Psychosocial risk assessment: Measurement invariance of the UK Health and Safety Executive's Management Standards Indicator Tool across public and private sector organizations

Abstract

This study provides evidence to support the validity of the UK Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool, which is widely used in the UK by organizations to test for stress-related working conditions. A large pooled data set was collected from 137 UK organizations (N=67,347) to test the factor structure of both the original 35-item seven-factor instrument and a new shorter 25-item version. The results showed that the tool was a good fit to the data for both versions. Further analysis examined the factor structure of the Indicator Tool by splitting the data set into both public and private sector organizations. Tests for measurement invariance showed that both versions of the Indicator Tool provided a good fit to the data. The final sequence of analysis showed that the measurement structure of both the 25-item and 35-item scales was also invariant across small-, medium- and large-sized organizations. The current study provides percentile tables for both the public and private sectors so that organizations can compare their scores against UK national benchmarks. Overall, this study validates both the full and the short versions of a valuable and reliable diagnostic instrument for use in a variety of organizations.     

‘Management Standards’ work-related stress in the UK: practical development

Research commissioned for the UK's Health & Safety Executive (HSE) supports the view that a preventative, risk-assessment based approach would be more effective than case-based methods in achieving a nationwide reduction in work-related stress. The background to this approach is described and discussed in a companion paper in this issue (Mackay, Cousins, Kelly, Lee, & McCaig, ). The present paper describes the development of HSE's new stress Management Standards—which offer organizations continuous improvement through a three-phase stress preventative process—and the development of a supporting ‘Indicator Tool’ (a two-phase questionnaire to assess employee perceptions of working conditions). The Management Standards comprise a series of ‘states to be achieved’, which are statements of good practice in six key stressor areas: demands, control, support, relationships, role and organizational change. For each stressor area there is also a ‘platform statement’ that outlines the main aims to be achieved by the organization. This statement may include a target percentage of employees finding that the organization meets the standard: this matter will be settled after the standards have been assessed in a public consultation campaign. To use the new process, an organization's state can first be assessed using the Indicator Tool; liaising with workers in focus groups enables a further exploration of issues raised; finally, there may be formulation of interventions and subsequent review. It is not intended that the standards will be legally enforceable. HSE's aim is that they and the associated methodology will enable organizations to effectively tackle work-related stress, and subsequently reduce both its incidence and prevalence.     

'Management Standards' work-related stress in the UK: practical development

Research commissioned for the UK's Health & Safety Executive (HSE) supports the view that a preventative, risk-assessment based approach would be more effective than case-based methods in achieving a nationwide reduction in work-related stress. The background to this approach is described and discussed in a companion paper in this issue (Mackay, Cousins, Kelly, Lee, & McCaig, 2004). The present paper describes the development of HSE's new stress Management Standards—which offer organizations continuous improvement through a three-phase stress preventative process—and the development of a supporting 'Indicator Tool' (a two-phase questionnaire to assess employee perceptions of working conditions). The Management Standards comprise a series of 'states to be achieved', which are statements of good practice in six key stressor areas: demands, control, support, relationships, role and organizational change. For each stressor area there is also a 'platform statement' that outlines the main aims to be achieved by the organization. This statement may include a target percentage of employees finding that the organization meets the standard: this matter will be settled after the standards have been assessed in a public consultation campaign. To use the new process, an organization's state can first be assessed using the Indicator Tool; liaising with workers in focus groups enables a further exploration of issues raised; finally, there may be formulation of interventions and subsequent review. It is not intended that the standards will be legally enforceable. HSE's aim is that they and the associated methodology will enable organizations to effectively tackle work-related stress, and subsequently reduce both its incidence and prevalence.     

'Management Standards' and work-related stress in the UK: policy background and science

In the late 1990s, the Health and Safety Commission, as the lead authority in the UK responsible for Health and Safety at Work, conducted an extensive consultation exercise to elicit views about how work-related stress should be tackled. The Commission subsequently decided that regulation was not justified and opted for an approach with four strands. One of these was to work with stakeholders to develop clear, agreed standards of good management practice. This paper describes and discusses the rationale behind a standards-based approach that is essentially based on a method of controlling hazards. The Management Standards approach uses a taxonomy of six stressors that has evolved out of extensive research carried out on behalf of the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and in conjunction with stakeholders, and a three-phase risk assessment methodology. Further developmental work on the standards (which are to be subjected to public consultation) and associated measurement tools is described in a companion paper in this issue of Work & Stress (Cousins, Mackay, Clarke, Kelly, Kelly, & McCaig, 2004). The emphasis is on prevention towards reducing stress in the UK working population. We review current thinking on models of work stress, consider evidence linking workplace psychosocial factors and various health and organizational outcomes, and examine the effectiveness of organizational interventions. We argue that the literature supports an approach that aims to move organizational states (represented by the current situation) to more desirable ones (represented by the six Management Standards), and that this is an effective 'population' based approach to tackling workplace stress and promoting individual and organizational health.     

