From all sides now
HR practitioners are increasingly looking for a preventative approach to stress claims rather than a reactive and purely legal one. Here, analysts from three different disciplines strive to come up with holistic solutions.
Gwenllian-Jane Williams, psychologist
What is this issue that costs British business so much in time and revenue? The Health and Safety Executive has defined occupational stress as 'the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed upon them' (HSE, 2001).
There can be little dispute with this definition, yet its catch-all nature illustrates the vagueness of stress. 'Adverse reaction' can be anything from headaches to ulcers, depending on the individual; the 'excessive pressures' felt by one person are motivating challenges to another and one person's accepted job responsibilities are seen as excessive demands by others. The only thing that can be said with any certainty about stress is that it is complex and impossible to measure accurately. There is no clinical definition. Yet it is felt in all types of organisation, at all levels and by all types of people. At any one time, a fifth of British workers rate themselves as very or extremely stressed.
In analysing the causes of occupational stress, the organisation has to look both inside and out. The economy in which a business operates will exacerbate any internal stressors. In times of growth, people tend to report long hours and workload as the key causes. More recently, in the economic downturn, it is more likely to be triggered by general insecurity, cost-cutting and diminishing prospects.
Within the organisation, culture and values will have a considerable impact on stress levels. While there is no defined 'stress-prone culture', there is wide agreement that organisations who fail to put their people at the very centre of their values will be prone to internal stressors such as poor communication, ineffective people management, lack of development and slow decision making.
Culture, like stress, is not so easy to measure. Nevertheless, all organisations can analyse aspects of the business that research has shown to be stress factors. Staff surveys can go some way to identifying weak spots. However, if the organisation wants to get a thorough picture of stress levels, then a properly developed diagnostic tool will get the accurate, in-depth information required for moving forward to management strategies. For example, the Corporate Stress Profiler, currently being developed by CGR Business Psychologists, analyses 10 key areas of a business which research has identified as causing or connected to stress.
Diagnosing the causes of stress is only one weapon in the armoury against this business threat. Indeed, diagnosis is often a reaction after stress has begun to manifest in absenteeism, turnover and low morale. At the forefront of the management of stress needs to be the ability of managers to recognise the symptoms. Again, this is not necessarily an easy task as stress can manifest in any of three symptom categories - emotional, behavioural or physical. Also, symptoms can be short-term or long-term.
Behaviours are the easiest symptoms to recognise. These include such patterns as hoarding work, erratic decision making, social withdrawal, unrealistically long hours, evident worrying, inability to concentrate and change in normal mood, to name but a few. Emotional symptoms will be evident to managers who know their people well. Typical emotional reactions include anxiety, loss of confidence and an overwhelming feeling of inability to cope.
It is the physical symptoms that are hardest to spot and yet the most threatening in the long term. Most of us will have experienced short-term stress reactions, usually in response to a particular stressful event or situation: tension, dry mouth, sweating and rapid heartbeat. It is when these symptoms are frequent, hidden and prolonged that physical illnesses can develop, such as musculo-skeletal complaints, digestive problems, sleep disruption, fatigue and high blood-pressure. It is these symptoms which underlie the greater part of the business threat, either as absence, lowered productivity or, increasingly, as a basis for litigation.
Ian Farrand, HR consultant
The complexity of stress management is a recurring theme for many businesses these days. Those involved in HR management need to be sensitive and aware of the negative aspects of stress and the expensive effects this can have for the individual and employer.
The HR practitioner often has the difficult role of ensuring stress management is included in strategic aspects of employee support. Not acknowledging the potential for stress in an organisation can have disastrous consequences for the business.
Organisations that have effective occupational health support services are more likely to be in a position to provide assistance to individuals suffering adverse effects of stress. The individual's manager, HR and OH need to work closely in providing support, whether this be changing the job description or looking for alternative work.
In terms of risk assessment, it is essential to examine the potential 'hot spots' that may trigger stress in an individual - particularly an unreasonable workload, but also factors such as the physical conditions of the job, job design, and related work organisation and conditions.
Businesses need also to examine their value systems. There is little point, for instance, in promulgating work-life balance polices, if you are at the same time driving people too hard through over-zealous performance management, targets and objective setting. HR practitioners have a crucial role in bringing management attention to the fact that there are three good reasons for ensuring there are no adverse effects from stress for employees - business, legal and moral.
Organisations are very jittery about who will be next to accuse them of causing stress. Some companies have introduced employee support systems because they genuinely see their employees as a valuable asset. Good practice suggests the best remedies lie in reviewing management practice and improving communication. Find the cause of the real problem; talk to staff and communicate what is going on in the organisation; listen to what people need. Long hours, for example, may not be the cause of the stress - take an onion-skin approach and ask why you have long hours. Is it cultural or do you simply need more staff?
We need to be more creative about how much people work, when and where. The speed of new technology and communications must be made to serve us rather than lead to us becoming slaves to the system even further.
Christopher Mordue, employment law
The recent Court of Appeal case of Sutherland v Hatton (2002) nails the myth that occupational stress in itself entitles sufferers to compensation. The crucial question is whether there was a foreseeable risk of harm from occupational stress. Without this, the employee's case will not get off the ground.
This risk can be established in a variety of ways, but the Court of Appeal placed an onus on the individual employee to alert the employer to potential risks to health. Three of the four cases considered in the appeal failed on the grounds that the employee had not done enough to warn the employer they could not cope and that work pressures were causing their health to suffer. Only once this threshold is satisfied will the employer come under a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise the risk to health.
Employees could become more vocal in raising stress concerns with their employers. The TUC's response to the Court of Appeal decision was to pledge to ensure members raised internal grievances to overcome this legal hurdle. But in the long term, cases will turn less on the foreseeability of harm than on the adequacy of the employer's response. While the court took the pragmatic view that in some cases the employer may not be able to do anything to remove or reduce the risk of stress-related illness, you should still be careful to consider all possible solutions and have good reasons to justify any failure to act. This is very similar to the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act.
The Court of Appeal suggested employers providing confidential helplines with access to professional support would rarely be found to be in breach of their duty. But this must be viewed with caution - a helpline is unlikely to prove a complete defence. It is, however, a sensible practical step and removes one of the principle barriers to employees raising their concerns - that for most employees, admitting they cannot cope to line managers is unthinkable. Bear in mind that even if there is a helpline, the issue still needs to be referred to management so the root causes of any issues can be addressed.
The court also suggested employers are entitled to assume employees are fit to perform their duties. However, this does not mean employers will only be under a duty to act if the employee raises a complaint. Employers must also be vigilant for signs of a risk to health from the wider workforce, from unusual patterns of absence or simply from the knowledge that they are asking too much of a particular employee.
In any event, personal injury claims are only one of the many liabilities generated by occupational stress. It also raises issues of disability discrimination and, in the case of ill-health terminations, the risk of unfair dismissal. The underlying causes of stress are a common basis for claims. Discrimination and unfair dismissal awards can include compensation for psychiatric injury.
These risks can only be controlled through comprehensive stress policies, the establishment of a culture which allows problems to be raised by employees, and the training of line management to recognise the indications of stress and to deal appropriately with the underlying causes and the management of the stressed employee. Closing your eyes to such problems until an employee complains can still generate significant liabilities.
Burying your head in the sand means other parts of your anatomy are left exposed - you simply can't see the claim coming.
This article was adapted by Dr John McMullen from a recent seminar
organised by Pinsent Curtis Biddle and CGR Business Psychologists
Four steps to good stress management
