Stress in the workplace : an action research case study of social services

The public sector is facing an impending shortage of staff because young people no longer want to work in it and nearly a third of its workforce is over 50 years of age. Moreover, staff working within the public sector report that stress is the biggest single factor affecting their decision to leave. This thesis presents the findings of a large inclusive study carried out in two social service departments in the North West of England, since the introduction of Best Value, which was set up to improve the quality of local government services. The primary aim of the research was to explore work related stress in social services, using a 'problem diagnosis tool in order to understand the stressors experienced and to inform the development of interventions aimed at reducing, and or eliminating them. This study used in-depth interviewing to develop an original questionnaire incorporating a wide variety of measures to assess potential stressors and mental well-being. The questionnaire response rate was 33% (n=1,234) and the results demonstrated statistically signfIcant differences between staffing grades (p<0. 05), with salaried staff reporting higher levels of psychological job demands, control, support, organisational constraints and absenteeism, whilst also reporting the poorest levels of well-being Job satisfaction throughout both departments was low compared with established norms for various occupational groups. Staff working in Children and Families Division were the worst affected by stress, reporting the highest levels of absenteeism (with 54% of staff reporting being off sick in the previous 6 months), the poorest well-being, and the highest level of organisational constraints. Participatory action research (PAR) using focus groups (n =4) was used within this division to develop a better understanding of the dfficulties experienced and develop context -specIc interventions aimed at reducing or eliminating these stressors. Findings indicated that the areas of most concern to staff were predominantly organisational, rather than intrinsic to social care work, mainly stemming from a lack of resources. Stressors included: a heavy workload; lack of staff insufficient recognition/loyalty; poor communication; too much change; and poor sickness levels. Points for action were developed participatively which called for: a review of workloads, staffing levels, and the use of temporary/agency staff recognition and appreciation, improved communication; improved support and consultation at times of change; and the development of separate policies to deal with persistent long-term sickness absence. Following the development of action plans by management outlining proposed interventions, an evaluation of the process was carried out to highlight what worked well, what did not and in what context. The process evaluation findings highlighted a number of conditions which restricted the development of stress management interventions, together with highlighting a number of conditions necessary for potentially successful interventions to be achieved. These include. commitment from top management; a culture of trust; an assurance that findings will inform actions; the existence of a steering group; sufficient resources (both time and money); a realistic expectation of the outcomes discussed at the outset; an assurance offeedback to staff a supportive union; and a contract drawn up at the outset setting out timescales and intentions to act on the findings. The process evaluation also highlighted health promotion outcomes achieved throughout the programme, namely; improved health literacy; changes to organisational policies and practices; and staff empowerment and participation. It is recommended that the interventions proposed by the focus groups are thoroughly evaluatedfrom the baseline established by this research, and that the conditions necessary for successful stress management are adopted in future programmes.