| | 1) A workplace level intervention to reduce inappropriate behaviour in schools | Author(s): Maarit Varita Country: Finland | Is the intervention sector specific? | No | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | Yes | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | The intervention was not explicitly linked to responsible business practices although it does promote employee well-being. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | Employees, supervisors and safety delegates worked collaboratively together; the authorities of the city supported the work. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
The intervention was carried out in eight primary schools in one municipality in Finland. There were between 25-90 teachers and other members of staff in the schools. The aim of the intervention was to reduce the amount of perceived inappropriate behaviour, perceived bullying and observed bullying in the work units. Only inappropriate behaviour and bullying among staff was looked at, not inappropriate behaviour by pupils. The intervention was based on the environmental view on the antecedents of workplace bullying.
| Implementation: The project lasted approximately one year. In each school the interventions included: - a starting meeting with a pre-intervention survey and training about the phenomenon and causes of bullying (about 2 hours) - a feedback session with training and discussion about bullying, particularly about the risks of inappropriate behaviour in the specific school (about 1½ hours) - a joint event for all the participants (1/2 day) - a meeting where a post-intervention survey was conducted with discussion (about 1/2 hour) - a feedback session with discussion (about 1 hour). | Practical applications:
The intervention demonstrated that this kind of an approach works and there are plans to adapt the same procedure in other workplaces in the city.
| Innovative aspects: Inappropriate behaviour and bullying were directly discussed in the workplace with the whole staff several times during one year. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability):
Pre- and post-intervention measurements were used. The pre-intervention questionnaire included questions on different forms of inappropriate behaviour, perceived bullying, observed bullying, psychosocial work environment, including atmosphere in the workplace and some questions on leadership style. The post-intervention questionnaire included the same questions on inappropriate behaviour and bullying, and questions about the intervention and the effectiveness of the activities carried out.
| Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
The results demonstrated that by bringing up inappropriate behaviour and bullying with the whole staff, and discussing and examining the risk situations and antecedents of bullying in the respective work unit it is possible to gain positive results. A slight decrease in some forms of perceived inappropriate behaviour, and observed bullying was received. The intervention was experienced positively. Many employees reported that they paid more attention to their own behaviour toward co-workers than before, and that they intervened more easily if they saw inappropriate behaviour occurring. Many employees found that not enough had been done in their own workplace to reduce inappropriate behaviour. The reason for this was most often due to a high workload experienced by the majority of employees.
| References:
Vartia, Maarti (2009). Vastuullisen työkäyttäytymisen pilottihanke Vantaan kaupungissa. (Responsible behaviour at work - A pilot project in the city of Vantaa). Vautsi, Vantaan kaupungin henkilöstölehti, 14-15. (In Finnish)
| Comments: Commitment of the supervisor is important so that all the meetings can be arranged. In schools the meetings were arranged after-school hours. High workload and big incidents (in this case school shooting that happened during the year) have considerable effect on the process. |
| 2) KAURIS: Risks in the retail sector - assessment and management of the risks of violence by third parties | Author(s): Nina Isotalus and Kaija Leena Saarela Country: Finland | Is the intervention sector specific? | No | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | Yes | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | A central component of the intervention is raising awareness and increasing responsibility of the management for the health and safety of employees. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | The method has been developed through a process of social dialogue at the national and EU level. This was accomplished by forming a steering group with several key stakeholders in the process, namely local authorities, researchers, retail branches, employers and employees. When implemented at the workplace, a participative approach is used. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
The KAURIS method (Risks in the retail trade) is a systematic model for the assessment and management of the risks of third party violence in the workplace. It is a basic but comprehensive method where the physical environment, training of the employees, and after care are taken into account. The method includes a set of tools (such as check-lists and information sheets) to assess the risks of violence, and how the workplace is prepared for violent or threatening situations. The primary aim of KAURIS is to develop a more safe and secure workplace by training staff with the help of different kinds of technical and functional solutions.
| Implementation: The method includes the following steps: - collection of information on the working group and on the process and situation;
- distribution of an employee survey about violent and threatening situations;
- assessing the state of preparation for violent situations in the workplace;
- development and planning of the interventions needed;
- training for the entire staff; and
- regular evaluation and development of the management of the risks of violence as part of normal daily life in the workplace.
Implementation of the KAURIS process utilises a participative approach in which a team, consisting of the supervisor and employees, is formed for planning and carrying out the necessary operations like organising training, developing the work environment, supplying the necessary safety equipment etc. In addition, the entire staff is involved in the process.
