The first research question (RQ1) asked what difficult situations managers confront when managing OHS. Sub-study 1 described the range of difficult OHS management situations, as well as the related support experienced and expected, from the managers’ perspective in relation to public service organisations. According to the experiences of the managers, the most difficult OHS management situations are related to psychosocial risks within the work community. In line with the EU-OSHA (2014) study, more support is necessary for managers to effectively manage psychosocial risks. Situations related to traditional OHS risks were not seen as difficult, mainly because there are typically procedures in place to manage them. Presumably for the same reason, bullying and harassment were not cited as particularly difficult OHS issues, either. However, there are nowadays procedures, tools and expert advice available also to manage psychosocial risks at workplace. The problem appears to be their inadequate utilisation in the studied organisations.
The framing of the interview questions might also have affected the answers; the managers were asked about difficult situations, which may be more commonly associated with psychosocial than traditional OHS issues. However, in Frick’s (2013) study, handling traditional risks related to musculoskeletal disorders, chemicals and accidents was considered relevant in the public sector, too. Nevertheless, it is unnecessary to divide the work environment into physical and psychosocial domains, since it is more appropriate to include a wide range of OHS issues stemming from the work community (see Abildgaard & Nickelsen 2013). At the same time, psychosocial risks are typically related to the design and management of work (Cox & Griffiths 2005; Cox 2000), which are the managers’ responsibilities. The results reflect deficiencies in management and leadership skills (see Artz et al. 2014; Kaplan et al. 2008; Viitala 2005; Yukl 2010).
Constant changes, bureaucracy and multiple conflicting pressures during times of economic cutbacks were perceived as difficult situations from the managerial perspective, and they negatively affected managers’ ability to manage OHS. Many managers felt that their power and responsibilities did not align, which was also pointed out by Frick (2013). Even though the managers understood the necessity of the cutbacks and redundancies, they highlighted these situations as being the most difficult part of their work. At the same time, managers should design the workload to be individual, fair and balanced, and they should strive not to overburden employees. Evaluating and
prioritising the workload in this situation were perceived as difficult, especially when the managers had little means of reducing work pressure due to limited resources and lack of time for discussions as a result of their own time pressure (see Björk et al. 2014; Syvänen 2010). Moreover, a lack of time for discussions was seen as an obstacle to openness in the work community.
Handling employees’ reduced ability to work or perform at work, as well as managing conflicts, were also perceived as difficult situations from the managerial perspective. The managers considered it difficult to evaluate and individually tailor the workload in cases of reduced work capacity. In addition, inappropriate work behaviour and employees’ personal problems were considered difficult to manage. Quite surprisingly, many managers considered social interaction and providing any kind of feedback, including positive feedback, to be difficult. The difficulties experienced in considering individual needs and providing feedback may reflect deficiencies in their interaction skills (see Viitala 2005). Moreover, due to the current economic and efficiency pressures, as well as the lack of resources, both managers and employees often experience significant workloads, which is seen as a major OHS problem (see Frick 2013).
The second research question (RQ2) asked what kind of support managers experience and need in managing OHS. Many OHS issues are mandatory, although managers are often inadequately supported in managing OHS issues within organisations. During difficult OHS situations, managers call for support and tools to enable them to meet their responsibilities. Based on the results of this study, the managers did not typically request more resources from upper management, presumably due to the tight economic situation. They expected tools and support for coping with difficult situations and conflicts within the work community. They mostly focused on individual social relations and emotional support in order to cope with difficult situations. The organisation, along with the developed organisational OHS procedures, should provide support to the managers in difficult situations. However, top management often ignores its legal duty and delegates work environment issues to frontline managers without providing adequate resources or support (Frick 2013). Moreover, top managers are in a position to organise the workload and resources, as well as to improve relationships, leadership and trust, which are all major factors behind psychosocial risks. However, these are mostly high- level issues and, hence, frontline managers can do little to resolve them (Frick 2013). A lack of or inadequate support from their immediate superior was a key challenge for some managers, since the principal form of support was expected to be one’s superior. If this was not possible, difficult situations became burdensome when managers had to deal with the situation by themselves. The managers perceived individual relations and emotional support to be important in coping with the challenges of OHS management.