‘Management Standards’ and work-related stress in the UK: policy background and science

In the late 1990s, the Health and Safety Commission, as the lead authority in the UK responsible for Health and Safety at Work, conducted an extensive consultation exercise to elicit views about how work-related stress should be tackled. The Commission subsequently decided that regulation was not justified and opted for an approach with four strands. One of these was to work with stakeholders to develop clear, agreed standards of good management practice. This paper describes and discusses the rationale behind a standards-based approach that is essentially based on a method of controlling hazards. The Management Standards approach uses a taxonomy of six stressors that has evolved out of extensive research carried out on behalf of the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and in conjunction with stakeholders, and a three-phase risk assessment methodology. Further developmental work on the standards (which are to be subjected to public consultation) and associated measurement tools is described in a companion paper in this issue of Work & Stress (Cousins, Mackay, Clarke, Kelly, Kelly, & McCaig, ). The emphasis is on prevention towards reducing stress in the UK working population. We review current thinking on models of work stress, consider evidence linking workplace psychosocial factors and various health and organizational outcomes, and examine the effectiveness of organizational interventions. We argue that the literature supports an approach that aims to move organizational states (represented by the current situation) to more desirable ones (represented by the six Management Standards), and that this is an effective ‘population’ based approach to tackling workplace stress and promoting individual and organizational health.     

Safety culture

'Developing a positive health and safety culture is important if high standards of health and safety are to be achieved and maintained. There is a limit to the health and safety performance an organization can achieve without addressing the contribution which human factors have to play in eliminating occupational accidents and ill health' (David Eves, Deputy Director UK Health and Safety Executive; HSE 1997).     

Psychosocial risk assessment in organizations: Concurrent validity of the brief version of the Management Standards Indicator Tool

The Management Standards Indicator Tool (MSIT) is a 35-item self-report measure of the psychosocial work environment designed to assist organizations with psychosocial risk assessment. It is also used in work environment research. Edwards and Webster presented a 25-item version of the MSIT based on the deletion of items having a factor loading of < .65. Stress theory and research suggest that psychosocial hazard exposures may result in harm to the health of workers. Thus, using data collected from three UK organizations (N = 20,406) we compared the concurrent validity of the brief and full versions of the MSIT by exploring the strength of association between each version of the instrument and a measure of psychological wellbeing (GHQ-12 and Maslach Burnout Inventory). Analyses revealed that the brief instrument offered similar but not always equal validity to that of the full version. The results indicate that use of the brief instrument, which would be less disruptive for employees, would not elevate the risk of false negative or false positive findings in risk assessment.     

Atmospheric Dispersion of Inflammable Substances for Estimating Vulnerable Zones in Hydrocarbon Industry

The present study utilizes an operational model as well as simple empirical relationships for estimating hazard zones due to fire, explosion, and toxic vapor cloud dispersion. The empirical relationships are based on giving appropriate weightage to each of the parameters on which the hazard in question (viz, fire, explosion, toxic vapour dispersion) is dependent. Results from these two approaches [i.e., an operational model FLAMCALC of U.K. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and an empirical model named FIREX] have been compared with the data obtained from the Mexico City disaster in 1984. In general, results from the empirical approach and FLAMCALC are comparable to the observed effects.     

Evaluating organizational-level work stress interventions: Beyond traditional methods

Since the early 1990s, there has been a growing literature on organizational-level interventions for work-related stress, and associated calls for such interventions to be evaluated. At the same time, doubts have been expressed about the adequacy of traditional scientific research methods in applied psychology (the natural science paradigm) in providing an effective framework for such evaluations. This paper considers some of the philosophical and methodological issues raised by evaluation research in relation to organizational-level interventions for work-related stress. Four key issues are discussed: the concept of a study being “fit for purpose” in relation to research designs and the nature of acceptable evidence; the issue of control of research conditions in real-world studies; the need to evaluate process as well as outcome, including the interrelated nature of process and outcome; and the interpretation of imperfect evidence sets. The starting point of this paper is the reality of organizational life, which is complex and continually changing. Its main objective is not to offer an alternative to a scientific approach but to argue for a more broadly conceived and eclectic framework for evaluation that acknowledges the limitations of the traditional approach. It espouses an approach that is reflective of the reality of organizational life and in which the methods used for evaluating an intervention are fit for purpose. The paper concludes by offering an outline framework for this broader approach to the evaluation of interventions.     

