Work-related Stress assessment: an organizational approach.

G. M. Vecchio 1 , S. Fiaschi 2 , F. Pacelli 2 , E. Pacelli 3

1 Sapienza Università di Roma - Facoltà di Psicologia 2

2 Eco-Format S.r.l. - Roma

3 Eco-Consult S.r.l. - Roma

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

2 / 20

Questions about Work-related Stress

is it an organizational or individual phenomenon ?

should it be assessed via objective tools or using social research methodologies ?

workers participation : extended or limited to key roles ?

which professional should carry out the assessment ?

…what could be the benefits of assessing WrS (beside fulfilling a legal obligation) ?

Introduction

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

3 / 20

European Framework Agreement on WrS

Assessing Work-related Stress entails investigations on :

organization and its processes(working time arrangements, degree of autonomy,

match between skills and job requirements, workload, …)

work environmental conditions (exposure to abusive behaviour, noise, heat, dangerous substances, …)

communication flows(uncertainty about what is expected at work, employment prospects, or forthcoming change,

…)

and subjective factors(emotional and social pressures, feeling unable to

cope, perceived lack of support, …)

Introduction

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

4 / 20

Organizational Context , Job Content

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTOrganizational culture and functionRole in organisationCareer developmentDecision latitude / ControlInterpersonal relationships at workHome / Work interface

JOB CONTENTWork environment and work equipmentTask designWorkload / workpaceWork schedule

Adapted from : European Agency for Safety and Healthat Work (2002)

Introduction

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

5 / 20

Why an organizational approach ?

We are dealing with a systemic phenomenon, concerning

«aspects about the design and management of work and its social and organizational contexts that have the potential for causing psychological or physical harms»

(Leka, Griffith, & Cox, 2003)

WrS assessment should be focused on the relationships between individuals and their organizational contexts, in order to identify factors promoting “Organizational Health”

Introduction

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

6 / 20

« The whole of organizational culture, processes and practices in workplaces contributing to promote, maintain and improve the quality of life and the degree of physical, psychological and social communities health »

(Avallone, Paplomatas, 2005)

“Healthy” organizations provide:

comfortable work environments higher work-safety awareness collaboration and efficiency management of internal conflicts clear goals, openness to innovation organizational equity

Organizational Health

Introduction

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

7 / 20

Guiding principles

Assessing WrS

Orientation to universal prevention

Participation of all members to the survey

Contextualization of research

Internal cut-off scores

Multidisciplinary approach

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

8 / 20

A six-step model

Assessing WrS

1) Start-up and Desk Analysis

sharing procedures and tools with stakeholders

data collection about company structure and functional processes

activities to inform and involve all workers

reconnaissance of the company departments

2) Questionnaire administration

collective sessions

stringent consent procedure on privacy

sealed envelopes

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

9 / 20

Assessing WrS

3) Preliminary results

results from statistical analysis discussed in aggregated form

focus on critical issues and areas to be deepened with workers

4) Qualitative analysis

Focus Group sessions with workers

homogeneity criteria of professional roles and representativeness of company departments

A six-step model

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

10 / 20

Assessing WrS

5) Risks Evaluation Document for WrS

criteria and tools used

complete findings

corrective and/or improvement actions

dissemination strategies

6) Follow-up

monitoring the implementation progress of the proposed actions (six months later)

A six-step model

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

11 / 20

Objectives

The study

COMPANY SIZESmall

( ≤ 100 )Medium

( 101 - 200 )Large

( > 200 )

WORKING SENIORITYin the same company

≤ 10 years > 10 years

MANAGEMENTEFFICACY

Low perception(< 30th percentile)

High perception(> 70th percentile)

RELATIONSHIP WITH COLLEAGUES

Low perception(< 30th percentile)

High perception (> 70th percentile)

OCCUPATIONALSECTORS

Services Health Care Industry

ENVIRONMENTALCOMFORT AND SAFETY

Low perception(< 30th percentile)

High perception (> 70th percentile)

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT factors

JOB CONTENT factors

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

12 / 20

The study

Measures

MOHQ - Multidimensional Organizational Health Questionnaire (Avallone, Paplomatas, 2005)

109 items (4-point scale) assessing behaviour and situations perceived in work contexts, each related to a dimension of Organizational Health.

Risk factors

Perception on Interpersonal Conflicts

Perception of Stress

Perception of Psychosomatic Symptoms.

Protective factors

Work Environmental ComfortWork Environmental SafetyPerception of Management EfficacyPerception of Relationship with ColleaguesPerception of Company EfficiencyPerception of Organizational EquityPerception of Innovation Openness

Job Satisfaction

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

13 / 20

The study

the Sample

Companies : 10Services(41.6%)

Health Care(31.9%)

Industry(26.5%)

Participants : 1274(out of 1483) r.r. = 85,9%

men(49.6%)

women(48.0%)

missing(2.4%)

Age≤ 35 years(39.4% )

36 - 45(34.1% )

> 45(26.5%)

Job Tenure≤ 10 years

(38.5%)> 10 years

(61.5%)

Working seniorityin the same company

≤ 10 years(45.3%)

> 10 years(54.7% )

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

14 / 20

significant Gender and Age differences were found in all Organizational Health dimensions

women (regardless of age) and older workers (regardless of gender) experienced higher levels of all Risk factors

Gender and Age were included as covariates in all subsequent One-Way Univariate Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA)

Gender and Age differences

Results

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

15 / 20

workers in Large companies experimented higher levels of Risk factors workers in Small companies experimented higher levels of Protective factors and Job satisfaction

workers with higher Working seniority experimented higher levels of Risk factors, but a better Environmental conditions perception

workers reporting effective Management Efficacy and better Relationship with Colleagues experimented lower levels of Risk factors, higher levels of Protective factors and Job Satisfaction

Organizational Context impact

Results

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

16 / 20

workers in Health Care sector experimented higher levels of Stress

workers in Industry sector experimented better Environmental conditions (followed by Services)

workers in both Industry and Health Care sector experimented higher levels of Company Efficiency and Innovation Openness, and higher level of Job Satisfaction

workers with a perception of bad Environmental conditions experimented higher levels of Risk Factors, and lower level of Protective Factors and Job Satisfaction

Job Content impact

Results

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

17 / 20

Outcomes for WrS assessment

By law, the Risk Evaluation Document on Work-related Stress must provide a series of recommendations on corrective and/or improvement actions to prevent or reduce accidents on workplaces.

Information gathered by this model can provide to the top management further indications about organizational development strategies

Conclusions

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

18 / 20

Paths of organizational development

Management of communication flows to bridge the gap between processes, "who directs“/"who is directed”, and improve integration

effective Human Resources Management Systems to achieve higher level of organizational equity and organizational commitment

coherent Corporate Training Plan, aiming all training activities to a common goal of promoting Safety culture and organizational citizenship

Conclusions

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

19 / 20

Advantages

Conclusions

Findings can easily be translated into specific measures to prevent and protect the whole company and homogeneous work groups from psycho-social risks, giving insights on even wider organizational development strategies

This model can be adapted to specific situations, yielding proposals that fit the actual conditions of each company

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

20 / 20

Limitations

Conclusions

Difficulties in dealing with bureaucratic approach to safety and organizational health issues

Still not able to find effective alternatives to the in-presence questionnaire administration which can protect the participants’ privacy and ensure the effective involvement of workers and the quality of data collected

Conclusions

Results

The study

Assessing WrS

Introduction

21 / 20

Corresponding author :

Stefano Fiaschi

email : info@eco-format.com

web : www.eco-format.com

Thank you