Graham I have a feeling you will be stuck with the word stress, in my workplace we call it "stress management" and the policy is called "the stress tool" In all honesty it is stress and not wellbeing etc....

Not in my organisation, but I have heard where the word resilience has been used rather than stress. But a rose by any other name is still a rose, even if the can it sits in is wriggling!

Irrespective of what U call it the appropriate areas re stress, as published via the HSE, must be addressed in the language used [which uses the word 'stress'] sorry but there it is & yep it can be a can of worms but at least U will know that U have worms as against managing without knowledge!

Graham - I know where you are coming from - how about "Psychological Wellbeing policy" - but at the end of the day as others have indicated the term Stress is well used and understood particularly in Occupational Health & Safety circles and the enforcement agencies similarly use it in their guidance.

Graham, Try Workplace Stress Prevention policy. I would give your policy a sense of being proactive in its management of work-related stress incidents rather than being reactive. Get HR and Managers involved and utilise various stress prevention tool kits and risk assessments on the HSE website for both teams and individuals. Basic leadership and management of teams and individuals by senior management and line managers/supervisors is key to stress prevention in organisations. Hope this helps. Mike

Ouch!

What are the senior management fearing calling it a stress policy, why not call it a stress policy and then offer training for employees so that they can manage the stress, complete a R/A and identify the areas most effected. If you show the employees that you are serious about tackling it then they will get on board. We include stress and bullying as part of the induction training, assisting employees at the out set to understand that we are serious about health, safety and welfare.

"assisting employees at the out set to understand that we are serious about health, safety and welfare." I think this is precisely where Graham's problem lies. True, the title of the policy means nothing but the fact that they appear keen to avoid the 'S' word speaks volumes to me. Can't help but think the contents of the policy and its implementation won't be too meaningful either. Be interested to know how it ends up, Graham. Reminds me of when I drafted a general Health & Safety Policy many years ago and the Chief Exec said of the Statement of Intent "Only a fool would sign up to that. Change it". He relented but buy-in never followed.

Graham, I've strated using the word and concept of "over-stress". We humans are under stress all the time - especially at work. There is nothing wrong with stress - indeed, we need it and enjoy it. Stress only becomes a problem when a person can't cope. It would help your firm and management to use the word "over-stress" when it comes to any litigation. One has to show serious recognition and concerted action. Calling it something else may cast doubt on whether or not management recognises the problem. Bill

"Board Responsibility And Response To Preventing and Tackling The Effects Of Workplace Bullying, Mental amd Physical Health Effects of Excess Or Inadequate Work Pressure, Domestic Pressures Exacerbated By Work etc, Awareness Training Of Same for Managers And Suggested Employee Methodology and Mechanisims For Reporting Same" It's much easier to call it a stress policy.

The use of the word 'stress' is very emotive and I can understand that some companaies do not like to use that term 'stress management' as it implies that there is a problem with stress in the business - i.e. it is looking at managing the sysmpton rather than avoiding the precursors. At a previous company I worked for we introduced polices/processes on the management of work place pressure, of which stress is one of the unwanted side effects of failing to maange it correctely. So we did actual,ly mention stress in the documentation as one of the things we were trying to avoid as part of thsi process etc.

we have used the "Psychological Wellbeing policy" which has caused problems with staff not knowing or recognising what is. Appropriate mention of it in training sessions to bring about its awareness helps but in some cases its a case of the individuals remembering a fancy name for a simple subject title. I often get the question of "why can't they call it the stress policy so I can find it when I need it?"

I like the Corfield approach. Maybe Stress isn't even an H&S issue, more an HR issue. The document should be titled 'Effective Management Policy', perhaps with a subtitle of 'Do your flippin' job properly'. Kind of points up the almost ridiculous nature of the subject when the controls are all to do with things that people should already be doing.

Graham As you evidently reflect very conscientiously on your options, you may well have outlined a coherent way of doing the 'AFASP' with risks assessments that are 'necessary and sufficient' in relation to the stressors evident in your organisation. May I simply raise elementary questions about how you would convince a court you have done this, in the event that employees frame a claim in which stress is aggravated by breach of provisions ofThe Equality Act 2010, with regard to gender, age, gender orientation, religion and disability. When a claimant's solicitor sets the ball rolling, they appoint an independent expert witness - in this case very probably an occupaitonal psychologist registered with the Health Professions Council; without any policy document, what evidence will you be able to present that you really have discharged your responsibility? Occasionally, such claims go to a hearing in an employment tribunal under a heading of unfair dismissal; for example, I have been cross-examined (as an expert witness) on whether the documentation presented by an employer (a school/LEA) constituted a bona fide rsis assessment - and both the headteacher and the LEA safety specialist were also cross-examined. Bearing in mind that the legal system in England and Wales is an adversarial one, in the event of a claim, and especially of a public hearing in court, you may have much less time to assemble relevant data and documents retrospectively than you now have to design and implement a valid policy of healthy stress control. I apolotise if this appears to be lacking in empathy yet I hope you will appreciate that, as a peson with a statutory role, you may be open to public criticism in the event that you are portrayed by Counsel for a complaining employee to have neglected to appropriately educae, train, inform and warn - especially with the support of a well-researched policy document readily avaialble to managers at all levels.

Graham, I was being a little tongue-in-cheek there. You do need a policy. I notice you're billed as 'Heathcare'. If you're NHS then you'll definitiely need one, if only to satisfy the Litigation Authority. The fact that you are Heathcare sector perplexes me when it comes to the management's fear of the 's' word. Thought we were all on board with the terminology by now. By all means point to all the existing stuff you have that controls the Management Standards-defined stressors but at the very least it'll have some expression of the organisation's recognition of the issue and its commitment to controlling the risks. (doh! this is your original problem isn't it)

Graham As you started this exploratioin with the observation, 'my Senior Management Team don't want to call it a "Stress Policy", although they recognise the need', you still face the question of how to use language in a way they'll agree with. You may be glad to know that a relevant technique was published in 1955 and has been extensively researched since then. It is called a repertory grid and was invented by George Kelly who explained it in The Psychology of Personal Constructs, publisehd by W W Norton then and reissued by Routledge in 1992. A repertory grid is designed precisely to reflect back to people the implications of their own patterns of thinking and feeling. You can use it to reflect back to senior management, in a rigorous quantified way, implications of their thinking and feeling, in their roles as leaders. This can not only safeguard you legally but also present them with firm evidence of their options. The 'User Guide to Repertory Grids', D Jancowicz, John Wiley, 2003 is a fairly good introduction. If you need some help, chartered psychologists trained at the Centre for Persoanl Construct Psychology can provide the help needed to enable your management to get their ducks in a row.

As Ray highlights, the HSE prescribe a rational approach to stress management. Graham's initial question,right at the start, gives an indicatiion that he is obliged - like many OHS and HR professionals - to operate in a context where such a rational approach is a non-starter. How do Ray's recommendations relate to such a stark reality?