Many organisations may be aware that they have a problem with stress, but will be unsure exactly how they can tackle it. Maybe their level of stress-related absence is high, or they may be on the receiving end of a civil claim relating to stress, or even subject to an investigation from an enforcing authority such as the HSE or local authority. The issues may be cultural and ingrained, and solutions appear hard to determine.
Most people can associate with the kinds of working environment and types of job that may be ‘stressful’. However many may not associate ‘financial services’ as being in the worst 5 industries 1 for stress-related absence.
Such was the case for Bradford & Bingley plc, which as a result of an enforcing authority investigation found itself needing to implement a stress management solution.
Bradford & Bingley plc has been in business for over 150 years, first as a building society, before de-mutualising in 2000 to become a FTSE 100 company. Its aim, to become the UK’s specialist lender, is supported by the activities of 3250 staff based in 3 large central offices, and 205 nationwide branches. These activities include retail branch counters, call centres, back office processing, and underwriting, as well as traditional head office functions such as financial accounting, legal, property services, HR functions and IT.
The culture of the organisation has changed significantly since demutualisation in 2000, with building society paternalism being swept aside by a degree of plc intensity. The organisation had undergone a series of rationalisation programmes, culminating in the disposal of two key businesses in 2004. This, in turn drastically reduced the size of the company from having over 8000 staff to 3200 in a 3-month period.
“It became apparent that there was room for improvement in our whole approach to managing stress”
John Hamilton,
Head of Group Health & Safety
Its problem with stress began with a local environmental health officer (EHO) investigation following a staff complaint. Although the investigation did not lead to formal enforcement action, the company worked with the EHO to identify an action plan for improving its arrangements for managing stress.
1 - Health & Safety Executive ‘Healthy Workplace Solutions’ 2006 Identifying the ProblemFollowing the investigation the company began an exercise to determine the exact nature of the issue with stress and how it should be managed. A decision was made at an early stage to consider all potential causes of stress, as many of the control measures that should be in place provide on-the-job support to staff irrespective of causation. Also the impact of stress-related absence on the business is the same irrespective of cause
The company helped identify the extent of its problem managing stress using a range of analytic and anecdotal sources, including:
The analysis was consolidated and reviewed by a steering group jointly headed by the Group Health & Safety and Group HR support functions. This group determined the following:
“It was not a total surprise to us, given what we’d been through recently, to find that ‘demands’ and ‘change’ were areas for concern”
Andrew Law
General Manager, HR
As well as the above, the group mapped the results of the recent staff survey on to the six Management Standards. These results, benchmarked against industry average responses, indicated concerns in the Management Standards areas of ‘demands’ and ‘change’.
Fundamentally, this comprehensive analysis showed that the company needed a specific management tool for tackling stress.
2 - Health & Safety Executive ‘Tackling Stress: the management standards approach’ (INDG406)“I hadn’t appreciated that we are all responsible for managing stress as well as managers having responsibilities for their teams”
Nikola Muirhead
Team Manager
The company’s approach to resolving this, agreed with the EHO, centred on the creation of a bespoke management plan for stress accompanied by training for all managers in its use. As the company approached the solution from a Health & Safety perspective, it adopted HSE guidance on Health & Safety management systems 3. The resulting document, termed the Stress Management Plan, would be aligned to similar plans for managing other complex workplace hazards such as asbestos, fire safety and occupational road risk.
As such the Stress Management Plan contained the following sections;
“The new Stress Management Plan is clearly presented and gives some valuable practical tools to help with areas we hadn’t thought about in the past”
Mike Hammond
Community Affairs Manager
Policy Statement - a bespoke policy statement for stress, signed by the Chief Executive. Following the same format as the company’s Health & Safety Policy Statement, it contains specific commitments for the management of stress.
