working late?

A study by the Finish Institute of Occupation Health using the Whitehall II data, has concluded that longer working hours is leading to a widespread decline in the cognitive function of employees. The paper Long working hours and cognitive function:the Whitehall II study used the data from over 2,200 civil servants and compared their cognitive function with working hours, in the first large scale prospective study on the association of these factors.

Survey data

The Whitehall II survey started in 1985, and covered and initial population of 10,308 UK civil servants, who have been the subject of follow up surveys at regular intervals thereafter. An initial survey of cognitive function was carried out in 1997-99, and followed up in 2002-04, and workers were sorted by their working hours into normal (35-40), average (41-55) and very long (more than 55). There were five standard tests of cognitive function, fluency, vocabulary, reasoning, comprehension and recall. The responses were modelled, taking into account other factors, such as age, sex, marital status, employment status and conditions as well as personal health factors.

Working Hours

Of those surveyed, 39 percent reported working 35-40 hours per week, giving 61 percent working more than normal hours, with 8% of the population working more than 55 hours per week. Those workers in the “very long hours” category were more likely to be male, married, higher occupational grade, experience more psychological stress, have shorter sleep patterns and a higher alcohol intake. Comparisons were made on various models, but a statistical significance was found on cognitive ability.

Cognitive function

At the initial study, those workers who reported more than 55 hours work per week have lower vocabulary score at the first assessment, and also at the follow up, when compared to those workers in the 35-40 hours per week group. They also showed lower scores on the reasoning test during the follow up.

The results were shown to be cumulative, and the longer the working hours per week, the lower the score in the cognitive tests. Employees with longer working hours also reported more symptoms of depression and mental illness.

Conclusion

The conclusion to the report is that there is a link between longer working hours and cognitive ability in middle aged workers. Dr Marianna Virtanen, one of the authors, said “the disadvantages of working overtime should be taken seriously… …the differences in aspects of cognitive function between employees working longer hours and those working normal hours is similar in magnitude to that of smoking, a risk factor for dementia”.

Some questions have been raised about the strength of the claims regarding dementia, focusing on the short time between follow up studies as being insufficient to draw such conclusions, however, the authors intend to continue with the study in the future - “It is particularly important to examine whether the effects are long-lasting and whether long working hours predict more serious conditions such as dementia” said Professor Mika Kivimaki.

What do the HSE say?

The Management Standards for Control are:

• Employees indicate that they are able to have a say about the way they do their work; and
• Systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns.

The HSE have found that employees who are not given an element of control, where possible, over the way they do their work will experience higher levels of stress than those who have a degree of freedom. Constraining employees leads to higher stress levels, whilst allowing workers to develop, learn, and take some responsibility for their actions mitigates stress.

What does this mean for employers?

Treating employees like machines, prescribing their actions and activities to high level of detail is not acceptable. It has been shown in numerous studies that the more control a person has over their environment, their workspace, workflow and work pace, the greater their satisfaction levels, and the lower their stress levels. This means that employers are being encouraged, wherever possible to trust their employees with a degree of responsibility to set their own working patterns, within set parameters. A simple example would be allowing employees to determine when they take their break. Unless the worker’s have hour to hour mission critical duties, it doesn’t really matter to the company whether their break is taken at 10am or 10:30am, but it does matter to the employee who can determine whether to finish a work element before taking a break.

Employers need to trust the employees to behave responsibly, and encourage them to grow, learn and take on new challenges. Workers who see no movement, no growth in their role feel trapped and suffer higher levels of stress. By allowing workers to develop, the organisation ensures the motivation of staff.

Within boundaries set by the organisation, allowing employees to choose their workflow, or work pattern, gives them control over their own personal space. The lack of such control leads to higher levels of stress.

What does this mean for employees?

Employees are encouraged to use their initiative and skill to carry out their work, and are actively encouraged to develop those skills to carry out new and challenging work. Employees have the ability to control their minute by minute workflow, and have the responsibility to complete tasks by deadlines, but to determine the manner in which those tasks are completed. They are able to have a say in when their breaks are taken, and are consulted over work patterns and matters which affect their work flow.

What are the signs of failure?

• employees have set times for carrying out specific tasks
• employee’s skill sets are stagnant
• low uptake on training programmes
• low employee morale, no innovation from employees

What are the indicators of success?

• employees not accountable for their actions minute by minute
• high level of innovation from employees
• workers constantly developing skill sets and evolving roles
• tasks set, deadlines met

What do the HSE say?

The Management Standards for Demands are:

• Employees indicate that they are able to cope with the demands of their jobs; and
• Systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns.

What does this mean for employers?

Employers have a duty of care to ensure that, not only are employees physically and intellectually capable of carrying out their assigned tasks, but also capable in terms of their mental health. The tasks asked of an individual must be achievable by that person. Employers are already required by existing law to ensure that adequate training is provided to ensure individuals are capable of carrying out their tasks, this Management Standard reinforces this.

