Correlation between psychosocial work factors and the degree of stress

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Psychosocial risks and work-related stress are one of the most complex, most significant and most challenging problems that organizations around the world are facing. Stress negatively affects all participants in the organization and significantly contributes to negative health consequences and economic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:

With timely identification and adequate assessment of psychosocial risks, it is possible to create healthy workplaces and healthy organizations where employees are satisfied and motivated. The paper will present the results of the research of psychosocial risks on a large sample of respondents in the Republic of Serbia.

METHODS:

A questionnaire was distributed to 1,212 participants of which 1,140 answered all the questions asked. Data from the questionnaire were analyzed using multiple regression analysis, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Spearman’s correlation coefficient and Pearson’s chi-square test (χ2).

RESULTS:

The results of multiple regression analysis showed that all psychosocial risks taken together are statistically significantly (p < .001) and explain 24%of the variance of the criteria.

CONCLUSIONS:

Psychosocial risks identified as statistically significant predictors are Labor Demands, Interpersonal Relations, Lack of Support, Work Role and Job Uncertainty. All predictors are statistically significant predictors at the level.01.

Keywords

Psychosocial risk stress work process working environment Serbia

1 Introduction

In the last 30 years, technology has achieved enormous development and progress in all areas. Modern technological solutions are especially present in industrial production. They are reflected, above all, in the scope and efficiency of the operations of modern means of operation, as well as in their ergonomics, design and safety of use. Along with the development of the means of work, the roles and duties of the human operator have also undergone enormous changes. A modern man-operator is often a supervisor who monitors the procedures that are carried out automatically. However, even today, the contribution of the human factor in the security analysis has only been somewhat improved so that “human error” and “human factor” remain the primary influence of most accidents in all technologically developed domains.

The “human factor” is viewed as a natural consequence that arises from the discontinuity between human abilities and system requirements. Factors that affect human error can be documented and manageable, which is a key component of security management [1].

Psychosocial risks and hazards at work relate to the confrontation between demands of work, work environment, content of work and organization of work against work performance, job satisfaction, physical and mental characteristics of the employee, knowledge, needs, satisfaction of cultural needs and habits in relation to job requirements, in opposition [2]. Psychosocial risks are called all the characteristics of work that employees feel are unfavorable for their mental, physical or general health [3]. Psychosocial risks are those aspects of work organization, job design, workflow management, social work opportunities, and environmental performance that have the potential to inflict psychological or physical damage on an employee [4, 5]. Psychosocial risks are related to the management and organization of work [6], and consequently to the disparity of authority in workplaces. Psychosocial risks are rooted in the ability of employers to organize and allocate resources and to manage operations that, in turn, create risks at work [7].

Many key characteristics distinguish psychosocial risks from most other professional risks. Psychosocial risks are often multicultural, contextualized, rarely directly visible (often not observed), and closely related to policies. For example, with prerogatives of the employer) [8]. Moreover, psychosocial risks, in contrast to most physical risks in the workplace, largely determine the way people perceive them and therefore depend on subjective differences in the perception of problems or risks [9].

For many organizations, managing psychosocial risks is very difficult [10]. One of the main reasons may be the lack of knowledge in organizations when dealing with problems and best practice in the field of psychosocial risks [11]. Difficulties also relate to management limitations as well as to the measurement and assessment of psychosocial risks in an objective and adequate technical way [12, 13]. As a special problem in the fight against psychosocial risks, lack of awareness, lack of resources and lack of adequate instruments for effective risk management should be mentioned due to their considerable impact [14, 15].

Psychosocial risks that may arise as a result of organization and work design are associated with the chronic health status of employees including depression, anxiety, cardiovascular disease and musculoskeletal disorders, which is the case in both the rich and transition economies [16 –18].

There are various theoretical models of psychosocial risks and their effects. One of the well-known Karasek’s models is the demand and control [19, 20]. This model identifies two psychosocial risks: high job requirements and low job control. Work control is control over the type and timing of work tasks and skills that allow the worker to decide which skills to use and how to organize and execute his/her tasks. This is especially important in dealing with job requirements that involve difficult tasks, fast pace, and deadlines. Common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety are the results with the most epidemiological evidence associated with low work control [16, 21]. A study by Thai workers shows that professional risk factors related to time limits and the lack of leadership are associated with psychological stress [22]. Longitudinal studies in France, Great Britain, Australia and Taiwan also show that a low level of work control significantly predicts depression and anxiety in workers after controlling the existence of potential confounders [23 –25].

The psychosocial work environment is generally considered one of the most important issues of the working environment in contemporary and future societies. Psychosocial risk factors cohere with the experience of stress related to work [26]. The reaction of an individual to a situation where job demands and pressures do not coincide with their knowledge and abilities and that challenge an individual’s ability to deal with circumstances [27]. Poor psychosocial work environment can have negative effects on health, working ability, and productivity [28]. The magnitude of the negative effects of poor psychosocial work conditions has led to the undertaking of numerous studies that have confirmed frequent health disorders, mental symptoms and burnout among employees [29 –31].

There is a growing awareness of community and researchers regarding the impact of psychological and social aspects of the work environment that extend beyond traditional or technical factors [32]. Researchers have identified that psychosocial work-related risks are strongly linked to new work challenges and contribute to the emergence of several negative individual, organizational, and social outcomes [33].

The very nature of psychosocial risks arising from the organization of work means that the improvement of the psychosocial work environment will require changes in the way employers manage their jobs. Dealing with psychological risk factors that affect mental health is also an additional challenge due to complexity in measuring and assessing causality of mental disorders [34]. The management of psychosocial risks represents the implementation of a framework for managing the risk of psychosocial risks at the workplace and is based on the principles of prevention in accordance with the prerogatives of occupational safety and health. The goal is to eliminate or reduce risk. As with all risk management processes, the management of psychosocial risks should be systematic and continuous so that all hazards are identified, the risks analyzed and managed and, employees protected. This is especially relevant when it comes to the management of psychosocial risks because their importance for subjective perce-ption and the dynamic nature of the work enviro-nment makes their continuous assessment necessary [35]. Also, it is essential to consider the assessment and management of psychosocial risks when new processes or functions are carried out within the organization (e.g. in the case of organizational restructuring).

In managing psychosocial risks, organizations should have a comprehensive, long-term strategy. This strategy should consider organizational policies, structure, resources, existing systems and operations and established practices [35]. In terms of prevention, addressing psychosocial risks involves the identification of risk factors arising from work organization and management. For these reasons, the prevention of psychosocial risks at the workplace is difficult to implement as it implies challenges to management practices and management skills.

2 Legal regulations on psychosocial risks

2.1 European union

The introduction of measures to encourage imp-rovements in the safety and health of working people in the work environment at the European Union level is implemented by Framework Directive 89/391 / EEC on Occupational Safety and Health [36] which aimed at encouraging the introduction of preventive measures aimed at improving the conditions in working environment in order to contribute to the safety and health of workers at the workplace. Individual directives have been adopted focusing on specific aspects of occupational safety and health, including psychosocial and work-related stress, as well as the Framework Agreement on stress caused by the workplace of European social partners [37] intended for employers and workers in order to provide a framework for identification and prevention. In order to raise awareness about the unacceptability of harassment and violence at the workplace, the Framework Agreement on Harassment and Workplace Violence [38] was adopted with the aim of providing a framework for activities aimed at identifying, preventing and resolving the problems of harassment and violence at the workplace.

2.2 Former yugoslav republics

In the Republic of Croatia, the Law on Protection at Work [39] prescribes obligations of employers, workers and their representatives in relation to work-related stress or in connection with the work aimed at preventing, removing or reducing stress at work. The provisions of the law define the employer’s obligation to carry out stress prevention at work or in relation to the work that is caused by the content of work, work organization, working environment, poor communication and interpersonal relationships, in order to minimize the need for workers to overcome difficulties due to prolonged exposure to intense pressure, and eliminated the ability to reduce the work efficiency of workers and aggravate his health.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H), state and entity laws are in place to deal with issues of interest to workers, their position, rights and obligations. Ent-ities of B&H (The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the Republic Srpska have their own constitutions that regulate the competencies and responsibilities that are not given in the exclusive competence of B&H institutions. Apart from these entities, the area with a special status is also Brčko District. Law on the Work of the State Level of B&H [40], Federation of B&H [41], Republic of Srpska [42] and the Brčko District of B&H [43] define in almost identical terms the employer’s obligations. The employer is obliged to enable an employee to work in a way that ensures the protection of the life and health of workers and the cessation of an accident, and provides for an employer’s obligation to provide the necessary conditions for protection at work that ensure the protection of the life and health of an employee.

In the Republic of Slovenia, the provisions of the Law on Safety and Health at Work of the Republic of Slovenia [44] stipulate that the employer is obliged to take measures for the prevention, removal and management of cases of violence, mistreatment, harassment and other forms of psychosocial risks in the workplace, which can jeopardize the health of workers.

