Prof. Dr. Gisela MohrDr. Kathleen OttoDr. Thomas RigottiPhD Torsten HolstadPhD Christiane Stempel

Prof. Dr. Kerstin IsakssonDr. Eric HansenPhD Carina Loeb

Prof. Dr. Ulla KinnunenPhD Kaisa Perko

31.01.2012, BAuA, Berlin

Background

New and Emerging Risks at Work – Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)

Consortium composed of 18 European agencies:Germany: BAUA and DGUVFinland: Institute of Occupational HealthSchweden: Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, FAS

Goals: Enhancing quality and cooperation in the OSH research; synergistic effects and improved flow of information

Joint call in 2009 Start of the project: may 2010 Subsidy amount : 300.000 € in Germany, ….in Sweden; … in

Finland

Why focus on leaders' behaviours? Why focus on leaders' behaviours? Psychological disorders as reasons for sick leave

have dramatically increased in the last years Due to changing nature of work: Increasing

importance of psychosocial risk factors Leaders impact health and well-being of employees

in many ways: task assignment (complexity, autonomy, time

pressure) feedback social support participation in decision making

Research on Leadership and Health Research on Leadership and Health – in a nutshell– in a nutshell

The supervisor-subordinate relationship has been reported as one of the most common sources of stress in organizations (Cartwright & Cooper, 1994; Moyle, 1998; Tepper, 2000, van Dierendonck et al., 2004)

LMX, and Transformational leadership as concepts are currently dominating the field of research, but there are also potential negative consequences!(Harris & Kacmar,2006)

Leaders behaviours can be either a direct predictor for employees health and well-being, or plays a moderating role between stressors, and strain(Väänänen et al., 2003)

Workpackages – Current StatusWork packages Project month/

initial scheduleStatus/ Adjustments

WP1 State of the art report

1-6 The state of the art report was finished in 03/2011 as a draft.

WP2 Contact with the participants

1-36 In all three countries a sufficient number of participants (more as planned) could be recruited. Communication with participating teams, and organizations is an ongoing task

WP3 Questionnaire development & pilot

1-6 The pilot questionnaire was carried out in the 7th project month (11/2010). Data analyses, and decisions for the final questionnaire were finished in 03/2011.

WP4 Instruction work book

4-6 (t1)22-24 (t2)28-39 (t3)

Guidelines for sampling strategy, and decisions about the design of the research instruments have been made on time for the first wave of measurement.

WP5 Data management & (process-) evaluation

7-9 (t1)25-27 (t2)31-33 (t3)

The first wave of data collection started delayed in the 11th project month (03/2011) and has been finished in 06/2011. The second survey is now planned for 06-08/2012 (26-28th project months), and the third survey for 11/2012-01/2013 (31-33th project months). Though we started delayed, we will be able to stick to the overall time schedule.

Work packages Project month/ initial schedule

Status/ Adjustments

WP6 Model & plan for interventions

1-8 A general plan and schedule for intervention has been developed and is carried out in the participating teams in Sweden and Germany.

WP7 Conducting interventions

9-24 The intervention started with only a slight delay of 2 months according to the initial plans. Currently the intervention modules are as scheduled. The intervention will end in May 2012.

WP8 Country differences

4-6 (<t1)27-29 (t2)33-35 (t3)

Theoretical considerations, as well as empirical evidence on cultural, and societal differences, affecting leadership has been integrated in the state of the art review. Explorative analyses on differences between a German, Finnish and Swedish sample on the variables under study have been performed on the pilot data and the t1 data.

WP9 Preparation of manual

Ongoing documentation and evaluation of the intervention moduls

WP10 Dissemination of results & web page

The web-site of the Re-Su-Lead project is available under http://www.uta.fi/projects/resulead/ already since June 2010 (2nd project month), and is updated regularly.

WP11 Coordination Frequent face to face meetings have been organized.

