excellence in a number of areas has compounded the stress experienced by staff(Hazelkorn,2011).Market-led policies and globalisation necessitate regular curriculum redesign and diverse modes of delivery,which require enhanced professional and technical skills from academic and support staff. Enhanced regulatory demands and performance management structures relating to teaching and research have been introduced.Staff employed in universities and colleges have experienced increased demands for excellence in teaching,administration and pastoral care,as well as more pressure to boost funding through entrepreneurial activities(CHERI,2007).Universities are also forced to compete more fiercely for research grants and the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework requires academic employees to not only produce excellent research,but evidence its broad impact. Fixed-term or other forms of casual contracts for staff in higher education are widespread-particularly for research-only academic staff.In higher education in the UK in 2011-12,according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency's Staff Record,analysed by University and College Union,36%of all academics, including 60%of teaching-only staff and 68%of research-only staff,were on fixed-term contracts-a factor likely to have impacted on perceptions of job security.The trend towards greater rationalisation of universities and colleges through closure and merger is likely to continue(CHERI,2011).High levels of job insecurity have been found in previous studies of UCU members(Kinman Jones,2004;Court Kinman,2009a,2009b,2009c).Job insecurity has also been cited as a considerable source of stress in UCU members and other samples of university and college employees(Kinman Jones,2004; Tytherleigh,Webb,Cooper Ricketts,2005). Research conducted over the last 10 to 15 years indicates that levels of psycho- logical distress amongst employees in post-compulsory education are comparatively high.The findings of a systematic review conducted by Watts and Robertson(2011)highlighted levels of burnout amongst university teaching staff compara-ble with'at risk'groups such as healthcare professionals. Academics engaged in teaching and research,rather than those who are just teachers or researchers,tended to report the highest levels of stress(Winefield Jarrett,2001).Two UK surveys of academic and academic-related staff conducted in 1998 and 20041 found high levels of job-related stressors and a level of psychological distress that exceeded that reported by other professional groups(Kinman,1998;Kinman Jones 2004;Kinman et al.,2006).The most stressful aspects of work included rushed pace of work,inadequate administrative and technical support,lack of respect and esteem,too much administrative paperwork,poor promotion opportunities,ineffective communication,and lack of opportunity for scholarly work.Levels of many of these stressors remained high in the sector in the six year period between 1998 and 2004(Kinman et al.,2006). The study conducted in 2004 revealed that a considerable proportion of mem- bers of the Association of University Teachers were working in excess of the 48 hour weekly limit set by the European Union's Working Time Directive(HMSO, 1 Surveys of members of the Association of 1998).More specifically,59%of respondents employed on a full-time basis University Teachers
excellence in a number of areas has compounded the stress experienced by staff (Hazelkorn, 2011). Market-led policies and globalisation necessitate regular curriculum redesign and diverse modes of delivery, which require enhanced professional and technical skills from academic and support staff. Enhanced regulatory demands and performance management structures relating to teaching and research have been introduced. Staff employed in universities and colleges have experienced increased demands for excellence in teaching, administration and pastoral care, as well as more pressure to boost funding through entrepreneurial activities (CHERI, 2007). Universities are also forced to compete more fiercely for research grants and the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework requires academic employees to not only produce excellent research, but evidence its broad impact. Fixed-term or other forms of casual contracts for staff in higher education are widespread - particularly for research-only academic staff. In higher education in the UK in 2011-12, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s Staff Record, analysed by University and College Union, 36% of all academics, including 60% of teaching-only staff and 68% of research-only staff, were on fixed-term contracts - a factor likely to have impacted on perceptions of job security. The trend towards greater rationalisation of universities and colleges through closure and merger is likely to continue (CHERI, 2011). High levels of job insecurity have been found in previous studies of UCU members (Kinman & Jones, 2004; Court & Kinman, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). Job insecurity has also been cited as a considerable source of stress in UCU members and other samples of university and college employees (Kinman & Jones, 2004; Tytherleigh, Webb, Cooper & Ricketts, 2005). Research conducted over the last 10 to 15 years indicates that levels of psychological distress amongst employees in post-compulsory education are comparatively high. The findings of a systematic review conducted by Watts and Robertson (2011) highlighted levels of burnout amongst university teaching staff compara-ble with ‘at risk’ groups such as healthcare professionals. Academics engaged in teaching and