Dynamics of a culture of workplace safety in human service organizations: A qualitative analysis

Abstract

Workplace cultures are an important component in creating safe work environments. In-depth qualitative interviews (n = 85) were conducted with human service workers of a large publicly administered human service organization in Canada to learn more about the organizational and/or workplace conditions that contribute to a safety culture. Findings reveal that a safety culture within this human service workplace is defined by values or attitudes associated with safety and structured mechanisms that help promote workplace safety. Insights from respondents help to identify areas for workplace and organizational development to promote health and safety within human service workplaces.

Keywords

Human services safety workplace culture workplace violence

Introduction

Recent studies have highlighted the high prevalence of workplace violence within some human service workplaces, and the subsequent implications on negative occupational health outcomes of workers (Barling et al., 2001; Daly et al., 2011; Figueiredo et al., 2018; Lanctôt and Guay, 2014). As a result, professional attention has been directed at identifying approaches to building healthy and safe workplaces (Loeppke et al., 2015). Such health and safety approaches aim to prevent violence in the workplace, including bullying, verbal abuse, threats, physical abuse, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse (Boyle and Wallis, 2016). Such approaches might include the incorporation of training mechanisms (Beech and Leather, 2006), more structured policies or other mechanisms that help to prevent workplace violence (Cheechak and Csiernik, 2014; Estrada et al., 2010; Lipscomb et al., 2012; Viitasara and Menckel, 2002), better hiring practices (Kondrasuk et al., 2001), and support for victims of workplace violence (Lewis et al., 2002).

Professionals and researchers alike are only beginning to understand how the ‘safety culture’ of an organization contributes to organization- and individual-level safety outcomes. This may be because the concept of safety culture is more complex than originally thought (Allen et al., 2010). Although the concept emerged in response to a growing number of catastrophic workplace accidents in North America (Guldenmund, 2010), and originally focused solely on working conditions (Zhu et al., 2010), it is now broadly defined as a shared set of beliefs and assumptions adopted by managers and teams which impacts safety behavior horizontally and laterally in an organization (Dodge, 2012; Guldenmund, 2010), including both attitudinal and social dimensions (Zhu et al., 2010).

The conceptual expansion of a workplace safety culture has encompassed new terminology now broadly used in the literature, including the concept of ‘safety climate’, defined as a combination of safety-related interpersonal interactions and coworker support for safety (Ancarani et al., 2017), and considered an important aspect of safety outcomes (Ancarani et al., 2017; Singer et al., 2009). Likewise, workplace safety culture and subsequent health and safety models are being addressed within many organizational systems, including within health promotion, management, and human resources teams (Mellor and Webster, 2013). Unfortunately, an equivalent empirical response that explores and evaluates the proliferation of health and safety models within social services is sorely lacking, and a need for further investigation across the sector is warranted (Dodge, 2012; Mellor and Webster, 2013). In addressing this paucity of knowledge, this study aimed to identify specific elements of workplace safety culture within human service workplaces, thereby contributing to an emerging knowledge base on the organizational mechanisms that support the development of a workplace safety culture that can be transferred or replicated across human service settings. Allen et al. (2010) conclude that qualitative research is a best fit for exploring safety culture as it includes a local engagement approach and works to identify strategies that improve culture as well as health and safety interventions. Similarly, qualitative methods were used in this study.

Literature review

Literature seeking to explore the complexities behind safety culture and health and safety models is limited to studies in for-profit (see Ali et al., 2009; Lorenzo et al., 2010) and healthcare (see Hooper and Charney, 2005; Patterson et al., 2010) related fields, with less focus on the human services (or nonprofit) sector and the organizations within which social workers work. Within this literature on safety cultures in workplaces, authors generally agree that improving safety culture has not been a key priority identified at an organization level (Allen et al., 2010; Dodge, 2012), and they report a lack of infrastructure devoted to improving safety, such as dedicated resources that support a health and safety model (Mellor and Webster, 2013). Though organizations have been commonly found to use policies to set standards for employee behavior, previous research has found that policy alone does not affect manager and staff safety behavior (Johnson et al., 2015). Such findings indicate that the creation and success of a health and safety model is highly dependent on how well developed the safety culture is within an organization (Loeppke et al., 2015).

