Adjustment, well-being and help-seeking among Australian FIFO mining employees.

• Author: Vojnovic, Philippa
• Position: Contributed Article - Report

Abstract

The theme of fly-in fly-out (FIFO) employment arrangements has attracted considerable policy and media interest, yet there is limited knowledge about the impact of such employment on workers and how they might manage the various strains associated with FIFO work. To advance this line of research, this article examines the antecedent factors of and relationships between adjustment, well-being, and help-seeking among FIFO employees. Our primary contribution is to develop a model and a series of propositions which will assist researchers, the industry, and policy-makers to understand the complex circumstances and impacts of FIFO employment better.

1. Introduction

   Employee well-being is inherent in all work environments, yet is arguably Of high importance inthe Australian mining industry due to the significant health and safety and financial implications. Australia derives substantial wealth from the extraction of minerals and resources: $45 billion in 2000, which increased to $157 billion in 2010 (Austrade 2011). The sector contributed 4.5 per cent of GDP in 2003, which doubled to 9 per cent by 2013 (Austrade 2013). Such growth has led to claims of a resources boom with long-term progress set to continue for the next 20 t 50 years, although there has been some suggestion of stagnation (Garnett 2012).0This pattern of growth has resulted in considerably increased employment opportunities in remote locations. The Australian resources sector employs approximately 276,300 workers (ABS 2013), 100,000 of whom are on what are referred to as FIFO employment arrangements (Henry et al. 2013). The majority of these FIFO employees work in Western Australia and Queensland, and it is predicted that 63,500 FIFO employees will work in Western Australia by 2015, predominantly in the Pilbara region and the goldfields (Henry et al. 2013).

   The economic growth associated with the resources boom in Australia attracts large numbers of workers to high-paying jobs in the industry from within Australia and from overseas. Due to the regional and geographically isolated locations of many of these jobs, most employees operate on a rostered-shift basis. This requires employees engaged in consistent and regular non-residential employment to commute (typically by air) to work in a location far from their usual place of residence. Prolonged time away from home is inherent in the FIFO working arrangements, and while some FI FO employees appear to adjust well to the conditions, others do not (Behr 2012). This could be contributing to employee turnover in mining, which stands at approximately 21 per cent; this exceeds the rate preferred by mining employers (Beach et al. 2003, Funston 2012).

   Previous research indicates a growing concern that FIFO employment conditions are having detrimental effects on employee well-being including depression, anxiety, stress, and sleep disorders (Henry et al. 2013, Kelly et al. 2012, Peetz et al. 2012). Further, there are indications that workers are inhibited from help-seeking, partly due to effects of the workplace culture, making it difficult for those who experience poor well-being to remedy the problem (Henry et al. 2013,Torkingtonetal.2011).The issue of FIFO employee well-being has strong social as well as economic consequences (Bluff 2011). This article focuses on the adjustment, well-being, and help-seeking of FIFO employees. It does so through employing the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) (Demerouti et al. 2001) and Psychosocial Safety Climate (Dollard and Bakker 2010) theories to develop a model and a series of propositions. Together, our model and the propositions illuminate the possible impacts of FIFO employment arrangements on employees, with implications for individual health and organisational work outcomes.

   2 Job Demands-Resources and Psychosocial Safety Climate: Theoretical Influences

   We draw on the JD-R and Psychosocial Safety Climate theories because of their ability to be applied flexibly to a variety of employment contexts, including the Australian mining industry. JD-R is a meta-level theory which can be used to assess employee well-being and performance. Each job has particular stress-associated risk factors, yet a key feature is that it categorises these factors into either job demands, or job resources (Demerouti et al. 2001). The theory helps to account for the unique demands and resources which affect organisational outcomes through the dual relationship of strain and motivation for employees. Demands are defined as physical, psychological, social, or organisational job components. Job demands then contribute to strain. An example of a FIFO job demand could be the work schedule (shift roster), which can lead to an interrupted sleep-and-wake cycle, inducing employee strain. Similarly, resources are physical, psychological, social, or organisational job components that assist in achieving work goals, reduce demands and associated costs, and stimulate growth, and the learning and development of the employee (Bakker and Demerouti 2006). Job resources contribute to motivation. An example of a FIFO job resource could be high pay rates, which may result in increased engagement and thereby actions to increase employee motivation.

