Jul. 28, 2018 "How companies harm their employees' health": Today I found this article by Harvey Schachter in the Globe and Mail:
I thought Jeffrey Pfeffer’s latest book would create more of a stir. The Stanford University professor, whose books are always richly researched, looks in Dying for a Paycheck at how modern management harms employee health.
Maybe it was seen as just another management book by a management writer, so not worthy of broader discussion. And many managers, of course, would be unnerved by, if not recoil at, his thesis and powerful arguments. But maybe we have to face up to his facts.
I was reminded of the book when I came across an article in Harvard Business Review by Andrew Rundle, a professor of epidemiology, on how bad that business travel is for your health.
Road warriors beware: Compared with those who spent one to six nights a month away from home for business travel, those who spent 14 or more nights away from home a month had significantly higher body mass index scores and were significantly more likely to report poor self-rated health; clinical symptoms of anxiety, depression and alcohol dependence; no physical activity or exercise; smoking; and trouble sleeping.
He found the odds of being obese were 92 per cent higher for those who travelled 21 or more nights a month compared with those who travelled only one to six nights a month.
That much-travelled group also had higher diastolic blood pressure and lower high-density lipoprotein, the good cholesterol.
Road warriors beware: Compared with those who spent one to six nights a month away from home for business travel, those who spent 14 or more nights away from home a month had significantly higher body mass index scores and were significantly more likely to report poor self-rated health; clinical symptoms of anxiety, depression and alcohol dependence; no physical activity or exercise; smoking; and trouble sleeping.
He found the odds of being obese were 92 per cent higher for those who travelled 21 or more nights a month compared with those who travelled only one to six nights a month.
That much-travelled group also had higher diastolic blood pressure and lower high-density lipoprotein, the good cholesterol.
Maybe they aren’t dying for their paycheque. But they are inviting poorer health for it. Most of us are also familiar with the health impacts of shift work. It can have a staggering impact on our body, as those of us who have endured it can testify. But our hospitals, police forces, hotels and often factories require around-the-clock attendance. They buy the workers off, with a premium.
But over the past century, slowly, prodded by unions and reform activists, governments created some oversight for manual and blue-collar work. Not so for white-collar jobs.
Mr. Pfeffer begins with this warning: “You don’t have to work in a coal mine, or an oil rig, in a chemical plant, or in construction to face a possibly toxic, health-destroying workplace. In today’s work world, white-collar jobs are often as stressful and unhealthful as manual labour or blue-collar work – frequently more so.”
Your local emergency room might have extra staffing, for example, on Monday mornings. That’s because people are more likely to have heart attacks on Monday mornings than at any other time of the week. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, aside from those who are “lucky” enough to have shifts, that’s the start of the work week.
We know about stress at work, and its impact. What about stress and non-work – the precarious workplace, offering maximum flexibility for management and little security for the workforce. There is lots of evidence linking precarious employment to deterioration in health and safety, Mr. Pfeffer reports.
It goes on and on. He says that as a society we are concerned about the physical environment, yet largely indifferent about what “companies do to the social environment, to the human beings who work for them.”
It’s a management book, and his appeal to managers is to realize that employers also suffer, "because toxic management practices and unhealthy workplaces do not improve organizational profitability or performance. On the contrary, unhealthy workplaces diminish employee engagement, increase turnover, and reduce job performance, even as they drive up health insurance and health-care costs.
All too many workplaces have management practices that serve neither the interests of employees nor their employers, truly a lose-lose situation.”
It’s a management book, and his appeal to managers is to realize that employers also suffer, "because toxic management practices and unhealthy workplaces do not improve organizational profitability or performance. On the contrary, unhealthy workplaces diminish employee engagement, increase turnover, and reduce job performance, even as they drive up health insurance and health-care costs.
All too many workplaces have management practices that serve neither the interests of employees nor their employers, truly a lose-lose situation.”
That’s arguably true, but yada, yada, yada. Managers have more pressing, overriding concerns. It’s difficult if you are operating in a company designed to satisfy the market – produce higher and higher profits – to convince others to buy his argument. But perhaps in some small ways you can make a dent – think about those road warriors, for example.
Significant reform may have to start with those who own their own company – and early-start entrepreneurs tend to put employees through a killing pace, so it has to come later in their corporate “life cycle.”
Starbucks has health benefits because founder Howard Schultz did not like what happened to his father without them, and, as owner, he could act on his values. Beyond that, academics have a role to play in highlighting the issue, and all of us, as citizens, can encourage governments to pay concern to white-collar work.
Starbucks has health benefits because founder Howard Schultz did not like what happened to his father without them, and, as owner, he could act on his values. Beyond that, academics have a role to play in highlighting the issue, and all of us, as citizens, can encourage governments to pay concern to white-collar work.
