WORKER STRESS-EMOTIONS IN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PhD Monthly Report Student : Lawrence Farrugia Supervisor : Prof. Jonathan C. Borg Date: 28.02.2014
CONCURRENT ENGINEERING RESEARCH UNIT
Report Number
UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
EMPD – LF03/2014
PhD – February 2014
Contents List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 What is a human emotion?.............................................................................................. 3 2.1 What is the financial cost of stress-emotions? ............................................................. 3 3.0 Questionnaire Results ..................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Section 1 – General Questions .................................................................................... 4 3.2 Section 2 – Questions about work-related stress ......................................................... 5 3.0 Discussion of Results ...................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 7 Appendix A ......................................................................................................................... 10
Page 1 of 20
PhD – February 2014
List of Figures Figure 1................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2.............................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3.............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 4.............................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 5.............................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 6.............................................................................................................................. 20
List of Tables Table 1 ................................................................................................................................ 11 Table 2 ................................................................................................................................ 13 Table 3 ................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 4 ................................................................................................................................ 17 Table 5 ................................................................................................................................ 19
Page 2 of 20
PhD – February 2014
1.0 Introduction This report presents the results and conclusions pertaining to an investigation on worker stress-emotions at Baxter Ltd. The format of the investigation consisted of semi-structured interviews that saw the participation of 9 employees from various departments. The scope of these semi-structured interviews was to better understand the impact, if any, which the product, process and the physical and organisational environment has on the emotions of the subjects. The subsequent sections of the report will outline the results which were obtained and the significance of such results.
2.0 What is a human emotion? The short answer to this question is that a human emotion is the result of two forms of appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 2006; Scherer, Schror, & Johnstone, 2001): 1. The appraisal of the situation in relation to one’s own concerns. Such concerns may include physical wellbeing, academic reputation, social reputation etc. In essence this first appraisal has to do with evaluating the significance of the environment to one’s own concerns. 2. The appraisal of the coping potential in a given stressful situation. Once that a situation is considered to threaten or challenge the concerns of the person, the individual has to assess the resources available to address or eliminate the threat or challenge. These two forms of appraisal together result in the elicitation of what are called stressemotions. The emotion itself, is only an indication of the outcome from these appraisal processes, this is due to the fact that these two appraisals also propagate through a change in the individual’s perception of the situation, attitude towards the situation and behaviour.
2.1 What is the financial cost of stress-emotions? Addressing stress within an organisation is primarily important to the well-being of individuals within the organisations. Several illnesses have been attributed to the experience of a high degree of work-related stress. Apart from the well-being of the workers, stress-emotions cost millions of euros to the companies. In 2002, the European Commission reported that the cost of work-related stress in EU15 countries was 20,000 million euros (Milczarek, González, & Schneider, 2009). The report reviews numerous studies conducted within individual countries show similar alarming results. A study conducted in 2005/6 in Great Britain found that work-related stress, depression and anxiety cost companies £530 million. In the Netherlands, the costs resulting from work-related illness and prevention cost companies 1,768 Euros per worker per year. The cost of work-related stress results from increased absenteeism, judicial costs, cost of curative healthcare, reduction in productivity, intentional and unintentional counter productive work behaviour etc. (Bashir, n.d.; Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000; Milczarek et al., 2009; Yang & Diefendorff, 2009)
Page 3 of 20
PhD – February 2014 This section has provided a brief overview of stress-emotions and why this issue should be addressed. The next section will outline the key results which were obtained from this investigation and the significance of such results.
3.0 Questionnaire Results The scope of this section is to present the results obtained by the respondents to key questions in the survey questionnaire. The tabulated results and the resulting charts are all found in Appendix 1.
