work related psychosocial risks and new forms of work organisation
DESCRIPTION
Work related psychosocial risks and new forms of work organisation. a European perspective Ceren INAN DARES-CTS [email protected]. Introduction. Forms of work organisation typology developed by Valeyre & Lorenz (Valeyre & Lorenz 2003) applied by the authors (and co.) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Work related psychosocial risks and new forms of work organisationa European perspective
Ceren INAN
DARES-CTS
Introduction
Forms of work organisation typology developed by Valeyre & Lorenz
(Valeyre & Lorenz 2003) applied by the authors (and co.)
• to 3rd and the 4th EWCS (Valeyre & Lorenz 2004b and 2009)
• to business surveys (Bunel M. et al., 2008) used in various studies
Typology is based on employees of market sector (workplace size 10 p. or more)
Introduction
Valeyre & Lorenz Typology
Forms of work organisationLean production formsDiscretionary learning forms Taylorist formsTraditional or simple structure forms
Introduction
Lean production Team work Job rotation Quality management Pace constraints
(Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990)Toyota Production System (TPS) Total Quality Management (TQM)Just In Time (JIT)Autonomous teams (AT)
Introduction
Discretionary learning form of work organisation Autonomy in work Auto-quality of work Autonomous teamwork Learning & problem solving Complex tasks
(Berggren 1992)Socio-technical systemsResponsible autonomyAdaptabilityWhole tasks
Introduction
A fair amount of studies suggest thatlean can causes mental harmmostly trough job strain
(Landsbergis, Cahill & Schnall, 1999 ; Askenazy 2002)
Introduction
Job strain is a risk factor forcardiovascular diseases and
hypertensionmusculoskeletal disordersdepressionchronic stress
(Cahill & Landsbergis, 1996; Karasek & Thorell, 1990; Belkic K. et al., 2004; Chouanière D. et al., 2011)
Introduction
And what about discretionary learning forms of work organisation?causes mental harm?generates stress?or a good alternative to the lean
production (regarding PSRs)?
Introduction
Studies based on the 3rd and the 4th European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) provides empirical evidence that experienced stress at work, psychosocial risks (PSR) exposure and some psychological troubles (anxiety, insomnia and
irritability) are significantly more common among workers in lean production
(Valeyre 2006 ; Valeyre et al. 2009)
Introduction
“Quality of work and employment is clearly better under discretionary learning forms”
However, “Only the indicators concerning long working hours and flexible daily working hours, and the psychological working conditions of intrinsic
rewards and friendship at work, do not significantly differentiate the discretionary learning and lean production forms”.
(Valeyre et al. 2009, page 42)
Introduction
The aim of this study is to examine the effect of these two new forms of
work organisation on work related PSRs of European
workersby using the 5th EWCS
(for the general survey report, see Parent-Thirion Agnès et al. 2012)
Data and method
New forms of work organisation in Europeindirectly identifiedby using an association of 15
organisational variables [see paper]
in a multiple correspondence analysisand clustering techniques
(for the methodology, see Valeyre & Lorenz 2003, 2004b and 2009)
Data and method
Psychosocial risks factors57 variables
Specific PSR measures decision latitude, job demands and job strain quality of management
Measures on the consequences of PSRs (output) violence at work, experienced stress at work and mental health (WHO-5 score)
Data and method
multiple correspondence analysis on Psychosocial risks factors
focus on the first four dimensions (24% of inertia) regressions on specific PSR measures
decision latitude, job demands and job strain (no JCQ, see paper)
quality of management regressions on consequences of PSRs (output)
violence at work, experienced stress at work and mental health (WHO-5 score)
Data and method
For each variable 3 types of regressionlogistic regression, multilevel regression with random
