Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

194
3a.2) Descriptive Statistics
Management Standards Indicator Tool analysis shows that there is just one ‘psychosocial hazard’ which can
be is working well from Survey 2 outcomes (see Appendix 13). There are also 3 areas in which there is ‘clear need
for improvement’ and a further 3 for which there is ‘urgent need for action’. This therefore indicates that none of
the 7 areas measured as working to their greatest potential, and also means participants are likely to experience
stressors as measured by these areas. When compared to Survey 1 (see Section 1a.2 of this chapter), each of
the 7 average scores for the psychosocial areas are lower for Survey 2 and while two areas were found to be
working well in Survey 1, only one was found in Survey 2. Worryingly however three areas in Survey 2 were in
need of urgent action, whereas none were found to be so in Survey 1. This indicates a deterioration of
psychosocial working standards over the 12 month period.
Table 17: Survey 2 MSIT analysis tool results, indicating areas working well as well as those requiring improvement.
Demand
s*
Control Manageria
l Support
Peer
Support
Relationsh
ips*
Role Chan
ge
Mean
Scores
2.85
(.65)
3.52
(.82)
3.09
(.96)
3.64
(.72)
3.62
(.81)
3.73
(.72)
2.82
(1.10)
(SD)
Suggested 3.00 3.60 3.34 3.71 3.76 4.07 2.99
Target
Long Term 3.29 3.72 3.65 3.89 4.04 4.31 3.24
Targetsᶧ
*Denotes reversed scoring.
Table 18 shows that among respondents the levels of Exhaustion, described as a ‘draining of resources’, and
Cynicism, described as an indifferent or distant attitude toward work, are both far above the highest threshold