Work related
psychosocial risks and
new forms of work
organisation
a European perspective
Ceren INAN
DARES-CTS
ceren.inan@travail.gouv.fr
Introduction

Forms of work organisation


typology developed by Valeyre & Lorenz
(Valeyre & Lorenz 2003)
applied by the authors (and co.)
• to 3rd and the 4th EWCS (Valeyre & Lorenz
2004b and 2009)
• to business surveys (Bunel M. et al., 2008)


used in various studies
Typology is based on employees of market
sector (workplace size 10 p. or more)
Introduction

Valeyre & Lorenz Typology
Forms of work organisation
Lean production forms
 Discretionary learning forms
 Taylorist forms
 Traditional or simple structure forms

Introduction

Lean production
 Team work
 Job rotation
 Quality management
 Pace constraints
(Womack, Jones and Roos, 1990)
Toyota Production System (TPS)
Total Quality Management (TQM)
Just In Time (JIT)
Autonomous teams (AT)
Introduction

Discretionary learning form of work organisation
 Autonomy in work
 Auto-quality of work
 Autonomous teamwork
 Learning & problem solving
 Complex tasks
(Berggren 1992)
Socio-technical systems
Responsible autonomy
Adaptability
Whole tasks
Introduction

A fair amount of studies suggest that
lean can causes mental harm
 mostly trough job strain
(Landsbergis, Cahill & Schnall, 1999 ;
Askenazy 2002)

Introduction

Job strain is a risk factor for
cardiovascular diseases and
hypertension
 musculoskeletal disorders
 depression
 chronic stress
(Cahill & Landsbergis, 1996; Karasek
& Thorell, 1990; Belkic K. et al., 2004;
Chouanière D. et al., 2011)

Introduction

And what about discretionary learning
forms of work organisation?
causes mental harm?
 generates stress?
 or a good alternative to the lean
production (regarding PSRs)?

Introduction

Studies based on the 3rd and the 4th European Working
Conditions Survey (EWCS) provides empirical evidence
that
 experienced stress at work,
 psychosocial risks (PSR) exposure and
 some psychological troubles (anxiety, insomnia and
irritability)
are significantly more common among workers in lean
production
(Valeyre 2006 ; Valeyre et al. 2009)
Introduction


“Quality of work and employment is clearly better
under discretionary learning forms”
However, “Only the indicators concerning
 long working hours and flexible daily working hours,
 and the psychological working conditions of intrinsic
rewards and friendship at work,
 do not significantly differentiate
 the discretionary learning and lean production forms”.
(Valeyre et al. 2009, page 42)
Introduction

The aim of this study is to examine
the effect of these two new forms of
work organisation
 on work related PSRs of European
workers
 by using the 5th EWCS
(for the general survey report, see
Parent-Thirion Agnès et al. 2012)

Data and method

New forms of work organisation in
Europe
indirectly identified
 by using an association of 15
organisational variables [see paper]
 in a multiple correspondence analysis
 and clustering techniques
(for the methodology, see Valeyre &
Lorenz 2003, 2004b and 2009)

Data and method


Psychosocial risks factors
57 variables
Specific PSR measures



decision latitude, job demands and job strain
quality of management
Measures on the consequences of PSRs
(output)



violence at work,
experienced stress at work and
mental health (WHO-5 score)
Data and method


multiple correspondence analysis on Psychosocial
risks factors
focus on the first four dimensions (24% of inertia)
regressions on specific PSR measures
 decision latitude, job demands and job strain (no JCQ,
see paper)
quality of management
regressions on consequences of PSRs (output)
 violence at work,
 experienced stress at work and
 mental health (WHO-5 score)


Data and method

For each variable 3 types of regression
 logistic regression,
 multilevel regression with random
effects on intercept at country level
(u0)
 multilevel regression with random
effects
• on intercept (u0) and
• on the effect of Lean production (u1)
Data and method

multilevel regression with random effect (u0) on intercept (β0) at country
level
Y=β*X + βLean*Lean + βTaylorist*Taylorist + βSimple*Simple + (β0+u0)
/ u0 ~> N(0;s2u0)

multilevel regression with random effects on intercept (u0) and on the effect
of Lean production (u1)
Y=β*X + (u1+βLean)*Lean + βTaylorist*Taylorist + βSimple*Simple + (β0+u0)
/ u0 ~> N(0;s2u0) and u1 ~> N(0;s2u1)