effects on intercept at country level (u0)
multilevel regression with random effects
• on intercept (u0) and • on the effect of Lean production (u1)
Data and method
multilevel regression with random effect (u0) on intercept (β0) at country level
Y=β*X + βLean*Lean + βTaylorist*Taylorist + βSimple*Simple + (β0+u0) / u0 ~> N(0;s2u0)
multilevel regression with random effects on intercept (u0) and on the effect of Lean production (u1)
Y=β*X + (u1+βLean)*Lean + βTaylorist*Taylorist + βSimple*Simple + (β0+u0) / u0 ~> N(0;s2u0) and u1 ~> N(0;s2u1)
Random effects of u0 and u1 covariate asu0 & u1 ~> N(0;0,s2u0;c1;s2u1)
In case the covariate of u0 & u1 (C1) could not be estimated, we supposed it to be null (fixed as C1=0)
Results - decisional latitude
first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low decisional latitude (+) to those with high decisional latitude (-)
1st DimensionFactor Coord. Contrib. Cos2No complex tasks 0,506 0,017 0,178Manager rarely helps and supports 0,756 0,019 0,147The job do not offers prospects for career advancement 0,532 0,020 0,221Rarely have the impression work well done 1,363 0,021 0,135Rarely have the feeling doing useful work 1,347 0,024 0,160Do not solves unforeseen problems 0,875 0,025 0,187Rarely autonomy in breaks 0,627 0,025 0,253Do not learn new things 0,703 0,026 0,236Dissatisfying working conditions 0,998 0,030 0,219No autonomy in speed or rate of work 0,706 0,031 0,300Manager do not call participation on decisions 0,713 0,032 0,315Rarely participate, own objectives 0,737 0,032 0,302No autonomy in methods of work 0,697 0,034 0,360No autonomy in order of tasks 0,718 0,036 0,386Rarely participate, important decisions 0,731 0,038 0,398Rarely participate, by own ideas 0,903 0,046 0,420
Results - decisional latitude
first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low decisional latitude to those with high decisional latitude
Employees with low decisional latitude Taylorist Elementary occupations Plant and machine operators, and assemblers Simple structures Manufacture Transport and storage
Employees with high decisional latitude Learning Managers Professionals Technicians and associate professionals Information and communication Finance and insurance Scientific and tech. activities
Results - decisional latitude
first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low decisional latitude to those with high decisional latitude
Country effect (multilevel reg.)high decisional latitude low decisional latitude
-2,00
-1,50
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
No
rway
Fin
lan
dD
en
mark
Neth
erl
an
ds
Latv
iaS
wed
en
Ko
sov
o
Est
on
iaM
on
ten
eg
ro
Po
rtu
gal
Belg
ium
Malt
a
Irela
nd
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Un
ited
Czech
Au
stri
a
Sp
ain
Ro
man
iaC
yp
rus
Tu
rkey
Lit
hu
an
ia
Po
lan
dF
ran
ce
Cro
ati
a
Slo
ven
iaB
ulg
ari
a
Alb
an
iaS
lov
ak
iaF
YR
OM
Hu
ng
ary
Italy
Gre
ece
Germ
an
y
Lower Upper Pred
Results - psychological demands
second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees undergoing high psychological demands (+) to those having less demanding jobs (-)
2nd DimensionFactor Coord. Contrib. Cos2Pace, colleagues work 0,326 0,016 0,115Substantial restructuration or reorganisation 0,392 0,017 0,099Manager is not good at planning and organising work 0,596 0,018 0,073Freq, handles angry clients 0,823 0,018 0,067Asocial working time 0,576 0,019 0,083Manager is not good at resolving conflicts 0,604 0,020 0,086Pace, (prod, or perf,) Targets 0,390 0,023 0,159Freq, must hide feelings 0,588 0,023 0,104Often task interrupted 0,551 0,026 0,126Often homework 0,950 0,026 0,100Dissatisfying working conditions 0,713 0,027 0,112Not enough time to job done 1,046 0,035 0,135Freq, working at high speed 0,575 0,040 0,235Freq, working to tight deadlines 0,608 0,048 0,299Freq, experience stress at work 0,793 0,052 0,250
Results - psychological demands
second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees undergoing high psychological demands to those having less demanding jobs
Employees with high psychological demands Lean Managers & Professionals Turkey & France Establishments big in size Industry
