Occupational Stress

Paper presented at the Public Sector Human Resources Conference (Sydney - 11-Nov-2004 / Melbourne - 29-Oct-2004)

Authored by Martha Knox-Haly

Introduction:

Today's session paper is about defining risk mitigation as it relates to the public sector, then outlining three key areas that give rise to occupational stress claims. These three areas are: performance management, bullying in the workplace and inappropriate recruitment.

Risk Mitigation

Risk Mitigation is about dealing with the psychosocial factors that create positive, performing and professional workplaces. For the public sector this means actively creating workplaces that are highly functional in terms of process, efficiency, stability and reliability. It is about building workplaces which have a rich network of relationships across and within different work sections. In order to achieve this, there needs to be reasonable levels of workforce stability and managed turnover of staff, as opposed to a rapid stream of unpredicted tearful resignations.

Risk Mitigation is about creating positive working relationships between management and relevant unions. As everyone here is well aware, if we don't have these types of relationships, the functionality of industrial negotiations are compromised. Risk Mitigation for a bureaucracy is about creating an environment which will effectively serve the public, keep the minister adequately informed and continue to deliver quietly, smoothly and without hiccoughs.

How does reducing occupational stress relate to risk mitigation in a bureaucracy? Once an employee has developed a clinical stress condition, management is really going to be on the back foot for rebuilding relationships, optimising performance and creating a harmonious workplace. There is an almost inevitable bitterness that arises in stress claimants with psychological injuries, as they often develop additional dissatisfaction with the workers compensation system and their employers.

From the human resource manager's side, there might be the hours helplessly spent listening to an unhappy employee whose upsets can never be placated by the workers compensation system. The injured worker wants an apology and wants "justice". Unfortunately, workers compensation is not about justice; it is about payment, efficient claims administration, organisation of treatment and progressive return to work. Workers compensation is not there to arbitrate on morale issues, period. Hence there is a terrible collision between rational process and very real human emotional needs.

From the coworkers perspective there might be anger at having to cover their colleagues' absence. Public sector recruitment systems mean that it will be months before replacements are found. Appropriate secondments may not be available or the workplace budget may not extend to skill hire.

Neighbouring work sections will begin to instinctively socially withdraw from the proximity of the angry, stressed worker/claimant. In extreme cases, work processes begin to be subtly rerouted around the worker's section. Slowly, the entire section is isolated. The whole organisation is no longer working for efficiency, but avoidance of "difficult stressed employees." This is a quick pen portrait that illustrates that prevention is unarguably better than cure within a public sector bure aucracy……

Reducing Risk Factors

How does one minimise occupational stress in a public sector bureaucracy? There are three general areas which are associated with occupational stress claims. These areas are:

· Performance Management of Employees
· Workplace Bullying
· Selection Processes

Performance Management

There is often an equation in public sector bureaucracy of "you are performance managing me, and I'll raise you a grievance/harassment claim/ stress claim." The challenge is two fold: firstly, how to performance manage people in such a way that they will accept change and not feel bullied and secondly, how to support managers through what is often a long and arduous performance management process. How do we stop both parties from being burned out?

Three essential ingredients are:

a) Pre-existing positive relationships
b) The listening loop
c) Teaching managers to reframe and depersonalise angry responses from employees

On the first point, the stronger a pre-existing relationship is with the workforce, the more capacity there is for that relationship to absorb negative feedback and convert it into positive behavioural change. The literature on conflict indicates that a relationship will remain healthy provided there is a rough ratio of four positive comments to one negative comment. When this ratio shifts to more negative comments, that is when the relationship becomes strained. This is when there is a reduced w illingness to take these comments on board and modify behaviours. For this reason, it is always advisable to space out the negative feedback as much as possible.

It is also about assessing an individual's level of psychological resilience. The more resilient someone is (i.e. the less defensiveness there is), the more open a manager can be in providing negative feedback. A manager should always monitor for signs of defensiveness coming up, and as soon as they do, take a break from the feedback process. There is no point in continuing on, because as soon as the employee becomes defensive, they have physiologically lost the capacity to hear what is actually being said.

The listening loop is very important, and failure to take this into account has lead to many a stress claim. In a classic public sector performance feedback session, a manager will open by feeding his/her view to the employee. It is more helpful to start with thoroughly interviewing an employee to establish his/her perception of his/her own performance. This means asking people about what they perceive to be under their control and what is their responsibility. Once you have established that an e mployee feels you have fully understood their perspective, then is the time to launch into feedback. Quite simply, you can't shift people from point A to point B, if you don't know where people believe point A is actually located. If you stint on your initial listening, expect fireworks, stress claims and angry damaged people.

Teaching line managers to reframe and depersonalise angry responses from employees is crucial in the public sector performance management process. These are long drawn out processes that can run for a number of years. It is about ensuring the managers have an adequate network of social support outside of the workplace, that they have a good work-life balance and that they exercise regularly and look after their health generally. When line managers or supervisors performance manage an employee in the public sector it can be like training to run a marathon. It is therefore about teaching supervisors to do effective goal setting for their own morale and mental state. It is about giving a supervisors a philosophy of:

"Pace yourself and just focus on taking each little segment one day at a time. Fully accomplishing this means that you are 10% closer to achieving your goal of successfully performance managing this employee, as opposed to focusing on the less motivating prospect of having 90% of outstanding procedural steps."

It is also about constantly training managers to separate out interpretation from evidence. Line managers have to be supported in thinking about this as a professional exercise concerning their position, and that it is nothing to do with them as people. If we can keep our line managers reasonably calm about the process, there will be more chance of keeping the employees calm and successfully improving their performances, (as opposed to the process resulting in a stress claim).

Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying, whether it takes the form of vertical or horizontal harassment is fuelled in a large measure by lack of consultative structures. Let us take the case of bullying between co-workers. In all of the instances with which I have dealt concerning poor workplace culture and peer bullying, it has come about through the line manager being undermined. The undermining can come about through the manager either being "set up", having poor sense of personal adequacy or the manager only developing positive relationships with the good performers in a workplace. In other words, it comes about when the manager plays "favourites". Employees observe this and do not report instances of peer bullying, lest they get on the wrong side of the manager. Peer bullying can also arise in instances where the bully has some form of psychiatric difficulty and he/she is not receiving adequate treatment or support from a qualified mental health professional.

Bullying also arises in workplaces where the manager is not taking the time to check with employees' morale in the workplace. When a line manager has a large workforce, it is about notifying the union delegates that line management will be randomly approaching people to talk with them about the issues of morale. Checking on morale is not about asking workers whether they have problems with anyone. It is more an approach of regularly asking broad questions about job satisfaction; do they feel comf ortable coming to work? Do they have any suggestions about how the work environment could be improved? Broad questions reduce the chance of vexatious claims being put forward.

When there has been a history of bullying occurring in a workplace, it is a matter of developing an anti-bullying policy in consultation with the workforce. The process of consultation is also an important strategy for communicating management expectations about acceptable behaviour. The next step is to then run a series of workshops where the workforce and management discuss the kind of workplace culture that they want to have in place. Part of this culture has to be based on effective models of localised conflict resolution. This means educating people about a process of:

a) How to defuse their own levels of anger or emotional distress before they raise an issue.
b) Encouraging people to directly raise issues with each other, and when this does not work, ask the supervisor or union delegate to intervene.
c) Educating people on strategies that they can use to defuse the other party's (to the complaint) levels of anger/emotional distress.
d) Tips for how the complaint is expressed and how the pacing of the message is delivered.
e) Educating everyone in the workforce about the problems associated with complaining about people behind their backs. When this happens the complainant is recruiting people to their perspective, and then we have a problem of "silent ganging up" occurring. Thus the groundwork is being laid for workplace bullying to occur.

What happens when the bully is actually in a management position? The same strategies really apply of creating localised conflict resolution. In this situation the line management is the problem. Therefore, the role of the human resources department becomes very crucial in communicating the position to senior executive level. Strategies of opening the work area up are critical! Steps have to be taken to adequately link the workplace to its internal customers, corporate support services (such as t he commercial services branch, industrial relations, safety units, injury management), and other adjoining work areas. These linkages become the channels for information gathering which create a comprehensive picture and set of performance accountabilities for the line manager who is being consulted . It is then a matter of communicating to the "bullying manager" that there is a large audience watching his/her actions.

Any professional counselling delivered by a psychologist or senior management needs to be conveyed within this context. It is a matter of setting up weekly coaching sessions and accountabilities for that manager.

Recruitment and Selection

Preventing occupational stress begins with selecting the right people. This means having an understanding of bureaucratic culture, as well as looking at the job requirements. It means recruiting for a psychological match with bureaucracy. Workplace culture refers to the beliefs that people have about how they act and behave within a workplace. The classic public sector bureaucracy (in generalised terms) is a formalised and structured work environment. Good leadership is about coordination and org anisation, predictability is key, policy and formal rules are treated as law.