Much of the literature on organizational outcomes of safety culture focus on the impact of leadership, suggesting that a leadership orientation that prioritizes safety supports the development of strong health and safety models (Mellor and Webster, 2013; Vogus et al., 2016). A common finding from this research includes a perceived lack of leadership at all levels to drive safety and improve safety culture (Allen et al., 2010; Dodge, 2012; Gauthereau and Mauleon, 2011). Supporting the intrinsic link between leadership and safety culture, Ancarani et al. (2017) found that the relationship between leader support for safety and individual safety behavior was mediated by support on safety issues and the creation of a shame-free environment. Similar findings suggest that managerial efforts to create a positive safety culture should be directed at the team level by providing freedom to report incidents, fostering staff learning, and recognizing how stress affects work performance (Ancarani et al., 2017; Vogus et al., 2016). Moreover, Mellor and Webster (2013) advocate the use of consistent management practices supporting safety, such as work planning, pro-safety interactions, appropriate resourcing, and self-assessment, while DeJoy (2005) calls for the creation of data and evaluation tools for health and safety programs. Broadly, successful health and safety models are conceptualized as managing complexity and uncertainty in an organization, including gaining a deep understanding of health and safety culture to determine key hazards and risks (Firoozi and Hatami, 2017).

Findings on individual-level safety outcomes provide further context for workplace safety culture in organizations. Empirically identified employee-level components of a health and safety model include open communication, employee empowerment, collaboration, recognition and reward, and opportunities for learning (Littlejohn et al., 2015). It is also suggested that the involvement of all stakeholders, including frontline staff, in the development of a health and safety plan leads to a stronger safety culture (Mellor and Webster, 2013). Studies on the safety climate of organizations show how safety climate is related to knowledge sharing among employees (Firoozi and Hatami, 2017), which is strongly related to safety performance behavior, psychological safety climate, and group safety climate (Christian et al., 2009). Using cross-sectional data from three surveys across 91 hospitals in the United States, Singer et al. (2009) found that institutions with a better safety climate and lower levels of shame and blame had lower levels of personal safety issues. Finally, positive safety culture has also been associated with lower levels of employee exhaustion (Vogus et al., 2016).

Despite early developments in research related to workplace safety culture and health and safety models, the knowledge base continues to include wide gaps of empirical inquiry for specific sectors. In the case of social services, a clear lack of research exists. This study will contribute one of the first exploratory ventures into workplace safety culture for this occupational setting.

Methods

Data were collected from a province-wide study in Alberta, Canada, in partnership with the provincial government and the provincial union representing workers. An ethics review was completed by a university ethics board and the ethics protocol was granted prior to data collection. In accordance with regulations on human subject research, and given the level of risk in disclosing experiences of violence within the workplace, we maintained anonymity and confidentiality of respondents and their responses, and all identifying information was removed from participant quotes.

Convenience sampling included various human service workers (n = 85) across government social service agencies, including child welfare, income security programs, and housing and community supports. Participation was voluntary and self-selected following the distribution of a recruitment letter to randomly selected employees with the publicly administered human service organization/department. The employer had no way of knowing who specifically participated in the research.

Trained researchers (n = 3) conducted one-to-one interviews over the telephone with respondents. Interviews were semi-structured and open ended. Verbal informed consent was achieved with each respondent, making clear that participation in the study was completely voluntary and that the respondent could abstain from answering questions or end the interview at any time.

Interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes, depending on the detail of responses and opportunities for respondents to elaborate on specific concepts. A semi-structured interview guide was used to elicit data on workplace culture and the health and safety climate of the organization, while also allowing the researchers to probe respondents where necessary. Examples of interview guide questions include the following: ‘What are some aspects of your work environment that contribute to your experiences with workplace violence and/or improve your sense of safety in the workplace?’, ‘Are there aspects of the organization’s culture that you think support your experiences with workplace violence or safety?’, and ‘Are there characteristics of the organizations structure or hierarchy that contribute to experiences with workplace violence or safety?’. Interviews were audio recorded and then transcribed verbatim by the researchers.

Analyses of interview data followed a pragmatic qualitative approach (Creswell, 2009; Miles and Huberman, 1994), utilizing content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) to identify themes related to specific characteristics of safety culture identified by respondents and how they may impact health and safety frameworks within the publicly administered human service organization. This technique reflected a grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), as themes related to the topic emerged during the process of data analysis. To operationalize this methodology, the researchers (n = 2) first independently coded data into general themes utilizing a systematic, inductive analytical approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Goetz and LeCompte, 1984) to further develop concepts discussed in the findings. These themes were then cross-referenced between the researchers to check for consistency between findings. After general themes were agreed upon, the researchers again independently analyzed data for more nuanced and specific cases. These data were grouped into sub-themes with the intention of qualifying each general theme. In the final round of analysis, the researchers compared findings and identified instances of overlap as well as discrepancies between findings. Any instances of divergent findings were further explored until there were no remaining outlying cases. This approach, known as ‘constant comparison’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Goetz and LeCompte, 1984), was combined with bracketing to maintain the trustworthiness of the findings (Grinnel and Unrau, 2005). Once findings were complete, a conceptual framework was built to visualize a proposed framework of organizational safety culture as it relates to effective models for health and safety in this publicly administered organization (see Figure 1). Theoretical saturation was achieved following the analysis of 20 interviews. However, all 85 interviews were analyzed following the coding process described previously. Respondents represented a range of work roles, in different areas of human service practice, and across multiple work sites. We wanted to maintain as representative of a sample of respondents in our analysis and to potentially identify any specific nuances related to position or practice area.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of workplace safety culture in human service workplaces.