3.1 Section 1 – General Questions The key question in this particular section was question 2, where the respondents were asked to rank a list of statements consisting of concerns related to the work and/or the work environment. The idea behind this question is a result for the fact that human stress-emotions are elicited as a result of an appraisal/evaluation of the situation in relation to the individual’s concerns. Examples of negative stress-emotions include: anxiety, fear, frustration and anger. This notion, provides an important basis in explaining why the same identical situation, when experienced by different individuals, elicits distinct emotions. For example a person concerned with being efficient will be very upset if he/she is not able for some reason to work environment does not permit him/her to be as efficient as possible. In this case the person will experience negative stress-emotions since he/she perceives the situation to be of threat to his/her concern. Significantly negative stress-emotion will be experienced if the person cannot exert control (a form of coping) on this undesirable situation. Question 2 was therefore intended at identifying the relative importance of a set of common concerns, as these play a significant role in stress-emotion. A summary of the results obtained is shown in Table 1. This data is depicted pictorially in Figure 1. The results obtained from all of the respondents showed an interesting pattern. All of the respondents ranked the health and safety of their work environment to be the first and most important concern while at work. This result does not indicate whether or not such a threat to the health and safety of the human workers exists in the specific work environment of this company. It only shows that any situation which might be perceived to be of threat to their somatic health and safety will elicit significantly strong and negative stress-emotions. Looking at this result from a different point of view, it may be said that one way to effectively reduce work related stress-emotions would be to address immediately any health and safety concerns that workers might have. Ensuring that the work carried out is of a high standard/quality was the second highest ranked concern by many workers. It is interesting to note that while many of the workers are in fact concerned with producing work that is of a high quality, they are very often concerned with being provided the right tools and resources necessary to execute the expected tasks. These two results indicate, that while a significant portion of the workers are in fact concerned with producing work that is of a high quality, at the same time the respondents struggle to obtain the right tools and resources necessary to perform work in a correct manner. Page 4 of 20
PhD – February 2014
Minimizing the work overload and having a comfortable and attractive work environment were ranked as the fourth and fifth highest ranking concerns respectively. This shows that the physical state of the work environment may also play a role in eliciting stress-emotions. Based on the results obtained from this question, we may group these concerns into four sets according to their relative importance as shown in Figure 1. In essence this illustration shows that workers have a hierarchy of concerns, where the most important concern has to do with the somatic health of the worker.
Figure 1
3.2 Section 2 – Questions about work-related stress The first question in this section was aimed at identifying the degree to which factors related to the task/process is effective in eliciting negative stress-emotions. The factor that was considered by 77% of the participant to be very effective in eliciting stress-emotions was the overall reliability of the tools and machines used. Unreliable tools and machines which are necessary to perform work elicit significant stress-emotions, particularly in the case where the individual is experiencing high work overload. The noises emanated from the machines used for the purpose of performing the task, were considered by 88% of the participants to be effective in eliciting stress-emotions. This is due to the fact that exposure to constant repetitive noises leads the worker to lose focus on the object of work. As a matter of fact, a few participants pointed out that they actively seek places with reduced noise levels in order to eliminate as much as possible any distractions. Page 5 of 20
PhD – February 2014 Two other factors that were identified by the responded is being effective in eliciting stressemotions were the ergonomics of the workstation (88%) and the overall complexity of the machine/tool (77%) used to perform the expected task. These results are all portrayed in Table 2 and illustrated pictorially by the spider chart in Figure 3. In the second question the respondents were asked to determine the degree to which factors pertaining to the product/object of work are effective in eliciting negative stress-emotions. Components which are complex to assemble and require significant skills were considered by 66% of the respondents to be very effective in eliciting negative stress emotions. The skills required to perform the task were also considered by 66% of the respondents to be effective in eliciting negative stress emotions. In addition the smells which result from lubricant and solvents were also considered to be effective by 66% of the respondents in eliciting stress emotions. The responses of the subjects in relation to this question are shown in Table 3. These results are illustrated pictorially in Figure 4. The third question of this section, the respondents were asked to rate the degree to which various factors pertaining to the work environment were considered to elicit negative stress emotions. The factors that were considered by the majority of the respondents to be very effective in eliciting negative stress-emotions were: the inadequate spatial layout of workers (77%) and machines, the inadequate ambient temperature (77%), lack of appropriate light conditions (66%) and the lack of participation in decision making(66%). It should be pointed out that while temperature can be an irritation to the worker, in some cases this cannot be changed. For example in a testing laboratory, the experiment may require for the sample tests to be carried out under specific temperatures. All the results are tabulated in Table 4 and are illustrated in Figure 5. The last question concerned the extent to which workers believe the elicitation of stressemotions to have an impact on productivity and quality of work. It should be noted that 88% of the participants consider the elicitation of stress-emotions to have a significant negative influence on productivity. In addition 55% of the respondents pointed out that stressemotions have a negative influence on the quality of the work produced. These results are very significant as they show that workers notice a reduction in both productivity and quality of work when experiencing a high degree of negative stress emotions. The results to this question are tabulated in Table 5 and are depicted in Figure 6.
