Supporting worker sleep is good for business

in total worker health, Uncategorized, job design, job strain, industrial organizational psychology
Don’t sleep on the job.
Matthew Jacques/Shutterstock.com

Leslie Hammer, Oregon Health & Science University and Lindsey Alley, Oregon Health & Science University

A long-haul truck driver fell asleep during his shift in Sunbury, Pennsylvania, on Jan. 13. Heading north on Route 147, he drifted into the eastbound shoulder for almost 375 feet, struck the side of the road and flipped his rig. Thankfully, the driver only suffered a minor injury and nobody else was harmed.

Poor sleep affects up to 70% of Americans and increases the risk of shortened lifespan and death. This includes deaths and injuries related to road accidents, stroke and reduced cardiovascular health. Continue reading »

The 4 Factiest Facts Overlooked in the Latest Wellness Study Kerfuffle

in Uncategorized, Wellbeing, Employee Wellness Programs

Skuffle cloud to represent wellness industry stakeholder dispute

A study of the BJ’s Wholesale Club employee wellness program attracted a lot of attention in the media, but the most important facts about the study were overlooked.

“The model aims to answer the question: what is the effect of offering an individual the opportunity to participate in a wellness program?”

— From the study’s supplement (eMethods 3. Statistical Analysis)

Facty Fact 1: Worksites, Not Workers, Were Randomized

The BJ’s study was not primarily an evaluation of participation outcomes: Continue reading »

Job Demands-Resources: Untangling Stress and Motivation

in Stress, job crafting
Still shot from Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times" illustrating high demands, low resources, no social support on an assembly line.

High demands, low resources. No social support.

To understand what job crafting has to do with employee health and wellbeing, it’s important to understanding the inner workings of job stress and motivation.

In a previous post — “I’ve Seen the Future of Employee Wellbeing: It’s Name Is Job Crafting” — I explained how, in 2001, Amy Wrzesniewski and Jane Dutton proposed that employees tweak their job tasks, workplace social connections, and perspective about their role to gain a greater sense of purpose and meaning, potentially leading to better job performance.

Around that same time, in the Netherlands, Evangelia Demerouti, Arnold Bakker, and others introduced their model of Job Demands-Resources (JD-R), which has since been fine-tuned and validated as relevant to a full range of occupations and outcomes in countless studies around the world.

If you’re familiar with job stress research, you know that job stress has causes, and shouldn’t be dismissed as a choice employees make.

Forget trendy notions that “stress is good.” It’s wishful thinking based on cherry-picked evidence. If stress is so great, why aren’t employees demanding more of it?

Forty years of research has shown that harmful job stress is a result of jobs that have low levels of autonomy and high demands.

Job Demands and Autonomy Are Linked to Health Problems

Over the years, job autonomy (or control) has been defined different ways, but can be broadly understood as limited flexibility (for example, with the tasks of the job) and limited decisional latitude, meaning the employee isn’t permitted or encouraged to make decisions in their work or about their work.

Job demands originally meant the psychological intensity of work, but ultimately can be understood to include workload, time pressure, and physical demands.

Job strain illustration shows relationship of demands, control, social support, and health.

Job strain

Robert Karasek introduced the theory of demands and control in 1979. He and others have shown that jobs in which workers consistently encounter high job demands with low job control — the combination of which is called job strain — are linked to a variety of health issues, especially high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, as well as depression, anxiety, burnout, and metabolic disorders. Reducing job strain can improve productivity.

Karasek later learned that social support “buffers” the negative effects of high-strain jobs. Social support originally meant supervisors’ and co-workers’ support for performing job tasks, but can be understood in all of the many ways it’s been defined: Having a sense of “belongingness” at work; having co-workers who are empathetic and confidantes; having supervisors who take a genuine interest in the personal and professional lives of team members; and having a best friend at work.

In sum, high demands and low control are an unhealthy combo. (High demands and high control are not necessarily bad.)

Effort-Reward Imbalance Is Linked to Health Problems

Unhealthy job stress has been framed in other ways. Germany’s Johannes Siegrist found that work in which the required effort is disproportionately high compared to the job rewards— effort-reward imbalance — leads to the same kinds of health problems that result from job strain. “Rewards,” here, doesn’t just mean financial compensation, but also career opportunities and level of esteem within the organization.

The effort-reward imbalance model reminds me of an encounter I once had with a business analyst who transferred to another department because she didn’t feel valued in the department she was hired into. When I asked her, “What would have made you feel more valued?” her answer was not “better pay” or “someone saying ‘good job’”…

“I just wanted someone to listen to my ideas,” she told me.

A worker who doesn’t feel valued (i.e. esteemed) by being “listened to” is likely to have a higher level of disengagement and health impairment. This offers a glimpse into how management style, job design, organizational culture, performance, turnover, health, and wellbeing are all interconnected.

Overtime, Job Insecurity, Injustice, and More…

Several other causes of job stress have been identified, and most of them can in some way fit into the demand-control and/or the effort-reward imbalance model:

      • • chronic overtime
      • • job insecurity
      • • work-life conflict
      • • role ambiguity (not being clear of what’s expected, receiving contradictory direction, duplication with other workers’ roles, or not understanding how the work fits into the overall organization — all of which are among the most common complaints I’ve heard from employees who report high job stress).
      • • organizational injustice (being treated unfairly, which at the extreme includes bullying and harassment)
      • • lower levels of status within the organization
      • • sustaining high levels of vigilance (e.g. first responders, air traffic controllers, etc.)

