How Can the Risk Management Process Be Applied to Psychological or Psychosocial Risks - Essay Example

Managing psychosocial Risks Student’s Name: Name of Institution: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Introduction Psychosocial Risks have been found to be one of the biggest contemporary problems facing occupational health and safety (OHS). These risks refer to those aspects of design and work management, including other organizational and social contexts that can potentially cause psychological and/or physical harm, and they include violence, stress, harassment and bullying at work, amongst others (PRIMA-EF, 2008). Basically, two perspectives have been adopted in examining and explaining the effects of risk factors at workplace on health: demand-control-social support and effort-reward imbalance (Benavides, et al., 2002, pg. 244). But generally, occupation-related stress can be experienced, for example, when the demands of work environment go beyond an employee’s capacity to cope with and control. Equally, occupation-related violence includes where a worker is abused by a client, e.g. patient, students, etc. And harassment or bullying refers to when an employee is assaulted or humiliated by superiors or other colleagues. But, according to PRIMA-EF (2008), it should be noted that bullying may also a result of poor psychosocial work environment. The pace of work, autonomy, the process of learning new skills and participation in a company’s process of decision-making are also some of the factors that could cause psychosocial risk factors. It should be remembered that any sort of risk is detrimental to the success of an organization in achieving its objectives, short and long term. Like any other form of risk, there is great need to manage psychosocial risks so as to avoid the potential for other risks and enhance an organization’s productivity. The first towards this is to acknowledge and recognize that psychosocial risks are a workplace a reality. After that, an organization can then put in place a framework for psychosocial risk management. This paper aims to show how the general framework for risk management is applicable in handling psychosocial analysis. General OHS Management Although different risks demand different approaches, there can only be variations. Otherwise, psychosocial risk management borrows, or rather abides by, the general guidelines stipulated in OHS management system as spelled out in Winder’s (2011) study of the general Principles of Occupational Health and Safety. While many OHS professionals undertake different activities, the general premise remains: The development, implementation and review of a workplace occupational health and risk management system (Winder, 2011). The same way that general organizational programs inform performance of organizations, so does OHS MS inform occupational health and safety practice (Wyatt & Oxenberg, 1992 cited in Winder, 2011). The question thus follows: what does the OHS management system entail? These are generally outlined as: assessing needs; setting safety goals and objectives; developing appropriate policies and strategies, programs and actions that are directed at achieving the set goals and objectives; taking steps to implement the laid policies and programs; availing sufficient resources (human or otherwise) for the attainment of these goals; and establishing review system and evaluation programs. In order for these guidelines to be effective, they should be actively integrated with other roles of management such as planning, leading, organizing, controlling, directing and evaluating. As already mentioned above, this paper aims to look at the ways that OHS management can be a manifestation of this general risk management system in different ways. This includes risk assessment (i.e. identifying potential hazards, deciding potential victims of the possible hazards, evaluating the risks, etc) risk containment or reduction, risk monitoring, risk reporting, and finally risk evaluation (Leka, et al., 2011). Risk Assessment This is the first crucial step in risk management. It is the stage where an organization undertakes a self-evaluation to investigate and assess the potential psychosocial risks that its employees are likely to face (Winder, 2011). In other words, risk assessment gives an employer clear indications on the situation of workplace with regard to psychosocial risks. These can then be used to come up with ideas to improve workplace psychosocial health and safety. Every organization must have a framework for assessment and control of risks. The assessment program put in place should be relevant and consistent in accordance with the prevailing legislative context. Essentially, assessment and control of risks involves identifying possible risks, assessing those risks, e.g. vis-à-vis possible victims to them, controlling risks and eventually reviewing the control frame work put in place. Figure 1 below best shows how these assessment factors relate. Figure 1: Adopted from Winder (2011) The ultimate objective of assessment and control is to: establish an organization’ commitment to OHS as well as other organizational risks; identify the members of staff who will carry out risk assessment and can thus provide crucial information on how to carry out future assessments and control; establish a definite OHS risk management system; provide mechanisms by which employees can understand they have access to controls of OHS risks, including counseling (Winder, 2011; Leka, et al., 2011). Equally important, assessment helps the organization to prioritize risks. For instance, while most organizations prioritize hazards in the physical work setting and that these should be addressed first, this take may not be suitable in cases where work environment is not static, e.g. where employees work off-site, or where there is need for high levels of skill, e.g. engineering design. In these situations, the care of employees falls in the hands of ‘others’ who are subject to business undertakings and not employee themselves. In these cases, risks related to skills (i.e. safety depends on whether one has necessary skills or not) become higher than those related to those presented by the physical working context per se (Winder, 2011). Assessment should also utilize consultative mechanism to predict and anticipate other potential risks. The idea is to avert such risks (e.g. by preventing the strategy for reducing managerial hazards) rather than having to deal with their consequences. The success of all these depend on the appropriateness of risk management mechanisms put in place in relation to the stage (i.e. conceptual, design or planning) of risk control being dealt with. It is only in a suitable integration of these factors with other developments, including visibility in the work setting that risk assessment can bear worthy outcomes. Risk Evaluation Once risks have been identified through assessment, evaluation process begins. Risk evaluation involves understanding the various elements associated with specific risks (Nicot, 2011). For instance, evaluation aims to answer among other questions: what is probability of a risk occurring, i.e. what is the frequency of risk occurrence? And if it occurs, what impact can it have on the organization, especially in terms of quality, time, benefit and resource? Can the organization survive the impact? Understanding these elements helps in the prioritization of risks, i.e. which ones should be attended to first, how much attention should be given to a particular potential risk, etc. For example, a Bué and Sandret survey (2007, cited in Nicot, 2009) found that women are about 6 percent and 0.7 percent likely to suffer verbal and physical assaults respectively than men. Nicot (2009) also cites a Mental Health in the General Population Survey that showed the prevalence of health disorders and their occupational impacts. The prevalence of anxiety disorders were found to be higher than other disorders, including mood disorders, and alcohol and other drug-related issues. Risk Monitoring According to PRIMA-EF {(2008), it is very important to monitor psychosocial risks so as to identify risk-prone occupations and groups and help evaluate the effectiveness of psychosocial risk management programmes, policies and other interventions adopted to prevent them. Risk monitoring essentially thrives on the assumption that risks are dynamic, i.e. they change with time depending on contextual/environmental factors, so that monitoring aims to: systematically keep track of the risks identified; identify other newly arising risks; manage the contingency reserve effectively; and consider lessons learnt for the risk assessment and efforts at allocation of resources. Effective monitoring requires the identification of appropriate indicators and methodologies to be used. The identification and formulation of such indicators and methodologies takes into account several aspects. These include: the framework of the European indicator model; prioritization of indicators; analysis of psychosocial risk monitoring methodologies; and the identification of the gaps that exists between the indicators and the psychosocial risk management process at work (PRIMA-EF, 2008). PRIMA-EF (2008) further asserts that the indicators, in developing an integrative psychosocial risk monitoring model, should: Identify indicators based on exposure to risk factors, end results and preventive interventions and actions Show the cyclical process that the process of psychosocial risk management undergoes Address the three key impact levels, i.e. individual, organizational and society (or sector or national) levels. Figure 2 below is PRIMA-EF’s (ibid) indicator model that meets all the three criteria mentioned above. Figure 2: Adopted from PRIMA-EF (2008) To breakdown the significance of these indicators even further, we will look at some of the things that indicators can help reveal. We can infer from the information above that indicators expose psychosocial risks in four main perspectives: exposure, i.e. the susceptibility of an organization to psychosocial risks; the likely consequences of such psychosocial risks; work-related factors that could contribute to such risks; and what preventive interventions/actions can be undertaken. Figure 3 and 4 below outlines what indicators help to identify in relation to psychosocial risk management. Figure 4: Adopted from PRIMA-EF (2008) Figure 5: Adopted from PRIMA-EF (2008) Risk Communication Communication is a crucial part of risk management (Winder, 2011). It is not merely in accordance with a mandatory requirement stipulated in Australia’s OHS legislation that directs for consultation between the employer and employees on factors related to psychosocial health and safety. Like every other organizational objective, effective handling of OHS depends on the participation of every other stakeholder not only in offering information, but equally reporting any signs of such risks. But this can only happen if there is satisfactory platform for consultation between the organization’s leadership and the relevant stakeholders. This consultation refers to an integrative and open exchange of information, ideas, feelings and thoughts between employers and their employees, and other stakeholders (Winder, 2011). However, most organizations, in focusing on and emphasizing financial benefits, are not willing to communicate openly and honestly with the other stakeholders involved. Different organizations have different systems and mechanisms of communication, e.g. formal or informal. Nevertheless, the most used communication form is in OHS consultation is through OHS committee(s) (Winder, 2011; Leka, et al., 2011). However, generally, the success of whatever mode of consultation that an organization adopts depends on certain fundamental characteristics of communication. Winder (2011) outlines these to include: mode of communication, i.e. written or verbal, formal or informal, etc; general cultural issues (such as social group interactions and language); literacy levels of those consulting; the level of trust between both parties involved, and many more. Literacy, for instance, involves the employee being aware that psychosocial health problems are real. And includes clearing the fear that such health problems, by virtue of being psychological, are a sign of insanity. This may be a further hindrance to open and free reporting of psychosocial health problems. Conclusion These are basic steps to including recognizing and acknowledging that psychosocial health problems are a reality, and psychosocial risks as one of the major risks that could hinder human resource productivity and ultimately hurt the achievement of organizational objectives and goals. Moreover, the task rests mostly with the government tat can put in place legislations that spell out mandatory framework for the management of psychosocial risks. It is a good thing that such steps have been, and are increasingly being, made. For instance, Australia has made a number of legislations that direct companies to recognize psychosocial health and take it seriously (Winder, 2011). However, adopting such efforts does not mean that they will be effectively carried out and that companies will be successful at it. Infact, organizations may only adopt them to hide the reality behind the gates. Take, for instance, the OHC consultation committees. Winder (2011) decries: “However, there is still much cynicism on how this [OHS committee consultation] process works or does not work” (pp. 71). He further mentions how committees can be “bogged down in little things” (Winder, 2011, pp. 71), where attending representatives have hidden selfish agendas, and managers withhold crucial information under the pretext of confidentiality. Simply said, there need to be other mechanisms by which to monitor organizations’ progress, and in abiding by such directives. Mere legislations are not enough. Bibliography Benavides, FG, Benach, J & Muntaner, C 2002, ‘Psychosocial risk factors at the workplace: is there enough evidence to establish reference values?’ Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 244-245 Leka, S.; Jain, A.; Cox, T.; Kortum, E.(2011)., "The development of the European framework for psychosocial risk management: PRIMA-EF", Journal of Occupational Health, vol.53, pp. 137-143. Nicot, A 2009, Rise in psychosocial risk factors at the workplace, European Working Conditions Observatory, Nov. 30, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveyreports/FR0909019D/FR0909019D _2.htm (accessed 12 April, 2011) PRIMA-EF 2008, Monitoring Psychosocial Risks at Work. http://www.who.int/occupational_health/publications/08_Indicators.pdf (accessed 12 April, 2011) Winder, C 2011, Principles of occupational health and safety, Australia: Australian Catholic University; Faculty of Business. Read More