How do you get the Board of Directors to believe that stress management is a requirement when absence figures are already below the national average and the perception is that stress is not a problem……this was the challenge for us!
The Rullion Group consists of five businesses specialising in permanent and temporary recruitment (employment business and agency). The Group employs approx 300 employees in 27 offices across the UK, and places approx 4500 temporary self employed workers in placements each week. The age diversity for our workforce ranges from 18 to 63, although approximately half are under 30. Annual turnover £220 million per annum.
In general terms our absence record is good when compared to the national statistics quoted by the CIPD in 2006: 8 working days lost per annum per employee (3.5% of working time).
For the Group as a whole, the average is 4.5 working days lost per employee per annum (1.8% of working time).
The trend is very different if analysed by each of the 5 Group Companies: The Co. with the worst absence level equates to 6.5 working days lost per person per annum (2.7% of working time) and the Co. with the best absence record averages at 1.7 working days lost per person per annum (0.7% of working time).
Having said all of this there is a cost to the absence we do have, and our philosophy is that even if we are managing absence well, there is always room for improvement. We must strive to ensure that our standards don’t slip otherwise complacency will facilitate poor management practise and an increasing absence trend. As there is clearly a variance in absence levels between the different Companies in our Group this illustrates that there is room for improvement in some areas.
How could we change the perception of senior management in relation to robust stress management? How could we make them see the benefits for the business?
To senior management, the ‘S’ word conjured up images of litigation and costly absence from work. There was also a belief that raising the profile of stress would encourage more staff to use this as an excuse for taking time off. There was very little understanding that pressure can be a very positive motivator (particularly in the sales arena) when managed carefully, or that pressure can have the impact of driving an individual, maintaining their energy and enthusiasm and consequently being a business benefit generating revenue for both the business and the individual. The critical factor is ensuring that pressure does not develop into a ‘stressor’ where the person is unable to cope and feels burdened, unsupported and de-motivated.
Further consideration of this also made us realise that we would need to start to change the culture of our organisation to really make a difference. This included persuading management to drive change from the top, having a more flexible approach to working time, considering role structures and staff support services.
The first thing was easy – drop the dreaded ‘S word’. When we read the HSE’s Management Standards it was clear that the desirable performance in each of the six standard areas related, not just to stress, but to good management generally. So we were able to progress our ideas for ‘good management standards’ without the fear factor of the ‘S word’.
We published a stress management policy and to accompany this, some guidance for our intranet so that we could raise awareness of stress and improve understanding – this provided a baseline to build from. We didn’t make this hard for ourselves though, and used a stress policy template (thank you Croner!) which we developed and personalised to our own business requirements. We compiled stress guidance using information from the HSE and NHS websites.
We then prepared a ‘case study’ for our Board of Directors, to prove that stress management works. We selected one of the Companies in the business with higher absence trends and where stress was identified as a contributory factor (therefore also a business risk) and used this as a test Company for our ideas. We investigated the causes and put some stress management strategies in place.
Then we conducted general office and individual display screen equipment training and risk assessments but we incorporated some additional questions in the assessments to evaluate workplace stressors without highlighting that we were researching ‘the S word’. We did this to try and establish whether there was any link between the symptoms and trends we had found in the evaluation of absence records and to identify whether there were environmental, ergonomic or work related issues that were possibly contributing to stress levels. A sample of the type of questions we included as detailed below:
This allowed us to speak to staff and management to obtain honest opinion, also to sample the work environment without any preconceived expectations from the employees. We felt it was important to spend time in the workplace observing, without being seen to observe! Often when people believe they are being watched or tested their behaviour changes and when asked direct questions, people will often give you a politically correct answer rather than an honest one. We therefore tried to make the questions open, a little ambiguous and personal so that each person felt we were interested in them and their opinions - which we were – and so that they could get a feeling of involvement and control over their job and workplace, which would be a good start to identifying and reducing workplace stressors.
