Occupational Health and Safety Portfolio in Human Resources Management - Case Study Example

Essay Title: Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) Portfolio (HRM) NAME: UNIVERSITY: COURSE: INSTRUCTOR: DATE: Table of Contents Cover Page 1 Introduction 3 Task 1 4 Task 2 6 Task 3 7 Task 4 11 Conclusions 13 Footnotes 15 List of References 16 Appendices 18 Introduction Occupational health and safety has come a long way from its beginnings in the heavy industry sector. Studies have demonstrated that occupational health and safety is now impacting virtually on every worker in every workplace setting (Dorfman, 2007). Consequently, those who are responsible with the duty of managing health and safety affairs in the workplace find themselves with more and more tasks added to their portfolio (Armstrong, 2006). In the arguments of Sheedy & Alexander (2005), it is stated that the most significant responsibility of health and safety managers in the workplace is found to reside majorly in environmental protection. In view of this revelation therefore, the skills inherent in managing occupational health and safety must be compatible with environmental protection (Ladou, 2006). Moreover, reliable study findings by Hutto (2009) have demonstrated that “there has been a considerable resurgence in interest in corporate occupational health and safety policy and practices, particularly for institutional investors”. In his study of 2004, Karen has revealed vital information demonstrating that occupational health and safety policy is equally important for the broader community. In this study, it was discovered that during the 2001-2002 period, work-related injury and disease costs were estimated at $31 billion annually in Australia. Other published works have variously stressed that catastrophic events do occur despite strict observance of occupational health and safety requirements, consequently impacting severely on employees, investors, local residents, and the environment at large (Hopkin, 2010). In line with this discovery, it is the intention of this paper to investigate the varied impacts of occupational health and safety portfolio in HRM practices. The essay is presented by addressing four tasks based on different scenarios given in each case. The first task requires the author to produce a fact sheet for XYZ Body Beautiful’ Corporation outlining its OH&S Laws and Institutional Frameworks. Secondly, a designed short handout to illustrate the main types of hazards in a common workplace environment handles Task 2. A critical review of an academic journal relating to psychosocial hazards in the workplace is required in the third task. Finally, the author concludes with the fourth task and a general wrap up of the essay. Task 1 The XYZ Body Beautiful’ Corporation is guided by certain OH&S Laws and Institutional Frameworks that attempt to explain the purpose of the occupational health and safety Act at the outset. Findings from research done by [5] indicate that the OH&S Act No. 15 of 2007 was legislated to “provide for the safety, health and welfare of workers and all persons lawfully present at workplaces and to provide for the establishment of the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health and for connected purposes”. Likewise, published works have indicated that numerous reasons abide for establishing good occupational health and safety standards [7]. Firstly, moral obligations stress that no employee and any other individual associated with the work environment should risk injury or death at work [8]. Secondly, poor occupational health and safety performance results in costs to the State and thus have economic impacts to many governments as well as employing organizations [10]. Other than the foregoing reasons, research has also consistently demonstrated that it is a legal obligation for organisations to fulfill occupational health and safety requirements to avoid clashing with the law [7]. It is further recommended by [9] that everyone in the workplace must take responsibility to ensure a safe and a healthy environment. This is really critical so as to be in line with OH&S portfolio in HRM. The institutional frameworks viable in HRM environments as far as health and safety at work is concerned oscillate within three areas of operation. First, there is Safety and Health Council which is a tripartite body established within the Laws governing health and safety at work [7]. It is the mandate of the council to advise the Minister of Labour and Social Insurance on policy-making in the field of occupational health and safety [7]. Secondly, the establishment of Safety and Health Association in any country is critical. The primary objective of this association is to actively become involved in the protection and promotion of health and safety at work and the general public [5]. Finally, it is the requirement of the institutional framework to introduce safety officers and safety committees at the workplace as underscored by [5]. It is an obligation from the safety committees for employers contracting more than 200 employees to appoint full-time safety officers [3]. Similarly, [1] stresses that people appointed as safety officers must be approved by the Minister of Labour and Social Insurance. The Fact Sheet For the purposes of enabling safe working conditions in XYZ Body Beautiful’ Corporation, it is mandatory for all persons legally present at the workplace environment to observe the following basic occupational health and safety rules. First, it is the employer’s responsibility to make sure that employees are safe at work [2]. This having been done, it is then the employees’ responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy working environment for all by making the most out of work experience [4]. Secondly, all employees’ should always observe hints and help about work experience by keeping and using a personal work experience diary as advised by [4]. Finally, all unionisable employees should first learn all about unions before joining. Task 2 Various definitions have been proffered in an attempt to explain the meaning of a hazard. [6] Argues that a hazard is anything with the potential to cause harm. Lawfully, it is the obligation of organisations to protect people as far as is ‘reasonably practicable’ even if not hundred percent [7]. According to [5], a hazard can be something very obvious like a hanging cable, a threadbare carpet or