research, rather than those who are just teachers or researchers, tended to report the highest levels of stress (Winefield & Jarrett, 2001). Two UK surveys of academic and academic-related staff conducted in 1998 and 20041 found high levels of job-related stressors and a level of psychological distress that exceeded that reported by other professional groups (Kinman, 1998; Kinman & Jones 2004; Kinman et al., 2006). The most stressful aspects of work included rushed pace of work, inadequate administrative and technical support, lack of respect and esteem, too much administrative paperwork, poor promotion opportunities, ineffective communication, and lack of opportunity for scholarly work. Levels of many of these stressors remained high in the sector in the six year period between 1998 and 2004 (Kinman et al., 2006). The study conducted in 2004 revealed that a considerable proportion of members of the Association of University Teachers were working in excess of the 48 hour weekly limit set by the European Union’s Working Time Directive (HMSO, 1998). More specifically, 59% of respondents employed on a full-time basis 6 1 Surveys of members of the Association of University Teachers
worked more than 45 hours in a typical week and 21%in excess of 55 hours. Almost one half of the sample worked regularly during evenings and weekends in order to cope with the demands of their work.Academic staff involved in both teaching and research tended to report longer working hours.Unsurpris- ingly,a high level of conflict between work and home life was reported,and was the strongest predictor of psychological distress.Boundaries between work and home were blurred for the majority of respondents,and few reported that they were able to achieve an acceptable work-life balance.The negative impact of work-life conflict on health and family-life has been widely demonstrated (Kinman Jones,2001).The 2004 study reported that work demands tended to spill over into the home domain both physically(e.g.working at home during evenings and weekends),and psychologically(e.g.preoccupation with work problems,difficulties in sleeping,and irritability with family and friends). Although few respondents wished for total separation between their work and home lives,the majority desired more separation than they currently experienced. From the research discussed above,it is clear that the post-compulsory education sector in the UK is continuing to experience fundamental changes. This is likely to have a continued negative impact on the well-being of UCU members,and it is likely that work-related stress is likely to continue to be high. The HSE management The Health and Safety Executive(HSE:the UK body responsible for policy and standards approach operational matters related to occupational health and safety)has developed a process to help employers manage the work-related well-being of their staff.A risk-assessment approach is advocated whereby workplace stress is considered a serious health and safety issue,and stressors are measured and managed like any other workplace hazard.The HSE process is based around a set of standards of good management practice(or benchmarks)for measuring employers'performance in preventing work-related stress from occurring at source(Mackay et al.,2004). Following extensive consultation,the HSE selected several elements of work activity (known as psychosocial hazards)that are:a)considered relevant to the majority of UK employees and b)have a strong evidence base as the'most critical predictors'of employee well-being and organisational performance (Mackay et al..2004,p.101).The specified hazards are demands,control, social support(from managers and peers),interpersonal relationships,role clarity and involvement in organisational change. The HSE has developed a self-report survey instrument to help employers measure the key hazards within their organisations and compare their performance with national standards.The HSE Indicator Tool(Cousins et al, 2004)comprises 35 items within the seven hazard categories: Demands includes workload,pace of work and working hours; Control measures levels of autonomy over working methods,as well as pacing and timing: Peer support encompasses the degree of help and respect received from colleagues;
7 worked more than 45 hours in a typical week and 21% in excess of 55 hours. Almost one half of the sample worked regularly during evenings and weekends in order to cope with the demands of their work. Academic staff involved in both teaching and research tended to report longer working hours. Unsurprisingly, a high level of conflict between work and home life was reported, and was the strongest predictor of psychological distress. Boundaries between work and home were blurred for the majority of respondents, and few reported that they were able to achieve an acceptable work-life balance. The negative impact of work-life conflict on health and family-life has been widely demonstrated (Kinman & Jones, 2001). The 2004 study reported that work demands tended to spill over into the home domain both physically (e.g. working at home during evenings and weekends), and psychologically (e.g. preoccupation with work problems, difficulties in sleeping, and irritability with family and friends). Although few respondents wished for total separation between their work and home lives, the majority desired more separation than they currently experienced. From the research discussed above, it is clear that the post-compulsory education sector in the UK is continuing to experience fundamental changes. This is likely to have a continued negative impact on the well-being of UCU members, and it is