Companies and stress management systems

A 2009 company survey by researchers from the University of Liège shows that Belgian companies still have a long way to go in developing a systematic, integrated stress management system. Time and money constraints are significant obstacles in this regard, as well as restructuring and organisational change. Strong involvement by top management and other hierarchical levels represent positive factors in developing a full system of diagnosis, action and evaluation.

Growing issue of stress at work

Over the last decade, stress at work has become a major issue in the Belgian health and safety debate. A European and national legal framework has been developed, and several methods for stress diagnosis and stress management intervention have been identified and supported by the Federal Ministry of Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue (Federale Overheidsdienst Werkgelegenheid, Arbeid en Sociaal Overleg/Service public fédéral emploi, travail et concertation sociale, FOD WAS) and the country’s social partners.

Within this context, the ministry decided to commission a systematic analysis of work stress diagnosis practices and interventions that take place in companies. A team from the University of Liège (ULG) carried out the study (in French), with financial support from the European Social Fund. The objectives of the study were to:

• evaluate work stress diagnosis practices in Belgian companies;

• identify factors that stimulate or hinder the implementation of stress management interventions.

Survey methodology

The first objective of the survey on work stress diagnosis practices was explored through qualitative open questions about stress diagnosis and intervention. The second objective was achieved using a specific questionnaire, which was elaborated for the purpose of the study. Based on a scientific literature review, this questionnaire assessed the stimulating and blocking factors for implementing stress management interventions.

The survey sample consisted of 180 Belgian/Walloon companies of different sizes – ranging from those with 20 to more than 10,000 workers – and from different sectors of activity. The response rate in the survey was 24%, which is a relatively satisfying result for a Belgian company survey. The survey participants mainly comprised directors (36%), human resource (HR) managers (23%) or health and safety counsellors (26%).

Main findings

Diagnosis, evaluation and intervention

The survey findings indicate that only one out of six companies had implemented stress diagnosis practices. Of these 30 companies, 57% had conducted a stress diagnosis based on a survey questionnaire, while 33% used a combination of methods – such as a survey, focus groups and individual meetings. Among those who had conducted a stress diagnosis, 60% had implemented actions, but only 25% had moved onto the evaluation stage. Thus, of the 180 surveyed companies, only eight had adopted a full stress management system of diagnosis, action and evaluation.

The 18 companies that implemented actions mostly chose interventions related to the organisational work environment. Changes in the organisation of work and training or the setting up of working groups to discuss sources of stress were the main types of intervention. Only four of the 26 classified interventions involved an individual approach based on psychological help or relaxation methods.

Stimulating and blocking factors

In terms of factors conducive to a well-developed stress management system, the study defined as a key element the communication, participation and involvement of major company actors such as top management and those at other hierarchical levels. Trade union involvement did not appear to have a significant effect in this instance. Factors hindering a well-developed stress management system included financial and time constraints, as well as organisational change such as company restructuring. The latter is defined by the authors as a relatively new factor in the context of existing literature. It was also striking that the companies which had not conducted a stress diagnosis mentioned the lack of resources such as time and money as more of a blocking factor.

Possible policy implications

Based on these results, the study’s authors formulated four points for policy attention. Firstly, the interventions which have already been implemented are clearly concerned with the primary approach focusing on the work environment. Secondly, the results support the need for a systematic evaluation process of stress management interventions. Moreover, the study offers evidence of a need for awareness and publication of best practices regarding the necessary stages in the stress prevention process, as well as in relation to stimulating and blocking factors. This is especially true with regard to small-sized companies, which carry out fewer diagnoses than larger ones. It is also important for companies that are not yet involved in stress diagnosis, and for those that are less aware of the impact of financial and time constraints.

Commentary

Although the survey is hampered by the sample size and response rate, the results clearly show that Belgian companies still have a long way to go in developing a systematic, integrated stress management system. From a policy perspective, this is a worrying result as sensibilisation and mobilisation efforts by the government and social partners have been increased considerably since the end of the 1990s. Time and money constraints are still often cited as blocking factors. A more hopeful finding from the same policy perspective is that the main focus of the developed diagnostics and actions are geared towards workplace environmental aspects and no longer towards the personal responsibilities of the individual worker.

Reference

Hansez, I., Bertrand, F. and Barbier, M., ‘Evaluation des pratiques de diagnostic de stress au sein d’entreprises belges: Facteurs bloquants et facteurs stimulants’ [Evaluation of stress diagnosis practices in Belgian companies: Blocking and stimulating factors], Le Travail Humain, Vol. 72, No. 2, 2009, pp. 127–153.

Guy Van Gyes, Higher Institute of Labour Studies (HIVA) Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven)