Workload and workplace safety in social service organizations

Abstract

Summary

Worker experiences of workload is a poorly understood component of health and safety practice in the social services sector. Job Demands-Resources theory is applied to explore how workload contributes to health and safety, workplace violence, and violence prevention. Data from qualitative interviews (n = 81) of workers in publicly administered social services in Western Canada were analyzed using analytic induction and constant comparison methods.

Findings

Qualitative themes highlight the role of Workload Management, Equal Distribution of Workload, Stress Management, and Flexibility on worker experiences with workplace violence prevention. These themes are further elaborated on and contextualized within a Job Demands-Resources framework. Finally, a conceptual model of workload management and health and safety is presented.

Applications

Findings highlight areas of workload development and innovation as a component of violence prevention interventions within social service workplaces.

Keywords

Social work health social service prevention work social workers

Introduction

Workplace violence, violence prevention, and workplace health and safety are important issues in the social service sector (Yang & Caughlin, 2017). However, empirical inquiry directed at locating characteristics and outcomes associated with workplace violence prevention remains minimal, oftentimes, sparse. Considering the fact that workplace violence is defined as involving many experiences, including bullying, verbal abuse, threats, physical abuse, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse (Boyle & Wallis, 2016), it is important to develop some thematic continuity based on common workplace characteristics that prevent violence from occurring. A common approach in social service organizations is the implementation of health and safety frameworks, designed to protect workers from experiencing unsafe and unhealthy workplace factors (Ducharme et al., 2007).

One specific workplace characteristic is workload, which can act as both a perpetuating and preventative factor within a social services context for workplace violence. While workload, as a common factor within human services workplaces, has been underexplored as contributing to workplace violence prevention, this is perhaps because workload can be confounded by other important health and safety related issues experienced by the worker, such as worker efficacy, supervisor support, and burnout (Stevens, 2008). However, some research reveals an increase in health risks as workloads increase and workers struggle to maintain professional responsibilities (Baines, 2004; Stevens, 2008). Other studies unfurl the negative influences of unmanageable workload on work and home life (Ilies et al., 2007). Ilies et al. (2007) theorize the rise in occupational health concerns as a byproduct of increased funding cuts in the social services, hinting toward a possible link between augmented autonomy, mounting professional expectations, and the obfuscation of work roles and the perpetuation of workplace violence and further deterioration of safe work spaces.

Studies, such as these that examine specific facets of workload, recognize the presence of complex workload systems that might contribute to workplace violence, albeit implicitly. In an effort to expand this line of inquiry, the present article focused on how social service workers experience workload management systems within a publicly administered social service context, and how those experiences either supported or prevented workplace violence, and therefore contributed to the health and safety of the work environment. Specifically, this study adopts a Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theoretical framework (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) to explain worker experiences of workload and its subsequent impact on workplace violence prevention within publicly administered social services. This research acknowledges that workplace violence can occur in many ways, including direct (for example, physical and verbal harassment) and indirect (for example, intimidation or gossiping) factors leading to the deterioration of health and well-being in staff. Therefore, it defines workplace violence as any use of power that leads to harm disadvantage, or injustice (Bufacchi, 2005). The main goal of this study is to use findings to develop a conceptual framework of workload factors and characteristics that contribute to health and safety in social service organizations.

JD-R asserts that job demands and resources relate to job outcomes (such as burnout or stress) and impact work engagement (Elst et al., 2016). Within a JD-R model, ‘job demands’ refers to the psychological and social aspects of a job that are sustained and may lead to social and psychological outcomes, and ‘resources’ are aspects of the job that support achieving work goals, help workers cope with job demands, and increase overall worker well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Two main assumptions are provided in the JD-R model: first, that increased job demands beget an increase in resources to effectively manage those demands. Failure to meet increased demands with resources may lead to a depletion of worker energy, leading a worker to feel ‘worn out’ or ‘burnt out’. Second, job resources are assumed to provide positive ways in which workers can cope with workload and achieve work goals, leading to improved personal and professional development (Crawford et al., 2010). Both elements of the JD-R model operate in tandem and it is the unique flux between demands and resources that shape worker and organizational outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Thus, the use of a JD-R model supports the study research goal of exploring how workload contributes to health and safety outcomes in social services, with a specific focus on workplace violence, which has been found to contribute to negative occupational health outcomes, such as burnout and psychological distress symptomology (Shier et al., 2018).

Literature review

Drawing on theory from the JD-R model, Stevens (2008) identifies three important relationships between workload and worker health and safety outcomes. These include: (1) high levels of workload are connected with negative outcomes in job performance and services; (2) high levels of workload are associated with negative outcomes on workers; and (3) high levels of workload are associated with worker burnout and turnover, leading to increased costs at an organization level.

