1–0.4
Systolic BP, mmHg -1.4 g -2.1–-0.8 -1.2 g -1.8–-0.6 -0.1 -0.8–0.7 -0.1 -0.9–0.6
Diastolic BP, mmHg -0.2 -0.6–0.3 0.0 -0.5–0.5 0.3 -0.2–0.9 0.3 -0.3–0.8
Fasting blood sugar, mg/dl 1.0 h 0.3–1.6 1.1 h 0.4–1.8 0.2 -0.4–0.9 0.2 -0.5–0.9
HbA1c, % 0.0 0.0–0.0 0.0 0.0–0.0 0.0 0.0–0.0 0.0 0.0–0.0
LDL-C, mg/dl -2.0 h -3.3–-0.7 -2.5 g -3.9–-1.1 2.2 h 0.8–3.7 2.2 h 0.7–3.6
HDL-C, mg/dl 0.1 -0.6–0.8 0.3 -0.4–1.0 0.4 -0.1–0.9 0.4 -0.1–1.0
TG, mg/dl 2.1 -1.4–5.5 3.1 0.7–6.8 3.3 -1.0–7.7 2.8 -1.5–7.2

a We adjusted for age (in ten-year increments), sex, marital status, and years of employment (in ten-year increments) in Model 1.

b In Model 2, we adjusted for the covariates in Model 1 plus average overtime-working hours.

c We adjusted for age (in ten-year increments), marital status, and years of employment (in ten-year increments) in Model 3. We omitted the sex variable because we included individual time-invariant fixed-effects in the fixed-effects models.

d In Model 4, we adjusted for the covariates in Model 3 plus average overtime-working hours.

e Estimates indicate additive effects of being a manager on outcomes.

f P-value <0.05.

g P-value <0.001.

h P-value <0.01.

Health-related behaviors

Table 4 demonstrates the association between being a manager and health-related behaviors. In the fixed-effects model, managers were 5.5% (95% CI 2.5–8.5) less likely to exercise regularly and reported getting enough sleep 6.1% less (95% CI 3.0–9.1) than non-managers, even though the pooled cross-sectional analysis did not show significant associations for these outcomes (point estimate, 0.7%; 95% CI -1.1–2.5 for exercise habits, and point estimate, -0.9%; 95% CI -2.8 –1.0, for self-reported sufficiency of sleep).

Table 4

Association between being a manager and health-related behaviors. [CI=confidence interval]

Pooled cross-sectional Fixed-effects


Model 1 a Model 2 b Model 3 c Model 4 d




Estimates e 95% CI Estimates e 95% CI Estimates e 95% CI Estimates e 95% CI
Smoking habit
 Current smoker -1.8 -3.7–0.1 -1.5 -3.5–0.5 0.8 -0.7–2.3 0.6 -0.9–2.1
Exercise habit
 Exercise regularly 0.7 -1.1–2.5 2.3 f 0.4–4.2 -5.5 g -8.5– -2.5 -4.6 h -7.6– -1.5
Sleep status
 Sleep enough -0.9 -2.8–1.0 5.9 g 3.9–7.9 -6.1 g -9.1– -3.0 -3.8 f -6.8– -0.9

a We adjusted for age (in ten-year increments), sex, marital status, and years of employment (in ten-year increments) in Model 1.

b In Model 2, we adjusted for the covariates in Model 1 plus average overtime-working hours.

c We adjusted for age (in ten-year increments), marital status, and years of employment (in ten-year increments) in Model 3. We omitted the sex variable because we included individual time-invariant fixed-effects in the fixed-effects models.

d In Model 4, we adjusted for the covariates in Model 3 plus average overtime-working hours.

e Estimates indicate additive effects of being a manager on outcomes. We showed the coefficients multiplied by 100, which showed the difference in the percentages of having each health-related behavior between managers and non-managers (Null hypothesis: coefficient = 0).

f P-value <0.05.

g P-value <0.001.

h P-value <0.01.

