In my studies, there are many variables that describe the psychosocial work environment. One of these is poor mental health. Poor mental health costs 150 billion annually only in Sweden, which represents 3% of the GDP. The trend was rising up to the start of the 2000s and then declined until 2009, only to have risen again. A couple of years ago, the perceived health figure of those affected in Skåne, southern Sweden, was 32% for women and 27% for men (Ledarna). According to our research, there are clear links between poor mental health and leadership.
According to extensive research within the area, the impact of leadership accounts for approximately 2/3 of the psychosocial work environment. Strong correlations are found in my material to the impact on efficiency in businesses. In our survey with PSS (a gauge to measure the efficiency of how much personnel is focused on work rather than problems with the manager, team, or colleagues) a strong impact on the result is found. According to our measurements, the average “wastage” due to problems related to the work environment totals almost 10%. This means that if the right conditions were created, personnel could be better utilised by 9-10% . For a business with 100 full-time employees with 1,600 working hours per annum, business would be improved by about 14,000 to 16,000 hours. As monetary turnover (if every employee costs 150 SEK per hour, inc. social security and holiday pay), this corresponds to 2.1-2.4 million SEK, which would be the efficiency pin the business pays for but does not benefit from, in terms of efficiency.
Below I present the strongest correlations we have found in our material within leadership and the psychosocial work environment.
Seen from the perspective of relationship-based leadership, there are factors which are more important than others. The most important is the availability managers show to their employees. Being available is not just about being physically available, but that managers create a feeling of availability. As such, it is not about the quantity but the quality of the availability. On several occasions I have been asked by managers why they do not make an impact in surveys and interviews related to whether employees see them as available. “As the manager, I am usually available at the workplace – I’m there every day, afterall.” My point is that it is about the quality of the meeting and how many hours you are “available”. Being available qualitatively means that as managers/leaders you follow the work and understand what is happening in different processes in the workplace. It creates a sense of trust and security. These variables also have a strong connection to the work environment. Trust comes in the form of trust in the manager/leader and through there being stability in the relationship. You know where each other is, in simple terms. Trust is one of the most important variables, according to a study from the Harvard Business School (HBR, Reveals What Great Executives Know and Do, Ron Carucci). They believe that it is extremely important for managers to have the ability to create deep and trusting relationships, and that there is a feeling of security in the relationship between employees and the manager.
Being accommodating is also an important aspect. However, it is important to be accommodating in a fair manner so that it is not misinterpreted as favouring certain employees, but instead conveys a sense that everyone is treated in a similar way.
I have come across several organisations with managers/leaders who have chosen to not act in a good way with regards meeting their employees. For these managers, favouring one or more employees has created many problems, as the rest of the personnel felt unfairly treated. This has led to talk in the corridors, discontent, and even harassment of those who were favoured. In some cases, it has led to the creation of two camps among employees, which is disadvantageous to performance and productivity. Instead of focus being on delivering and producing, the focus has been on holding heads above water.
In order to succeed in creating a good work environment, from the relational perspective, the leadership should have control of:
- being accommodating within reasonable limits
- creating a trust between you and your employees
- showing consideration to employees and the general surroundings
- being qualitatively available, rather than quantitively
- creating security in the relationship being, and being perceived as, fair
Prof. Goran Ekvall, amongst others, has later confirmed through research that relationship-oriented leaders are more democratic, conflict-resolving, considerate, and consistent. The climate which the leader creates is trusting and stress-free. These factors directly affect the psychosocial work environment.
The second style of leadership is that managers are change-oriented. The basis of this is the managers’ way of making decisions, taking risks, the creativity they establish in the organisation, their visions, and their ability to act. The manager who is purely change-oriented prioritises vision, and the future for the organisation and employees. This is done by communicating thoughts about the future. A creative environment is established where employees are encouraged to see new approaches and to develop new ideas. They see opportunities rather than problems.
When we measure the changing leadership, we see the manager’s ability to listen to the business while simultaneously knowing the importance of listening to what is happening in the market. To succeed as a manager and leader, it is important to be responsive to the changes taking place, both inside and outside the business.