an exposed wiring. It can, alternatively, be something inconspicuous like a slippery surface as explained by [7]. Further still it can be something of general nature including poor lighting or very specific to the business in question like the particular hazardous substances in application [8]. All in all, a hazard is found to be something that directly affects the employees and the work environment in general [8]. In the informed views of [10], it is imperative that organisational managers identify the potential hazards first during a risk assessment exercise. Several procedures have been advanced for use by managers and supervisors when looking for hazards. Walking around the business looking for what could cause harm to all those in the workplace is the single ideal starting point according to [6]. Secondly, [6] advises that it is beneficial for managers to talk to employees who may be more knowledgeable of the business’ hazards. This is simply because the workers are the ones on the ground experiencing first hand the activity processes being assessed. It is further advised that managers should scrutinise safety data sheets and manufacturers’ instructions to identify potential problem areas [6]. Task 3 Available records have listed some of the disparaging outcomes that are named as psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Likewise, the same studies have been able to identify the various ways through which these psychological hazards can be managed. To begin with, the author addresses some of the psychological hazards suggested by research. According to Cooper et al (2010), psychosocial issues include work-related stress, whose causal factors abide in long working hours and overwork with or without appropriate remuneration. Secondly, cases of violence from outside the organisation either reported or non-reported have been found to be rampart in the workplace. Most studies show that this is occasionally manifested through bullying in the form of emotional, verbal, and sexual harassment (Sparrow, 2009). Due to lack of the technical knowhow of employees in stress management, reliable reports have shown that burnout cases are not uncommon amongst the workers in a majority of organisations. It is inherent therefore for organisations to equip their workers with valuable skills that can efficiently manage stress in the workplace (Sparrow, 2009). In the informed views of Sparrow (2009) and Vernon et al (2007), mobbing of workers by fellow workmates has seriously put them through untold psychological stress. Even though the act is in most cases very physical, the emotional part of it has been reported to be more devastating. To substantially address these forms of psychosocial hazards in the workplace, it is the author’s intention to critically review of an academic journal relating to these issues. From the present journal, it is clear to the author that some pertinent issues pertaining to the application of HRM practices in the workplace are not being handled amicably. In the article, it is indicated that current Australian workplace environments, similar in all cases are being increasingly characterised by lowered staff numbers, greater work pressures, longer hours, changing employment patterns, employer empowerment and new demands and expectations on work/life issues. This situation is aggravated by poor organisational health as emerged from the article through the domains of relationship, manager and peer support. An improvement in these areas needs to be instituted if organisations are to realize any notable degree in the alleviation of psychosocial hazards in the workplace. In the author’s standpoint view, these factors have been identified as contributing to the creation of a stressful work environment, now recognised in health and safety legislation as a workplace hazard (Armstrong, 2006). From an organisational health perspective therefore, psychosocial hazards are more immediately identified as low morale/high distress workplaces that can be evaluated through the areas job content (Budhwar et al, 2009). In line with study findings, Dickmann et al (2008) identified six factors and management standards that influence organisational health. Accordingly, the article names demands, control, support, role, relationships and change as the inherent factors and management standards (Dickmann et al, 2008). From the article’s point of view, the ‘Demands’ factor includes issues such as workload, work patterns and the work environment (Dickmann et al, 2008). The ‘Control’ factor on the other hand relates to the degree to which employees have a say in the way they do their work while the ‘Support’ factor relates to the encouragement, sponsorship and resources provided by the organisation, line management, and colleagues (Dickmann et al, 2008). Moreover, the article explains that ‘Relationships’ relates to the organisation’s ability to promote positive working, to avoid conflict and dealing with unacceptable behaviour. It is the factor of ‘Role’ that measures whether people understand their role within the organisation and whether the organisation ensures that the person does not have conflicting roles (Dickmann et al, 2008). Finally, the ‘Change’ factor relates to how organisational change is managed and communicated effectively (Dickmann et al, 2008). Non compliance to these factors and standards is deemed to cause psychosocial hazards in the workplace. In regards to the psychosocial hazards identified from the article, it is the author’s onus to come up with a plan outlining how the various human resource activities could be applied to help manage psychosocial hazards in the workplace. In relation to the predictors of ‘low morale’ and ‘psychological distress’ among employees within an organisation, the factors of supportive leadership are key to minimising the risk of such psychosocial hazards (Ulrich, 1996). It is therefore implied that managers should recruitment the right individual matching job content with ability as well as the right reward systems (Ulrich, 1996). Additionally, employee performance appraisal coupled with the right feedback mechanism may be too rewarding for the managers. Secondly, close observation of issues pertaining to employee relations is a fundamental aspect in minimising the risk of psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Several studies have suggested that employee training and development is a frontline