Random effects of u0 and u1 covariate as
u0 & u1 ~> N(0;0,s2u0;c1;s2u1)
In case the covariate of u0 & u1 (C1) could not be estimated,
we supposed it to be null (fixed as C1=0)
Results - decisional latitude

first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low decisional
latitude (+) to those with high decisional latitude (-)
1st Dimension
Factor
No complex tasks
Manager rarely helps and supports
The job do not offers prospects for career advancement
Rarely have the impression work well done
Rarely have the feeling doing useful work
Do not solves unforeseen problems
Rarely autonomy in breaks
Do not learn new things
Dissatisfying working conditions
No autonomy in speed or rate of work
Manager do not call participation on decisions
Rarely participate, own objectives
No autonomy in methods of work
No autonomy in order of tasks
Rarely participate, important decisions
Rarely participate, by own ideas
Coord.
Contrib. Cos2
0,506
0,017
0,178
0,756
0,019
0,147
0,532
0,020
0,221
1,363
0,021
0,135
1,347
0,024
0,160
0,875
0,025
0,187
0,627
0,025
0,253
0,703
0,026
0,236
0,998
0,030
0,219
0,706
0,031
0,300
0,713
0,032
0,315
0,737
0,032
0,302
0,697
0,034
0,360
0,718
0,036
0,386
0,731
0,038
0,398
0,903
0,046
0,420
Results - decisional latitude

first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low decisional
latitude to those with high decisional latitude

Employees with low decisional latitude







Taylorist
Elementary occupations
Plant and machine operators, and assemblers
Simple structures
Manufacture
Transport and storage
Employees with high decisional latitude







Learning
Managers
Professionals
Technicians and associate professionals
Information and communication
Finance and insurance
Scientific and tech. activities
Results - decisional latitude

first dimension of MCA opposes employees with low
decisional latitude to those with high decisional latitude
Country effect (multilevel reg.)
high decisional latitude
low decisional latitude
Lower
Upper
P red
0,50
0,00
-0,50
-1,00
-2,00
Norway
Finland
Denmark
Netherlands
Latvia
Sweden
Kosovo
Estonia
Montenegro
Portugal
Belgium
Malta
Ireland
Luxembourg
United
Czech
Austria
Spain
Romania
Cyprus
Turkey
Lithuania
Poland
France
Croatia
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Albania
Slovakia
FYROM
Hungary
Italy
Greece
Germany
-1,50
Results - psychological demands

second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees
undergoing high psychological demands (+) to those having less
demanding jobs (-)
2nd Dimension
Factor
Pace, colleagues work
Substantial restructuration or reorganisation
Manager is not good at planning and organising work
Freq, handles angry clients
Asocial working time
Manager is not good at resolving conflicts
Pace, (prod, or perf,) Targets
Freq, must hide feelings
Often task interrupted
Often homework
Dissatisfying working conditions
Not enough time to job done
Freq, working at high speed
Freq, working to tight deadlines
Freq, experience stress at work
Coord.
Contrib. Cos2
0,326
0,016
0,115
0,392
0,017
0,099
0,596
0,018
0,073
0,823
0,018
0,067
0,576
0,019
0,083
0,604
0,020
0,086
0,390
0,023
0,159
0,588
0,023
0,104
0,551
0,026
0,126
0,950
0,026
0,100
0,713
0,027
0,112
1,046
0,035
0,135
0,575
0,040
0,235
0,608
0,048
0,299
0,793
0,052
0,250
Results - psychological demands
second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees
undergoing high psychological demands to those having less
demanding jobs


Employees with high psychological demands






Lean
Managers & Professionals
Turkey & France
Establishments big in size
Industry
Employees with low psychological demands





