Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The aging work force makes sustainable employability (SE) of workers a priority. However, it is unknown to what extent employees use implemented SE measures.
OBJECTIVE:
To determine the utilization of 1) SE measures offered by employers, 2) employee SE strategies, and 3) to identify barriers and facilitators of SE strategies.
METHODS:
Survey data were collected among 731 blue collar and 879 white collar workers to determine the utilization of employer SE measures. Focus groups were held with 16 blue collar and 17 white collar workers to identify employee SE strategies and their barriers and facilitators.
RESULTS:
Utilization of employer SE measures was highest for personal development measures. Strategies applied by blue collar workers included using equipment, suggesting improvements of their working conditions, and seeking promotion to a less physically demanding job. White collar workers named engaging in leisure time physical activity and seeking an adequate work-life balance. Implementation of these strategies was influenced by employee awareness and self-efficacy, the accessibility and costs and benefits of the strategy, management support and company culture.
CONCLUSION:
Usage of employer SE measures was generally low and recommendations are given for both blue and white collar workers to improve SE strategies.
Introduction
In the face of an aging population, governments of Western countries have raised the statutory retirement age and initiated programs to prolong labor force participation. The need to stimulate labor force participation has increased interest in sustainable employability (SE). SE is defined as a worker’s ability to make a valuable contribution through his work, while acquiring capabilities and preserving his health and welfare throughout his working life [1]. Though many studies on sustainable employability focus on the older worker, sustainable employability is a concern for workers of all ages, and disease prevention and personal development start at young ages.
Employees in the construction industry have a comparatively high risk of early exit from the work force, namely through early retirement [2, 3] or work disability [4, 5]. Blue collar jobs in the construction industry are characterized by high physical load in combination with low job control, which has been shown to exert a negative effect on health that increases with age [6, 7]. Furthermore, blue collar construction workers perceive limited learning opportunities and future perspectives [6]. In contrast, white collar construction workers experience high levels of psychosocial work demands and report a comparatively high need for recovery [6]. These conditions have led to the development of interventions or measures aiming to improve those conditions and to promote employee SE for both blue and white collar workers. In the Dutch construction industry, these SE measures can be categorized as measures that target the work environment (e.g. ergonomic equipment), the worker’s health (e.g. sick leave management and periodic medical examination), personal development (e.g. training), or the organization of work (e.g. performance assessments). It is currently unknown to what extent employees are actually using these measures. However, implementation research has demonstrated that making measures available is insufficient for improving a worker’s SE; the actual utilization of these measures is often hampered by barriers [8]. For example, Boschman et al. (2015) found that the utilization of ergonomic measures by construction workers depended on whether workers experience positive effects while using the measure, such as reduced physical load [9]. A study on the implementation of a lifestyle intervention in the construction industry aiming to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) found that participation of blue and white collar workers was facilitated by a high level of perceived CVD-risk, social support, and added value, while participation was hampered by an employee’s need for independence, perceived interference with work, and a culture in the construction industry that discouraged being openly concerned with one’s health [10]. Identification of barriers makes it possible to devise implementation strategies that target those specific barriers [8]. Next to optimizing the utilization of available measures, it can be questioned whether the measures employers offer correspond to what employees need. Leijten et al. (2013) found that employees with health problems tried to maintain productivity by making adjustments to their work (e.g. reducing working hours), the relational domain (e.g. delegating physically demanding tasks), or the personal domain (e.g. reducing work pace) [11]. There is little information on the strategies employees in the construction industry apply to maintain their sustainable employability. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate to what extent employees in the construction industry use SE measures offered by their employer, which strategies they apply to increase their SE, and which barriers and facilitators influence the implementation of these strategies.
Method
Design
The current study was based on quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data on the utilization of SE measures was collected through a national survey among employees in the construction industry. As sustainable employability concerns employees of all ages, this study targeted the entire population of employees in the construction industry. Qualitative data on employee strategies to promote their SE and the influencing barriers and facilitators was gathered during focus groups. The study was approved by the medical ethics committee of the VU University Medical Center.
