Managing for Resilience

A Practical Guide for Employee Wellbeing and Organizational Performance

Monique Crane, Monique F. Crane

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317299790
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management
• Index: Business

In an era of longer hours and shorter contracts, of tighter margins and frequent organizational change, stress can undermine both the mental health and performance of employees. A culture of resilience in the workplace, however, offers the potential to support psychological wellbeing and improve the performance of both people and organizations.

This is the first book to provide managers with a guide to fostering psychological resilience within their teams. It synthesises not only the latest cutting-edge research in the area, but also translates this into practical advice for a range of organizational settings.

Chapters cover the following important issues:

• Key personality factors related to resilience
• How job design and routines can improve employee resilience
• How to build a resilient team
• Communicating change and improving teamwork
• Modelling resilient thinking and behaviour as a leader
• Selecting the right resilience training for your organisation

This is the ideal book for anyone interested in fostering a high-performance and emotionally resilient workforce, whether they are a manager, HR professional or occupational psychologist. Its cutting edge approach will also make it important reading for students and researchers of organizational and occupational psychology.

1
A MANAGER’S INTRODUCTORY GUIDE TO RESILIENCE

Dr. Monique F. Crane

If you manage people or are in a leadership position and you are concerned about workplace stress among your employees, you are not alone. Stress in the workplace is a growing concern for both employees and their employers. Such concern is reflected by the increasing prevalence of dialogue among managers about how to address the effects of employee stress within their organisations. This hot topic is also recognised by major business news outlets, such as Forbes, and leading management consulting institutes (e.g., Gallup). A report by the Safe Work Australia (2015) indicated that work-related mental stress cost the Australian economy over 3 billion between 2012–13. Moreover, ‘while mental stress cases comprise 2 per cent of the total number of cases, they contribute 5 per cent of the total economic cost’ (p. 33). Similar trends are evident across the globe. The American Institute of Stress reports that “Job stress carries a price tag for U.S. industry estimated at over $300 billion annually” (www­.st­res­s.o­rg/­wor­kpl­ace­-st­res­s/).

Increasing stress in the workplace is considered to correspond to several trends such as the decline of manufacturing in several countries, downsizing and resulting lay-offs, the advance of the IT and service sector, more short-term contracts, outsourcing, mergers, automisation, globalisation and greater international competition (Randall, Griffiths & Cox, 2005). Moreover, the increased use of mobile phones, laptop computers and PDAs means that essentially employees may never leave their work. This increases stress by limiting downtime available for employees to recover from work stress (Luthans, Vogelgesang & Lester, 2006).

In an interview with Jennifer Robison from the Gallup business journal (27 March 2014) Damian Byers, PhD executive director of People, Learning, and Culture at the Benevolent Society, reported that management practices and processes had a significant role to play in the stress experienced by employees in the workplace. Byers suggests that the solution to these issues is, at least in part, in the hands of organisational management. Given this, and similar observations, the question on the minds of many managers is: ‘As a manager, how can I reduce work stress in my employees and increase their resilience?’ Fortunately, research within the field of organisational psychology suggests that organisations can invest in the resilience of their employees (Luthans, et al., 2006), not only via resilience training, but as a consequence of the way managers can shape the work environment (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). The aim of this book is to provide evidence-based recommendations about how managers and leadership can reduce workplace stress and improve employee resilience.

The complex world of resilience

Resilience primarily describes the emergence of good outcomes despite significant risk factors (Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990). Historical work in the area of resilience by Anne Masten and colleagues, observed that many children developed well despite significant risks, such as poverty or chronic abuse. These observations led psychologists to try to understand why some people resisted these highly risky, or at least undernourishing situations, while others did not. If you are a manager you may have similarly observed distinctive outcomes in your employees. Two employees might be exposed to similar workload or work stressors, and yet experience quite different emotional and behavioural outcomes. One employee may be visibly stressed and you might observe a change in their demeanour and the way he/she interacts with their colleagues. In contrast, the other employee might appear much more collected with no obvious outward signs of distress. Such observations have led scientists and managers alike to ask why do some people seem to be more resilient to stressors than others?

Although managers are able to impact on some dimensions of an employee’s resilience, there may also be other factors that are beyond a manager’s positive influence. Having said this, managers and the organisational setting most certainly play a role in how robust employees will be to the stressors imposed by the modern workplace. The influence of good leadership on resilience and mental health outcomes should not be underestimated; for example, greater levels of perceived leadership, morale and team cohesion have been found to be associated with lower levels of self-reported PTSD symptoms from UK personnel deployed to Afghanistan (Jones et al., 2012). This means that managers, broader leadership and the organisational culture are likely to impact employee resilience at work.

Defining resilience

Resilience is one of those terms that has attracted numerous definitions. At times, it seems that there are as many definitions of resilience as there are research studies. Although the definitions may vary there is some general consensus about what resilience is and therefore what it looks like if we were to observe it in the work-place that provides a useful benchmark for our discussion. First, a theme captured by several prominent definitions is that resilience is characterised by good outcomes despite adversity or risk factors (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Thus, in order to observe resilience, risks or adversity need to be present testing the individual’s capacity for adaptive coping. Without adversity it is very difficult to observe a person’s level of resilience. This makes the workplace an excellent context for the observation of adult resilience because the nature of the current work-place is constantly challenging the ability of employees to cope with various demands.

Second, resilience is considered to be the ability to ‘bounce back’ in the face of this adversity. This does not mean personal growth after adversity, which is considered conceptually distinct to resilience, but is where an individual may experience a mild disruption (e.g., disturbed sleep) in functioning that quickly returns to normal (Bonnano, 2005). It is also widely accepted that resilience is also not recovery. The expectation is that the disruption in functioning is mild, too mild to require recovery, which would be preceded by a more severe downturn in functioning (Bonnano, 2005).

