
The boss, not the workload, causes workplace depression - Libertatea
http://sciencenordic.com/boss-not-workload-causes-workplace-depression
======
deSouza
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."

([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22885721](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](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
"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.

~~~
greenyoda
I don't mind the infinitely long to-do list, but I get stressed out by having
constantly changing priorities that force me to drop a project before it's
done and work on a new one. Long-term strategic projects (which tend to be the
most interesting to work on) can get dropped and resumed several times before
they get completed, and each time that happens it seems more painful than the
last time.

------
thenomad
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.

~~~
ekianjo
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.

------
mjn
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.

------
tareqak
From the article:

"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?

~~~
vladimirralev
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.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
That's all fine and dandy if the manager is actually fair-minded. If he's more
interested in playing politics and executing vendettas then he's part of the
problem. And I've found the latter holds true more often than not.

------
NAFV_P
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.

~~~
hcarvalhoalves
That's messed up. I would've quit on the spot hearing shit like that.

~~~
NAFV_P
To quit would have been a bad idea. It looks very bad on a CV. In the UK you
are told that you shouldn't criticise a former employer, no matter what.

I developed an awful cough due to the amount of ten year old dust lying about
(I was once yelled at for "not paying attention", when I had a violent
coughing fit that resulted in me having a large amount of phlegm in my mouth.
To avoid a situation, I had to swallow it).

The two brothers were smoking inside the building, which is against the law.
This was an optometrist's laboratory, with a fair amount of hazardous
chemicals stored within the small building. This included white spirit and
methanol. I would be asked to close the front entrance for them so the public
couldn't look inside.

The company in question also commit product plagiarism, and I was expected to
keep quiet about it.

I once got very angry at one of my coworkers for shouting at me, saying that I
"don't listen", calling me "very immature", making fun of the clothes that I
wear and one threat (this would occur on a daily basis). I got into a lot of
trouble about that. The finance manager said that I shouldn't be aggressive at
work, because I could be put on some sort of "employment blacklist", which
would mean that I would never get a job ever again.

In eight months I estimate I had endured between 800-1200 separate incidents.

Criticism is a form of opinion, merely stating what you have seen is not. Even
so, if I had mentioned any of the above in an interview, I would have
instantly failed. Employment law in the UK is reasonably good, but can be very
poorly implemented.

~~~
Flenser
>To quit would have been a bad idea. It looks very bad on a CV. In the UK you
are told that you shouldn't criticise a former employer, no matter what.

I don't think anyone should ever let fear of having a gap in their CV keep
them in a job which they would otherwise quit. It should be possible to talk
about why you left without being critical (saying you didn't "fit in" would be
a non-judgemental way of explaining it). If it looks like you're avoiding
being critical a good interviewer will understand and as long as you're honest
and can talk about it confidently they'll give more weight to your skills than
anything else. It's worth rehearsing answering the question so you can appear
confident.

I've had to explain gaps in my CV where I've been unemployed for months
(including a year out to work on a side project that went nowhere but which
ultimately help me get my previous job as I was able to demonstrate my skill
and bring in printed code listings to the interview). I've gradually worked my
way up to a job where I've very happy with what I'm working on and have the
skills and confidence to know I could get a good job quickly if I ever had to
move on.

> The finance manager said that I shouldn't be aggressive at work, because I
> could be put on some sort of "employment blacklist", which would mean that I
> would never get a job ever again.

That was almost certainly a lie. They might have complained to an agency if
you were working for one but they were probably more afraid of you telling
someone about all the bad practice there than you were afraid of them. If this
was fairly recent and you think it is still going on you might want to
consider finding out if there is any regulator body you could make an
(anonymous if you prefer) complaint against them.

I hope you find/have found work and employers that suit your ambitions.

~~~
NAFV_P
"I don't think anyone should ever let fear of having a gap in their CV keep
them in a job which they would otherwise quit." Of course, the term "fear"
should not come up in discussions about work, unless you work in a dangerous
job. Funnily enough I currently work part time as a tree_surgeon, one of the
most dangerous jobs you can do. Last Christmas I nearly cut my toes off. An
odd path for an amateur coder.

"That was almost certainly a lie." It was, I had porky_pies thrown at me left,
right and NULL. Unfortunately this happened five years ago and the lush we had
for a boss has retired. His pathetic excuse for a son is now running the
circus. Back then my parents, friends and doctors simply didn't listen.

The one lesson I learned was a new buzz_phrase: "implicit gamesmanship".

~~~
Flenser
> The one lesson I learned was a new buzz_phrase: "implicit gamesmanship".

If that means what I'm interpreting it to then I guess the best strategy for
an employee is to be a pure player:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship#The_gamesman_versu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship#The_gamesman_versus_the_pure_player)

------
snoonan
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.

~~~
mjn
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.

------
kps
“Our results actually show that high cortisol levels are associated with a low
risk of developing depression.”

High cortisol is however associated with schizophrenia, for both present and
fetal conditions.

ObDisclaimer: Dammit, Jim, I'm a programmer, not a doctor.

~~~
mmagin
It seems to be pretty clear there's a link between cortisol levels and
atherosclerosis too.

(Also, I am not a doctor.)

------
dwd
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."

------
langer
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.

~~~
normloman
Respect is earned. Treat people fairly and you win people's respect.

Friendly / Strict is a false dichotomy. The ideal boss is always friendly,
strict when they have to be.

------
known
I believe
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchy_%28theory%29](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchy_%28theory%29)
is the solution

------
snambi
Finally someone figured it out. It would be nice if they provided a solution
as well.

------
avty
Correct. As anyone with experience will tell you.

