Meeting with Senior Adviser, Health and Safety, June 2006
The process of consulting staff in small focus groups in the light of the indicator tool survey results brings many benefits. Staff come forward with constructive, common sense solutions to problems, and managers get a better understanding of their staff’s work environment.
The web based help and advice on work-related stress provided by the HSE, in particular on management standards implementation is clear, comprehensive, and best of all it’s free!
It’s well worth networking with other organisations in your sector who are using the Standards. You may pick up some useful tips and ideas that you can use or adapt.
Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) offers a range of academic courses in buildings mainly located across Liverpool City Centre, and on campus in the suburbs in South Liverpool. The University currently has over 25,000 students and 3,000 academic and support staff. The University has had stress management procedures in place for a number of years, and has been implementing the HSE’s Management Standards using a rolling implementation programme via small organisational units since HSE published its web based guidance on the Management Standards in November 2004.
The University has a well established Health & Safety Committee structure in place, Chaired by the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Administration) with representatives drawn from the senior management team, trade unions and staff. That Committee approved a Safety Code of Practice on work-related stress in February 2004.
The new Policy and procedures developed by the Personnel Manager were discussed at the Committee, and approved by the Strategic Management Group and the Employment Committee of the University’s Board of Governors.
A Stress Risk Assessment Steering Group (again Chaired by the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Administration)) was established, with representatives drawn from the senior management team, trade unions and staff to oversee the process.
Initially the Standards approach was implemented in three pilot areas – two service areas and one faculty. Following an evaluation of these pilots by the Steering Group, a plan for wider staged implementation across the whole University is to be introduced.
The main ways used to communicate with staff are: email, H&S newsletter to Health and Safety Officers’ network; H&S and Personnel Officers’ face to face meetings with Senior Managers in each faculty/service area; and, letters from Senior Managers to staff in their respective faculty/service area.
H&S and Personnel Managers’ monthly written reports to the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Administration) is the main communications channel to senior management.
In addition to this, half day courses are being run for managers entitled ‘Proactive Stress Management at LJMU’.
The principal source used has been sickness absence data, and Personnel Officers’ case work.
Following the initial communications activity outlined above, the HSE indicator tool survey is run in a faculty/service area. Where the results of that survey are amber, a group stress risk assessment process is triggered. This process has been refined based on experience and now involves a representative sample of 6-10 people from a faculty/service area meeting to discuss the survey results, the nature and scale of any problems, what’s already in place, areas of improvement, and potential solutions.
Facilitated by a Personnel or Health and Safety staff member, flipcharts are used by senior managers to record findings, and these are typed up by them and sent to those present following the meeting for verification prior to wider circulation to all staff in the faculty/service area. Staff attending the discussion groups are fully briefed before hand so they know what’s expected of them and what they can expect from the process. This helps ensure the exercise remains positive.
This Focus Group work has been invaluable for the personal development of managers, and helping them to get a better understanding of their staff’s work environment.
Any actions arising from the group stress risk assessment process described at 4 above are recorded in a standard written report and signed off by a senior manager. All of these reports are copied to the Senior Adviser, Health and Safety to ensure consistency and to enable the Stress Risk Assessment Steering Group to follow up if any problems arise. This Group also checks to ensure the proposed actions are being introduced, and more importantly, are having the desired effect.
The management standards process has also provided a useful source of material to help standardise return to work and rehabilitation procedures, although those procedures are still reliant on the skills of managers and the honesty of individual employees for them them to be truly effective.
For example, if an employee is absent due to work-related stress, they are required to see the OH Physician before they return to work. In addition, an individual stress risk assessment is undertaken, whereby they meet their line manager and a Personnel Officer. That meeting follows a similar format to group stress risk assessment discussions (see 4 above) with the following areas being covered - the nature and scale of any problems, what’s already in place, areas of improvement, and potential solutions. A written record of the meeting is kept with copies going to the individual, their line manager, Personnel and Occupational Health.
Standards implementation is time consuming, and LJMU considered not using the indicator tool survey. After discussion, however, it recognised the value of a macro level anonymous survey, before conducting a risk assessment process on a micro level on the ‘stress hotspots’ identified by that survey.
The Management Standards implementation process has helped reinforce the good working relationships between managers, staff and their representatives at LJMU. The Stress Risk Assessment Steering Group is an effective and enjoyable forum to participate in.
Most staff can complete the indicator tool survey at the heart of HSE’s Management Standards approach in 10-15 minutes. It is also relatively easy to use by those administering it too, although it takes a little time to understand the way the red/amber/green results are derived from the data by the tool.
Sensitive handling is required when communicating poor results from the survey. This process can be time consuming. The process was made easier at LJMU by the decision to implement the Standards on a staged basis via small organisational units.
The process of consulting staff in small groups in the light of the indicator tool survey results is where the positive benefits come. Staff come forward with constructive common sense solutions to problems.
See last para of 8 above.
See 4 & 6 above.
The University has not done any formal quantification of the resources and associated costs committed to Standards implementation to date. The senior Adviser, Health and Safety considers that the majority of the costs have fallen to his Department, principally staff time in administering the indicator tool survey, and the follow up group stress risk assessment activity.
Plan ahead with Management Standards implementation. Don’t overcommit. A staggered approach to implementation is effective.
Use the web-based materials on Standards implementation available free from HSE.
It’s well worth networking with other organisations in your sector who are using the Standards. You may pick up some useful tips and ideas that you can use or adapt.
The HSE webpages on work-related stress are good and continue to improve. It would be helpful if HSE could use its website to circulate more information about the enforcement action it is taking on stress, and to share case studies of good practice on stress management.
HSE local offices also have an important role to play in offering help and advice to Higher Education Institutions on managing the risks to their staff associated with work-related stress.
Very positive. The challenges associated with implementing the Standards approach centre on making the approach locally applicable rather than inherent flaws in the approach itself. At LJMU these challenges have been overcome primarily because of the Health and Safety and Personnel structures in place and the generally positive industrial relations at the University.