Asymmetric effects of manager status

Supplementary table S3 presents the number of observations regarding the occupational class changes during the study period. In our dataset, some employees changed their position from a manager to a non-manager, especially when they were transferred to another branch or department or turned 60. While there were 523 observations (1.6%) where employees were promoted from non-manager to manager (“promotion”), there were 154 observations (0.5%) where employees changed their status from manager to non-manager (“demotion”). When we focused on the asymmetric effects of manager status on CVD risk factors (asymmetric fixed-effects analyses), promotion to manager was associated with a 2.2 mg/dl (95% CI 0.1–4.3) higher LDL-C level and a 6.4% (95% CI 1.5–11.3) lower likelihood of engaging in regular exercise (tables 5 and 6).

Table 5

Association between being a manager and metabolic risks in the asymmetric fixed-effects model. [BMI=body mass index; BP=blood pressure; LDL-C=low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C=high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG=triglycerides; CI=confidence interval].

Promotion a De-promotion a


Estimates b 95% CI Estimates b 95% CI
BMI, kg/m2 0.0 -0.1–0.1 -0.1 -0.3–0.0
Abdominal circumference, cm 0.1 -0.3–0.5 -0.4 -1.0–0.3
Systolic BP, mmHg -0.3 -1.4–0.8 -0.9 -2.7–0.9
Diastolic BP, mmHg 0.0 -0.8–0.8 -1.0 -2.3–0.2
Fasting blood sugar, mg/dl 0.1 -0.7–1.0 0.6 -1.9–3.1
HbA1c, % 0.0 0.0–0.0 0.0 -0.1–0.0
LDL-C, mg/dl 2.2 c 0.1–4.3 -0.5 -3.6–2.6
HDL-C, mg/dl 0.4 -0.3–1.2 -0.3 -1.5–1.0
TG, mg/dl 4.0 -3.4–11.4 -6.1 -18.8–6.6

a We adjusted for age (in ten-year increments), marital status, and years of employment (in ten-year increments). We omitted the sex variable because we included individual time-invariant fixed-effects in this model.

b Estimates indicate additive effects of being a manager on outcomes.

c P-value <0.05.

Table 6

Association between being a manager and health-related behaviors in the asymmetric fixed-effects model. [CI=confidence interval]

Promotion a De-promotion a


Estimates b 95% CI Estimates b 95% CI
Current smoker -0.5 -2.7–1.7 -3.2 -6.5–0.1
Exercises regularly -6.4 c -11.3– -1.5 8.6 c 1.2–16.0
Sleeps enough -2.2 -6.9–2.6 22.5 d 14.9–30.1

a We adjusted for age (in ten-year increments), marital status, and years of employment (in ten-year increments). We omitted the sex variable because we included individual time-invariant fixed-effects in this model.

b Estimates indicate additive effects of being a manager on outcomes. We showed the coefficients multiplied by 100, which showed the difference in the percentages of having each health-related behavior between managers and non-managers (Null hypothesis: coefficient = 0).

c P-value <0.05 and

d P-value <0.001.

Secondary analyses

The results were qualitatively unaffected when adjusted for the average overtime-working hours for both the pooled cross-sectional analyses and the fixed-effects model (tables 3 and 4). Our findings were unaffected after further adjustment for the incidence of any claims-identified hospitalization in the year, suggesting that hospitalization had little impact on our conclusions (supplementary tables S4 and S5). When we performed pooled cross-sectional and fixed-effects analyses stratifying by sex, similar associations of being a manager with LDL-C level, exercise habit, and self-reported sufficiency of sleep were observed among male employees. In the female subsample, a statistically significant association was not observed except for self-reported sufficiency of sleep in the pooled cross-sectional analysis (supplementary tablesS6 and S7).