intervention for distressed work groups (Sparrow, 2009). This is recorded by Ladou (2006) as having been critical in reducing workers compensation from psychological injury claims. Finally but not least, researchers have argued in support of the effectiveness of interventions that aim to change the workplace culture where psychosocial hazards exist. From the human management resources perspective, altering the workplace environment is important in influencing employees’ attitudes and behaviours (Budhwar et al, 2009). The workplace environment is found to be deeply entrenched in the organisational culture which dictates how operations are guided within the organisation. Thus, Roughton (2002) suggest that improving the organisational culture is the most effective approach to improving levels of employee welfare as well as occupational safety. In conclusion therefore, the author recommends that managers should adopt the laid down HRM practices in managing the psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Task 4 As earlier indicated, a hazard is something that can cause harm if not properly controlled. In assessing a hazard, experts advise that the process involves identification, assessment and elimination of individual hazards as close to source as is reasonably possible (Sheedy & Alexander, 2005). This exercise has been made possible by the advancement in technology where hazard analysis at the source very easy. From the case presented in the scenario, the author identifies the direct causes of the accident to be from the loss of balance of the employee who then fell about 1.5 meters backwards onto the ground with devastating effects on the employee’s backside. Considering the classification of workplace hazards, the type of hazard experienced in the scenario presented is mechanical in nature. It is therefore the author’s contention that the casual agent of the accident presented in the scenario is from collisions, specifically emanating from height falls (Ladou, 2006). Thus, the immediate cause of injury in this case was damage experienced through crushing as upheld by Ladou (2006). This being considered as the direct cause of the accident, the author further claims that there are other contributing factors to the accident resident in fact that the employee was not doing the work he was employed to do. A permanent causal driver attempting to clean the chute on the back of the truck was riskier in itself. This task required a professional who could take the precautionary measures as per the job’s description (Karen, 2004). Secondly, the nature of the workplace environment found in the back of the truck was not quite enabling for the employee to work comfortably and as such might have contributed to the occurrence of the accident. To address this kind of a scenario, it is the author’s recommendations that some stringent measures be taken for immediate corrective, preventive and follow-up activity. First of all, the employee should be given first aid before being recommended for further specialised treatment in an advanced health facility. Then the managers and supervisors of the organisation should attempt to initiate compensation procedures to avoid legal redress instituted by the victim (Hutto, 2009). This is in line with study findings that require an employer to keep “work safe, first and foremost by providing a safe system of work; safe plant/equipment and substances; information, training, instruction and adequate supervision; and safe entrances and exits” (Vernon et al, 2007). This function can be achieved by training employees and other individuals lawfully present in the workplace to ensure their own safety (Hesketh & Fleetwood, 2009). Moreover, study findings by Dickmann et al (2008) stipulate that it would be in order for the organisation to look into the improvement of the physical environment to attempt and minimise risks. Over all, the rising number of Workers’ Compensation claims demonstrated by various reports in organisations across the world suggests that current intervention programs, if implemented at all, are probably inadequate (Hutto, 2009). Conclusions From the foregoing discourse, it is clear that occupational health and safety is an issue that requires a lot of concerns. To illustrate this explanation, the author has successfully exposed those pertinent areas that are deemed to have been addressed effectively. From the outset, research works by Altemeyer (2004) and Gorrod (2004) have demonstrated that the main occupational health and safety responsibilities are vested on the employers as much as they are on the employees. In fact, recent studies have unanimously illustrated that the employer has a bigger responsibility of keeping work safe most fundamentally by providing a safe system of work and maintaining safe plant/equipment (Frederick et al, 1988). Furthermore, all substances, information dissemination, training and adequate supervision of the employees must be updated in line with the recommendations of the HRM practices. In fulfillment of this requirement, workers in any organisation have been similarly mandated with the responsibility of their own safety by adhering to precautions and etiquettes of the work place (Cooper et al, 2010). The workers can therefore be assisted in maintaining their own safety by gaining easy access of the organisation’s fact sheet on occupational health and safety. Published research works have variously indicated that young workers are more likely to be injured at work than any other age group (Cooper et al, 2010). Specifically based on Hesketh & Fleetwood’s study work of 2009, it was illustrated that 15 to 24 year olds in all types of employment had the highest rate of injuries which were more likely to result in hospitalisation. The varied types of employment covered in this study included “casual, part-time, labour hire, work experience, structured workplace learning or apprenticeships” (Hesketh & Fleetwood, 2009). The reasons proffered for the above conclusion are many and varied. First, new employees may not have the experience, knowledge or skills to take appropriate steps to protect themselves and their workmates from injury (Budhwar et al, 2009). Secondly, research findings have underscored the importance of properly training and supervising new employees in reducing cases of injury amongst themselves. Finally, studies have further demonstrated that new employees may find