The 2010 TBI inventory Part 3 contains four sections.

• Section 1 provides a key to the scoring of the TBI Inventory
• Section 2 contrasts 2010 scores with post accident scores
• Section 3 considers the TBI Inventory scores in a work context
• Section 4 provides links to all posts dealing with this topic

Section 1 –  TBI Inventory Scoring Key

The TBI Inventory is scored according to the following key:

On a scale of 0 to 4, rate the effect of the impairment on you during the past 24 hours. For example:

• 0 = not present
• 1 = minimal, present but does not interfere with activities
• 2 = mild, some effect, interferes with activities but not disabling
• 3 = moderate, greatly interferes with activities
• 4 = extremely disabling, unable to function

 

Section 2  –  Summary of the 2010, 2012, and 2013 TBI Inventory Scores

Notes on the Table Data

The 2010 pre-accident events occurred in the 2007 to 2008 time period largely within the context of therapy sessions. These were acute events, not chronic, and did not persist through the years 2009 and 2010.  The 2012 data under counts actual events as inventory  items were scored with question marks, or missed entirely and left blank. The reason random items were omitted is unknown. The increase associated with 2013 reflects an assessment which incorporates all items, including all those missed in 2012. The higher 2013 total also reflects increased scores for items associated with depression and discouragement.

  Section 3 –  Review of the TBI Inventory data

There is a clear distinction between the TBI inventory scores from before and after the accident. A review of the notes associated with each 2010 TBI Inventory item clearly shows that if the subject had experienced these deficits prior to the accident he would not have been capable of performing to the mandated occupational requirements and likely would have had his employment terminated.

This was not the case. The subject was a valued employee and delivered excellent performance until the date of the MVA on March 06th 2011. It was his misfortune to suffer the loss of his work routine immediately after the accident. Combined with other circumstances, this made it extremely difficult for him to gain awareness of his injury, or its severity.

Section 4 – TBI Inventory Associated Posts

The following posts deal with the subject of the TBI Inventory

The initial post was made on August 27th 2013. This August post reproduces verbatim the entries made in a September 2012 spreadsheet listing of the TBI Inventory Items. This post may be found here:

September 2012 TBI Inventory

The following posts describe the provenance of the TBI Inventory and its diagnostic validity.

Thoughts on September 2012 Inventory
Provenance and Scoring Key for TBI Inventory
Validity of the TBI Inventory

The next set of links connect to each section of the 2013 TBI Inventory. Each section includes detailed notes on the changes between the 2012 and 2013 review dates. Note that this sequence of posts are not in chronological, or ordinal sequence. When viewing a specific section, clicking the NEXT button on the page will not take you to the next section of the analysis. You are better advised to click the browser BACK button, return to this page, and select the next section of the analysis that you wish to review.

2013 TBI Inventory Section 1 Analysis
2013 TBI Inventory Section 2 Analysis
2013 TBI Inventory Section 3 Analysis
2013 TBI Inventory Section 4 Analysis
2013 TBI Inventory Section 5 Analysis
2013 TBI Inventory Section 6 Analysis

The final set of links are associated with posts made subsequent to the discovery of the draft copy of section 1 of the 2013 TBI Inventory. These posts discuss the rationale for the 2010 TBI Inventory, describe the 2010 TBI Inventory and supplement it with notes which examine it within a work context. This series on the 2010 TBI Inventory concludes with a Part 3 summary post (this post).

2010 TBI Inventory Part 1 – Discussion of a 2010 TBI Inventory
2010 TBI Inventory Part 2 – The 2010 TBI Inventory Document

End Notes

The issues identified were acute in nature, were primarily evident during therapy sessions, and did not extend over the complete period prior to the accident of March 06th 2011. They were absent during the 2009, 2010, January to March 2011 period.

In the fall of 2007 I experienced crippling anxiety attacks while at work. These were precipitated by a fear of loss of employment arising from a work place rumour. I did not know anything of anxiety attacks and did not identify them as such.  I thought these events were signs of some pending mental illness and I sought therapy with Dr. D.

