Lack of predictability main cause of stress in workplace

The Norwegian researcher Lars Andersen has published new research on the organisational factors that lead to stress in companies. ‘Lack of predictability’ is identified as the single biggest stressor in Norwegian working life, caused by factors such as disturbances and unexpected changes in the workplace, along with improvised solutions and a breakdown in communication. This leads to stress and inefficiency in companies, resulting in a ‘loss-loss’ situation for both workers and management.

About the research

In his book Underorganisering [Under-organising], Lars Andersen explains how many of the stress-related problems emerging in the workplace may be related to the restructured and flexible organisations of today. The book is based on research and development studies conducted in Norwegian enterprises over the period 1991–2001. The first evaluation was on ‘sickness absenteeism’ and was conducted between 1991 and 1993. The second study, entitled ‘Enterprise development – reduction of stress and absenteeism’, was published in 1997.

Explaining stress in three stages

From an organisational perspective, many of the explanations for health and work environment problems often maintain a narrow focus on the immediate work group and their job demands, as well as on manager–worker relations and cooperation/participation. Although these explanations are important, a broader perspective is also needed, encompassing the overall company structures. In this respect, Mr Andersen has developed an explanation for work-related stress, which he categorises according to three distinct stages.

First stage – initial observation

At the level of the individual worker, Mr Andersen recognises, like most researchers before him, that workers’ ability to cope with the actual workload largely explains how stressful situations are experienced. Good coping mechanisms are conducive to learning, while poor mechanisms result in stress. Workers who feel that they cannot cope or handle the demands over a long-term period tend to experience the feeling of lagging behind, reduced motivation and other psychological effects – often in combination with physical health problems such as muscular and skeletal pains.

Second stage – direct cause

The workload or more precisely the stress factor which the individual worker finds challenging can vary significantly in nature. Such stressors include time pressure, having too many and/or conflicting tasks and being required to work at high speed. However, according to Andersen’s research, the single biggest stressor in Norwegian working life is a ‘lack of predictability’, followed by lack of social support and being required to work at high speed. Lack of predictability may be attributed to minor or major disturbances in the work, frequently improvised solutions, unexpected changes in plans and a breakdown in communications – all of which occur against the backdrop of heavy workloads, high customer expectations and substantial time pressure. This lack of predictability, in turn, reduces workers’ ability to plan their work on an individual basis, as well as their control over the work situation. The lack of predictability is directly caused by a weakness or even breakdown in the transference of information between managers and employees. The effects of this stressor are both serious and twofold: on the one hand, the workers experience stress and possibly also illness; on the other hand, the management’s organisational efficiency is weakened. Therefore, this could be defined as a ‘loss-loss’ situation – and one which both parties should have a strong common interest in solving.

Third stage – structural explanation

The communication breakdown occurs as a result of what Mr Andersen describes as a ‘gulf’ in the organisation, arising from large waves of unpredictability. In modern organisations, a similar gap emerges where information tends not to be relayed properly, and is instead largely returned to the sender without ever having reached the intended receiver – or else is not understood by the receiver. The ‘gulf’ occurs vertically and in both ways in the organisation: workers do not receive the relevant information from managers and the messages sent upwards are not seen as relevant central management issues – especially by middle management. This gulf constitutes a significant barrier for information exchange in the organisation.

The gulf is not an intended part of the organisation – but rather represents a true dysfunction of a downsized organisation structured to serve the needs defined by a strategically oriented top-down management structure.

Negative outcomes

The aforementioned ‘gulf’ may result in a number of negative outcomes, including:

• a lack of insight by management into employees’ everyday experiences and insight into production, often labelled as ‘silent competence’ – when this becomes invisible to management, it can result in plans and work schedules that are based on assumptions and an idealistic interpretation of production challenges; for their part, workers may perceive such plans as being too theoretical and/or unrealistic in terms of their actual implementation;

• a reduction in problem-solving abilities at lower levels of the organisation;

• a situation whereby the messages which employees try to relay to management are perceived as discontent and result in little else except ‘too many meetings’ at which nothing concrete is discussed;

• poor efficiency and use of recourses, in addition to health problems and negative stress.

The emergence of such ‘gulfs’ in companies hinders a natural flow of communication, in turn reducing workers’ opportunities to plan work and overlook changes and expectations. This reduction in the predictability people’s everyday work situation represents a major stress factor for employees.

References

Andersen, L., Sykefraværsprosjektet 1991–1993, Erfaringer fra bransjer i LO/NHO-området, Trondheim, Institute for Social Research in Industry (SINTEF IFIM), 1994.

Andersen L., Bedriftsutvikling – reduksjon av stress og fravær, Trondheim, SINTEF IFIM, 1997.

Andersen, L., Underorganisering. Bedriftsutvikling og ansattes arbeidsvilkår, Oslo, Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, 2002.

Steinar Aasnæss, National Surveillance System for Work Environment and Occupational Health (NOA)