Implications: creating a better workplace

The results of the 2002 survey extend the initial results of the survey that was done in 2000 and include a broader sample of women, and add a comparable group of men to examine similarities and differences.  The results do more than track current workplace trends. They indicate how positive and negative workplace conditions have a significant impact on the lives of respondents. The findings may also help us identify the characteristics of organizational environments that make it easier—or more difficult—for people to cope with and snap back from other sources of difficulty such as an economic downturn, and a profoundly disturbing event such as 9/11.

We believe the results have significant implications for organizations as they struggle to survive, and as they prepare for an eventual improvement in the economy. The results suggest some practical steps that may be taken by organizations to help individual members and their work groups manage difficult times and stressful life events.  Such efforts may also improve job satisfaction, employee retention, and productivity, all which have significant bottom-line consequences.  A recent Harris Interactive survey of 300 companies in the U.S., for example, indicated a rise to 12% from 6% of “unscheduled employee absences in the last year due to stress” (Bushnell, 2002).  

Our study indicates that people are worried about an uncertain future, and that they tend to use self-reliant strategies to cope with the resulting stress—becoming less dependent on their companies. Some executives may feel that employees have nowhere to turn, and should be grateful to even have a job. While this may be true for the short term, what about people’s sense of loyalty to the company once the economy improves? Will the most valuable people leave? If homeland security issues continue to be salient, and if the economy takes another year or two to turn around, the implications may be even more serious. Employees may experience great difficulty sustaining the level of effort required to bring themselves and their companies through a long period of crisis.  

Here are some suggestions for companies and their leadership:

1.   Companies would be wise to consider providing support services to help people manage their stress.  Employers may want to offer more than just referrals to counselors or Employee Assistance Programs, which may be sufficient when only a few people are having trouble coping.  If the problem is widespread, however, other methods are needed.  Giving people some schedule flexibility and, more generally, control over what they do and how they work will help.  Encouraging and actually helping people find an appropriate balance between their work and non-work lives will also help.  Strengthening small groups and task teams, and encouraging people whose work is interdependent to work together explicitly is certain to contribute to their resilience.  Helping to reduce other negative workplace characteristics (such as gender-related obstacles) may also improve the workplace for everyone.

2.      Companies can support key managers by providing coaching that helps them manage their own stress and reduce the stress of others, rather than unintentionally pass stress along to those they lead.  Managers and others can be helped to understand how their behavior impacts others, and how to use their own skills to help others deal with work and life difficulties.  

3.      In general, we suspect that positive work environments are not only associated with people  feeling better about their non-work lives, but also make it easier for them to cope with external sources of difficulty such as downsizing, broad economic uncertainty, and catastrophic events. Companies might well be able to improve the morale and retention of employees if they create working environments that encourage:

·        satisfaction in accomplishments;

·        the ability to learn and grow quickly;

·        development of skilled and knowledgeable co-workers;

·        autonomy and independence;

·        collaboration and teamwork; and

·        the freedom to be creative. 

Conversely, companies should try to ensure that their work environments do not have the unfavorable characteristics that people in our study cited:

·        poor planning and communication;

·        uncertainty about the future;

·        poor infrastructure and support;

·        lack of recognition;

·        inexperienced leadership; and

·        gender-related obstacles.

Next: Concluding thoughts

Return To: www.glsconsulting.com

Copyright 2002.  GLS Consulting, Inc.