It also implies that should an employee’s mental state change, and the employer is made aware, then the employer has a duty to alter the employee’s demands to suit their new mental health condition. This was recently proved in a recent High Court appeal case where the employer was found to have not responded to the employee’s change in ability to cope with the stresses of her job.

In order to address the changes in demands and capabilities, the Standard also calls for systems to be in place to monitor, report and address any changes that may occur. Clear communication between employees and employers will help to ensure that any changes in an employee’s circumstances are notified to the employer, and the onus is on the employee to notify the employer of any changes to their mental health. However, once notified, the employer must take action to assess the risks and address any issues raised by the worker.

What does this mean for employees?

Employees are given the assurance that their job will be within their capabilities and will not affect their mental health. They are also given the assurance that a genuine change in their mental health will be addressed by their employer, and their role re-examined to ensure that their current mental health is not adversely affected by their job.

What are the signs of failure?

• poor staff performance
• inability to complete work in the time allowed
• quality of work is not as it should be
• low staff morale
• high staff turnover

What are the indicators of success?

• good relationship between staff and management
• work is of high quality and is produced on time
• efficient and proficient workers

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) have carried out an annual survey on employee absence since 1999, and the 2008 report contains some interesting information for employers.

The survey separates results for manual and non manual workers, and identifies four working sectors - Manufacturing, Private services, Non profit organisations, and Public services.

The rate of absence

The average level of employee absences has reduced in 2008 from 8.4 to 8.0 days, averaged across all sectors. This equates to working time lost of 3.5% (down 0.2%). Only 72% of organisations actually record their average absence level, meaning 28% have no method of measuring or tracking improvements.

The highest average rate of absence was in Public Services with a sector average of 9.8 days lost per employee per year, however, when the figures for Education are removed, the average goes up to 10.8 days, nearly 5% of working time lost.

The highest average absence rates were recorded in Communications (14 days), Call Centres (13 days), and Health (12 days). When looking at data for non manual workers, the Communications sector’s figures increase to 20 days, equivalent to 9% of working time.

To put some perspective on these figures, taking the Health sector as an example, the reported figures suggest that managers should allow for each employee being off for 5% of their working time. So for each team of twenty staff, you could have one additional full time member of staff employed purely as absence cover.

The causes of absence

For non manual workers, the main cause of short term absence is minor illness such as colds, flu and stomach upsets. The next major cause of absence is stress. When you consider that one of the effects of stress is to lower the bodies resistance to minor illness such as colds, flu and stomach upsets, we have a possibly larger footprint for stress related absence. The number one cause of long term absence amongst non manual workers is stress.

Some key points from the survey, related to stress, are:

• 72% of Public Services, and 66% of non profit organisations (NPOs) cited stress as leading cause of short term absence (national average is 54%);
• 45% of NPOs cited mental ill-health as a leading cause of short term absence, compared with only 21% of Private Services;
• 82% of Public services and 76% of NPOs cited stress as the leading cause of long term illness.

From the data, it would appear that whilst all sectors consider stress to be a major factor in both short and long term absence, Public Services and NPOs responses were significantly above other sectors, and the average, in attributing absence to stress and mental ill-health.

The cost of absence

The headline figure is that the average cost of absence has increased to £666 per employee, per year, up from £659 in 2007. However, this is not the whole story - the report provide more detailed figures for analysis.

Firstly, how is the cost of absence calculated? The respondents provided flat figures, however, they were asked to note what costs they had included. Roughly two thirds of organisations included occupational and statutory sick pay in their calculations, however, only 40% included the cost of replacement labour and only 32% included the cost of additional overtime. Less than 20% of organisations considered the cost of reduced performance and direct administration costs as part of the cost of absence.

Whilst all sectors saw an increase in costs, the biggest change was in Public Services, where the average cost rose from £732 to £936 in 12 months.

Some key points from the survey related to costs are:

• The highest cost of absence per sector was Public Services with £906 per employee per annum, with “Health” and “Other Public Services” having costs of £1,153 and £1,333 respectively;
• Three sectors had costs in excess of £1,000 per employee per year, Health, Other public services and Call Centres;
• The Private Services sector had the lowest costs with an average of £663, with 50% of sectors significantly below the national average cost of £666;
• The Public Services sector had the highest costs with 40% of the sector with costs twice the national average.

It should be noted that only 40% of the total respondents had data on the cost of absence, but it should also be noted that there are several factors that influence the cost of absence. More workers on short term absences will increase the overall cost, as will more workers on long term absence, and longer terms of absence. In addition, as noted above, the decision on which direct costs are included in the absence cost will also affect the overall cost. So the costs should not be used as hard measure of absence rates, however, they are good indicators of problems with absenteeism.

Summary

The rates of absence are decreasing slowly in each sector, following a trend over the past few year, however, the costs are increasing year on year. Few employers consider the real cost of absenteeism, with less than 20% considering the direct cost of administration or even of the impact on performance.

