31.01.2012, BAuA, Berlin
Prof. Dr. Gisela Mohr
Dr. Kathleen Otto
Dr. Thomas Rigotti
PhD Torsten Holstad
PhD Christiane Stempel
Prof. Dr. Kerstin Isaksson Prof. Dr. Ulla Kinnunen
Dr. Eric Hansen
PhD Kaisa Perko
PhD Carina Loeb
Background

New and Emerging Risks at Work – Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)

Consortium composed of 18 European agencies:
Germany: BAUA and DGUV
Finland: Institute of Occupational Health
Schweden: Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, FAS

Goals: Enhancing quality and cooperation in the OSH research; synergistic
effects and improved flow of information

Joint call in 2009

Start of the project: may 2010

Subsidy amount : 300.000 € in Germany, ….in Sweden; … in Finland
Why focus on leaders' behaviours?

Psychological disorders as reasons for sick leave have
dramatically increased in the last years

Due to changing nature of work: Increasing importance of
psychosocial risk factors

Leaders impact health and well-being of employees in many
ways:

task assignment (complexity, autonomy, time pressure)

feedback

social support

participation in decision making
Research on Leadership and Health
– in a nutshell

The supervisor-subordinate
relationship has been reported as one of
the most common sources of stress in
organizations
(Cartwright & Cooper, 1994; Moyle, 1998; Tepper, 2000, van
Dierendonck et al., 2004)

LMX, and Transformational leadership as concepts are
currently dominating the field of research, but there are also
potential negative consequences!
(Harris & Kacmar,2006)

Leaders behaviours can be either a direct predictor for
employees health and well-being, or plays a moderating role
between stressors, and strain
(Väänänen et al., 2003)
Workpackages – Current Status
Work packages
Project month/
initial schedule
Status/ Adjustments
WP1
State of the art
report
1-6
The state of the art report was finished in 03/2011 as a draft.
WP2
Contact with
the participants
1-36
In all three countries a sufficient number of participants (more as planned)
could be recruited. Communication with participating teams, and
organizations is an ongoing task
WP3
Questionnaire
development &
pilot
1-6
The pilot questionnaire was carried out in the 7 th project month (11/2010).
Data analyses, and decisions for the final questionnaire were finished in
03/2011.
WP4
Instruction
work book
4-6 (t1)
22-24 (t2)
28-39 (t3)
Guidelines for sampling strategy, and decisions about the design of the
research instruments have been made on time for the first wave of
measurement.
WP5
Data
management &
(process-)
evaluation
7-9 (t1)
25-27 (t2)
31-33 (t3)
The first wave of data collection started delayed in the 11 th project month
(03/2011) and has been finished in 06/2011. The second survey is now
planned for 06-08/2012 (26-28th project months), and the third survey for
11/2012-01/2013 (31-33th project months).
Though we started delayed, we will be able to stick to the overall time
schedule.
Workpackages – Current Status
Work packages
Project month/
initial schedule
Status/ Adjustments
WP6
Model & plan
for
interventions
1-8
A general plan and schedule for intervention has been developed and is
carried out in the participating teams in Sweden and Germany.
WP7
Conducting
interventions
9-24
The intervention started with only a slight delay of 2 months according to
the initial plans. Currently the intervention modules are as scheduled. The
intervention will end in May 2012.
WP8
Country
differences
4-6 (<t1)
27-29 (t2)
33-35 (t3)
Theoretical considerations, as well as empirical evidence on cultural, and
societal differences, affecting leadership has been integrated in the state of
the art review. Explorative analyses on differences between a German,
Finnish and Swedish sample on the variables under study have been
performed on the pilot data and the t1 data.
WP9
Preparation of
manual
Ongoing documentation and evaluation of the intervention moduls
WP10
Dissemination
of results &
web page
The web-site of the Re-Su-Lead project is available under
http://www.uta.fi/projects/resulead/ already since June 2010 (2nd project
month), and is updated regularly.
WP11
Coordination
Frequent face to face meetings have been organized.
Research Design
Pilot
Questionnaire
T1
N = 2627
Intervention
16 Month
Questionnaire
T2
! ReSuLead !