In a change-focused organisation, the leadership is creative, engaged, dynamic and risk-inclined. The work organisation is often flexible. The leadership creates good conditions and job satisfaction for employees, who have the ambition to evolve with their jobs and feel that this is allowed in the organisation. According to performed research (Larson, 2001), it is shown that a management style which creates and contributes to a more creative climate and innovative achievements in organisations can be described as follows:
- It is action-focused and makes decisions quickly and decisively
- Analytical, rational, systematic – it is more forward- than present-oriented
- Practical and concrete
- Emotionally stable, not neurotic
- Not competitive or prestige sensitive
- Lacks the need to ‘float above’
- Collaborative and team-organised
- Provides help and support, in terms of work and private life
- Tries todevelop andadvance itsemployees
- Identifies with the employees’ successes and failures.
According to my results from PSS, there is a strong correlation between the change variables and the psychosocial work environment. One of these is visions. Many organisations are good at creating these and bringing them to life among all managers and employees, however, it is a major flaw in many. If you do not succeed in this, it results in a clear impact on the psychosocial work environment, through the absence of a clear direction and statement on what the business stands for. It is important to be able to explain to managers and employees why the company or the business exists in the market. Without this basic explanation, there is the risk that the business becomes vague.
The vision must be broken down and explained through goals for the business. A vision is an expression of will – a goal creates clarity for business. If you don’t succeed in creating this vision and communicating it so that everyone understands, there is a great risk that the work environment will be adversely affected. It is also important for the work environment that there is a decisiveness and an ability to dare to make decisions, that as a manager you are brave. Without this courage and clarity, there is a risk that the manager doesn’t dare to react to difficult situations which may affect employees’ everyday life in a negative way. According to a study from Harvard Business School, who over 10 years studied the key success factors in managers, it is important that managers are skilled decision-makers and have the courage to make decisions, even if these are challenging for the organisation.
In order for change to succeed, it is important that you as a manager create motivationamong employees in this respect. My experience is that, from the management team’s perspective, you want the best both for employees and the business. However, it is important to create the right conditions in order to implement changes. It is not unusual to establish the ‘whats’ (i.e. how the change should be made, based on presenting new organisational charts, how things should be changed from a logical perspective), but is easy to forget that there are people who are not aware of the ‘hows’. You have to get the employees on side in the change process in order to create understanding and motivation as to why the change should be made. Failure to do this creates ambiguity and confusion among employees, which will have a direct impact on the psychosocial work environment. Being able to explain and create understanding as to why changes are implemented has become even more important today, where there is continuous change in most organisations.
Another factor that is important, according to my research, is that the manager must succeed in meeting the individual needs of each employee. If the manager fails in this, it will, together with related factors, create a discontent that leads to a negative impact on the work environment. Having employees who are not seen creates an indifference in the relationship. This indifference gives rise to speculation that might not be consistent with reality. This suspicion leads to the psychosocial work environment being adversely affected.
Based on the changing leadership, the link to the psychosocial work environment is strongly related to the following:
- the vision is an important element – it must be clear and communicated to everyone in the organisation
- there is a drive and ability to make decisions
- creating motivation in changes, to not only believe that they are implemented without the involvement of employees
- being able to see and meet employees’ individual needs.
The third leadership style relates to the structural leadership and its impact on the psychosocial work environment. One of the variables that have a high correlation to the psychosocial work environment is that the manager believes it is important that rules and regulations are followed for the manager to create a conflict-free work environment. This aspect forms the basis of the work and the conditions for the duties to be performed. A significant impact on the environment is how managers plan their work. Managers who do not plan their work often end up in trouble, to the point that this affects the employees’ working situation. Often, this results in ill-conceived ad hoc solutions. This can create insecurity from the employee’s side in the work to be performed, which in turn has an impact on the employees’ well-being in the workplace. This is linked to another important variable that is based on whether managers’ leadership creates orderliness in the workplace. The leads to a great impact on the psychosocial work environment through the structure the manager conveys creating a good or a not so good good workplace. Managers who are perceived as disorderly with muddled statements becomes less credible, which leads to the environment being adversely affected. If it involves managers who constantly change their statements with regards the tasks and how these will be implemented, a situation occurs where employees ‘run faster’ due to all the corrections or just to ‘keep up’ until the next command comes. This leads to irritation and to leadership not being taken seriously.