Discussion

This study used unique panel data that included employees’ occupational class and annual health checkup data. Using fixed-effects models to adjust for time-invariant employee characteristics, we found that managers demonstrated higher levels of CVD risk factors These results were in contrast to the findings observed when we did not adjust for employees’ fixed-effects (ie, pooled cross-sectional analyses), suggesting the possibility that unobserved individual characteristics might confound the relationship between manager status and health status. Our findings imply that being a manager could have a negative impact on employees’ health, even though managers seemed to be healthier than non-managers in the pooled cross-sectional analyses.

Two possible mechanisms may explain our results. First, we could refer to two mainstream frameworks in the context of job stress: the job demand–control (JDC) model and the effort–reward imbalance (ERI) model (31, 32). These models maintain that job stress is determined by the joint effects of job demand and job control (JDC model) or the balance between employees’ efforts and rewards for their job (ERI model). Thus, the models can infer that being a manager can be stressful when the job is demanding or involves insufficient rewards. Job stress, in turn, has been reported to be associated with metabolic syndrome, physical inactivity, and sleep disturbance (8, 33, 34). Overall, these studies support our hypothesis that the status of a manager could contribute to CVD risk factors due to increased job stress. Our analyses are also consistent with these job stress models. In the fixed-effects analyses, the inverse associations of being a manager with LDL-C level, exercise habits, and self-reported sufficiency of sleep persisted even after adjusting for the overtime-working hours. This result is reasonable under the JDC or ERI models in the sense that job stress is not determined only through how many hours employees may work but reflects the joint effects of job demand and control or the balance between employees’ efforts and rewards for their job.

Second, it is possible that being a manager could be associated with reducing employees’ free time outside of work. According to the Grossman model, people must invest time to produce health (35). If employees in a managerial position lack sufficient time to pay attention to a healthy diet, engage in regular exercise, or sleep sufficiently because of their working environment, being a manager could cause unfavorable health outcomes. Our asymmetric fixed-effects models showed that promotion to a manager was associated with a higher LDL-C level and a lower likelihood of regular exercise and sufficient sleep. These results were consistent with our main results from the fixed-effects model, supporting our hypothesis that differing working environments between managers and non-managers can alter the way employees use their time. Overall, employers may have the potential to avoid workers’ CVD risks by paying attention to their stress status and working environment.

In contrast to the analysis adjusting for employees’ fixed-effects, the pooled cross-sectional analysis showed that managers had lower levels of CVD risk factors, such as BMI, systolic blood pressure, and LDL-C, than non-managers. However, these associations were inverse for LDL-C level, exercise habits, and self-reported sufficiency of sleep in the fixed-effects models. Since the fixed-effects models accounted for employees’ time-invariant traits and reduced the bias derived from individual-level unobserved characteristics, we could claim that the true associations between managerial status and the reported health outcomes should be inverse, and the positive associations observed in our cross-sectional analyses were specious.

Our study was built upon prior studies investigating the relationship between occupational class and health conditions. In Western countries, previous cross-sectional or cohort studies revealed that managers were better off than non-managers in terms of heart disease and health-related behaviors (9, 10, 13), as our pooled cross-sectional results also suggested. However, only four longitudinal studies addressed the possibility that employees with some unobserved individual traits were more likely to be promoted (1619). While one study suggested positive impacts of promotion on heart disease (16), the other three studies demonstrated that promotion to a manager was associated with poorer mental health, possibly due to job stress (1719). Our study is consistent with the latter three studies and has added credible evidence to the literature by taking into account employee-level fixed-effects, whether observable or not. Our study also extends these previous findings to other contexts, such as Asian countries, because the role of occupational class in terms of impact on health may differ between Western and Asian countries (36). It has been reported that a managerial position was associated with better health in Western countries, but the association was in the opposite direction in Asian countries. Several cross-sectional studies have shown that, contrary to Western countries, managerial employees in Japan and South Korea exhibited higher mortality than other workers, although suicide or cancer, instead of CVD, were the main factors contributing to higher mortality among managerial employees (20, 36). Another cross-sectional study revealed that Japanese non-manual (higher-grade) employees had lower HDL-C and higher BMI than manual (lower-grade) employees (37). Our results are consistent with those studies in the sense that higher-grade workers experienced unfavorable health outcomes.