Immediate superiors, colleagues, OHS and healthcare professionals, HR professionals, partners and friends were all seen as alternative sources of support for managers. Based on the results of sub-study 1, organisational support needs to be developed as follows:
- Support, guidance, orientation and complementary training for managers in relation to OHS management in the areas in which they have expressed clear support needs and shortcomings in their competencies (e.g. administration, evaluation of psychosocial burden and stress, difficult situations, social interactions and providing feedback).
- Agreeing on and complying with common rules in OHS-related organisational procedures (e.g. appropriate work behaviour, reduced work ability and remote work agreements).
- Intervening in organisational conflicts and any inappropriate and unprofessional behaviours.
- Active conflict management and resolution.
- Support from one’s own supervisor (positive and constructive feedback, listening, being present and available, and providing encouragement, feedback and motivation).
- Supporting employees’ job-related self-determinations and reducing urgencies, excessive workloads and different types of pressures.
Previous studies conducted in the construction sector and manufacturing industry argue that there exists a need to support managers’ OHS resources, roles and competences in order to genuinely improve OHS (e.g. Conchie et al. 2013; Frick 2013; Simola 2005; Tappura & Hämäläinen 2011; Törner & Pousette 2009). The results of sub-study 1 reveal similar findings in the public service sector. Thus, the results are somewhat generalised for managerial work, although that is not necessarily so for all industrial sectors. Managers should consider both the physical and psychosocial work environment in order to eliminate hazards from work and the work environment and thus safeguard the physical and mental health of employees. Nevertheless, in the manufacturing industry and construction sector for example, occupational accidents may represent the most difficult OHS issues for managers.
The third research question (RQ3) asked what organisational factors hinder or promote managers’ commitment to OHS. Based on the results of sub-study 2, many managers were highly committed to OHS, although some still perceived OHS issues to be extra work and not a necessity or value even if OHS is outlined as such in their organisation. Thus, the level of implementation of OHS procedures may vary (see Fernández-Muñiz et al. 2009). Some highly committed managers also felt that they could not act as they
wished in relation to OHS due to the negative safety attitudes exhibited by upper management, peers or subordinates. This may be originating from (poor) safety culture, which is a result of top management’s ability to communicate the organisation’s OHS values, expectations and standards (Biggs & Biggs 2013; Hale et al. 2010), as well as reward, allocate attention and behave accordingly (Schein 2010). Consequently, the collective concern (Clarke 1999) and consistent commitment of managers at all hierarchical levels should be advanced in order to achieve real improvements in OHS performance (Hale et al. 2010).
The main factors hampering managers’ commitment to OHS were related to managerial overload and a lack of resources for OHS activities. This may also reflect another challenge, namely production pressure, which may be prioritised over OHS activities. Moreover, managers often perceive multiple and conflicting role responsibilities to be challenging (see Conchie et al. 2013). In many organisations, top management express the priority of safety over production. This expression and the related resources do not, however, always flow down to the middle and line manager levels. If top management does not show visible commitment to OHS in practise, it is inequitable to expect this commitment in middle and frontline management level either. Moreover, biased views regarding the managers’ OHS commitment may hamper safety culture and OHS development (Clarke 1999). The interviewed managers were highly concerned about their employees, but they could not always act according to their understanding of what is right. This may cause an increased burden to the managers, since they already encounter high strain in their managerial role.
