Evaluation of a Participatory Risk Management Work Stress Intervention
Evaluation of a Participatory Risk Management Work Stress Intervention
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0035795
复制
发表时间：
2014-02-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Gordon, Jacqueline A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dollard, Maureen F.;Gordon, Jacqueline A.
本研究评估了澳大利亚公共部门组织参与式风险管理干预的效果。在这项准实验队列研究中，干预工作组参加了能力建设研讨会，并制定和实施了行动计划，以减少工作和组织压力风险因素（如工作设计、绩效管理、工作质量和组织变革）和压力结果（如工作压力、士气和病假时间）。干预组5个，对照组17个。现有的组织发展工作条件和福利调查作为风险评估和评价工具加以管理。数据采集于干预前（时间1 [T1]，干预n = 94，对照组n = 511）和干预后12个月（时间2 [T2]，干预，n = 123，对照组n = 556）。多变量方差分析显示，组（干预vs对照组）x时间（T1 vs T2）交互作用显著改善了工作设计、培训与发展和士气；和边际效应的质量和积极的绩效管理。积极的组织变化不显著。组织病缺勤时间减少，这与干预效果一致。尽管回归均值可以解释士气的提高，但结果对竞争性解释（即改变队列）是相当有力的。出现了高层管理人员的承诺和支持、员工的参与和行动计划的实施
This study evaluated the effects of a participatory risk management intervention in an Australian public sector organization. In this quasi-experimental cohort study, intervention workgroups attended capacity-building workshops and developed and implemented action plans to reduce work and organizational stress risk factors (e.g., job design, performance management, work quality, and organizational change) and stress outcomes (e.g., work stress, morale, and sickness absence duration). There were 5 intervention and 17 control workgroups. An existing organizational development survey of work conditions and well-being was administered as a risk assessment and evaluation tool. Data were collected before the intervention (Time 1 [T1], Intervention n = 94, Control n = 511) and 12 months after (Time 2 [T2], Intervention, n = 123, Control n = 556). Multivariate analysis of variance showed a Group (Intervention vs. Control) x Time (T1 vs. T2) interaction effect with significant improvements for job design, training and development, and morale; and marginal effects for quality and positive performance management. Positive organizational change was not significant. Organizational sickness absence duration decreased, which is consistent with an intervention effect. Results were quite robust against competing explanations (i.e., changing cohorts), although regression to the mean could explain improvements in morale. Top management commitment and support, worker participation, and action plan implementation appeared