A core component of the method is staff training; where the knowledge and skills of staff and managers grow and develop. It is recommended that employees and managers work collectively to address the issues. | Practical applications:
Although the method has been developed in trade, it can be used in a variety of other occupational sectors by tailoring it to the needs of each organisation. Modifications of the method have been made, for instance for taxi drivers and real estate branches.
| Innovative aspects: Kauris is an innovative method that has raised awareness of the causes and consequence of work-related violence (for both organisations and individuals); and provides a systematic procedure for enterprises to begin to address this issue. Many violence interventions have some of their roots in this method. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability):
The KAURIS method has been tested and evaluated during its development. A pilot study was conducted in several different target organisations. Researchers visited half of the participating organisations whilst the other half received only the handbook1 of the method. The pilot study demonstrated that the handbook gave sufficient information for interventions. A subjective assessment of the effectiveness of the KAURIS method, as observed by staff members, was recorded; however, during the evaluation process the reduction of violent incidents was not measured. The authors note that there was no reporting system that would have fulfilled scientific criteria.
| Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
Main results, including cost effectiveness): The method was found to be cost-effective and user-friendly.
| References: Isotalus, N. & Saarela, K-L (2001). Kauris, menetelmä työväkivaltariskien kartoitukseen ja hallintaan (The method to assess and manage workplace violence risks).Helsinki, Finland: Työterveyslaitos (Finnish Institute of Occupational Health). Isotalus, N.(2002). Prevention of physical violence at work. African Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety, 12, 12-15. | Comments: 1 The KAURIS method is outlined in a handbook that provides information and knowledge about the responsibilities, duties and tasks of the safety manager and of all employees in relation to safety at work. The handbook also outlines possibilities and practical measures useful in promoting and developing a safety work environment. Additionally, the manual provides advice on how to deal with violent customers and drug users, how to calm oneself in a threatening situation and how to protect oneself. It also includes all the necessary forms to carry out the KAURIS process: such as, the survey for the employees, and a form for the assessment of the state of preparation for violent situations. |
| 3) Safe Care Policy | Author(s): P. Peerdeman Country: Netherlands | Is the intervention sector specific? | Yes | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | Yes | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | The intervention was not explicitly linked to responsible business practices although it does promote employee well-being. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | The covenant, that has been developed, can be viewed as a product of social dialogue. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
In 2000, the “Safe Care Policy” project was developed in the health care system in the Netherlands. The project’s development was underpinned by the active cooperation between the police and the public prosecutor with the overall aim to: (a) decrease internal and external aggression (especially verbal aggression), and (b) to present an overview of the prevalence of external and internal aggression and violence.
| Implementation: The method is based on the policy cycle: global inventory of problems, declaration of intent, problem analysis, set goals/prioritize, develop strategy, implementation, evaluation, and adjust goals/measures. More specifically, the policy consists of different components. First, a collective agreement is made between the hospital, the police and the Public Prosecutor according to which, visitors and patients who misbehave receive a warning and after two warnings the person can be banned from entering the hospital.
Incidents of violence are reported by the head of in-house emergency and first-aid service that are responsible for dealing with the situation. Furthermore, workplace safety is increased by additional camera surveillance and an increased availability of security service for emergencies. The house regulations are presented and communicated by means of posters. Additionally, in the hospital employers work according to an ‘aggression-protocol’ whereby all employers are familiar with the necessary procedures on how to handle cases of aggression. | Practical applications: Because the intervention is based on a collective agreement between the hospitals, the police and the Public Prosecutor, some law- or legal requirements underpin it. | Innovative aspects: The main innovative aspect of this approach is the development of an organisational-level policy directly addressing issues surrounding workplace violence through a process of social dialogue between several key stakeholders. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability):
As the policy outlines, all incidents are reported, providing a clear overview of the prevalence of aggression and violence in the hospital. Information from reported incidences of violence is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy and to identify prevalent trends in perpetrator behaviour.
| Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
Safe Care Policy has been implemented in over 15 hospitals. On the basis of registration information from 2006, the amount of incidents involving verbal or physical violence has decreased. Additionally, employers working at the hospitals have reported increased feelings of safety.
