As both an economist and a behavioural scientist, I have on many occasions thought about management and the leadership’s effects on the organisational and social environment in the workplace. Many have said, and still say, that it is impossible to perform such measurements. If we play with the idea that this were possible, what would it mean for businesses? Would one equate managers and employees with machines, computer systems, etc.? What happens if a machine or a production line fails, would it results in a statement that “oh well, we’ll have to wait and see, surely things will be okay”. Hardly!!! We need to fix it immediately otherwise there will be a significant loss of revenue. My thoughts and reflections are then: Would the actions and effects be the same if you could see these effects on the human side and the problems that are found within the psychosocial work environment?
Many businesses today talk about personnel as the most important resource, but is that really the case? That is certainly something that’s wanted, and there is a desire to behave that way. As a management team and as a manager, there are many factors to relate to, so the situation is often complex. But if the management’s goal is to truly see personnel as the most important resource, what must then happen? What insights have to be created and how must you act? The questions are many because of the complex situation. How are “John and Jane” affected furthest down the line? What must be done so that they understand and realise where the business is going? I have seen both good and not so good examples of this. Where it is good, there is a transparency and open communication to create equally good conditions for the entirety; i.e. the business, as for the parts; i.e. the employees. I can even today pay tribute to Jan Carlsson for his efforts in changing and developing SAS. Of course, certain things occurred within SAS during Janne Carlsson’s time that were not so good, but he should be highly praised for his approach and vision with regards the best for the business and personnel. The question is: where did that spirit go?
Is it just the fault of the managers and those closest to him/her, i.e. the operational managers? Are there other factors that have an affect?
My contribution, to try to put a price tag on when the psychosocial work environment does not function, is to measure the ‘lost time’ that occurs. I started with the research and development of this in the early 2000s. Basically, it involved an idea about being able to give businesses a tool that could help them to see where there was a lack of efficiency that could be rectified. The idea was then to link this to a tool, strongly correlated to efficiency, by obtaining data from the leadership, the psychosocial working environment, motivation etc. I based this on an interdisciplinary perspective of economics, psychology, sociology, and stress research, based on medicine. It was important to me to not just focus on one discipline but to see businesses from a broader perspective. The tool has since been tested and run in both public and private businesses. The results obtained have been both exciting and challenging.
I have chosen to call the measurement PSS. What is PSS? It is the ‘lost time’ that occurs when there are deficient factors in the psychosocial work environment. Examples of this are when the sickness rate increases, when there are conflicts, when employees and managers do not have motivation or commitment, when people do not cooperate but instead blame each other, when job roles are unclear and content of work is ambiguous, when objectives and their implementation are vague, etc. PSS is a way of measuring time management from a psychosocial perspective.
PSS, together with the analysis of the leadership and the organisation, provides a sound analysis that more than covers the objectives which the Work Environment Authority describes for businesses in AFS 2015:4. It describes the terms and conditions for work that includes leadership and management, communication, participation and freedom of action, distribution of tasks and requirements, resources, responsibilities, and objectives for the social work environment that describes the terms and conditions for social interaction, cooperation and social support from managers and colleagues.
Reasons can be found in the organisation’s climate, where there are various influencing factors. Ultimately, the climate affects the capacity utilisation and efficiency found in an organisation. We can, by measuring the psychosocial ‘lost time’, quantify this in terms of money and time. It is not unusual for this to amount to 8-12% of the total working hours. The most challenging results that have emerged to date are a business that measured 22% in PSS. This 22% should be seen as an efficiency drop in the business, which led to a corresponding decrease in productivity.
I measure PSS using eight variables, based on data from managers and employees in the organisation. It involves the relationships between co-worker and co-worker, employee and manager, as well as my own role in the business. Basically, it deals with the uncertainties, who does what, who takes responsibility, seeing their own and other people’s problems in relation to the business, leading to the lack of efficiency that occurs when this does not work. The results of PSS are then presented as a “loss” of time and money, while simultaneously pointing to the reasons that cause the “loss”. In other words, I connect PSS with 152 other variables that are based on analyses of the leadership, of the business in general, aspects correlated to the department, and from the employee’s perspective. In this article, I will only focus on the leadership and its three parts, relationship, change and structure, in connection with PSS.
Through my research and gathered data since 2001, I have noted that much of the lack of efficiency can be traced to the leadership. In future articles I will present other important variables that can be derived from the organisational perspective and its three levels, as I see it.
In my study I see the leadership on the basis of three basic perspectives: relationship, change and structure. How are these variables connected to PSS and what in the leadership affects efficiency most in PSS? Below I will raise the variables that have the highest correlation with the eight variables in PSS.
The behaviours that have the greatest impact, seen on the basis of the relationship-based leadership, are creating trust and security, to be accommodating and honest, letting employees make certain decisions themselves, and a good psychosocial work environment. What does that mean in practice? As a manager, it is important that there is a trust in the relationship with employees, that there is a trust between employees. This creates an emotional security: security and trust that means you dare to come with ideas and opinions, that you can take the initiative without fear of reprisals should something go wrong, and that communication is open and clear. In those organisations where there is a lack of trust, managers and employees are suspicious of each other and expect to pay dearly for any mistakes. They are even afraid of being taken advantage of and having their ideas and good suggestions stolen. You dare not act out of fear of punishment. In my studies, I can demonstrate that this directly affects PSS in a negative direction, and as such reduces efficiency and the loss increases. It is important to remember that trust is built not only on what you as a manager say, but how you act. It is important to remember that this is realised over a long period. If you are interested further by ‘trust’, please refer to my previous article.