likely that work-related stress is likely to continue to be high. The HSE management The Health and Safety Executive (HSE: the UK body responsible for policy and standards approach operational matters related to occupational health and safety) has developed a process to help employers manage the work-related well-being of their staff. A risk-assessment approach is advocated whereby workplace stress is considered a serious health and safety issue, and stressors are measured and managed like any other workplace hazard. The HSE process is based around a set of standards of good management practice (or benchmarks) for measuring employers’ performance in preventing work-related stress from occurring at source (Mackay et al., 2004). Following extensive consultation, the HSE selected several elements of work activity (known as psychosocial hazards) that are: a) considered relevant to the majority of UK employees and b) have a strong evidence base as the ‘most critical predictors’ of employee well-being and organisational performance (Mackay et al., 2004, p. 101). The specified hazards are demands, control, social support (from managers and peers), interpersonal relationships, role clarity and involvement in organisational change. The HSE has developed a self-report survey instrument to help employers measure the key hazards within their organisations and compare their performance with national standards. The HSE Indicator Tool (Cousins et al, 2004) comprises 35 items within the seven hazard categories: n Demands includes workload, pace of work and working hours; n Control measures levels of autonomy over working methods, as well as pacing and timing; n Peer support encompasses the degree of help and respect received from colleagues;
Managerial support reflects supportive behaviours from line managers and the organisation itself,such as availability of feedback and encouragement; Relationships assesses levels of conflict within the workplace including bullying behaviour and harassment; Role examines levels of role clarity and the extent to which employees believe that their work fits into the overall aims of the organisation; Change reflects how well organisational changes are managed and communicated. The HSE risk assessment approach is widely utilised by individual organisations,occupational groups and sectors to diagnose the most stressful aspects of work.The process allows employers to assess how well they are managing the different hazard categories within their workforce,and helps them develop precisely targeted interventions to enhance the work-related well- being of their staff.The HSE provides normative data from a range of occupational groups,enabling employers to compare their scores for each of the hazards against these national benchmarks.Where scores for any of the hazards are compared unfavourably,the HSE suggests interim and longer-term target scores to help organisations improve their performance. The HSE process is recommended by the University and Colleges Employers Association as an effective way of managing work-related stress(UCEA,nd).A growing number of colleges and universities have adopted this approach to conduct independent surveys to assess the well-being of their employees,with some success.In 2008,the University and College Union utilised the HSE method in a large-scale national survey of members in academic and academic-related roles(n=14,270).Findings revealed that people working in higher,further and prison education reported lower well-being than the average for the HSE's target industries,including the education sector(Court Kinman, 2009a,2009b,2009c).Some key differences were found between sectors.The biggest 'well-being gap'in higher education was in the area of change,followed by role,then equally demands and managerial support. More positively,however,levels of control in higher education exceeded the minimum level suggested by the HSE.For members in further and adult education,the biggest well-being gap was in the area of change,followed by demands,then role and managerial support.For UCU members in prison education,the widest gaps were in change,relationships and management support.Unlike members from higher education,however,levels of control reported by respondents from further,adult and prison education failed to meet the HSE minimum level. A high proportion of the sample from the 2008 survey as a whole considered their job to be stressful.Around half reported their general or average level of stress to be high or very high,and approximately one-third said they often experienced levels of stress they found unacceptable.The survey also investigated the working conditions and job characteristics that were considered to make the highest contribution to stress or frustration amongst
n Managerial support reflects supportive behaviours from line managers and the organisation itself, such as availability of feedback and encouragement; n Relationships assesses levels of conflict within the workplace including bullying behaviour and harassment; n Role examines levels of role clarity and the extent to which employees believe that their work fits into the overall aims of the organisation; n Change reflects how well organisational changes are managed and communicated. The HSE risk assessment approach is widely utilised by individual organisations, occupational groups and sectors to diagnose the most stressful aspects of work. The process allows employers to assess how well they are managing the different hazard categories within their workforce, and helps them develop precisely targeted interventions to enhance the work-related wellbeing of their staff. The HSE