Abstract
Background:
The proliferation and utilization of apps designed to enhance occupational health, safety, and well-being (OHS&W) have seen significant growth. Despite this surge, there is a paucity of research exploring the adoption of such apps in the context of OHS&W, leaving a
gap in our understanding of the motivations behind organizations' decisions to integrate these apps into their work processes.
Methods:
To unravel the motivations and decision-making processes related to the use of OHS&W apps, we designed an interview study involving ten qualitative interviews with key stakeholders in medium to large organizations, ranging from 150 to 130,000 employees across diverse sectors. The focus on larger organizations, though challenging to recruit, is justified by their substantial impact on a considerable workforce and their often-pioneering role in setting trends within their respective industries. Given the global context of the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted via phone, which also accommodated the geographical dispersion of informants. The analysis employed a bottom-up approach, drawing on socio-material theory and institutional logic to inform a thematic content analysis of the interview data.
Results:
Four logics that the informants used in their explanation of app adoption were identified: individualization, democratization, fashion, and resources. Each logic is presented with its inherent potentials and risks as articulated by our informants.
Individualization: This logic revolves around tailoring OHS interventions to the individual, such as optimizing training, adapting exercises to specific bodies, or providing personalized support for well-being. Concerns within this logic include the fear of overly individualizing issues that should be addressed as common workplace challenges.
Democratization: This logic emphasizes the use of smartphones to broaden access to OHS, making it more accessible and engaging for a larger number of employees. However, potential drawbacks include concerns about disengagement among employees uncomfortable with the app format and the risk of inadvertently individualizing OHS issues.
Resources: this logic views OHS apps as an investment in OHS and employee well-being. On the flip side, there are apprehensions that these apps might serve as a covert means to save resources by reducing time spent on meetings and traditional OHS work, given their accessibility through the app.
Fashion: This logic reflects contrasting views on the trendiness of implementing OHS apps. Critics argue that it is merely a superficial trend, while proponents see it as a modern organizational practice and one of several avenues to enhance OHS.
Conclusion:
The study concludes that the logics of individualization, democratization, resources, and fashion underpin the decisions of OHS professionals to implement and use OHS&W apps. These logics are intrinsically linked to their perceptions of what constitutes a 'good organization' and a 'good work environment’. Examining the contested nature of these logics provides valuable insights into the reasons behind the adoption or rejection of OHS&W apps, shedding light on the diverse perspectives within the professional landscape and the evolving nature of the work environment influenced by technology.
The proliferation and utilization of apps designed to enhance occupational health, safety, and well-being (OHS&W) have seen significant growth. Despite this surge, there is a paucity of research exploring the adoption of such apps in the context of OHS&W, leaving a
gap in our understanding of the motivations behind organizations' decisions to integrate these apps into their work processes.
Methods:
To unravel the motivations and decision-making processes related to the use of OHS&W apps, we designed an interview study involving ten qualitative interviews with key stakeholders in medium to large organizations, ranging from 150 to 130,000 employees across diverse sectors. The focus on larger organizations, though challenging to recruit, is justified by their substantial impact on a considerable workforce and their often-pioneering role in setting trends within their respective industries. Given the global context of the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted via phone, which also accommodated the geographical dispersion of informants. The analysis employed a bottom-up approach, drawing on socio-material theory and institutional logic to inform a thematic content analysis of the interview data.
Results:
Four logics that the informants used in their explanation of app adoption were identified: individualization, democratization, fashion, and resources. Each logic is presented with its inherent potentials and risks as articulated by our informants.
Individualization: This logic revolves around tailoring OHS interventions to the individual, such as optimizing training, adapting exercises to specific bodies, or providing personalized support for well-being. Concerns within this logic include the fear of overly individualizing issues that should be addressed as common workplace challenges.
Democratization: This logic emphasizes the use of smartphones to broaden access to OHS, making it more accessible and engaging for a larger number of employees. However, potential drawbacks include concerns about disengagement among employees uncomfortable with the app format and the risk of inadvertently individualizing OHS issues.
Resources: this logic views OHS apps as an investment in OHS and employee well-being. On the flip side, there are apprehensions that these apps might serve as a covert means to save resources by reducing time spent on meetings and traditional OHS work, given their accessibility through the app.
Fashion: This logic reflects contrasting views on the trendiness of implementing OHS apps. Critics argue that it is merely a superficial trend, while proponents see it as a modern organizational practice and one of several avenues to enhance OHS.
Conclusion:
The study concludes that the logics of individualization, democratization, resources, and fashion underpin the decisions of OHS professionals to implement and use OHS&W apps. These logics are intrinsically linked to their perceptions of what constitutes a 'good organization' and a 'good work environment’. Examining the contested nature of these logics provides valuable insights into the reasons behind the adoption or rejection of OHS&W apps, shedding light on the diverse perspectives within the professional landscape and the evolving nature of the work environment influenced by technology.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Book of Proceedings : 16th Conference of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology: Contributions of OHP to Social Justice |
Editors | Fiona Frost, Kevin Teoh, France St-Hilaire, Alice Denman, Caleb Leduc, Miguel Muñoz, Daniel Ripa |
Number of pages | 1 |
Place of Publication | Nottingham |
Publisher | European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology |
Publication date | 2024 |
Article number | S131 |
ISBN (Electronic) | 9780992878672 |
Publication status | Published - 2024 |
Event | 16th Conference of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. EAOHP 2024 - University of Granada, Faculty of Science, Granada, Spain Duration: 5 Jun 2024 → 7 Jun 2024 Conference number: 16 https://eaohp.org/eaohp_2024/ |
Conference
Conference | 16th Conference of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. EAOHP 2024 |
---|---|
Number | 16 |
Location | University of Granada, Faculty of Science |
Country/Territory | Spain |
City | Granada |
Period | 05/06/2024 → 07/06/2024 |
Internet address |