In the Republic of Serbia, the Law on Safety and Health at Work [45] stipulates the obligation of the employer to ensure that the work process is adapted to the physical and psychological abilities of the employee, and the working environment, work and personal protective equipment and equipment for personal protection at work shall be arranged manufactured and secured, so as not to endanger the safety and health of the employee. The employer is obliged, during the organization of work and work process, to provide preventive measures for the protection of the life and health of employees, to provide preventive measures before the beginning of work of the employee, during work, as well as in any modification of the technological procedure, selection of working and production methods provides the highest possible safety and health protection at work.

3 Material and methods

3.1 The basis of the research and design of the study

Numerous recent studies have researched the management of occupational safety and health issues with an emphasis on relatively new psychosocial risks, including workplace stress, violence, and abuse in a work environment. Significance of these studies is reflected in the fact that they are implemented on a macro plan such as the European Enterprise Survey on emerging risks and emerging risks - ESENER [46] and micro-level, within individual sectors or companies and companies.

The results of the ESENER Survey (Phase II) indicate that 42%of management representatives in close to 50,000 entities within 31 countries are addressing psychosocial risks much more difficult than other safety and health issues, citing major problems in addressing the vulnerability of these issues (53%) and low the level of awareness about the importance of the issue (50%), but as a major problem it is concluded that one of the main obstacles in solving the issue of safety and health is actually a lack of resources (36%of cases) such as time, personnel or financial resources.

Research analyzing psychosocial risks within individual organizations is carried out within a number of sectors, i.e., activities, such as health care [27], education [47], petrochemicals [48], telecommunications [49], construction [50], mining industry [51], the metal industry [52], etc. The above studies used a questionnaire for measuring work stressors in the conditions of work of an organization to determine the type and intensity of stressors and the suggestion of suggestions, measures and procedures for preventive action and efficient management of the subject risks.

Having in mind the quality and the number of researches in the Republic of Serbia that have studied psychosocial risks and their consequences, the author conducted the subject study in order to create standards for assessing the effects of psychosocial risks in the work environment and to gain new knowledge on these issues on the micro plan, in specific companies. The study deals with the analysis of psychosocial risks in the workplace, which stem from the nature and content of the work and the characteristics of the work organization, studying their effects on the physical and mental health of employees. The survey encompassed 1,212 employees within several sectors, activities in the Republic of Serbia. Participation in the research encompassed voluntary and anonymous. Out of the total number of participants, 1,140 (94.05%) participants answered all the questions asked, while the remaining 72 (5.95%) questionnaires were not valid for further analysis.

3.2 Questionnaires and data analysis

A questionnaire containing all the information and questions related to psychosocial factors at work, health and general welfare was provided to all participants involved in the research.

The general data from the questionnaire refer to gender, age, vocational training, work experience, marital status, overtime, night work, and shift work.

Part of the questionnaire with issues correlated to psychosocial factors at work was related to work requirements, interpersonal relationships, work controls, lack of support for superiors, lack of support from colleagues, work roles, lack of training in changes, job insecurity, the greatest sources of stress and consequences stress.

The data of the study were analyzed using multiple regression analysis in order to identify the relationship between variables, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the purpose of testing the frequency distribution frequency, Spearman’s correlation coefficient to verify the existence of statistically significant correlation between variables and Pearson’s chi-square test (χ²) for comparing attribute frequencies between groups.

The level of stress marked A, B and C is graded from level A as the lowest to level C as the most intense stress.

All statistical analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences for Windows (SPSS) version 20.0.0. In all analyzes, p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

4 Results and discussion

The main socio-demographic and professional characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Characteristics of respondents in the survey on relations between psycho-social risks and stress

Characteristics Number of respondents Percentage

Gender Male 901 79

Female 239 21

Age 21–30 years 182 16

30–40 years 422 37

41–50 years 342 30

51–65 years 194 17

Professional qualifications I-III degree 171 15

IV degree 490 43

V-VI degree 353 31

VII/VIII degree 126 11

Work experience Up to 5 years 194 17

5–15 years 399 35

15–25 years 410 36

Over 25 years 137 12

Marital status Married 684 60

Extramarital union 80 7

Free 262 23

Divorced 114 10

Overtime Yes 331 29

No 809 71

Night shift Yes 388 34

No 752 66

Shift work Yes 730 64

No 410 36

Characteristics		Number of respondents	Percentage
Gender	Male	901	79
	Female	239	21
Age	21–30 years	182	16
	30–40 years	422	37
	41–50 years	342	30
	51–65 years	194	17
Professional qualifications	I-III degree	171	15
	IV degree	490	43
	V-VI degree	353	31
	VII/VIII degree	126	11
Work experience	Up to 5 years	194	17
	5–15 years	399	35
	15–25 years	410	36
	Over 25 years	137	12
Marital status	Married	684	60
	Extramarital union	80	7
	Free	262	23
	Divorced	114	10
Overtime	Yes	331	29
	No	809	71
Night shift	Yes	388	34
	No	752	66
Shift work	Yes	730	64
	No	410	36

4.1 The correlation of psychosocial factors of work and stress in the respondents

Using the chi-square test, the relationship between the psychosocial factors of work and the degree of stress to which employees are exposed are first examined. The results of the chi-square test for eight different psychosocial risks are presented in Tables 2 –9.