Validation of a Multi‐Dimensional Measure of Strategy Development Processes

In this paper, we present evidence on the measurement properties of an instrument that assesses six dimensions of organizational strategy development. These dimensions are labelled planning, incrementalism, cultural, political, command and enforced choice. Using data from 5332 managers, results indicate the instrument has acceptable reliability and validity. Exploratory factor analysis confirms its underlying structure. Generally, the sub‐scales have acceptable internal reliability and inter‐rater reliability at the organizational level (n = 770 organizations). Further, using data aggregated at the organizational level, the sub‐scales are judged to have acceptable validity from the pattern of correlations amongst the six dimensions and with other variables.     

Evaluating organizational-level work stress interventions: Beyond traditional methods

Abstract

Since the early 1990s, there has been a growing literature on organizational-level interventions for work-related stress, and associated calls for such interventions to be evaluated. At the same time, doubts have been expressed about the adequacy of traditional scientific research methods in applied psychology (the natural science paradigm) in providing an effective framework for such evaluations. This paper considers some of the philosophical and methodological issues raised by evaluation research in relation to organizational-level interventions for work-related stress. Four key issues are discussed: the concept of a study being “fit for purpose” in relation to research designs and the nature of acceptable evidence; the issue of control of research conditions in real-world studies; the need to evaluate process as well as outcome, including the interrelated nature of process and outcome; and the interpretation of imperfect evidence sets. The starting point of this paper is the reality of organizational life, which is complex and continually changing. Its main objective is not to offer an alternative to a scientific approach but to argue for a more broadly conceived and eclectic framework for evaluation that acknowledges the limitations of the traditional approach. It espouses an approach that is reflective of the reality of organizational life and in which the methods used for evaluating an intervention are fit for purpose. The paper concludes by offering an outline framework for this broader approach to the evaluation of interventions.     

The centrality of work

The content of the article was inspired by the author's work as Executive Director of the Occupational Health and Safety Branch within the Saskatchewan Department of Labour, from 1973 to 1982. During that period he worked closely with the Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committees and was responsible for bringing in legislation and regulations that went beyond the 'technical' matters regarding work-place health and safety.     

Ignoring Leaders who Break Promises or Following God: How Depersonalization and Religious Faith Inform Employees’ Timely Work Efforts

This study investigates the relationship between employees’ perceptions of psychological contract breaches and their failure to meet work-related deadlines, with a particular focus on the mediating role of the depersonalization they assign to organizational authorities and the moderating role of their religious faith. Results based on multisource data, collected among employees and their supervisors in Pakistani organizations, show that an important factor that underpins the connection between beliefs about broken organizational promises and a diminished propensity to finish work on time is that employees depersonalize organizational leaders. This mediating effect is mitigated by employees’ religious faith. For organizations, this study thus identifies a key mechanism – exhibiting indifference to the people in charge – by which employees’ frustrations about resource-depleting contract breaches may inadvertently escalate into ineffective time management, and it identifies some workers among whom this counterproductive dynamic is less likely, namely, employees who can draw from their religious faith.     

The MLQ revisited: psychometric properties and recommendations

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) is one of the most widely used instruments to measure transformational and transactional leader behaviors in the organizational sciences. A review of this literature reveals inconsistent research findings, which may be due to the psychometric properties of the MLQ. Data from four samples of managers were employed to investigate the underlying factor structure of the MLQ. In independent samples, the data fail to support the hypothesized structure of the MLQ in first- and second-order confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). However, a reduced set of items from the MLQ appear to show preliminary evidence of construct and predictive validity. Implications for future research and theoretical development are discussed.     

Safety culture: under-specified and overrated?

Is the measurement of 'safety culture' a valid management tool in the effort to reduce accident rate and improve safety performance, or is it a fuzzy academic concept, lacking empirical validation? The answer to this question seems to depend on whom one asks. The UK Health and Safety Commission has encouraged companies to improve their safety performance through the development of a 'positive safety culture'. However, academic discussions in this area suggest that the concept remains vague, lacks empirical validation and is used as an 'umbrella term' for all the social and organizational factors that affect accident rate. This paper reviews the existing literature on safety culture and provides some clarification in terms of definition, empirical evidence and theoretical development. A theoretical framework of the mechanisms by which safety culture affects safety behaviours in organizations is proposed. The implications for practical management issues are discussed and future challenges and areas for further research are identified.     

Safety culture: under-specified and overrated?