Data collection
Survey
The quantitative data for the current study was collected through the 2015 edition of a yearly online survey among employees working in the construction industry. On behalf of the organizations carrying out the collective labor agreement, the Dutch Economic Institute of the Construction Industry sent personalized invitation letters to all employees covered by the collective labor agreement of the Dutch construction industry. As an incentive, respondents could participate in a lottery to win 100 Euros. The survey took about 20 minutes to complete and posed questions about personal development, the implementation of the collective labor agreement, and health and safety. It included two items on SE. The first item presented a list of 15 SE measures, categorized into measures targeting the work environment (n = 5), employee health (n = 5), and employee personal development (n = 5). Table 1 gives a description of these measures. The respondent was asked to indicate which of these measures his employer was offering at that time. The second item inquired which of those measures the respondent had used during the preceding year.
Description of the SE measure presented in the questionnaire
Description of the SE measure presented in the questionnaire
Participants of the focus groups were recruited via their employer. Employers who had participated in an interview as part of a parallel study on implementation of SE measures by employers in the construction industry [12] were asked whether they would be willing to recruit employees for the focus groups of the current study. Only employers with more than 100 employees were approached, as participation of at least ten employees during work time would have meant a high demand on the resources of smaller companies. The recruited companies were selected in a way that maximized the variance of the level of SE policy implementation; one company had no implemented SE policy and had no intention of doing so in the future, one company was preparing to implement SE policy, and two companies had implemented SE policy. Companies were categorized into levels of SE policy implementation based on the employer interview [12]. Three employers agreed to organize one focus group with white collar workers and one with blue collar workers. One employer was willing to organize a focus group with the workers’ council, consisting of both blue and white collar workers. This mixed focus group was used to test hypotheses that had been formulated based on the results of the other six focus groups. Employers were asked to recruit focus group participants with a variation of job descriptions.
To prepare the focus groups, an interview guide was formulated. The guide contained a step-by-step description of the focus group session, starting with welcoming the participants up to the conclusion of the session. The interview guide included a topic list, that formed the basis for the semi-structured group discussion. The topics were related to the strategies employees apply to increase their SE, the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of these strategies, the employee opinions about the measures offered by their employer, and their need for additional SE measures. The focus group was conducted by an experienced moderator and an observer. The moderator posed stimulating and clarifying questions with the goal to let the participants determine the course of the discussion. The observer took notes to document non-audible information.
Prior to the focus group, respondents received information about the study from their employer. The moderator and observer prepared the focus groups by reviewing a summary of the employer interview [12], namely which SE measures the company had implemented and which factors had influenced the SE implementation according to the employer. All participants signed informed consent forms at the beginning of the session. The sessions were audiotaped.
Analysis
The survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics in SPSS (version 22). The audio recordings of the focus group sessions were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were coded according to the principles of thematic content analysis [13] using Atlas.ti (version 7.5.10). First, the transcripts were coded independently by two coders (ST and RvdV) using open coding. This process was data driven, as opposed to theory-driven. The coders discussed divergent codes and reached consensus. The open coding was applied to all transcripts in their entirety, focusing on citations where respondents talked about their needs, and facilitators and barriers of using a measure or strategy to increase their SE. As the identified barriers and facilitators seemed more meaningful when interpreted within the context of the specific strategy they affected, codes were grouped under the strategies. Within strategies, codes that seemed similar or related to each other were then categorized into themes (axial coding). The analysis aimed to identify latent themes: citations were interpreted as to their underlying meaning, as opposed to their literal or sematic meaning. We then summarized each transcript, selecting codes that – in the eyes of the coder – were emphasized most by the respondents. Based on the summaries, the definition of themes was sharpened and codes were regrouped into themes. The transcripts were then reread and coded according to the identified themes (selective coding).
Results
Sample
A total of 21,465 employees (blue collar: N = 13,228; white collar: N = 8,237) were approached for the online survey; 1,610 employees completed the items about SE (blue collar: 6%, N = 731; white collar: 11%, N = 879). Blue collar workers held jobs such as mechanics or plumbers; white collar workers held jobs in administration or planning. Table 2 shows the demographic variables of the survey respondents.
Demographic variables of the survey respondents
Demographic variables of the survey respondents
All employees who were asked to participate a focus group agreed. Seven focus groups were organized: three with white collar workers, three with blue collar workers, and one mixed focus group. Each focus group consisted of four to five participants. In total, 16 blue collar and 17 white collar workers participated. Table 3 gives an overview of the type of work and the job titles of the focus group participants. The sessions lasted 75 (55–110) minutes.
Type of work and job title of focus group participants
Table 4 shows the utilization of employer SE measures. The proportion of employees reached by employer measures is small (blue collar: 0–20% ; white collar: 0–21%). Both the low percentage of employees that reported being offered a measure (blue collar: 1–40% ; white collar: 1–43%) and the moderate percentage that reported using these measures (blue collar: 25–58% ; white collar: 6–59%) contribute to the low reach.
Employees who reported that their employer offered an SE measure, that they used the measure, and reach of each measure within the sample1
Employees who reported that their employer offered an SE measure, that they used the measure, and reach of each measure within the sample1
1Respondents could select more than one option. 2% who used the measure within subsample who reported being offered the measure. 3% who used the measure within total sample white/blue collar workers.
Both white and blue collar workers reported most frequently being offered measures that targeted the work environment (blue collar: 40% ; white collar: 43%), in particular accident prevention (blue collar: 35% ; white collar: 38%). Measures targeting personal development (blue collar: 22% ; white collar: 32%) or lifestyle (blue collar: 11% ; white collar: 19%) were reported much less frequently. Work environment measures also had the highest reach (blue collar: 20% ; white collar: 21%). The utilization of the measures that were offered was highest for measures promoting personal development (blue collar: 56% ; white collar: 58%), with training for the current job (blue collar: 58% ; white collar: 59%) having the highest utilization percentage.
During the focus groups, two types of themes were addressed: the strategies employees applied to deal with their work demands, and the barriers and facilitators that influenced the implementation of those strategies. To deal with the high physical load, blue collar workers named using equipment, suggesting improvements of their working conditions, seeking promotion to a physically less demanding job, changing employer, and reducing the work pace. White collar workers cited physical activity during leisure time and a good work-life balance to reduce stress levels. Barriers and facilitators differed per strategies and therefore are described separately for each strategy.
Blue collar worker strategies
Using equipment: Regarding the use of equipment, employees addressed the role of awareness, accessibility, the costs and benefits of the strategy, and support by the management and the company culture. In several focus groups, blue collar workers reported using equipment, if the benefit outweighed the cost. As a blue collar worker explained:
“In the beginning, it’s annoying [to use the rotating excavator bucket]; you have to get used to it. Then you think: ‘Damn, this is much easier!’ Then you say to your site manager: ‘Did you notice I did ten meters more this week?’ And then he starts thinking: Damn, next time we should rent that thing again!” (mechanic, 56 years old, mixed focus group)
One worker explained that simply making equipment available was not enough; supervisors had a role in dealing with other barriers that impeded access to the equipment:
“They have a crane here, you only need to use it, is the thing. I can work with the crane, I have all the necessary papers. I only need a permit for the truck to transport the crane to the construction site”. (mechanic, 22 years old)
Access was described as optimal when equipment was integrated into working routines, such as dust masks that were stored in the same box as the grinding machines. Several employees who reported using equipment thought that it was something that was expected by their superior.