In our very bureaucratic emphasis on selecting applicants on the basis of merit, we are only looking at technical competencies and we need to begin looking at interpersonal competencies and occupational profiling.

The first step is obviously ensuring that a thorough job analysis has been done by any psychologist who is conducting recruitment testing. This creates a technical as well as legal basis for establishing relevancy of test choice. Job analysis is also essential to ensure that testing practices are not discriminatory against the candidate on the basis of gender, disability status, age and marital status.

Job analysis establishes: ( a) the occupational personality profile that will assist person-culture fit and ( b) the ensureance that the individual is psychologically fit for job demands that will be placed on him/her. This is about more than ensuring that a police officer is psychologically resilient enough to cope with inevitable job trauma. It is also about ensuring that you are not recruiting people who are floridly psychotic into customer service roles where they are handling cash. This last example might sound very frivolous, but it is often very hard to detect the subtle signs of psychosis in a regular interview panel. It does not mean that you exclude people with a history of difficulties. But it does mean that if you take them on, you have to support them properly in the workplace. This is a very real example of managing diversity sensibly. There is a need to ensure that if an applicant does have a problem in this area, that they are receiving adequate treatment and support to manage the p roblem. We need to manage mental health disabilities in the same way that we strive to create access for people with physical disabilities.

However I would like to argue for more that just introducing psychological testing as part of the recruitment process. There is room for inclusion of qualitative judgement on the panel's part in the formal interview process.

In terms of assessing cultural match, it is possible to ask a candidate to complete a brief culture assessment tool, (which is enclosed in appendix one). The candidate can be asked to complete the assessment tool in terms of their expectations of an ideal work environment. The panel supervisor can complete the same tool in terms of how they perceive the actual work environment. It is then a matter of comparing the gaps and similarities; and using the tool results as a structured interview. Depth questioning in this fashion can help prevent recruiting the wrong person in terms of organisational cultural fit.

For example, the antithesis of the bureaucratic culture is the "adhocracy". An adhocracy is the kind of culture typically found in a dot com, or any small start up business. People coming from a small business background are going to be used to a more informal environment- they are used to more casual relationships. Applicants from a small business background may not understand hierarchy. Their more casual approach can come across as disrespectfulness towards others. In small business, success is about being unique, different and fast moving. Applicants from a small business background will chafe against bureaucratic process which they mistake as unnecessary cautiousness. Such applicants have previously been rewarded in small business for new ideas; therefore they will not understand why the bureaucracy (which is about consistency) doesn't respond positively when they offer their ideas on "better ways of doing things". Hence we have a frustrated employee who feels victimised and rejected (and can end up lodging a stress claim).

There are two other forms of organisational culture, and these are the "clan culture" and the "market culture". Clan culture is the type of environment where employees arrive at work to socialise, where emphasis is placed upon sensitivity to human concerns and rights. The workplace is conflict avoidant and it is all about developing employees. This is the type of environment that might be found in non-profit organisations or very old family owned firms. Applicants from this ba ckground might find the formality of a bureaucracy to be cold and unsupportive. Conversely, the bureaucracy might find such applicants to be naively open, and not having appropriate regard for confidentiality.

A market culture is a competitive environment which is all about increasing market share. There is a level of ruthlessness both internally and externally. The focus is on accomplishing productivity measures. An applicant from this background might jeopardise the delicate relationship network that keeps a bureaucracy functioning smoothly. The applicant's tendency to be interpersonally ruthless might cause co-workers to shrink like fragile anemones from such a person.

It does not mean that you exclude these applicants from these different organisational cultures, but it does require line management to have a discussion with the applicant to ensure that their expectations are realistic before they accept the position.

After the panel has gone through the prepared questions to establish technical competency or suitability, it is useful to take in an additional stage of analysis. This is the type of analysis that has been used in a clinical context to screen for personality disorders. When psychologists are conducting clinical interviews to screen for diagnoses such as borderline personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder, they examine family relationships, peer relationships and workplace relation ships. Obviously it is not appropriate to question applicants about their personal lives or cultural background. However, you can ask people their reasons for leaving each previous position and if they keep in touch with former work colleagues? How often do they catch up with old work colleagues for lunch? What previous experience has the applicant had of working in a public sector environment?

If applicants jump around from job to job, this is telling us something about the applicant's capacity to commit. It is also handy to just ask the applicant how they have dealt with workplace conflict in the past. If an applicant unhesitatingly indicates that they have not had much conflict, or indicates that they resolved it satisfactorily, then these can be positive signs of maturity. This simple information can be elicited through light social chatting after the pre-set questions. The response s to these questions should not be the sole reason for rejecting an applicant, but heed should be given to these subtle trace indicators. Such information can be most beneficial in determining the suitability for a work environment. Again it does not mean that you have to exclude candidates with an unstable work history and previous episodes of workplace conflict, but as an employer you do need to think about how you will manage these aspects if you decide to engage this applicant .