Related to Stevens’ (2008) first point, few studies have provided insight about the relationship between workload and actual job and service outcomes in the social services. Of these studies, perceived workload and job demands have been related to job satisfaction in a sample of social workers (Cole et al., 2004) and professional engagement among human service workers (Martinussen et al., 2012) after controlling for various demographic variables. In a study of 408 social workers from a cross-sectional survey in California, Kim (2011) found that child welfare workers experienced higher workloads when compared to colleagues from other service areas, and this increased workload led to greater role conflict and more depersonalization within the job. Supporting more complex research modeling, studies such as Cole et al. (2004) examine relationships that lead to job and service outcomes; this study found that work efficacy can mediate the relationship between workload and satisfaction using self-report surveys taken from 232 social workers in Maryland, USA.

Expanding on Stevens’ (2008) second point about the relationship between workload and worker outcomes, workload has also been found to affect workers beyond job functioning by impacting overall personal well-being (Ilies et al., 2010; Shier & Graham, 2010). For example, a study by Estryn-Behar et al. (2008) sought to identify the prevalence of patient-to-worker violence in nursing to inform the development of occupational health and safety interventions. Multiple logistic regression tested the association between the frequency of violence and work factors using data from a survey and follow-up assessment of 39,894 nurses from 10 European countries; this study found that working only in the night shift, as well as high levels of job-related time pressure, increased the risk of workplace violence (Estryn-Behar et al., 2008). Other studies have found associations between workload and ‘work-to-family conflict’ (van Veldhoven & Beijer, 2012), defined as any situation where work-related issues interfere with family life (Frone et al., 1992). A study by Ilies et al. (2007) involved a longitudinal examination of antecedents and outcomes of work-to-family conflict using surveys from 106 employees and their spouses over two weeks. It was found that employee perception of workload predicted work-to-family conflict over time, even when controlling for the number of hours spent at work. Such studies outline the extent of workload issues in the lives of professionals (Ilies et al., 2007). However, these studies utilize samples from a variety of contexts outside of social work and social services, including nursing (Estryn-Behar et al., 2008), university workers (Ilies et al., 2007), and the general working population (Ilies et al., 2007). Related research on social workers is largely absent from the literature, and therefore the knowledge base lacks an application of these relationships to this specific context.

Lastly, related to Stevens’ (2008) final point about the relationship between job demands and resources, workload issues have been related to emotional exhaustion (Elst et al., 2016; Kowalski et al., 2010; Van Droogenbroeck et al., 2014), affective stress (Ilies et al., 2010), and burnout (Elst et al., 2016; Kowalski et al., 2010) in social service workers, leading to higher rates of turnover and higher costs for organizations (Stevens, 2008). Mitigating these risks, and supporting the job demand–resources model, is research on the positive effect of various job-related protective factors. Having more job resources has been found to contribute to higher levels of work engagement and lower burnout (Elst et al., 2016), while increased job control and organizational support has been found to attenuate the relationships between workload and affective distress and workload and high blood pressure (Ilies et al., 2010). Other factors found to weaken the relationship between workload and burnout include social support (Elst et al., 2016) and personal coping (Devereux et al., 2009). These findings support the efficacy of a JD-R model; however, perhaps more importantly, findings from studies on workload indicate a complex and poorly understood relationship between workload and workplace violence and violence prevention, as well as its relevance to health and safety frameworks. Further, while a JD-R approach is accurate by indicating how incongruencies between job demands and resources contribute to negative workplace outcomes, it does not fully explain how or why this occurs, or how this may also lead to workplace violence. To identify this gap, the following research engages in a deep qualitative analysis to locate connections between workplace responses to workload issues, and the positive and negative outcomes that may arise from this.

Methods

Data used in this research were gathered from a study in western Canada on health and safety in public social services. This study, in partnership with a provincial government, university, and labor union, was part of a broader examination of workplace factors contributing to health and safety, workplace violence, and violence prevention. An ethics protocol was approved by a university ethics board prior to data collection. Participating organizations included departments of a provincial government administered social service agency that directly engaged with service users, including child welfare services, income security programs, and other community support programs. Researchers used a convenience sample to reach a total of 81 respondents, relying on a recruitment letter that was randomly distributed to 800 (out of approximately 6200) workers across departments and work sites. All workers employed by a department providing social services during recruitment were deemed eligible for the study. See Table 1 for a summary of descriptive information gathered from respondents. Data on gender and age were not collected to protect the anonymity of the respondents. Though not all respondents were trained social workers, all had experience working in a social service capacity in some way. Data on occupational specificity of respondents were also not collected to maintain anonymity of respondents. All respondents were provided with study information and were informed that their participation was completely voluntary. Verbal and written informed consent was achieved with each respondent prior to conducting interviews.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of study sample (n = 81).

Variable	Number (percent)	Mean (standard deviation)	Response range
Years in the field		17.14	2–47
Highest education achieved
High school	13 (16.05)
College or undergraduate university	56 (69.13)
Graduate	12 (14.81)
Current position
Worker	16 (19.75)
Manager	25 (30.86)
Administration support	13 (16.05)
Senior management	18 (22.22)
Executive director	9 (11.11)
Work area
Family violence prevention and homeless supports	16 (23.45)
Child and family services	10 (12.34)
Employment and financial support	18 (22.22)
Disability services	8 (9.88)
Early childhood and community supports	15 (18.52)
Support to all work areas	14 (17.28)

Open-ended, one-to-one telephone interviews were conducted with each respondent, lasting from 30 to 45 minutes. Researchers utilized a semi-structured interview guide that allowed for flexibility in data collection; specifically, researchers were able to probe for more information when a respondent offered novel and/or topically important responses. Questions were designed to elicit information on how experiences of workload contributed to workplace violence and/or its prevention, including: 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?; What aspects of the way that your work is carried out might contribute to increased experiences of workplace violence?; What policies are in place to provide workplace safety?; and Are there characteristics of the organization’s structure or hierarchy that contribute to experiences with workplace violence? These questions were carefully constructed using a review of the literature and were written in plain language. They were kept intentionally broad to allow respondents to identify any aspect of workload they thought was important to their own health and safety, while probing questions were used to examine these in more detail. Researchers (n = 4) took precautions during the interview to ensure that respondents fully understood the questions by asking for verbal confirmation, and/or re-framing a question if the respondent did not understand. Interviews were audio recorded (with the permission of the respondent) and transcribed verbatim by the researchers. To help manage biases, all researchers made an effort to capture their subjective reactions to respondent-provided information by recording them on paper during interviews. This supported the in-situ awareness of personal bias during data collection, which helped researchers be more objective during interviews. These notes were also considered during data analysis as a reference of where bias might have impacted data collection.

The framework for analysis followed a pragmatic qualitative approach (Creswell, 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1994) that utilized content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) to develop specific themes relating to how workload affected workplace health and safety for respondents. This technique reflected a grounded theory approach to data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), as findings were emergent properties in the data that were developed over the analytic process. To begin, researchers first independently examined the transcripts and coded data into general themes that broadly described the impact of workload on respondent’s experiences with workplace violence and/or safety. These general themes were then compared between researchers to examine continuity across findings. Next, researchers individually analyzed each general theme to provide specific codes pertaining to how the themes were enacted in practice. These ‘sub-themes’ consisted of tangible actions and behaviors that were consistent across the data. Finally, researchers again cross-referenced their analyses and examined discrepancies by scrutinizing the conceptual validity of each finding. This approach is known as ‘constant comparison’ (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goetz & Lecompte, 1984), and it is best used to support the rich development of theoretical findings. A thorough grounded theory analysis, combined with the bracketing technique described above, contributes to the overall trustworthiness of the findings (Grinnell & Unrau, 2005).

Though grounded theory techniques are inductive by nature (Miles & Huberman, 1994), researchers adopted a novel theoretical lens (JD-R) in analyzing the data for the purpose of providing a general scope from which to contextualize the findings. Final themes were arrived at by utilizing the qualitative methodology described above; however, these themes were given further meaning by comparing findings to the JD-R framework. Similar approaches to grounded theory studies have been completed (for examples, see: Patterson et al., 2015; Sawatsky et al., 2018) and demonstrate the efficacy of this approach.

Results

Findings from this study support a conceptual model that integrates four concepts related to workload quality and equity that contribute to health and safety in social service organizations. Specifically, respondents were asked to identify aspects of workload that may lead to experiences of workplace violence or workplace violence prevention. These aspects informed broader factors of health and safety in the workplace, and included: Workload Management, Equal Distribution of Workload, Stress Management, and Flexibility. These findings are conceptualized within a model, as shown in Figure 1, with the interior spheres signifying general themes, orbited by sub-themes that qualify each finding. Below, findings are explored by describing themes within a JD-R lens, and contextualized in quotes taken from the data.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of workload in the context of workplace health and safety in the social services workplace.

Most study participants were able to provide examples of issues related to Workload Management that affect workplace health and safety. Workload management is broadly defined by Orme (1995) as the process of how individuals and organizations prioritize and balance job tasks according to a specific approach to allocating work. This definition is especially relevant, as respondents commenting on workload management tended to focus on institutional aspects that influenced workload management, such as how their workload management system catered to a healthy work/life balance, and how departments were staffed according to workload. As an example of how workload management was linked to institutional practice, a supervisor offered the following: “[…] a lot of the other policies that support sort of work life balance and insulate are the results of union contracts … and then again, it’s departmental how those union contracts are applied and respected” (7_1006).

In this excerpt, a respondent described how work/life balance is achieved through organizational policy but applied in a localized work environment context. Importantly, this provides an instance of a worker finding institutional relevance in their individual experience of workload, alluding to the importance of organizational properties (such as management systems and resources) that generate specific perceptions and experiences of a job (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

When workload is mismanaged and organizational policy fails to meet the demands of service, real threats to health and safety can arise, as evidenced by one manager’s description of an inadequate staffing issue:

[…], you may come on for your shift and there should be four people on and you find out you’ve only got two … So basically you’ve left one person here on site who’s tied up in a medication room … With seventy-odd clients … You know, it is really unsafe. (3_1001)

This respondent provided a clear example of an incongruency between demands and resources in the workplace, leading to an overburdening in workload and possibly an issue with personal safety and workplace violence. In events where multiple demands are placed on staff, resources are stretched beyond capacity in unprepared organizations. This is clearly the case for this respondent, who reports a lack of support during busier work hours. In response to this issue, organizations should be able to plan for periods of increased service use by staffing accordingly.