The generally accepted definition of resilience reflects both aspects described above, which can be summed up in the following definition: Resilience describes the capacity to adapt effectively to life adversity with a short-lived downturn in functioning (Bonnano, 2005; Masten et al., 1991).

Let’s start by addressing some common myths about resilience

Myth 1: Seeking support from a professional means that the individual lacks resilience. The idea that seeking support means that an individual lacks resilience is a common myth and one that probably needs to be addressed early on. When this belief is held among managers, employees and the broader community it can be responsible for significant stigma and barriers to coping resources that could enhance resilience. Going to see a psychologist or mental health practitioner does not necessarily mean one’s resilience has failed or that the person lacks resilience. Often this means that the most appropriate support networks are engaged serving to buffer the impact of stressors (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Moreover, going to a psychologist or another professional support person does not necessarily mean that someone is suffering considerable distress. Actually, it can mean quite the opposite. It may indicate that the person has quickly responded to present stressors by engaging a strategy appropriate for them. Talking about stressors with a professional support person may be helpful to the individual. Therefore, part of that person’s resilience is about engaging the correct strategies to continue to remain resilient.

Depending on the nature of the stressor, the best person for that supportive role might be a professional, particularly in the case of potentially traumatic events or seismic life-adversity. In such instances, a professional support person is trained to identify risk factors and minimise their impact before they detrimentally affect wellbeing. Those who proactively engage such support early on are therefore less likely to suffer significant and debilitating distress and maintain resilience.

The issue of seeking professional support will be addressed in further detail later in this book when we reflect on the role of social support because it is useful for organisations to allow as many options for accessing support as possible. This might include practical structures that facilitate access to support such as time off work to attend appointments (Chapter 6) or cultural structures that reduce feelings of stigma associated with support seeking (Chapter 5).

Myth 2: Coping strategies that are resilient in one area of one’s life are useful for all areas in all situations. The idea that certain behaviours or thinking styles that promote resilience do so in all areas of one’s life has been challenged in a few lines of research. What serves to promote resilience in one area of a person’s life may actually create difficulty or be maladaptive in another (Bonnano, 2005). Research by Bonnano and colleagues demonstrated that individuals with trait selfenhancement had greater resilience coping in the face of trauma and loss (Bonanno, et al., 2002). Self-enhancers are those people who tend to overestimate their positive qualities and do not mind expressing the existence of these qualities to others. Although self-enhancement might be useful for coping with trauma and loss, when it came to social relationships there was a considerable social cost. These selfenhancers were considered to be lower on social adjustment as rated by friends and relatives and their social relationships tended to suffer. It also appeared that high self-enhancers were unaware of the strain they placed on their relationships, continuing to rate their relationships as healthy and positive. Thus, adaptive strategies for coping with the stressors of life may not necessarily be desirable in other life domains, such as maintaining good interpersonal relationships.

Other research has demonstrated that strategies effective for maintaining resilience to one stressor may not be effective for all stressors. For example, several studies have demonstrated that problem solving is a generally adaptive coping strategy for dealing with a range of stressors (Billings & Moos, 1984; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). However, recently Britt, Crane, Hodson and Adler (2016) have shown that for stressors that are uncontrollable, such as many present in military training (e.g., being away from home), problem-solving was not as effective as acceptance coping. Acceptance coping in this study was the ability to accept the stressors as just part of being a good soldier. In the typical workplace, both uncontrollable and controllable stressors are also likely to exist. The implication of this research is that for a work setting containing uncontrollable stressors acceptance of the situation seemed to be much more adaptive in reducing longer term distress symptoms.

Of course, it is not just the military setting that contains uncontrollable stressors. For example, in the case of organisational change there are frequently both controllable and uncontrollable aspects. Change may be inevitable, but some elements of that change may be open to influence. Uncontrollable aspects might include the potential for an employee to experience changes in their responsibilities. However, the employee might be able to control some other aspects related to that change, such as the types of changes to responsibilities or how well prepared they are for the new role. The latter issues can be addressed by problem-solving (e.g., negotiating with managers and discussing the scope of new responsibilities, preferences for duties, professional development and training). However, the fact that change will occur is inevitable and this is the aspect that needs to be accepted, rather than solved. Continuing to problem-solve or resist uncontrollable aspects of a stressor can lead to on-going frustration and unhappiness. More critically, it blinds them to any potential opportunities that may emerge as a consequence of change.

Employees, like anyone else, can have difficulty breaking situations down into controllable and uncontrollable component parts and this may mean that the strategies do not fit the realities of the situation. Managers can play a role in helping employees to distinguish between parts of a stressor that they have control over, versus those they do not by having honest conversations about these aspects with their employees. In practice, I have seen managers attempt to ‘ease the pain’ of organisational change by giving employees a false sense of control over aspects that are ultimately immovable. This is a problematic strategy because employees will often respond, and rightfully so, with attempts to engage in problem-solving and influence strategies when what is actually needed is acceptance. There will be some aspects of change that can be influenced and managers are in a position to direct employees to understand what these aspects are and also the limits of employee influence.

More resilient and adaptive employees seem to apply coping strategies flexibly depending on the nature of the stressor. Research in resilience emphasises the importance of flexibility in coping (Cheng, 2001). Rather than providing a proscribed strategy about how to cope, it is important that individuals engage in a process of making coping attempts that are later reflected upon for their level of success. Thus, returning to my previous point, coping strategies that work for one stressor will not necessarily work effectively for all situations. The nature of the stressor event and its level of controllability appear to be important to determining the effectiveness of the coping strategy applied.

Myth 3: Some people are just resilient whereas others are not. In some workplaces resilience has been thought of as something employees either ...