The Occupational Health Hazards - Term Paper Example

 «The Occupational Health Hazards» Introduction Attempting to control employees’ body/health has been debated in various contexts in management and organisational behaviour, which spring from sociological views. Contemporary nature of organisations and emerging employee health concerns in relation with work pattern have called for various policies and practices to be implemented by the organisations, which have been mostly termed as health-related initiatives and controls. This discussion supports such initiatives that organisations take in order to manage their employees’ health in the long term. A holistic consideration of employees’ health concerns and issues has been chosen in order to understand how these management controls would benefit employees. The discussion begins with an outline of various health issues that affect employees at physical, psychological, sexual and hygienic levels. Upon obtaining a comprehensive understanding of these effects, theoretical perspectives of management and the human body have been considered. Further, benefits of organisational health initiatives from employee, management and societal perspectives have been discussed followed by an understanding of their impact on work, employees’ health and society. Finally, a critical note on managerial control over employee health, based on others views, has been expressed before concluding the discussion. Considerations/inclusions in the concept of ‘body’ from management perspective are complex. Evidences have been pointing against organisations that regard human body as the control point for management’s success. Though not literally, organisations have held the body as the tool or mechanism for achievement of organisational goals (Morgan, 2006). Human body is considered as the most efficient mechanical functioning system, controlled and coordinated by the brain. The brain made of brain cells, or neurons, are regarded as the fundamental elements of behaviour (Feldman, 2008). These elements have attracted the attention of many researchers from science, psychology, management fields. This attention is attributable to their impact potential at physical, biological and psychical levels. Just as management scholars believe that management is all about controlling and organising activities to achieve goals, and organisations are controlled spaces, defined by instrumentality, productive activity and rationality (Acevedo et al, 2009), the sort of control and organisation may be achievable only by including every individual that is part of the organisation. Hence, at an individual level, control encompassing individuals’ actions, thoughts, activities, and emotional and physical being become imperative for the organisation and management. Controls at these levels include physical, sexual, psychological, and personal hygiene. Physical control includes physical stamina or fitness of the body that may be achieved by the individual through healthy life style; this also includes absence of sickness caused by unhygienic habits or environment and diseases or any other disorders that could be genetic or psychiatric. At sexual level, control over sexual intentions, lust, or any sexual prompts from self or others is highly unacceptable at workplaces. At the psychological level, wellbeing through control of emotional stress, occupational or work-related emotional and physical stresses are given extreme importance in contemporary organisations. Furthermore, personal hygiene control through physical cleanliness, workplace hygiene, absence of sweat and bad odours are regarded important. Theoretical perspectives on the significance of ‘body’ are tapped by many management researchers and sociological theorists. Dale and Burrell (2000) have supported the concept of relationship between biology and management based on the notion that the concept of organisation evolves from ‘organ’ that indicates a structure of the human body. They also point at the common definition of organisation that emphasizes structure and function. Further, they touch upon concepts of structuring of organs that complete the body and its relation to functioning of the body, just like that of the machine and vice versa. Based on various scholars’ views, Dale and Burrell infer, what Weber had proposed, that mind has the capacity to control the body functions by eliminating emotions, thereby working on rationality and reason. Reinforcing Bacon’s postulation that science permits man to understand organisation of matter, which can further be modified to achieve desired control over nature (Man), one can support that an attempt to manage employees’ body is an appropriate approach to management functions. Further, Simon’s use of Weber’s concept of rationality in organisation theory notes that rational organisations require that people become predictable parts of the whole. Here, Simon asserts that mind of the individual is effectively taken over by the mind of the organisation: through his subjection to organisationally determined goals, and through the gradual absorption of these goals into his own attitudes, the participant in organisation acquires an “organisation personality” rather distinct from his personality as an individual (qtd. by Dale & Burrell, 2000; p.22). All these assertions roll back to principles of scientific management or Taylorism and Fordism and Weber’s philosophy of dehumanization in organisations, which are a few of the most successful management concepts that have laid strong platform for the concept of management itself. However, these conventional management philosophies have been overtaken by more creative and innovative contemporary management approaches that regard head and body with equal importance. As a result of this, yet again, much of human activity is being replaced by machines. As a result, demand for more creativity and innovation is becoming inevitable. On the other hand, control over body of employees in the form of control over health and hygiene through management of sleep and working patterns, management of drug and alcohol abuse continues to be taken up as an important part of organisation and management. Goss (n.d) has argued that promotion of health