A few respondents provided rich examples of how workload management decisions were made on a project level according to different institutional constraints, such as budget, deadlines, and meeting predetermined outcomes, and not based on worker experiences and needs, which subsequently resulted in increased risks of violence placed on workers. For example, some respondents detailed how organizational guidelines can determine the management of a project and lead to changes in workload for workers. Simple management tools such as deadlines were acknowledged to be a contributing factor to increased volume and unmanageable workloads. One senior manager commented on this issue specifically:

[…]People being given deadlines where they’re not reasonable, and I think in part it becomes they don’t inform or push back to their own boss to say that’s not a reasonable timeline, but then they just take it as a marching order and then it gets pushed down the line. (7_1001)

Interestingly, this respondent identifies a problem with the way staff react to unreasonable deadlines, where instead of advocating for more manageable workload structures, staff are liable to take on large amounts of work over short periods of time. This may be a result of workplace culture, in that overly stressful or difficult project timelines may be normalized as ordinary aspects of the job (Taverner et al., Taipale, 2016), leading unquestioned workload practices. When staff “push back” (in the words of this respondent), it can be perceived as an inability to complete one’s job (Taverner et al., 2016). Therefore, staff may choose not to complain about unreasonable workloads for fear of being misjudged as incapable or unwilling to contribute. This fear must be addressed if a workload management system is to achieve healthy balance.

A second related theme of workload that the vast majority of respondents indicated as a contributing factor to their experiences with workplace violence was Distribution of Workload. Many respondents were eager to discuss their workload as being unequally distributed across an organization. However, their experience of this distribution and its effects on worker well-being were a result of inter-personal interactions between workers and their superiors, instead of purely a reaction to policy. This revealed an intrinsic relationship between individual approaches to workload and the broader social services workplace environment (Savaya, 2014). For example, respondents indicated that communicating workload issues to other workers and managers was helpful; this increased workload transparency and allowed managers to better deal with workload distribution responsibilities. One frontline worker examined how an increased awareness of workloads can inform effective decisions related to distribution:

… workload issues … are people … is the work distributed evenly? Are there some people doing more work than others? Are there issues with rules? … These are issues that have to be dealt with at a management level and when they’re not, I mean that just completely negates any morale that there is in the office. (7_1009)

The above respondent provided an example of lateral responses to workload distribution; that is, how an engaged and relevant workload intervention from managers can create more equitable solutions to work distribution. Moreover, this lateral solution is deemed to be effective only when management gains a realistic idea of how workload distribution affects staff. Workload issues are defined as “people”, perhaps in an effort to humanize the very personal consequences of how work is distributed across an organization. The respondent then continues to reveal the inter-personal nature of workload distribution by equating a failure in problem-solving to an overall decline in morale, showing how unresolved issues affect work groups as a whole.

Some respondents also provided examples of horizontal approaches that illuminated between-worker responses to workload distribution. Of note, a supervisor highlighted how mutual support between workers allowed colleagues to share workload when one person feels overburdened or cannot complete assigned tasks:

I find that if somebody is away or somebody is not having a good day, the other people will gather around and pick it up … And they’re very good about not complaining about people being away, but putting together ‘okay, how can we best facilitate this?’ (7_1010)

The mutual-aid processes described by this respondent represent an informal response to finding solutions for workload-related issues. Members of a team may feel a shared sense of responsibility that causes them to act on behalf of others, dedicating efforts to closing workload gaps that may be caused during unexpected shortages in resources. This respondent is providing an example of a protective factor that allows effective workload redistribution and is bolstered by a sense of common purpose among a team.

Professional relationships and the socio-cultural context of a workplace are cited as a major professional component that can buffer workplace violence outcomes related to high workload demands (Dagan et al., 2016). However, despite any protective social factors that may be present, many respondents continued to cite negative consequences that were common to unequal workload distribution systems. These included feeling resentment and anger for being exploited, and an overall sentiment of unfairness in regards to the distribution of workload among workers with different titles and salaries. One frontline worker voiced this concern:

… they are getting the same salary as you are, but you’re doing far more work on the file than they are … And that can contribute to the –the frustration and the – the build-up of anger and resentment … a word I hear a lot around here is ‘unfairness’. (5_1018)

This respondent alludes to a novel finding shared between many in the sample: While workload distribution may contribute to stress by increasing workload beyond individual capacity, the perceptions of distribution held by staff may be equally harmful. Respondents with similar feedback have shown that beyond job descriptions and workload expectations, perceived distribution across staff of the same rank carries equal weight as a contributor to workplace violence. In the example provided by this respondent, anger and resentment become pent-up as a perceived imbalance in workload distribution among colleagues leads to ongoing frustrations. This subtle but certainly powerful aspect of workload distribution is a key consideration in formulating more effective work plans.