   Importantly, the JD-R theory has been tested longitudinally and examined for the influence of home demands and resources. The results show that the motivational and health-impairment process was unchanged overtime (Hakanen et al. 2008).This increases our confidence in using this framework in a FIFO employment context, because it is not vulnerable to non-work (home) influences. A further important feature of the JD-R theory is that it can be used to indicate both positive and negative functions of well-being, providing a cohesive explanation of how organisational characteristics affect individual responses (Bakker and Demerouti 2006, Demerouti et al. 2001). The presence of job resources can alleviate some job-related strain. This means that organisations that provide resources to their employees may, to some extent, mitigate the impacts of working in an intense and stressful workplace.

   The limitations of the JD-R theory first include a lack of standardisation regarding specific job demands and resources. For example autonomy is often used as a job resource (Bakker et al. 2005), whereas for some laboring related FIFO roles, autonomy might be considered isolating or unsafe, and therefore would be better categorised as a demand. A second limitation is that the organisational outcomes in JD-R are classed simply as either positive or negative, without consideration that the complex relationship between an employee and employer may have multifaceted outcomes; these might be simultaneously positive and negative. For example an employee with depression who takes 12 weeks leave and undertakes counselling to reduce their symptoms may cost their organisation money in the short term, but return to work in a more productive state. This could be considered negative for both the employee (because they are depressed), positive for the employee (because they are accessing support), negative for the employer (because they must find a replacement worker), and positive for the employer (because they will retain a more productive worker on resumption of employment). Finally, it is possible that some wider implications concerning workplace health and safety (such as workplace compensation claims) are possible in JD-R theory, but care must nonetheless be taken in assuming a causal link.

   The concept of a workplace Psychosocial Safety Climate furthers the JD-R theory and offers a bridge between prior work stress and workplace health and safety research. While JD-R theory enables flexibility through its broad categories, Psychosocial Safety Climate theory allows for specificity through established benchmarks. Further, Psychosocial Safety Climate theory includes strategies (policies, practices, and procedures) and a list of established facets which aim to ensure the psychological health and safety of employees. It measures specific demands and resources, rather than positive or negative organisational outcomes, and the Psychosocial Safety Climate theory divides outcomes into both health and work outcomes using established measures (Dollard et al. 2009; Dollard et al. 2012). Psychosocial Safety Climate theory explores how specific job demands (including work pressure, work and family conflict, and emotional demands), and job resources (including supervisor and co-worker support) affect employee health and work outcomes. It identifies the job demands and resources within specific roles, and can therefore be used to predict and negate psychosocial hazards, as well as drawing specific links to workers' compensation claims for workplace mental stress (Dollard et al. 2009).

   Key findings of the Australian Workplace Barometer Report (AWBR) by Dollard et al. (2009) indicate that the Psychosocial Safety Climate theory is significantly related to all demands, resources, health, and productivity outcomes, demonstrating its validity. Psychosocial Safety Climate theory is important because the strategies which promote good mental health are established prior to the working conditions. Therefore, there is a reduced likelihood that employees will be exposed to risk factors which may trigger psychosocial difficulties, such as workplace harassment.

   Much of the recent FIFO research focuses on either the external organisational pressures such as the effects of the Ravensthorpe mine closure (McDonald et al. 2012), or individual factors such as help-seeking motivation (Torkington et al. 2011), or the work and family interface (Kaczmarek and Sibbel 2008). In comparison, our article is positioned to draw on the organisational, individual, and social factors to understand better how the impacts of FIFO employment either align with or diverge from individual health and organisational outcomes. JD-R and...