Table 2
Labor requirements and level of stress of employees

What effects do you experience as a result of exposure to stress at work? Total

A B C

I have to work very intensely. Never 78 12 6 96

Rarely 138 96 30 264

Sometimes 228 174 60 462

Often 210 36 6 252

Always 36 30 0 66

Total 690 348 102 1.140

		What effects do you experience as a result of exposure to stress at work?	Total
I have to work very intensely.	Never	78	12	6	96
	Rarely	138	96	30	264
	Sometimes	228	174	60	462
	Often	210	36	6	252
	Always	36	30	0	66
Total		690	348	102	1.140

Table 3

Interpersonal relations and the degree of stress of employees

		What effects do you experience as a result of exposure to stress at work?			Total
		A	B	C
I am exposed to maltreatment at work.	Never	582	216	84	882
	Rarely	84	78	6	168
	Sometimes	12	54	6	72
	Often	12	0	6	18
Total		690	348	102	1.140

X² = 124.77 (df = 6, p = 0.05), Asymp.Sig. 0.000.

Table 4

Work control and stress level of employees

		What effects do you experience as a result of exposure to stress at work?			Total
		A	B	C
I can somewhat influence the way I do my job.	Never	138	36	18	192
	Rarely	342	102	24	468
	Sometimes	150	168	42	360
	Often	42	24	18	84
	Always	12	18	0	30
Total		684	348	102	1.134

X² = 128.43 (df = 8, p = 0.05), Asymp.Sig. 0.000.

Table 5

Lack of support for superior and degree of employee stress

		What effects do you experience as a result of exposure to stress at work?			Total
		A	B	C
I can rely on my immediate superiors to help me with the problem related to the job.	Never	306	114	6	426
	Rarely	240	114	48	402
	Sometimes	114	102	42	258
	Often	24	18	6	48
	Always	6	0	0	6
Total		690	348	102	1.140

X² = 82.69 (df = 8, p = 0.05), Asymp.Sig. 0.000.

Table 6

Lack of support from colleagues and stress levels of employees

		What effects do you experience as a result of exposure to stress at work?			Total
		A	B	C
I get the help and support from my colleagues.	Never	354	132	12	498
	Rarely	276	162	42	480
	Sometimes	54	48	36	138
	Often	0	6	12	18
	Always	6	0	0	6
Total		690	348	102	1.140

X² = 176.42 (df = 8, p = 0.05), Asymp.Sig. 0.000.

Table 7

Work role and level of stress of employees

		What effects do you experience as a result of exposure to stress at work?			Total
		A	B	C
I understand what is expected of me at work.	Always	378	132	12	522
	Often	264	174	54	492
	Sometimes	36	42	30	108
	Rarely	12	0	6	18
Total		690	348	102	1.140

X² = 128.57 (df = 8, p = 0.05), Asymp.Sig. 0.000.

Table 8

Failure to change in the workplace and the degree of employee stress

		What effects do you experience as a result of exposure to stress at work?			Total
		A	B	C
Employees are always asked for opinions about changes in their work.	always	144	60	0	204
	often	318	120	42	480
	sometimes	180	114	24	318
	rarely	30	36	30	96
	never	18	18	6	42
Total		690	348	102	1.140

X² = 107.71 (df = 8, p = 0.05), Asymp.Sig. 0.000.

Table 9

The uncertainty of the workplace and the degree of employee stress

		What effects do you experience as a result of exposure to stress at work?			Total
		A	B	C
I am afraid I shall lose my job.	I do not agree at all	288	102	12	402
	I do not agree	216	78	12	306
	I neither agree nor disagree	150	150	54	354
	I agree	24	12	6	42
	I totally agree	12	6	18	36
Total		690	348	102	1.140

X² = 171.2 (df = 8, p = 0.05), Asymp.Sig. 0.000.

Analyzing the level of stress among employees and the intensity of work, the results indicate that respondents who often work intensively (252 in total, i.e. 22.11%of respondents) are more exposed to stress (Table 2). Such results also indicate the chi-square test that indicates the relationship between the character of the work and the level of stress at the level of statistical significance of p = 0.000 which represents the strongest statistical link.

The largest number of respondents (a total of 60, i.e. 5.26%of the total) responded that sometimes they were forced to work very intensely in relation to the intensity of the stress level experienced (level C).

By analyzing the degree of stress in employees and interpersonal relationships, the results of the chi-square test indicate that there is a statistical correlation between the level of stress and exposure to maltreatment at work. Expectedly, the results indicate that those respondents who never experience maltreatment at work (51.05%of employees) belong to the category of respondents with the lowest level of stress (level A). A small percentage of respondents (1.05%) think they are sometimes often exposed to intense stress due to maltreatment at work (Table 3).

Based on the data in Table 4, respondents who can influence the mode of work are less exposed to the effects of stress. Total 10.05%, i.e. 114 respondents think that it can always or to some extent influence the way in which they perform their own business, while 660 or 58.20%consider it rarely when, or in any case, it can to some extent affect the way of doing their own business. Also, the results of the chi-square test indicate that there is a correlation between the level of stress and the ability of employees to influence the work process.

Analyzing the level of stress in employees and the lack of superior’s support, the value of the chi-square test clearly indicates that respondents who have good communication with their superiors are less exposed to stress and stressful situations in the workplace. Namely, all respondents who believe that they can always rely on their superiors (a total of 6, i.e. 0.52%of respondents) are in the category with the lowest level of stress in the workplace, while the same number of employees pleaded that they can never rely on his superiors and to suffer the most intense stress in the workplace (Table 5).

The analysis of the data presented in Table 6 as well as the chi-square test values indicate that all respondents who stated that they always have support from colleagues at the workplace were at least exposed to stress (6, i.e. 0.52%of respondents). A total of 54 employees (4.73%) consider it rarely never gets the necessary help and support from colleagues enduring, at the same time, the most intense stress in their work environment.

Analyzing the level of stress in the employees and the working role of the respondents, considering the values of the chi-square test, it is possible to notice that all respondents who stated that they are always clear what is expected of them at work is at least exposed to stress (a total of 23.15%, i.e. 264 employees) (Table 7). On the other hand, to the greatest extent, the most intense stress makes work difficult for those who consider that their work role is often clear (in 4.73%, i.e. in 54 respondents).

Bearing in mind the value of the chi-square test, as well as data on the level of employee stress and lack of training in workplace changes, the results indicate that the largest number of respondents who stated that employees are always asked to consider changes in their work is less exposed to stress (Table 8). Interesting information relates to the fact that the largest number of respondents (360 in total) who stated that employees often ask for an opinion about changes in their work feels at the same time a minimal level of stress (27.89%) and the most intense stress in their work environment (3.68 %).

The results shown in Table 9, as well as the chi-square test values, clearly indicate that all respondents who stated that they were in fear of loss of their job more exposed to stress. Namely, a total of 24 employees (2.10%) who feel fear of losing a job say that he feels the most intense stress, which is recorded in 4.73%and 54 respondents who have no clear position regarding the feeling of fear of losing a job. On the other hand, 504 respondents, 44.21%have no fear of losing their job and are exposed to minimal stress.

4.2 Correlation of psychosocial risks and the effect of stress

After examining the correlation between the psychosocial factors of work and the degree of stress to which employees are exposed, the second part of the research deals with the analysis of the correlations of the effects of stress and psychosocial risks.

The results were analyzed through a multiple regression analysis in which the variables of the effects of stress are critically based, while eight different psychosocial risks constitute predicate variables. In order to verify the justification of the use of regression analysis, the correlations between the predictor variables and the criteria are calculated.

First, using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S test) of the normal distribution, an adequate procedure for calculating correlations was made (Table 10).

Table 10
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normal distribution of variables

Variable K-S test value

Consequences of stress < 0.001

Work requirements < 0.001

Interpersonal relations < 0.001

Control in operation < 0.001

Lack of support from superiors < 0.001

Lack of support from associates < 0.001

Work role < 0.001

Failure to change < 0.001

Uncertainty of work < 0.001

Variable	K-S test value
Consequences of stress	< 0.001
Work requirements	< 0.001
Interpersonal relations	< 0.001
Control in operation	< 0.001
Lack of support from superiors	< 0.001
Lack of support from associates	< 0.001
Work role	< 0.001
Failure to change	< 0.001
Uncertainty of work	< 0.001

The Kolmogorov-Smirnov normal distribution test shows that the distribution of all variables statistically varies significantly from the normal (p < 001). Accordingly, Spearman’s coefficient of correlation was used, a nonparametric procedure, in order to check the existence of a statistically significant correlation between variables.