Back to Bakker

The overlaps between and the nuances of these job stress theories makes them difficult to understand and apply. That’s where Bakker and Demerouti’s Job Demands-Resources model comes in. While building on the existing theories and expanding upon them, it also provides a simpler way of making sense of job stress and motivation. I consider it a comprehensible and practical  unifying theory.

JD-R posits that all job traits can be categorized as either demands or resources. 

      • • Demands require sustained effort from employees. They’re an expenditure of personal energy.
      • • Resources help fuel progress toward work-related goals. They’re restorative, buffering the effects of job demands —and activating personal development.

I interpret JD-R to mean that Karasek’s “demands,” Siegrest’s “efforts,” as well as role ambiguity, job insecurity, injustice, tedium, and work-life conflict are demands.

Job autonomy, social support, rewards, recognition, feedback, task variety, and training are examples of resources.

Side note: If you’re familiar with Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s self-determination theory — popularized in the Daniel Pink bestseller, Drive — which tells us that motivation and flourishing depend on autonomy, competence, and relatedness (i.e. social connection), you may recognize that job resources generally can be matched to the components of self-determination.

So…

      • • Demands regulate job stress. 
      • • Resources regulate job motivation and engagement. 
      • • And the two forces may act upon each other.

Looking Forward…

That’s enough theory for now. What I’ve come to appreciate about JD-R is how, according to research by Bakker and others, it serves as a foundation for a practical application: job crafting.

JD-R takes job crafting beyond meaning and purpose — which has received most of the public attention — and ties it directly into health and wellbeing.

I’ll spell this out further in a future post, and also draw the important distinction between positive and negative job demands. I’ll share what research shows about the effectiveness of job crafting interventions for improving employee wellbeing, work engagement, absenteeism, performance, and productivity. And I’ll offer evidence-based tips on how you can prime your organization for job crafting.

*************

For an excellent overview, see Bakker and Demerouti’s 2016 article: Job Demands-Resources Theory: Taking Stock and Looking Forward

Mapping Workplace Demons to Health, Costs, and Mortality

in Uncategorized, Stress, job design, job strain
Desk worker stressed with long working hours

Photo courtesy of Adam Foster. http://ow.ly/MKMke

The workplace demons that threaten employee health include long work hours, job insecurity, low job control, high job demands, shift work, effort/reward imbalances, role ambiguity, work-family conflict, inadequate workplace social support, and unfair treatment. These can be bucketed in various ways, but whatever you call them, they are the work conditions — controllable by employers — that research has consistently shown to influence employee health and well-being.

Now, along comes a study out of Stanford University that not only endeavors to quantify the burden — in terms of health outcomes, cost, and mortality — of these demons (what the researchers called “stressors” and I sometimes refer to as the workplace determinants of health), but also puts it into context relative to other, more commonly recognized, health issues.

Spoiler alert: More than 120,000 deaths per year and approximately 5% to 8% of annual healthcare costs may be attributable to how U.S. companies manage their workforce, according to this analysis. The mortality rate for these stressors, plus another the researchers found to have significant impact — lack of health insurance — was on par with the fourth and fifth largest causes of death in the U.S.: heart disease and accidents. It was greater than mortality resulting from diabetes, Alzheimer’s, or influenza.

Exposure to the following stressors was found to be more harmful than secondhand tobacco smoke:

  • Lack of health insurance
  • Low organizational justice (fairness)
  • High job demands
  • Shift work
  • Unemployment

And — again, using secondhand smoke as a benchmark — the conditions that had a greater affect on mortality are:

  • Low job control
  • Unemployment
  • Long work hours
  • Lack of health insurance
  • Work-family conflict

The Stanford researchers concluded,

Employers may not make appropriate decisions concerning workplace management if they are unaware of the link between management decisions and employee health and healthcare costs. Our analysis suggests that for such organizations, paying attention to the structure of the workplace and the associated job stressors experienced by their employees may be a fruitful way to reduce unnecessary healthcare costs.

But they acknowledge that employers may have limited motivation to address these issues if, indeed, they’re not on the hook for the costs of health care — for example, in the cases of employees who have been laid off or who are not offered health insurance. The study didn’t delve into associations between stress and productivity.

The analysis was conducted by Joel Goh, Jeffrey Pfeffer, and Stefanos A. Zenios and published in Management Science. Goh is now on the faculty of Harvard Business School.

The researchers are conservative yet insightful in their expectations regarding the implications of their work:

While we stop short of claiming that employer decisions have a definite effect on these outcomes and costs, denying the possibility of an effect is not prudent either. Analyzing how employers affect health outcomes and costs through the workplace decisions they make is incredibly important if we are to more fully understand the landscape of health and well-being.

And what of our current approach to employee well-being, with its slaphappy embrace of screenings, health risk assessments, health coaching, apps, wearables and incentives? How does it jibe with the real determinants of worker health? Not very well, according to study co-author Jeffrey Pfeffer. In his YouTube interview for the Stanford Graduate School of Business, he says,

Employers worry mostly about individual decisions: eating, exercise, smoking, drinking…things like that. Or about policy issues like how we pay for health care. A lot of their excess health care costs come from what happens to people every day in the work environment… Things that employers could fix, if they wanted to.

Desk worker stressed with long working hours

Read Dr. Pfeffer’s summary of this research in the Fortune article, “Is Your Employer Killing You?


[This post was originally published on Bob Merberg’s Health Shifting blog on May 12, 2015. Edited on March 21, 2018 — minor word changes — for clarity.]