risk type, stress and employee engagement

Risk Type, Stress &Employee Engagementby Keith McGrane

How does one’s specific Risk Type influence their levels of engagement, psychological health and satisfaction at work?

Executive SummaryA study was carried out investigating levels of employee engagement, stress/psychological well-being and job satisfaction

amongst a sample of auditors (N=84) who had previously completed the Risk Type Compass™. The purpose was to gain a

deeper insight into how different Risk Types are predictive of resilience and optimal performance at work. The results of our

analyses on the auditor sample indicate that Deliberate and Composed Types are significantly more likely to be resilient to

stress than Intense Types. Trends in mean scores show that Deliberate and Composed Types are more engaged at work and

are more satisfied in their jobs than those with other risk profiles. Correspondingly, Composed and Deliberate Types were

found to be the most prevalent Risk Types in the auditor sample. The results might suggest that those Risk Types which are

most representative of a professional sample are also most likely to work to their full potential and be satisfied in their jobs.

Risk Type Definitions

Spontaneous

Uninhibited and excitable, this Risk Type enjoys the spontaneity of unplanned decisions. They are attracted to risk like moths

to a flame, but are distraught when things go wrong. Their passion and imprudence make them exciting but unpredictable.

Intense

The Intense Type tends to be highly strung, pessimistic and nervous about any threat to their equilibrium. In extreme ex-

amples, personal relationships and decision-making can become an emotional minefield. Passionate and self-critical by

nature, they react strongly to disappointment, taking it personally when things don’t work out.

Wary

Self-disciplined and cautious of risk, the Wary Type is organised but unadventurous and puts security at the top of the

agenda. They will be drawn to the idea of securing their future but anxious that however well something worked for oth-

ers, in their case it will go wrong.

Prudent

Very self-controlled and detailed in their planning, the Prudent Type is organised, systematic, conservative and conforming.

Conventional in their approach, they prefer continuity to variety and are most comfortable sticking to what they know.

Deliberate

Self-confident, systematic and compliant, the Deliberate Type tends to be unusually calm and optimistic. They experi-

ence little anxiety and tackle risk and uncertainty in a business-like and unemotional way. They never walk into anything

unprepared.

Copyright © 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd www.psychological-consultancy.com

Composed

The Composed Type is cool headed, calm and optimistic, but at the extreme may seem almost oblivious to risk and unaware

of its effect on others. They take everything confidently in their stride, seem quite imperturbable and manage stress well.

Adventurous

The Adventurous Type is both impulsive and fearless. At the extreme, they combine a deeply constitutional calmness with

high impulsivity and a willingness to challenge tradition and convention. Intrepid and never discouraged, they quickly

rebound from any setback.

Carefree

Spontaneous and unconventional, the Carefree Type is daring, excitement seeking and sometimes reckless. Not good

at detail or careful preparation, they often seem unclear about their objectives. Their impatience and imprudence can

lead to hasty and unwise decisions.

Previous Findings on Risk Type amongst RAB-QSA sample

Figure 1. Percentage of each Risk Type in a sample of Auditors in comparison to the general population

Introduction

Stress and Psychological Well-beingThe term stress has been commonly used to describe a range of physiological and psychological experiences that ac-

company challenging situations in a person’s life (Ogden, 2004). It is now widely accepted as serving the adaptive function

of preparing the body to meet threatening or challenging situations, though it is prolonged or chronic stress in particular

which has been shown to affect both physical and psychological health adversely (Sapolsky, 1996). The importance of

gaining a greater understanding of the sources of stress and the stress response is evident through the consistent findings

of positive associations between leading a hectic life and a variety of psychological disorders (e.g. Minor & Dowd, 1996;

Thoits, 1983). Stress is often attributed to a person’s working life due to the continual demands employees face on a daily

basis (CIPD, 2010). Studies have clearly shown that chronic stress at work results in greater absenteeism, job dissatisfaction,

greater turnover intentions, poor motivation and job performance, and ultimately burnout (Sullivan & Bhagat, 1992). Ac-

cording to the CIPD (2010), 1 in 3 cases of employee ill health are due to work related stress.


The Biology of Stress

It was the endocrinologist, Hans Selye, who first popularized the concept of stress in the 1950’s when he theorized that all

individuals react to threatening situations in the same manner, and he called this the General Adaptation Syndrome (Selye,