Many other respondents alluded to a theme represented both in the data and within a JD-R model: a positive relationship shared between workload and stress, or Stress Management. Explained broadly by close to all respondents, it is clear that increased workloads subsequently increase risk for experiencing adverse stress, leading to burnout—an indirect form of workplace violence (Pihl-Thingvad et al., 2019). One frontline worker captured this theme by saying: “High workloads in our line of work, our volume is crazy. Like it’s … busy right now and it generally doesn’t slow down. So there are always tensions … Personality conflicts, I mean people deal with stress in different ways” (7_1004).

A JD-R framework further clarifies the relationship between workload and stress by examining how organizations respond to increased workload with appropriate resources, such as overtime pay or changes in staffing (Elst et al., 2016). When resources are misallocated, workers are more vulnerable to experiencing higher levels of workplace stressors, putting them at increased risk of experiencing workplace violence (Baldwin-White, 2016; Garner et al., 2007; Savaya, 2014). However, the majority of respondents from this study explain the workload–stress relationship within a novel workplace health and safety approach, captured under the theme of stress management. An especially relevant finding under the theme of stress management included the normalizing of high levels of stress by respondents, attributing it to a generally accepted aspect of social services work. One senior manager commented:

[…] Yes we are a high stress organization just by the nature of the work we provide … yet it is kind of unfortunately the norm, the high stress … I would say that our staff are maybe not immune but it is a normal environment for them. (5_1014)

This respondents’ perception of stress echoes a process of normalizing subjective distress experienced by workers and perpetuated by workload. By normalizing workload-induced stress, the worker creates a cognitive dissonance between a burdensome workload and the perceived normalization of this aspect of the job (Taverner et al., 2016). According to Williams et al. (2014), the normalization of experienced stress is itself a coping strategy, allowing workers to integrate stress into their job experience. The result, however, can be destructive, as one manager explained:

… staff are overloaded. They have high caseloads and they are dealing with significantly high-risk families and lots of crises, and as a result I think that sometimes they have so much going on that they don’t make good decisions in regards to when they should and should not respond to situations. (5_1014)

Conceptually, the connections between workload and workplace violence may not always be obvious. However, accounts like the one provided by this respondent clearly show how over-worked, stressed staff are at higher risk of experiencing violence in the workplace. As workloads become unmanageable, overwhelmed staff may lose their practical judgment and wisdom as they attempt to cope with multiple competing demands. Consequently, decision making in practice becomes flawed, as this respondent explains, potentially opening opportunities for violence.

High levels of stress were also connected to vicarious trauma (or indirect violence) experienced by workers, especially when this trauma was not managed professionally and left to affect workers over time. One frontline worker explained: “ … we deal with a lot of vulnerable individuals who have had some pretty significant traumas in their life … when clients disclose like sexual abuse, domestic violence, and their interpersonal relationships this has impact on you” (5_1019).

This respondent comments specifically on exposure to personal client stories involving abuse, and how multiple exposures over time can have long-lasting negative effects. Exposure to trauma of this magnitude and consistency can have different effects on the health of workers. Long-term effects of vicarious trauma are well documented in the literature (see Dagan et al., 2016; Munger et al., 2015; Raunick et al., 2015) and were discussed by many respondents in this study as a form of direct and indirect violence experienced when engaged with service users. While respondents were initially affected by vicarious trauma leading to stress and psychological harm, it also had a lasting effect as workers became desensitized to trauma and ignored how it may be impacting their health. Ongoing, unsupported trauma exposure was then linked to potential for outbursts and emotional dysregulation at work, which could have violent tendencies. While this traumatic stress was normalized by many respondents, it was sometimes mitigated by job resources that included opportunities to de-stress, either by participating in non-work-related office activities, or by engaging in programs that acknowledge and discuss work-related stress and trauma, such as counseling or peer support groups. One administrative support staff described how small, purposed de-stressing activities help maintain worker wellness and provided a positive stress coping strategy: “ … we work quite hard on our … health and wellness for the staff, so we do hold a lot of events. We have yoga … meditation … craft activities … It’s good mental health stress relieving” (7_1008).

Of note, this respondent comments on the variety and consistency of wellness activities available at her workplace. This provides options for staff to seek different types of support, try new coping strategies, and engage or disengage with wellness and violence prevention programs as they saw fit. This respondent evidenced multiple supports that may appeal to different staff, and showed how the organization takes staff wellness and violence prevention seriously and with priority.

Lastly, the theme of Flexibility encompassed the varied ways in which workers were given the opportunity to manage workload in a way that was conducive to creating an atmosphere of workplace health and safety and violence prevention, by recognizing the unique needs of each worker. This included having options to drop and/or extend projects when workload increased, and having the autonomy to complete tasks within deadlines that made sense with a corresponding workload. One senior manager articulated an office policy that supported similar work flexibility:

[…]. It’s also communicating that it’s okay not to meet that standard as long as you’re providing a rationale for that. I think clear communication around standards and what happens if you don’t meet the standard is really important so staff can feel comfortable around how they are managing their time. (7_1007)

This respondent describes how staff appreciated when supervisors and/or managers defined expectations of work production, and provided opportunities for staff to make their own decisions regarding the management of specific tasks. Being able to openly discuss challenges related to workload is also of importance to this respondent. In this environment, staff are able to manage deadlines and even neglect them if extenuating circumstances prevent accomplishing work on time. This may alleviate pressures to expedite work tasks or producing poor work outcomes by providing the staff with more control over how and when tasks are accomplished, therefore reducing workload-related stress and workplace violence.

Providing opportunities for extended flexibility in job task completion can be recognized as a management tool, but has equal relevance within a JD-R model. When organizations provide opportunities that increase worker autonomy and control over how job tasks are completed, the ability to effectively manage workload increases (Juby & Scannapieco, 2007). Examples provided by respondents include banking unused break hours for time off, increased sick and family caregiver days, and hiring temporary workers during periods of high demand for time off, such as the summer or during holidays. This can have profound effects on workplace climate, staff perceptions of the organization, and work productivity. However, when such resources are not available, or they are not advertised as viable options, workers risk affecting their own wellness. One manager describes:

… we don’t take enough time, our senior leadership and those of us as their colleagues, to remind each other to take those personal times and … to take care of yourself. There is always going to be someone else who can backfill … (7_1017)

This respondent indicated an overall neglect of staff well-being within his work environment. Importantly, self-care is discussed as a factor which is supported when staff show they care for one another, and encourage the use of any workload flexibility to focus on wellness. The responsibility for wellness is described as shared among senior leadership and colleagues, indicating that the use of flexible workload options must be actively supported at all levels of an organization.

Respondents from this study identified issues related to workload that contribute to experiences of workplace health and safety, as well as workplace violence in the social services that were both novel and supported by theory on a JD-R framework. Together, these findings provide a framework of worker perceptions of the relationship between workload and work-related expectations with experiences of safety and violence within the workplace.

Discussion

Respondents defined workload as a workplace variable with multiple layers and fluidity across contexts, with varied implications for workplace health and safety and violence prevention. Indeed, responses to workload changed according to the types of services provided, the structure of each organizational department, and the unique roles of workers, including job expectations and type of work being performed (for example, outreach, counseling, investigations, etc.). For example, respondents in this study who occupied direct service roles tended to focus on how workload impacted their ability to manage multiple responsibilities and maintain mental and psychological well-being. These challenges often led to increased risk of experiencing violence in the workplace, and reflected a more oppressive model of workload, where tasks are ‘downloaded’ on workers, perhaps beyond their control (McFadden et al., 2015). Conversely, management and senior staff respondents emphasized systems of workload with input and outputs, relying on descriptions of how decision making creates chains of workflow throughout an organization (Clocca et al., 2014), and were less likely to comment on individual consequences. Beyond differences in conceptualization between workers, it was clear that perceptions of workload were highly contextual, dependent on departmental, team, and individual factors to which experiences of workload are intrinsically bound (Helton et al., 2014). Accordingly, this research supported a micro-lens to the JD-R model, and is applied according to worker experience of workplace environment, including highly personalized encounters with socio-, political-, and intra-personal-contextual workplace factors (Crawford et al., 2010).

Within a JD-R model, it is the flux between ‘demands’ and ‘resources’ that dictates outcomes for task completion and worker well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In this research, two main types of ‘resources’ were provided by respondents: systems resources, which included strategies to manage workload by developing organizational systems of distribution, decision making, and policy related to task completion (e.g. extended deadlines, caseload quotas, and time management options), and interpersonal resources, which included the development of informal support networks (e.g. social capital, mutual help, and team cohesion). Both systems and interpersonal resources supported the management of workloads by providing tools to alleviate demands, and mechanisms to mitigate long-term stress, and subsequently contributed to a healthier and safer workplace. Importantly, respondents stressed that organizations must consider if and how these resources were addressing workload issues and preventing workplace violence, and consider developing new resources on an as-needed basis.

One consideration informed by the findings is that providing worker resources without giving careful consideration to the nature of the workload problem in an organization could result in a failure to address the specific needs of workers. Similar mismanagement could also result in financial costs to the organization, including expenditures related to unnecessary workload interventions, and costs associated with staff suffering from burnout. Further to the above discussion on workload issues relating to contextual factors, it would be irresponsible to assume that all or any of the proposed resources offer a panacea solution across the social service sector. Within a JD-R model, the relationship between job demands and organizational resources is symbiotic and mutually relevant (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Thus, responses to workload issues should be formulated on the unique features of the organization, as well as the problems encountered by workers. Being responsive to workload issues means providing relevant and timely interventions that allow workers to safely manage workloads by using appropriate tools.

Finally, some of the most powerful examples provided by respondents outlined job resources that were preventative rather than reactionary. Namely, strategies that aimed to prevent violence by mitigating stress and overburdening workers (as opposed to strategies that aimed to treat these symptoms) were most effective, and certainly most relevant to a workplace health and safety model. Preventative resources are also more cost-effective for an organization (Stevens, 2008) and can be implemented as risk management tools (Chatwin et al., 2008). Organizations that seriously considered the effect of workload on workplace violence and worker outcomes utilized an effective workplace health and safety regime that included workload management, equal distribution of workload, stress management, and flexibility. Together, these elements contributed to safe and effective workloads, and safe workplace environments.

Limitations

Findings from this study can be used to inform the development of workplace health and safety interventions; however, the qualitative nature of this study limits generalizability. Other limitations include the geographic area in which respondents were sampled (the sample frame was limited to western Canada only) and the exclusion of other sectors beyond publicly administered social services. Further, the sample in this study included only workers and not service users. Consequently, issues of workplace violence and health and safety were not verified or further explored from a service user perspective. Doing so may have controlled for bias in the research, including social desirability in worker responses. Researchers chose a grounded theory approach (as opposed to other analytic techniques, such as discourse analysis or narrative theory) to achieve the study aim of developing factors based on common themes, but in the process neglected related methods of analysis that may have contributed other findings beyond the scope of this study. However, authors believe that a large sample size (n = 81) and the heterogeneity across service contexts from which this sample was derived add strength to the contextual applicability of the findings.

Conclusion

Research on elements of workplace health and safety and violence prevention in the social services has lacked continuity across studies. Workload, however, is a common factor across all social service workplace settings. Further, research on the relationship between workload and health and safety tends to treat the former issue superficially, without unraveling the complexities behind workload management systems, how they are experienced by frontline workers, and how they may contribute to workplace violence or violence prevention (Holden et al., 2011). The findings from this study help to expand our understanding of the specific nuances of workload and how it can be managed to more effectively support workplace safety and prevent violence. This includes factors related to Workload Management, Equal Distribution of Workload, Stress Management, and Flexibility within social service organizations. Themes expressed in this study contribute to developing initial conceptual work that can be built on in future work, especially research on scale development and quantitative modeling. This may include exploring salient relationships between worker characteristics (such as length of time in position or gender) and experiences of workload leading to health and safety outcomes. The design of this study indicates a new level of inquiry by formulating nuanced, worker-focused conceptions of workload in an exploratory approach.

Footnotes

Ethics

Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Ethics Review Board under file number REB15-0018.

Funding

The authors 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.

Acknowledgments

All contributors to this publication have been credited as authors.

ORCID iD

Aaron Turpin

References

Baines

(2004). Women’s occupational health in social services: Stress, violence, and workload. Canadian Woman Studies, 23(3), 157–164. http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/docview/217458341?accountid=14771

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The Job Demands–Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Baldwin-White

(2016). Psychological distress and substance abuse counselors: An exploratory pilot study of multiple dimensions of burnout. Journal of Substance Use, 21(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.3109/14659891.2014.949316

Boyle

M. J.

Wallis

(2016). Working towards a definition for workplace violence actions in the health sector. Safety in Health, 2(4), n.p. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40886-016-0015-8

Bufacchi

(2005). Two concepts of violence. Political Studies Review, 3, 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2005.00023.x

Chatwin

Hanak

H. A.

Polkey

M. I.

Wilson

Simonds

A. K.

(2008). Analysis of emergency helpline support for home ventilator dependent patients: Risk management and workload. European Respiratory Review, 17(107), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1183/09059180.00010705

Clocca

Corchs

Gasparini

Schettini

(2014). How to assess image quality within a workflow chain: An overview. International Journal of Digital Labour, 15(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-014-0124-0

Cole

Panchanadeswaran

Daining

(2004). Predictors of job satisfaction of licensed social workers: Perceived efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between workload and job satisfaction. Journal of Social Service Research, 31(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v31n01_01

Crawford

E. R.

LePine

Rich

B. L.

(2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

11.

Dagan

S. W.

Ben-Porat

Itzhaky

(2016). Child protection workers dealing with child abuse: The contribution of personal, social and organizational resources to secondary traumatization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 51, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2011.575333

12.

Devereux

J. M.

Hastings

R. P.

Noone

S. J.

Firth.

Totsika

(2009). Social support and coping as mediators or moderators of the impact of work stressors on burnout in intellectual disability support staff. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(2), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2008.07.002

13.

Ducharme

L. J.

Knudsen

H. K.

Roman

P. M.

(2007). Emotional exhaustion and turnover intention in human service occupations: The protective role of coworker support. Sociological Spectrum, 28(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170701675268

14.

Elst

T. V.

Cavents

Daneels

Johannik

Baillien

Van den Broeck

Godderis

(2016). Job demands-resources predicting burnout and work engagement among Belgian home health care nurses: A cross-sectional study. Nursing Outlook, 64(6), 542–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2016.06.004

15.

Estryn-Behar

der Heijden

Camerino.

Fry

Le Nezet

Conway

P. M.

Hasselhorn

H. M.

(2008). Violence risks in nursing – Results from the European ‘NEXT’ study. Occupational Medicine, 58(2), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqm142

16.

Frone

M. R.

Russell

Cooper

M. L.

(1992). Prevalence of work-family conflict: Are work and family boundaries asymmetrically permeable? Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13(7), 723–729. https://doi.org/08943796/92/07072347

17.

