Stress prevention in an airport management company (using stress working groups)
Author(s): Richard Wynne & Rose Rafferty Country: Ireland
Is the intervention sector specific?	No
Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes?	Yes
Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders?	Yes
Is the intervention based on theory?	Yes
Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored?	Yes
Does the intervention promote CSR and how?	Yes, this intervention requires impetus from management of companies to be successful.
Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa	Yes, the intervention requires establishing ‘stress working groups’ which comprise of employee representatives from different departments, management, health and safety and human resources specialists. The action plan is developed and implemented following discussion and consensus.
Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.): In 1989, the Irish Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act was enacted and the Health and Safety Authority was established. Although the legalisation does not directly require employers to act upon occupational stress, its provisions concerning the work environment and working methods do, in effect, cover/ address the psychosocial working environment and, in turn, work-related stress. This legalisation requires employers to do everything reasonably practicable to ensure and protect the health and safety of their employees; this has been interpreted to cover occupational stress. The impetus for the airport management company to address work-related stress was due to the concerns voiced by employees within the organisation to upper level management. To address this, the company established a group within the organisation known as the ‘stress working group’. The aim of this group was fourfold: firstly, to investigate the issues of stress within the organisation; secondly, to identify the origins and causes; thirdly, to formulate an action plan; and lastly, disseminate information for individuals coping with stress to promote enhanced coping and effective management. This last objective was achieved by developing a booklet, with the assistance to external help agencies, to be published and subsequently distributed to all staff members.
Implementation: In order to achieve the first three objectives it was decided to undertake a survey. This survey was conducted in two phases: (1) Piloting the survey: Developing the pilot questionnaire involved two processes. In the first process, a questionnaire was proposed that broadly examined sources of stress, coping health-related behaviours and outcomes of stress. The second phase, involved extensive discussion with the “stress working group” to tailor the questionnaire to the needs and requirements of the organisation and its specific situation. The results of the survey were analysed and the appropriate modification to survey were made. (2) Survey: The instrument was widely distributed throughout the organisation. The survey was comprehensive and covered the following areas: personal and work-related demography, sources of stress at work, personal life events, coping styles, social support at and outside work, physical health status, psychological wellbeing status, health-related behaviours, and job satisfaction. The survey was constructed based on a series of established scientific measures; however, most of these scales were augmented with additional questions to respectively tailor the questionnaire to the organisation’s specific situation. The survey was used to identify the main psychosocial features of the work environment which were related to reduced health and well being. Additionally, the analysis concentrated on characterising the experience of stress for specific groups in the workforce (e.g., identify ‘at risk’ groups, examining gender, age, company departments, shift work, and grade levels). Developing an Action Plan: Based on the extensive results of the survey a set of coherent intervention actions were developed. A participative approach was utilised; whereby, the project team was consulted about potential measures and where subsequent action teams set up by the company consulted widely on the formulation of a suitable intervention. This was accomplished in three stages: 1) The results of the survey were feedback to the “stress work group” through a series of presentations delivered by the consultants. 2) The consultants drafted several recommendations, which were presented to the survey team. A dual approach to intervention was proposed: a preventative approach and a health promotion approach. 3) The survey results were presented to employees through a series of meetings and presentations. Additionally, staff members received a summary of the report. Two action teams were established to examine, amend and implement the recommendations: one for each the health promotion and organisational development approaches. Their function was to examine and prioritise and develop an action plan to implement the outlined recommendations. Training and consultancy input was provided to the teams by the external consultants: both teams were active for one year following their establishment. The main task for the organisational development team was to adapt the recommendations into ongoing programmes which were already established and taking place within the company; and where appropriate and possible develop new ones. For the health promotion team, there primarily objective was to repackage existing services, as opposed to developing new ones: these services included the medical department, the employee assistance programme service, the staff welfare department, and the staff development (training) department. Both teams each produced a report, which transformed the proposed recommendations by consultants into a concrete action plan. These reports outlined both short-term and long-term actions the company wished to undertake.
Practical applications: This intervention requires expert support in designing the survey and is not readily applicable to smaller organisations where qualitative methods work better.
Innovative aspects: Two complimentary approaches: a preventative approach and a health promotion approach were used. The peventative approach focuses on organisational development; where action is taken on changing aspects of the working environment, practices and company policies which may lead to stress. The health promotion approach focuses on improving health and welfare services of the company to address work-related stress.
Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability): Formal evaluation was not conducted on this intervention; however, the authors provide anecdotal evidence to the some of the major outcomes/benefits of the interventions undertaken.
Benefits (including cost effectiveness): The major outcomes of the interventions included redesign of shift schedules, design and implementation of a support manual for new and existing shift workers, implementation of training for new shift workers and for supervisors, and overall improvements in communication practices. The authors noted that although these outcomes did not amount to an evaluation of the intervention, they did, however, indicate that the programme had positive effects. The two intervention teams reported that the experience of occupational stress had been addressed in an effective manner, although not completely removed. Additionally, it has been observed that a positive result of the intervention was increased awareness of occupational stress and its implications, and the development of a set of skills within the organisation to address these issues more effectively in the future.
References: Wynne, R. & Rafferty, R. (1999). Ireland: Stress prevention in an airport management company. In C.L. Cooper & M. Kompier Preventing Stress, Improving Productivity: European Case Studies in the Workplace (pg242-263). London, UK: Routledge.
Comments: Method requires external expertise and is not readily applicable to smaller organisations. Also no formal evaluation was conducted.