Stress is the seen as one of the top two major causes of short term absence, and the number one cause of long term absence in non manual workers

The survey concludes that organisations, and their management, need to focus on these issues and maintaining the reduction in overall absence rates, in addition to putting in place measures to ease the return to work of employees who have been absent for a period of time.

In 2004, the Health & Safety Executive first published their Management Standards approach to stress in the workplace, with the aim of reducing the number of employees who go off sick, or cannot perform well at work because of stress. The approach is based on providing six key areas for managers to consider, and by introducing best practice in those areas, remove some of the causes of stress, or stressors.

The Standards are designed to:

1. Simplify the process of risk assessments for stress in the workplace,
2. Encourage all employers, employees and their representatives to take a partnership approach to work related stress throughout the organisation,
3. Provide a method of grading an organisation’s performance in tackling causes of stress.

HSE stressors

The Management Standards set out six areas which the HSE consider to cover the main causes of work-place stress. By examining your organisation’s policies and performance in each of these areas, and by introducing best practice, or improving on existing practices, it is hoped that this will contribute greatly to the stress levels of individuals within the workplace. In each of the areas, not only do the standards set out what should be achieved, but they explicitly note that there must be some sort of reporting mechanism to allow individuals to raise concerns. The key areas are:

Demands

The demands that are put on an individual - in terms of their workload, working patterns and their environment - have an immediate effect in terms of direct stress experienced. If unrealistic demands means certain failure, and a culture of failure within the workplace has vast negative consequences. The Standards state that “employees indicate they are able to cope with the demands of the job” which means that:

• people need to be in jobs to match their abilities;
• workload must be appropriate to those individuals and their capabilities.

Control

How much say a person has in the way they do their work, a degree of self control, a level of trust, will increase their self worth and self confidence. However, by not allowing these levels of control, the individual is condemned to follow the rules and whims of management, will have no loyalty and no sense of value. Resentment to their workplace and working style follows on, with rapid onset of vulnerability to stress factors. The Standards say that “Employees indicate they have a say about the way they do their work” - meaning that

• employees have control over their pace of work
• they are encouraged to use their skills and initiative
• encouraged to develop their skills and capabilities
• they have a say over their working times and practices.

Support

Are employees being given the correct amount of support? The appropriate resources to carry out the tasks required? Is the support given the correct support which allows employees to grow and learn? The Standards state that “Employees indicate that they receive adequate information and support from colleagues and superiors.”- which means that:

• the organisation has policies and procedures to properly support employees;
• systems are in place to enable and encourage managers to support their staff;
• systems are in place to enable and encourage employees to support their colleagues;
• employees know what support is available and how and when to access it;
• employees know how to access the required resources to do their job;
• employees give and receive regular and constructive feedback.

Relationships

Promoting positive working to avoid conflict, and dealing with unacceptable behaviour are key to ensuring a positive workplace environment which values the individual. The Standards state that “Employees indicate that they are not subjected to unacceptable behaviours, eg bullying at work.” - which means that:

• the organisation promotes positive behaviours at work to avoid conflict and ensure fairness;
• employees share information relevant to their work;
• the organisation has agreed policies and procedures to prevent or resolve unacceptable behaviour;
• systems are in place to enable and encourage managers to deal with unacceptable behaviour;
• systems are in place to enable and encourage employees to report unacceptable behaviours.

Role

Whether people understand their role within the organisation and whether the organisation ensures that the person does not have conflicting roles is another important indicator for individuals. Are they being asked to carry out conflicting operations, do they know their primary purpose? How do they measure success, or completion if they don’t know their tasking? The Standards state that “Employees indicate that they understand their role and responsibilities” - which means:

• the organisation ensures that, as far as possible the different requirements it places on its employees are compatible;
• the organisation provides information to enable employees to understand their role and responsibilities;
• the organisation ensures that, as far as possible, the requirements it places upon employees are clear.

Change

The management of organisational change, whether large or small can impact on the sense of value or worth of an employee, particularly when there is little or no communication regarding change, or forced change. The Standards state “Employees indicate that organisation engages them frequently when undergoing an organisational change.” - which means that:

• the organisation provides employees with timely information to enable them to understand the reasons for proposed changes;
• the organisation ensures adequate employee consultation on changes and provides opportunities for employees to influence proposals;
• employees are aware of the probable impact of any changes to their jobs, and if necessary, are give training to support any chances in their jobs;
• employees are aware of timetables for change;
• employees have access to relevant support during changes.

Stress Audits

The HSE recommends carrying out regular stress audits on the stress levels of staff, and have designed an audit which measures employees responses to questions on the above indicators, and then grades the organisation on the results. By auditing, areas for improvement can be identified, and by regular auditing, improvements can be measured. Of course, you don’t have to use the HSE stress audit tool, you can read a comparison of the HSE Stress Audit with our Stress Audit.