Workpackages – Current Status

Research Design

! ReSuLead ! Longitudinal study with 3 measuring times Intervention & control groups (public- & private sector) Multisource, multimethod design (leaders, employees, teams) Country comparisons between Schweden, Deutschland, Finnland Evaluation

InterventionIntervention

General goal for the intervention

• Health promoting, rewarding and sustainable leadership

• Intervention plan - Leadarship as a relationship– Involve teammembers and increase their role and

influence in the process of making their work place more health promoting

– Regular team meetings used in learning process (observation, feedback, workshops)

– Leaders get support from other leaders, coaching and reflection

– Change and learning takes time

Expected outcomes for leaders, teams and organizations

• Leaders: theory and facts, new skills (e.g. coping with stress), feedback from team members about their role, individual development (e.g. self efficacy)

• Teams: theory and facts ( working in teams, work and health), improvements of team climate and working conditions

• Organization: knowledge and increased awareness of health promotion in the work place and the role of leaders

Expected outcomes for researchIncrease knowledge about...

Rewarding, sustainable and health Rewarding, sustainable and health promoting leadership promoting leadership and contribute to and contribute to theoretical developmentheoretical development t

Causal relationships, processes och critical intervening factors

Culture and gender differencesCulture and gender differences Develop a screening instrument to analyse psycho

social risk factors in the organization Develop an intervention manual based on

outcomes of the intervention .

Intervention activities - overview

Intervention

Team workshops 1

Feedback from questionnaires T1

Teams work with action plan about health promotion in the workplace

Clear tasks, allocation of responsbility (both leaders and team members)

Time plan

What to do (necessary tasks)?

How do we achieve goal?/ What can I do??

When to do it? Who is responsible?

Action plan!

Wann ist das

Modell anwendbar?

Um einen konkreten Auftrag

umzusetzen:

Wie kann das Ziel

erreicht werden?

Welche Handlungs-

möglichkeiten gibt

es? Wie können

wir diese umsetzen?

Wie wendet man

es an?Beginnen Sie mit

dem Auftrag und

bearbeiten Sie

Punkt für Punkt.

Fragen Sie sich,

wie Sie den

jeweiligen Schritt

erreichen können.

So erzielen Sie

eine Vielzahl

verschiedener

Handlungs-

möglichkeiten.

Hindrance? How to overcome them+

Aim

Aufgaben-aufteilung

Transparenz & Akzeptanz

Unterstützung

Aufgaben festlegen

Personal > Kapazität

ABP unter Beachtung der Einzelgruppen

Info an alle MA

nachvollziehbar

Beachtung im Alltag

Flexibilität

Personal-änderungen

3 Monate Fachdienstleiter

1 Monat Fachdienstleiter

ständig; jährliche überprüfung Fachdienstleiter & AbteilungsleiterInn

Änderung der Art und des Umfangs der Arbeit

3 Monate Fachdienstleiter & Mitarbeiter

KH/ Akt.

Analyse Flexibilität Kurzfristige Verschiebung der Maßnahme

Intervention

Observations of team meeting

Observation (about 1 hour) about team climate, decision making, allocation of tasks etc, made by two researchers during a regular team meeting (includes home work for team members)

LecturesFor leaders:• Leadership and health, work task analyses

For leaders and team members:•Work and stress, health promotion•Team work cooperation

Intervention

Observations of team meeting

Observation (about 1 hour) about team climate, decision making, allocation of tasks etc, made by two researchers during a regular team meeting (includes home work for team members)

LecturesFor leaders:• Leadership and health, work task analyses

For leaders and team members:•Work and stress, health promotion•Team work cooperation

Intervention

Workshops for leaders

Knowledge about leadership theories and methods Exchange of ideas, discussions Skills training Offered individual coaching Daily diary for self reflection Reflection, discussion & evaluation

Coaching for leaders

3 Coaching sessions as part of project Reflection individual topics Support in the intervention processs Feedback to leaders about outcome of observation of the team and leader in meeting

