By John Hudson
When it comes to work-related stress, prevention should be better than cure. Tackling the causes of work-related stress should, theoretically, be more successful than just dealing with the negative consequences. However, overviews of evidence suggest that preventative approaches (primary interventions) are not as effective as we might expect; although some studies have shown benefits, others have shown either no improvement and in some cases have even worsened. Are we wasting our time and effort with prevention? No, but this highlights a key challenge for psychologists and practitioners. Theory and evidence are vital, but we forget about the practicalities and messiness of the ‘real world’ at our peril…
If you are interested in this, or any other work-related psychology topic, we focus on it in much more depth on our MSc Occupational Psychology
We love a theory in psychology. Evidence-based theories can help us make sense of the world; they can help us understand, explain, and even influence how people behave in many different circumstances. Casting my mind back to my own first year of studying psychology, I was fascinated by theories of influence and communication; discovering all these persuasion secrets, and thinking I would be so influential! I (eventually) learned that simply memorising and applying a theory or piece of evidence isn’t enough, it’s only the first piece in a very complicated jigsaw. Anyone can learn a theory or model, but mindlessly applying them won’t do you much good.
For example, research suggests that sales tactics such as using a customer’s name in conversation can help develop rapport and improve sales success, by making the service feel more personalised. But if you’ve ever dealt with a salesperson who insisted on squeezing your name into almost every single sentence then you’ve experienced psychological evidence being poorly applied: rather than building rapport, it feels fake and can do the exact opposite. This is why we need to understand the limitations of any theory, when and how to apply them, and just as importantly…when not to. This is true in every single area of psychology, including my own area of interest, Occupational Psychology, where we see the same issues: lots of well-founded theories that don’t always work out exactly as we might expect when they are applied. That is exactly why we place so much emphasis on our Psychology programmes into considering how theories might translate from the pages of journals and textbooks, and into practice.
“Get comfortable with idea that there is rarely one ‘right’ answer in psychology, and do be reassured by the knowledge that experts find this very difficult too.”
Tweet
Making decisions based on theory and evidence is necessary, but it’s still very possible to use theory and still make an absolute mess of it (and that’s even before we consider that many popular theories from your Psych textbooks aren’t actually as good as we might think). It’s complex and challenging, but if you want to really use your psychological knowledge outside the classroom then it’s probably the most important part of the whole process. And that difficulty can be seen when we tackle work-related stress…
Work stress: prevention better than cure?
Research shows long-term exposure to poor working conditions (e.g. excessive workloads, constant change, lack of control, unsupportive colleagues or management, etc – also known as psychosocial stressors) are linked to chronic stress and the development of distressing mental and physical health problems. When I began studying this topic, I found it puzzling trying to understand the somewhat disappointing results of research into preventative interventions (e.g. giving employees more control over their work; training managers to provide better support; changing problematic aspects of the job). Theory says they should work, yet findings were not as consistently positive as theory would suggest. However, when I looked at these studies more closely there were some crucial factors that we were relatively underappreciated at the time; for example, the importance of context and intervention implementation. Both of those had received comparatively little research attention until relatively recently, yet both play a vital role in the success of any intervention or change.
Implementation
It sounds like one of those ‘common sense’ things that are completely obvious once we hear it: “well of course we need to implement interventions properly!” Unfortunately though, poorly implemented interventions are all too common, with sense often lagging sadly behind. For example, managers may assume their plans have been implemented as intended, but research suggests otherwise. In other cases, programmes simply peter out because of changing priorities, which is unsurprisingly something that employees pick up on: can you imagine being an employee and hearing all about a fantastic new staff well-being strategy that’s going to improve your working life, but then months later it slowly disappears from view because other priorities emerged. How would you feel? Happier, more motivated? Probably not.
It gets better (i.e. worse!). Other studies reporting disappointing wellbeing-related outcomes have noted that in some some cases programmes were barely delivered at all; for example, Biron and colleagues (2010) studied an intervention that relied on managers conducting stress-risk assessments in their team, which was intended to help them identify potential issues to support their staff more effectively. Although there was a sound theoretical basis to it, they found many managers simply did not engage with it for various reasons: some didn’t see the point, some didn’t have time, while others were unsure how to do it. This shows how important it is to prepare, to understand the context and potential barriers, so we can plan for them; for example, if managers don’t see why something is necessary then we need to consider our communication and how to involve or engage them, if managers don’t have time or confidence, then we need to ensure they do. However, in this case, very few managers implemented the risk assessments within their teams and the intervention was unsuccessful. Was it a bad idea, or just badly implemented?
More encouragingly, Sorensen and Holman (2014) studied six organisations and did find positive results, but only in those organisations who communicated with staff about their plans and delivered them effectively. Again though, some organisations didn’t even get around to delivering their promised plans – no prizes for guessing how that worked out. Is it really any surprise that poorly delivered projects, or ones that don’t even happen at all, are getting bad results?
Examples aren’t always so obvious, and more recent research has highlighted the need to prioritise and evaluate intervention implementation – which itself relies on a lot of important psychological concepts and topics (e.g. communication, employee participation, leadership). So although it sounds like simple common sense to ensure that our plans are carried out properly, research and experience teaches us that it is a lot more difficult than we might think – particularly with complex programmes like this, which involve lots of people and planning. Being aware of some of these pitfalls is a crucial step and the importance of implementation is vital, despite being previously underappreciated. Thankfully this is changing, and process evaluation is a growing area of study in occupational psychology while Implementation Science has emerged as a discipline in its own right. These have the potential to add tremendous value when it comes to the application of psychology (or anything else, for that matter). Both are well worth looking into if you are serious about applying your knowledge.
“What does all this mean? What should I know, and what should I do? Isn’t this all a bit complicated?“
Yes, it is. And it’s exactly why we need to think about how (or if) our theories transfer from the pages of journals and textbooks to the rather messier business of real life. We’ve focused on stress-management at work here to give you an example, but this applies no matter what you’re studying.
- Get comfortable with idea that there is rarely one ‘right’ answer, and do be reassured by the knowledge that experts find this very difficult too. People are complex and that multiplies when it involves lots of people. Psychology can’t guarantee the outcomes we want, but using it well can improve our probability of success. And that’s very handy to any business.
- Learn relevant theories, but don’t be afraid to look for limitations and weaknesses. If you’re a student you may feel that you aren’t qualified to pick holes in the work of ‘experts’ (I certainly felt that way at first), but theories are never perfect and even the best won’t work in every situation and context.
- Whether you want a career in psychology or not, understanding things like this – and being able to apply psychology, when others don’t – can give you a real advantage when you are involved in managing projects or people. Particularly when you consider that knowledge and application of the best evidence-based practice within Management and Human Resources is not always up to date.
It is not enough to find or memorise a theory. It’s a start, but expertise develops as you begin the hard work of considering how they might work when you actually need them.
John is part of NTU’s Work, Wellbeing and Performance Group and you can follow our @WorkPsychNTU on Twitter
Psychology at Nottingham Trent University 