Findings

Results from the analysis support a model of workplace culture that includes positive values of workplace safety (including expectations of safety in the workplace, a culture of openness, problem solving and conflict management, and positive perceptions of workplace safety) and mechanisms to prevent workplace violence (including policies protecting safety, messaging from leadership, taking a stance, training, and promoting healthy workplaces). The main themes identified in this study indicate broad targets for health and safety regimes, while sub-themes outline the operationalization of workplace safety culture within human service organizations. These findings are explained in further detail, using select quotes from respondents to contextualize each theme.

Positive workplace values of safety

The propagation of positive values of safety throughout a workplace was deemed critical to the success of any health and safety model by respondents. Positive workplace values of safety are enacted in workplace culture through the behaviors and interactions of employees (McPhaul et al., 2013). How positive workplace values of safety were diffused through a workplace culture, however, was a main concern of this study. Respondents described the diffusion of positive workplace values of safety as including expectations of safety in the workplace, a culture of openness, problem solving and conflict management, and positive perceptions of workplace safety.

For respondents, expectations of safety in the workplace set the standard for workplace safety behaviors. These expectations were made concrete through structural procedures that were designed to protect employees from harassment, such as anti-bullying policy and effective hiring practice. However, following similar findings from Johnson et al. (2015), health and safety-related policy was not a sufficient catalyst in building safety culture unless it was paired with a clear understanding of what bullying looks like at an individual level. In order for policy to become expectation, it had to be endorsed and effectively diffused through employee groups by management. One respondent touched on the challenge of enacting anti-bullying policy at an individual level:

I think having anti-bullying policies and making people aware of what is and isn’t considered bullying and making some really clear expectations come from senior management that these kinds of behaviors are okay or not is important because it sets the tone for what … we feel is acceptable behavior and what’s not. I don’t know, I guess it has to be an expectation. This is where human nature comes into it, right? Because we can say it’s the expectation that this won’t be tolerated but we all tolerate it. (D_7_1012)

Making the leap between policy and behavior change was found to be most challenging by respondents who were responsible for the implementation of health and safety frameworks, such as supervisors and managers. Considering specific aspects of safety culture helped to compartmentalize the process of building a cohesive health and safety model; for example, respondents emphasized how a culture of openness was an especially important facet of safety culture. This ‘openness’ included providing employees with the opportunity to openly and safely question superiors, and an ability to report issues of workplace safety without shame or fear of reprisal. Management could foster a culture of openness by facilitating conversations in meetings about what bullying is, allowing employees to feel comfortable with health and safety as a subject of importance in the workplace, and providing opportunities for disclosure of current or past safety issues. Organizations were found to support this process by opening lines of communication between different departments and levels, thereby making it easier to report issues of workplace safety. This is known to increase the overall responsiveness of an organization to the health and safety needs of its employees (Calcraft, 2005).

Unfortunately, many respondents described workplace cultures that were detrimental to the overall culture of openness, citing examples of not feeling comfortable bringing issues forward to superiors, and managers who held a dogmatic resistance to safety changes. Below, one respondent describes how a lack of openness led to a rigid and insular workplace environment:

Well if the expectation is that you do what you’re told and that you not question or you know, or speak up for yourself then it just promotes a culture where people in positions of power in particular can get away with a whole lot and there aren’t any repercussions and I think too when supervisors promote that kind of … management, it sends a clear message that ‘I am right, so don’t question me and don’t question anybody else who is above you’. (D_7_1012)

Another critical aspect of positive workplace values of safety that were identified as characterizing a safety culture was the presence of effective and safe approaches to problem solving and conflict management. Respondents quickly named conflict resolution and de-escalation skills as commonly utilized tools to help resolve issues of workplace safety in an effective manner. Furthermore, having third party supports that can mediate larger issues was found to be supportive of an effective problem-solving approach to workplace safety. These bodies commonly included union representatives or human resources personnel who could become involved when dealing with employee complaints or interpersonal issues. Respondents also found that clear and well-known anti-violence policies were useful as reference tools during the conflict management process. These themes are captured by the following respondent:

Human resource practices, well we have a human resource consultant who’s very closely associated with our division, and we have an employee reservations person. So if there is any issues, we have those two resources. We have all the policies and the respect in the workplace expectation … it’s an online training module that we take. (D_7_1003)