If there are no straight and clear directives and goals this creates uncertainty about what to do. It is important that managers do not beat around the bush, but instead communicate what is what in a simple, straightforward way. If an uncertainty regarding directives is created, this leads to the manager’s role being marginalised. This type of leadership affects the organisation most negatively due to the uncertainty created around the manager’s role and who should take the leadership role. Not too infrequently, this develops into an informal leadership that can affect the work environment, as it is the individual employees who “takes over the leadership”; though not in the best interest of the organisation, but for their own good.
To create a good work environment, it is also important that managers explain the requirements set in a clear manner. My experience is that this should be done in a clear and fair way. It is important for employees to know what is expected of them, otherwise it might get difficult for them to adjust the level regarding the latent expectations placed on them.
This is linked to the manner in which and how division of responsibilities and roles are communicated. If this is done in a clear way, employees know what roles they have and how they relate to each other. If not, it becomes unclear who is doing what, and easily results in discussions and, at worst, conflicts between employees, which in turn, of course, affects the psychosocial work environment in a negative way.
To create a good working environment also requires that managers justify and explain their decisions. Without this explanation it is easy for employees to not feel involved and understand the decisions which are made.
Based on the structural leadership, it is important that the connection to the psychosocial work environment is strongly related to managers:
- creating orderliness in their leadership
- communicating the division of responsibilities and roles to their employees so that they understand
- clearly explaining the goals that exist and the requirements set
- clearly justifying and explaining their decisions
- providing straight and clear directives
- planning work carefully, as this spills over to the leadership and employees
- the importance of rules and regulations being followed.
If employees do not dare to come forward with their ideas there will be a negative correlation to the psychosocial environment; i.e. the less employees are heard, the poorer the working environment becomes, and vice versa.
The greater job satisfaction there is in the work performed by a department, the better the psychosocial work environment. Compare this with the importance of the structural leadership in creating job satisfaction – without goals and clarity, etc. this will not be achieved. Furthermore, it is important for everyone to be heard at workplace meeting, etc., and for everyone to be seen. During my life as a consultant, I have experienced managers who failed in getting everyone to speak, rather there are a few individuals that take centre stage and express what they think all the time. There have even been cases of abuse towards employees who do not normally speak when they do express something. The manager’s role is important here in order for this to succeed. Should the manager not succeed it will lead to failure in creating a good work environment. Another important factor is when employees feel stress and dissatisfaction with their tasks. This factor is highly correlated to the psychosocial work environment. Again, it is important as a manager to take this into consideration. Failure to do so may have negative consequences that affect the organisation in an undesirable way, through negatively spreading that the manager does not see me or hear me as an employee; i.e. discontent spreads like ripples on water. There are several factors that affect us, and in this context the workplace is not the only factor, as our private lives also apply. One of the factors that emerged in my analysis which affects the work environment is that employees find it difficult to find time for a private life along with their work. Employees have a great responsibility here, as it is only the employee who can decide whether the situation is acceptable or not. Of course, managers can see and comment on the situation, but it is individual employees who must take responsibility for their situation.
Another factor is the approach which leaders have towards their employees. To create a good working environment it is important for managers to have a coaching approach and encourage their employees accordingly. The approach is important and crucial for the work environment outcome. Feedback is given in many ways, and as a manager it is important to think through how and when feedback is given to employees.
This is a selection of what has emerged in my analyses, which began in the early 2000s. Assisting me, I have had both large and small companies, as well as public organisations.
I wish to thank them for their efforts, which made this compilation possible.
Anders Larson