Suggesting improvements of working conditions: Convincing superiors to improve the working conditions, particularly by investing in equipment, was a topic that was raised in all blue collar focus groups. As influencing factors were named awareness of the problem, cost and benefit of speaking up, accessibility of decision makers, transparency of procedures, and support by the management and the company culture. One blue collar worker explained how his understanding of the company policy had worked to his advantage:
“I used to be a member of the workers’ council, and the director said: ‘If we prevent sick leave, we save money’. I said: ‘Good, let’s invest in ergonomic equipment’. [...] It took a lot of talking, but in the end, we got the forklift”. (stock clerk, 56 years old)
Company culture and supervisor support were often cited as influencing factors. While employees in one focus group were positive about how open their superiors were towards suggestions, participants of other focus groups described a company culture that was based on the principle of “work hard, don’t complain”, where employees were expected to do their work without speaking up about poor working conditions.
Two focus groups also addressed a lack of collaboration between blue and white collar workers, miscommunication, mutual mistrust, and not feeling valued. One blue collar worker explained how this divide between office and construction workers affected their utilization of SE measures, which were usually initiated by office staff.
“It’s not that there is anything wrong with the concept ‘vitality’. The problem lies in the basics. If there is no mutual commitment, then you’re not going to care about that either”. (mechanic, 51 years old)
Institutionalized pathways for participation, such as performance evaluations were perceived as an opportunity to make suggestions, if the interest was considered genuine.
Seeking promotion to a physically less demanding job: Getting promoted to a physically less demanding job was named unanimously as an important strategy for blue collar workers to keep working until the age of 67. Employees cited the influence of their own awareness and capacity, accessibility of job openings, transparency of procedures, and support by the management and the company culture.
While blue collar workers considered the limited number of such job openings, as well as lack of employee capacities the most important barriers to upward mobility, employees also observed that it was in the interest of the company to keep qualified construction workers in their current positions.
“The managers are afraid to loose motivated and qualified personnel at the construction site. And there are no new construction workers coming in, so everybody is stuck in their position”. (stock clerk, 56 years old)
Workers expressed a wish for more transparency about their job prospects:
“They told me, I should make myself more interesting, do another training. I wish they would just come right out: ‘Great you applied, but we don’t want you here”. (plumber, 41 years old)
Changing employer: Given the lack of upward mobility, participants of two focus groups named changing employer as a way to attain a less physically demanding job. Employees named awareness, self-efficacy or capacity, costs of changing employer, and management support as influencing factors. Concretely, employees were held back by their commitment to their colleagues and fear of being perceived as disloyal by their actual and potential employer. Older employees were also pessimistic about their job prospects on the labor market.
Interviewer: “If I understand you right, there is no alternative: if you do not work at the office, you are not going to make the 67?”
Mechanic, 41 years old: “Except if you go work for another company”.
Plumber, 62 years old: “That’s what they say, but who is going to want you?”
Reducing the work pace: Reducing the work pace was addressed briefly by several focus groups, and workers identified capacity, self-efficacy and support by the management and company culture as influencing factors. Most employees felt reluctant to reduce the work pace, as they felt pressure to keep up from their supervisor and colleagues. However, an older worker explained that he felt he had no choice:
“You adapt your work pace, the way you work. Whether there is room for it or not... I’m 57 years old, and I still have ten years to go!” (mechanic, mixed focus group)
Blue collar workers indicated that their work experience helped them to recognize excessive work demands and to set limits with their supervisor. In the mixed focus group, employees talked about how the lack of collaboration among blue and white collar workers contributed to the excessive work load:
“Half of the administrative staff has no idea what it is we are doing outside [at the construction site]. A good calculator comes from outside [the construction site], understands the work we do”. (mechanic, mixed focus group)
Physical activity during leisure time: Engaging in leisure time physical activity was influenced by awareness and the costs and benefits. Most blue collar workers saw little added value in performing physical activity during leisure time. Some even considered it counterproductive for their SE, as it only added to the physical load. Recreation and time for recovery were considered more effective to increase SE. Those blue collar workers who did perform physical activity during leisure time cited recreation as the reason.