it inhibiting to ask questions or speak out their problems for fear of losing their jobs (Budhwar et al, 2009). From this realization, it is recommended that information dissemination and feedback among employees and the organisation be streamlined to have a health working relationship. As regards the position of the social partners in the workplace environment, employer organisations and trade unions fighting for the rights of the employees are mentioned as the major components in this category. According to the conclusions of Armstrong’s study of 2006, it was noted that up to present day, neither the employer organisations nor the trade unions have been regarded as strong supporters of the existing health and safety at work institutions. This is found in various accounts by critics who claim that the unions have not been able to lend the expected support to the institution of safety committees (Dorfman, 2007). It is further argued that the employers’ organisations have similarly avoided their share of the responsibility (Dorfman, 2007). From the present author’s standpoint of view, these identified social partners in the workplace environment must be put to task to carry out their mandate studiously so as to create the enabling environment desirable to every worker (Ladou, 2006). In addition to this, the management is likewise urged to play its part of the bargain particularly in presenting supportive leadership training and development programs for the employees. This in the author’s view is bound to be manifested in improved organisational health as well as a highly motivated employee base. Footnotes 1. Altemeyer, Lynn. (2004). An Assessment of Texas State Government: Implementation of Enterprise Risk Management, Applied Research Project. Texas State University. 2. Crockford, Neil. (1986). An Introduction to Risk Management (2nd Edition). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead-Faulkner. 3. Frederick, H et al. (1988). Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 4. Hesketh, A & Fleetwood, S. (2009). Understanding the Performance of Human Resources, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5. Hopkin, Paul. (2010). “Fundamentals of Risk Management”. Kogan-Page. 6. Hubbard, Douglas. (2009). The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It. John Wiley & Sons. 7. Hutto, John. (2009). Risk Management in Law Enforcement, Applied Research Project. Texas State University. 8. Ladou, Joseph. (2006). Current Occupational & Environmental Medicine (4th Edition). McGraw-Hill Professional. 9. Roughton, James. (2002). Developing an Effective Safety Culture: A Leadership Approach (1st Edition). Butterworth-Heinemann. 10. Sheedy, Elizabeth & Alexander, Carol. (2005). The Professional Risk Managers’ Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Current Theory and Best Practices. PRMIA Publications. List of References Altemeyer, Lynn. (2004). An Assessment of Texas State Government: Implementation of Enterprise Risk Management, Applied Research Project. Texas State University. Armstrong, Michael. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (10th Edition). London: Kogan Page. Budhwar, P. S et al. (2009). Major works in international human resource management. International HRM: the MNE perspective (Eds.). London: Sage Publications. Cooper, C et al. (2010). Leading Human Resources (Eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Crockford, Neil. (1986). An Introduction to Risk Management (2nd Edition). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead-Faulkner. Dickmann, M et al. (2008). International human resource management: A European perspective. London: Routledge. Dorfman, Mark. (2007). Introduction to Risk Management and Insurance (9th Edition). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall. Frederick, H et al. (1988). Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Gorrod, Martin. (2004). Risk Management Systems: Technology Trends (Finance and Capital Markets). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hesketh, A & Fleetwood, S. (2009). Understanding the Performance of Human Resources, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopkin, Paul. (2010). “Fundamentals of Risk Management”. Kogan-Page. Hubbard, Douglas. (2009). The Failure of Risk Management: Why It's Broken and How to Fix It. John Wiley & Sons. Hutto, John. (2009). Risk Management in Law Enforcement, Applied Research Project. Texas State University. Karen, Legge. (2004). Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Ladou, Joseph. (2006). Current Occupational & Environmental Medicine (4th Edition). McGraw-Hill Professional. Roughton, James. (2002). Developing an Effective Safety Culture: A Leadership Approach (1st Edition). Butterworth-Heinemann. Sheedy, Elizabeth & Alexander, Carol. (2005). The Professional Risk Managers’ Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Current Theory and Best Practices. PRMIA Publications. Sparrow, P. R. (2009). Handbook of International Human resource Management: Integrating People, Process and Context (Ed.). Chichester: Wiley. Ulrich, Dave. (1996). Human Resource Champions. The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Vernon, G et al. (2007). International human resource management (2nd Edition). London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Appendices Appendix 1: The main types of hazards in a workplace Most workplace environments experience the main types of hazards listed in this handout. 1. Workplace hazards These are particularly guided by such things as a workshop’s layout and are a risk to the general employees and other persons who are lawfully present within the workplace environment. These types of hazards can be managed by generally improving the organisational health (Ladou, 2006). 2. Activity hazards These are naturally indicated by the type of activity performed in the organisation such as using grinding machinery in the workshop. The worker who is directly involved with the activity is obviously exposed to these hazards as well as those other workers in the vicinity, engaged in other activities (Sheedy & Alexander, 2005). Additionally, pregnant women/ nursing mothers and other groups of workers with special needs are more vulnerable. Again, these hazards can be managed through providing protective gear to the workers directly exposed and those in the vicinity. 