Prof. Dr. Gisela MohrDr. Kathleen OttoDr. Thomas RigottiPhD Torsten HolstadPhD Christiane Stempel
Prof. Dr. Kerstin IsakssonDr. Eric HansenPhD Carina Loeb
Prof. Dr. Ulla KinnunenPhD Kaisa Perko
31.01.2012, BAuA, Berlin
Background
New and Emerging Risks at Work – Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)
Consortium composed of 18 European agencies:Germany: BAUA and DGUVFinland: Institute of Occupational HealthSchweden: Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, FAS
Goals: Enhancing quality and cooperation in the OSH research; synergistic effects and improved flow of information
Joint call in 2009 Start of the project: may 2010 Subsidy amount : 300.000 € in Germany, ….in Sweden; … in
Finland
Why focus on leaders' behaviours? Why focus on leaders' behaviours? Psychological disorders as reasons for sick leave
have dramatically increased in the last years Due to changing nature of work: Increasing
importance of psychosocial risk factors Leaders impact health and well-being of employees
in many ways: task assignment (complexity, autonomy, time
pressure) feedback social support participation in decision making
Research on Leadership and Health Research on Leadership and Health – in a nutshell– in a nutshell
The supervisor-subordinate relationship has been reported as one of the most common sources of stress in organizations (Cartwright & Cooper, 1994; Moyle, 1998; Tepper, 2000, van Dierendonck et al., 2004)
LMX, and Transformational leadership as concepts are currently dominating the field of research, but there are also potential negative consequences!(Harris & Kacmar,2006)
Leaders behaviours can be either a direct predictor for employees health and well-being, or plays a moderating role between stressors, and strain(Väänänen et al., 2003)
Workpackages – Current StatusWork packages Project month/
initial scheduleStatus/ Adjustments
WP1 State of the art report
1-6 The state of the art report was finished in 03/2011 as a draft.
WP2 Contact with the participants
1-36 In all three countries a sufficient number of participants (more as planned) could be recruited. Communication with participating teams, and organizations is an ongoing task
WP3 Questionnaire development & pilot
1-6 The pilot questionnaire was carried out in the 7th project month (11/2010). Data analyses, and decisions for the final questionnaire were finished in 03/2011.
WP4 Instruction work book
4-6 (t1)22-24 (t2)28-39 (t3)
Guidelines for sampling strategy, and decisions about the design of the research instruments have been made on time for the first wave of measurement.
WP5 Data management & (process-) evaluation
7-9 (t1)25-27 (t2)31-33 (t3)
The first wave of data collection started delayed in the 11th project month (03/2011) and has been finished in 06/2011. The second survey is now planned for 06-08/2012 (26-28th project months), and the third survey for 11/2012-01/2013 (31-33th project months). Though we started delayed, we will be able to stick to the overall time schedule.
Work packages Project month/ initial schedule
Status/ Adjustments
WP6 Model & plan for interventions
1-8 A general plan and schedule for intervention has been developed and is carried out in the participating teams in Sweden and Germany.
WP7 Conducting interventions
9-24 The intervention started with only a slight delay of 2 months according to the initial plans. Currently the intervention modules are as scheduled. The intervention will end in May 2012.
WP8 Country differences
4-6 (<t1)27-29 (t2)33-35 (t3)
Theoretical considerations, as well as empirical evidence on cultural, and societal differences, affecting leadership has been integrated in the state of the art review. Explorative analyses on differences between a German, Finnish and Swedish sample on the variables under study have been performed on the pilot data and the t1 data.
WP9 Preparation of manual
Ongoing documentation and evaluation of the intervention moduls
WP10 Dissemination of results & web page
The web-site of the Re-Su-Lead project is available under http://www.uta.fi/projects/resulead/ already since June 2010 (2nd project month), and is updated regularly.
WP11 Coordination Frequent face to face meetings have been organized.