White collar worker strategies
Physical activity during leisure time: For the white collar workers, engaging in leisure time physical activity was influenced by their awareness, costs and benefits, accessibility. White collar workers addressed physical activity as a strategy to counterbalance their sedentary behavior at work, and to cope with high levels of stress during work. Activity types with easy access and which could be performed as a group were favored. Other activities, such as spending time with family, and a lack of energy were named as reasons not to engage in physical activity. Older workers explained that handling the work load cost them more energy compared to when they were younger, and their increased need for recovery left them little time for physical activity.
Work-life balance: Next to physical activity, white collar workers addressed the importance of an adequate work-life balance, and the influence of awareness, capacity, and support by the management and the company culture were named. White collar workers argued that a high work load was inherent to the job and attributed responsibility for an excessive work load to the employee instead of the work environment.
R1: “It’s the ad hoc work, always having to react right away, you know. If every day were like that, I wouldn’t make it till 67”. (team leader, 30 years old)
R2: “Well, then you need to take a step back”. (project leader, 57 years old)
After some debate, one employee remarked that the company culture may encourage the attribution of responsibility to the worker.
“This is a family company. The owner started from nothing. And that generation is still in place. So, if someone addresses that kind of thing [stress, work load], it’s immediately: ’Stop whining!’ So that’s why I say: how do we deal with stress in this company? Unknown. Actually, I sometimes feel, if that kind of problem arises, it’s you who is the problem”. (HR advisor, 31 years old, mixed focus group)
Discussion
This study aimed to examine to what extent employees in the Dutch construction industry use SE measures offered by their employer, which strategies they apply to promote their SE, and which barriers and facilitators influence the implementation of these strategies. Employees reported that employers most frequently offered measures that targeted the work environment, while reported utilization was highest for SE measures promoting personal development. Strategies blue collar workers applied to increase their SE included using equipment, making suggestions to improve working conditions, and seeking promotion to a physically less demanding job. Meanwhile, white collar workers engaged in leisure time physical activity and tried to create an adequate work-life balance. The adoption of SE promoting behavior was influenced by the employee’s awareness and self-efficacy, the accessibility and costs and benefits of the strategy, as well as the supportiveness of the management and company culture.
Literature comparison
Our finding that employers more frequently offered measures targeting the work environment than those targeting personal development or lifestyle is in line with a previous study on the implementation of SE-measures by employers [12]. In this study, employers indicated that, when deciding on the implementation of SE measures, the decision was mostly driven by economic factors and client demands. Because clients often demand measures that target the work environment, it is not surprising that employers relatively frequently offer those measures.
The generally low level of utilization that was reported by employees in the survey seems to contradict the need to increase SE that was expressed in the focus groups. However, available studies seem to confirm the low utilization level: a survey among Dutch employees reports that 53% of the employees in the construction industry participated in training within the two previous years [14]. Also in line with our findings, a study on the implementation of a lifestyle intervention in the construction industry reports a reach of 2.5% [15]. It seems that, to increase utilization of SE measures, barriers and facilitators at both the employer and employee level need to be targeted.
While blue collar employees in the focus groups indicated a need to increase their employability (either by getting promoted or by changing employer), only few employers offered employability promoting measures [12, 16]. The employer study preceding the current study [12] indicated that employers considered upward mobility an option for only a small group, and instead were looking to increase opportunities for horizontal mobility (such as getting assigned to the supply warehouse). It seems that transparency about job prospects, which employees also perceived as a barrier, is key to enabling employees to realistically and effectively increase their SE.
Seen the high demand for employability that was expressed during the focus groups, the survey data showed a relatively low participation in training. However, employees did not identify a lack of training opportunities as a barrier. Instead, the lack of job prospects with the current employer and a reluctance to change employer made training unattractive. This might indicate that offering training is not enough to promote employability; job prospects in- and outside the current employer might motivate employees to participate in training [17].
