Job Anxiety, Work‐Related Psychological Illness and Workplace Performance
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12159 |
| Author | Peter J. Sloane,Melanie K. Jones,Paul L. Latreille |
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12159
54:4 December 2016 0007–1080 pp. 742–767
Job Anxiety, Work-Related Psychological
Illness and Workplace Performance
Melanie K. Jones, Paul L. Latreille
and Peter J. Sloane
Abstract
This article uses matched employee–employer data from the British Workplace
Employment Relations Survey to examine the relationship between employee
psychological health and workplace performance in 2004 and 2011. Using two
measures of work-relatedpsychological health — namely employee-reported job
anxiety and manager-reported workforce stress, depression and anxiety — we
find a positive relationship between psychologicalill-health and absence, but not
quits. The association between psychological ill-health and labour productivity
is less clear, with estimates sensitive to sector, time period and the measure of
psychological health. The 2004–2011 panel is further used to explore the extent
to which change in psychological health is related to change in performance.
1. Introduction
There is an established literatureexamining the relationship between working
conditions and health (see Pouliakas and Theodossiou 2013 for a survey).
Workplace accidents and injuries have declined over time and contemporary
analysis of work-related health should include measures of psychological
health. In terms of the latter, contributions within economics have focused
on identifying its work-related determinants (Cottini and Lucifora 2013;
Robone et al. 2011) and associated compensating wage dierentials (French
and Dunlap 1998; Groot and Maassen van den Brink 1999).
Government organizations, however, have been keen to highlight the
business case for improving employee psychological health, emphasizing
sickness absence, turnover and presenteeism (being at work, but working
at less than full capacity) as mechanisms through which it aects
Melanie K. Jonesis at the University of Sheeld. Paul L. Latreille is at the University of Sheeld
and IZA. Peter J. Sloane is at Swansea University, the National Institute of Labour Studies,
Flinders University and IZA.
C
2015 John Wiley& Sons Ltd/London School of Economics. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Job Anxiety, Work-Related Psychological 743
firm performance (see Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health 2007). The
methodology underlying this (occupational health-based) evidence relies on
estimating work time ‘lost’ as a result of ill-health using employee perceptions
and multiplying by an estimate of the value of work — typically the hourly
wage — to create an aggregate monetary cost (see Goetzel et al. 2004; Stewart
et al. 2003). Interestingly, presenteeism has been found to be a particularly
important cause of lost output for employees with mental, as opposed to
physical, illness (Dewa and Lin 2000).
While this approach provides easily interpretable national estimates of the
‘cost’ of psychological ill-health, it has several limitations. Most importantly,
it focuses on inputs rather than outputs (Pauly et al. 2008) and assumes
the wage reflects the value of ‘lost’ output. It also ignores employer
responses, including replacement labour, and the underlying nature of
production, particularly teamwork and time-sensitivity (Nicholson et al.
2006).1Economists more typically consider productivity at the level of the
workplacebut, despite recognition of the potential insights from linking this to
employee-reported information (e.g., Brown et al. 2011), occupational health
and safety (OHS) has not featured prominently within this literature. Indeed,
there are only a handful of exceptions internationally (Buhai et al. 2008;
Munch-Hansen et al. 2009) and none focusing specifically on psychological
ill-health.
By analysing data at the workplace level, this article contributes new
evidence on the relationship between employee psychological health and
performance. It has several advantages in this context. First, it does not
restrict the channels through which psychological health aects performance
and, indeed, it is not essential to specify such channels, which may include
disruption, labour turnover and spillover eects on co-workers. Second, the
cost of absence is allowedto dier across workplaces, consistent with variation
in the underlying production technology (Pouliakas and Theodossiou 2013).
In fact, the direct (earnings) cost of absence may be shared to varying
extents with employees or the government through, for example, sickness
payment schemes. There are, however, also limitations (particularly in terms
of aggregation) when focusing on the workplace. Nevertheless, we argue this
complementary approach has particular relevance in assessing the impact on
workplace performance. In this respect it is important to note that previous
studies typically focus on psychological ill-health rather than work-related
psychological ill-health which is the focus here. While we acknowledge it is
often dicult to isolate the cause of psychological illness (and provide full
definitions of our measures below), it is the latter, through changes in work
practices and procedures (Wood 2008), that is likelyto be within an employer’s
direct control.
To our knowledge this study is the first to explore the link between
work-related psychological health and workplace performance in this way.
By using matched data from the Workplace Employment Relations Survey
(WERS) it contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it provides a
nationally representative, comprehensive and generalizable analysis of this
C
2015 John Wiley& Sons Ltd/London School of Economics.
To continue reading
Request your trial