Collectively, aspects of positive values of safety contribute to overall positive perceptions of workplace safety. Such ‘positive perceptions’ have been discussed in the health and safety arena as attitudinal approaches and a cognizance of others’ safety (Baillien and De Witte, 2009; Bishop et al., 2005; McPhaul et al., 2013). For respondents in this study, positive perceptions were shaped by perceived organizational responsiveness to issues of safety, precautions for physical safety, and feeling supported during interpersonal issues in the workplace. However, many respondents did not share such positive perceptions. A substantial amount of data were collected that reflected incidents of consistent exposure to abuse from both clients and other staff, and sentiments of not feeling physically safe in the workspace. One respondent described how their workplace environment is prone to safety risks:

… we are dealing with a 24/7 stabilization, you know, recovery center with mental health and addiction. Some clients have brain injury, fetal alcohol, so there’s a lot of you know, aggression, behavior problems that we deal with on a day-to-day basis. So sometimes you know the exposure is really high … There are emergencies all the time and clients acting out or you know, incidents of violence … clients getting violent with each other or … harassing staff members. Those things are the nature of the work, physically. (B_3_1020)

By integrating exposure to violence as ‘the nature of the work’, this respondent normalizes exposure risks as an unavoidable and accepted aspect of their role (Taverner et al., 2016). According to Williams et al. (2014), normalization cognition can have dangerous effects on individual outcomes, including high levels of workplace stress. Some of this cognizance was reinforced when organizational responsiveness was low. One respondent commented on how the structure of the workplace impacted experiences of workplace violence:

I do feel that the hierarchical nature of (workplace structure) does … while it doesn’t perpetrate violence, it can sort of create an environment where workplace health and safety can be more easily compromised … because it does create a power imbalance … and if the … if your immediate supervisor is the one who is bullying you … or harassing you, the hierarchical structure can make it difficult for you to have recourse without repercussion upon yourself. But I think there’s also, in terms of the culture, a certain amount of sort of underground preference … or preferential treatment. (D_7_1022)

Experiences of violence exposure and subsequent lack of response from superiors framed many respondents’ convictions about workplace health and safety. The second general theme of mechanisms to prevent workplace violence focused on how organizations and individuals managed workplace health and safety in effective ways.

Mechanisms to prevent workplace violence

Respondents described various ways in which workplace violence can be addressed and prevented in social service organizations, including policies protecting safety, messaging from leadership, taking a stance, training, and promoting healthy workplaces. These sub-themes exemplified concrete ways in which employees engage with health and safety that (a) prevents a safety issue from escalating and doing more harm, and/or (b) prevents workplace violence altogether. Topics addressed by respondents often included interventions that could be used toward both of these ends. For example, policies protecting safety could be used as a guiding framework when managing safety issues, but may also work to deter violence when fully implemented (Rasmussen et al., 2013). Respondents specifically stated that policies aiming to limit opportunities for violence were most effective. This could include changes to the way employees engage with clients, the development of mandatory safety training, or policies that deter bullying and abuse. As well, open consultation processes were valued during the creation or amendment of workplace health and safety policies. This kept health and safety policy relevant and applicable to the service and/or work realities of employees. One respondent provided examples of health and safety policies and their use in practice:

Well yeah, it’s pretty clearly outlined you know, in our workspaces in particular. You know we pay a lot of attention to ergonomics. We pay a lot of attention to fire risks, chemical risks, and that’s not as big for us but there’s a potential there. Risks from clients, you know, what reports they need to fill out, how we should be responding, that’s all laid out for us … And so it’s very easy to be able to go back and refer to those documents if they need to and practice and refer back after something’s happened and say ‘what did we do right? What could we do better next time?’ (D_4_1026)

Strong messaging from leadership helped in clearly outlining what is and is not acceptable behavior in the workplace, through public service announcements and addressing safety in meetings. However, when a safety issue did arise, respondents discussed how leadership messaging helped them to report problems by dictating how workplace health and safety policy was to be implemented in practice. One respondent indicated a need for leadership to better endorse a health and safety framework and promote occupational health and safety standards:

… we also have, of course, occupational health and safety standards which we have (as) part of our HR department or branch that advises and supports and so on and so we do have those elements that are there as well … But truly when it comes to breeding that culture of psychological safety, I think we’ve got a lot of work to do and then part of that needs to be led through the organization as a whole but I think we need a strong leader on that and I think HR needs to be a part of that. (D_7_1023)