Workpackages – Current Status
Research Design
! ReSuLead ! Longitudinal study with 3 measuring times Intervention & control groups (public- & private sector) Multisource, multimethod design (leaders, employees, teams) Country comparisons between Schweden, Deutschland, Finnland Evaluation
InterventionIntervention
General goal for the intervention
• Health promoting, rewarding and sustainable leadership
• Intervention plan - Leadarship as a relationship– Involve teammembers and increase their role and
influence in the process of making their work place more health promoting
– Regular team meetings used in learning process (observation, feedback, workshops)
– Leaders get support from other leaders, coaching and reflection
– Change and learning takes time
Expected outcomes for leaders, teams and organizations
• Leaders: theory and facts, new skills (e.g. coping with stress), feedback from team members about their role, individual development (e.g. self efficacy)
• Teams: theory and facts ( working in teams, work and health), improvements of team climate and working conditions
• Organization: knowledge and increased awareness of health promotion in the work place and the role of leaders
Expected outcomes for researchIncrease knowledge about...
Rewarding, sustainable and health Rewarding, sustainable and health promoting leadership promoting leadership and contribute to and contribute to theoretical developmentheoretical development t
Causal relationships, processes och critical intervening factors
Culture and gender differencesCulture and gender differences Develop a screening instrument to analyse psycho
social risk factors in the organization Develop an intervention manual based on
outcomes of the intervention .
Intervention activities - overview
Intervention
Team workshops 1
Feedback from questionnaires T1
Teams work with action plan about health promotion in the workplace
Clear tasks, allocation of responsbility (both leaders and team members)
Time plan
What to do (necessary tasks)?
How do we achieve goal?/ What can I do??
When to do it? Who is responsible?
Action plan!
Wann ist das
Modell anwendbar?
Um einen konkreten Auftrag
umzusetzen:
Wie kann das Ziel
erreicht werden?
Welche Handlungs-
möglichkeiten gibt
es? Wie können
wir diese umsetzen?
Wie wendet man
es an?Beginnen Sie mit
dem Auftrag und
bearbeiten Sie
Punkt für Punkt.
Fragen Sie sich,
wie Sie den
jeweiligen Schritt
erreichen können.
So erzielen Sie
eine Vielzahl
verschiedener
Handlungs-
möglichkeiten.
Hindrance? How to overcome them+
Aim
Aufgaben-aufteilung
Transparenz & Akzeptanz
Unterstützung
Aufgaben festlegen
Personal > Kapazität
ABP unter Beachtung der Einzelgruppen
Info an alle MA
nachvollziehbar
Beachtung im Alltag
Flexibilität
Personal-änderungen
3 Monate Fachdienstleiter
1 Monat Fachdienstleiter
ständig; jährliche überprüfung Fachdienstleiter & AbteilungsleiterInn
Änderung der Art und des Umfangs der Arbeit
3 Monate Fachdienstleiter & Mitarbeiter
KH/ Akt.
