Author Details:
Dr Anna Kiaos is the Director of Mind Culture Life Australia and a researcher at the University of New South Wales within the Discipline of Psychiatry and Mental Health.
According to the State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) in the last financial year, there were more than 9,000 new workers’ compensation claims for psychological injuries. This figure reflects twice as many claims recorded in 2015[1]. The problem of rising psychological injury claims compounds when comparing the length of time that employees with psychological injuries are away from work, averaging approximately 29 weeks compared to 12 weeks for physical injuries respectively[2]. These poor return to work outcomes has contributed to a 90% increase in active psychological claims in the NSW workers compensation system since 2015[3]. These figures tell us something important about the state of Australian workplaces, specifically, that more research, analysis and follow-on activities must now be a priority by leaders and practitioners in the field to adequately diagnose and understand the contexts in which psychological and psychosocial injuries occur. Doing so would result in more meaningful and worthwhile management and prevention strategies.
While SafeWork NSW introduced its Code of Practice for Managing Psychosocial Hazards At Work[4], Australian businesses are grappling with ways to adequately investigate the prevalence of presenting psychological and psychosocial workplace issues. ‘The Code’ is an approved Code of Practice under section 274 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act) and specifically lists 16 psychosocial hazards that frequently occur and recur in workplace settings. The Code is also claimed to provide practical guidance on how to achieve compliance with the work health and safety standards required under the WHS Act, Work Health and Safety and Safety Regulation (WHO Regulation)[5].
A careful review of the Code reveals that organisations should administer a four-step process. The first step reflects the identification of psychosocial hazards. Specifically, step one involves identifying psychosocial hazards by gathering data and closing knowledge gaps. Step two reflects assessing psychosocial hazards and risks as per the data. In addition, step two requires preparing to take action by designing strategies to inhibit or reduce psychosocial hazards and risks as identified in the collected data. Step three involves controlling psychosocial hazards by deploying those strategies. Lastly, step four involves ‘review and control measures’ (p.17), ensuring employers limit psychosocial hazards, risks and injuries occurring in the future. This article specifically draws attention to step one as indicated by the Code—the identification of psychosocial hazards by gathering data and closing knowledge gaps, particularly when organisations undergo significant changes including when ‘downsizing, organisational restructuring, administering new work arrangements or technologies’ (p.17)[6]. Importantly, it is during times of workplace change that psychosocial hazards, risks and injuries occur most frequently. Organisational and workplace change is known to cause heightened levels of intra- and interpersonal tension or stress for some employees more than others[7].
Identifying psychosocial hazards and risks
To commence data collection activities, the Code suggests that Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) should consider reviewing organisational documents and records, including but not limited to records and metrics such as psychosocial hazard and incident reports, complaints and investigations into alleged harmful workplace behaviours, absenteeism, turnover data, sick leave data, exit interviews and workers' compensation claims[8]. In addition, the Code strongly recommends that an analysis of psychosocial hazard, workforce or culture surveys should be adopted. Specifically, the Code states, ‘If you choose to conduct workplace surveys, giving your workers the option to respond anonymously may improve the response rate and quality of the information you receive’ (p.19)[9]. This is an important point. Whilst surveys are easy to administer, they do come with quite serious limitations concerning data validity, discussed in more detail shortly. By choosing to deploy surveys as a way to collect psychosocial hazard and risk data, PCBUs take a broad approach by reaching as many employees as possible, presenting respondents with the same questions, typically with ready-made responses via some form of measurement scale, such as a Likert scale.
All too often, however, surveys may contain nothing even close to the issues at hand because they lack contextual nuance. When it comes to issues reflective of psychosocial hazards, risks, injuries or intra- and interpersonal issues resulting from them, what organisational leaders need is to be well informed of the contexts in which psychosocial hazards, risks and injuries transpire. By taking a medium to long term approach, it is through understanding contextual workplace data that will eventually reduce the prevalence of psychological claims. Rather than exclusively taking a fast approach to collect data by administering surveys, leaders may consider taking a medium to long term view by collecting data at a deeper level, enabling more meaningful data to emerge which will help to mitigate against recurring-themed claims in the future, and therefore prevent the potential for litigation. For reasons highlighted above, surveys must be carefully developed and deployed for them to be useful.
Going broad
Regardless of the type of survey an organisation adopts, be it cultural, engagement, pulse or otherwise, it is now commonly known that administering questionnaires produces static manifestations of workplace knowledge[10]. Surveys also produce anonymity issues. Whether the survey is claimed to be anonymous or not, administers can often drill down into survey results to view individual responses. In addition, surveys can also be problematic from the perspective of power and control dynamics within workplace settings. Said differently, employees may not respond truthfully to questions asked of them in order to protect self-interests or the interests of others. Moreover, literature has exposed that surveys present issues of data oversimplification. Yet another issue refers to controlling survey data by disseminating favourable results or a selection of results across a workplace rather than distributing all results irrespective of how unfavourable the results might be.
Indeed, some surveys are designed with a comments section for respondents to add individualised thoughts, concerns and experiences, however, PCBUs cannot assume that only those employees who have experienced psychosocial issues will provide further comments. This outcome is particularly prevalent if employees are disengaged. It is far more likely that disengaged employees will not complete surveys asked of them at all. At this juncture, readers may recognise this article's central argument: if inadequate or incomplete data is captured during stage one of the four stages proposed by SafeWork NSW's Code of Practice, the remaining three stages will plausibly lead to compromised outcomes, with a lack of rigorous, credible and relevant data possibly leading to serious legal ramifications for employers and psychological injuries for their employees. For this reason, designing surveys that are fit for purpose is vital.