Another sub-theme of mechanisms to prevent workplace violence was taking a stance. This finding was articulated in a few ways by respondents. The act of ‘taking a stance’ was perceived by some respondents as an organizational dedication to a ‘zero-tolerance policy’ toward workplace violence, indicating that issues of workplace safety would be managed with the utmost priority. Likewise, a zero-tolerance approach provided opportunities for respondents to actively ‘call-out’ or label incidences as workplace violence. Other respondents understood ‘taking a stance’ as granting certain rights to employees which allowed for more control in situations where personal safety was at risk. For example, many respondents referenced having the power to abstain from talking to aggressive clients as one way to take a stance against violence. One respondent discussed how their workplace created a formal policy related to this issue:

… Like we just recently … built a formal policy about abusive language and conduct … so there’s a formal, ‘This is how you deal with someone who is swearing directly at you’ policy that we just built and that gives staff, the support staff saying, ‘This type of abuse I don’t have to put up with, this is not what is expected of me’. I can say, ‘You need to stop this or I’m going to end this interaction’ … Yeah, so I think to directly answer the question, on an organizational level, policies can be put in place to protect staff from recognized hazards so … in our case, we’re not dealing with noxious chemicals, we’re dealing with noxious people. The ability to say, ‘You can call back later once you’ve calmed down’, that’s very helpful. (C_7_1006)

Giving staff the ability to end violent interactions with clients is one form of empowerment that can counteract the deleterious effects of exposure to workplace violence (Privitera et al., 2005). Another act of empowerment cited by respondents was having the ability to ‘call out’ inappropriate behavior. This is exemplified in the quote above, where employees are instructed to label the interaction as ‘abuse’ and essentially expose violent behavior as such. To coach employees on dealing with interpersonal safety issues, organizations relied on various training curricula. This included building interpersonal skills that allowed employees to be competent in their work role by modeling how to effectively manage a violent interaction with a client. Other related training focused on workplace violence in general, and educated staff about violence prevention. One respondent commented on the variety of health and safety training programs available, and how it has benefited employees:

Yes I think that’s absolutely a huge piece of it is making sure that you know, the frontline staff is you know, very trained and very well aware of you know the different scenarios that they could be walking into and making sure that we’ve adequately trained them to respond in an appropriate manner … So we’ve really tried to get on the bandwagon with that and you know, tried to get as many staff as we can registered for those courses and we’ve had really, really positive feedback for anybody that’s attended those … It really highlights everyone’s responsibility for how they conduct themselves in a workplace and how they can contribute both positively and negatively to their work relationships. (B_4_1004)

Beyond messaging from leadership and training opportunities, respondents discussed how promoting healthy workplaces in general contributed to safety culture. Promotion was important in disseminating anti-violence policy and workplace health and safety initiatives, such as health and safety advisory committees. Some respondents commented on a general lack of awareness of health and safety within their workplace, and attributed this to poor implementation of policy related to health and safety. Promoting healthy workplaces was understood as a key component in changing commonly held assumptions about health and safety, or in triggering a conversation about the workplace safety environment. Capturing these themes, one respondent provided examples of how health and safety promotion occurs within their workplace:

Oh the constant pamphlets. You know the reiterating the newsletters. Things that some … like print material that’ll end up on the coffee table, not generated at anyone, it’s just general information. And I mean your email constantly has things as well. And the media … It generates a lot of discussion … And I mean if you have a real strong interest in it or you very strongly support or maybe not support something, the discussion would happen around your coffee break table. (A_6_1011)

Together, sub-themes related to mechanisms to prevent workplace violence offer tangible examples of how health and safety models are operationalized.

Discussion

This study was conducted in an effort to generate more exploratory data on the role of workplace safety culture and its impact on health and safety models within social service organizations. A paucity in knowledge regarding safety culture in public and social service contexts (Vogus et al., 2016) was a main impetus for collecting qualitative data on employee experiences of workplace health and safety. It was found that health and safety behavior was deeply embedded in perceptions of safety, and that behavior change often resulted in broader changes to the fabric of the safety culture. For example, respondents indicated that inappropriate responses from management during cases of reported bullying served to legitimize this behavior as an accepted part of the workplace. However, when a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy was bolstered with a whistleblowing strategy (described by respondents as ‘calling out’ poor behavior), bullying ceased and was replaced by a sense of empowerment, which strengthened safety culture. This finding is supported by early work from DeJoy (2005), who compared behavior change and culture change approaches to workplace safety and theorized that strengths from each approach can be merged into a more balanced and comprehensive method for managing safety.

