Identify and prevent
This year pandemic has at least permitted to put a light on some subjects, like the emergency of the environmental issues, and also the question of the quality of life in workplace.
Thereby, work stressors (or psychosocial hazards) knowed a particular interest. They are one of the four occupational hazards, and are defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO, 1986) as “the interactions among job content, work organisation and management, and other environmental and organisational conditions, on the one hand, and the employees’ competencies and needs on the other. As such, they refer to those interactions that prove to have a hazardous influence over employees’ health through their perceptions and experience.” More precisely, job’s conditions do affect the employees’ psychological well-being, but can affect physical well-being too (musculoskeletal disorder caused by stress for example). As they are intricate with other hazards, it can be difficult to identify them properly.
Their acknowledgement is quite recent, and even if they can not be as visible as chemical hazards, they are very important for the health of the employees but also for the institution. Stressors are indeed linked to performance and productivity.
The World Health Organisation identifies ten psychosocial hazards (adapted from Leka, Griffiths & Cox, 2003) : job content, workload and work pace, work schedule, (lack of) control, environment and equipment, organisational culture and function (poor communication, unclear organizational objectives…), interpersonal relationships at work, role in organisation (ambiguity, role conflict, responsibility), career development (stagnation, under/over promotion…), home/work interface (conflicting demands of work and home …).
For their evaluation, two famous models are frequently used (Stock et al, 2013) :
First, the model known as “demand-control model”, elaborated by Karasek in the late 70s. It is said that a combination of a high job demand (a lot to do in a short time) and a low job control (the possibility for the workers to have control on their jobs, by using their skills or participating in work debates) creates stress for the workers, that the authors called “strain”. In 1988, Johnson and Hall added the dimension of social support to this model. Indeed, social support is a key element to prevent stress, by having colleagues’ support creating a feeling of membership, and the possibility to talk about difficulties. When social support is absent, workers are left isolated.
The second model is Siegrist’s Effort-Reward model (1996). In this model, Siegrist found out that the unbalance between efforts made at work and the perceived reward generates stress. The reward, linked to recognition, can be of three types : salary rewards, social recognition and promotion. Effort can be extrinsic, if it is required by job nature or work environment, or intrinsic, if it comes out of personal motivation and expectation of the workers themselves.
Both of these models propose a questionnaire to evaluate their dimensions. Proceeding to this kind of evaluation provides a picture of the stress level of a person. But even as famous as they are, these models are quite old and could be unclear or omit some variables : for example, family social support can prevent stress as well. This is why psychologists recommend to combine different scales and to adapt them to the context of the intervention if possible.
Identify stressors is one thing, prevent them is another one. Two major implementations are seen in organizations : listen to hurting employees by suggesting a consultation with a psychologist, or change their working conditions that are a problem (Weissbrodt et al., 2018). To raise awareness plays an important role too, and as a major advance, stressors should appeared in the single risk assessment document (“DUER”).
As we spend most of our lives at work, QOL should be considered as essential issue. Nowadays, there are more and more organizations trying to match productivity and well-being. For that matter, in the long run, there are more benefits to improve QOL in workplace, since the cost for cover and sick leaves would overcome the benefits of an unrestrained productivity.
References :
ILO (1986). Psychosocial factors at work: Recognition and control (Vol. 56). Geneva: International Labour Office
Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 285-308.
Leka, S., Griffiths, A., & Cox, T. (2003). Work Organization and Stress. Geneva: World HealthOrganization
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health
Psychol, 1, 27-41.
Stock, S., Nicolakakis, N., Messing, K., Turcot, A., Raiq, H. (2013). Quelle est la relation entre les troubles musculo-squelettiques (TMS) liés au travail et les facteurs psychosociaux ? Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé, 15-2. DOI : 10.4000/pistes.3407
Weissbrodt, R., Arial, M., Graf, M., Ben Jemia, T., Villaret D’Anna, C. & Giauque, D. (2018). Prévenir les risques psychosociaux : une étude des perceptions et des pratiques des employeurs. Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 73(1),174–203. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044431ar
World Health Organization (2010). Health Impact of Psychosocial Hazards at Work: An Overview. Retrieved from : https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44428