Work related psychosocial risks and new forms of work organisation a European perspective Ceren INAN DARES-CTS

Introduction Forms of work organisation typology developed by Valeyre & Lorenz (Valeyre & Lorenz 2003) applied by the authors (and co.) to 3rd and the 4th EWCS (Valeyre & Lorenz 2004b and 2009) to business surveys (Bunel M. et al., 2008) used in various studies Typology is based on employees of market sector (workplace size 10 p. or more)

Introduction Valeyre & Lorenz Typology Forms of work organisation Lean production forms Discretionary learning forms Taylorist forms Traditional or simple structure forms

Introduction Lean production Team work Job rotation Quality management Pace constraints (Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990) Toyota Production System (TPS) Total Quality Management (TQM) Just In Time (JIT) Autonomous teams (AT)

Introduction Discretionary learning form of work organisation Autonomy in work Auto-quality of work Autonomous teamwork Learning & problem solving Complex tasks (Berggren 1992) Socio-technical systems Responsible autonomy Adaptability Whole tasks

Introduction A fair amount of studies suggest that lean can causes mental harm mostly trough job strain (Landsbergis, Cahill & Schnall, 1999 ; Askenazy 2002)

Introduction Job strain is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and hypertension musculoskeletal disorders depression chronic stress (Cahill & Landsbergis, 1996; Karasek & Thorell, 1990; Belkic K. et al., 2004; Chouanière D. et al., 2011)

Introduction And what about discretionary learning forms of work organisation? causes mental harm? generates stress? or a good alternative to the lean production (regarding PSRs)?

Introduction Studies based on the 3rd and the 4th European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) provides empirical evidence that experienced stress at work, psychosocial risks (PSR) exposure and some psychological troubles (anxiety, insomnia and irritability) are significantly more common among workers in lean production (Valeyre 2006 ; Valeyre et al. 2009)

Introduction “Quality of work and employment is clearly better under discretionary learning forms” However, “Only the indicators concerning long working hours and flexible daily working hours, and the psychological working conditions of intrinsic rewards and friendship at work, do not significantly differentiate the discretionary learning and lean production forms”. (Valeyre et al. 2009, page 42)

Introduction The aim of this study is to examine the effect of these two new forms of work organisation on work related PSRs of European workers by using the 5th EWCS (for the general survey report, see Parent-Thirion Agnès et al. 2012)

Data and method New forms of work organisation in Europe indirectly identified by using an association of 15 organisational variables [see paper] in a multiple correspondence analysis and clustering techniques (for the methodology, see Valeyre & Lorenz 2003, 2004b and 2009)

Data and method Psychosocial risks factors 57 variables Specific PSR measures decision latitude, job demands and job strain quality of management Measures on the consequences of PSRs (output) violence at work, experienced stress at work and mental health (WHO-5 score)

Data and method multiple correspondence analysis on Psychosocial risks factors focus on the first four dimensions (24% of inertia) regressions on specific PSR measures decision latitude, job demands and job strain (no JCQ, see paper) quality of management regressions on consequences of PSRs (output) violence at work, experienced stress at work and mental health (WHO-5 score)

Data and method For each variable 3 types of regression logistic regression, multilevel regression with random effects on intercept at country level (u0) multilevel regression with random effects on intercept (u0) and on the effect of Lean production (u1)

Data and method multilevel regression with random effect (u0) on intercept (β0) at country level Y=β*X + β Lean *Lean + β Taylorist *Taylorist + β Simple *Simple + (β0+u0) / u0 ~> N(0;s2u0) multilevel regression with random effects on intercept (u0) and on the effect of Lean production (u1) Y=β*X + (u1+β Lean )*Lean + β Taylorist *Taylorist + β Simple *Simple + (β0+u0) / u0 ~> N(0;s2u0) and u1 ~> N(0;s2u1) Random effects of u0 and u1 covariate as u0 & u1 ~> N(0;0,s2u0;c1;s2u1) In case the covariate of u0 & u1 (C1) could not be estimated, we supposed it to be null (fixed as C1=0)

Results - decisional latitude first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low decisional latitude (+) to those with high decisional latitude (-)

Results - decisional latitude first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low decisional latitude to those with high decisional latitude Employees with low decisional latitude Taylorist Elementary occupations Plant and machine operators, and assemblers Simple structures Manufacture Transport and storage Employees with high decisional latitude Learning Managers Professionals Technicians and associate professionals Information and communication Finance and insurance Scientific and tech. activities

Results - decisional latitude first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low decisional latitude to those with high decisional latitude Country effect (multilevel reg.) high decisional latitude low decisional latitude

Results - psychological demands second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees undergoing high psychological demands (+) to those having less demanding jobs (-)

Results - psychological demands second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees undergoing high psychological demands to those having less demanding jobs Employees with high psychological demands Lean Managers & Professionals Turkey & France Establishments big in size Industry Employees with low psychological demands Simple Poland Elementary occupations Establishments small in size Administrative and support

Results - psychological demands second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees undergoing high psychological demands to those having less demanding jobs Country effect (multilevel reg.) low psychological demands high psychological demands

Results – job strain plan resulting from these first two dimensions (17% of the inertia), presents a similar structure with the Karasek’s demand-control model

Results - multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)

Active JobsHigh-strain Low-strainPassive Jobs

Active JobsHigh-strain Low-strainPassive Jobs

Active JobsHigh-strain Low-strainPassive Jobs

Results – job strain Effect of organisational forms ( β org ) on job strain Higher odds in Lean and Taylorist organisation to have job strain So, less chance to have a job strain in discretionary learning type of work organisation

Results – job strain Country effect (multilevel reg.) No Job Strain Job Strain

Results – perceived quality of management Third dimension of the MCA opposes well managed close to high-strain jobs to mismanaged passive-jobs Fourth dimension of the MCA opposes some public related external risks to hierarchy related internal risks In both cases the quality of management is an important factor

Results – perceived quality of management Better perception of quality of management in discretionary learning type of work organisation In Lean, the perception of quality of management is not bad The perception of quality of management is clearly worst in Simple and Taylorist organisation Effect of organisational forms on the perception of the quality of management ( βorg )

Results – quality of management In “more developed” European countries employees are more critic about the quality of the management Quality of management Not bad Bad

Conclusion – job strain Lean and Taylorist organisation More demanding jobs Lesser decisional latitude Relatively higher odds to have job strain Observed trough multiple correspondence analysis Verified by regressions

Conclusion - violence at work, experienced stress at work and mental health (WHO-5 score) Lean and Taylorist organisation Higher levels of experienced stress in work More violence (verbal abuse; unwanted sexual attention; humiliating behaviour; physical violence; bullying; sexual harassment) Higher odds to have mental health at risk (WHO-5 score) …than Discretionary learning type of work organisation

Thank you for your attention !