That work load should have no effect on risk of depression sounds downright whack. In none of the summaries of the three linked articles do I see that part of the claim documented by their data.
Below are the "results" sections from the summaries of the two non-saliva articles among the 3 referenced in the posted "article".
From "A two-year follow-up study of risk of depression according to work-unit measures of psychological demands and decision latitude."
RESULTS:
The OR for depression according to psychological demands was 1.07 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.42-2.49] for every unit of change on a 5-point scale. The corresponding OR for decision latitude was 1.85 (95% CI 0.55-6.26). No interactive effects of psychological demands and decision latitude were observed.
CONCLUSION:
These findings suggest that low decision latitude may predict depression, but confidence intervals are wide and findings are also compatible with no increased risk.
From "Work-unit measures of organisational justice and risk of depression--a 2-year cohort study."
RESULTS:
Working in a work unit with low procedural justice (adjusted ORs of 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.88) and low relational justice (3.14, 95% CI 1.37 to 7.19) predicted onset of depression.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our results indicate that a work environment characterised by low levels of justice is a risk factor for depression.
"That work load should have no effect on risk of depression sounds downright whack."
Then again, two of the summaries you quote actually suggest that things have a lot more to do with office politics and work environment.
Think of it this way: if you've an infinitely long todo list, but no pressure whatsoever ("wake me up as you complete the tasks"), it's just an insurmountable amount of work that you'll grow used to never completing and you'll do as much as you can and be satisfied with yourself.
Now, toss a boss into the equation -- one that tells you to get it all done by yesterday. Or put another way, one that essentially goes: "let me load your backpack with 50kg before I order you to swimm across this river". That can screw you up rather quickly. Especially if that boss's priorities change daily or hourly.
This is worth thinking about even if you're self-employed.
After all, you've still got a boss - it's just that the boss is you.
Personally, I know I've found that thinking about how you-the-boss treats you-the-employee is very valuable. Simple things like rewarding yourself for meeting goals, setting reasonable expectations and making sure to stick to holiday commitments can make a huge difference to the self-employment experience.
Even if you're self-employed not just "you" is the boss. Your clients are your bosses. There's not such work where there is no boss at all, unless you find a way where you can only depend on yourself alone.
This is of more than theoretical interest in Denmark (where the study was done), because both public and large private employers have a mandatory health-and-safety oversight process, which needs to be guided by some solid facts about what actually contributes to health and safety. The typical setup is that health/safety statistics from various sources (like the health-care system) are collected and cross-referenced with employment, and if a workplace or department is an outlier on any of those (e.g. significantly above-baseline levels of new mental-health visits), the information is presented to a standing committee made up of both management and employee representatives, which is tasked with investigating why this is the case, and coming up with a plan to address the issue.
"Surprisingly, the study indicates that a heavy workload has no effect on whether or not employees become depressed.
Instead, it is the work environment and the feeling of being treated unfairly by the management that has the greatest effect on an employee’s mood."
I guess there are many ways to improve the work environment (and many ways not to), but how do you improve fairness. Isn't it too late the moment you recognize unfairness?
I think it is about a boss showing respect for his/her employees, active listening to and consideration for their ideas, and valuing their work. Saying "thank you" goes a long way and costs nothing. Occasionally stopping in the workplace and showing interest in the work helps. They used to call this "management by walking around." Showing value of the group's success at the expense of their own short term gain is a major plus.
Let me illustrate with an example from the best Division director I ever had. He came to us from NIST and valued analytical work, which made him a perfect fit for our materials characterization division. On numerous occasions when we would raise concerns over decisions our client divisions made that we felt hurt the company. He would go (or go with us) to have uncomfortable discussions with clients. On three occasions he made decisions that that adversely affected me and each time I went to him, he listened to my case and changed his decision. He was not afraid to say "no" if one couldn't build a case. The all time winner came when we needed to buy an expensive piece of equipment. At the time, capital would frequently become available near the end of the year because other divisions overestimated their needs. We then had the opportunity to purchase the instrument. This was the first year when management bonuses were tied to budget performance. Signing the order meant forfeiting his bonus. He signed it. That showed me that he valued long term organizational well being over his own short term profit. He made his share of questionable decisions - as all human beings do, but always retained my respect and loyalty.