provides normative data from a range of occupational groups, enabling employers to compare their scores for each of the hazards against these national benchmarks. Where scores for any of the hazards are compared unfavourably, the HSE suggests interim and longer-term target scores to help organisations improve their performance. The HSE process is recommended by the University and Colleges Employers Association as an effective way of managing work-related stress (UCEA, nd). A growing number of colleges and universities have adopted this approach to conduct independent surveys to assess the well-being of their employees, with some success. In 2008, the University and College Union utilised the HSE method in a large-scale national survey of members in academic and academic-related roles (n = 14,270). Findings revealed that people working in higher, further and prison education reported lower well-being than the average for the HSE’s target industries, including the education sector (Court & Kinman, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). Some key differences were found between sectors. The biggest ‘well-being gap’ in higher education was in the area of change, followed by role, then equally demands and managerial support. More positively, however, levels of control in higher education exceeded the minimum level suggested by the HSE. For members in further and adult education, the biggest well-being gap was in the area of change, followed by demands, then role and managerial support. For UCU members in prison education, the widest gaps were in change, relationships and management support. Unlike members from higher education, however, levels of control reported by respondents from further, adult and prison education failed to meet the HSE minimum level. A high proportion of the sample from the 2008 survey as a whole considered their job to be stressful. Around half reported their general or average level of stress to be high or very high, and approximately one-third said they often experienced levels of stress they found unacceptable. The survey also investigated the working conditions and job characteristics that were considered to make the highest contribution to stress or frustration amongst 8
UCU members.Respondents from higher education indicated that lack of time to undertake research.followed by excessive workload and lack of resources to undertake research were the most stressful factors.In further and adult education,the factors considered to be most stressful were excessive workloads,opportunities to develop teaching,and lack of time for research.The most frequent responses from respondents in prison education related to lack of resources to undertake research(including problems in obtaining funding), lack of time or opportunities to develop teaching,excessive workloads and poor work-life balance.Similar findings emerged from a smaller-scale survey of UCU members conducted in 2010(n=720),but responses from members in prison education were not sufficient to analyse independently(Kinman,G.,2011). The UCU 2012 survey The 2012 survey aimed to examine the extent to which higher education of occupational stress: institutions,further education colleges,adult education institutions and prison aims and method education departments in the UK were meeting the minimum standards stipulated by the HSE for the management of work-related stress.Mean scores were calculated across all seven of the hazard categories,with higher scores representing more well-being and lower scores denoting more distress relating to each dimension.Comparisons were made between the mean scores obtained in this survey for each hazard with the target industries,including education,that were selected by the HSE because they had the 'highest rates of work stress-related ill-health and absence'(Webster Buckley,2008,p.i).2 Where mean scores for any hazards are compared unfavourably with benchmarks,recommendations for improvement are provided in terms of:a) interim targets(over the next six to 12 month period)based on the 50th percentile figures and b)longer term target scores obtained from the 80th percentile figures. The first 35 items in the survey questionnaire(see Appendix)were from the HSE's Management Standards Indicator Tool.In addition to the HSE questions, this survey examined levels of perceived stress and working hours,and compared findings with those from several UCU surveys conducted over the last decade.The extent of work-life conflict experienced by UCU members was examined using a questionnaire developed by Fisher et al.(2009).In order to assess the extent of integration between work and home life,respondents were asked to indicate on a nine-point scale(where 1 denoted total separation and 9 represented total integration)the following:a)the extent to which their work and home lives were separated/integrated and b)the extent to which they wished their work and home lives to be separated/integrated.The degree of fit between the level of integration currently experienced and that which is desired was then calculated. Working conditions and job characteristics differ considerably between higher, further,adult and prison education.This is reflected in the findings of previous surveys of UCU members reported above,where the HSE hazard categories with the biggest well-being gap and the features of work that are considered most stressful were found to vary.Accordingly,separate analyses have been conducted for higher,further,adult and prison education and data is presented 2 These target industry averages were not updated in the 2009 HSE report. in separate reports.Where appropriate,comparisons have been made on levels 9
