A healthy workplace environment

By VIKKI BLAND

Last year, a young house surgeon identified by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) only as Philip suffered a nervous breakdown because of work stress.

Philip had been a star medical student. Staff shortages in the public hospital he was working in meant he worked between 10 and 14 hours a day, had to make critical diagnoses alone when he should have had support, and suffered abuse from senior staff who were also under pressure. In one weekend he was paged 400 times.

Philip had to take a lengthy amount of time off work, resulting in personal problems and $105,833 in lost income. He now works part-time.

Last year, OSH tracked the lives of 15 New Zealanders who were forced to take time off work through work-related injuries, accidents or illnesses.

By the time those able to return to work did so, their employers had lost $440,414 in documented costs. ACC had paid out a further $621,352 and OSH and other government agencies $46,488. ACC estimates seven of the cases will cost a further $3,985,989.

Put these figures alongside the falling birth rate, which makes staff retention a critical business issue, and amendments to health and safety laws, and employers have compelling reasons to ensure their employees' health and wellbeing.

But should it be the employers' responsibility to help employees cope with stress, emotions and physical health needs? How much should employers spend and what level of non-performance should they tolerate if employees are not performing because of a health issue?

Beverley Main, chief executive of the Human Resources Institute of New Zealand (HRINZ), says the answers lie partly in prevention being better than cure.

"It is a sad reflection on our times that we need legislation to protect people from being subjected to unreasonable stress," she says. "Yet there also has to be a degree of responsibility on the part of the employee. Very often, people have too much stress in their private lives, and when something happens at work it tips them over the edge."

The institute has set up an organisational wellbeing conference in Wellington next month. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Main says it has attracted record early registrations.

One of the speakers, Roy Smollan, lecturer in organisational behaviour and management for the Auckland University of Technology, says employers can condition the work environment by working with employee emotions.

Smollan found many references to emotions while researching management change for his PhD.

"There's a school of thinking which says emotion is the opposite of reason," he says. "But research suggests there is, in fact, a lot of interplay between reason and emotion.

"If you want to manage change in a business effectively you have to understand how people are thinking and feeling about it."

Repressed emotions in the workplace can result in theft, sabotage and disloyalty to an employer as well as social and family problems, he says.

"If you don't know that people are scared about something or angry about something, there will be problems you don't even know exist. The negative consequences can be costly, like more staff turnover, staff absenteeism, less loyalty."

He says the discrepancy between how people feel and how they are expected to feel in a particular job can also cause problems.

However, he says, while it's helpful to ensure work environments allow emotional expression, it's also possible to go overboard.

"Some companies provide workshops in which people are encouraged to share their emotions. But ironically, if people are not comfortable it can add to their frustration and stress."

Managers need to find a middle ground that's right for individuals and the organisation, he says. And they should hone their people skills to detect emotions and be sensitive to them. New Zealand employers may find that hard.

"In the United States, people are more willing to talk about their emotions at work. I wouldn't say [British-originating] New Zealanders are repressed, but certainly emotional expression is not encouraged in the British culture, as compared to, say, the Pacific Island culture."

So how can organisations help their employees to be emotional in a healthy way?

Culture change comes from the top, Smollan says.

"Don't criticise emotions or punish employees by passing comments like 'He can't control his temper', 'He's a loose cannon' or 'She's too emotional'."

Smollan says managers can invite employees to describe how they feel about a particular issue and raise any concerns.

"People should be able to go to their bosses and say, 'Look I have a major conflict with a person'. Instead of the boss saying, 'Don't get emotional about it', he or she should consult the other person and look for the core problem.

Kim Harvey, managing director of Corporate Wellness Consultants, helps organisations assess employees' physical wellbeing and will speak at the conference on the importance of having a life.

Employees may push themselves too hard because they think their employers or colleagues expect more of them than they actually do, Harvey says. But she is constantly impressed by the growing number of employers who work diligently on employee wellbeing.

"Many employers work very hard to get new mothers back into the work force, for example. And most companies accept domestic leave to, say, care for elderly parents or sick children.

"I don't know to what extent employers should be expected to support someone whose performance has suffered for a long time, but they will usually benefit from supporting a good employee with knowledge which is valuable to the organisation."

Her advice includes providing employees with health insurance, stocking company cafeterias or fridges with healthier food and educating employees about positive health habits.

"One of my clients has just finished fitness testing the whole company. Now they are all getting involved in a local marathon. The goal is to ingrain the good habit by attaching it to something fun, and something outside of work."

And the cost? Harvey says businesses can expect to pay anything from $50-$60 a person for a wellness checkup to about $300 for full medicals and advanced programmes.

HR departments also have a large part to play in corporate wellness and managing for performance.

Main says it is becoming more critical for companies to work with their HR departments. "In recent years there's been a shift from the functional side of HR - dealing with recruitment and people leaving - to a strategic view of HR with a role to play throughout an organisation," she says.

But how does an employer teach people to perform?

Gerri Power, national manager for Corporate Mentoring, believes the answer lies partly in teaching people to be honest with themselves.

"We call it the courageous conversation, which just describes the ability to have conversation with yourself and face some home truths before deciding on a course of action."

Mentoring is often more effective than sending people on courses because it happens within the work environment.

"With courses, there's a connect and disconnect as the person returns to work. Mentoring happens at work and is ongoing."

Power says personal and professional development often go hand in hand and people may need guidance to be flexible in challenging times.

"Rather than leave an organisation at a time of challenge, the goal of mentoring is to have the individual able to say, 'If I leave at this point, will I be having the same conversation with myself a year down the track?'

"If they want a leadership role they may have to stand and contend with what is in front of them."

Employers will often invest in mentoring for a key employee, costing about $3000 for a minimum three months. Management teams can also be mentored and organisations can retain or attract talent by offering mentoring services.

"Mentoring helps people work through things from day to day rather than waking up at 3am and asking why isn't it all going the way I want it to be going?" says Main.

Employers may balk at paying for mentoring or other employee wellbeing programmes, but Power says they need to be realistic.

"Paying for employee wellbeing is common sense. If people are good enough to employ, they are good enough to look after."

Human Resources Institute of NZ