a survey of stress and well-being among staff in higher ... - UCU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

excellence in a number of areas has compounded the stress experienced bystaff (Hazelkorn, 2011). Market-led policies and globalisation necessitateregular curriculum redesign and diverse modes of delivery, which requireenhanced professional and technical skills from academic and support staff.Enhanced regulatory demands and performance management structuresrelating to teaching and research have been introduced. Staff employed inuniversities and colleges have experienced increased demands for excellencein teaching, administration and pastoral care, as well as more pressure to boostfunding through entrepreneurial activities (CHERI, 2007). Universities are alsoforced to compete more fiercely for research grants and the forthcomingResearch Excellence Framework requires academic employees to not onlyproduce excellent research, but evidence its broad impact.Fixed-term or other forms of casual contracts for staff in higher education arewidespread - particularly for research-only academic staff. In higher educationin the UK in 2011-12, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency’sStaff Record, analysed by University and College Union, 36% of all academics,including 60% of teaching-only staff and 68% of research-only staff, were onfixed-term contracts - a factor likely to have impacted on perceptions of jobsecurity. The trend towards greater rationalisation of universities and collegesthrough closure and merger is likely to continue (CHERI, 2011). High levels ofjob insecurity have been found in previous studies of UCU members (Kinman &Jones, 2004; Court & Kinman, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). Job insecurity has alsobeen cited as a considerable source of stress in UCU members and othersamples of university and college employees (Kinman & Jones, 2004;Tytherleigh, Webb, Cooper & Ricketts, 2005).Research conducted over the last 10 to 15 years indicates that levels of psychologicaldistress amongst employees in post-compulsory education arecomparatively high. The findings of a systematic review conducted by Watts andRobertson (2011) highlighted levels of burnout amongst university teachingstaff compara-ble with ‘at risk’ groups such as healthcare professionals.Academics engaged in teaching and research, rather than those who are justteachers or researchers, tended to report the highest levels of stress (Winefield& Jarrett, 2001). Two UK surveys of academic and academic-related staffconducted in 1998 and 2004 1 found high levels of job-related stressors and alevel of psychological distress that exceeded that reported by other professionalgroups (Kinman, 1998; Kinman & Jones 2004; Kinman et al., 2006). The moststressful aspects of work included rushed pace of work, inadequateadministrative and technical support, lack of respect and esteem, too muchadministrative paperwork, poor promotion opportunities, ineffectivecommunication, and lack of opportunity for scholarly work. Levels of many ofthese stressors remained high in the sector in the six year period between1998 and 2004 (Kinman et al., 2006).1 Surveys of members of the Association ofUniversity Teachers.The study conducted in 2004 revealed that a considerable proportion of membersof the Association of University Teachers were working in excess of the 48hour weekly limit set by the European Union’s Working Time Directive (HMSO,1998). More specifically, 59% of respondents employed on a full-time basis6
worked more than 45 hours in a typical week and 21% in excess of 55 hours.Almost one half of the sample worked regularly during evenings and weekendsin order to cope with the demands of their work. Academic staff involved inboth teaching and research tended to report longer working hours. Unsurprisingly,a high level of conflict between work and home life was reported, and wasthe strongest predictor of psychological distress. Boundaries between work andhome were blurred for the majority of respondents, and few reported that theywere able to achieve an acceptable work-life balance. The negative impact ofwork-life conflict on health and family-life has been widely demonstrated(Kinman & Jones, 2001). The 2004 study reported that work demands tendedto spill over into the home domain both physically (e.g. working at home duringevenings and weekends), and psychologically (e.g. preoccupation with workproblems, difficulties in sleeping, and irritability with family and friends).Although few respondents wished for total separation between their work andhome lives, the majority desired more separation than they currentlyexperienced.From the research discussed above, it is clear that the post-compulsoryeducation sector in the UK is continuing to experience fundamental changes.This is likely to have a continued negative impact on the well-being of UCUmembers, and it is likely that work-related stress is likely to continue to be high.The HSE managementstandards approachThe Health and Safety Executive (HSE: the UK body responsible for policy andoperational matters related to occupational health and safety) has developed aprocess to help employers manage the work-related well-being of their staff. Arisk-assessment approach is advocated whereby workplace stress isconsidered a serious health and safety issue, and stressors are measured andmanaged like any other workplace hazard. The HSE process is based around aset of standards of good management practice (or benchmarks) for measuringemployers’ performance in preventing work-related stress from occurring atsource (Mackay et al., 2004).Following extensive consultation, the HSE selected several elements of workactivity (known as psychosocial hazards) that are: a) considered relevant to themajority of UK employees and b) have a strong evidence base as the ‘mostcritical predictors’ of employee well-being and organisational performance(Mackay et al., 2004, p. 101). The specified hazards are demands, control,social support (from managers and peers), interpersonal relationships, roleclarity and involvement in organisational change.The HSE has developed a self-report survey instrument to help employersmeasure the key hazards within their organisations and compare theirperformance with national standards. The HSE Indicator Tool (Cousins et al,2004) comprises 35 items within the seven hazard categories:n Demands includes workload, pace of work and working hours;n Control measures levels of autonomy over working methods, as well aspacing and timing;n Peer support encompasses the degree of help and respect received fromcolleagues;7
Page 1: HigherstressA SURVEY OF STRESS ANDW
Page 5 and 6: Summaryn Nearly three-quarters of t
Page 7: IntroductionWork-related stress is
Page 11 and 12: UCU members. Respondents from highe
Page 13 and 14: Findings1: Biographical information
Page 15 and 16: (12) I have to neglect some tasks b
Page 17 and 18: CONTROLA typical snapshotUCU member
Page 19 and 20: Control: summaryComparison of the U
Page 21 and 22: (33) I am supported through emotion
Page 23 and 24: (31) My colleagues are willing to l
Page 25 and 26: (34) Relationships at work are stra
Page 27 and 28: (13) I am clear about the goals and
Page 29 and 30: Change: summaryComparison of the UC
Page 31 and 32: 74%). Comparative data is provided
Page 33 and 34: Some variation was found in ideal l
Page 35 and 36: Findings6: Differences between grou
Page 37 and 38: Urgent action is required to enhanc
Page 39 and 40: ReferencesAllen, T. D., Herst, D. E
Page 41: AppendixThe questionnaireUniversity
Page 44 and 45: 14 There is friction or angerbetwee
Page 46 and 47: My personal life suffersbecause of
Page 48: 49 The average number ofhours you w

a survey of stress and well-being among staff in higher ... - UCU

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?