Occupational stress has been in the news again. This time there is speculation that there will be even more cases next year of employees suing their employers for stress at work. Against this background some HR Directors are commissioning stress audits. Their intentions are honourable. Responsible directors want to demonstrate that they take the question of employee health very seriously. They want to know whether or not serious problems exist and, if so, what remedial measures they can take. However, are stress audits really the best way forward? Do they represent value for money? Do they provide directors with the information they really need to know? What distinguishes a good audit from a bad one?
To answer these questions, it is necessary to go back a few steps and to challenge some of the assumptions underlying stress audits. Firstly, what exactly is "stress"? There are almost as many definitions as there are experts, however most of them describe stress as the inevitable result when our coping mechanisms fail to deal with the pressures in our lives. Some writers go on to link stress with the fight / flight response - a physiological response shared by animals and humans alike in the face of real or perceived danger.
The problem with such definitions is that they overlook the important fact that stress is the symptom not the disorder. One way of thinking about stress is to compare it to toothache. In the same way that dentists differentiate between the presenting problems and the real or underlying problems, HR directors could categorise organisational problems into (1) presenting problems (2) diagnosed problems and (3) underlying problems. Diagrammatically, it could look like this:-
| Symptom / presenting problem | Toothache, Irritability | Stress, Tension |
| Diagnosed problems | Caries | Overwhelmed by the volume of work |
| Underlying problems | Poor brushing technique, Lack of flouride, Too much sugar in diet | Poor strategic planning, Insufficient support, Lack of assertiveness |
If this model is taken as a starting point then it can be seen that any audit that concentrates on symptoms is probably going to draw conclusions that, at best, are meaningless. It is not particularly helpful to know that x % of employees have suffered from y level of stress in the last z weeks. What is the director supposed to do with that type of information?
Occasionally, being "stressed out" at work is unavoidable. However, it is often personal crises, rather than poor management, that precipitate such episodes. A helpful audit will assess the nature and extent of the problems that give rise to the complaints of "stress". If and when the underlying problems are identified as being within the organisation's control, then the director can take the appropriate remedial action.
Another problem with stress audits is that if the information is gathered anonymously, as it should be, then the results cannot answer the most important question from the point of view of potential litigation: viz., who, exactly, is vulnerable? While the results may be able to identify a vulnerable group of employees - all those who work in a particular department for example - it must be asked why an audit was needed in order to identify the problem. Why had the line manager not noticed? Why had nobody else brought the difficulties to the management's attention?
This is not to say that audits are a waste of time. A well-designed piece of research, which has a robust methodology and has been administered to a representative sample, can be rich in helpful information. To ensure value for money, consider the following questions beforehand:
- What do you really want to know?
- Are your questions well formulated?
- What is the best method for answering your questions?
- What will be the effect on the organisation of asking the questions? (Will the process raise unrealistic expectations?)
- How valid is the measuring instrument?
- Will the results be reliable?
- Can you use the results to make meaningful comparisons between groups?
- Will the results tell you anything new?
- Do you have any other data e.g. sickness absence figures, that will obviate the need for an audit?
- What are the implications of undertaking the audit yourself, versus asking an independent organisation to do it on your behalf?
It could be argued that organisations which foster a culture of openness are much more likely to know who is vulnerable and how best such individuals can be helped. Managers who have been well trained will spot the early warning signs of potential stress and will deal with the underlying problems before they escalate out of control. In such a corporate culture there would be no need to undertake an organisation wide audit because the line managers would, in effect, be undertaking audits of their own departments on a daily basis.
If this were happening today we would not be worried about litigation tomorrow.
Peter Thomson is a Chartered Clinical Psychologist and one of the Directors of Psychologists and Training Consultants Ltd.