3. Environmental hazards These are hazards that are controlled by the environment in which the individuals are operating and may include the dust created when using grinding machinery for example. A wide range of people are at risk of these hazards as long as they are near the location of the factory or workshop. The only management measure is to keep the work environment safe for all and by providing user manuals and guides for all. Appendix 2: An academic journal relating to psychosocial hazards in the workplace. Leadership and Organisational Health: An Evidence-Based Leadership Development Program Peter Stebbins PsyCare Pty Ltd – Corporate Division, Brisbane, Australia Fiona Loughlan Department of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane, Australia Danielle Lees, Ben De Young, Leith Middleton and Joanne Karabitsios PsyCare Pty Ltd – Corporate Division, Brisbane, Australia This study examined the efficacy of an evidence-based supportive leadership program to address psychosocial hazards identified in an organisational health review of a government department. Participants were employees identified as having supervisory and management roles (N = 57; males = 30, females = 27; age range 22 to 63). The program was implemented systematically over a 6-month period using 2 × 2 day intensive workshops, interim 360 peer review assessment and 1-day follow-up. The program used a variety of behavioural learning approaches with individual and group feedback from professional, peer and self-reviews. The results showed a major improvement in organisational health with significant changes in risk status across the domains of Relationship, Manager and Peer Support. Improvements in organisational health made within the leadership group had generalised across the entire workforce and continued to be maintained at the 18-month follow-up. Keywords: organisational health, psychosocial hazards, leadership Current Australian workplace environments, in both the private and public sectors, are being increasingly characterised by lowered staff numbers, greater work pressures, longer hours, changing employment patterns, new demands and expectations on work/life issues and employer empowerment (Caulfield, Chang, Dollard, & Elshaug, 2004; Dollard, 2006; Dollard & Knott, 2004; Polanyi & Tompa, 2004; Stebbins, 2003). All of these factors have been identified as contributing to the creation of a stressful work environment, now recognised in health and safety legislation as a workplace hazard, namely a ‘psychosocial hazard’ (Dollard 2006; Dollard & Walsh, 1999; Rydstedt, Ferrie, & Head, 2006). From an Organisational Health perspective, psychosocial hazards are more immediately identified as low morale/high distress workplaces that can be evaluated through the areas job content (Demands, Control, Support) and job context (Role, Relationships, Change; HSE, 2004b; MacKay, Cousins, Kelly, Lee, & McCraig, 2004). Qualities that Influence Organisation Health The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) studies indentified six factors and management standards that influence Organisational Health (OH) including Demands, Control, Support, Role, Relationships and Change (HSE, 2005). The ‘Demands’ factor includes issues such as workload, work patterns and the work environment. ‘Control’ relates to the degree to which employees have a say in the way they do their work while the factor of ‘Support’ relates to the encouragement, sponsorship and resources provided by the organisation, line management, and colleagues. ‘Relationships’ relates to the organisation’s ability to promote positive working, to avoid conflict and dealing with unacceptable behaviour. The factor of ‘Role’ measures whether people understand their role within the organisation and whether the organisation ensures that the person does not have conflicting roles while ‘Change’ relates to how organisational change is managed and communicated in the organisation, whether that change be large or small (HSE, 2005). Psychosocial Hazards: Predictors of Low Morale and Psychological Distress Examination of the predictors of ‘low morale’ and ‘psychological distress’ among employees within the public sector (Cotton, 2003; Cotton & Hart, 2003; D’Aleo, Stebbins, Lowe, Lees, & Ham, 2007; MacKay et al., 2004) highlight the importance of ‘support’ and ‘relationships’ and ‘role’ as potential areas of psychosocial hazard. Within these job content and job context predictors the area of ‘support’, and in particular ‘manager support’ in the form of supportive leadership (SL), is a key factor, which when present in workplaces, minimises the risk of such psychosocial hazards. For example, Cotton and Hart (2003) found SL to predict work group and individual morale and distress levels in public sector employees. That SL is a statistically significant predictor in both morale and distress that underpins organizational health highlights its critical importance as a target variable for intervention. Interventions to Manage Psychosocial Hazards Despite the ability to identify key variables such as manager support, relationship, role and SL as predictors of organisational health, little is known about the effectiveness of interventions to change workplace culture where such hazards exist. There has been some support for the relative importance of SL training as a frontline intervention for distressed work groups over generic employee stress management programs in reducing workers compensation psychological injury claims (Cotton, 2003). However, there has been very little published in the way of intervention outcome studies. On the one hand, the paucity of published research into interventions such as supportive leadership training to address workplace stress and organizational health risks in public sector Australia makes it difficult to verify the presence and the effectiveness of any such interventions. On the other hand, the rising number of Workers’ Compensation claims suggests that current intervention programs, if implemented at all, are inadequate (Caulfield et al, 2004; D’Aleo et al, 2007). The Role of Leadership in Organisational Health In recent times, the role of leadership in organisational health has become a growing area of interest (Quick, Macik-Frey, & Cooper, 2007). However, despite the espoused key role of leaders in influencing the psychosocial work environment (Bass et al, 2003; Stordeur et al, 2001), there is minimal research that explains how leaders can decrease work