The results were fed back to management as part of the risk assessment findings, together with recommendations for improvements. This included suggestions as simple as reviewing the cable management in the workplace, improved communication and consultation with staff, additional storage space as well as longer term more complex recommendations such as revising job descriptions, installing air-conditioning, considering new premises and a revised workplace layout. Because the immediate recommendations were simple to make and low cost, we obtained management approval to proceed with the simpler solutions. Remember: Change doesn’t have to be complex or costly and sometime the simplest solutions are the best.
We introduced health assessment questionnaires for all staff to complete and explained the purpose to everyone. This gave us better information about our employees and in particular those who might have pre-existing or historical health conditions that may put them more at risk in the workplace as a result of their health. Subsequently we were able to undertake appropriate individual risk assessments for those at most risk which made the staff feel valued, and allowed us to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace where required.
The introduction of an Employee Helpline, external to the organisation, and facilitating confidential, impartial advice and counselling was perceived very positively by staff and management. This also enabled the Group to provide a robust mechanism for supporting employees and their families in the event of an assortment of issues, which we hoped would help reduce worry regarding work and/or non work related issues that may contribute to stress levels and other related ill health.
A private healthcare scheme run by the Company was expanded (subject to qualifying criteria) so that many more employees and their immediate families had private cover enabling them to obtain health assistance immediately if required.
An absence reporting process was introduced, providing a confidential report to the Group Chairman. The report provides information regarding any employee where a single absence extends over 10 days or where there are on-going health issues. The Health and Safety Manager contacts all these employees personally to provide support and to risk assess the impact of work on the employee’s health. Advice and input from medical practitioners is imperative to ensure understanding and the correct approach is taken.
The Chairman reviews the report with the HR team on a monthly basis, to ensure that appropriate corporate support is provided such as extended sick pay, support with private health costs, occupational health support; phased rehabilitation into the workplace etc.
To complement the major changes there were some supporting activities such as posters, a staff newsletter, staff consultation, and staff suggestion schemes etc. to help communicate change and encourage participation from staff.
As you can imagine it took more than a year to implement and develop the changes. During this time we monitored our absence figures in the case study company and we found that whilst staff numbers had increased, absence figures had started to decrease and productivity had increased. Staff retention had started to stabilised although it was too early to tell whether there was a trend toward improvement within the first 2 years of employment (we are monitoring this).
It was time to present the case study to the management team: So a presentation was prepared, illustrating our aims, the process, the outcomes and suggestions to progress this further. ……. It worked. The management team could see the benefit and between us we devised a strategy for further improvement focussing not just on stress but on good working practise generally. This started with:
A wellbeing and productivity survey: a random selection of staff were asked to document all their activities for a week – including rest breaks, food and drink consumed and work activities. The results were evaluated to establish trends i.e. Who was getting the best results in the shortest working time, how were they achieving this and what management support was provided? We also looked at those people working long hours and considered how this affected their stamina and productivity. Which staff were taking reasonable breaks? Who was eating and drinking in a healthy way and how this was affecting performance.
From the results we were able to provide good practise feedback to the individuals on how to improve their performance and work in a healthier way. Staff also gave us their feedback on what changes they thought were needed and what impact the changes were making for them as individuals – they were so much more motivated and enthusiastic. Staff willingness to communicate had improved and the working atmosphere was lighter and more energetic. Already we were witnessing positive change.
This provided valuable feedback to management to enable them to plan further improvements. This included staff training, exchange of good practise ideas, structuring working practises to get the best from staff, staff mini presentations on how they achieve, encouraging frequent short breaks and shorter but more standard working hours and improved welfare arrangements.
Progress is slow at times, it does need driving by the Health and Safety and HR teams to encourage management change, but it is working and is a learning curve for everyone. It is important for the health and safety professionals to exercise a listening ear, not just for staff but also for management, taking into account the commercial objectives with industry requirements and expectations, then, adapting any suggestions to provide a balanced and democratic approach avoiding inflexibility. This has been a big step for management and to their credit they have embraced this wholeheartedly.
The next step is to progress this process across the rest of the Group and we know we will continue to reap the benefits of good management practise reflecting the requirements of good stress management techniques as illustrated in the HSE standards.
Alison Eastham
Group Safety Health & Environment Manager