Laden in many discussions on creating safety culture was the policy-to-practice gap experienced by frontline and management personnel alike. For some respondents, policy could be quickly enacted by implementing new practice in the form of training, team discussions, and changes to daily interactions. For other respondents, workplace health and safety policies were perceived as unreachable and irrelevant. For all parties, however, consensus could be found in the notion that workplace health and safety policy should be grounded in the practice realities of employees, and act as a protective factor against bullying and harassment. Some respondents expressed interest in policy development as a consultative process, indicating the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to health and safety (Kosny and Eakin, 2008). Such interactive processes may help narrow the leap between policy and practice (Lundrigan et al., 2010). However, even if health and safety policy is relevant, it requires consistent use in practice to gain any impact on safety culture. Health and safety policy demanded applicability and consequence, providing the appropriate amount of power for managers to be responsive to safety issues. For example, some respondents lamented the ambiguity of anti-bullying policy, identifying that policy language was not clear enough in defining bullying behavior and could not be applied to localized contexts. To avoid obscurity, health and safety policy needs the correct mixture of relevancy, ease-of-use, and tools to help employees act against unacceptable behavior in the workplace.

Data indicated that amid some formal approaches in the shape of policy and safety initiatives, safety culture was often developed in informal spaces, such as an office break room, or outside of formal meeting hours. Many respondents reported encountering health- and safety-related discussions and interactions in many different spaces, leading to the notion that safety culture encompasses daily informal interactions as well as formalized engagement strategies (Strandmark and Hallberg, 2007). This assertion makes logical sense because bullying and harassment are also prone to occur in more casual workplace contexts (Strandmark and Hallberg, 2007); therefore, it would follow that prevention tactics should encroach on both formal and informal interactions and spaces within the workplace. Promotional initiatives, policy, and health and safety interventions should acknowledge this and consider where and when discussions about safety can be fostered beyond the meeting room.

Finally, as predicted, findings from this study reveal how organizational safety culture and health and safety frameworks are inexorably linked, not necessarily because they always share commonalities, but because safety culture has an intrinsic impact on the viability of health and safety regimes within workplaces (Lundrigan et al., 2010). The use of both terms interchangeably in the data suggests that when a health and safety framework operates as an effective contributor to the safety of a workplace, it is not mutually exclusive to safety culture. Furthermore, because safety culture has an impact on both client and staff experiences of workplace violence, so too should a health and safety framework encompass all areas of potential exposure. Thus, these data and our study included instances of violence from both spheres, in an effort to model examples of how safety culture and requisite health and safety policy directed at staff interpersonal interactions can also have positive impacts on client engagement. For example, it was found that anti-bullying campaigns supported the development of clear expectations for what is and is not acceptable behavior in the workplace (which was then reflected in health and safety policy). This increase in awareness also led to the establishment of firm and enforceable boundaries for appropriate client behavior, providing staff with the power to end potentially violent interactions. This relationship is conceptualized in Figure 1. In sum, any attempt to develop a relevant and effective health and safety model should begin with a thorough investigation of safety culture.

Limitations

Data were gathered exclusively from qualitative interviews, which convey limitations to the generalizability of the findings. As a result, the conceptual model developed from this study requires further investigation to confirm its viability as an accurate representation of safety culture within the social services workplace context. Specifically, this model warrants further quantitative testing, such as factor analysis or structural equation modeling, to validate its worthiness as an empirically supported framework. Quantitative investigations can also be targeted toward the development of scales that can be built upon this research. Finally, although this research boasts a high sample size for a qualitative inquiry, respondents were sampled from a specific region of Canada and may not accurately represent safety cultures in social services in other provinces or other regions in the world. However, as an exploratory study, the findings are transferable as a foundation for understanding safety cultures in social services workplaces in other regions or local contexts globally. The nature of social work practice, the general work-related expectations of practitioners in the field, and the way that social work is undertaken within an organizational setting are comparable from one country context to the next. Likewise, the experiences of workplace violence among social workers are common globally.

Conclusion

Safety culture has been deemed a critical developmental component of health and safety regimes within social services (Firoozi and Hatami, 2017; Mellor and Webster, 2013). However, scant empirical inquiry has been directed at exploring how safety culture in an organization supports factors related to health and safety. This study endeavored to expose the elements of safety culture in a pragmatic way for the purpose of informing more health and safety models in the social service sector. Findings from this study supported a conceptual model of workplace safety culture as including positive values of workplace safety (including expectations of safety in the workplace, a culture of openness, problem solving and conflict management, and positive perceptions of workplace safety) and mechanisms to prevent workplace violence (including policies protecting safety, messaging from leadership, taking a stance, training, and promoting healthy workplaces). Together, these findings reveal important pathways to consider when developing health and safety models in social service organizations.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We greatly appreciate the generous support of our research partners who invaluably supported the research efforts, along with our research funders: The OHS Futures Research Funding Program, Ministry of Labour, Government of Alberta and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees.

ORCID iDs

Micheal L Shier

Aaron Turpin

Author biographies

Micheal L. Shier is Assistant Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Canada.

Aaron Turpin is a PhD candidate at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Canada

David B. Nicholas is Professor, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Canada.

John R. Graham is Director and Professor, School of Social Work, University of British Columbia (Okanagan), Canada.

