Findings from the group comparison

Compared to the control group comprised of managers working in the public sector, the crisis managers reported significantly less psychological demands³³ associated with their work environment and less job stress (i.e., quotient of demands and decision latitude). No significant differences were found in terms of solely decision latitude or support from co-workers and supervisors. However, both groups reported rather high levels of decision latitude (referred to the response format, answers on average between “agree” and “strongly agree”) and of received support (answers on average “agree”).

When interpreting the results, it has to be noted that the control group was asked to report demands, decision latitude, and support with regard to their current everyday working life whereas crisis managers were asked to report these aspects retrospectively with regard to their work environment in disaster operations. Considering that the extent of perceived stress might differ between current and retrospective ratings, this could have contributed to the result that public sector managers perceive their everyday work environment as more stressful and associated with higher demands than crisis managers perceive theirs in the context of large-scale crises. Another possible explanation would be that public sector managers might experience moderate to high stress levels over long time spans whereas crisis managers are confronted with suddenly occurring but only temporary stress situations. However, these stress situations occurring in the course of disaster operations (different to stress situations in the everyday working life of public sector managers) include critical incident stressors (besides occupational and organizational stressors). If crisis managers have time to cope and relax afterwards, it might be possible that they return to their baseline levels of stress.

However, considering the additive effects of these kinds of critical incident stressors as well as the substantially differing time spans between missions, the ability to identify and adapt an effective coping strategy as fast as possible after but also during a (longer-lasting) mission is crucial for crisis managers. Therefore, it is reasonable to enhance their coping flexibility,

33 Both groups reported rather high demands, referred to the response format, and answered the questions on average with “agree” (control group) or very close to “agree” (crisis managers). Exact numbers are reported in Table 8.

152 promptness, and skills to mitigate the described additive effects of stressors and to prevent that the stress level is still elevated when another incident/disaster operation happens.

Another aspect to consider, when discussing the results with regard to the psychosocial work environment, is that even though not too many crisis managers fell in the category of high-strain/stress jobs (13%), one third fell in the passive job category (relatively low demands but also low decision latitude).The latter is also assumed to be a disadvantageous work environment, which can easily change into the high-strain/stress category as demands might increase in certain situations whereas decision latitude tends to remain on the same level (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). However, the results of the median split have to be interpreted with caution, as the reference value of this analysis was the median of the total sample, which generally reported considerably high levels of decision latitude and demands (referred to the scoring range of the items).

Regarding perceived stress and the corresponding dimensions demands, worries, tension, and joy, no significant differences were found between crisis managers and managers working in the public sector. Compared to a reference sample of healthy adults (Fliege et al., 2005), both, crisis managers and control group, reported significantly more demands but the crisis managers reported also significantly more joy, which explains why they do not show overall elevated perceived stress levels when compared to the reference sample.

In terms of stress reactivity to different kinds of stressors, the crisis managers reported significantly lower levels of stress reactivity in general as well as stress reactivity to social evaluation, to social conflicts, and to failure compared to the managers of the control group.

The previously mentioned higher levels of work-related, psychological demands reported by the control group in combination with the higher overall stress reactivity, might explain the higher number of reported mental health symptoms in the control group (addressed in the following). However, stress reactivity of both groups was in the normal range referring to a reference sample examined by Schlotz et al. (2011).

Concerning the use of problem-focused and dysfunctional coping strategies, the crisis managers showed no notable differences from the managers in the control group. In terms of applied emotion-focused coping strategies, the crisis managers reported a significantly higher level than the control group. Nonetheless, they reported to use all three kinds of coping styles not very frequently (problem- and emotion-focused coping on average between “a little bit”

and “to a medium amount” and dysfunctional coping on average between “not at all” and “a

153 little bit”). In terms of dysfunctional coping, this may be considered healthy, but a more frequent use of the presumably more functional coping styles, problem- and emotion-focused coping is assumed to be beneficial to mental health (Aldwin, 2007), and therefore recommendable. This is an important implication of the study for the development of the stress management training for crisis managers. As argued above, in this training it is crucial to aim at increasing the coping repertoire of the participating crisis managers in terms of emotion- and problem-focused coping strategies, also in order to enhance coping flexibility (see section 6.4.3).

