Does Global Terrorism Make a Difference to Work Attitudes?

Does Global Terrorism make a Difference to Work-Attitudes?

We are living today in an uncertain climate, in particular regarding national security. The threat of terrorism is much more apparent than, for example, five years ago, and events such as the attack on the Twin Towers in New York (9/11), and bombings in Morocco and Bali, have made people much more aware of a permanent threat. The popular press have claimed that these events have had an impact on people's attitudes at work, showing, on the positive side, increased loyalty and greater employee caring for each other, and conversely, greater ethic and religious harassment and more negative job attitudes. However, these findings are unlikely to be based on empirical evidence.

The aim of the current study, conducted by Ryan, West and Carr, of Michigan State University was to investigate the impact of 9/11 on the attitudes of a global workforce from a large multinational company (c. 70,000 staff). The research focused on people not directly affected by the events through personal or business loss.

The organisation in question conducted a yearly organisation-wide attitude survey of the entire workforce. It was therefore possible for the authors to compare pre- and post-9/11 attitudes, to see if there were any major changes in attitudes following the event.

The attitudes that were measured in the study were:

General Job Satisfaction (how content are employees at work?)
Supervisor Evaluation (how the employees rate the skills and leadership abilities of their direct supervisors?)
Work-Related Stress (how stressed do the employees feel?)
Organisation Commitment to Diversity (how do the employees rate the organisation's commitment to diversity-related initiatives?)

In general, no large changes in employee attitudes were found. This would appear to suggest that the claims of the popular press are exaggerated. However, there were some small changes in some of the attitudes such as the decrease in supervisory ratings from the previous year. This decrease may be due to the need for a more authoritarian style of leadership in times of stress; the authoritarian leader is more likely to take charge and direct behaviour, in stressful times this may serve to absorb uncertainty in the workforce.

Implications
Although the effect of traumatic events is perhaps not as large and significant as is widely believed, individuals are likely to react in different ways to events, depending on their coping style. It is therefore still important that organisations offer support to their employees in times of uncertainty / stress, though perhaps consider more tailored rather than organisation-wide interventions. These might include:

Individual Counselling (e.g. Employee Assisted Programmes, EAPs)
Stress Climate Questionnaires
Leadership Workshops
Tailored Workshops (e.g. Stress Management and Coping Strategies)
Team-Building Events

The challenge for organisations in today's uncertain climate is to keep abreast of the changing concerns of the workforce. A useful way is through regular attitude surveys, which can serve as a 'health check' on the organisation. These can help the organisation to provide suitable and timely support at an individual and, if required, at an organisational level.

Reference
Ryan, A.M., West, B.J. & Carr, J.Z. (2003) Effects of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 on employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 4, 647-659.

Human Assets