The dark side of high-skilled work
Assessing work-related stress risk
in the Italian National Research Council
By
Giuseppe Ponzini and Roberto Moccaldi

An ongoing project aimed at providing a risk assessment tool
for work-related stress, applicable to research and
administrative units of the Italian National Research Council
(CNR), to comply with legislative decrees n. 81 of 2008 and n.
106 of 2009 and to identify strategies for tackling stress.
The project has been designed and is carried on by the
Institute of Research on Population and Social Policy (Irpps)
and by the Prevention and Protection Service (UPP) of the
CNR.

Working group: Giuseppe Ponzini (Irpps Cnr, coordinator),
Michele Falivene (Irpps Cnr, computer and information
systems manager), Annabella Corcione (Irpps Cnr), Vincenzo
Bisogno (Irpps Cnr), Roberto Moccaldi (UPP Cnr), Gabriella
Liberati (UPP Cnr).

Objectives
• The project is aimed to offer a chance to better understand
the relevance of differencies arising from the allocation of
workers over jobs with different requirements and
characteristics (research staff, administrative staff) or from
working in different scientific fields (biomedical, technological,
theoretical).
• The project is also aimed to practically discriminate between
endogenous and exogenous causes of stress.
• As a final result, the project will provide guidelines and
recommendations to reduce the levels of work-related stress
reported by the CNR staff. A simplified risk assessment tool for
work-related stress and a standardized strategy for tackling the
key causes of stress will be defined and made available to all
the research and administrative units of CNR.
Methodology
• Data
collection
• Online self-administered questionnaire
• Focus group discussions
• Scenario planning sessions
The questionnaire structure
• The online self-administered questionnaire is based on
the HSE Management Standards Indicator Tool, revised by
inserting some items derived from the two-factor theory
and some items related to general characteristics of
respondents.
• 53 questions (closed format questions and five-point
Likert items)
• Open source online survey application: LimeSurvey
HSE Stressor Groups and average key
• Demands
Key
Doing very well - need to maintain performance
Represents those at, above or close to the 80th percentile
• Control
• Management Support
Good, but need for improvement
Represents those better than average but not yet at, above or close to the 80th percentile
• Peer Support
Clear need for improvement
• Relationships
• Role
• Change
Represents those likely to be below average but not below the 20th percentile
Urgent action needed
Represents those below the 20th percentile
Other Stressor Groups considered
• Perception of the quality of physical work
environment
• Level of career satisfaction
• Career development and opportunity for
advancement at work
First results. The sample
• 250 respondents representative of various
disciplinary fields (biomedical research, ICT, social
sciences, technological research, Prevention and
Protection Service)
• 58% belonging to the research staff and 42%
belonging to the non-research staff.
• 57% Male and 43% Female
All respondents. HSE Stressor Groups
Stressor Groups
Average Work-related stress risk
Demands
3,52
Doing very well
Control
4,09
Doing very well
Role
3,98
Urgent action needed
Relationships
4,04
Good, but need for
improvement
Peer Support
3,77
Clear need for improvement
Management Support
3,25
Urgent action needed
Change
3,37
Doing very well
Research Staff. HSE Stressor Groups
Stressor Groups
Average Work-related stress risk
Demands
3,40
Doing very well
Control
4,16
Doing very well
Role
3,92
Urgent action needed
Relationships
3,99
Good, but need for
improvement
Peer Support
3,70
Clear need for improvement
Management Support
3,08
Urgent action needed
Change
3,24
Doing very well (Borderline)
All respondents. HSE Stressor Groups Question by Question
Q15
Q18
Q25
Q27
Q31
3,89
4,49
4,17
3,66
3,71
Q16
Q24
Q29
Q33
Q44
4,56
3,82
4,1
3,71
4,28
CONTROL
Q17
Q20
Q23
Q26
Q30
Q32
Q34
Q35
3,52
3,82
2,85
3,77
3,88
3,19
3,06
4,03
Q19
Q28
Q36
Q48
4,25
3,54
4,63
3,74
Q21
Q38
Q41
Q45
3,65
3,61
4
3,8
Q22
Q37
Q43
Q49
2,86
3,39
3,71
3,05
Q40
Q42
Q46
3,11
3
4,01
CHANGE
ROLE
RELATIONSHIPS
PEER SUPPORT
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
DEMANDS
All respondents. Other Stressor Groups considered
Stressors
All Respondents
Research Staff
Quality of the
physical work
environment
3,20
3,25
Level of career
satisfaction
2,87
2,93
Career development
and opportunity for
advancement at
work
2,75
2,69
Motivators and Hygiene Factors
Work itself
Salary
Relationships
Achievement
Job autonomy
Recognition
Responsibility
Physical work environment
Safety at work
Status
2,61
4,24
4,38
4,44
4,54
5,90
6,58
6,67
6,94
8,61
Summing up, first results emphasize the potential
for negative consequences of unsatisfactory
subjective experience of organizational functioning
(see Role) and of conflictual relationships (both
formal and informal) in the workplace.
As well, support (including both management
support and peer support) seems to be a critical
factor.
In this way the relevance of endogenous stressors,
tipically belonging to the workplace, is underlined.
Thank you for your attention