| References:
Goede praktijken tegen geweld - casusboek. (Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid). 2006. (in Dutch)
| Comments: Safe Care Policy can be adapted and tailored to a variety of occupational sectors or other national contexts however, the degree to which it can be tailored is dependent on legal requirements unique to that area/or national legal framework. |
| 4) Violent incident form (VIF) - a practical instrument for the registration of violent incidents in the health care sector | Author(s): Judith Arnetz and Bengt Arnet Country: Sweden | Is the intervention sector specific? | Yes (mainly healthcare, social care) | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | No | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | VIF encourages employers and managers to address workplace violence and employee health and wellbeing. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | This intervention does not promote social dialogue. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.): The violent incident form (VIF) is a practical instrument developed for the registration of all types of violent and threatening behaviour directed towards staff in the health care sector. The method is designed for implementation into the daily business routines of high-risk workplaces. VIF includes a checklist of 20 items and summarises information pertinent to the incident such as time and place, details describing the aggressor, the circumstances, the actual incident, how the incident was handled, and the staff victim's injuries and/or reactions. Information concerning the VIF checklist is disseminated to all participating workplaces. Following a threatening violent incident the employee is required to fill in the VIF. VIF can be viewed as a user-friendly approach, as the implementation of the method requires no training and is easy to use. The method aims to minimise the stigma associated with violence, and encourages employees to act and speak out after the incident; thereby, building social cooperation in the workplace. | Implementation:
VIF was implemented as a working tool at 47 health care workplaces in Stockholm, Sweden. The workplaces were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group. The work sites encompassed a total of approximately 1500 health care workers. In the intervention workplaces, a structured feedback program, where the circumstances concerning registered incidents were discussed on a regular basis with the staff.
| Practical applications:
VIF has been found to be easily practically applicable at the enterprise level, as it has been designed to include a user-friendly process.
| Innovative aspects: Easy, simple and not time consuming method. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability):
A structured feedback programme that included regular discussions with staff involved in violent incidents registered at the workplace was implemented. A follow-up was carried out after one year to compare the amount of violent incidents reported, and to assess staff perceptions surrounding the year-long project.
| Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
The evaluation of VIF demonstrated the following benefits: (a) staff in the intervention work sites reported significantly more violent incidents than the control work sites during the one year; (b) the intervention group reported better awareness of risk situations, had increased knowledge on how to effectively handle risk situations, and how to deal with aggressive patients; and (c) intervention workplaces had better routines for managing violent incidents after the project than before. VIF was found to be a user-friendly method and tool.
| References: Arnetz J.(1998). The Violent Incident Form (VIF): a practical instrument for the registration of violent incidents in the health care workplace. Work and Stress , 12 (1), 17-28. (includes the VIF form) Arnetz, J. & Arnetz B. (2000). Implementation and evaluation of a practical intervention programme for dealing with violence towards health care workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing 31(3), 668-680. | Comments: If employees report all the violent incidents using the VIF, the method could yield rich information on the prevalence of work-related violence in a given workplace, hospital or ward. This information can then be used in planning of interventions for prevention and management of violent incidents. |
| 5) The Systematic Approach model - how to prevent and overcome undesirable interaction | Author(s): Adrienne Hubert Country: Netherlands | Is the intervention sector specific? | No | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | Yes | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | The intervention was not explicitly linked to responsible business practices although it does promote employee well-being. | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | The model was first developed in cooperation with different social partners and then further discussed with representatives of umbrella organisations: including employers' organisations, trade unions, occupational health and safety professionals, occupational welfare workers, Labour Inspection and the national organisation for confidential counsellors. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.):
The Systematic Approach Model was designed to prevent and manage undesirable behaviour (bullying/harassment) at work. It is a Dutch intervention but can be modified to policies and other national contexts. The Model is a five phase approach, which seeks to provide advice and guidance to organisations on how to build and develop a systematic and comprehensive programme to address undesirable behaviour (bullying and harassment) at work effectively.