Longitudinal study with 3 measuring times
Intervention & control groups (public- & private sector)
Multisource, multimethod design (leaders, employees, teams)
Country comparisons between Schweden, Deutschland, Finnland
Evaluation
Followup
T3
6 Month
after T2
Intervention
General goal for the intervention
• Health promoting, rewarding and sustainable leadership
• Intervention plan - Leadarship as a relationship
– Involve teammembers and increase their role and influence in the
process of making their work place more health promoting
– Regular team meetings used in learning process (observation,
feedback, workshops)
– Leaders get support from other leaders, coaching and reflection
– Change and learning takes time
Expected outcomes for leaders, teams and
organizations
• Leaders: theory and facts, new skills (e.g. coping with
stress), feedback from team members about their role,
individual development (e.g. self efficacy)
• Teams: theory and facts ( working in teams, work and
health), improvements of team climate and working
conditions
• Organization: knowledge and increased awareness of
health promotion in the work place and the role of
leaders
Expected outcomes for research
Increase knowledge about...

Rewarding, sustainable and health promoting
leadership and contribute to theoretical development

Causal relationships, processes och critical intervening
factors

Culture and gender differences

Develop a screening instrument to analyse psycho social
risk factors in the organization

Develop an intervention manual based on outcomes of the
intervention .
Intervention activities - overview
Goal
setting
Theory
Leader
workshops
Evaluation
&
Feedback
Observatio
n of leader
and team
Team
developme
nt
Coaching
Evaluation
&
feedback
Intervention
Team workshops 1
 Feedback from questionnaires T1
 Teams work with action plan about health promotion
in the workplace
 Clear tasks, allocation of responsbility (both
leaders and team members)
 Time plan
Action plan!
What to do
(necessary tasks)?
How do we achieve
goal?/ What can I
do??
When to do it? Who is
responsible?
Aufgaben festlegen
GOal
 3 Monate
 Fachdienstleiter &
Personal > Kapazität Mitarbeiter
Aufgabenaufteilung
ABP unter
Beachtung der
Einzelgruppen
 3 Monate
 Fachdienstleiter
Hindrance? How to
overcome them+
 Änderung der
Art und des
Umfangs der
Arbeit
 Personaländerungen
Aim
Transparenz
& Akzeptanz
Info an alle MA
 KH/ Akt.
nachvollziehbar
Beachtung im Alltag
Unterstützung
 1 Monat
 Fachdienstleiter
Flexibilität
 ständig; jährliche
überprüfung
 Fachdienstleiter &
AbteilungsleiterInn
 Analyse
 Flexibilität
 Kurzfristige
Verschiebung der
Maßnahme
Intervention
Observations of team meeting
 Observation (about 1 hour) about team climate, decision making,
allocation of tasks etc, made by two researchers during a regular team
meeting (includes home work for team members)
Lectures
For leaders:
• Leadership and health, work task analyses
For leaders and team members:
• Work and stress, health promotion
• Team work cooperation
Intervention
Observations of team meeting
 Observation (about 1 hour) about
team climate, decision making,
allocation of tasks etc, made by two
researchers during a regular team meeting
(includes home work for team members)
Lectures
For leaders:
• Leadership and health, work task analyses
For leaders and team members:
• Work and stress, health promotion
• Team work cooperation
Intervention
Workshops for leaders