Appendix One:

Four Workplace Cultures and Workplace Culture Interview Questionnaire

Four Different Workplace Cultures

Clan culture

The emphasis is on relationships and friendships
People are very open about themselves
It is like a family
The head of the organisation is like a parent figure or benign mentor
The organisation is held together by loyalty or tradition
Commitment is high
The organisation emphasises the long term benefit of human resources development with high cohesion
Morale is important
Success is about sensitivity to customers and concern for people
The organisation places a premium on team work, participation and consensus

Adhocracy Culture

Characterised as dynamic, entrepreneurial and a creative place to work.
People stick their necks out and take risks.
Leaders are considered to be innovators and risk takers.
Commitment to experimentation and innovation.
Emphasis on being leading edge.
Readiness for change and meeting new challenges is important.
The organisation's long term emphasis is on growth and acquiring new resources.
Success means having unique and new products or services.
Being a product leader is very important.
The organisation encourages individual initiatives and freedom

Market Culture

Results oriented
Leaders are hard drivers, producers, competitors
Management are tough and demanding
The bond that holds everyone together is winning
Key concern is competitive actions
Focus on achievement of measurable economic goals and targets
Success is about market share and penetration.
Competitive pricing and market leadership are important.
The organisational style is hard driving competitiveness.

Hierarchy Culture

Formalised and structured place to work
Procedures govern what people do
Leaders prize themselves on being good coordinators and organisers
Maintaining a smooth running organisation is important
Long term concerns are stability, predictability and efficiency
Formal rules and policies hold the organisation together

Workplace Culture Interview Questionnaire

Item A. Long term goals of work area

Organisation emphasises the long term benefits of human resources development with high cohesion. ©
Organisation's long term emphasis is on growth and acquiring new resources. (a)
Organisation's long term goal is to eliminate competition and dominate the market. (m)
Organisation's long term concerns are stability, predictability and efficiency. (h)

Item B. What holds the organisation together?

Workplace is held together by tradition or loyalty. ©
Workplace is held together by commitment to ideals and creative professionalism. (a)
The bond that holds everyone together is winning. (m)
Formal rules and policies hold the organisation together (h)

Item C. What are the qualities of leaders?

The head of the organisation is like a parent figure or mentor. ©
Leaders are considered to be innovators and risk takers. (a)
Leaders are hard drivers, producers, competitors. (m)
Leaders prize themselves on being good coordinators and organisers. (h)

Item D. Which of the following does the organisation value the most?

Staff morale. (c )
Commitment to experimentation and innovation. (a)
Key concern is competitive actions. (m)
Maintaining a smooth running organisation is important. (h)

Item E. What does the organisation regard as being an indicator of success?

Success is about concern for people. ©
Success means having unique and new products or services. (a)
Success is about market share and penetration. (m)
Success is about continuity and smooth operation of mass production. (h)

Item F. How do workers make decisions about their jobs?

The organisation places a premium on team work, participation and consensus. ©
The organisation encourages individual initiatives and freedom. (a)
The market determines what decisions are made, and cash is king. (m)
Decisions are made exclusively by senior management and handed down as edicts. (h)

Item G. What is the organisation's style?

It is like a family. ©
It is characterised as a dynamic, entrepreneurial and creative place to work. (a)
The organisational style is hard driving competitiveness. (m)
It is a formalised and structured place to work. (h)

Item H. How do people behave in this environment?

People are very open about themselves. ©
People stick their necks out and take risks. (a)
People are very results oriented and work focused. (m)
People are very formalised and follow policies and protocols. (h)

Item I. How are people managed?

Care is taken to nurture staff and shield them from negative feedback, sometimes this can verge into protecting staff from negative feedback. ©
Staff are managed in a largely hands off fashion, as they are regarded as being autonomous professionals. (a)
Management are tough and demanding. (m)
All staff are closely managed through through formal procedures and supervision. (h)

Item J. How does the organisation deal with change?

Change can be regarded as traumatic and emotionally distressing ©
Change is the reason for being of the workplace and people thrive on change. Readiness for change and meeting new challenges are important. (a)
Change is regarded as essential to maintaining market dominance and market share. (m)
Change is resisted, challenged and the impact of change is watered down as much as possible. (h)