This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
FEATURE: CORPORATE HEALTH


“Stress is a particular challenge in the public sector where the sheer amount of major change and restructuring would appear to be the root cause. To a large degree, managing stress is about effective leadership and people management, particularly during periods of major change and uncertainty.


“Line managers need to


focus on regaining the trust of their employees and openly communicating throughout the change process to avoid unnecessary stress and potential absences. They also need to be able to spot the early signs of people being under excessive pressure or having difficulty coping at work and to provide appropriate support.” Gill Phipps, HR spokesperson


for Simplyhealth, added: “Stress can often have a negative effect on the workplace, which can result in loss of productivity and disengaged employees. It’s therefore encouraging that almost half of employers have a wellbeing strategy in place, with 73 per cent offering counselling services and a further 69 per cent providing an Employee Assistance Programme. These benefits allow employees access to information and advice on workplace issues, as well as emotional, psychological and personal issues, and can be a huge help during difficult times. Employers need to ensure that benefits such as these are communicated effectively to staff in order for employees to get the most from them. “With many organisations looking


OTHER FINDINGS INCLUDE:


for ways to save money, employee health and wellbeing shouldn’t be overlooked and should remain at the heart of the company. Benefits that engage employees do not have to be expensive. By introducing a recognition scheme or equipping leaders with the skills they need to care for the health and wellbeing of their teams, employers can make small, affordable changes that make a positive difference.” Overall employee absence levels have remained static at 7.7 days per


‘With many organisations looking for ways to save money, employee health and wellbeing shouldn’t be overlooked and should remain at the heart of the company’


• Absence levels are lowest among manufacturing and production organisations at 5.7 days per employee per year (6.9 days in 2010) while among non-profit organisations absence has increased to 8.8 days (8.3 days in 2010)


• Over a quarter (28 per cent) of employers report an increase in the number of people coming to work ill in the last 12 months


• Organisations that were expecting redundancies in the coming six months were more likely to report an increase in presenteeism (32 per cent compared with 27 per cent of those who were not expecting to make further redundancies). They were also less likely to report they had not noticed an increase (48 per cent compared with 66 per cent) and less certain (20 per cent report they didn’t know if there had been an increase compared with 7% of those not making redundancies)


employee per year. Public sector absence has decreased from 9.6 days per employee per year last year to 9.1 days this year and private sector absence has increased from 6.6 days in 2010 to 7.1 days in this year’s survey. The trends in absence levels appear to reflect the relative fortunes of these sectors. Although overall absence levels show little change, the proportion of absence that is stress-related has increased. Nearly four in ten (39 per cent) employers report an increase in stress-related absence, compared to just 12 per cent reporting a decrease.


• Organisations that had noted an increase in presenteeism over the past year were more likely to report an increase in stress-related absence over the same period (49 per cent compared to 33 per cent of those who did not report an increase in people coming to work ill)


• Over a quarter of organisations (29 per cent) report they have increased their focus on employee wellbeing and health promotion as a result of the economic context. Over two-fifths of the public sector report an increase in focus compared with just over one-fifth of the private sector.


34 CHAMBERLINK DECEMBER/JANUARY 2011/12


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56