practices at workplace have significant impact on employee health and quality of life in addition to the benefit of deriving higher levels of performance and commitment from the employees. Promotion of health at workplace has become imperative owing to the increasing levels of health-related hazards caused at workplaces or due to work. Morgan (2006) describes organisations as dangerous places and reasons for death of thousands of workers due to work-related accidents or illnesses such as heart diseases, eye-related issues, musculoskeletal illnesses, lung ailments etc. Morgan (2006) argues that most organisations only consider and address employee health issues with legal implications and ignore the others. However, managers’ involvement in employee’s overall wellbeing and healthy body can address this issue to a great extent. Managerial control over employee body has a multidimensional impact including work, organisation as well as society. As discussed earlier, organisations’ control or managerial intrusion into employee health occurs at various levels. This is accomplished through distinct practices and policies in different organisations. Although implemented through managerial systems, these are based on scientific and medical norms. This is underpinned by Goss (n.d, 2) stating,’ here employee health occupies a well defined temporal and social space within the organisation: it is of concern at the stage of recruitment, epitomised in the pre-employment medical or the GP's health statement and, subsequently, activated as and when illness strikes. In the latter event, there is generally an institutionalized form of Parsons' (1951) 'sick role': a set of procedures to which employees are obliged to conform if their illness is to be officially recognized.’ To support employee health further, organisations do not interfere once employee is declared as sick, and hand over the employee to medical authorities to be further cared for. The employee may resume work only after he/she is certified as completely fit to work (Goss, n.d). While this is the case of extreme or acute proven sickness that could occur at any level, organisations have adopted initiatives to reinforce positive health and wellbeing of its employees. Managers accomplish this by involving employees in health projects (Goss, n.d), anti-drug policies (Acevedo et al, 2009), smoking regulations (Brewis & Grey, 2008), sleep pattern management (Hancock, 2008), occupational stress management practices (Aw, Gardiner & Harrington, 2006) etc. Morgan (2006) points at organisations as institutions that exercise domination in various forms which in turn create various antisocial effects on humans, of which health hazards are one. Though this is greatly arguable, many contemporary organisations have been addressing the resulting antisocial effects in ways that annul the adverse effects. Focusing on health initiatives, organisations regard these as planned programmes that promote employee health and also have a multidimensional impact covering physical and psychological aspects of their health. However, critics argue against these initiatives as they regard the initiatives as noninclusive of sociological perspectives (Goss, n.d). Goss acknowledges that the health initiatives meant for health promotion require strict managerial control without which these initiatives would not achieve the desired results. Most sociologists view this process of ‘control‘as anti-social and hence organisations as antisocial entities (Morgan, 2006). Most of the literature critiquing managerial and organisational control over employee health and wellbeing is focused on this aspect of management function. However, considering the benefits and livelihood that organisations provide to most of the population of any country, the accompanying health hazards should not be viewed with so much condemnation. To combat these hazards, most of the organisations are adopting health initiatives for their employee, which is actually an advantage to the employees, the organisation and also the society. From an employee perspective, Goss (n.d) points that health initiatives such as provision for gymnasia, fitness-break actually improve their productivity and mental state. For the organisation, gains from these initiatives are in the form of productivity returns. On the other hand, regulations such as prohibition on smoking in public areas and official zones are aimed at minimizing the hazards caused due to active and passive smoking. These regulations are adopted more for creation of moral organisations/economy than enhancing productivity, as ban on smoking in office spaces has, in fact, reduced productivity. Jackson and Carter (1998) relate this to the discipline imposed in Focauldian concept of dressage, an initiative to satisfy the urge to control (Brewis & Grey, 2008). Similar arguments may be extended to alcohol and drug abuse, both of which are banned by most organisations. Thereby, organisations are also fulfilling social responsibility to an extent. Some countries recognize alcohol and drug abuse as medical conditions. Acevedo et al (2009; p.8) point that drug users are often stereotyped as weak, vulnerable, lying, cheating, concerned with pleasure, turning away from responsibility in the world. Considering Morgan’s (2006) metaphoric implication of organisations as instruments of domination, and organisational influence on society, it is absolutely correct to support organisations that ban drug and alcohol use as a part of their policy as they can have a wider and deeper influence on promoting better health and discouraging drug and alcohol abuse in the society. Implications for employee and management are also quite impressive and evident. From employee perspective, managerial involvement and control of employee body has been viewed as intrusion into personal space, suppressive and threatening to the employees’ rights. Hence, it becomes the managers’ responsibility to make employees understand the significance of health programmes and initiatives and their impact on the employees’ life style and work. For instance, Hancock (2008) points at differences and significances in sleeping patterns that exist in different cultures and their relation to organisation