References

Ali

Abdullah

N.A.C.

Subramaniam

(2009) ‘Management Practice in Safety Culture and Its Influence on Workplace Injury: An Industrial Study in Malaysia’, Disaster Prevention and Management 18(5): 470–7.

Allen

Chiarella

Homer

C.S.E.

(2010) ‘Lessons Learned from Measuring Safety Culture: An Australian Case Study’, Midwifery 26: 497–503.

Ancarani

Mauro

Giammanco

M.D.

(2017) ‘Hospital Safety Climate and Safety Behavior: A Social Exchange Perspective’, Health Care Management Review 42(4): 341–51.

Baillien

De Witte

(2009) ‘Why Is Organizational Change Related to Workplace Bullying? Role Conflict and Job Insecurity as Mediators’, Economic and Industrial Democracy 30(3): 348–71.

Barling

Rogers

A.G.

Kelloway

E.K.

(2001) ‘Behind Closed Doors: In-Home Workers’ Experience of Sexual Harassment and Workplace Violence’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6(3): 255–69.

Beech

Leather

(2006) ‘Workplace Violence in the Health Care Sector: A Review of Staff Training and Integration of Training Evaluation Models’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 11(1): 27–43.

Bishop

Korczynski

Cohen

(2005) ‘The Invisibility of Violence: Constructing Violence out of the Job Centre Workplace in the UK’, Work, Employment and Society 19(3): 583–602.

Boyle

M.J.

Wallis

(2016) ‘Working Towards a Definition for Workplace Violence Actions in the Health Sector’, Safety in Health 2: 4.

Calcraft

(2005) ‘Blowing the Whistle on Abuse’, Working with Older People 9(2): 18–21.

10.

Cheechak

Csiernik

(2014) ‘Canadian Perspective on Conceptualizing and Responding to Workplace Violence’, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health 29(1): 55–72.

11.

Christian

M.S.

Bradley

J.C.

Wallace

J.C.

Burke

M.J.

(2009) ‘Workplace Safety: A Meta-Analysis of the Roles of Person and Situation Factors’, Journal of Applied Psychology 94(5): 1103–1127.

12.

Creswell

J.W.

(2009) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

13.

Daly

Banerjee

Armstrong

Szebehely

(2011) ‘Lifting the “Violence Veil”: Examining Working Conditions in Long-Term Care Facilities Using Iterative Mixed Methods’, Canadian Journal on Aging 30(2): 271–84.

14.

DeJoy

D.M.

(2005) ‘Behaviour Change Versus Culture Change: Divergent Approaches to Managing Workplace Safety’, Safety Science 43: 105–29.

15.

Dodge

R.B.

(2012) ‘Patterns of Root Cause in Workplace Injury’, International Journal of Workplace Health Management 5(1): 31–43.

16.

Estrada

Nilsson

Jerre

Wikman

(2010) ‘Violence at Work – The Emergence of a Social Problem’, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 11(1): 46–65.

17.

Figueiredo

Suleman

Botelho

(2018) ‘Workplace Abuse and Harassment: The Vulnerability of Informal and Migrant Domestic Workers in Portugal’, Social Policy and Society 17(1): 65–85.

18.

Firoozi

N.H.

Hatami

(2017) ‘Health and Safety Culture as a Competitive Advantage for Knowledge-Based Organizations: An HSEC Model Perspective’, Knowledge and Process Management 24(3): 188–95.

19.

Gauthereau

Mauleon

(2011) ‘Promoting a Safety Culture in Health Care, Presenting a Relational-Interpretive Perspective’, Medicine Studies 2: 265–78.

20.

Glaser

B.G.

Strauss

A.L.

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Press.

21.

Goetz

J.P.

LeCompte

M.P.

(1984) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

22.

Grinnel

R.M.

Unrau

(2005) Social Work Research and Evaluation: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. New York: Cengage Learning.

23.

Guldenmund

F.W.

(2010) ‘(Mis)understanding Safety Culture and Its Relationship to Safety Management’, Risk Analysis 30(10): 1466–80.

24.

Hooper

J.P.T.

Charney

(2005) ‘Creation of Safety Culture: Reducing Workplace Injuries in a Rural Hospital Setting’, American Association of Occupational Health Nursing Journal 53(9): 394–8.

25.

Hsieh

H.-F.

Shannon

S.E.

(2005) ‘Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis’, Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–88.

26.

Johnson

S.L.

Boutain

D.M.

Tsai

J.H.C.

de Castro

A.B.

(2015) ‘An Investigation of Organizational and Regulatory Discourses of Workplace Bullying’, Workplace Health & Safety 63(10): 452–61.

27.

Kondrasuk

J.N.

