Cognitive overload at work (Organizational factor for workers with CMD)

Interpretation of the “Cognitive overload at work” factor

Cognitive overload at work negatively influences RTW or sickness absence duration.

Definition of the “Cognitive overload at work” factor

Short definition: Cognitive overload at work can be defined as the level (both quantitative and qualitative) of the cognitive demands associated with performing the work. Having a large amount of work to perform in a short amount of time, important responsibilities, contradictory demands from supervisors and tasks that are complex or requiring close concentration are among the factors contributing to cognitive overload at work (Gollac et Bodier, 2011).

To find out more:

Cognitive overload at work negatively influences RTW in workers with a CMD (Haveraaen, Skarpaas et Aas, 2017; Haveraaen, Skarpaas, Berg et Aas, 2015). The amount of work to be performed and the work pace are important aspects to consider when assessing cognitive demands. When the quantitative demand is high, workers may report that the job requires them to work very fast or do an excessive amount of work, or they have the impression that they do not have enough time to do what is required. The cognitive demand also depends on the complexity of the work to be performed. Many job contexts can be considered complex, including those that require performing numerous tasks or managing unforeseen circumstances (Gollac et Bodier, 2011), and those in which the search for solutions may lead to an array of choices of acceptable actions. This last example occurs most often in occupational fields where roles and responsibilities are known, but whose precise tasks to achieve the objectives are not detailed, such as teaching, healthcare or engineering. Take the case of teachers, who have to multi-task (overseeing the class, convey knowledge, use pedagogical strategies, etc.) under variable circumstances (van Gog, Sluijsmans, Joosten-ten Brinke et Prins, 2008).

It is important to point out that, in theory, the quantitative demand and complexity of the work are not necessarily problematic.  According to Karasek’s demand-control model, both contribute to the presence of job strain  only under certain conditions (Kain et Jex, 2015). Other factors may also increase cognitive demands. Among these are the presence of unrealistic or vague work goals and contradictory instructions, such as having to do quality work while working quickly (Gollac et Bodier, 2011). Thus, according to Karasek’s model, a worker with a high level of autonomy (or control) over task organization, decision-latitude and skill development has a greater chance of coping with these factors without affecting his or her health, than one without this level of control.

Gollac, M. et Bodier, M. (2011). Mesurer les facteurs psychosociaux de risque au travail pour les maîtriser. Le rapport du Collège d’expertise sur le suivi des risques psychosociaux au travail. : Collège d’expertise sur le suivi des risques psychosociaux au travail.

Haveraaen, L. A., Skarpaas, L. S. et Aas, R. W. (2017). Job demands and decision control predicted return to work: the rapid-RTW cohort study. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 154. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3942-8

Haveraaen, L. A., Skarpaas, L. S., Berg, J. E. et Aas, R. W. (2015). Do psychological job demands, decision control and social support predictreturn to work three months after a return-to-work (RTW) programme? The rapid-RTW cohort study. Work, 53 1 61-71.

Kain, J. et Jex, S. (2015). Karasek’s (1979) job demands-control model: A summary of current issues and recommendations for future research. Dans P. Perrewé, J. Halbesleben et C. Rose (édit.), New developments in theoretical and conceptual approaches to job stress (vol. 8, p. 237-268). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

van Gog, T., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Joosten-ten Brinke, D. et Prins, F. J. (2008). Formative assessment in an online learning environment to support flexible on-the-job learning in complex professional domains. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(3), 311-324. doi: 10.1007/s11423-008-9099-0

Tools for measuring the “Cognitive overload at work” factor