This study also contributed to the evidence of health inequality in Japan. Compared with Western countries, the health inequality in Japan had not been strongly expressed (38). This contrast could be attributable to Japan’s egalitarian society, represented by its equal education opportunities and financial access to healthcare (39). However, it has been pointed out that globalization and rising economic disparity can accelerate the health inequality even in Japan (39); several studies indicated that Japan’s economic stagnation might cause mortality inequality among workers (20, 36). In this context, our study has added evidence on Japan’s health inequality among workers in terms of CVD risk factors. Further studies are expected to unravel the whole picture of health inequality in Japan.

Some limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, our study was observational, and we failed to obtain information on education and unobserved health conditions, which could be confounders for the association between a managerial position and CVD risks. The association in the pooled cross-sectional analyses might be confounded, as education has been shown to be associated with CVD risks (40). Nevertheless, the individual fixed-effects enabled us to avoid the confounding by education because education was reasonably an individual-specific time-invariant factor in our research. As for unobserved health conditions, healthier employees might be more likely to be promoted to a manager, as previous studies suggested (17, 41). However, in such a case, we would expect a bias toward the null, and the extent to which managers experienced poorer health status would be larger than our estimates. Moreover, detrimental health status that could affect promotion seemed rare in our study subjects; only a small part of the employees experienced hospitalization (3.6% and 4.5% among managers and non-managers, respectively) (table 2). Second, we did not identify the mechanisms through which manager status was associated with higher levels of CVD risk factors because we did not have data for the JDC or ERI models. Further research is expected to reveal exact mechanisms. Third, most of the managers in this study were male. Because a previous study revealed that the association of a lower occupational class with poor mental functioning varied according to sex (30), the association between occupational class and CVD risk factors may differ according to employee sex. This possible sex-heterogeneity, however, could not be examined sufficiently because of the small proportion of female managers in our dataset. To evaluate the sex-heterogeneity, further studies with a dataset including more female managers and non-managers are expected. Finally, we had access to only one Japanese company’s data and restricted study subjects to employees with health checkup data. Moreover, our results should be taken with caution for younger workers because the excluded 26 933 observations due to missing variables were somewhat younger and healthier than those included in our analyses. Another concern for generalizability is that the questionnaires for health-related behaviors were just binary and crude.

Even with these concerns about generalizability, we believe that this study is valuable, as it presents the possibility that being a manager could have a negative effect on employees’ health, especially among male Japanese employees, contrary to the conclusions found in most of the previous literature.

This study has two main strengths. First, we used repeated measures of occupational class and health conditions. The data allowed us to account for time-invariant unobserved individual characteristics, in contrast to the previous studies that might not completely account for individual characteristics. Second, we examined the association between a managerial position and a wide variety of CVD risks using data for annual health checkup data in Japan. This extensive wide variety allowed us to evaluate metabolic risks as well as health-related behaviors.

Concluding remarks

We found that managers had higher levels of CVD risk factors in multiple dimensions (LDL-C, exercise habits, and self-reported sufficiency of sleep) compared to non-managers after adjusting for employee-level observed and unobserved time-invariant characteristics. These unfavorable health risks associated with promotion to a manager should be considered in occupational settings.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the employees who have agreed to provide their information for this study and all staff members of the Center of Innovation at the University of Tokyo for their extensive efforts and help to conduct the study. We would also like to thank all members of Precision Health at the University of Tokyo for their invaluable assistance. This research was supported by the Center of Innovation Program of the Japan Science and Technology Agency (Grant Number JPMJCE1304). The funding agency had no role in the design and conduct of this study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1 

M MarmotSocial determinants of health inequalitiesLancet2005Mar36594641099104https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71146-6

