Search

IntroductionEn raison des répercussions sans précédent de la COVID-19, il est nécessaire de réaliser des études visant à évaluer les défis et les facteurs de stress liés à la pandémie. Cette étude avait pour but d’évaluer les principales préoccupations et le bien-être général des membres de l’Équipe de la Défense du Canada, que ce soit le personnel militaire des Forces armées canadiennes ou les employés de la fonction publique du ministère de la Défense nationale (MDN). MéthodologieLe sondage de l’Équipe de la Défense sur la COVID-19 a été soumis par voie électronique au personnel de l’Équipe de la Défense en avril et mai 2020, et 13 688 membres de la Force régulière, 5 985 membres de la Force de réserve et 7 487 employés civils de la fonction publique du MDN y ont répondu. Outre le recueil de données sociodémographiques, le sondage visait à évaluer les modalités de travail, les préoccupations liées à la pandémie, le bien-être général et le soutien social et organisationnel. Des données pondérées ont été utilisées dans toutes les analyses (pour garantir une juste représentation des différents groupes). RésultatsLa majorité des répondants travaillaient depuis leur domicile et une petite minorité n’était pas en mesure de travailler en raison des restrictions. Les principales préoccupations parmi les nombreuses préoccupations communes à une proportion importante de répondants étaient liées à la santé et au bien-être de leurs proches. La majorité des répondants ont déclaré avoir reçu d’une manière générale un soutien de la part de leur conjoint(e), de leur famille, de leurs superviseurs, de leurs amis, de leurs collègues et de leurs enfants. La moitié du personnel civil du ministère de la Défense nationale et un tiers du personnel militaire ont fait état d’une détérioration de leur santé mentale. Les femmes, les répondants plus jeunes, les répondants ayant des personnes à charge et, dans certains cas, les célibataires sans enfants risquaient davantage un faible degré de bien-être. ConclusionLa pandémie a eu des effets négatifs sur une grande partie du personnel de l’Équipe de la Défense. Lors de futures crises, les dirigeants d’organismes devraient fournir un soutien accru aux groupes les plus exposés et aux superviseurs, qui sont très bien placés pour soutenir les employés en période difficile.

IntroductionDue to the unprecedented impact of COVID-19, there is a need for research assessing pandemic-related challenges and stressors. The current study aimed to assess key concerns and general well-being among members of Canada’s Defence Team, including Canadian Armed Forces personnel and members of the Department of National Defence (DND) Public Service. MethodsThe COVID-19 Defence Team Survey was administered electronically to Defence Team staff in April and May of 2020 and was completed by 13 688 Regular Force, 5985 Reserve Force and 7487 civilian DND Public Service personnel. Along with demographic information, the survey included assessments of work arrangement, pandemic-related concerns, general well-being and social and organizational support. Weighted data (to ensure representation) were used in all analyses. ResultsThe majority of respondents were working from home, with a small minority unable to work due to restrictions. Though many concerns were endorsed by a substantial proportion of respondents, the most prevalent concerns were related to the health and well-being of loved ones. The majority of respondents reported their partner, family, supervisors, friends, colleagues and children provided general support. Half of the civilian defence staff and one-third of military respondents reported a decline in mental health. Women, younger respondents, those with dependents and, in some cases, those who were single without children were at risk of lower well-being. ConclusionThe pandemic has negatively impacted a substantial portion of the Defence Team. When responding to future crises, it is recommended that leaders of organizations provide additional supports to higher-risk groups and to supervisors who are ideally positioned to support employees during challenging times.

The present study examined the distinct configurations, or profiles, taken by work fatigue dimensions among samples of military (n = 1,436) and civilian (n = 2,477) employees. We also tested profile similarity across these two samples of employees. In addition, this research documented the relations between the identified work fatigue profiles, one predictor variable (psychological empowerment), and a series of attitudinal outcomes (job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and turnover intentions) among military employees. Six profiles of employees characterized by different levels of global and specific (emotional, physical, and mental) work fatigue were identified using latent profile analyses: Low Fatigue, Physically and Emotionally Depleted, Emotionally Depleted, Globally and Mentally Depleted, Globally and Emotionally Depleted, and Balanced. In both samples, employees corresponding to the Balanced profile displayed average levels of global and specific work fatigue. However, this profile slightly differed across sample, as indicated by the observation of work fatigue levels that were slightly higher among the military than among civilians. Militaries’ perceptions of psychological empowerment were significantly related to their likelihood of belonging to all profiles. In turn, militaries’ career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions were also found to differ as a function of profile membership.

This paper proposes a revised version of the original Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale developed by Weber, Blais, and Betz (2002) that is shorter and applicable to a {broader range of ages, cultures, and educational levels}. It also provides a French translation of the revised scale. Using multilevel modeling, we investigated the risk-return relationship between apparent risk taking and risk perception in 5 risk domains. The results replicate previously noted differences in reported degree of risk taking and risk perception at the mean level of analysis. The multilevel modeling shows, more interestingly, that within-participants variation in risk taking across the 5 content domains of the scale was about 7 times as large as between-participants variation. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of the person-situation debate related to risk attitude