Work-Related Well-Being in the Zimbabwean Banking Sector: A Job Demands-Resources Perspective

Background@#Research on the impact of psychosocial risks on well-being at work remains scarce in low- and middle-income countries, especially in the banking sector. This study sought to examine the relationships between job demands, job resources, well-being, job satisfaction, and work engagement in the Zimbabwean banking sector. @*Methods@#An online survey was administered to 259 employees from five banks. Hierarchical multiple regression tested the relationships between job demands (quantitative demands, emotional demands, work pace, and work–family conflict), job resources (possibilities for development, social support from colleagues and supervisors, quality of leadership, and influence at work), well-being, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Interactions between all variables were tested. @*Results@#Job demands were negatively related to well-being, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Job resources had positive relationships with the same. Work pace had positive relationships with well-being and work engagement. Influence at work moderated the relationship between emotional demands and work pace with well-being. Possibilities for development moderated the relationship between work–family conflict and well-being. Work–family conflict moderated the relationship between social support from colleagues and job satisfaction. Emotional demands, work pace, and quantitative demands moderated the relationship between influence at work with job satisfaction and work engagement. @*Conclusion@#Job demands should be reduced where possible in order to enhance employee well-being, work engagement, and job satisfaction. The job resources that should be availed to facilitate a positive psychosocial work environment in the banking sector include social support from supervisors, influence at work, and possibilities for development.

Tailoring Psychosocial Risk Assessment in the Oil and Gas Industry by Exploring Specific and Common Psychosocial Risks

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial risk management [Psychosocial Risk Management Approach (PRIMA)] has, through the years, been applied in several organizations in various industries and countries globally. PRIMA principles have also been translated into international frameworks, such as PRIMA-EF (European framework) and the World Health Organization Healthy Workplace Framework. Over the past 10 years, an oil and gas company has put efforts into adopting and implementing international frameworks and standards for psychosocial risk management. More specifically, the company uses a PRIMA. METHODS: This study explores available quantitative and qualitative risk data collected through the PRIMA method over the past 8 years in order to explore specific and common psychosocial risks in the petroleum industry. RESULTS: The analyses showed a significant correlation between job resources and symptoms of workrelated stress, there was a significant correlation between job demands and symptoms of work-related stress, and there were differences in psychosocial risk factors and symptoms of work-related stress onshore and offshore. The study also offers recommendations on how the results can further be utilized in building a robust system for managing psychosocial risks in the industry. CONCLUSION: The results from the analyses have provided meaningful and important information about the company-specific psychosocial risk factors and their impact on health and well-being.

Examples of Holistic Good Practices in Promoting and Protecting Mental Health in the Workplace: Current and Future Challenges

BACKGROUND: While attention has been paid to physical risks in the work environment and the promotion of individual employee health, mental health protection and promotion have received much less focus. Psychosocial risk management has not yet been fully incorporated in such efforts. This paper presents good practices in promoting mental health in the workplace in line with World Health Organization (WHO) guidance by identifying barriers, opportunities, and the way forward in this area. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 experts who were selected on the basis of their knowledge and expertise in relation to good practice identified tools. Interviewees were asked to evaluate the approaches on the basis of the WHO model for healthy workplaces. RESULTS: The examples of good practice for Workplace Mental Health Promotion (WMHP) are in line with the principles and the five keys of the WHO model. They support the third objective of the WHO comprehensive mental health action plan 2013e2020 for multisectoral implementation of WMHP strategies. Examples of good practice include the engagement of all stakeholders and representatives, science-driven practice, dissemination of good practice, continual improvement, and evaluation. Actions to inform policies/legislation, promote education on psychosocial risks, and provide better evidence were suggested for higher WMHP success. CONCLUSION: The study identified commonalities in good practice approaches in different countries and stressed the importance of a strong policy and enforcement framework as well as organizational responsibility for WMHP. For progress to be achieved in this area, a holistic and multidisciplinary approach was unanimously suggested as a way to successful implementation.

Psychosocial Risks: Is Risk Management Strategic Enough in Business and Policy Making?

BACKGROUND: In times of continuous change and volatile markets, organizations are increasingly characterized by downsizing, work intensification, and resource rationalization. This has resulted in diversification, and the emergence of new risks within the field of occupational health and safety, with an important impact. This paper focuses on one such type of risk in the modern workplace-psychosocial risks. The current study aimed to explore stakeholder perspectives, regarding the extent to which psychosocial risks are incorporated into strategic risk management practices, at both the business and policy level. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 professionals, representing employer, expert, policy maker, and trade union stakeholder perspectives. RESULTS: It was found that the majority of organizations do not sufficiently, if at all, understand and incorporate psychosocial risks into strategic decision making, whereby the key barrier related to practical difficulties of not knowing how to manage psychosocial risks adequately. CONCLUSION: The study found that there is a need to close the gap between policy and practice on a number of levels. Future recommendations comprise a policy framework and infrastructure underpinned by educational initiatives, partnerships, and networks to drive a shift in attitudes toward recognizing the duality of the concept of risk (including both potential negative and positive outcomes) and moving beyond simple regulatory compliance.