2 

R WilkinsonM MarmotThe Solid FactsWorld Health Organization. WHO2003

3 

JP MackenbachI StirbuAJ RoskamMM SchaapG MenvielleM LeinsaluEuropean Union Working Group on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countriesN Engl J Med2008Jun35823246881https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0707519

4 

Y HuFJ van LentheGJ BorsboomCW LoomanM BoppB BurströmTrends in socioeconomic inequalities in self-assessed health in 17 European countries between 1990 and 2010J Epidemiol Community Health2016Jul70764452https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-206780,

5 

Y FukudaK NakamuraT TakanoCause-specific mortality differences across socioeconomic position of municipalities in Japan, 1973-1977 and 1993-1998:increased importance of injury and suicide in inequality for ages under 75Int J Epidemiol2005Feb3411009https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh283

6 

PM LantzJS HouseJM LepkowskiDR WilliamsRP MeroJ ChenSocioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality:results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adultsJAMA1998Jun2792117038https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.21.1703

7 

M KivimäkiJ PenttiJE FerrieGD BattyST NybergM JokelaIPD-Work consortium. Work stress and risk of death in men and women with and without cardiometabolic disease:a multicohort studyLancet Diabetes Endocrinol2018Sep6970513https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30140-2

8 

T ChandolaE BrunnerM MarmotChronic stress at work and the metabolic syndrome:prospective studyBMJ2006Mar33275405215https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.3⇵.435301.80

9 

MG MarmotH BosmaH HemingwayE BrunnerS StansfeldContribution of job control and other risk factors to social variations in coronary heart disease incidenceLancet1997Jul35090732359https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04244-X

10 

S StringhiniA DugravotM ShipleyM GoldbergM ZinsM KivimäkiHealth behaviours, socioeconomic status, and mortality:further analyses of the British Whitehall II and the French GAZEL prospective cohortsPLoS Med2011Feb82e1000419https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000419

11 

L KokkinenC MuntanerA KoskinenA VäänänenOccupational class, capitalist class advantage and mortality among working-age menJ Epidemiol Community Health2020Jan74136https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2019-212952

12 

O RahkonenM LaaksonenP MartikainenE RoosE LahelmaJob control, job demands, or social class?The impact of working conditions on the relation between social class and healthJ Epidemiol Community Health2006Jan601504https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.035758

13 

AE KunstF GroenhofO AndersenJK BorganG CostaG DesplanquesOccupational class and ischemic heart disease mortality in the United States and 11 European countriesAm J Public Health1999Jan8914753https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.1.47

14 

VR FuchsTime preference and health:an exploratory study. In:Economic aspects of health [Internet]University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL198293120Available from: http://ideas.repec.org/h/nbr/nberch/6546.html

15 

P AdamsMD HurdD McFaddenA MerrillT RibeiroHealthy, wealthy, and wise?Tests for direct causal paths between health and socioeconomic statusJ Econom20031121356https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(02)00145-8

16 

M AndersonM MarmotThe effects of promotions on heart disease:evidence from WhitehallEcon J (Lond)201212256155589https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02472.x

17 

CJ BoyceAJ OswaldDo people become healthier after being promoted?Health Econ2012May21558096https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1734

18 

DW JohnstonWS LeeExtra status and extra stress:are promotions good for us?Ind Labor Relat Rev20136613254https://doi.org/10.1177/001979391306600102

19 

A NybergP PeristeraH WesterlundG JohanssonLL HansonDoes job promotion affect men's and women's health differently?Dynamic panel models with fixed effectsInt J Epidemiol2017Aug464113746

20 

K WadaN KondoS GilmourY IchidaY FujinoT SatohTrends in cause specific mortality across occupations in Japanese men of working age during period of economic stagnation, 1980-2005:retrospective cohort studyBMJ2012Mar3447851e1191https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e1191

21 

T KohroY FuruiN MitsutakeR FujiiH MoritaS OkuThe Japanese national health screening and intervention program aimed at preventing worsening of the metabolic syndromeInt Heart J2008Mar492193203https://doi.org/10.1536/ihj.49.193