Analyse Flexibilität Kurzfristige Verschiebung der Maßnahme
Intervention
Observations of team meeting
Observation (about 1 hour) about team climate, decision making, allocation of tasks etc, made by two researchers during a regular team meeting (includes home work for team members)
LecturesFor leaders:• Leadership and health, work task analyses
For leaders and team members:•Work and stress, health promotion•Team work cooperation
Intervention
Observations of team meeting
Observation (about 1 hour) about team climate, decision making, allocation of tasks etc, made by two researchers during a regular team meeting (includes home work for team members)
LecturesFor leaders:• Leadership and health, work task analyses
For leaders and team members:•Work and stress, health promotion•Team work cooperation
Intervention
Workshops for leaders
Knowledge about leadership theories and methods Exchange of ideas, discussions Skills training Offered individual coaching Daily diary for self reflection Reflection, discussion & evaluation
Coaching for leaders
3 Coaching sessions as part of project Reflection individual topics Support in the intervention processs Feedback to leaders about outcome of observation of the team and leader in meeting
Feb Mar Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov
Jan Feb Mar Apr Mai Nov Dez
2. Team-Workshop
3. Workshop for leaders
2011
2012
1 Leader meeting
Questionnaire T1
Theory I 1. Team Workshop Theory IIFeedback on goal setting
1. Workshop for leaders
Feedback and evaluation of intervention process
Questionnaire T2
Questionnaire T2
4. Workshop for leaders
2. Workshop for leaders
Coaching Diary Observation of team meeting
Coaching Diary Observation of team meeting
Intervention plan
Evaluation
• Main effects evaluation by questionnaires on two occasions (including control group)– T 2, May – June 2012– T 3, six months later
• Formative evaluation of the process– Goal setting (relevance)– Activities in the intervention– Implementation – Effects for participants
First impressions from Sweden
• Both leaders and teams were very positive about the workshops and the action plans– In some cases we notice that obstacles have
come up (e.g. work load, turn over)– Most positive effects seem to be when the
goals and activites planned by leader and team members become integrated in regular routines
– Leaders have a critical role but also team members engagement is important
First ResultsFirst Results
1. Description of the samples in every country2. Reliability and validity of the scales used3. Differences in perceived leadership between
countries4. Differences in occupational well-being between
countries5. Relationships between leadership and well-
being indicators6. Conclusions
Outline
Sample GER SWE FIN
N % N % N %
Subordinates 1386 90.2 441 93.6 557 89.8
Leaders 150 9.8 30 6.4 63 10.2
Total 1536 100.0 471 100.0 620 100.0
Total sample size
Background factor GERN = 1386
SWEN = 441
FINN = 557
Gender % Female 75.6 85.2 84.7
Male 24.4 14.8 15.3
Sector % Public 10.8 100 100
Private 89.2 - -
Age in years M (SD) 39.4 (11.0) 45.7 (10.8) 48.3 (9.7)
Working hrs in a week M (SD) 39.8 (5.4) 38.9 (6.2) 37.6 (5.2)
Description of the employee sample
• All the scales consisting of multiple items have been examined with factor analysis (EFA + CFA).
• The reliabilities of the scales across countries are good (α > .70) with a few exceptions.
• However, the construct validity of the scales across countries could be better, i.e., the factor loadings are not equal between the countries in many cases.
Reliability and Validity of Scales
1. Leadership climate: leaders provide clarity in goals, supply information and feedback, carry out changes at work successfully, promote employee participation and control
2. Transformational leadership: leaders act as role models, provide attractive vision of future, encourage independent thought, pay attention to individual development
3. Authentic leadership: leaders genuinely desire to understand their own leadership to serve others more effectively
4. Fair leadership: leaders treat their subordinates fairly and equally
5. Health-promoting leadership: leaders support employees’ autonomy and participation and take active role in solving conflicts
6. Abusive leadership: leaders show hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact
Leadership Scales
Significant differences:SWE > GER 1-5, FIN 1-3 and SWE < FIN 6, GER 6FIN > GER 3-5
Leadership across Countries
Leader self-appraisals are systematically and significantly more positive than the leader appraisals by employees.
How leaders see themselves in relation to employees
Significant differences:GER > SWE 1, FIN 1; GER < FIN 2, SWE 2; FIN > GER 3-4, SWE 3-4
Well-being, a country comparison
All correlations are significant at the p < .001 level except for abusive supervision in Sweden.
Correlations between leadership and well-being
• The samples differ between the countries which limits conclusions.
• Leadership is generally perceived as most positively in Sweden and most negatively in Germany; Finland falls in between.
• Occupational well-being is lowest among the German employees, although the Finnish employees have highest turnover intentions.
• Health-promoting leadership shows highest correlations with well-being indicators in every country (r = |.26-.48|), and leadership climate is the second one (r = |.20-.40|).
Conclusions