In terms of crisis leader self-efficacy, the crisis managers’ sample did not differ from the control group. It has to be noted that even though the C-LEAD scale assesses leadership self-efficacy with regard to crises, the questionnaire is applicable to managers from other fields as well, as they have to fulfil their leading positions also during crises. However, considering that crisis managers are assumed to be more accustomed to large scale crises and disasters than managers in the public sector, it is somewhat surprising that they do not report higher levels of crisis leader self-efficacy than the managers of the control group. Therefore (and because of the fact that lower crisis leader self-efficacy predicts anxiety symptoms, see section 3.2.4.2), it is reasonable to aim at enhancing the perceived leadership efficacy of crisis managers with the help of the stress management training.

With regard to mental and somatic health, the crisis managers’ sample showed significantly less somatic, anxiety and depression symptoms than the managers of the control group.

Consistently, compared to normative values (Kocalevent et al., 2013a; Löwe et al., 2008), the control group showed significantly elevated rates in all symptom domains. On average, the crisis managers reported normal levels of depression and anxiety symptoms, but their reported level of somatic symptoms was considerably higher than in the general population. Looking at the number of persons who reported symptoms in the higher ranges pointing to possible depression, anxiety, or somatoform disorders, however, the assumed prevalence rates were not different from what is to be expected in the general population. An explanation for the elevated levels of somatic symptoms in the crisis managers’ sample could be that somatic complaints might be a less stigmatized way of expressing or admitting burden than addressing burdening emotions related to depression or anxiety, as queried by the PHQ-9 and GAD-7. In the qualitative study (see section 6.4.1), the interviewed crisis managers reported that their professional and societal role implies to be perceived as strong, broad-shouldered and stress-resistant. They also mentioned that this role concept hinders addressing topics of stress and

154 excessive demands. Beyond that, this role concept has been discussed by researchers and practitioners in relation to the stigmatization of admitting burden and seeking support in crisis management organizations (Pieper & Maercker, 1999). As consequently mentioned in section 6.4.1, the potential stigmatization of admitting burden and seeking help in the occupational field of crisis management has to be carefully considered in the development of the stress management training for crisis managers, also in the sense of a potential barrier to take part.

Nevertheless, regarding clinically relevant levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms, the prevalence rates found in this sample of crisis managers were elevated: Eight individuals (9.3%) were above the cut-off proposed by Creamer et al. (2003) which means they might suffer from full-blown PTSD. This indicates a point prevalence that is higher as would be expected in the general population (2% to 5%; Wittchen et. al, 2009). However, it fits rather well to the also elevated, overall prevalence of current PTSD in rescue workers found in a recent meta-analysis (Berger, Coutinho, Figueira et al., 2012). Nonetheless, when interpreting these results, it should be kept in mind that the IES-R does not diagnose PTSD, but a syndrome of posttraumatic stress, if scores are high. The gate-keeper criterion of any PTSD diagnosis is the presence of a traumatic event, which is not assessed by the IES-R. In theory, crisis managers could have answered in relation to an incident that does not qualify for a traumatic event in the sense of the diagnosis PTSD. However, a score higher than 1.5 is a rather conservative cut-off point and it is reasonable to assume, that individuals reporting that much symptoms show a clinically relevant syndrome. Somewhat alarmingly, 5 out of the 8 individuals who had scores higher than the cut-off, reported not being/never having been in psychiatric/psychotherapeutic treatment (one person did not answer the question). Again, this leads back to the important aspect that admitting emotional burden might still be stigmatized in the field of crisis management which should be carefully taken into consideration in the development of stress management trainings and other psychosocial support and care programs for crisis management personnel.