22 

Ministry of Health, Labour and WelfareSpecific health checkups and specific health guidance (in Japanese) [Internet]2013[cited 2021 Mar 24]Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/kenkou_iryou/kenkou/seikatsu/index.html

23 

S AnderssonI EkmanF FribergE Bøg-HansenU LindbladThe association between self-reported lack of sleep, low vitality and impaired glucose tolerance:a Swedish cross-sectional studyBMC Public Health2013Jul131700https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-700

24 

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Estimated number of patients and rates of estimated patients (per day, per 100,000 population) by inpatient/outpatient, sex and age group, by year. In:Handbook of health and welfare statistics 2019 [Internet]Tokyo, Japan:Health and Welfare Statistics Association2019[cited 2021 Mar 30]Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-hh/2-2.html

25 

JD AngristJ PischkeMostly Harmless Econometrics:an Empiricist's ComparisonPrinceton University Press2008

26 

JS LongLH ErvinUsing heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors in the linear regression modelAm Stat200054321724

27 

PD AllisonAsymmetric fixed-effects models for panel dataSocius Sociol Res a Dyn World2019https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119826441

28 

R Core Team R:a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]Vienna, Austria:R Foundation for Statistical Computing2020Available from: https://www.r-project.org/

29 

Y CroissantG MilloPanel data econometrics in R:the plm packageJ Stat Softw2008272143https://doi.org/10.1↽/jss.v027.i02

30 

M SekineT ChandolaP MartikainenM MarmotS KagamimoriSocioeconomic inequalities in physical and mental functioning of British, Finnish, and Japanese civil servants:role of job demand, control, and work hoursSoc Sci Med2009Nov6910141725https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.022

31 

R KarasekJob demands, job decision latitude and mental strain:implications for job redesignAdm Sci Q1979242285308https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498

32 

J SiegristAdverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditionsJ Occup Health Psychol1996Jan112741https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27

33 

T OshioA TsutsumiA InoueThe association between job stress and leisure-time physical inactivity adjusted for individual attributes:evidence from a Japanese occupational cohort surveyScand J Work Environ Health2016May42322836https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3555

34 

B YangY WangF CuiT HuangP ShengT ShiAssociation between insomnia and job stress:a meta-analysisSleep Breath2018Dec224122131https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-018-1682-y

35 

M GrossmanOn the concept of health capital and the demand for healthJ Polit Econ197280222355https://doi.org/10.1086/259880

36 

H TanakaWJ NusselderM BoppH Brønnum-HansenR KaledieneJS LeeMortality inequalities by occupational class among men in Japan, South Korea and eight European countries:a national register-based study, 1990-2015J Epidemiol Community Health2019Aug7387508https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-211715

37 

P MartikainenM IshizakiMG MarmotH NakagawaS KagamimoriSocioeconomic differences in behavioural and biological risk factors:a comparison of a Japanese and an English cohort of employed menInt J Epidemiol2001Aug3048338https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/30.4.833

38 

S KagamimoriA GainaA NasermoaddeliSocioeconomic status and health in the Japanese populationSoc Sci Med2009Jun6812215260https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.030

39 

N IkedaE SaitoN KondoM InoueS IkedaT SatohWhat has made the population of Japan healthy?Lancet2011Sep37897961094105https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61055-6

40 

MA WinklebyDE JatulisE FrankSP FortmannSocioeconomic status and health:how education, income, and occupation contribute to risk factors for cardiovascular diseaseAm J Public Health1992Jun82681620https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.82.6.816

41 

M ElovainioJE FerrieA Singh-ManouxM ShipleyGD BattyJ HeadSocioeconomic differences in cardiometabolic factors:social causation or health-related selection?Evidence from the Whitehall II Cohort Study, 1991-2004Am J Epidemiol2011Oct174777989https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwr149


Additional material