The results of Spearman’s correlation coefficient showed that all psychosocial risks statistically significantly correlate with the effects of stress, whereby all correlations were positive (Table 11). The following variables: Labor requirements, Labor control, Lack of support of superiors, Lack of support for associates and Failure to change statistically significant but low correlate, with the consequences of stress, while the Interpersonal Relations, Work Role and Job Uncertainty showed moderate variable correlations.

Table 11

Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the effects of stress and psychosocial risks

Psychosocial risk	Consequences of stress
Work requirements	0.059^*
Interpersonal relations	0.336^**
Control in operation	0.105^**
Lack of support from superiors	0.225^**
Lack of support from associates	0.276^**
Work role	0.381^**
Failure to change	0.265^**
Uncertainty of work	0.327^**

^* - Statistically significant at the level of 0.05. ^** - Statistically significant at the level of.01.

Considering the existence of statistically significant correlations between psychosocial risks and the effects of stress, the data were analyzed in more detail using multiple regression analysis. The results are shown in Table 12. The results of multiple regression analysis showed that all psychosocial risks taken together statistically significantly (p < .001) explain 24%of the variance of the criteria. The following psychosocial risks are identified as statistically significant predictors: Labor Demands, Interpersonal Relations, Lack of Support, Work Role and Job Uncertainty. All these predictors are statistically significant predictors at the level.01. With the following predictors, the sign of the beta is positive: Interpersonal Relations, Lack of Support, Work Role and Job Uncertainty, indicating that with the rise in the value of these variables, the effects of stress increase. With the Labor Requirements Predictor the sign of the beta is negative, that is, with the increase in the value of this variable, the effects of stress are reduced.

Table 12

Multiple regression analysis (criterion variable: Consequences of stress)

Model	Predictors	R	R²	β	p
1		0.490	0.240		0.000^**
	Work requirements			–0.106	0.001^**
	Interpersonal relations			0.178	0.000^**
	Control in operation			–0.005	0.864
	Lack of support from superiors			0.013	0.686
	Lack of support from associates			0.102	0.002^**
	Work role			0.239	0.000^**
	Failure to change			0.049	0.136
	Uncertainty of work			0.134	0.000^**

^* - Statistically significant at the level of.05. ^** - Statistically significant at the level of.01.

5 Conclusion

Analyzing the correlation of psychosocial factors of work and stress, it can be concluded that psychosocial factors at work related to work demands, interpersonal relationships, control in work, lack of support of superiors, lack of support from colleagues, work roles, lack of training in changes and job insecurity are the largest sources of stress.

From the results obtained, it can be concluded that frequent intensive work leads to greater exposure to stress, while the absence of maltreatment at work is associated with the experience of the lowest level of stress. Regarding the control of the work, the influence on the way in which the work is performed results in the exposure to the consequences of stress, while with regard to the psychosocial factor, the lack of superiors support can be concluded that good communication with the superiors leads to less stressful stress and stressful situations in the work environment. In analogy to the above, the support of colleagues in the workplace is in correlation with the least exposure to stress.

Analyzing the role of the work role, it can be concluded that a clear knowledge of the expectations placed before the employee leads to the least exposure to stress. As expected, in terms of ignorance of changes, it can be noted that a lower stress intensity is present in situations where employees are asked about changes in their work and that the fear of loss is directly related to the level of exposure and feelings of stress.

Regarding the mutual relationship between psychosocial risks and the effect of stress, it can be concluded that all psychosocial risks are positively correlated with the effects of stress, with the emphasis on interconnectedness established by Labor Requirements, Controls in Work, Lack of support for superiors, Lack of Support and Collaboration in Changes. In addition, the results of a multiple regression analysis identified psychosocial risks: Labor requirements, Human relationships, Lack of support, Work role and Work insecurity as the most important in terms of experiencing and experiencing stress in the work environment.

As an important factor in achieving a healthy and safe workplace, the prevention of psychosocial risks plays an important role as it relates to specific health care for employees with the goal reflected in fewer work-related injuries and acute stress reactions.

Even though the conducted study allows obtaining an insight into the situation regarding psychosocial risks in the workplace due to the nature and content of the work as well as the characteristics of the organization and the environment in which the work is taking place, further empirical research is needed in order to obtain new knowledge about psychosocial risks in the work environment. Also, future research will allow data comparisons at the multilevel level, starting from the micro-environment, through sectors and activities, to the national or regional level, with the aim of further improving safety and health at work and increasing productivity of the company.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The published work is the result of research for which the funds were provided by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia in accordance with contract no. 451-03-9/2021-14/200148.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

References

Bevilacqua

, Ciarapica

. Human factor risk management in the process industry: A case study. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2018;169:149–59.

International Labour Office (ILO) & joint WHO Committee on Occupational Health, (1986). Psychosocial factors at work: Recognition and control. Occupational Safety and Health Series no. 56, December. Geneva: ILO.

