However employees at small companies may experience less stress at work due to direct contacts within the company.
Respondents’ views on who was responsible for handling work-related stress in OHS and enterprises varied. The OHS was seen as responsible for work-related stress most in the smallest and biggest companies. In the companies that were categorized as middle size (between 51–101 workers) the importance of collaboration with administration, HR and occupational health and safety department in work-related stress issues was emphasized. In the larger enterprises, respondents favored OHS collaboration with the HR department and supervisors in stress issues, leaving administration in the background. In contrast, respondents from smaller companies attributed the responsibility to the administration and the OHS.
It is possible that in smaller workplaces HR matters are included in the administration’s responsibilities as they do not have an HR department. In larger workplaces the administration may be seen as too remote from this kind of decision, thus respondents may have assigned the responsibility to the HR department and supervisors.
Collaboration with OHS was seen as important. The need for active communication between the workplace and OHS, with regular meetings was highlighted. Respondents expected preventive activities by OHS in workplaces. It seems that there is inadequate knowledge of work-related stress prevention actions in workplaces and OHS support is needed. This supports previous research results16).
Different reviews of job stress interventions suggest that the common approach to combating job stress is to focus on the stressed individual without due consideration of the direct impacts of working conditions on health17–21). In the USA in 80’ health promotion activities were assessed in private work places. Stress management activities were provided at 27% of surveyed work sites in the country. The frequency of activities provided varied by industry type and by region of the country22). The situation was similar in our study − work-related stress management activities have been conducted in only a few enterprises. As the response rate to mail questionnaire in first round of our study was low there might be quite few work places with active stress management programs in Finland.
Psychosocial risks like work-related stress have been evaluated also to be important part of occupational safety and health (OSH). The guidance on dealing with psychosocial risk factors by occupational safety and health has been published by International organizations and EU agencies, which based on risk management approach. The best practices in real life have been reviewed in Europe and in these different assessments on EC (European Community) regulatory standards on practice have been found out the gap between policy and practice due to a lack of clarity related to regulatory frameworks and guidance on the management of psychosocial risks, but also barriers related to enterprise characteristics and management at enterprise level. The level of acknowledgement, awareness and prioritization of these issues varies between countries association with a lack of expertise, research and appropriate infrastructure. There has found out low prioritization of preventive actions at enterprise level. There is a need for systematic and effective policies to prevent and control psychosocial risks at work, linked to companies’ management practices with tools that support organizations at the organizational level.
In the secondary analysis of ESENER study (European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks) revealed that the most important driver of managing workrelated stress is OSH management, and the most important barriers were lack of the technical support and guidance and lack of resources. Good OSH management turned out to be the strongest predictor for all procedures and measures to deal with psychosocial risks, independent of the size, sector, status, and country of origin of the enterprises. They found out a need for continuous support and further knowledge on how to establish good psychosocial risk management procedures for work-related stress11).
However employees at small companies may experience less stress at work due to direct contacts within the company.Respondents’ views on who was responsible for handling work-related stress in OHS and enterprises varied. The OHS was seen as responsible for work-related stress most in the smallest and biggest companies. In the companies that were categorized as middle size (between 51–101 workers) the importance of collaboration with administration, HR and occupational health and safety department in work-related stress issues was emphasized. In the larger enterprises, respondents favored OHS collaboration with the HR department and supervisors in stress issues, leaving administration in the background. In contrast, respondents from smaller companies attributed the responsibility to the administration and the OHS.It is possible that in smaller workplaces HR matters are included in the administration’s responsibilities as they do not have an HR department. In larger workplaces the administration may be seen as too remote from this kind of decision, thus respondents may have assigned the responsibility to the HR department and supervisors.Collaboration with OHS was seen as important. The need for active communication between the workplace and OHS, with regular meetings was highlighted. Respondents expected preventive activities by OHS in workplaces. It seems that there is inadequate knowledge of work-related stress prevention actions in workplaces and OHS support is needed. This supports previous research results16).Different reviews of job stress interventions suggest that the common approach to combating job stress is to focus on the stressed individual without due consideration of the direct impacts of working conditions on health17–21). In the USA in 80’ health promotion activities were assessed in private work places. Stress management activities were provided at 27% of surveyed work sites in the country. The frequency of activities provided varied by industry type and by region of the country22). The situation was similar in our study − work-related stress management activities have been conducted in only a few enterprises. As the response rate to mail questionnaire in first round of our study was low there might be quite few work places with active stress management programs in Finland.Psychosocial risks like work-related stress have been evaluated also to be important part of occupational safety and health (OSH). The guidance on dealing with psychosocial risk factors by occupational safety and health has been published by International organizations and EU agencies, which based on risk management approach. The best practices in real life have been reviewed in Europe and in these different assessments on EC (European Community) regulatory standards on practice have been found out the gap between policy and practice due to a lack of clarity related to regulatory frameworks and guidance on the management of psychosocial risks, but also barriers related to enterprise characteristics and management at enterprise level. The level of acknowledgement, awareness and prioritization of these issues varies between countries association with a lack of expertise, research and appropriate infrastructure. There has found out low prioritization of preventive actions at enterprise level. There is a need for systematic and effective policies to prevent and control psychosocial risks at work, linked to companies’ management practices with tools that support organizations at the organizational level.In the secondary analysis of ESENER study (European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks) revealed that the most important driver of managing workrelated stress is OSH management, and the most important barriers were lack of the technical support and guidance and lack of resources. Good OSH management turned out to be the strongest predictor for all procedures and measures to deal with psychosocial risks, independent of the size, sector, status, and country of origin of the enterprises. They found out a need for continuous support and further knowledge on how to establish good psychosocial risk management procedures for work-related stress11).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..