3.0 Discussion of Results The first important result which emerges from the conducted survey is related to the concerns of the human workers. Based on the ranking of the concerns from the subjects who participated in the survey questionnaire, the study has identified a hierarchy of concerns, with the health and safety of the work environment being the most important concern and positive inter-relationships being of lower concern as illustrated in Figure 1. As it has been pointed out earlier, the fact that the respondents’ concerns is their health and safety does not mean that there was an imminent existing threat with regard to this concern at the time of the study. This result simply indicates that strong negative stress-emotions are elicited in the presence of such a threat. Similarly worker stress-emotions could be effectively reduced by providing them with the right tools and resources required to execute the job. This is due to the fact that the secondary most highly ranked concerns in the Page 6 of 20
PhD – February 2014 established hierarchy had to do with providing work which is of good quality while having the right tools and resources necessary to conduct such work. It should also be pointed out that the comfort of the work environment particularly with regards to factors such as ambient noises, adequate spatial layout, proper lighting and ambient temperature. With regards to the task/process, the respondents identified the overall reliability of the machines/tools, the complexity attributed in using the machine/tool and the ergonomics of the workstation to be the main stressors. In addition the data collected indicates that product design does play a major role in eliciting stress-emotions, this is due to the fact that the overall complexity of the product (in terms of form, size and number of components), the smells attributed to the use of solvents or lubricants and the kind of processes or machines used to perform work were identified to be key factors in eliciting negative stress-emotions. The reason why product design can be attributed to these factors is that very frequently these factors are direct or consequential results of decisions made during some stage of the product design. For example the choice of a particular material may directly determine the type of solvent that can be used to bond two or more components with each other. The solvent has an impact not only on the bond strength between the components, but also on the affective state of the workers who are interacting with the artefacts and the solvent during the assembly phase. Analogously the decision pertaining to a may have a direct consequence of the affect of workers. For example selection of equipment and machines to be used during production can have a significant influence on the worker affective state. This is particularly the case where the tools and machines chosen are not reliable or extremely complex to use. The provision of training can be a way of reducing negative stress emotions, this is due to the fact that the lack of skills which are indeed required to perform a task or use a machine may elicit negative-stress emotions such as anxiety. Numerous factors related to the physical and organisational environment surrounding the respondents were also identified to be negative stressors at work. The adequacy of the spatial layout, ambient noises and ambient temperature were mentioned by the respondents to have an influence on their affective state. Throughout the semi-structured interviews, the respondents were asked to what extent they believe that the experience of negative stress emotions such as anger, frustration, anxiety etc. to influence their productivity and the quality of the work that is output. Although this measure is very subjective (i.e. it is based on the respondent’s estimate), it is still significant to note that 88% of the respondents considered stress-emotions to have a significant impact on their productivity. In addition, 55% of the respondents considered the elicitation of stressemotions to influence the quality of the work which is produced.
4.0 Conclusion Based on the responses obtained from the survey questionnaires, the following conclusions may be made with regards to this investigation. 1. The study has shown the existence of a common hierarchy of concerns that is shared among the majority of the participants. This hierarchy of concerns among workers indicates that the workers’ health and safety is the concern at the top of the Page 7 of 20
PhD – February 2014
2.
3.
4.
5.
hierarchy, followed by the provision of adequate resources necessary to produce work of high quality, the provision of a comfortable work environment and finally good work relationships. This provides a very good indication to the extent to which a particular situational stressor elicits negative work related stress-emotions. The concerns identified in question 2, were in part reflected in the responses provided in questions 3 to 5. For example the responses to question 3, indicate that characteristics such as the reliability and the complexity of the machine tool, have a significant role in eliciting negative stress emotions. These factors may be associated with the concerns pertaining to the provision of appropriate tools which are needed in order to execute work of high quality. In addition, the responses 5 indicate that factors which tend to be attributed to the comfort of the work environment such as ambient noises, temperature, the ergonomics and spatial layout of the work station, also play a significant role in eliciting negative stress emotions. The responses obtained particularly in question 5 indicate that product design activities also play an important role in eliciting negative stress emotions from the workers who interact directly with the artefact. For example two factors which were identified to contribute significantly in eliciting negative stress emotions were the complexity (in terms of size, form an number of components) of the artefact and the skills required to perform an operation. Such factors can be very easily controlled during the product design. Other factors that can be attributed directly to design decisions were the odours emanating from the use of solvents and the accuracy required to perform tasks on the product. Finally, the survey questionnaire asked the respondents to rate (in a very subjective manner) the extent to which they feel that stress influences the productivity and quality of work. Both results indicates that stress has a significantly (adverse) effect on both productivity and quality.
