Psychosocial risks analysis for employees in public administration

D. Pastare, Z. Roja, H. Kalkis (Coresponding Author), I. Roja

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Nowadays psychosocial risks at work have a serious impact not only on the health of employees, but also on the economic performance of organisations, and this is the biggest challenge in working environment. In Latvia, employees in public administration comprise 11% of the total population. Hence the aim of this study was to analyse the causes of psychosocial risks and the differences in their prevalence among inspectorate officials employed in the State Administration compared to office staff employed by the State Administration. A modified Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire from the Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment was used to assess psychosocial risks at work. One public administration organisation was selected for the study, which involved 111 staff (60 inspecting officers and 51 office staff). The analysis of the results of the psychosocial risk assessment shows that there are statistically significant differences in the assessment of four out of 11 psychosocial risks to the working environment. The most common psychosocial work environment risk factor among inspectors is the inadequate attitude of management, but the most common risk factor among office employees is the lack of impact on work. To reduce the spread of psychosocial risks more effectively, an individual approach is required for each worker.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)945-957
Number of pages13
JournalAgronomy Research
Volume18
Issue numberSpecial Issue 1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Inspectors
  • Office workers
  • Psychosocial risks
  • Public administration
  • Work environment

Field of Science

  • 3.3 Health sciences

Publication Type

  • 1.1. Scientific article indexed in Web of Science and/or Scopus database

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Psychosocial risks analysis for employees in public administration'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this