related stress in their staff (Nyberg, Bernin, & Theorell, 2005). Moreover, little research in the field of leadership has focused specifically on the direct influence of leadership development programs and initiatives on organisational outcomes (e.g., Day, 2001) such as organizational health and other workplace factors. Regardless of the minimal research specifically addressing the role of leaders, there is evidence to indicate that leadership styles, attributes, processes, and behaviours are important for influencing employees’ attitudes and behaviours in the workplace. For example, Skagert, Dellve, Eklöf, Pousette and Ahlborg (2008) outlined a number of research papers that indicated that leader and organisational support, and how leadership is practiced (e.g., dealing with conflicts and providing support) was connected to work related health in staff. Studies have also shown that leaders’ awareness and attitudes towards responsibility for organisational health affects both strategies and employees health (Dellve, Skagert, & Vilhelmsson, 2007). More specifically, Theorell, Emdad, Arnetz, & Weingarten (2001) showed that an intervention in the form of a psychosocial training program for Human Service Organisation leaders decreased stress indicators in their staff. In summary, we may have been able to identify ‘supportive leadership’ as a key predictor and target variable in organisational health and workplace morale and distress, however just because we have ‘identified the cause’ doesn’t mean we have been able to ‘develop the cure’. Therefore, evaluating the effectiveness of support leadership interventions is a vital step in the process of improving organizational health outcomes in Australian workplaces. Program Design and Theoretical Foundations Given the findings related to the likely outcomes of leadership on organisational health, it seems logical that a longitudinal leadership program is likely to have positive outcomes for organisational health despite the impact of internal and external organisational stressors. This is particularly likely if such a program focuses on teaching and enhancing skills in managers and supervisors that are directly related to maximising employee wellbeing and reducing employees’ distress in the workplace. The Supportive Leadership Program consisted of an intensive two-day group interactive workshop series, along with an individual 360-degree assessment and feedback component. The theoretical concepts that form the basis of the program were derived from landmark research in organisational health and leadership development (i.e., Cotton & Hart, 2003; Forster, 2005; Posner & Kouzes, 2006). The key underpinning premise of the supportive leadership program was developed from Cotton and Hart’s (2003) review of organisational health and occupational wellbeing and performance. Cotton and Hart (2003) suggest that improving leadership and managerial practices is the most effective approach to improving levels of employee wellbeing. They also found that focusing on improving managerial and leadership practices will result in substantial improvements in occupational wellbeing. Information and discussion on organisation health is incorporated throughout the Supportive Leadership Program, with an emphasis in module one on the relevance to the specific challenges and needs of the particular organisation. Drawing from the research of Forster (2005), Kouzes and Posner (1995), and Posner and Kouzes (2006) there are seven supportive leadership characteristics that impact organisational health. The Current Intervention: Leadership for Success In order to improve intervention relevance and effectiveness it is vital to identify risks or stressors at a local workplace level and develop targeted organisational health interventions based on identified risks (D’Aleo et al., 2007). Previous research (i.e., Arsenault & Dolan, 1983; Cotton and Hart, 2003; Dolan & Arsenault, 1979; Mackay et al., 2004) indicates that stressor profiles are unique to each organisation and that workplace factors only become stressors if individual employees perceive them as a threat. This highlights the importance of examining worker perceptions in assessing organisational health and workgroup morale and distress within specific organisations and customising supportive leadership interventions to be both organisation and psychosocial hazard specific. Based on the findings from the literature reviewed, a number of key research questions and aims emerge in assessing the effectiveness of supportive leadership interventions to improve organisational health. The questions of interest in the present research covered three areas: program development, behaviour change and organisational health. The specific questions were: 1. How do we implement an organisational health review to identify local level workplace factors requiring intervention? 2. Does the implementation of supportive leadership training within a management subculture lead to any measurable improvement in leadership and organisational health within the subgroup within a 6- to 12-month period? 3. Would the effects of the Leadership Intervention positively influence the organisational health of the broader southern region? 4. How sustainable are the Leadership Intervention effects overtime? Results from the study Efficacy of the Leadership Development Program Outcome data on leadership and organisational health was collected in late September to early October to be presented at the feedback and planning day. As illustrated by the authors, there were noticeable improvements in the organisational health of the management and leadership group over the 6 month period. All subscales in both Job Content (Demands, Control, Support) and Job Context (Role, Relationships, Change) had improved with the Support and Relationship subscales now between the 50th and 80th percentile showing a significant reduction in hazards in this area. Control remained in the 50–80th percentile range while Demand, Change and Role stayed within existing percentile bands. However, there were noticeable increases in health ratings in these areas between the two time points. Supportive Leadership Behaviours Regarding change in supportive leadership behaviours among participants, as can be seen from these results, employees have indicated greater leadership capabilities and workplace wellness post-intervention (M = 3.17) compared with preintervention, (M = 3.04) t (54.39) = .365, p > .10. This shows evidence of substantive positive change in the reported use of supportive leadership behaviours among the management group after the completion of the 6 months intensive training and development program. Qualitative Feedback on Leadership Training and Development Program At the conclusion of the program an analysis of the qualitative feedback showed a number of key areas reported by participations as beneficial. In reviewing feedback it was interesting to note that the initial criticisms around the role plays, high amount of group interaction and disclosure, groups mixing both junior and senior managers, and anxiety around the 360 supportive leadership assessment were no longer sources of concern or criticism but now endorsed as positive features of the Leadership For Success program suggesting major changes had occurred over time with the openness, flexibility and team unity within the wider leadership group. Sustainability of Intervention Effects In order to further address the research questions regarding the effect of the leadership program on influencing wider culture, a full region organisational health survey (HSE) was administered at both 12 and 18 months (N = 182) as part of the Year 2 follow up process. Year 2 of the leadership for success program also included 2 × 1 day refresher sessions for managers to reinvigorate the concepts and further develop leadership skills using both behavioural learning through vignettes and role plays and the self-reflective learning process was increased through live recording of individual leadership exercises and expert demonstrations and discussions, as well as roll-out of the 360s supportive leadership assessment process. Regarding the generalisation of improvements in organisational health from manager subgroup to wider whole of region staff, the results show the whole of region staff group had attained a very positive result in terms of organisation health, particularly across the domains of ‘Manager Support’, ‘Peer Support’ and ‘Relationships’ — all critical variables identified in the literature as key psychosocial hazard risk factors. Interestingly the domain of ‘role’, while a high score (maximum = 5), remained within the ‘red’ hazard level. Further breakdown analysis at the item content level of the two components of ‘role’ (understanding my day-to-day work vs. understanding how my work fits into the aims of the broader organisation) revealed the direct role (understanding my day-to-day work) was rated highly while the link between role and organisation was rated much lower, demonstrating ongoing challenges in developing role clarity from a whole of organisation strategic perspective. Regarding the stability and maintenance of organisational health on the whole of region level over time, the results at the 18-months follow-up show consistent stability in organisational health across the region suggesting that the improvements had been maintained across all staff during Year 2. However, as can be seen in Table 8, if the numerical ratings either plateau or have lowered slightly that may indicate a ‘plateau effect’ pending Year 3 follow-up data. These findings highlight the importance of targeted leadership training programs on organisational health with frontline managers and supervisors to achieve both immediate and broader improvements in organisational health that have been maintained over time, without requiring any external intervention within the nonsupervisory workforce (a likely byproduct of changes to supervisor behaviour with their direct staff through the course of the leadership development process). Discussion The present study has implemented a customised, evidence-based supportive leadership development program using a best practice approach as identified in previous research (Cotton & Hart, 2003, D’Aleo et al., 2007; Mackay et al., 2004). Given the previous research findings identifying supportive leadership as an important predictor of organisational health (i.e., Cotton & Hart, 2003), and research to evaluate supportive leadership interventions to manage psychosocial hazards in the workplace is imperative. The questions of interest and aims of the present research were: 1. Program Development. How do we implement an organisational health review to identify local level workplace factors requiring intervention? 2. Behaviour Change — Leadership. Does the implementation of supportive leadership training within a management subculture lead to any measurable improvement in leadership and organisational health within the subgroup within a 6 to 12 month period (or are the effects unable to be detected in such a short time)? 3. Organisational Health — Workforce. Would the effects positively influence the organisational health of staff more broadly across the region? 4. Organisational Health — Enduring Change. Would such effects be maintained over time? Regarding the first aim, an organisational health review framework was implemented using qualitative and quantitative methods to determine the current status of the referred manager/supervisor group in terms of organisational health, and also to identify specific qualitative local area workplace concerns to further inform and guide the development of the customised supportive leadership development program in line with recommended best practice (Arsenault & Dolan, 1983; Dolan & Arsenault, 1979; Mackay et al., 2004). The local area stressor profile showed major challenges in Manager Support, Peer Support, Role, Change and Demands consistent with the referral information, with qualitative data showing a highly distressed and problematic middle management group with specific concerns around level of managerial skill and support and competing demands and role pressures. This data was then integrated into the modules for supportive leadership with a particular emphasis on leadership skill development, management of multiple demands and role clarity, particularly in the area of strategic management and organisational alignment. Implementation of the program occurred over several 2-day off-site sessions with team-based tasks and 360 assessments between sessions. Group engagement, while initially problematic, became increasingly cohesive and focused. As the program continued and participants became more familiar with the use of behavioural learning techniques and insights, skills and team dynamics