Moore

Wang

(2001) ‘Negligent Hiring: The Emerging Contributor to Workplace Violence in the Public Sector’, Public Personnel Management 30(2): 185–95.

28.

Kosny

A.A.

Eakin

J.M.

(2008) ‘The Hazards of Helping: Work, Mission and Risk in Non-Profit Social Service Organizations’, Health, Risk & Society 10(2): 149–66.

29.

Lanctôt

Guay

(2014) ‘The Aftermath of Workplace Violence among Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Literature Review of the Consequences’, Aggression and Violent Behavior 19(5): 492–501.

30.

Lewis

Coursol

Herting Wahl

(2002) ‘Addressing Issues of Workplace Harassment: Counselling the Targets’, Journal of Employment Counseling 39(3): 109–16.

31.

Lipscomb

J.A.

London

Chen

Y.M.

Flannery

Watt

Geiger-Brown

Johnson

J.V.

McPhaul

(2012) ‘Safety Climate and Workplace Violence Prevention in State-Run Residential Addiction Treatment Centers’, Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation 42(1): 47–56.

32.

Littlejohn

Lukic

Margaryan

(2015) ‘Comparing Safety Culture to Learning Culture’, Risk Management 16(4): 272–93.

33.

Loeppke

R.R.

Hohn

Baase

Bunn

W.B.

Burton

W.N.

Eisenberg

B.S.

Ennis

Fabius

Hawkins

R.J.

Hudson

T.W.

Hymel

P.A.

Konicki

Larson

McLellan

R.K.

Roberts

M.A.

Usrey

Wallace

J.A.

Yarborough

C.M.

Siuba

(2015) ‘Integrating Health and Safety in the Workplace’, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 57(5): 585–97.

34.

Lorenzo

Esquade

Larson

(2010) ‘Safety and Ethics in the Global Workplace: Asymmetries in Culture and Infrastructure’, Journal of Business Ethics 92(87): 87–106.

35.

Lundrigan

Hutchings

Mathews

Lynch

Goosney

(2010) ‘A Risk Assessment Screening Tool for Community Health Care Workers’, Home Health Care Management 22(6): 403–407.

36.

McPhaul

K.M.

London

Lipscomb

J.A.

(2013) ‘A Framework for Translating Workplace Violence Intervention Research into Evidence-Based Programs’, Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 18(1): 4.

37.

Mellor

Webster

(2013) ‘Enablers and Challenges in Implementing a Comprehensive Workplace Health and Well-Being Approach’, International Journal of Workplace Health Management 6(2): 129–42.

38.

Miles

M.B.

Huberman

A.M.

(1994) An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

39.

Patterson

P.D.

Huang

D.T.

Fairbanks

R.J.

Simeone

Weaver

Wang

H.E.

(2010) ‘Variation in Emergency Medical Services Workplace Safety Culture’, Prehospital Emergency Care 14: 448–60.

40.

Privitera

Weisman

Cerrulli

Groman

(2005) ‘Violence toward Mental Health Staff and Safety in the Work Environment’, Occupational Medicine 55(6): 480–6.

41.

Rasmussen

Hogh

Andersen

(2013) ‘Threats and Physical Violence in the Workplace: A Comparative Study of Four Areas of Human Service Work’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28(1): 2749–69.

42.

Singer

Lin

Falwell

Gaba

Baker

(2009) ‘Relationship of Safety Climate and Safety Performance in Hospitals’, Health Research and Educational Trust 44(2): 399–421.

43.

Strandmark

M.K.

Hallberg

L.R.M.

(2007) ‘The Origin of Workplace Bullying: Experiences from the Perspective of Bully Victims in the Public Service Sector’, Journal of Nursing Management 15(3): 332–41.

44.

Taverner

Baumbusch

Taipale

(2016) ‘Normalization of Neglect: A Grounded Theory of RN’s Experiences as Family Caregivers of Hospitalized Seniors’, Canadian Journal on Aging 35(2): 215–228.

45.

Viitasara

Menchel

(2002) ‘Individual and Organizational Risk Factors for the Prevention of Violence in the Health Care Sector’, WORK: Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation 19(2): 117–23.

46.

Vogus

T.J.

Cull

M.J.

Hengelbrok

N.E.

Model

S.J.

Epstein

R.A.

(2016) ‘Assessing Safety Culture in Child Welfare: Evidence from Tennessee’, Children and Youth Services Review 65: 94–103.

47.

Williams

Hicks

Chang

Connor

Maliski

(2014) ‘Purposeful Normalization when Caring for Husbands Recovering from Prostate Cancer’, Qualitative Health Research 24(3): 306–16.

48.

Zhu

C.J.

Fan

Clissold

(2010) ‘Occupational Safety in China: Safety Climate and Its Influence on Safety-Related Behavior’, China Information 24(1): 27–59.