For the PDF version click here

Executive Summary

Background

The changing world of work encompasses emerging trends that are complex and require nuanced and holistic solutions, such as those offered through flexible work arrangements. In 2020, remote working became an increasingly common form of flexible work arrangement as governments, employers and workers responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by rapidly adopting working from home. In fact, according to the NSW Innovation and Productivity Council (2020), by May 2020, it is estimated that 46% of NSW workers were working remotely due to the COVID-19 restrictions. Whether the proportion of NSW workers who work remotely will remain at this level in the post-COVID-19 pandemic landscape is unknown, however, indications are that many workers will continue to work remotely in some capacity in the future. This shift towards new ways of working highlights the need for employers to ensure that they are meeting their obligation to provide a safe working environment for flexible workers.

Overview of the study

This research study examined the psychosocial risks associated with undertaking flexible and remote work, seeking to provide employers and workers with evidence-based information to aid in the prevention of psychological harm for flexible workers. The study comprised three phases: 1) a survey of a diverse sample of flexible workers which collected data concerning their exposure to psychosocial risks; 2) interviews concerning psychosocial risk exposures, and the barriers that flexible workers face when seeking to engage with workplace health and safety (WHS) systems; and 3) the development of a model of best practice for flexible working arrangements that promotes participation in workplace health and safety by flexible workers.

In this report, we discuss the findings from Phase One. The report aimed to develop new knowledge concerning the nature and extent of exposure to psychosocial risks for flexible and remote workers within NSW organisations, and the level of exposure across different demographic groupings. The first phase of the project had two primary objectives:

1. Examine the psychosocial risks associated with flexible work arrangements, with a focus on employees within New South Wales.
2. Explore and model the extent to which flexible workers with diverse demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, carer responsibilities, disability etc.) are exposed to psychosocial risk.

A complementary line of enquiry examined the engagement of flexible and remote workers with the general Work, Health and Safety (WHS) processes within their organisation. The analysis of the new knowledge is then used to provide an evidence-based platform, from which recommendations can be drawn regarding how organisations can manage flexible workers with different demographic characteristics more effectively within a psychologically safe work environment.

Methods

In Phase 1 of the study, a questionnaire survey was used to solicit anonymous data from NSW flexible workers about the potential psychological risks a worker can be exposed to in the workplace, as well as a wide range of data about job demands and job resources, wellbeing-related outcomes, and the degree of engagement with workplace health and safety. The survey development, which was undertaken as a co-design exercise with the CWHS, included a review of the literature on psychosocial risks and flexible work arrangements to identify suitable survey tools and measures. Decisions regarding which survey instruments were selected for inclusion in the study were based on three considerations: variables that had been found to be relevant to flexible workers and wellbeing; variables relevant to WHS participation; and the adoption of a conceptual model derived from the scholarly literature and based on findings from previous studies on psychosocial risks.

A total of 1318 respondents completed the survey, of which 1039 respondents identified themselves as being flexible (and/or remote) workers. A large diversity of demographic characteristics for flexible workers was captured within the sample, along with a wide range of industry sectors, work roles and levels. The survey also collected data about the type of remote or flexible working arrangements carried out by respondents, and detailed demographic information. To meet the first, aforementioned objective, statistical group tests were used to compare the responses to the psychosocial risk variables by the flexible workers sample (i.e. n=1039), and the non-flexible workers sample (n=279), to meet the second objective, regression modelling of the responses of the flexible workers sample (n=1039) identified the statistical relationships between demographic, work characteristic variables, and a variety of psychosocial risk outcomes.

Findings

Overall, our analysis of the experiences of NSW-based flexible workers suggests that:

• Flexible working did not create additional cognitive load or psychological demand on workers, compared to office-based employees, with the exception of social isolation and ill-treatment.
• Respondents who worked flexibly experienced a more positive working environment than non-flexible workers, and in particular, more support.
• Psychological health did not differ significantly between flexible and non-flexible workers. Wellbeing, psychological distress, job stress or burnout were reported at similarly moderate levels by flexible and non-flexible workers alike.
• The regression analyses highlighted that flexible workers’ industry, contract type, and demographic features were not overly efficacious in shaping psychosocial risk. However, across several psychosocial risk outcomes, age was significant in reducing risk, while having a disability, caring for a partner, or caring for children under five were associated with increased risk level for negative health and wellbeing outcomes.
• Safety compliance and safety participation were rated significantly lower by flexible workers.