The results reported in this survey questionnaire further motivate this research to continue investigating and understand the influence and effects of work related stress-emotions.
References Bashir, U. (n.d.). Impact of Stress on Employees Job Performance A Study on Banking Sector of Pakistan, 122–126. Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: an introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(2), 123–129. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<123::AID-JOB33>3.0.CO;2-8 Lazarus, R. (2006). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. University of Pittsburgh. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping (p. 456). New York: Springer Publishing Company. Milczarek, M., González, E., & Schneider, E. (2009). OSH in figures: Stress at work-facts and figures. Page 8 of 20
PhD – February 2014 Scherer, K., Schror, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion. In Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 20–140). Canary: Oxford University Press. Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 259–295.
Page 9 of 20
Appendix A
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A
Page 10 of 20
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A
Table 1
Q2. Kindly rank the following statements according to the relative importance: Rank Frequency Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Weighted Total (Lower = Better)
Average Score (Lower = Better)
Average Rank
minimize the work overload on myself and/or my colleagues
0 1 0 3 1 3 1 0
44
4.89
4
the appearance, comfort and appeal of the work environment
0 0 1 3 2 2 0 1
45
5.00
5
my health and the safety of the work environment
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9
1.00
1
being very productive, even if it means performing work of poor quality 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3
61
6.78
7
spending as much time as possible away from work
0 0 0 0 0 2 4 3
64
7.11
8
having the right tool and resources to execute work
0 3 4 0 1 1 0 0
29
3.22
3
ensuring that the work I execute is of good quality
0 5 3 1 0 0 0 0
23
2.56
2
building strong positive relationships with my colleagues
0 0 1 2 4 0 1 1
46
5.11
6
Page 11 of 20
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A
Q2. Kindly rank the following statements according to the relative importance. [Average Rank Score - Lower Better] minimize the work overload on myslef and/or my collegaus 8 7 building strong positive relationships with my colleagues
6 5
the appearance, comfort and appeal of the work environment
4 3 2 1 ensuring that the work I execute is of good quality
0
my health and the safety of the work environment
being very productive, even if it means perfoming work of poor quality
having the right tools and resources necessary to execute work
spending as much time as possible away from work Page 12 of 20 Figure 2
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A Table 2
Q3 To what extent do you find the following factors pertaining to the task/process, for which you are responsible to be effective in eliciting negative stress-emotions. Rank Frequency Averag Weighte e Score Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 d Total (Lower Average Rank (Lower = = Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Better) Better) The complexity of the machine/tool
5 2 2 0 0 5 2 2
39
4.33
Very Effective Effective
Ergonomics of the workstation
3 5 1 0 0 3 5 1
38
4.22
Very Effective Effective
Illumination provided for the process
1 7 1 0 0 1 7 1
36
4.00
Effective
Temperature attributed to the process
4 1 4 0 0 4 1 4
36
4.00
Effective
Noise resulting from the process
5 3 1 0 0 5 3 1
40
4.44
Very Effective Effective
Smells emanated from the machine
2 5 1 1 0 2 5 1
35
3.89
Effective - Neutral
Sensitivity and overall reliability of the tools/machine
7 1 1 0 0 7 1 1
42
4.67
Very Effective Effective
The lack of appropriate tools and/or machines used to execute the required task
2 4 3 0 0 2 4 3
35
3.89
Effective - Neutral
Other (please specify)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0.00
Very Ineffective
Page 13 of 20
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A
Q3 To what extent do you find the following factors pertaining to the task/process, for whih yout are responsile to be effective in eliciting negative stress-emotions [Averge Score - Higher Values = Better] The complexity of the machine/tool 5 Other (please specify)
4
Ergonomics of the workstation
3 2 The lack of appropriate tools and/or machines used to execute the required task
1
Illumination provided for the process
0
Sensitivity and overall relaibility of the tools/machine
Smells which results from the machine
Tempartaure attributed to the process
Noise resulting from the process
Figure 3
Page 14 of 20
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A
Table 3
