Index

127. Results TTMH February 2009

John Miller conducted a series of Crookback Clinics for The Organisation in February 2009.

19 participants, 13 men and 6 women completed several profiles

■ Health, Fitness and Wellbeing

■ Musculo-skeletal risk

■ Stress risk

■ Career Satisfaction

The results are presented in graphic format, with commentary.

Click here to read what the assessments are all about  

HEALTH, FITNESS AND WELLBEING PROFILE

The Health, Fitness and Wellbeing profile provides people with a very good idea of how well the various systems of the body are functioning, particularly the

•      the mind

•      autonomic nervous system

•      immune system

•      digestive system

•      circulatory system

•      elimination system

•      musculo-skeletal system.

The score of a normal, fit and healthy human being is less than 20        

Higher scores are symptomatic of dysfunction of one or more body systems.

People with high levels of stress usually score well over 100.

For people with a score of more than 80, the ‘background noise’ of their life is becoming louder and louder. It is hard to concentrate on your work when body systems are dysfunctional.

We know a fit and healthy group when we see the majority of scores below 40. This was not the case with this group. By and large higher scores are usually a reflection of

•      low levels of fitness

•      an inability to deal with what life and work are serving up to people.

Remember, it is not what happens, but how we deal with what happens that determines our level of stress. 

Classification of average scores: Excellent - less than 40. Good - 41 - 50. Fair 51-60. Poor - over 60.

This profile is described as good. The average score was 51. Anyone scoring more than 80 is putting up with a lot of 'background noise'.

HEALTH CLIMATE SURVEY

Based on scores received in the Health, Fitness and Wellbeing profile we've compiled a Health Climate Survey. Scores on each item have ranked - the higher the score the worse the problem. We added the scores for each item. The results appear in the table below.

We registered those scores of 5 and over as being a symptom, issue or concern, the most pressing of which have been highlighted.

MUSCULO-SKELETAL RISK FACTOR

Our musculo-skeletal risk factor profile looked at a range of parameters including mobility, strength and flexibility and whether people are training to keep themselves strong and flexible.

The musculo-skeletal risk factor profile is comprised of a mix of 7 objective and 3 subjective assessments.

•      Current musculo-skeletal condition

•      Abdominal strength test

•      Upper body strength test

•      Flexibility

•      Functional mobility – the ability to sit down and stand up with ease.

•      Shoulder function

•      Dominant hand grip

•      Non-dominant hand grip

•      Flexibility training behaviour

•      Strength training behaviour

A score of 70% is attainable by those who have a regular and systematic training program.

Those scoring less than 70 are not doing sufficient in the way of strength and flexibility exercises. They are therefore exposing themselves to a high risk of musculo-skeletal dysfunction. (It would be bizarre for a workplace to offer to pay the rehabilitation costs of people who were not keeping themselves strong enough or flexible enough to do their job without succumbing to musculo-skeletal dysfunction, wouldn't it?)

A patchy result. Too many people scored less than 7/10. They are experiencing some pain and discomfort, a couple of people a lot. Those scoring less the 6 need to be required attend a prehab/rehab program, for their own benefit and that of the organisation.		This is a good result. No-one was more than 10Kg over weight. Being overweight greatly compromises mobility.
Generally speaking a good result. 2 people performed poorly.		This is a mediocre result. 3 people failed the test. 1 person couldn't do one sit up. This means that the strength of the muscles on the front of their body is not sufficient to keep their pelvis and spinal column in good alignment.
This is a mediocre result. 2 people couldn't do one press up. They are leaving themselves open to upper back, shoulder and arm dysfunction.		This is a mediocre result. 2 people couldn't touch their toes at all. 2 people could only just touch their toes. Too many people have tight muscles along the back side of their body - calves, hamstrings, buttock and back. It's caused by two things - sitting down and not having a flexibility program. There is a high risk of lower back, neck and shoulder dysfunction.
A reasonable result.		Patchy. 60% had dysfunctional shoulders. The good news is that's it's redeemable.
More people than usual had a strength and flexibility training program. Nevertheless it behooves all organisations to put in train a regular and systematic training program, on site, that includes   1.  specialist prehab and rehab sessions for those at serious risk and those already dysfunctional.   2.  daily 10 minute strength and flexibility sessions for all staff.
Average score: 64. As a group this is a mediocre result. 2 people ere unable to do any of the tests because of pre-existing conditions. The risk of musculo-skeletal dysfunction is high due to low levels of strength and flexibility. There is a strong case for the organisation to implement an obligatory strength and flexibility program for those who scored less than 60 in this profile.

Lack of strength and flexibility is something that the Organisation needs to take seriously and monitor carefully and put in place an organisation-wide strategy to improve musculo-skeletal function. By far and away a high proportion of people do not have a strength and flexibility program. As a result they are getting weaker and tighter by the week, thereby exposing themselves and the organisation to risk.

When push comes to shove and people become dysfunctional, it will be The Organisation that ends up paying the high cost of an avoidable musculo-skeletal complaint. Click here to read the article from injury to dysfunction. Click here to read about swifties and fallacies.

In our opinion musculo-skeletal dysfunction caused by the lack of a regular and systematic strength and flexibility program cannot be classified as an injury. Responsibility for musculo-skeletal dysfunction needs to be sheeted home to individual employees, though it’s unlikely to happen without the establishment of a culture within the organisation that supports, values and understands strength and flexibility.

We recommend a range of strength and flexibility classes that are readily available Australia-wide: -

The Organisation  would place itself in the forefront of OH&S practice if it took the musculo-skeletal risk seriously and moved heaven and earth to educate all staff about this risk and encourage them to take part in a regular strength and flexibility program. Maybe The Organisation and its worker's compensation insurer could invest in a pilot program to increase staff strength and flexibility!