In the course of our therapy sessions, I experienced considerable difficulty addressing specific events from my past. Discussion of these events would trigger a high level of anxiety.  At some time in 2010 my employer altered my shift schedule to place me on an overnight shift. This made it very difficult to continue seeing Dr. D. I was secretly glad of this change as I wished to avoid encountering all of the problems experienced in therapy sessions.

Subsequent to the accident, I find I experience no anxiety despite having failed to locate employment and living on dwindling retirement savings. I find this to be very strange given that my initial reason for consulting Dr. D was due to anxiety attacks provoked by a work place rumour of job loss. This job loss is no longer rumour but is now fact; I am unable to explain my lack of anxiety in response to my current situation. This lack of anxiety was one of three key triggers that caused me to seek medical attention.

In conducting a review of the September 2012 and September 2013 TBI inventory data, I have found myself becoming very frustrated. Some of the terms are not understood by me, the response requires self-reporting, and I do not count myself as a reliable witness.

This morning I had the realization that for 12 years I worked in an environment recognized to be among the most stressful of workplaces. All call centre operations are closely monitored and employee performance is constantly checked. Every agent action is subject to scrutiny, all events are timed, each customer interaction is recorded. This recording includes screen grabs of the agent’s computer desktop in addition to a voice recording of all customer interaction. When I worked as a call centre QA assessor, I was able to pull up the agent’s entire record of past calls to determine when a performance deficit had commenced.

In addition to Quality Assurance monitoring of each agent’s work, the call centre technical support staff were required to spend two hours each day monitoring and scoring random agent calls. Each call centre manager was also required to spend two hours each day listening to the work of those agents under his / her supervision.

Each customer was requested to score his / her satisfaction with the agent’s performance at the end of the call. An outside 3rd party was employed to conduct random telephone surveys of recent customers and obtain a detailed response in regard to their satisfaction with call centre agent performance. The outcomes of these various surveys were reviewed with each agent on a regular basis.

Most employees found this work environment extremely stressful. If you were unable to deliver the expected standard of performance, you were subject to dismissal. The agent had no ability to control customer behaviour, or attitude, and was expected to respond in a polite manner to customer hostility and belligerence.

The agent had to accept any request placed by the customer. It did not matter if the issue fell outside the agent’s scope of responsibility, product knowledge, or skills training. I worked for the same global enterprise for over 12 years and, at the end of this time, I was still fielding calls in regard to products, and company operating units, that I had no idea even existed. I was required to handle the caller’s request in a manner satisfactory to the caller even when I had no understanding of the topic raised by the customer.

The IT industry is known for constant, rapid change. Over the course of 12 years with the same firm, I changed physical location more than 8 times. Each move meant a different physical location, often a different province. This movement does not reflect all of the regular internal changes in seating arrangements, in managers, colleagues, contacts, policies, hardware, desktop tools and interfaces. I handled all of these manifold changes without complaint, or problem.

I have encountered case studies in both the management literature, and in occupational psychology, which address call centre employment and describe it as the full realization of Bentham’s Panopticon. A consistent high level of employee stress arises due to the ongoing observation and micro-management of every aspect of employee behaviour and work performance. And within this environment, I delivered performance unequalled by any in my work group.

I have worked in a wide variety of occupational settings. These include the Federal government, the marine industry, creative industry (film), the engineering industry, and the oil industry. I also performed small business consultancy work while in Nova Scotia. In all this experience I have never encountered another work environment that is subject to such extreme constraints on employee task performance, to such narrowly defined productivity and performance requirements, or a workplace subject to such exhaustive monitoring and continual micro management. Yet I performed superlatively in this environment (largely because I did not care about the external monitoring; I was my own harshest critic and taskmaster).

I believe that any survey of the extant scientific literature on workplace environments would support the above description. I know that when I started employment in the call centre it was understood that call centre employment was one of the few occupations that would not result in a refusal of unemployment benefits if the employee were to quit. Even the Federal government recognized the difficult demands of the call centre work place.

In view of the above, I have undertaken to re-score the September 2012 TBI inventory. The scores are based on my memory of my behaviours during a period of employment which commenced in November 1999 and continued until the accident of March 06th 2011 without interruption.

I believe this analysis sheds considerable light on the changes which have become manifest since the accident of March 06th 2011.