Workplaces handling WEA regulation of the psychosocial working environment – ambiguity and displacements

Abstract

Is it possible to regulate the psychosocial working environment through labor in - spection visits? This article examines the Danish experience, to establish the psychosocial working environment as a field of regulation. The current Danish experience with inspection practices at workplaces, and how the workplaces handle this regulation is examined through the following research questions. 1) How is the inspection of psychosocial working environment completed? 2) What challenges are included in the regulation of psychosocial working env - ironment? 3) How do the workplaces handle the WEA notices to enhance the psychosocial working environment? Including: how likely is this to improve the psychosocial working environment? Based on empirical data collected through observation of inspections, interviews with inspectors and case studies of inspections at six works places, some key challenges in the regulation of the area is presented and discussed together with examples from the workplace that attempt to deal with these challenges. The study of the labor inspection practices shows that it is possible to inspect the psychosocial working environment, but still working environment problems stay unresolved after the inspection process. These challenges can be grouped under three headings: the political negotiations which define the legitimate area of the labor inspectorate, limited number of notices in this area and the lack of precise knowledge of effective methods to improve the psychosocial working environment at the workplaces. The study of six workplaces that had received notices on their psychosocial working environment shows how the complexity in dealing with the psychosocial working environment has consequences in terms of shifts in problem-, understanding- and solution horizons between four different knowledge paradigms. These can be described as 1) risk, 2) wellbeing, 3) coping, and 4) personality paradigm which each has their take on the understanding of problems and solutions. In the workplaces studied, ambiguities and displacements emerged as all four paradigms were in use, but crossing between the understanding of the causes of the problem from one paradigm and implementing solutions from another. The contribution of the article is to offer an understanding of how these different paradigms can be part of an overall prevention strategy in a three- level prevention model and thus qualify workplace analyzes of problems and prevention opportunities.