- Every square-peg business eventually meets its round-hole world (https://www.digitaltonto.com/2018/5-things-managers-should-know-about-innovation-but-most-dont/), says innovation expert Greg Satell. Changes in technology, customer preferences and competitive environments eventually render every business model irrelevant – even yours.
"How a summer job gives teens a competitive edge": Today I found this article by Darah Hansen in the Globe and Mail:
The Globe’s bimonthly report on research from business schools.
Landing a summer job is a rite of passage for tens of thousands of Canadian teenagers every year.
Whether flipping burgers or minding toddlers at a wading pool, seasonal temporary gigs are a great way for teens to earn a little money during the school break.
But researchers at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business say there are more rewards to be reaped by this novice work force than just a paycheque. According to study co-author Marc-David Seidel, a Sauder associate professor and expert in employment issues, teens who work for the summer are more likely than their unemployed peers to land good jobs and earn more money later on in their careers.
The pattern also holds true for young workers who maintain part-time employment during the school year.
The pattern also holds true for young workers who maintain part-time employment during the school year.
“For instance, those who worked year-round at the age of 15 had a higher chance of being employed at 17 to 21, had higher incomes at ages 17 to 25, and at ages 21 and 23 had higher-quality job matches,” says Dr. Seidel in an e-mail.
In particular, the study found working teens gain a competitive advantage in the labour market by acquiring valuable soft skills, such as better time management, more valuable networks outside of their circle of family, friends and school, and refined job-hunting abilities.
Teens further benefit from learning early on what they like to do – and, critically, what they don’t like. That, in turn, “enables them to be matched to better-fitting work environments,” the study concludes.
The research focused on 15-year-olds entering the work force, and draws from 10 years of employment data collected by Statistics Canada.
Dr. Seidel says the team set out to test some of the previous assumptions found in income inequality literature that suggest adolescent or “teen” labour is a societal problem. Some scholars in the field believe the stress of working and time spent away from family is unduly harmful to young people.
“We wanted to check if there were certain circumstances where such work was actually beneficial for the development of the adolescent, [and] we found evidence that it can be,” says Dr. Seidel in the e-mail.
Researchers acknowledge there are conditions where teens suffer, particularly working too many hours. According to the study, positive results over the long term came with teens who worked up to 43 hours a week over the summer, or 33 hours a week during the school year.
“
The key is that under certain conditions it can, in fact, be connected with positive later life outcomes,” says Dr. Seidel.
The key is that under certain conditions it can, in fact, be connected with positive later life outcomes,” says Dr. Seidel.
The study is co-authored by Marjan Houshmand of the University of Hawaii, and UBC PhD student Dennis Ma. It’s published in the Research in the Sociology of Work journal.
For the last few years, I've been keeping track of friends' children who have and have not had summer jobs, and their career outcomes. Certainly, my findings are consistent with those of the study. Those who have not had summer jobs (parents not wanting to interrupt their childhood), can't seem to adjust to the realities of a steady job once they have graduated. Scary.
Ironically, I've encountered a number of middle-class parents who don't want to "rob" their children of their childhood by having them take employment (summer and part time) before finishing their formal schooling. Not so ironically, some of those kids are university graduates languishing in menial dead end jobs in their mid-20's and receiving ongoing financial assistance from their parents. Thanks to mom and dad, their adult children are still enjoying their childhood and becoming marginalized from their peers and resentful about their situation.
question -- a job at 23 is much different than 33. I imagine after 25 years of age that this "benefit" is no longer true - would love to see this study expanded
33 hours a week during the semester? Please tell me that's a typo! I teach at CEGEP (pre-university college in Quebec) and clearly see that students who work more than around 10 hours a week are severely handicapped by their work time. They end up either not attending class/studying enough, or giving up sleep, exercise and at least some minimal social or family activities, all of which they need to do well in school.
Plus, of course, this is correlational research. Students who are already smarter, better organized, more on the ball, in good health, will both work, and do better long term.
There's also plenty of other research on this topic (I hate articles that make it sound like this was the first study of its kind!) that shows that 10 to 15 hs a week of work during the semester correlates w/higher achievement long-term. Anything higher drags grades down, leading to difficulties getting into the desired university programs, etc.
Too bad Justin made federal funds for summer jobs an identity test. You believe in the ways of Justin or you become unworthy of employment in the eyes of our government
A rather obvious conclusion !Nothing like a real job - cook to construction work and anything in between ! You find out that the boss is not the slightest bit interested in your personal foibles but only if you show up on time and do your work. Able to follow instructions and learn, cooperate with coworkers and act responsibly.Next ....
No comments:
Post a Comment