Organisation & Responsibilities - a definitive structure for the company setting out specific stress management responsibilities for everyone in the organisation, from the directors and line managers, down to all members of staff
Arrangements - information and procedures for managers & staff to ensure that stress can be managed effectively at a local level. Included are procedures for risk assessment (see below), stress management advice & guidance, suggested solutions for managers to implement, procedures for managing individual cases, and general lifestyle and welfare advice for all staff to help cope with work.
The cornerstone of the new arrangements was a new risk assessment tool to help local managers identify potential causes of stress and identify suitable control measures, many of which are based around good management practice.
Although the new risk assessment is specifically for work-related stress, it follows the HSE’s good practice guidance 4 on undertaking risk assessments. It is the only specific stress management procedure in the new Plan. Its primary aim is to force managers to think about how the pressures associated with the content and context of their staffs work may cause stress.
“The risk assessment is a good process for identifying and managing the risks of stress at a local level”
Martin Gatenby
Head of Credit Control
It then helps them identify local measures that can help with this, and cross-references many of the group-wide policies, procedures and measures that the company already had in place.
In order to simply the process, the structure of the risk assessment is aligned to the Management Standards areas (demands, control, support, role, relationships, change). This ensures that the process is meaningful, yet is user-friendly and simple to complete.
Having spent 6-months in development and consultation, the Plan was presented to the Executive Directors for approval, accompanied by a comprehensive training plan, incorporating the following:
The steering group viewed this as being the only way that such a complex and emotive subject could be delivered in such a way to ensure consistent interpretation and understanding. This commitment involved delivering 65 courses UK-wide over a 6-month period from January to June 2006, starting with the senior management teams down through to line management level.
3 – Health & Safety Executive ‘Successful Health & Safety Management’ (HSG65) 4 – Health & Safety Executive ‘5-steps to risk assessment’ (INDG163)“I am now more mindful of the amount and types of pressure that is put on individuals, and how they can cope with it”
Donna Lawn
Customer Relations Manager
From the outset the training course, which was focussed and intense at 2-hours long, placed stress within the wider context of Health & Safety management. The message that stress is ‘just another workplace hazard’ helped course manager’s focus on the theme of ‘prevention’, in the same way as they consider other hazards such as a trailing cable or loose stair tread.
“The training took a potentially dull subject and brought it alive, emphasising the need for stress management tools, and giving clarity on what we needed to do”
Mark Stevens
MD, Strategy
For many managers, one of the most valuable parts of the course was delivered right at the beginning; learning the difference between ‘pressure’ and ‘stress’. Most commented that understanding this fact alone would help them manage the pressures of their staff.
The course used a number of internal case studies, examples, analogies and group discussions to illustrate the training messages. Indeed such discussions were valuable in helping staff personalise the messages, and apply them to their own situations.
The case studies in particular were used to highlight the fact that many stress management control measures are in fact ‘just good management practice’, things that most managers are doing anyway, but not specifically for stress management reasons, such as staff appraisals, or regular team meetings.
The course involved the managers completing a sample risk assessment, allowing any procedural issues to be resolved, and a general discussion on the significance of specific issues and the appropriateness of a variety of control measures.
“This was a tough course to deliver; this was people’s lives we were discussing, and as tutor I was expected to have all the answers”
Dale Bradley
Group Health & Safety Adviser (Tutor)
Despite delivering the course over 60 times, the tutors found that no two courses were same. This was down to the large amount of personalisation and experience that managers brought to the subject. Although the aims and objectives of the course were communicated in advance, many managers arrived at the course sceptical about the new arrangements, with a few cynical about the company’s motives and support for such an initiative.
“We have had people ringing the helpline as a result from the increased profile the service has had from the course”
Sandy Browning
Counsellor
In general the managers exhibited a classic ‘silent/violent’ reaction to the subject matter at the beginning of the course; the majority were silent, with closed body language and a reluctance to make eye contact, with a few overtly expressing negative views on the course content, aims & objectives (“how much will this cost?” “more work for us to do!”)