2 These target industry averages were not updated in the 2009 HSE report. UCU members. Respondents from higher education indicated that lack of time to undertake research, followed by excessive workload and lack of resources to undertake research were the most stressful factors. In further and adult education, the factors considered to be most stressful were excessive workloads, opportunities to develop teaching, and lack of time for research. The most frequent responses from respondents in prison education related to lack of resources to undertake research (including problems in obtaining funding), lack of time or opportunities to develop teaching, excessive workloads and poor work-life balance. Similar findings emerged from a smaller-scale survey of UCU members conducted in 2010 (n = 720), but responses from members in prison education were not sufficient to analyse independently (Kinman, G., 2011). The UCU 2012 survey The 2012 survey aimed to examine the extent to which higher education of occupational stress: institutions, further education colleges, adult education institutions and prison aims and method education departments in the UK were meeting the minimum standards stipulated by the HSE for the management of work-related stress. Mean scores were calculated across all seven of the hazard categories, with higher scores representing more well-being and lower scores denoting more distress relating to each dimension. Comparisons were made between the mean scores obtained in this survey for each hazard with the target industries, including education, that were selected by the HSE because they had the ‘highest rates of work stress-related ill-health and absence’ (Webster & Buckley, 2008, p. i). 2 Where mean scores for any hazards are compared unfavourably with benchmarks, recommendations for improvement are provided in terms of: a) interim targets (over the next six to 12 month period) based on the 50th percentile figures and b) longer term target scores obtained from the 80th percentile figures. The first 35 items in the survey questionnaire (see Appendix) were from the HSE’s Management Standards Indicator Tool. In addition to the HSE questions, this survey examined levels of perceived stress and working hours, and compared findings with those from several UCU surveys conducted over the last decade. The extent of work-life conflict experienced by UCU members was examined using a questionnaire developed by Fisher et al. (2009). In order to assess the extent of integration between work and home life, respondents were asked to indicate on a nine-point scale (where 1 denoted total separation and 9 represented total integration) the following: a) the extent to which their work and home lives were separated/integrated and b) the extent to which they wished their work and home lives to be separated/integrated. The degree of fit between the level of integration currently experienced and that which is desired was then calculated. Working conditions and job characteristics differ considerably between higher, further, adult and prison education. This is reflected in the findings of previous surveys of UCU members reported above, where the HSE hazard categories with the biggest well-being gap and the features of work that are considered most stressful were found to vary. Accordingly, separate analyses have been conducted for higher, further, adult and prison education and data is presented in separate reports. Where appropriate, comparisons have been made on levels 9
of key variables such as gender,age,contract type,and mode and length of employment in the sector. Sample All active members of UCU were sent an email on 16 April 2012 asking them to respond to UCU's online survey of occupational stress in further and higher edu-cation in the UK.In addition,members without access to the internet,or who might prefer to respond by post,were invited in an article in the UCU member-ship magazine to take part in the survey;approximately ten people responded in this way.Retired UCU members were excluded from the email survey. Those contacted by email were initially given three weeks in which to respond. Before the initial deadline for completing the questionnaire,members who did not respond were sent two reminder emails. There were 24,030 respondents to the survey after deleting non-complete responses.Of these,7,110 were employed or principally employed in FE;1,097 were in adult education;14,667 were in HE;and 187 in prison education.A number of respondents(969)did not identify the sector in which they principally worked. 10
of key variables such as gender, age, contract type, and mode and length of employment in the sector. Sample All active members of UCU were sent an email on 16 April 2012 asking them to respond to UCU’s online survey of occupational stress in further and higher edu-cation in the UK. In addition, members without access to the internet, or who might prefer to respond by post, were invited in an article in the UCU member-ship magazine to take part in the survey; approximately ten people responded in this way. Retired UCU members were excluded from the email survey. Those contacted by email were initially given three weeks in which to respond. Before the initial deadline for completing the questionnaire, members who did not respond were sent two reminder emails. There were 24,030 respondents to the survey after deleting non-complete responses. Of these, 7,110 were employed or principally employed in FE; 1,097 were in adult education; 14,667 were in HE; and 187 in prison education. A number of respondents (969) did not identify the sector in which they principally worked. 10