of work, level of fatigue and resulting casualties. It has been proven many times that lack of proper sleep leads to low quality work and increases risks for accidents at work. Recognizing this fact, few organisations are reported to have introduced facilities to manage employee sleeping patterns within their premises, like that of the East of England Development Agency that introduced dedicated sleeping areas and beds, which may be used by the employees. Yet, major concern still remains with many multinational organisations that have 24/7 working patterns and employees are expected to change their working pattern periodically. In such cases, Hancock (2008) points at self-help activities that employees may make use of in order to regain their vitality while working in shifts that disturb their sleeping patterns. Secondly, avoiding alcohol, cigarettes, drugs etc at work helps employees to avoid undesirable behaviour and promotes conscious actions and appropriate behaviour. Thirdly, controls placed by the management in terms of protection from sexual harassment at workplace saves employees from the mental agony and stigma of sexual abuse. Although sex is a natural drive/instinct, it is regarded as undesirable in public and is associated with shame and embarrassment. Hence, sexual harassment policies guard employees, more often female, from experiencing mental trauma and shame (Richardson, 2000). As mentioned earlier, managerial control over employee body has received much criticism, mostly from sociological aspects. Nevertheless, for organisations to succeed and sustain their success, employees need to be controlled. Linking the structuring of the body to management, Lefebvre argues that management is about producing and maintaining order (Lennie, 2000). Lennie (2000) argues that management is not about organising and controlling external forces, but starts from within. Here, managers need to understand that the relation between the body and its order can be very positive. Lennie (2000) asserts the significance of embodying management and its reflection in the form of results and expected changes that can be brought about in employees. However, more often management is seen as a mental rather than bodily activity, a notion that needs to be changed. Bans or controls over smoking, alcohol, drug use etc are seen as authoritative sanctions imposed on employees by most of the sociologists and theorists; in addition, other moral discourses attached to these issues bounce back as unexpected repercussions, which managers and organisations need to be prepared to face (Brewis & Grey, 2008). The same argument holds true for Weber’s dehumanization predicament and Morgan’s organisations as instruments of domination. Summary and conclusions To summarize the argument, much has been said in management literature about the negative impact of managerial control over employee body most of which has been visualized from sociological perspectives rather than organisational or management perspective. Yet, these arguments cannot be ruled out as inappropriate. On the other hand, taking responsibility of employee body, which is subject to much oppression and trauma due to work nature and patterns is, indeed, a positive sign. It is not possible for organisations or management to completely eliminate the occupational health hazards and hence can help by managing or preventing these hazards. For this, organisations take steps such as health programs/initiatives meant to keep the body healthy; implement policies such as ban on smoking, alcohol and drug use during working hours thereby preventing their bad impact on non-indulgent employees in workplace; provisions for workouts in gymnasia, break time during working hours; provisions for resting/sleeping rooms etc; implementing policies that safeguard the self-respect and self-esteem of all employees by saving them from the stigma of workplace harassment . To conclude, if the ultimate goal of organisations is to achieve desired goals of few top persons in the management ladder, then supporting majority of massess’ (employees’) health and wellbeing is also taken up as their responsibility in most of the organisations. For this, managers have been and are taking appropriate steps in the form of discipline, control, initiatives and practices. To combat the debate around managerial control over body, managers/organisations need to be more explicit about the actions and policies, and should ensure every employee understands and acknowledges the significance of these initiatives on his/her own health, work and on the society. Consequently, employees should consider these controls as changes to lifestyle rather than suppressing their instincts. Most importantly, managers will have to lead their employees by adhering to the policies and practices themselves, i.e. maintaining good health, cleanliness, inculcating neat habits and displaying desirable behaviour and control at workplace. References Acevedo, B., Warren, S. and Wray-Bliss, E. 2009. ‘The devil in high heels: drugs, symbolism and Kate Moss’ Culture and Organisation 15 (3/4): 331-346. Aw, T.C, Gardiner, K and Harrington, J.M. (2006). Pocket Consultant: Occupational Health. 5th Ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Brewis, J. and Grey, C. 2008. ‘The regulation of smoking at work’ Human Relations. 61(7): 965-987. Dale, K. and Burrell, G. 2000. ‘What shape are we in? Organisation theory and the organised body’ in Hassard, J, Holliday, R and Willmott, H’s (Eds.) Body and Organisation. London, Sage: 15-30. Feldman, R. (2008). Understanding Psychology. 9th Ed. NY: McGraw-Hill. Goss, D. (n.d.) ‘Healthy discipline? Health promotion at work’ Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory 3(2): 1-11. Hancock, P. (2008) ‘Cultures of sleep: organisation and the lure of dormancy’ Culture and Organisation. 14(4): 411-424 Lennie, I. 2000. Embodying Management. In Hassard, J, Holliday, R and Willmott, H’s Body and Organisation. London: Sage. 130-146. Morgan, G. 2006. Images of Organisation London: Sage. 291:333 Richardson, J. 2000. What Can a Body Do? Sexual Harassment and Legal Procedure. In In Hassard, J, Holliday, R and Willmott, H’s Body and Organisation. London: Sage. 215-229. Read More