Items to consider when designing and deploying psychosocial hazard and risk surveys
It is important to thoughtfully design survey questions based on the actual psychosocial reality that employees are experiencing, in other words, making sure the questions are relevant to employees to ensure the return of quality data and to limit survey fatigue. Survey fatigue occurs when employees or respondents lose interest in completing surveys due to the large number of surveys they receive or the number of questions and/or effort required to complete them. Survey fatigue typically leads to low response rates, rushed completion or survey abandonment which obviously impacts the return of quality data[11]. One approach we suggest is to construct questions which reflect any significant workplace changes occurring at the time which could impact employee psychosocial well-being. Workplace changes may reflect, but not be limited to organisations that are downsizing, restructuring, adding new work arrangements or technologies. By doing so, organisations assess the key issues immediately as a way to gain some contextual clarity in preparation for developing and deploying a range of tools to assist psychosocial hazard and risk management.
Other aspects to survey creation and deployment worth considering reflect: the frequency in which the psychosocial survey is administered; the number of questions - knowing the longer it takes for respondents to complete, the more likely they are to experience survey fatigue; the psychosocial survey should be directly relevant to workplace change activities – pre, during and post; whether or not the psychosocial survey questions should be incorporated into an existing survey the organisation administers, such as a yearly cultural or engagement survey; whether questions should be tailored to particular roles, for instance, blue collar staff versus professional staff; and whether questions should be tailored to particular departments or divisions, or indeed, combining a number of the above considerations.
In addition, it is important to highlight ‘the Code’ suggests that psychosocial hazards and risks can also be identified when PCBUs conduct ‘walk through/talk through with workers’[12]. This methodological approach is to embark upon going deeper as a way to collect valid data, that is, by engaging with staff about ‘how work is done under typical operating conditions such as during peak workloads and under expected circumstances, including emergencies (p.18)[13]. One issue the Code does not explicitly address, however, is how to adequately extract data when challenging power differentials between employees are at play and identifying emerging psychosocial issues under such constraints. This common workplace scenario presents PCBUs with data collection limitations. When this occurs, it’s time to go deep.
Going deep
Going deep is to find ways to collect valid psychosocial hazard and risk data, understand and interpret its complex nature by working with and in proximity to employees most impacted, or likely to be impacted by changes occurring in the workplace. Depending on the type of organisation, the industry in which it operates, the number of departments, divisions and employees, the various type of roles the organisation employs, its global and local enablers and constraints, rare or recurrent psychosocial hazards, risks or injuries, there are several worthwhile approaches PCBUs can embark upon to ‘go deep’.
If PCBUs opt to go deep independently of partnering with consultants, adopting semi-structured in-depth interviews would be a worthwhile approach. In-depth interviews are known to enable higher degrees of interpersonal comfort between those collecting data and their participants[14]. As mentioned, employees may not feel comfortable to freely express their true felt thoughts, opinions or experiences in surveys and focus groups for reasons not limited to issues of power and control. According to a recent publication, ‘PCBUs would start their work by ensuring they create space for employees to talk and act freely in their own way during the course of interaction’[15]. In this way, the PCBU builds rapport and trust with employees as a way to collect valid psychosocial hazard and risk data, in other words, thoughts, concerns and experiences which are salient.
By contrast, if PCBUs opt to partner with a consultant to ‘go deep’, they may opt to partner with an organisational ethnographer. Organisational ethnographers have gained the attention of corporate leaders as well as Human Resource and People and Culture personnel to better understand their employees[16]. Another benefit of being guided by an organisational ethnographer is to ensure that the evidence garnered is objective. All psychosocial hazard and risk investigations require an objective subject matter expert skilled at applying certain methodological particularities which ultimately lead PCBUs to identify, understand, translate knowledge and act in ways that make sense from employees' point of view. Thereafter, PCBUs are equipped to present and inform decision makers who can initiate step two as specified in the Code, that is, preparing to take action by designing strategies to inhibit or reduce psychosocial hazards and risks in the workplace.
Indeed, another important question is how to mitigate presenting issues, in situ, during times of significant workplace change? We will discuss this topic in a future article, however we note that a recent study conducted within a NSW public sector agency, suggested that a Workplace Change Committee would be worthwhile. Workplace Change Committee members act like first responders across impacted departments and divisions to ensure the psychological and psychosocial safety of staff, both intra- and inter-personally by analysing and reducing in severity presenting issues, in situ. To read more about how to mitigate psychosocial issues emerging during times of workplace change, you may like to read the article by clicking here.
In conclusion, psychosocial hazards and risks within workplace settings characteristically relates to people interacting with other people in various contexts. In addition to administering carefully thought through survey questionnaires, PCBUs should draw their attention toward interactions and behaviours between employees during periods of workplace change and if possible, work with an organisational ethnographer who is an objective subject matter expert to deliver mitigation strategies. A focus on going deep, therefore, is logical and necessary.
[1] https://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/news/SIRA-partners-with-the-Black-Dog-Institute-to-support-people-with-psychological-injuries-returning-to-work
[2] IBID.
[3] IBID.
[4] https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/list-of-all-codes-of-practice/codes-of-practice/managing-psychosocial-hazards-at-work
[5] IBID.
[6] https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/list-of-all-codes-of-practice/codes-of-practice/managing-psychosocial-hazards-at-work
[8] https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/list-of-all-codes-of-practice/codes-of-practice/managing-psychosocial-hazards-at-work
[9] IBID.
[12] https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/list-of-all-codes-of-practice/codes-of-practice/managing-psychosocial-hazards-at-work
コメント