Introduction
Six years since its implementation, NOM 035 has fallen short of its intended purpose – preventing psychosocial workplace risks. Experts agree that the issue lies not with the norm itself, but rather in insufficient oversight and poor application practices by companies.
Ineffective Risk Reduction
Have psychosocial risks been reduced with NOM 035? The results are disappointing. Despite its goal to prevent workplace psychosocial risks, companies have struggled with effective data interpretation.
Jorge Gutiérrez Siles, senior consultant at Kaysa Salud y Bienestar, states that stress levels remain alarmingly high, even higher than before NOM 035. The reason, he explains, is that there has been progress in discourse but not genuine transformation of working conditions.
Companies mistakenly believe that merely administering surveys and subsequently hiring emotional wellbeing programs suffices, which diverts attention from the actual problem. “It’s not about providing therapy to individuals but healing the system,” Gutiérrez Siles clarifies.
The Misconception of Wellness
Erika Villavicencio-Ayub, director of DserOrganizacional for Latin America, points out that a high percentage of companies mistakenly believe compliance is achieved through diagnosis alone. This approach, she adds, deteriorates mental health further since diagnoses are often inadequately classified.
Gutiérrez Siles elaborates that preventing psychosocial risk factors necessitates rethinking processes, fostering responsible leadership, redesigning workloads, and creating a dignified work environment. “Simply hiring psychologists or doctors does not fulfill the norm’s requirements,” he emphasizes.
He continues, “It’s not just about conducting questionnaires and a motivation course; it’s crucial to delve into the root causes. Since this isn’t done, companies opt for hiring psychologists to address issues instead of implementing preventive actions.”
Crisis Figures
Statistics underscore the crisis. In Mexico, nearly half of individuals have experienced workplace harassment or mobbing, according to Kelly data. Over the past year, resignations due to excessive workloads have increased by more than 50%, as reported by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (Inegi).
Additionally, four out of ten workers are victims of workplace violence, and at least 18 million employees suffer from some mental disorder, according to Gutiérrez Siles, who acknowledges, “a significant issue in Mexico is the lack of reliable figures.”
Erika Villavicencio shares that, with NOM-035 application alone, she has diagnosed over 15,000 workers with burnout – a chronic wear that fosters cynical emotions like disillusionment, resentment, and indignation.
Gutiérrez Siles adds that anxiety and depression continue to rise, explaining why only two out of ten workers demonstrate engagement with their organization. “The remaining eight do not, yet the company offers amenities that fail to address the core problem,” he notes.
He points out that existing figures are published by companies with biases offering services, practices like mindfulness, yoga, team-building exercises, courses, etc. This does not resolve the “structural crisis” nor the causes generating risk factors.
“We should be more selective; investing in trendy actions is not the solution,” complements DserOrganizacional’s director. “We need to identify what each department struggles with.”
In this vein, Kaysa’s expert stresses the importance of addressing root causes. “If you encounter workplace violence, attend to it according to your protocol and issue corrective recommendations based on your company’s policies, principles, and values,” he explains.
He further elaborates that NOM 035’s body is adequate for change generation, but the problem lies in its implementation and result interpretation. “Had NOM been correctly applied, all work-related stress measurements would have decreased nationally,” he asserts.
Misapplication Worse Than Non-Implementation
Experts concur that NOM 035 has room for improvement, but its content is sufficient to instigate change; the issue resides in implementation and result interpretation, as companies have failed to translate information into effective action plans.
In most cases, diagnostics are conducted, and workers’ voices are heard, yet no genuine changes occur – only new wellness benefits. This pattern, without transforming data into solutions, is “highly detrimental to addressing risk factors,” Gutiérrez Siles points out.
The consequences of poor NOM 035 application, experts agree, are worse than not implementing it at all. The worker remains at risk, triggering loss of organizational belonging and trust, chronic stress, and other mental disorders.
This results in a “psychological contract breach,” Villavicencio explains. It also increases turnover, absenteeism, and the siniestrality index since “there’s a higher likelihood of errors due to lack of concentration.”
Gutiérrez Siles insists that prevention requires “organizational changes, reasonable work hours, empathetic leadership, recognition, good communication, and everyone’s participation” through proven methodologies, reliable statistics, and oversight.
Villavicencio emphasizes the significance of having an action plan for results, segmenting data, and prioritizing attention with specific goals. “The norm itself is not a panacea,” she concludes.
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: Has NOM 035 effectively reduced psychosocial risks at the workplace? A: No, stress levels remain high, and there has been no genuine transformation of working conditions.
- Q: What is the common mistake companies make when applying NOM 035? A: They believe that merely conducting surveys and hiring wellbeing programs fulfills the norm, diverting attention from actual issues.
- Q: Why are the figures on workplace issues in Mexico unreliable? A: There is a significant lack of reliable data on the matter in Mexico.
- Q: What are the consequences of poor NOM 035 implementation? A: Workers remain at risk, leading to loss of organizational belonging and trust, chronic stress, and other mental disorders.
- Q: How can companies effectively prevent psychosocial risks? A: Through organizational changes, reasonable work hours, empathetic leadership, recognition, good communication, and everyone’s participation, supported by proven methodologies, reliable statistics, and oversight.
