FR | EN

Have some notions

Glossary to understand the terms used

Cohort Study

A cohort study is a type of observational study which follows a particular group of people who share similar characteristics. For example, a cohort of people who smoke in France. In this type of study, researchers examine the defined population over a period of time to compare the incidence of an event observed in one or more groups based on a number of criteria. 

While cohort studies are applicable to different fields of research, it is notable that it serves a particular advantage in the field of epidemiological research. Particularly, the possibility for shortened follow-up time allows researchers to study diseases that appear after a long period of exposure or latency, or for health consequences of a disaster or other exposure events such as the case of musculoskeletal disorders or MSDs.  Cohort studies are well-fitted to address the need for quantifying and determining the existence and form of an association between risk factors, and exposure or disease. While it is recognized that cohort studies cannot determine a causal relationship on their own, they possess certain advantages over other types of studies. For example, cohort studies are less likely to be affected by information bias, as well as the possibility to take into account time-related phenomena. 

References:

Georges Salines, Catherine De Launay. Les cohortes : intérêt, rôle et position de l’InVS. Saint-Maurice (Fra) : Institut de veille sanitaire, janvier 2010, 20 p. Disponible sur : www.invs.sante.fr 

 

Distributive Justice

Distributive justice is one of the dimensions of organizational justice which refers to the perceived fairness of an allocation. In order to judge if a given allocation or outcome is fair or not, there are three rules that people can use: equity, equality, and need. With the equity allocation rule, fairness is achieved when a reward is deemed in accordance with an input. This can be in terms of one’s own contribution or of a referent’s. The main goal of this rule is to maximize productivity. On another hand, the equality rule dictates that everyone receives the same amount of allocation regardless of their level of contribution, which ultimately is aimed at maximizing group harmony. This is particularly useful when dealing with difficult decisions such as budget cuts wherein people are encouraged to share suffering as a group. Finally, the rule of need is based on a perceived deficit wherein an allocation is given based on those who need it. While these rules seem to function on different bases, in reality, they are often mixed together when making allocation decisions. For example, equality dictates that all employees are at least paid the minimum salary. However, a bonus for good performance functions as the rule of equity. Combinations come in different forms. Ultimately, they serve to balance the strengths and weaknesses of each rule of distributive justice.

References:

Cropanzano, R., & Molina, A. (2015). Organizational Justice. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.22033-3

Interactional Justice

Interactional justice is an organizational justice dimension that focuses on the social and communicational criteria of evaluating fairness. In this regard, individuals are examining whether or not others treat them fairly or not. Interactional justice is further categorized into interpersonal and informational justice. Interpersonal justice is the dignity and respect of the treatment that people receive from others and is somehow associated with the judgements of immorality. On another note, informational justice refers to the explanations and evidence given especially during unfavourable situations.  It is based on this notion that organisations are encouraged to devote an opportunity to discuss and explain to their employees why certain decisions are made. Many scholars debate whether or not interactional justice should be divided into interpersonal or informational justice. Nonetheless, no matter how the approach is, interactional justice remains psychometrically sound. 

References:

Cropanzano, R., & Molina, A. (2015). Organizational Justice. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.22033-3

Longitudinal Study

In a longitudinal study, researchers analyse the same variables, in the same group of people over a short or long period of time. It has an emphasis on the study of change and contains at least three repeated observations to examine at least one of the substantive constructs of interest. 

References:

Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2009). Longitudinal Research: The Theory, Design, and Analysis of Change. Journal of Management, 36(1), 94–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352110 

 

MusculoSkeletal Disorders (MSD)

Musculoskeletal Disorders or MSDs are injuries and disorders that affect the muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, nerves, cartilage, bones and the localised blood circulation system. Examples of MSD are carpal tunnel syndrome, tendonitis, muscle/tendon strain, ligament sprain, tension neck syndrome, rotator cuff tendonitis, and epicondylitis. 

The 2019 Annual Report of the Primary Health Insurance Fund (“Caisse Nationale de l’Assurance Maladie” in French) on occupational risks showed that of the 50,392 recognised cases of occupational diseases, 88%  were MSDs. 

In France, the INRS (Institut national de recherche et de sécurité) serves as a reference body committed for occupational risk prevention since 1947. 

References:

De Kok, J. et al. (2019). Work-related musculoskeletal disorders: prevalence, costs and demographics in the EU. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/musculoskeletal-disorders   

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2010). Musculoskeletal disorders. https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/musculoskeletal-disorders 

Troubles musculosquelettiques (TMS). INRS, Institut National de Recherche et Sécurité. (n.d.). https://www.inrs.fr/risques/tms-troubles-musculosquelettiques/ce-qu-il-faut-retenir.html.