Managers’ commitment needs to be supported by various activities intended to increase managers’ awareness and positive attitudes of OHS (Conchie et al. 2013; Simola 2005). Emphasising the positive effects of OHS at an organisational level may enhance managers’ awareness and, thus, their commitment. Managers require information concerning the requirements and expectations related to their OHS role. Making the OHS goals and positive outcomes more visible motivates managers in their OHS work. Further, developing uniform and easy OHS procedures definitely helps managers’ in their OHS work. Defining the OHS management expectations at an organisational level helps the managers to develop their OHS work accordingly. These requirements and expectations should be highlighted during the management recruitment and orientation phases. Moreover, support is needed in many forms, including dialogue and participative training, in order to establish a common understanding and uniform practices to improve OHS. In the case of difficulties, managers typically seek help from superiors, peers and OHS professionals. Even a feeling that help is available when needed fosters managers’ commitment to OHS.
The fourth research question (RQ4) asked what kind of leadership is effective in promoting OHS performance. Sub-study 3 revealed some useful insights into effective OHS management from the leadership point of view. OHS-related leadership (e.g. OHS leadership, safety leadership and health-promoting leadership) has received increasing attention from researchers in recent decades (e.g. Barling et al. 2002; Eriksson et al. 2008; Hofmann et al. 2003; Zohar 2002a). A manager’s leadership behaviour is generally seen as a one factor for preventing occupational injuries and ill health, as well as improving well-being within organisations, and it is thus worth developing.
Organisations need information on effective leadership in order to develop OHS-related leadership and improve OHS performance. To this day, much is known about the positive effects of leadership on OHS performance, although less is known about the specific leadership behaviours and facets (Conchie et al. 2013; Hoffmeister et al. 2014). According to the leadership research, organisational performance can be built with transactional and transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio 1990; Bass et al. 2003; Dvir et al. 2002; Lowe et al. 1996), although researchers have called for more extensive research on this association (Yukl 2008).
In relation to OHS, managers require certain leadership behaviour when motivating employees’ safety participation and compliance, as well as improving the related outcomes (Griffin & Hu 2013; Griffin & Neal 2000). Previous studies have suggested transformational and transactional leadership to be suitable constructs for OHS leadership (e.g. Barling et al. 2002; Clarke 2013; Kapp 2012; Michael et al. 2006). Moreover, they are important for the motivation and justification of OHS from an ethical perspective.
Based on the findings of the current study, certain OHS leadership facets and competencies are vital with regards to OHS performance. In sub-study 3, the OHS leadership facets linked to OHS performance were found to be related to all of the studied transformational and transactional leadership facets. However, different facets may relate to different outcomes (Hoffmeister et al. 2014). This indicates that each of them is important with regards to OHS performance, although their emphasis may vary. In line with Clarke’s (2013) meta-analysis, a combination of the transformational and active transactional leadership styles is the most effective means of managing workplace safety. Thus, effective interventions to improve OHS leadership require both transactional and transformational leadership development. The idealised influence leadership facet was emphasised in both the literature and the interview findings. This is in line with the study by Hoffmeister et al. (2014), who found that idealised attributes and behaviours were the most important leadership facets explaining the studied OHS outcomes (safety climate, safety behaviours, injuries and pain). Many of the findings were related to inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration
and management by exception. However, Hoffmeister et al. (2014) found that individualised consideration was less important with regard to OHS performance. Additionally, Clarke (2013) argues that active management by exception has rarely been featured in OHS studies, although it should be emphasised when encouraging safety participation. Trust built through transformational leadership has positive effects on employees’ safety and psychological well-being, and it helps in difficult situations and cases of emergency or empowering employees in OHS activities (see Hannah et al. 2009; Kelloway et al. 2012; Lu & Yang 2010).
These findings reveal that developing leadership behaviour is essential for improving OHS performance and, hence, organisational performance. Determining the relative contributions of the different leadership facets to OHS can also aid researchers and practitioners in developing better interventions (see Hoffmeister et al. 2014). According to Bass and Avolio (1990), general leadership training programmes are often based on transactional leadership, although many aspects of effective leadership are missing when transformational aspect is undervalued. However, both the transactional and transformational leadership are worth training, education and development.