Zavalić

. Psihosocijalni rizici i zdravlje radnika. Sigurnost. 2015;57(3):211–7.

Cox

, Griffiths

, Rial-Gonzales

. Research on Work-Related Stress. Luxembourg: Office of the Official Publications of the European Communities. (2000).

Iavicoli

, Leka

, Jain

, Persechino

, Rondinone

, Ronchetti

, Valenti

. Hard and soft law approaches to addressing psychosocial risks in Europe: lessons learned in the development of the Italian approach. Journal of Risk Research. 2014;17(7):855–69.

Živković

, Milenović

, Rakić

. Psychosocial risk management. Safety Engineering. 2017;7(2):93–8.

Jespersen

, Hasle

. Developing a concept for external audits of psychosocial risks in certified occupational health and safety management systems. Safety Science. 2017;99:227–34.

Hohnen

, Hasle

, Jespersen

, Madsen

. Hard work in soft regulation. A discussion of the social mechanisms in OHS management standards and possible dilemmas i the regulation of psychosocial work environment. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies. 2014;4(3):13–30.

Jespersen

, Hasle

, Nielsen

. The wicked character of psychosocial risks: implications for regulation. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies. 2016;6(3):23–42.

10.

Langenhan

, Leka

, Jain

. Psychosocial risks: is risk management strategic enough in business and policy making? Safety and Health at Work . 2013;4:87–94.

11.

Johnstone

, Quinlan

, McNamara

. OHS inspectors and psychosocial risk factors: evidence from Australia. Safety Science. 2011;49:547–57.

12.

Leka

, Jain

, Iavicoli

, Vartia

, Ertel

. The role of policy for the management of psychosocial risks at the workplace in the European Union. Safety Science. 2011;49:558–64.

13.

Leka

, Wassenhove

, Jain

. Is psychosocial risk prevention possible? Deconstruction common presumptions. Safety Science. 2015;71:61–7.

14.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, (2010). European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks: Managing Health and Safety atWork: European Risk Observatory Report. Luxembourg: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.

15.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, (2015). Second European Survey of Enterprises on Newand Emerging Risks: Managing Safety and Health at Work: European Risk Observatory Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

16.

Clumeck

, Kempenaers

, Godin

, Dramaix

, Kornitzer

, Linkowski

, Kittel

. Working conditions predict incidence of long-term spells of sick leave due to depression: results from the Belstress I prospective study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2009;63:286–92.

17.

Sultan-Taïeb

, Lejeune

, Drummond

, Niedhammer

. Fractions of cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders, and musculoskeletal disorders attributable to job strain., International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2011;84:911–25.

18.

Backé

E-M

, Seidler

, Latza

, Rossnagel

, Schumann

. The role of psychosocial stress at work for the development of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2012;85:67–79.

19.

Karasek

. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979;24:285–308.

20.

Stansfeld

, Candy

. Psychosocial work environment and mental health –a meta-analytic review. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2006;32:443–62.

21.

Stansfeld

, Clark

, Caldwell

, Rodgers

, Power

. Psychosocial work characteristics and anxiety and depressive disorders in midlife: the effects of prior psychological distress. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2008;65:634–42.

22.

Yiengprugsawan

, Strazdins

, Lim

LL-Y

, Kelly

, Seubsman

S-A

, Sleigh

, Team&

. T.C.S. Physically and psychologically hazardous jobs and mental health in Thailand. Health Promotion International. 2015;30:531–41.

23.

Strazdins

, D’Souza

, Clements

, Broom

, Rodgers

, Berry

. Could better jobs improve mental health? A prospective study of change in work conditions and mental health in mid-aged adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2011;65:529–34.

24.

Butterworth

, Leach

, McManus

, Stansfeld

. Common mental disorders, unemployment and psychosocial job quality: is a poor job better than no job at all? Psychological Medicine . 2012;43:1763–72.

25.

Huang

Y-H

, Chen

C-H

, Du

P-L

, Huang

I-C

. The causal relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and psychological health: a two-wave panel study. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2012;23:2108–25.

26.

Lehmann

, Brauchli

, Jenny

, Füllemann

, Bauer

. Baseline psychosocial and affective context characteristics predict outcome expectancy as a process appraisal of an organizational health intervention. International Journal of Stress Management, (2018). https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/str0000119.

27.

Ilić

, Arandjelović

, Jovanović

, Nešić

. Relationships of work-related psychosocial risks, stress, individual factors and burnout-questionnaire survey among emergency physicians and nurses. Medycyna Pracy. 2017;68(2):167.

28.

