1 / 36

Work related psychosocial risks and new forms of work organisation

Work related psychosocial risks and new forms of work organisation. a European perspective Ceren INAN DARES-CTS ceren.inan@travail.gouv.fr. Introduction. Forms of work organisation typology developed by Valeyre & Lorenz (Valeyre & Lorenz 2003) applied by the authors (and co.)

urian
Download Presentation

Work related psychosocial risks and new forms of work organisation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Work related psychosocial risks and new forms of work organisation a European perspective Ceren INAN DARES-CTS ceren.inan@travail.gouv.fr

  2. 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)

  3. Introduction • Valeyre & Lorenz Typology Forms of work organisation • Lean production forms • Discretionary learning forms • Taylorist forms • Traditional or simple structure forms

  4. 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)

  5. 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 systems Responsible autonomy Adaptability Whole tasks

  6. Introduction • A fair amount of studies suggest that • lean can causes mental harm • mostly trough job strain (Landsbergis, Cahill & Schnall, 1999 ; Askenazy 2002)

  7. Introduction • Job strain is a risk factor for • cardiovascular diseases and hypertension • musculoskeletal disorders • depression • chronic stress (Cahill & Landsbergis, 1996; Karasek & Thorell, 1990; Belkic K. et al., 2004; Chouanière D. et al., 2011)

  8. 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)?

  9. 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)

  10. 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)

  11. 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 workers • by using the 5th EWCS (for the general survey report, see Parent-Thirion Agnès et al. 2012)

  12. Data and method • New forms of work organisation in Europe • indirectly identified • by using an association of 15 organisational variables [see paper] • in a multiple correspondence analysis • and clustering techniques (for the methodology, see Valeyre & Lorenz 2003, 2004b and 2009)

  13. Data and method • Psychosocial risks factors 57 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)

  14. 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)

  15. Data and method • For each variable 3 types of regression • logistic 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)

  16. 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 as u0 & 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)

  17. Results - decisional latitude • first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low decisional latitude (+) to those with high decisional latitude (-)

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. Results - psychological demands • second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees undergoing high psychological demands (+) to those having less demanding jobs (-)

  21. 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

  22. 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 demandshigh psychological demands

  23. 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

  24. Results - multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)

  25. Results - multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)

  26. Active Jobs High-strain Low-strain Passive Jobs

  27. Active Jobs High-strain Low-strain Passive Jobs

  28. Active Jobs High-strain Low-strain Passive Jobs

  29. 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

  30. Results – job strain Country effect (multilevel reg.) No Job StrainJob Strain

  31. 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

  32. 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)

  33. Results – quality of management • In “more developed” European countries employees are more critic about the quality of the management Quality of management Not badBad

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. Thank you for your attention !

More Related