I suspect that what they call unfairness, I'd call abusive behaviour. Unreasonable, unpredictable, unapproachable, blaming, personalizing, forcing agreement and then holding you ransom to what you agreed, applying a double standard to their own advantage, ignoring, controlling, and snooping.
And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why HR is so hot on a positive outlook on life in candidates. Cynicism leads to burnout, burnout leads to turnover, turnover leads to lost profits, and lost profits means suffering.
The cult of cheerful actually has a purpose. No need to improve working conditions when you can choose those candidates from the pool that will put up with the workplace as it is.
Improving conditions is more difficult - it's the supervisors that set the tone, and changing entrenched habits is a hard task.
I am repeating myself a lot saying this, but it's about respect. As manager you take an implied responsibility to be fair, nobody is going to tell you what to do, it's on you. If you recognize unfairness you go ahead and take responsibility, take the losses and compensate the victim.
Unfairness is not hard to detect. Just put yourself in the other person's shoes and see if you would like to be treated this way. Corporate and business ethics are well established with tons of case studies and guidelines, mostly common sense. If only there was somebody to read them.
For me the unfairness that matters is how much I'm being paid.
If I'm making significantly less than others who produce the same amount and quality of output that I do, or making less by people who produce less, then I raise it as a point with management.
If nothing is changed when review time rolls around then it's on me to take action and look for another job. If I decide to stay somewhere that I'm unhappy, that's on me too.
As an adult, I'm not going to stand around and whine about unfair conditions. If I perceive a problem, I create a change in my life.
Even though my last boss was an alcoholic, he wasn't the cause of the stress I had to endure, he and his brother (who worked as the finance manager) merely exacerbated it. They must have been smoking crack not to notice I had to put up with having "Ah fuck off" shouted at me three or four times a day, along with threats of being punched.
It's perhaps not safe to generalize the results from a study on Danish public workers. Billions work in deeply unfair, disrespectful management structures. Many are very harsh and dehumanizing by western standards. I would be interested to see a broader study to see how culture impacts results.
That's true, this is investigating within a setting that already assumes certain minimum norms on employment conditions. Due to both culture and law, nobody is being pressured into working 50+ hour weeks, so the degree of excessive workload is bounded.
I think this goes a long way to back the current anecdotal theory:
"Stress - The confusion caused when ones mind overrides the body's natural desire to choke the living shit out of some asshole that desperately needs it."
The challenge for founders is that it's more important to be respected than to be liked as the boss.
If you're too strict, employees think you're unfair and they get depressed. If you treat them too leniently and are too friendly, they'll like you but the company's performance will suffer.
The best founders prioritise performance and being respected, but create structure and goals that avoid people feeling like they're being treated unfairly.
[+] [-] deSouza|12 years ago|reply
Below are the "results" sections from the summaries of the two non-saliva articles among the 3 referenced in the posted "article".
From "A two-year follow-up study of risk of depression according to work-unit measures of psychological demands and decision latitude."
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22885721):
RESULTS: The OR for depression according to psychological demands was 1.07 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.42-2.49] for every unit of change on a 5-point scale. The corresponding OR for decision latitude was 1.85 (95% CI 0.55-6.26). No interactive effects of psychological demands and decision latitude were observed.
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that low decision latitude may predict depression, but confidence intervals are wide and findings are also compatible with no increased risk.
From "Work-unit measures of organisational justice and risk of depression--a 2-year cohort study."
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23476045):
RESULTS: Working in a work unit with low procedural justice (adjusted ORs of 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.88) and low relational justice (3.14, 95% CI 1.37 to 7.19) predicted onset of depression.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that a work environment characterised by low levels of justice is a risk factor for depression.
[+] [-] ddebernardy|12 years ago|reply
Then again, two of the summaries you quote actually suggest that things have a lot more to do with office politics and work environment.
