¹The National Research Center for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark

Text

Introduction: According to the Goldilocks Work paradigm, many physical, psychological and social work factors are not per definition “harmful” (risk factors) or “beneficial” (positive factors) for workers health. For these work factors, the level of exposure can be “too little”, “too much” or “just right” for health. Promoting workers health is therefore not just about minimizing risk factors or maximizing positive factors at work, but to promote a ‘Just Right’ profile of exposures of work factors. As part of the Goldilocks Work Paradigm, the aim is to develop and evaluate an evidence-based dialogue tool for use in workplace assessments and design of ‘Just Right’ exposure profile of physical, psychological and social work environment factors.

Methods: The dialogue tool facilitates mapping, reflection and communication on perceived ‘Just Right’ exposure profile of work factors using a visual analog scale to respond to multiple items. The midpoint of the scale represents “just right” (score of 10), while the left end indicates “too little” (score of 0) and the right end indicates “too much” (score of 0). The items cover several physical, psychological and social work factors. Examples of items include: “How much time do you spend on physically active tasks compared to seated work tasks?”, “How much time do you spend on focused, concentrated work compared to other work tasks?”, and “How much time do you spend collaborating closely with colleagues compared to working alone?”.

Content is developed through workshops with Danish OHS professionals and employees, ensuring that the employee perspective is included in the development of the dialogue tool. The tool is intended to support mapping, reflection and dialogue based on employees’ own experiences of ‘Just Right’ exposure profile of work factors. Next steps include evaluation, digital adaptation, and integration of the tool into occupational health practice for mapping and design of ‘Just Right’ working environment for better health, with continued focus on relevance and applicability for employees.

Results: Initial feedback from workshops with OHS professionals suggest that the tool is intuitive and fosters meaningful mapping, reflection and communication about a ‘Just Right’ work environment for better health.

Discussion: The tool can be useful to bring the theoretical ‘Just Right’ concept of Goldilocks Work into practice at workplaces. It supplements conventional “risk assessment tools” by providing a method for mapping and designing ‘Just Right’ work exposure profiles. Our intention is to encourage workplaces to engage in, develop and implement interventions promoting workers health through a ‘Just Right’ Goldilocks Work design of physical, psychological, and social work factors.

Conclusion: The dialogue tool is currently under development. If the further developments and evaluation show positive results, we believe that it holds great potential to encourage and support workplaces in adopting the Goldilocks Work paradigm. If successful, the tool can provide a foundation for participatory dialogue and collaborative action between employees and management at workplaces in the making of healthy working environments.