The lack of strength and flexibility training coupled with poor abdominal strength, upper body strength, flexibility and shoulder function is a cause for concern and needs the attention of individual staff and managers.  

Recommendation

We strongly recommend that the people who are in current poor musculo-skeletal condition, and who lack abdominal strength, upper body strength, flexibility, shoulder function and functional mobility, in particular those who scored less than 60 on the profile, be obligated to attend regular, in-house strength and flexibility classes.

The pressure on the organisation's workers' compensation costs is such that to do otherwise would, in our opinion be to abrogate a responsibility for the prudent management of the organisation's finances.

STRESS RISK PROFILE

Participants completed a simple stress and relaxation profile designed to assist them in making an assessment of how they were affected by stress. It is based on the habits of unstressed people.

If you do what unstressed people do you are less at risk of becoming stressed. I’m yet to see someone who said they were highly stressed or depressed who got a high score on this profile. A good score is over 70.

•      How would you rate your current stress level

•      Do you get a good night’s sleep?

•      Do you take your holidays?

•      Are you keeping yourself fit and healthy?

•      Is there balance in your life?

•      Do you take time off at lunch time?

•      How many hours a week do you work?

•      Are you good at giving back to your Self?

•      Do you meditate?

•      Are you happy with your family (and romantic) life?

The matter of stress always needs to be addressed by organisations as part of a personal development thrust, and aimed at all staff. If stress management type programs are to be conducted, all staff need to be involved, otherwise those at most risk and those who are currently most stressed (and too wrapped up in their own busyness) will not attend.

For those who spend long hours at work, I often wonder whether the behaviour is externally or internally driven. I suspect the latter. No body on their death bed ever said 'I wish I'd spent more time at the office.'

A few people are struggling with their family life. This is another fertile  area for personal development and counseling programs. It's hard to concentrate at work when your home life is in turmoil

SCORING GUIDELINES

Excellent, scoring 8 or more

Good, scoring 7 or more

Fair, scoring 5 or 6           

Poor, scoring less than 5

‘Pass mark’ on all parameters 7/10.   

	A patchy result.		A good result.  The first casualty of anxiety and low levels of fitness is sleep. The first causality of anxiety is poor sleep. Find out the cause of the problem. Exercise more, drink less.
	A poor result. Paul Pearsal in his book Super Immunity' said you need a 21 day away from home holiday every year.		Not a particularly good result. Too many people are not keeping themselves in the shape they'd like to be in - and which they need to be in.
	This is a reasonable result.		A poor result. Too many people don't take time off to switch off and get outside in the fresh air. This is a reflection of poor management - personal and organisational
	This is a fair result. No one on their death bed ever said 'I wish I'd spent more time at the office.' The people working the longest hours are women with young children who have a shift before work, a shift at work, a shift after work and the graveyard shift as well.		Too many people are too busy to look after and nurture their Self.
	Very few people meditate. The reasons to do so are compelling.		Family life satisfaction is good for most people.
Average score: 63. This is an average sort of a score.  People could do more to look after their Self. I recommend that people scoring less that 50 spend time with a counselor or life coach, or go to a personal development weekend to get themselves centred and grounded on looking after their Self - start doing the things unstressed people do to avoid becoming stressed.

CAREER SATISFACTION PROFILE

The parameters in the profile relate to a mix of factors influences by the participant, management and their colleagues.

•      How close are you to doing the job you’d really like to be doing?

•      Are you in the right job for now?

•      Is work giving you life or sucking life out of you?

•      Are you focused on your career options?

•      Do you get good feedback from your manager?

•      Do you receive an appropriate financial reward?

•      Do you feel you and your work are valued and appreciated?

•      Do you work for an organisation that cares about people?

•      Do you enjoy the company of the people you work with?

•      What’s the level of morale like in your work group?

Normally, when results on the overall career profile are less than 70/100, people agree that they’re not in the right job. Certainly those scoring less than 60 have sufficient issues relating to career management as to seriously consider going somewhere else.

SCORING GUIDELINES

Excellent, scoring 8 or more

Good, scoring 7 or more

Fair, scoring 5 or 6           

Poor, scoring less than 5

‘Pass mark’ on all parameters 7/10. 

	This is a pretty good score.		This is a good result. You don't see many like this.
	A fair result. Work is probably about as stressful as you want it to be. Walk away. Make appointments for your Self that allow you to get on with your work unhindered by interruptions.		A reasonable result. For those who scored 7/10 it didn't matter.
	This is a very mediocre result. Of all our profile questions, this one is usually the worst answered. In this organisation there's some extra work for managers. For staff our recommendation is always to manage up. Take your manager out for morning tea once a month and talk about yourself and your work. Get some regular feedback. Don't wait for the big one at the end of the year. If you manager doesn't have time for you, get another one!		With a few exceptions, these people are pretty satisfied with what they sell themselves for. If you're not happy, you're selling yourself short. Log onto Seek and get your suit dry cleaned!
	With 2 exceptions, this is a good result.		With a couple of exceptions, this is a good score. The aim is to have all staff recording a score of 7 or more.
	This is a good score. People like working with each other.		Morale is reasonable. It's generally the case that our morale is good when my morale is good. The exceptions need to be dealt with.
Average score: 72. Compared with other groups, this a good score.  For people who scored less than 70, there is the whiff of a suggestion they're not in the right job. The situation is certainly redeemable.  For those scoring less than 60 the probably of being in the wrong job is much higher.

The Buddha and Confucius both said 'Find the job you'd love to do and you don't have to do another days work in your life.'

RECOMMENDATIONS

See the generic list of recommendations that cover all our profiles.