Knowledge about leadership theories and methods
Exchange of ideas, discussions
Skills training
Offered individual coaching
Daily diary for self reflection
Reflection, discussion & evaluation
Coaching for leaders
 3 Coaching sessions as part of project
 Reflection individual topics
 Support in the intervention processs
 Feedback to leaders about outcome of observation of the team and leader in
meeting
Intervention plan
2011
Feb
Mar
Apr
1 Leader
meeting
Questionnaire
T1
Mai
Theory I
Jun
Jul
1. Team Workshop
Aug
Sep
Feedback on goal setting
1. Workshop for leaders
2. Workshop for leaders
Coaching
Diary
Okt
Nov
Theory II
3. Workshop for leaders
Observation of team meeting
2012
Jan
Feb
Mar
2. Team-Workshop
Coaching
Diary
Apr
Mai
4. Workshop for leaders
Observation of team meeting
Nov
Questionnaire
T2
Feedback and evaluation
of intervention process
Questionnaire
T2
Dez
Evaluation
• Main effects evaluation by questionnaires on two
occasions (including control group)
– T 2, May – June 2012
– T 3, six months later
• Formative evaluation of the process
–
–
–
–
Goal setting (relevance)
Activities in the intervention
Implementation
Effects for participants
First impressions from Sweden
• Both leaders and teams were very positive about the
workshops and the action plans
– In some cases we notice that obstacles have come up
(e.g. work load, turn over)
– Most positive effects seem to be when the goals and
activites planned by leader and team members
become integrated in regular routines
– Leaders have a critical role but also team members
engagement is important
First Results
Outline
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Description of the samples in every country
Reliability and validity of the scales used
Differences in perceived leadership between countries
Differences in occupational well-being between
countries
Relationships between leadership and well-being
indicators
Conclusions
Total sample size
Sample
GER
N
Total
FIN
%
N
%
N
%
90.2
441
93.6
557
89.8
150
9.8
30
6.4
63
10.2
1536
100.0
471
100.0
620
100.0
Subordinates 1386
Leaders
SWE
Description of the employee sample
Background factor
GER
N = 1386
SWE
N = 441
FIN
N = 557
Gender %
Female
75.6
85.2
84.7
Male
24.4
14.8
15.3
Public
10.8
100
100
Private
89.2
-
-
Age in years
M (SD)
39.4 (11.0)
45.7 (10.8)
48.3 (9.7)
Working hrs
in a week
M (SD)
39.8 (5.4)
38.9 (6.2)
37.6 (5.2)
Sector %
Reliability and Validity of Scales
• All the scales consisting of multiple items have been
examined with factor analysis (EFA + CFA).
• The reliabilities of the scales across countries are good
(α > .70) with a few exceptions.
• However, the construct validity of the scales across
countries could be better, i.e., the factor loadings are not
equal between the countries in many cases.
Leadership Scales
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Leadership climate: leaders provide clarity in goals, supply
information and feedback, carry out changes at work successfully,
promote employee participation and control
Transformational leadership: leaders act as role models,
provide attractive vision of future, encourage independent
thought, pay attention to individual development
Authentic leadership: leaders genuinely desire to understand
their own leadership to serve others more effectively
Fair leadership: leaders treat their subordinates fairly and
equally
Health-promoting leadership: leaders support employees’
autonomy and participation and take active role in solving
conflicts
Abusive leadership: leaders show hostile verbal and nonverbal
behaviors, excluding physical contact
Leadership across Countries
Significant differences:
SWE > GER 1-5, FIN 1-3 and SWE < FIN 6, GER 6
FIN > GER 3-5
How leaders see themselves in relation to employees
Leader self-appraisals are systematically and significantly more
positive than the leader appraisals by employees.
Well-being, a country comparison
Well-being across countries
5
4.5
4
Mean
3.5
3
GER
2.5
SWE
FIN
2
1.5
1
1 Emotional
exhaustion (0-6)
2 Work
engagement (0-6)
3 Turnover
intentions (1-5)
4 Organizational
commitment (15)
Significant differences:
GER > SWE 1, FIN 1; GER < FIN 2, SWE 2; FIN > GER 3-4, SWE 3-4
Correlations between leadership and well-being
All correlations are significant at the p < .001 level except for abusive supervision in Sweden.
Conclusions
• The samples differ between the countries which limits
conclusions.
• Leadership is generally perceived as most positively in
Sweden and most negatively in Germany; Finland falls in
between.
• Occupational well-being is lowest among the German
employees, although the Finnish employees have highest
turnover intentions.
• Health-promoting leadership shows highest correlations
with well-being indicators in every country (r = |.26.48|), and leadership climate is the second one (r =
|.20-.40|).