Simple
Poland
Elementary occupations
Establishments small in size
Administrative and support
Results - psychological demands

second dimension of the MCA opposes the employees
undergoing high psychological demands to those having less
demanding jobs
Country effect (multilevel reg.)
low psychological demands
high psychological demands
Lower
Upper
P red
2,00
1,50
1,00
0,50
0,00
-0,50
-1,50
Albania
Poland
Bulgaria
Portugal
Latvia
Lithuania
Croatia
Slovakia
Czech
Kosovo
Denmark
Montenegro
Spain
Netherlands
Romania
Italy
Estonia
Norway
Luxembourg
Sweden
Belgium
Austria
FYROM
Germany
Finland
United
Ireland
Hungary
Malta
France
Slovenia
Greece
Cyprus
Turkey
-1,00
Results – job strain


plan resulting from these first two dimensions
(17% of the inertia),
presents a similar structure with the Karasek’s
demand-control model
Results - multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)
Results - multiple correspondence analysis (MCA)
Active Jobs
High-strain
Low-strain
Passive Jobs
Active Jobs
High-strain
Low-strain
Passive Jobs
Active Jobs
High-strain
Low-strain
Passive Jobs
Results – job strain
Effect of organisational forms (βorg) on job strain


Higher odds in Lean and Taylorist organisation to have job
strain
So, less chance to have a job strain in discretionary learning
type of work organisation
Observed
Logistic
Multilevel
2,0
1,5
βorg

1,0
0,5
ref.
0,0
Lean
Learning
Simple
T aylorist
-3
Albania
Poland
Latvia
Portugal
Norway
Kosovo
Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Bulgaria
Croatia
Belgium
Lithuania
Estonia
Montenegr
Slovakia
Czech
Romania
Spain
Italy
Ireland
United
Luxembour
Malta
Austria
FYROM
France
Hungary
Cyprus
Slovenia
Germany
Turkey
Greece
Results – job strain
Country effect (multilevel reg.)
No Job Strain
Job Strain
Lower
Upper
P red
0
-0,5
-1
-1,5
-2
-2,5
Results – perceived quality of management

Third dimension of the MCA opposes
 well managed close to high-strain jobs to
 mismanaged passive-jobs

Fourth dimension of the MCA opposes
 some public related external risks to
 hierarchy related internal risks

In both cases the quality of management is an
important factor
Results – perceived quality of management



Better perception of quality of management in discretionary
learning type of work organisation
In Lean, the perception of quality of management is not bad
The perception of quality of management is clearly worst in
Simple and Taylorist organisation
Effect of organisational forms on the perception of the quality of management (βorg)
Observed
Logistic
Multilevel
1
βorg
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
ref.
0
Lean
Learning
Simple
T aylorist
-3,50
Cyprus
Kosovo
Greece
Montenegro
Portugal
Bulgaria
FYROM
Malta
Albania
Croatia
Ireland
Romania
Spain
Latvia
Hungary
Norway
Czech
Slovenia
Estonia
United
Slovakia
Poland
Lithuania
Turkey
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Austria
France
Belgium
Luxembourg
Germany
Netherlands
Italy
Results – quality of management

In “more developed” European countries employees are
more critic about the quality of the management
Quality of management
Not bad
Bad
Lower
Upper
P red
0,00
-0,50
-1,00
-1,50
-2,00
-2,50
-3,00
Conclusion – job strain



Lean and Taylorist organisation
 More demanding jobs
 Lesser decisional latitude
 Relatively higher odds to have job strain
Observed trough multiple correspondence
analysis
Verified by regressions
Conclusion - violence at work, experienced stress
at work and mental health (WHO-5 score)

Lean and Taylorist organisation
 Higher levels of experienced stress in work
 More violence (verbal abuse; unwanted
sexual attention; humiliating behaviour;
physical violence; bullying; sexual
harassment)
 Higher odds to have mental health at risk
(WHO-5 score)

…than Discretionary learning type of work
organisation
Thank you for your attention !