Psychosocial safety climate and stigma: Reporting stress‐related concerns at work

Klinefelter, Zachary; Sinclair, Robert R.; Britt, Thomas W.; Sawhney, Gargi; Black, Kristen Jennings; Munc, Alec

doi:10.1002/smi.3010

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has shown that a negative work climate in the organisation can lead to the underreporting of stress-related issues due to fear of it having a negative impact on one's work relationships. Furthermore, structural issues at work can negatively affect workers' willingness to discuss work-related stress, potentially leading to bullying or burnout [40]. Another stressor in line with our results is organisation-imposed work overload due to the lack of individually altering responsibilities and duties based on personal needs and preferences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Sources of Occupational Stress among Office Workers—A Focus Group Study

Bolliger

Lukan

Colman

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workplace stress remains a major interest of occupational health research, usually based on theoretical models and quantitative large-scale studies. Office workers are especially exposed to stressors such as high workload and time pressure. The aim of this qualitative research was to follow a phenomenological approach to identify work stressors as they are perceived by office workers. Six focus groups with office workers of different occupations were conducted in Belgium and Slovenia. A total of 39 participants were included in the study. We used the RQDA software for data processing and analysis and the seven job-quality indices of the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) to structure our findings. The results show that work intensity and social environment proved to be main stress categories, followed by skills and discretion, prospects, and working time quality. The physical environment and earnings were not covered in our results. We created organisational (structural/process-oriented and financial) stressors and office workers’ physical health as two additional categories since these topics did not fit into the EWCS. While our findings mainly confirm data from existing occupational stress literature and emphasise the multi-level complexity of work stress experiences, this paper suggests that there are relevant stressors experienced by office workers beyond existing quantitative frameworks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Sources of Occupational Stress among Office Workers—A Focus Group Study

Bolliger

Lukan

Colman

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, PSC has the capacity to reduce the impact of workplace bullying on post-traumatic disorder and work engagement [ 12 , 44 ] Kwan et al [ 39 ] revealed that the positive association between bullying and neglect is diminished when a high PSC is perceived by workers. Moreover, PSC moderates the associations between role conflict and workplace bullying [ 17 ], role ambiguity and workplace bullying [ 17 ] and stigma and workplace bullying [ 15 ]. While a limited research attention is given, a study reported that PSC mediates the association between health-centric leadership and workers’ psychological health problems [ 26 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventing workplace mistreatment and improving workers’ mental health: a scoping review of the impact of psychosocial safety climate

Amoadu,

Ansah,

Sarfo

2024

BMC Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Work environment is rapidly evolving, unfortunately, it is also becoming increasingly hostile for workers due mostly to common psychosocial hazards. This situation is posing significant challenges for organisations to protect the psychological well-being of their workers. Hence, this review aims to map studies to understand the influence of psychosocial safety climate (PSC) on workplace mistreatment and mental health of workers. Methods The guidelines outlined by Arksey and O’Malley were adopted for this review. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, JSTOR, Google and Google Scholar were searched for relevant papers. Only peer-reviewed studies that measured PSC using PSC-12, PSC-8 or PSC-4 were included in this review. Results Thirty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. This review found that PSC has a negative association with workplace mistreatment such as bullying, harassment, violence, discrimination and abuse. Further, PSC has a positive association with psychological well-being, personal resilience and hope. Low level organisational PSC also promotes psychological distress, stress, depression, cognitive weariness and emotional exhaustion. The buffering effect of PSC is well-established. Moreover, PSC mediates the association between health-centric leadership and workers’ psychological health problems. The inverse relationship between PSC and depressive symptoms was stronger for females than males. Conclusion Organisations should prioritise training and development of supervisors to enhance their supportive skills, encourage respectful behaviour, encourage the use of resources promote open and bottom-up communication and provide guidance on conflict resolution. By promoting a high PSC context, organisations can create a culture that discourages mistreatment, leading to increased employee well-being, job satisfaction, and productivity.

show abstract

“…Fevre et al [ 15 ] noted that short, direct bullying questions, such as the stem question used on the APMS, may risk some types of negative workplace behaviours of interest not being reported. Underreporting may also have occurred for various reasons, including stigma [ 59 ], lack of recognition/agreement that a behaviour was bullying [ 60 ], patterns of non-response, and the exclusion of those not in paid work in the past month [ 61 ]. Risk of selection bias is also a limitation of the current study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and nature of workplace bullying and harassment and associations with mental health conditions in England: a cross-sectional probability sample survey

Bunce,

Hashemi,

Clark

et al. 2024

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evidence on workplace bullying and harassment (WBH) in the UK has not used probability-sample surveys with robust mental health assessments. This study aimed to profile the prevalence and nature of WBH in England, identify inequalities in exposure, and quantify adjusted associations with mental health. Methods Data were from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, a cross-sectional probability-sample survey of the household population in England. Criteria for inclusion in the secondary analysis were being aged 16–70 years and in paid work in the past month (n = 3838). Common mental disorders (CMDs) were assessed using the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised and mental wellbeing using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. Analyses were weighted. We examined associations between past-year WBH and current CMD using multivariable regression modelling, adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Interaction terms tested for gender differences in associations. The study received ethical approval (ETH21220–299). Results One in ten employees (10.6%, n = 444/3838) reported past-year experience of WBH, with rates higher in women (12.2%, n = 284/2189), those of mixed, multiple, and other ethnicity (21.0%, n = 15/92), and people in debt (15.2%, n = 50/281) or living in cold homes (14.6%, n = 42/234). Most commonly identified perpetrators of WBH were line managers (53.6%, n = 244/444) or colleagues (42.8%, n = 194/444). Excessive criticism (49.3%, n = 212/444), verbal abuse (42.6%, n = 187/444), and humiliation (31.4%, n = 142/444) were the most common types. WBH was associated with all indicators of poor mental health, including CMD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.65, 95% CI 2.02–3.49), and 11 of 14 mental wellbeing indicators, including lower levels of confidence (aOR 0.57, 0.46–0.72) and closeness to others (aOR 0.57, 0.46–0.72). Patterns of association between WBH and mental health were similar in men and women. Conclusions These findings reinforce a need for more cohesive UK legislation against WBH; guidance on recognition of bullying behaviours for employees, managers, and human resources, focusing on prevention and early intervention, and increased awareness of the impact of WBH on mental health among health service practitioners. Limitations include reliance on cross-sectional data collected before pandemic-related and other changes in workplace practices. Longitudinal data are needed to improve evidence on causality and the longevity of mental health impacts.

show abstract

Psychosocial safety climate and stigma: Reporting stress‐related concerns at work

Cited by 14 publications

References 66 publications

Sources of Occupational Stress among Office Workers—A Focus Group Study

Sources of Occupational Stress among Office Workers—A Focus Group Study

Preventing workplace mistreatment and improving workers’ mental health: a scoping review of the impact of psychosocial safety climate

Prevalence and nature of workplace bullying and harassment and associations with mental health conditions in England: a cross-sectional probability sample survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About