Think of it this way: if you've an infinitely long todo list, but no pressure whatsoever ("wake me up as you complete the tasks"), it's just an insurmountable amount of work that you'll grow used to never completing and you'll do as much as you can and be satisfied with yourself.
Now, toss a boss into the equation -- one that tells you to get it all done by yesterday. Or put another way, one that essentially goes: "let me load your backpack with 50kg before I order you to swimm across this river". That can screw you up rather quickly. Especially if that boss's priorities change daily or hourly.
[+] [-] thenomad|12 years ago|reply
After all, you've still got a boss - it's just that the boss is you.
Personally, I know I've found that thinking about how you-the-boss treats you-the-employee is very valuable. Simple things like rewarding yourself for meeting goals, setting reasonable expectations and making sure to stick to holiday commitments can make a huge difference to the self-employment experience.
[+] [-] ekianjo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brudgers|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tareqak|12 years ago|reply
"Surprisingly, the study indicates that a heavy workload has no effect on whether or not employees become depressed. Instead, it is the work environment and the feeling of being treated unfairly by the management that has the greatest effect on an employee’s mood."
I guess there are many ways to improve the work environment (and many ways not to), but how do you improve fairness. Isn't it too late the moment you recognize unfairness?
[+] [-] johnminter|12 years ago|reply
Let me illustrate with an example from the best Division director I ever had. He came to us from NIST and valued analytical work, which made him a perfect fit for our materials characterization division. On numerous occasions when we would raise concerns over decisions our client divisions made that we felt hurt the company. He would go (or go with us) to have uncomfortable discussions with clients. On three occasions he made decisions that that adversely affected me and each time I went to him, he listened to my case and changed his decision. He was not afraid to say "no" if one couldn't build a case. The all time winner came when we needed to buy an expensive piece of equipment. At the time, capital would frequently become available near the end of the year because other divisions overestimated their needs. We then had the opportunity to purchase the instrument. This was the first year when management bonuses were tied to budget performance. Signing the order meant forfeiting his bonus. He signed it. That showed me that he valued long term organizational well being over his own short term profit. He made his share of questionable decisions - as all human beings do, but always retained my respect and loyalty.
[+] [-] JulianMorrison|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HarryHirsch|12 years ago|reply
The cult of cheerful actually has a purpose. No need to improve working conditions when you can choose those candidates from the pool that will put up with the workplace as it is.
Improving conditions is more difficult - it's the supervisors that set the tone, and changing entrenched habits is a hard task.
[+] [-] vladimirralev|12 years ago|reply
Unfairness is not hard to detect. Just put yourself in the other person's shoes and see if you would like to be treated this way. Corporate and business ethics are well established with tons of case studies and guidelines, mostly common sense. If only there was somebody to read them.
[+] [-] scrabble|12 years ago|reply
If I'm making significantly less than others who produce the same amount and quality of output that I do, or making less by people who produce less, then I raise it as a point with management.
If nothing is changed when review time rolls around then it's on me to take action and look for another job. If I decide to stay somewhere that I'm unhappy, that's on me too.
As an adult, I'm not going to stand around and whine about unfair conditions. If I perceive a problem, I create a change in my life.
[+] [-] fit2rule|12 years ago|reply
You give people more responsibility. You give them more control over their workplace, somehow. And, most important of all - you listen.
[+] [-] NAFV_P|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snoonan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kps|12 years ago|reply
High cortisol is however associated with schizophrenia, for both present and fetal conditions.
ObDisclaimer: Dammit, Jim, I'm a programmer, not a doctor.
[+] [-] mmagin|12 years ago|reply
(Also, I am not a doctor.)
[+] [-] dwd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] langer|12 years ago|reply
If you're too strict, employees think you're unfair and they get depressed. If you treat them too leniently and are too friendly, they'll like you but the company's performance will suffer.
The best founders prioritise performance and being respected, but create structure and goals that avoid people feeling like they're being treated unfairly.
[+] [-] normloman|12 years ago|reply
Friendly / Strict is a false dichotomy. The ideal boss is always friendly, strict when they have to be.
[+] [-] known|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snambi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] avty|12 years ago|reply