The credibility of the new arrangements was usually established once the managers understood the emphasis on ‘prevention’, that many of the control measures were things that many managers were doing anyway, and that the risk assessment process was a way of referencing good management practice to controlling work-related stress. This also included reference to company-wide measures such as the counselling service and HR policies.
In addition the tutors met controversial subjects head-on, not avoiding the issues that the managers most complained about. Discussion around these issues was prompted by a series of hypothetical case studies, where the managers were invited simply to ‘discuss’.
“The course enabled the group to share and challenge their experiences”
Lacy Conroy
Head of Direct Services
These areas included;
Subsequent analysis of the course feedback forms showed that 85% of managers felt the course had a positive effect (13% neutral). Another indication of the success of the course is that 25% of managers felt it was too short!
“This has given me a great insight into staff welfare both generally and on a day-to-day basis. I am now more conscious about the things that could trigger stress in my staff”
Kenny Watson
Retail Services & Governance Director
The company’s work on managing stress is seen as the start of a long-term commitment to addressing its issues in this area. As such it was not anticipated that any immediate improvement would be seen. However course feedback from the delegates has seen an immediate improvement in their understanding of stress as a subject area, which in turn is changing the way they manage their staff; as already stated, simply defining the difference between ‘pressures’ and ‘stress’ was important for most.
In addition a number of immediate issues were actioned as a result of the new plan and its roll-out:
“Without a doubt this has increased everyone’s awareness, and will support proactive action to mitigate the effect of pressure in our workplace”
Robert Dickie
Group Operations Director
Change - the company’s project managers now include the undertaking of a stress risk assessment in the task list for every change initiative, to help them identify the actions necessary to minimise the impact of the change on the staff affected.
Targets - line managers now have a greater understanding of the importance of consultation with their staff when setting targets and measuring their performance
Excessive working hours - the risk assessment process provides a tool to help managers identify, evaluate and manage the impact of working excessive hours where it is unavoidable
“The key benefit is that the initiative has put stress on the management agenda”
Andrew Law
General Manager, HR
The entire programme for the development and implementation of the company’s new stress management arrangements took 18 months. The development of the plans was undertaken in-house by the company’s Health & Safety support function, with the assistance and close co-operation of the company’s HR function.
The training programme was also delivered in-house by 2 members of the Health & Safety team. This had the added benefit of raising the profile and awareness of the wider role of the support function, and by improving networking across the company.
“For the first time, the company has a robust framework and processes for stress management, backed up by appropriate training”
John Gornall
Head of Group Insurance
The cost of implementation can be estimated by accounting for the time spent developing the plans, producing the training course material and the time-cost of the managers and tutors in delivering the training – equalling a cost to the company of around £140k. For the training course alone this equates to £100 per manager (excluding their time), which compares favourably with commercial training.
A year on from completing the initial roll-out and the key measure of its success, that of stress-related absence (measured by working hours lost) is down from its peak by 75%, saving the company £250k in lost wages alone. As a result the organisation has seen approximately a 1% gain in productivity for little cost.
At a lower level within the organisation, the change is best illustrated by the impact it has had on stress-related absence in one of its busiest back-office areas. Here the absence peaks directly corresponded with large increases in work volume associated with year-end activities such as statement production. This work was handled by using large numbers of temporary staff that, whilst it met the work-flow demands, diluted the effectiveness of the experienced permanent staff. Following the roll-out of the new stress management arrangements, managers in this area used the risk assessment process to consider a range of other measures, such as flexible working, increased training and improved communication to provide better support to staff. As a result stress-related absence was maintained at low levels during the next period of year-end activity.
“This is no ‘t-shirt and mouse mat’ exercise, it will need continued attention in the future so it becomes ‘the way we do it at B&B’ ”
John Hamilton
Head of Group Health & Safety
Furthermore the messages contained in the stress management training, have been reinforced by a new culture and values programme being rolled out across the company, and the delivery of stress management, along with general Health & Safety management training, has been incorporated into the company’s training academy.
Reflecting on the outcome of their initiative, the company highlight 5 key points that it believes were instrumental in its success;