Factors contributing to better psychosocial working environment
Published: 23 November 2008
A study entitled Better psychosocial work environment: A study of workplace interventions [1] assesses the strategy defined in the law about the evaluation of the working environment. The study is part of the BEST-practice research project carried out by the National Research Centre for the Working Environment (Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Arbejdsmiljø, NFA [2]), the Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management (Institut for Planlægning, Innovation og Ledelse, IPL [3]) at the Technical University of Denmark (Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, DTU [4]), and three departments of the Roskilde University (Roskilde Universitetscenter, RUC [5]). The latter three departments include the Centre for Working Environment and Working Life (Center for Arbejdsmiljø og Arbejdsliv [6]), the Department of Communication, Business and Information Technologies (Institut for Kommunikation, Virksomhed og Informationsteknologier [7]) and the Department of Psychology and Educational Studies (Institut for Psykologi og Uddannelsesforskning [8]).[1] http://www.best-project.dk/[2] http://www.arbejdsmiljoforskning.dk/[3] http://www.man.dtu.dk/[4] http://www.dtu.dk/english.aspx[5] http://www.ruc.dk/RUC_en/[6] http://www.ruc.dk/enspac/aliv/[7] http://www.ruc.dk/cbit/[8] http://www.ruc.dk/paes/
According to a longitudinal study conducted in 14 enterprises during the period 2004–2008, trust between the management and employees and a feeling of justice are important for the improvement of the psychosocial working environment. The companies chosen for the study operate in three different fields of economic activity, including manufacturing, information and knowledge, as well as human services.
About the study
A study entitled Better psychosocial work environment: A study of workplace interventions assesses the strategy defined in the law about the evaluation of the working environment. The study is part of the BEST-practice research project carried out by the National Research Centre for the Working Environment (Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Arbejdsmiljø, NFA), the Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Management (Institut for Planlægning, Innovation og Ledelse, IPL) at the Technical University of Denmark (Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, DTU), and three departments of the Roskilde University (Roskilde Universitetscenter, RUC). The latter three departments include the Centre for Working Environment and Working Life (Center for Arbejdsmiljø og Arbejdsliv), the Department of Communication, Business and Information Technologies (Institut for Kommunikation, Virksomhed og Informationsteknologier) and the Department of Psychology and Educational Studies (Institut for Psykologi og Uddannelsesforskning).
The study is an intervention study, where 14 enterprises were analysed from 2004 to 2008 regarding their process of enhancing the psychosocial working environment. It was decided to select companies within three areas of economic activity to facilitate the generalisation of the results. However, the enterprises most interested in changing their psychosocial working environment were chosen. As one of the companies closed down during the research period, it is not included in the longitudinal study.
Regarding the study methodology, two rounds of questionnaires were conducted, before and after the intervention. In the first survey, a total of 3,116 employees replied, representing a response rate of 88%, and in the second round 2,351 people replied, corresponding to a response rate of 78%. The general aim was to encourage the whole enterprise or department participating in the study to respond. Furthermore, 391 qualitative interviews were carried out with company managers, employee representatives and members of steering committees.
Study findings
Low sectoral influence
The study showed no significant change in the psychosocial working environment in the different fields of economic activity studied: manufacturing, information and knowledge work, and human service work. The tendency is that the manufacturing companies have the most difficult psychosocial working environment, although the best scoring enterprises in this sector are at the same level as several companies in the two other categories. As can be seen in the table below, the manufacturing sector shows lower values with regard to cognitive demands, influence, development possibilities, meaningfulness of the job, involvement, predictability, clarity of role division and social community.
| Dimension | Area of activity | National average | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing | Information and knowledge | Human services | ||
| Quantitative demands | 52 | 53 | 45 | 47 |
| Working speed | 65 | 63 | 61 | 59 |
| Cognitive demands | 60 | 68 | 67 | 63 |
| Emotional demands | 38 | 40 | 53 | 38 |
| Need to hide feelings | 33 | 32 | 41 | 30 |
| Influence | 44 | 54 | 57 | 55 |
| Development possibilities | 63 | 74 | 74 | 72 |
| Freedom | 57 | 76 | 52 | 65 |
| Meaningfulness of job | 70 | 76 | 80 | 78 |
| Involvement | 55 | 65 | 61 | 57 |
| Predictability | 47 | 61 | 62 | 60 |
| Clarity of role division | 66 | 69 | 71 | 76 |
| Role conflicts | 46 | 43 | 44 | 37 |
| Social community | 76 | 79 | 80 | 82 |
Notes: The table presents the average values of the three economic activities before intervention and at national level on the dimension concerning the psychosocial working environment. Values are between 0 and 100, where 100 represents the maximum and 0 is the minimum. A difference is seen as significant if it is greater than five points. Some differences can be explained by the job function – for example, emotional demands and the need to hide feelings are greater in human service jobs, where contact with people is greater.
Source: Better psychosocial work environment (Virksomheders indsats for et bedre psykisk arbejdsmiljø, VIPS), 2008
Large differences at company level
Despite the lack of significant changes between the economic activities, large differences in the psychosocial working environment in individual companies underline the fact that the psychosocial working environment is not determined by structural, material or economic conditions. Instead, it is determined by the organisation and the handling of the psychosocial working environment within the specific enterprise.
Furthermore, in local departments more significant changes have been registered. Organisational social capital seems to be important for successful changes of the psychosocial working environment. In this regard, important factors include trust between the employees and managers and a collective feeling of organisational justice (see also NL0801019I). Furthermore, the ability of both parties to cooperate is necessary. Social capital takes time to build up, but when established, it has resilience towards threats.
A systematic assessment approach does not automatically lead to a better psychosocial working environment. If the assessment is carried out in the form of a questionnaire, it can have a positive agenda-setting effect, which makes it easier to discuss the problems within the enterprise afterwards. This is explained by the greater authority of results from a questionnaire, than of a single person’s critique of the conditions at work.
Reasons for lack of improvement
The lack of significant improvements in the overall results may have at least two important explanations. First, the time frame is too narrow to show significant change in the psychosocial working environment, since it is embedded more deeply in the organisation, and therefore is more difficult to change. The enterprises with the best psychosocial working environment, for instance, had been trying to improve the psychosocial working environment for a period of 10 to 15 years. Secondly, the results show a tendency for companies with a more inferior psychosocial working environment to improve, and for enterprises with a good psychosocial working environment to deteriorate. This tendency can be explained either by an actual change or by the statistical error called ‘regression to the mean’, which means that respondents who differ from the mean tend to fall closer to the mean in the second examination.
Commentary
In Denmark, it is compulsory for enterprises to carry out workplace assessments (Arbejdspladsvurdering, APV). The assessment should contain a mapping of the psychosocial working environment, an evaluation, a priority list, possible solutions, a plan of action and follow-up measures. The study shows that no simple and linear way exists to confront the psychosocial working environment. In this regard, it would be important to develop the workplace assessment methods and guidelines for successful improvement of the psychosocial working environment.
Reference
National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Virksomheders indsats for et bedre psykisk arbejdsmiljø – Rapport fra forskningsprojektet VIPS [Better psychosocial work environment: A study of workplace interventions – Report from the BEST-practice research project], Copenhagen, 2008.
Nicole Hansen and Helle Ourø Nielsen, Oxford Research
Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.
Eurofound (2008), Factors contributing to better psychosocial working environment, article.