Arandjelović

, Nikolić

, Stamenković

. Relationship between burnout, quality of life, and work ability index –Directions in prevention. Scientific World Journal. 2010;10:766–77.

29.

Pejušković

, Lečić-Toševski

, Priebe

, Tošković

. Burnout syndrome among physicians –The role of personality dimensions and coping strategies. Psychiatria Danubina. 2011;23(4):389–95.

30.

Freimann

, Merisalu

. Work-related psychosocial risk factors and mental health problems amongst nurses at a university hospital in Estonia: A cross-sectional study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2015;43(5):447–52.

31.

Pantenburg

, Luppa

, König

H-H

, Riedel-Heller

. Burnout among young physicians and its association with physicians’ wishes to leave: Results of a survey in Saxony, Germany. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology. 2016;11(2).

32.

Sadłowska-Wrzesińska

. Analysis of psychosocial risk in the context of the objectives of macroergonomics. In Advances in Social and Organizational Factors, edited by Peter Vink, 277-285. Krakov: AHFE Conference (2014).

33.

Potter

, O’Keeffe

, Leka

, Webber

, Dollard

. Analytical review of the Australian policy context for work-related psychological health and psychosocial risks. Safety Science. 2019;111:37–48.

34.

Kyaw-Myint

, Strazdins

, Clements

, Butterworth

, Gallagher

. A method of identifying health-based benchmarks for psychosocial risks at work: a tool for risk assessment. Safety Science. 2017;93:143–51.

35.

Leka

, Jain

, Hassard

, Cox

. Managing psychosocial risks: drivers and barriers. Bilbao, Spain: EU-OSHA. (2013).

36.

European Council, (1989). Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. Official Journal L 183, 29/06/1989, 1-8.

37.

ETUC, UNICE, UEAPME, CEEP, (2004). Framework agreement on work-related stress, Social Dialogue. European Social Dialogue. Accessed February 9th 2019. https://.europa.eu/en/legislation/guidelines/frameworkagreement-on-work-related-stress

38.

ETUC, BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP, (2007). Framework agreement on harassment and violence at work. European Social Dialogue. Accessed February 9th 2019. https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/guidelines/frameworkagreement-on-harassment-and-violence-at-work

39.

Zakon o zaštiti na radu [Law on Protection at Work In the Republic of Croatia] (Narodne novine, 71/14, 118/14, 154/14).

40.

Zakon o zastiti na radu [Law on Protection at Work In the Republic of Croatia] (Narodne novine, 71/14, 118/14, 154/14).

41.

Zakon o radu Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine [Law on the Work of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina] (Sl. novine FBIH, 62/15).

42.

Zakon o radu Republike Srpske [Law on the Work of the Republic of Srpska] (Sl. glasnik RS, 1/16, 66/18).

43.

Zakon o radu Brčko Distrikta Bosne i Hercegovine [Law on the Work of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina] (Sl. glasnik Brčko Distrikta BIH, 19/06 –prečišćen tekst, 19/07, 25/08, 20/13, 31/14 i 1/15).

44.

Zakon o bezbednosti i zdravlju na radu Republike Slovenije [Law on Safety and Health at Work of the Republic of Slovenia] (Uradni list RS, 43/11).

45.

Zakon o bezbednosti i zdravlju na radu Republike Srbije [Law on Safety and Health at Work of Republic of Serbia] (Sl. glasnik RS, 101/05, 91/15 i 113/17).

46.

EU-OSHA, (2016). Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2) - Overview Report: Managing Safety and Health atWork. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

47.

García

, Iglesias

, Saleta

, Romay

. Riesgos psicosociales en el profesorado de enseñanza universitaria: diagnóstico y prevención. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2016;32:173–82.

48.

Bergh

LIV

, Hinna

, Leka

, Zwetsloot

. Developing and testing an internal audit tool of the psychosocial work environment in the oil and gas industry. Safety Science. 2016;88:232–41.

49.

Lipnjak

. Istraživanje uzroka stresa zaposlenih. Sigurnost. 2011;53(3):219–26.

50.

Salanova

, Cifre

, Llorens

, Martínez

, Lorente

. Psychosocial risks and positive factors among construction workers. In Occupational Health and Safety. 2016;319–344. London: Routledge.

51.

Reyna

, Duarte

, Ibarra

, Contreras

, Vega

. Sustainable Production Program in the Mexican Mining Industry: Occupational Risks. INGE CUC. 2015;11(2):27–33.

52.

Metzler

, Bellingrath

. Psychosocial hazard analysis in a heterogeneous Workforce: Determinants of Work stress in Blue-and White-collar Workers of the european steel industry. Frontiers in Public Health. 2017;5:210.