Feb Mar Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov

Jan Feb Mar Apr Mai Nov Dez

2. Team-Workshop

3. Workshop for leaders

2011

2012

1 Leader meeting

Questionnaire T1

Theory I 1. Team Workshop Theory IIFeedback on goal setting

1. Workshop for leaders

Feedback and evaluation of intervention process

Questionnaire T2

Questionnaire T2

4. Workshop for leaders

2. Workshop for leaders

Coaching Diary Observation of team meeting

Coaching Diary Observation of team meeting

Intervention plan

Evaluation

• Main effects evaluation by questionnaires on two occasions (including control group)– T 2, May – June 2012– T 3, six months later

• Formative evaluation of the process– Goal setting (relevance)– Activities in the intervention– Implementation – Effects for participants

First impressions from Sweden

• Both leaders and teams were very positive about the workshops and the action plans– In some cases we notice that obstacles have

come up (e.g. work load, turn over)– Most positive effects seem to be when the

goals and activites planned by leader and team members become integrated in regular routines

– Leaders have a critical role but also team members engagement is important

First ResultsFirst Results

1. Description of the samples in every country2. Reliability and validity of the scales used3. Differences in perceived leadership between

countries4. Differences in occupational well-being between

countries5. Relationships between leadership and well-

being indicators6. Conclusions

Outline

Sample GER SWE FIN

N % N % N %

Subordinates 1386 90.2 441 93.6 557 89.8

Leaders 150 9.8 30 6.4 63 10.2

Total 1536 100.0 471 100.0 620 100.0

Total sample size

Background factor GERN = 1386

SWEN = 441

FINN = 557

Gender % Female 75.6 85.2 84.7

Male 24.4 14.8 15.3

Sector % Public 10.8 100 100

Private 89.2 - -

Age in years M (SD) 39.4 (11.0) 45.7 (10.8) 48.3 (9.7)

Working hrs in a week M (SD) 39.8 (5.4) 38.9 (6.2) 37.6 (5.2)

Description of the employee sample

• All the scales consisting of multiple items have been examined with factor analysis (EFA + CFA).

• The reliabilities of the scales across countries are good (α > .70) with a few exceptions.

• However, the construct validity of the scales across countries could be better, i.e., the factor loadings are not equal between the countries in many cases.

Reliability and Validity of Scales

1. Leadership climate: leaders provide clarity in goals, supply information and feedback, carry out changes at work successfully, promote employee participation and control

2. Transformational leadership: leaders act as role models, provide attractive vision of future, encourage independent thought, pay attention to individual development

3. Authentic leadership: leaders genuinely desire to understand their own leadership to serve others more effectively

4. Fair leadership: leaders treat their subordinates fairly and equally

5. Health-promoting leadership: leaders support employees’ autonomy and participation and take active role in solving conflicts

6. Abusive leadership: leaders show hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact

Leadership Scales

Significant differences:SWE > GER 1-5, FIN 1-3 and SWE < FIN 6, GER 6FIN > GER 3-5

Leadership across Countries

Leader self-appraisals are systematically and significantly more positive than the leader appraisals by employees.

How leaders see themselves in relation to employees

Significant differences:GER > SWE 1, FIN 1; GER < FIN 2, SWE 2; FIN > GER 3-4, SWE 3-4

Well-being, a country comparison

All correlations are significant at the p < .001 level except for abusive supervision in Sweden.

Correlations between leadership and well-being

• The samples differ between the countries which limits conclusions.

• Leadership is generally perceived as most positively in Sweden and most negatively in Germany; Finland falls in between.

• Occupational well-being is lowest among the German employees, although the Finnish employees have highest turnover intentions.

• Health-promoting leadership shows highest correlations with well-being indicators in every country (r = |.26-.48|), and leadership climate is the second one (r = |.20-.40|).

Conclusions