| Ben Wakeling | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
On 10 September, the European Work Hazards Network conference will be held in Leeds, where health and safety representatives and managers from across Europe will gather to review and discuss the risks facing employees of all industries in today's marketplace. They will deal with protective equipment, the obligation for employers to provide a safe working environment, and the effective management of employee safety. It is probable – if not certain – that, at some point, the issue of stress in the workplace will be raised.
Let's begin with a few sums. Take your average professional, and assume that they start their career at the tender age of 18 and work until the ripe old age of 65, plugging away Monday to Friday from 9 to 5 – we'll discount holidays, as things will get messy and maths isn't my forte. This means that Joe Bloggs spends just under a quarter of his working life under the guidance and rule of his employers. Take eight hours a day for sleeping out of the equation, and the proportion rises to over a third.
As a result, our working lives contribute hugely to who we are, and – most importantly – our welfare. Many can empathise with the fact that hundreds of thousands of employees find themselves stressed at work: 415,000 of us to be exact, if Labour Force Survey figures for 2008-09 are to be believed.
It is well documented that stress can lead to complications in health. Studies have shown that increased stress in the workplace can lead to a range of complications such as absenteeism, job dissatisfaction, and difficulty in making routine decisions. These symptoms manifest themselves through decreased productivity, or behaviour that is deemed unsuitable or inappropriate by an employee's superiors. Disciplinary action against the individual will often follow.
Is it enough for employers to simply react to an employee's misdemeanours, or should they dig a little deeper? Do they owe it to that member of staff to try and discern why he or she is exhibiting low productivity? Merely disciplining an employee without looking for the root cause of their problems leaves them confused and angry, left alone to work out their issues with little to no support from those with whom they spend so much time. It will come as no surprise that perceived workplace injustice also leads to unhealthy behaviours such as smoking and drinking excessively, risking an exacerbation of the issues that the individual is experiencing.
Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, all employers have a duty of care towards their employees: that is, they must ensure that the workplace environment is free from hazards to an employee's mental and physical health. But no laws mention anything about emotional care. However, looking after an employee instead of merely disciplining them in the event of poor behaviour has benefits for the employers as well: working with the problematic member of staff to resolve issues and difficulties, instead of simply terminating their employment, will save thousands of pounds. The average cost for recruiting a new member of staff begins at £5,000, increasing with the seniority of the position. Other employees will recognise and appreciate their manager's interest in their wellbeing, with the result of a boost in morale, leading in turn to a high level of productivity. The effects can be reversed when a struggling employee is dismissed by employer who is seen to be aloof to an individual's problems, with morale slumping and productivity waning.
Maybe employers owe it to themselves to take a keener interest in the emotional welfare of their employees; not prying into personal lives, but simply taking the time to check every now and then that an employee is happy. At the very least, employers should recognise the fact that they are an important influence in the lives of their staff, and actively seek to establish if there are any underlying reasons for an individual's problems at work. It's a win-win situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment