In my previous couple of posts, I’ve written about some papers that explore the relationship between organisational / safety climate and the risks of workplace violence.  This post covered a paper on Determinants of workplace violence against clinical physicians in hospitals.  This one explored the relationship between safety climate and verbal abuse among public hospital-based workers in Costa Rica.  These papers show a strong correlation between a low safety climate and a higher risk of workplace violence.  Conversely, a higher safety climate acts as a protective factor for preventing occupational violence.

But what role do written policies and procedures play in shaping that climate?

The authors of this article hypothesised that the presence of written workplace violence policies would be protective, and reduce the risks of physical assault against Minnesota educators.

Abstract

Few research studies on school violence policies use quantitative methods to evaluate the impact of policies on workplace violence. This study analyzed nine different written violence policies and their impact on work-related physical assault in educational settings. Data were from the Minnesota Educators’ Study. This large, nested case control study included cases (n=372) who reported physical assaults within the last year, and controls (n=1116) who did not. Multivariate logistic regression analyses, using directed acyclic graphs, estimated risk of assault. Results of the adjusted multivariate model suggested decreased risks of physical assault were associated with the presence of policies regarding how to report sexual harassment, verbal abuse, and threat (OR 0.53; 95 per cent CI: 0.30-0.95); assurance of confidential reporting of events (OR 0.67; 95 per cent CI: 0.44-1.04); and zero tolerance for violence (OR 0.70; 95 per cent CI: 0.47-1.04).

Introduction

VIolence in education is a global problem that affects all levels of the education system.

Laws, codes of practice and government policy around the world call for a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach, but prior to this study, there has been a lack of research into whether or not such policies do anything to improve the situation.

Method

This study was done in two phases:

Phase 1:  Collection of data on the risk factors for physical and non-physical violence, and the magnitude and consequences of the workplace violence.

Phase 2:  A nested case-control to identify protective factors and risks for physical assault.

6469 eligible teachers participated in phase 1 and phase 2, of which, 372 cases of workplace violence were analysed in further detail.

 

Findings & Discussion

Results suggested that the presence of policies that cover…

• how to report sexual harassment, threats, or verbal abuse,
• assurance of confidential reporting, and
• zero-tolerance policies for violence…help prevent work-related physical assault.

The researchers examined the content of policies that were in place, and found the following:

• Requirements for violence prevention training of employees
• Types of violent behaviours against employees that were prohibited
• Types of violent behaviours against students that were prohibited
• How to report sexual harassment, threats or verbal abuse
• How to report physical assault
• Assurance of confidential reporting of violent incidents
• Consequences for students who use violence
• Consequences for employees who use violence

What does it mean on the ground?

Your organisations should have in place a policy that covers zero-tolerance of workplace violence of any kind.

As the articles I’ve previously written about on safety climate, these policies can’t just exist on paper; they have to be lived in the real world at all levels of the organisation.

Top management plays a critical role in setting the ‘tone from the top’ by actively and visibly walking the walk and setting the standard for workplace violence prevention.

Reference

Feda DM, Gerberich SG, Ryan AD, Nachreiner NM, McGovern PM. Written violence policies and risk of physical assault against Minnesota educators. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2010;31(4):461-77.