Garner

B. R.

Knight

Simpson

D. D.

(2007). Burnout among corrections-based drug treatment staff impact of individual and organizational factors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(5), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X06298708

18.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Press.

19.

Goetz

J. P.

LeCompte

M. P.

(1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Academic Press.

20.

Grinnell

R. M.

Unrau

(2005). Social work research and evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Cengage Learning.

21.

Helton

W. S.

Funke

G. J.

Knott

B. A.

(2014). Measuring workload in collaborative contexts: Trait versus state perspectives. Human Factors, 56(2), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813490727

22.

Holden

R. J.

Scanlon

M. C.

Patel

N. R.

Kaushal

Escoto

K. H.

Brown

R. L.

Alper

S. J.

Arnold

J. M.

Shalaby

T. M.

Murkowski

Karsh

B. T.

(2011). A human factors framework and study of the effect of nursing workload on patient safety and employee quality of working life. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2008.028381

23.

Hsieh

H-F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

24.

Ilies

Dimotakis

De Pater

I. E.

(2010). Psychological and physiological reactions to high workloads: Implications for well-being. Personnel Psychology, 63(2), 407–436. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1744-6570

25.

Ilies

Schwind

K. M.

Wagner.

D. T.

Johnson

M. D.

DeRue

D. S.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2007). When can employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work–family conflict and social behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1368–1379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1368

26.

Juby

Scannapieco

(2007). Characteristics of workload management in public child welfare agencies. Administration in Social Work, 31(3), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v31n03_06

27.

Kim

(2011). Job conditions, unmet expectations, and burnout in public child welfare workers: How different from other social workers? Children and Youth Services Review, 33(2), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.10.001

28.

Kowalski

Driller

Ernstmann

Alich

Katbach

Ommen

Schulz-Nieswandt

Pfaff

(2010). Associations between emotional exhaustion, social capital, workload, and latitude in decision-making among professionals working with people with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(2), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.10.021

29.

McFadden

Campbell

Taylor

(2015). Resilience and burnout in child protection work: Individual and organisational themes from a systematic literature review. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(5), 1546–1563. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct210

30.

Martinussen

Adolfsen

Lauritzen

Richardson

A. M.

(2012). Improving interprofessional collaboration in a community setting: Relationships with burnout, engagement and service quality. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26(3), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2011.647125

31.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

32.

Munger

Savage

Panosky

D. M.

(2015). When caring for perpetrators becomes a sentence: Recognizing vicarious trauma. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 21(4), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345815599976

33.

Orme

(1995). Workloads: Measurement and management. Avebury Ashgate.

34.

Patterson

B. A. B.

Munoz

Abrams

Bass

(2015). Transformative learning: A case for using grounded theory as an assessment analytic. Teaching Theology & Religion, 18(4), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12301

35.

Pihl-Thingvad

Elkit

Brandt

L. P. A.

Andersen

L. L.

(2019). Workplace violence and development of burnout symptoms: A. prospective cohort study on 1823 social educators. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-019-01424-5

36.

Raunick

C. B.

Lindell

D. F.

Morris

D. L.

Backman

(2015). Vicarious trauma among sexual assault nurse examiners. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1097/JFN.0000000000000085

37.

Savaya

(2014). Social worker burnout in Israel: Contribution of daily stressors identified by social workers. British Journal of Social Work, 44(5), 1268–1283. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs193

38.

Sawatsky

A. P.

Nordhues

H. C.

Merry

S. P.

Bashir

M. U.

Hafferty

F, W.

(2018). Transformative learning and professional identity formation during international health electives: A qualitative study using grounded theory. Academic Medicine, 93(9), 1381–1390. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002230

39.

Shier

M. L.

Graham

J. R.

(2010). Work-related factors that impact social work practitioners’ subjective well-being: Well-being in the workplace. Journal of Social Work, 11(4), 402–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017310380486

40.

Shier

M. L.

Graham

J. R.

Nicholas

(2018). Interpersonal interactions, workplace violence, and occupational health outcomes among social workers. Journal of Social Work, 18(5), 525–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F1468017316656089

41.

Stevens

(2008). Workload management in social work services: What, why and how? Practice: Social Work in Action, 20(4), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503150802601860

42.

Taverner

Baumbusch

Taipale

(2016). Normalization of neglect: A grounded theory of RN’s experiences as family caregivers of hospitalized seniors. Canadian Journal of Aging, 35(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980816000179

43.

Van Droogenbroeck

F. V.

Spruyt

Vanroelen

(2014). Burnout among senior teachers: Investigating the role of workload and interpersonal relationships at work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.005

44.

van Veldhoven

M. J. P. M.

Beijer

(2012). Workload, work-to-family conflict, and health: Gender differences and the influence of private life context. Journal of Social Issues, 68(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01770.x

45.

Williams

K. C.

Hicks

E. M.

Chang

Connor

S. E.

Maliski

S. L.

(2014). Purposeful normalization when caring for husbands recovering from prostate cancer. Qualitative Health Research, 24(3), 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314523842

46.

Yang

Caughlin

D. E.

(2017). Aggression-preventive behavior: Implications for workplace climate and employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040148