Work related psychosocial risks and new forms of work organisation

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 !