Organisational Justice

Organisational justice generally refers to people’s perceptions of fairness at work. It is further defined into distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (which is specified into interpersonal and informational justice). Historically, these different types of justice were studied separately by researchers. However, recent changes in the direction of research have occurred in the field of organizational justice. Researchers started to view justice as a whole.  They recognized that people evaluate fairness in a global sense, in reference to specific events (i.e. performance evaluation, layoff). Additionally, rather than looking at justice as an independent, causal variable, researchers are now starting to view justice as a dependent variable with antecedents affecting its state, and as a dynamic phenomenon. Its dynamism includes certain characteristics such as: (1) its temporal aspect which calls for longitudinal and experience-sampling to incorporate the time variable;  and (2) its dyadic and multiparty aspect which means that justice involves not only a one-way direction focused on the employees as recipients but also the managers as the actors (i.e. motivations of justice actions). In relation to the multiparty nature of justice, there has also been a budding shift from type-based (i.e. distributive, procedural, interactional) to source-based justice, which includes the organization, supervisor, and other entities in the workplace.  These, among other significant changes, provide more opportunities to further examining and developing the field of organizational justice.

References:

Bobocel, D. R. (2021). Current directions in organizational justice. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 53(2), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000258 

Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. (2014). Handbook of organizational justice. Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Jones, K. S., & Liao, H. (2014). The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and social exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.011

Procedural Justice

Procedural justice is focused on processes and policies used to make decision allocations and achieve end results or products. In order to be considered fair, these processes and policies should adhere to certain criteria such as consistency, bias-free, accuracy, inclusive, open to correction, and consistent with ethical norms. For example, a political system is viewed just when citizens believe they are well-represented by the people they elected. In effect, they are more likely to accept the legal rules even if they don’t serve them in a favourable way on a personal level. 

References:

Cropanzano, R., & Molina, A. (2015). Organizational Justice. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.22033-3 

Robbins, J. M., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). Perceived unfairness and employee health: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 235–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025408

Psychological Detachment

Psychological detachment is defined as the ability to mentally disconnect from work during off-hours. For example, during this state, individuals are expected to unwind or relax, and avoid thinking about work-related issues when they are away from work. Studies have shown that employees who exercise psychological detachment are more likely to be satisfied with their lives and have fewer symptoms of psychological strain even without being less engaged during work hours. Consequently, it is deemed to have a beneficial effect on a person’s psychological well-being.

References:

Smit, B. W. (2015). Successfully leaving work at work: The self-regulatory underpinnings of psychological detachment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(3), 493–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12137  

Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological Detachment From Work During Leisure Time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 114–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411434979

Psychological Well-Being

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), "Wellbeing is a dynamic state of mind characterized by reasonable harmony between a worker's abilities, needs, and expectations and environmental demands and opportunities."

Psychological well-being is the combination of feeling good and functioning effectively. It goes beyond the absence of harm to health and puts emphasis on individual and collective perceptions of situations and constraints at work. It can be manifested in different forms such as physical, psychological, emotional and psychosocial consequences and which eventually brings a certain level of efficiency for the company. Policies related to well-being at work are found to have the potential to improve the working atmosphere, and alleviate stress, violence, exhaustion - and ultimately, psychosocial risks. 

References:

Kalimo, Raija, El Batawi, Mostafa A & Cooper, Cary Lynn. (‎1987)‎. Psychosocial factors at work and their relation to health / edited by Raija Kalimo, Mostafa A. El-Batawi, Cary L. Cooper. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/40996

Bien-être au travail. INRS, Institut National de Recherche et Sécurité. (n.d.). https://www.inrs.fr/risques/bien-etre-travail/ce-qu-il-faut-retenir.html.

Deci EL, Ryan RM: Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies 2008, 9: 1–11. 10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1

 

Psychosocial Risks

Psychosocial risks are aspects of work that have the potential to negatively affect psychological, physical, and social outcomes. In France, the Institut national de recherche et de sécurité (INRS) has identified 6 categories of risk factors of psychosocial risk: (1) intensity and time of work which encompasses work overload, unrealistic or unclear targets, long working days, unclear objectives, contradictory instructions, and atypical and/or unpredictable working hours; (2) emotional demands which include public tensions, exposure to human suffering or human distress, and the need to hide one's emotions; (3) lack of autonomy such as having little room to perform work on their own, imposed work rhythm, not being able to develop skills, and not being able to participate in decisions; (4) degraded social relationships at work such as having conflictual relationships with colleagues or with the hierarchy, no career prospects, and moral harassment; (5) conflict of values such as not being proud of your work, and not being able to do quality work; and (6) insecurity of work situation which may be in the form of fear of losing one's job, no maintenance of salary level, precarious employment contracts, restructuring, and uncertainty about the future of their profession. 

In France, psychosocial risks are managed under circumstances related to occupational risks. The French government put in place a  general safety obligation (article L. 4121-1 of the Labor Code) which is a global approach to the prevention of occupational risks. It is a measure that mandates employers to ensure the safety and protection of the physical and mental health of employees. Psychosocial risks can become toxic hence, it is important to pay attention to their characteristics in order to avoid them. For instance, they could last long which may eventually lead to chronic stress; unexpected changes could be harder to expect; when psychosocial risks are accumulated, they can be more aggravating; and some of them can be incompatible with each other (i.e.high demand for productivity and low benefits). 

References:

Psychosocial risks and stress at work. EU. (n.d.). https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/psychosocial-risks-and-stress

Risques psychosociaux (RPS). INRS, Institut National de Recherche et Sécurité. (n.d.). https://www.inrs.fr/risques/psychosociaux/prevention-crise-sanitaire.html.