Is the measurement of ‘safety culture’ a valid management tool in the effort to reduce accident rate and improve safety performance, or is it a fuzzy academic concept, lacking empirical validation? The answer to this question seems to depend on whom one asks. The UK Health and Safety Commission has encouraged companies to improve their safety performance through the development of a ‘positive safety culture’. However, academic discussions in this area suggest that the concept remains vague, lacks empirical validation and is used as an ‘umbrella term’ for all the social and organizational factors that affect accident rate. This paper reviews the existing literature on safety culture and provides some clarification in terms of definition, empirical evidence and theoretical development. A theoretical framework of the mechanisms by which safety culture affects safety behaviours in organizations is proposed. The implications for practical management issues are discussed and future challenges and areas for further research are identified.     

Refinement and validation of a comprehensive scale for measuring HR practices aimed at performance-enhancement and employee-support

The purpose of this paper is to refine and validate a Human Resource practices (HRP) scale to measure employees' perceptions and test a two-tier model structured in eight practices and two bundles. In a sample of 554 employees, an EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis) offered six factors that explained about 70% of the variance. Then, with 1647 employees (from 41 Spanish organizations), first- and second-order models were tested with Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The former encompasses eight practices. The latter grouped the practices in two bundles, one on enhancing performance and the other on supporting employees. The Cronbach's alpha, Rho coefficient (Composite Reliability Coefficient), Omega coefficient, and Spearman-Brown split half coefficient showed good reliability. Validity evidence was found for construct, criterion, convergent, content, discriminant, and predictive validity. Moreover, the paper integrates different ways of approaching the study of HR management based on employees' perceptions, using a two-tier approach. The two-bundle model showed better fit, pointing out the importance of paying attention to multiple outcomes for employees and organizations. The study makes a relevant theoretical contribution about the role and aims of HRM practices for organizational success and employees' performance and well-being.     

Organizational change,health, and sick leave among health care employees: A longitudinal study measuring stress markers,individual, and work site factors

Abstract

This controlled longitudinal study was conducted to investigate the effects of organizational change on employees’ self-reported health, work satisfaction, work-related exhaustion, stress, and sick leave. The population consisted of 226 employees at T1 and 198 at T2, divided into a study group affected by organizational changes, and a reference group not affected by them. Group differences for the outcome measures self-rated health (SRH), work satisfaction, work-related exhaustion, and hormones associated with stress were analysed using a two-factor ANOVA design for repeated measurements. Our findings showed no significant differences, either across time or between groups for SRH, work satisfaction, and work-related exhaustion. However, we did find significant change across time and between groups for the recovery hormone DHEA-S. Days of sick leave increased by 7% for employees in the study group and by 2% in the reference group. Serum cortisol showed significantly decreased levels across time but not between groups. The decreased recovery potential in the study group might have long-term health implications. The study points to the importance of looking at the impact of organizational change on employee well-being from a number of perspectives, such as self-reported health parameters, registered sick-leave data, and biological stress markers.     

The Meanings of Career Revisited: Implications for Theory and Practice

In everyday conversation, the term 'career' is generally understood to refer to the sequence of work-related experiences one has over the course of one's working lifetime. For many people, a career is distinct from a job, since it also conjures up images of steady, even logical, progression up organizational hierarchies. It is not simply about what one does for a living, but about what one has done, does now and might do in the future; the notion of career therefore embraces the dimension of time. In light of widespread organizational restructuring and economic uncertainty since the late 1980s, many of the taken-for-granted assumptions which have underpinned traditional notions of career, and in particular the organizational career, no longer seem valid. Both individuals and organizations are finding it increasingly difficult to conceptualize the idea of a logical, long-term sequence of work-related experiences; there is thus no longer a clear and mutual understanding of what the career means to both. This paper argues that individuals and organizations can meaningfully redefine the notion of career by reconsidering its broader, theoretical underpinnings.     

Organizational change, health, and sick leave among health care employees: A longitudinal study measuring stress markers, individual, and work site factors

This controlled longitudinal study was conducted to investigate the effects of organizational change on employees' self-reported health, work satisfaction, work-related exhaustion, stress, and sick leave. The population consisted of 226 employees at T1 and 198 at T2, divided into a study group affected by organizational changes, and a reference group not affected by them. Group differences for the outcome measures self-rated health (SRH), work satisfaction, work-related exhaustion, and hormones associated with stress were analysed using a two-factor ANOVA design for repeated measurements. Our findings showed no significant differences, either across time or between groups for SRH, work satisfaction, and work-related exhaustion. However, we did find significant change across time and between groups for the recovery hormone DHEA-S. Days of sick leave increased by 7% for employees in the study group and by 2% in the reference group. Serum cortisol showed significantly decreased levels across time but not between groups. The decreased recovery potential in the study group might have long-term health implications. The study points to the importance of looking at the impact of organizational change on employee well-being from a number of perspectives, such as self-reported health parameters, registered sick-leave data, and biological stress markers.