Q4 To what extent do you find the following factors pertaining to the product/object of work, for which you are responsible to be effective in eliciting negative stress-emotions [Average Score - Higher Values = Better ] Rank Frequency Weighted Average Average Total Score Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (Lower = (Lower = Rank Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Better) Better) The complexity of the product
2 4 2 1 0 2 4 2 34
3.78
Effective - Neutral
The skills required to perform tasks
2 4 2 1 0 2 4 2 34
3.78
Effective - Neutral
Colour combinations
1 2 3 3 0 1 2 3 28
3.11
Effective - Neutral
Smell of components
0 6 3 0 0 0 6 3 33
3.67
Effective - Neutral
Tactile feeling of objects
0 0 5 4 0 0 0 5 23
2.56
Neutral Ineffective
Sounds and noises
0 5 4 0 0 0 5 4 32
3.56
Effective - Neutral
Number of repeated operations required
1 4 1 3 0 1 4 1 30
3.33
Effective - Neutral
Accuracy required in performing operations in the product
1 4 3 1 0 1 4 3 32
3.56
Effective - Neutral
The kind of processes/machines/tool required to perform work on the object
0 6 2 1 0 0 6 2 32
3.56
Effective - Neutral
Other (please specify)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.00
Very Ineffective
Page 15 of 20
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A
Q4 To what extent do you find the following factors pertaining to the product/object of work, for which you are responsible to be effective in eliciting negative stress-emotions [Average Score - Higher Values = Better ]
The complexity fo the product 4 Other (please specify)
The skills required to perform tasks 3 2
The kind of processes/machines/tool requried to perform work on the object
1
Colour combinations
0 Accuracy required in performing operations in the product
Smell of components
Number of repeated operations required
Tactile feeleing of objeccts Sounds and noises
Figure 4
Page 16 of 20
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A Table 4
Q5. To what extent do you find the characteristics pertaining to the work environment to be effective in eliciting negative stress emotions.[Average Score - Higher Values = Better] Rank Frequency Weighted Average Average Total Score Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (Lower = (Lower = Rank Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Better) Better) 6 3 0 0 0 6 3 0
42
4.67
Very Effective Effective
Excessive noises and sounds
3 5 1 0 0 3 5 1
38
4.22
Inadequate ambient temperature
7 1 1 0 0 7 1 1
42
4.67
Very Effective Effective Very Effective Effective
Unpleasant odours
0 6 3 0 0 0 6 3
33
3.67
Effective - Neutral
Inadequate spatial layout
7 2 0 0 0 7 2 0
43
4.78
High work overload
3 6 0 0 0 3 6 0
39
4.33
Working long hours
3 4 2 0 0 3 4 2
37
4.11
Time pressure
4 4 1 0 0 4 4 1
39
4.33
Responsibility for others
4 4 0 1 0 4 4 0
38
4.22
Ambiguity related to the task
4 5 0 0 0 4 5 0
40
4.44
Very Effective Effective Very Effective Effective Very Effective Effective Very Effective Effective Very Effective Effective Very Effective Effective
Ambiguity related to the role
3 2 4 0 0 3 2 4
35
3.89
Effective - Neutral
Opportunity to develop skills
3 4 2 0 0 3 4 2
37
4.11
Participation in decision making
6 3 0 0 0 6 3 0
42
4.67
Lack of work delegation
3 5 1 0 0 3 5 1
38
4.22
Poor interpersonal relationships
3 5 1 0 0 3 5 1
38
4.22
Very Effective Effective Very Effective Effective Very Effective Effective Very Effective Effective
Other (please specify)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0.00
Very Ineffective
Lack of appropriate/adequate light conditions
Page 17 of 20
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A
Q5 To what extent do you find the characteristics pertaining to the work environment to be effective in eleiciting negative stress emotions. [Average Score - Higher Values = Better ] Lack of appropriate/adequate lightâ&#x20AC;Ś 5 Other (please specify) Excessive noises and sounds Poor interpersonal relationships
4
Inadequate ambient temperature
3 Lack of work delegation
Unpleasent odours
2 1
Participation in decision making
Inadequate spatial layout
0
Opportunity to develop skills
High work overload
Ambiguity related to the role
Working long hours
Ambiguity related to the task
Time pressure Responsibility for others
Figure 5
Page 18 of 20
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A Table 5
Q6. To what extent do you consider work related stress to influence [Average Score - Higher Values = Better]. Rank Frequency Weighted Average Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Total (Lower = Better)
Score (Lower = Better)
Average Rank
The productivity of work output
1 7 1 0 0 1 7 1
36
4.00
Effective
The quality of work produced
0 5 4 0 0 0 5 4
32
3.56
Effective - Neutral
Other
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0.00
Very Ineffective
Page 19 of 20
PhD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; February 2014
Appendix A
Q6 To what extent do you consider work related stres to influence [Average Score - Higher Values = Better ] The productivitiy of work output 5 4 3 2
1 0
Other
The quality of work produced
Figure 6
Page 20 of 20