Employees with low psychological demands Simple Poland Elementary occupations Establishments small in size Administrative and support
Results - psychological demands
second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees undergoing high psychological demands to those having less demanding jobs
Country effect (multilevel reg.)low psychological demands high psychological demands
-1,50
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
Alb
an
iaP
ola
nd
Bu
lgari
aP
ort
ug
al
Latv
ia
Lit
hu
an
iaC
roati
aS
lov
ak
ia
Czech
Ko
sov
oD
en
mark
Mo
nte
neg
roS
pain
Neth
erl
an
ds
Ro
man
iaIt
aly
Est
on
ia
No
rway
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Sw
ed
en
Belg
ium
Au
stri
aF
YR
OM
Germ
an
yF
inla
nd
Un
ited
Irela
nd
Hu
ng
ary
Malt
a
Fra
nce
Slo
ven
iaG
reece
Cy
pru
sT
urk
ey
Lower Upper Pred
Results – job strain
plan resulting from these first two dimensions (17% of the inertia),
presents a similar structure with the Karasek’s demand-control model
Results - multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)
Results - multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)
Active Jobs High-strain
Low-strain Passive Jobs
Active Jobs High-strain
Low-strain Passive Jobs
Active Jobs High-strain
Low-strain Passive Jobs
Results – job strain
Effect of organisational forms (βorg) on job strain Higher odds in Lean and Taylorist organisation to have job
strain So, less chance to have a job strain in discretionary learning
type of work organisation
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
Lean Learning Simple Taylorist
βorg
Observed Logistic Multilevel
ref.
Results – job strain
Country effect (multilevel reg.)No Job Strain Job Strain
-3
-2,5
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
Alb
an
iaP
ola
nd
Latv
iaP
ort
ug
al
No
rway
Ko
sov
oN
eth
erl
an
ds
Den
mark
Sw
ed
en
Fin
lan
dB
ulg
ari
aC
roati
aB
elg
ium
Lit
hu
an
iaE
sto
nia
Mo
nte
neg
rS
lov
ak
iaC
zech
Ro
man
iaS
pain
Italy
Irela
nd
Un
ited
Lu
xem
bo
ur
Malt
aA
ust
ria
FY
RO
MF
ran
ce
Hu
ng
ary
Cy
pru
sS
lov
en
iaG
erm
an
yT
urk
ey
Gre
ece
Lower Upper Pred
Results – perceived quality of management
Third dimension of the MCA opposes well managed close to high-strain jobs to mismanaged passive-jobs
Fourth dimension of the MCA opposes some public related external risks to hierarchy related internal risks
In both cases the quality of management is an important factor
Results – perceived quality of management Better perception of quality of management in discretionary
learning type of work organisation In Lean, the perception of quality of management is not bad The perception of quality of management is clearly worst in
Simple and Taylorist organisation
Effect of organisational forms on the perception of the quality of management (βorg)
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
Lean Learning Simple Taylorist
βorg
Observed Logistic Multilevel
ref.
Results – quality of management
In “more developed” European countries employees are more critic about the quality of the management
-3,50
-3,00
-2,50
-2,00
-1,50
-1,00
-0,50
0,00
Cy
pru
sK
oso
vo
Gre
ece
Mo
nte
neg
roP
ort
ug
al
Bu
lgari
aF
YR
OM
Malt
a
Alb
an
iaC
roati
aIr
ela
nd
Ro
man
iaS
pain
Latv
ia
Hu
ng
ary
No
rway
Czech
Slo
ven
iaE
sto
nia
Un
ited
Slo
vak
iaP
ola
nd
Lit
hu
an
ia
Tu
rkey
Fin
lan
dS
wed
en
Den
mark
Au
stri
aF
ran
ce
Belg
ium
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Germ
an
y
Neth
erl
an
ds
Italy
Lower Upper Pred
Quality of managementNot bad Bad
Conclusion – job strain
Lean and Taylorist organisation More demanding jobs Lesser decisional latitude Relatively higher odds to have job strain
Observed trough multiple correspondence analysis
Verified by regressions
Conclusion - violence at work, experienced stress at work and mental health (WHO-5 score)
Lean and Taylorist organisation Higher levels of experienced stress in work More violence (verbal abuse; unwanted
sexual attention; humiliating behaviour; physical violence; bullying; sexual harassment)
Higher odds to have mental health at risk (WHO-5 score)
…than Discretionary learning type of work organisation
Thank you for your attention !