Considering employers [12] and employees in the focus groups identified a high physical load as the greatest threat to blue collar employee SE, both implementation [12] and the utilization of measures to reduce physical load seemed lower than might have been expected. In line with other studies, it appears that information and awareness are not enough to promote implementation; in addition, access to the equipment and experienced advantages need to be maximized [9, 18]. However, access does not mean merely making equipment available, supervisors need to lead by example [19] and to actively intervene and eliminate other barriers that occur in daily practice. A meta-analysis of 203 independent samples found that a supportive environment was consistently the most important explanatory factor for safety outcomes across industries [20]. It seems that a continuous dialogue between workers and supervisors is crucial to bringing those barriers to the attention of decision makers. In the current study, such continuous dialogue was hindered by a lack of collaboration between white and blue collar workers. Research showed that employees feeling psychologically safe and confident promotes employee voice, while feeling that speaking up bears risks to the employee or might fail to render the desired result impedes employee voice [21–23]. In order for employees to take on the proactive role that employers desire [12], supervisors on all levels need to be perceived as genuinely open and supportive of employee voice [24]. Although formal exchanges, such as performance evaluations, were perceived as useful instruments by employees in the current study, informal interaction with supervisors is equally important, as they minimize the hierarchical divide that might inhibit open exchange [12, 21].
To bring about a safety culture, it takes supervisors who lead by example, incentivize and disincentivize the use of equipment and other measures, where workers feel psychologically safe to speak up. All this makes substantial management skills necessary.
An unsupportive company culture was also addressed by white collar workers and might explain the low utilization of stress management measures offered by employers [25]. White collar workers exhibited emotion-focused coping strategies, typically exhibited when individuals feel the problem cannot be changed [26], and which have proven less effective in reducing stress than strategies that aim to solve the underlying problem [27]. While respondents felt that their companies were evolving away from the culture of ‘work hard, don’t complain’ towards a culture that was more supportive of health promoting behavior [12], this culture change did not seem to have affected the taboo on stress, a topic that employers seem to consider more difficult to address than topics such as physical load [28, 29].
Strengths and limitations
This study contributes to the research on implementation and influencing factors of SE measures. While there are several studies that assess the utilization of one specific type of SE measure [18, 30] or participation in workplace health promotion in general [31], the current study takes a broad approach by describing several employee strategies, while being specific about the factors that influence each strategy. Looking at several strategies at the same time makes it possible to show how the different strategies relate to one another, and identification of joint barriers and facilitators makes for an easier translation into implementation strategies. The combination of qualitative and quantitative data allows for a more in-depth view on why employees (fail to) use SE measures offered by their employers.
This study also has certain limitations. Firstly, the focus groups included employees of large companies only (more than 100 employees), meaning that the results are not generalizable to smaller companies. The employer study preceding the current study [12] showed that small companies have less resources to implement SE measures, and that the company culture is more informal than that of large companies. It is likely that employees of small companies employ different strategies and experience different barriers and facilitators. For example, the hierarchical distance between employees is likely to be smaller in small companies, while access to measures is more difficult due to a lack of resources. Another limitation of the present study is the low response rate (blue collar: 6%, white collar: 11%) of the survey. Some selection bias might have occurred, which would limit the generalizability of the current findings to the rest of the construction industry. It is well known that people with a lower socio-economic status and who are less healthy are less likely to participate in health research [32] and to utilize health facilities [33]. Such selection bias would lead to an overestimation of utilization levels, which only highlights the urgency to improve the implementation of SE measures.
Conclusion
The results showed that use of employer measures was generally low. Employees mostly frequently reported being offered measures targeting the work environment, while reported use was highest for measures that increased their employability. Blue collar workers can be facilitated in their efforts to increase their SE by giving them insight into job prospects in and outside their current company, by integrating equipment utilization into daily routines, and by improving the collaboration between blue and white collar workers. White collar workers can be stimulated to actively engage in SE promoting behavior by companies acknowledging the effects of excessive work load and opening the dialogue about stress reducing measures.
Conflict of interest
None to report.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We thank the respondents in the construction industry for their collaboration and Arbouw for its support.