1982). Selye identified three processes which take place upon receiving a stressful stimulus; the Alarm Reaction, Resistance

and Exhaustion. The Alarm reaction is generally in response to an immediate event and is a relatively short-term process. It

consists of a sort of “Fight or Flight” response where adrenaline is produced by the pituitary gland and adrenal cortex. This

increases the person’s heart rate, blood pressure and glucose levels so as to help the body fight, flee or defend against

injuries. The hormone cortisol is also released to aid the body in restoring homeostasis after stress. However, for some, this

circuit does not turn off. Chronic or repeated stress can result in long-term activation of this stress response and this char-

acterises Selye’s Resistance stage. The stage of Resistance is a continuation of the Alarm reaction where the higher level

of hormones is maintained and this upset homeostasis can lead to physiological damage. Lastly, the stage of Exhaustion

occurs after prolonged resistance and here, the body’s energy reserves are finally depleted. Physiological stress related ail-

ments include migraine, high blood pressure, insomnia and cardiovascular or kidney diseases (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend,

1974). Similarly, a positive relationship has been identified between experiencing high levels of stress and psychological

strain or distress such as depression (Miner & Dowd, 1996) and anxiety (Bouteyre, Maurel & Bernaud, 2007). Selye (1985)

notes that these stress related ailments, or “diseases of adaptation”, are generally caused by stress in the resistance stage.

Stress and Personality

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) emphasised cognitive appraisal in the experience of stressful situations. In other words, while

a group of people might encounter similar workloads and similar stressful situations at work, not all of those people will ex-

perience stress to the same degree. Research on stress resiliency and personality (with reference to the Five Factor Model)

has clearly shown that people are predisposed to experiencing different levels of stress. Neuroticism, for example, is an

aspect of personality that refers to the tendency to experience negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, anger and

fear while Extraversion refers to the tendency to experience cheerfulness, sociability and high-activity (Costa & McCrae,

1990). It has been found that burned-out employees were significantly more likely to be high in Neuroticism and low in

Extraversion and vice versa for engaged employees.

Stress and Risk

As the Risk Type Compass™ has been developed using the Five Factor Model of personality, we would expect individuals

to differ in their susceptibility to stress depending on their predisposition towards risk. For example, Intense Risk Types would

be expected to experience more psychological strain at work than Composed Types as they are more likely to become

emotionally invested when making risky decisions than Composed Types.

Employee EngagementEngagement has been defined in many different ways. Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001, p. 417) define it as a “persistent,

positive affective-motivational state of fulfilment” and Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker (2002, p74) define

engagement as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.”

Its popularity amongst both practitioners and researchers is due to the well-established assertion that engagement is highly

beneficial to both the employee and the organisation. Essentially, the literature clearly shows that work engagement

has been linked to such variables as work performance, productivity, organisational profitability, customer satisfaction,

employee turnover, employee safety and employee satisfaction (e.g. Harter, Schmidt and Hayes, 2002; Bakker, Schaufeli,

Leiter & Taris, 2008).

Engagement and Personality

It is clear that how engaged an individual is at work is dependent on both the job characteristics as well as the individual’s

personality characteristics. Personality styles such as general optimism or proactivity are largely dependent on how we

perceive and interpret our world. Personality acts as the unique frame of reference that guides how we behave and in-

terpret events, influencing discretionary effort at work, adaptability, job satisfaction and engagement.


Engagement and Risk Type

As it is clear that certain Risk Types are more likely to be attracted to and prosper in certain jobs. We would hypothesize

that those with Risk Types which most characterise the profession are more likely to be engaged. As our previous research

has shown that Composed and Deliberate Types best represent the Auditor population, we would expect that these types

would be more engaged at work than those who are less representative of the population.

ResultsWe carried out a follow-up study on auditors who had previously completed the Risk Type Compass™. The follow-up ques-

tionnaire consisted of a measure of stress, employee engagement and job satisfaction.

Analyses were carried out, assessing the relationships between each of the various Risk Types with employee engagement,

psychological well-being and job satisfaction separately. Figure 2 shows mean psychological well being scores across all

Risk Types.

Psychological Well-Being

Figure 2. Mean scores on stress across Auditor Risk Types

The scores were consistent with our assumptions. Interestingly, we found that Intense Types reported the lowest levels of

psychological well-being (most stressed) and the Composed and Deliberate Types were found to be the most psychologi-

cally healthy out of the sample. Likewise, despite the relatively small sample size, the difference in mean scores between

Deliberate/Composed Types and Intense Types was found to be statistically significant.

Deliberate, Composed, Adventurous and Intense types were each found to report higher in employee engagement (see

Figure 3). What is noticeable here is that while these results appear to reinforce the assumption that those risk types which

are most representative of the auditor sample tend also to be more engaged, Intense Types, which were deemed the

least prevalent Risk Type of the sample after Carefree Types, were found to score amongst the highest on engagement.



Employee Engagement

Figure 3. Mean scores on engagement across Auditor Risk Types

Figure 4 displays mean scores on job satisfaction across each of the Risk Types. Once again, Deliberate, Composed and

Adventurous Types are the highest scorers and Spontaneous Types were found to be the least satisfied at their jobs.

Job Satisfaction

Figure 4. Mean scores on job satisfaction across Auditor Risk Types

risk type, stress and employee engagement

Documents