| Implementation: The phases of the programme are as follows:
1) Prevention, setting up a preventive policy for the company (including a policy statement), developing knowledge and raising manager awareness on bullying and harassment at work, on their financial consequences, and on the organisation’s legal obligations. Subsequently, developing a code of conduct, as a more profound policy; whereby procedures for reporting undesirable behaviour are outlined, responsibility is assigned, and the developed and existing procedures are continuously evaluated. 2) Uncovering, developing knowledge about the nature of bullying and harassment, making the phenomena visible. 3) Support, for the victim, mainly social and psychological help: for example, confidential counsellors in the organisation can provide support, occupational health care and psychological support. 4) Intervention can be: a) informal solution (victim talks directly to the perpetrator, and mediation or mediation/correction is provided by the supervisor), b) formal complaint or c) transfer to another department or outplacement. 5) After-care, should match the chosen intervention strategy. After-care can take many forms: for example, in cases of undesirable group behaviour it means that the supervisor remains alert to signals of objectionable behaviour. In the case of mediation, after-care means that the counsellor remains in contact with the victim and continues to provide him/her with support. | Practical applications:
Parts of the model have been implemented in more than 350 organisations. The method is suitable for medium and large organisations; and more recently, has been trailed in small-sized enterprises. This method has implemented in a variety of occupational sectors: namely, government and public administration, health care and the hotel and catering industry
| Innovative aspects: The Model was developed through a process of social dialogue where a series of discussion were held with staff representatives and representatives of institutions (e.g. managers, works councils, human resources department, confidential counsellors, labour inspection and labour unions). The model tackles a large variety of undesired behaviour and takes into consideration different stages, from prevention to management and support. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability): Four times a year, ‘a day of return’ including feedback and counselling is organised. During these days a lot has been learned about the functioning of the model in practice.
The effectiveness of the model has not, however, been systematically evaluated. | Benefits (including cost effectiveness):
Due to the comprehensive nature of the Model, this approach promotes deeper change in the workplace in relation to undesirable behaviour, bullying and harassment. The goal of the method is to create a lasting solution.
| References:
Hubert, A.B. (2003). To prevent and overcome undesirable interaction: A systematic approach mode. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf and C.L. Cooper (Eds.) Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace. International perspectives in research and practice (pp.299-311). London & New York: Taylor & Francis.
| Comments: It is important that that the Model is developed in cooperation with all the relevant stakeholders in the organisation/enterprise. The Model is a comprehensive intervention; despite being labelled a primary intervention, it includes a variety of methods and strategies commonly observed in secondary and tertiary level programmes. |
| 6) Managing violence on the railways - the inspection method | Author(s): Claire Dickinson and Jeremy Bevan Country: United Kingdom | Is the intervention sector specific? | Yes | Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes? | Yes | Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders? | Yes | Is the intervention based on theory? | No | Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored? | Yes | Does the intervention promote CSR and how? | This method encourages management to take better care of employees' safety on the UK railways | Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa | Inspections were carried out by inspectors and the deficiencies identified were resolved through active discussions in the workplace. | Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.): The inspections-intervention was part of Health and Safety Executive's 3-year programme on work-related violence. A series of targeted inspections were made on the UK railways. Inspectors considered arrangements and measures for managing and preventing work-related violence in train operating companies. Inspections considered risk assessments, reporting measures and investigation reports; and evaluated the preventive, protective and response measures in place. The deficiencies identified were resolved.
In the railways, experience of violence is an everyday experience for some employees, especially verbal abuse. Inspections-interventions were targeted to include individuals in jobs where risk for violence was the greatest. Incident statistics of the companies were used to identify the key worker groups at risk. | Implementation:
Three case situations were in focus: 1) the company’s response to violence being repeatedly directed towards a particular group or individual, all of whom were contractors, 2) recurring violence at one location, and 3) violence directed towards train operating company employees. A checklist for preventing and addressing work-related violence was used. Discussions about violence problems in focus group sessions were conducted.
| Practical applications:
The method has been used in the UK railways.
| Innovative aspects: Use of mixed methods to ensure the development of good quality guidance. | Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability):
Semi-structured interviews with operational staff, their supervisors and managers were conducted. Additionally, a review and evaluation of the train operating company policy, arrangements, procedures, measures and processes for measurement and auditing performance was conducted. Different measures to protect employees from violence were planned. Each train operating company’s complete safety case was considered including policy.
| Benefits (including cost effectiveness): Improvements were sought in: · the arrangements for contractors, · more actions to ensure verbal abuse reporting, · more training to avoid confrontation · the need to arrange refresher training, · more initiatives with safety representatives, · understanding what measures have impact, · site-specific risk-assessments: that are usable, updated and reflect the reality, · the update of the quality of control measures.
A number of deficiencies were identified as a result, the most serious of which concerned the arrangements and measures in place for contract staff employed in checking tickets or in security activities.
It was also seen vital to ensure that train operating companies are: (a) fully aware of the size of violence problems, (b) using reporting systems that are flexible to ensure that maximum data are captured with minimum effort, and (c) using risk assessments that are suitable and sufficient, and incorporate local factors such as lone working. | References:
Dickinson, C. & Bevan, J. (2005). Managing violence on the railways. Applied Ergonomics, 36 (6), 729-738.
| Comments: In the article there is a check list for good practice |
| |