were strengthened. While the mandatory nature of the program appeared to be a source of some initial resistance, the need to have all line managers involved was deemed essential and as participants explored and expressed their frustrations they gained increasing skill and confidence through the sessions. Furthermore, the two major complaints initially regarding the mandatory nature of sessions and need for active behavioural learning were later reflected by the participant group as a strength given their level of skill development and high amount of contact and networking that otherwise would not have occurred. This indicates that executive management should not fall into the trap of viewing initial resistance or dissatisfaction as program failure indicators, but rather as change-related adjustment, or from a behavioural perspective, an extinction burst (NelsonJones, 1995) that either dissipates quickly as the program continues or is adversely reinforced if the program is terminated prematurely. Regarding the second aim, the results of the initial 6-month intensive program showed major improvement in organisational health over the 6-month interval with significant changes in risk status across the domains of Relationship, Manager and Peer Support. Pre- and postmeasures in leadership behaviour also showed an upward trend in improved supportive leadership practices within the group. Industrial issues requiring regional management intervention were nonexistent among teams whose leaders were present — a significant reduction compared to prior years. Qualitative feedback also showed a greater level of engagement and openness among the leadership group, the ability to feedback and constructively engages and problem solves on issues beyond the scope of the region and an ability to buffer and support each other. Furthermore, the openness and debate among participants improved despite the differing levels of managers within the group and the line manager relationships that were initially cited as sources of concern by some participants. During the project delivery timeframe, there were no new worker’s compensation stress claims, no resignations or redeployments of participating managers and no new staffing issues requiring senior management intervention. The qualitative and quantitative areas of evidence gathered regarding positive outcomes achieved in the current leadership development program reflect established evidential indicators from the literature (Cotton & Hart 2003; D’Aleo et al., 2007; Dollard & Knott, 2004; Mackay et al., 2004; Rydstedt, Ferrie, & Head, 2006), further reinforcing and strengthening the positive benefits of supportive leadership training to organisations in an applied level. Regarding the third aim, a 12-month follow-up organisational health survey across the entire workforce showed major improvements in organisational health across all sites and product lines. During this time the rate of change and work pressure continued to increase with several major policy changes and new initiatives that were not well received by staff. The most likely variable accounting for this very positive result in terms of organisational health was the impact of the frontline manager’s new skills and behaviour in lowering team distress and improving staff morale, consistent with the goals of the supportive leadership development program. It is important to note these ‘whole of region’ results occurred without any direct intervention, and confirms previous findings (Cotton & Hart, 2003) regarding the high value of leadership initiatives with supervisors and managers over stress management programs at the staff level when attempting to improve organisational health. The fourth aim regarding the stability and maintenance of organisational health on the whole of the region over time was assessed using an 18 month organisational health survey. The results at 18 months show consistent stability in organisational health across the region, suggesting that the improvements had been maintained across all staff during Year 2. The maintenance of organisational health had occurred using a much briefer reinvigoration supportive leadership program among managers in Year 2. As such it is important to note that these findings are reflective of a workgroup where mandatory ongoing emphasis on organisational health was applied as opposed to an absence of any senior management direction regarding maintaining organisational health. In Year 3 we propose to develop a reinvigoration program that is increasingly driven by local leadership and further reduce the physical involvement of external consultants. Implications for Further Research and Practice The results of the present supportive leadership training and development program and follow up reviews (1) confirm that supportive leadership is a high value predictor of organisational health and (2) workgroup specific leadership training and development with an emphasis on feedback and behavioural learning can be highly effective and led to measurable improvement in organisational health within a 6 month time frame. These findings provide further support for both the proposed role of leadership in predicting organisational health (i.e., Day, 2001; Skagert et al., 2008) and also the positive outcomes of leadership development on organisational health previously reported by Theorell et al (2001) and Cotton and Hart (2003). However, it is acknowledged that the present findings are drawn from a limited sample of managers within the public sector and more research using larger sample sizes, more diverse industry groups and longer follow up timeframes is necessary to further assess the extent to which the findings of the present research can be generalised to the wider public and private sector context. In terms of the relative importance of supportive leadership training compared to other employee stress initiatives, existing programs to manage work related stress, such as early intervention and employee assistance, are important to reactively address workplace problems, however, supportive leadership programs are a vital, cost effective frontline management preventive strategy to proactively manage workplace stress and a powerful tool to maintain performance, productivity, and wellness within the public sector. Source: Extracted from the Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counseling. Vol. 14, No. 2 pp. 94–109. Read More