Being honest will, according to my measurements, have the strongest impact in PSS. If you, as an employee or as a manager, do not feel that there is good faith concerning the uncertainties that exist in the workplace, this will have a strong negative outcome. Uncertainties arising either between managers and employees, or between co-workers, must be resolved, where everyone is honest and willing to resolve these uncertainties, without there being hidden agendas. This also applies to relationship and cooperation problems. By acting in a trustful and honest way a safe climate is created.
If you want to create a high efficiency, based on the psychosocial work environment, this requires that you as a manager create favourable conditions based on:
• trust, and creating a climate of trust among your employees
• security, where everyone dares to be heard
• an honest climate, where everyone is open
• creating a participation in those processes employees participate in
• a climate where you are accommodating.
One variable that, based on the relational perspective, is negatively correlated with PSS, is to care about employees: which means that the more you care about your employees, the higher the PSS, i.e. ‘lost time’. When you care too much, it may lead to all focus being put on resolving everything. One tip is to find out what is needed so that production or working hours are not adversely affected. Regarding PSS, it is always about the quality not the quantity in the meeting with employees: it involves focusing on the right things. To constantly resolve uncertainties is disastrous, not least from a time management perspective. There is always a certain level of uncertainty that must be resolved, but when this creates unnecessary loss of time or conflicts, it is devastating. Based on the changing leadership, it is important that the manager sees opportunities instead of problems, makes quick decisions, is a courageous decision-maker, creates motivation when, for example, facing and implementing changes, is willing to try new approaches to solve problems, communicates visions of the future, sees individuals’ needs, and looks on development and progress as essential aspects. From the standpoint of how the manager handles those aspects being faced, he/she can either see opportunities or instead see problems. On the basis of my results, it is important that to see it from an opportunity perspective instead of seeing the things that occur from a problem-oriented perspective (the manager’s stance). Most often, you can ascertain where the uncertainties are and resolve them effectively. As the reader, you are aware, as I am, that if you wait to resolve disputes and conflicts they often get worse, therefore it is important that managers quickly focus on where the problems are and solve them together with their employees.
I have occasionally noticed that managers duck when conflicts arise between the manager and employees, and between co-workers. This has a direct impact when I measure with PSS. In most of the cases, it is about conflict-scared managers or refusing to see that there is a conflict in the department. In these cases, support from HR or from an external source is needed. The problem is that all too often things go too far. It becomes a quagmire. On several occasions I have been summoned to organisations and taken care of the problems. From my perspective, I think it is a pity that it needs to go this far. This is because managers have a responsibility to ensure the business is run in the most efficient manner possible, not only for the employees but also for the management team and owners. Each occasion where resolving an uncertainty, which requires effort from the manager, is avoided, is a failure on all sides. This costs “invisible money”; something that I have captured in PSS.
Even if you are caught in a situation made up of problems and uncertainties, it is important to create motivation that leads to a change, that creates new conditions, that leads to not remaining in a disadvantageous situation that benefits no one. In this situation it is important to see and to dare to take charge of the situation, and to be able to see other solutions together with employees. It may also be important to meet individual employees on their own ground to resolve uncertainties.
Seen from one of the eight PSS variables that measure time with regards relationship and cooperation problems, there are variables that are negatively correlated. One of these is whether the manager has his/her ‘door open’ to new ideas. If the manager’s door is open to “discuss everything” to too great an extent, ‘lost time’ in PSS will increase and efficiency will decrease. In the analysis of the same PSS variable; i.e. relationship and cooperation problems, this variable is negatively correlated with the variable on how the manager conveys visions of the future. This means that if the manager starts talking about the future, for example that everything will be fine if we do this, the problems will disappear. This creates a negative effect on PSS, as the manager avoids getting to grips with the real problems.
I have seen, based on fact, that managers who do not want to deal with the real problems try to focus on the future and how good it will be when we replace the machines, computers, software, etc., instead of seeing the real problems. The same applies if the manager handles the situation with help, by handling change processes and motivation around these, which often leads to failure in capturing employees and get them on board. The same applies if the manager only talks about change processes without first seeing the real circumstances, and ignores the problems that exist. This brings about the opposite effect, which can result in a situation you have surely experienced; the feeling that “the manager does not understand us and our problems.”
In order to increase well-being among managers and employees, and as such efficiency, and reduce PSS based on the changing leadership, it is important to:
• focus on opportunities, not problems
• be courageous and react if there is something wrong – do not wait and risk a quagmire
• create motivation instead of suppressing deficiencies
• try new approaches together employees
• meet, see and evaluate the needs of the group as well as the employees
• remember to meet the staff on their own ground – take hold of the problems and solve them before any change processes start; i.e. don’t see the change itself as the resolving factor.
Seen from the structural leadership perspective, the following variables are strongly linked to PSS. It is important that the division of responsibilities and roles are communicated clearly to employees so that there is no doubt or, in the worst case, conflicts over who does what. The objectives and values must be clear and distinct, and should be clearly explained. It is not enough to mention at a staff meeting or send via e-mail, etc., rather these must be written so that everyone understands and has been given an insight into what they stand for. Failure to do this risks employees not realising why they are currently working at that specific workplace. This may bring about indirect effects and impacts on our measurements with PSS. In our measurements I have also seen it is important that everything works according to the plan in place, and that rules and regulations are followed. I have on many occasions been in organisations where rules are not followed, most recently in autumn 2015. In the most recent organisation, which was a large national administration, there were employees who ‘fiddled’ their working hours: they had learnt to manipulate the timing system. Although the manager(s) knew about this they did nothing about it. The consequence of this was that it created great dissatisfaction among the employees who behaved correctly. In such a case, an incorrect focus was created, where the debate was not about developing the business but rather dealing with the problems in the organisation that led to PSS rising sharply.
Anders Larson