Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
APPROVED: J. Michelle Walker, Major Professor Jon Young, Minor Professor and Chair of the
Department of Technology and Cognition
Jerry Wircenski, Committee Member Jeff Allen, Program Coordinator for Applied
Technology, Training and Development M. Jean Keller, Dean of the College of
Education Sandra L. Terrell, Dean of the Robert B.
Toulouse School of Graduate Studies
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION TRAINING:
AN ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES
David J. Adriansen, B.A., M.A.O.M.
Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
May 2005
Adriansen, David J., Workplace Violence Prevention Training: An Analysis
of Employees’ Attitudes. Doctor of Education (Applied Training, Technology and
Development), May 2005, 140 pp., 18 tables, references, 47 titles.
The purpose of this study was to determine employees’ attitudes and
perceptions toward the effectiveness of workplace violence prevention training
within a U.S. Government service agency with 50 offices located in Minnesota
and Wisconsin.
Chapter 1 presents an overview of the phenomenon of workplace
violence, the movement toward prevention programs and policies and the
implementation of prescreening processes during hiring and violence prevention
training. Chapter 2 contains a thorough review of pertinent literature related to
violence prevention training and the impact of occupational violence on
organizations. This topic was worthy of research in an effort to make a significant
contribution to training literature involving organizational effectiveness due to the
limited amount of research literature covering the area of corporate violence
prevention training and its effect on modifying attitudes and behaviors of its
customers.
The primary methodology involved the assessment of 1000 employees
concerning their attitudes and perceptions toward the effectiveness of workplace
violence prevention training. The research population were administered a 62
item online assessment with responses being measured, assessed, and
compared. Significant differences were found calling for the rejection of the three
study hypotheses. Chapter 4 described the findings of the population surveyed
and recommendations were identified in Chapter 5.
ii
Copyright 2005
by
David J. Adriansen
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without the guidance of my major professor, Michele Walker, and the
professional support of my program professors, I would have been unable to
accomplish this major milestone in my life. Through my graduate journey I have
grown as an individual, researcher, and professional educator. I am forever
grateful to my professors and my wife, Belinda, for the inspiration and support I
have received. Winston Churchill stated, “We make a living by what we get, but
we make a life by what we give.” My appreciation will be repaid by helping train,
educate, and mentor those lives I touch.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................vi Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study Theoretical Framework Significance of the Study Research Hypotheses Delimitations Limitations Definition of Terms Summary
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ....................................... 22
Background Research on the Causes of Workplace Violence Workplace Violence Prevention Training Programs Perceptual and Attitudinal Effects of Training Summary
3. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ............................................... 43
Research Hypotheses Population Sample Research Design Instrumentation
v
Data Collection Treatment of Data Summary
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................... 58
Introduction Description of Study Population Data Analysis Summary
5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .................. 79
Introduction Study Summary Findings Conclusions Recommendations Summary
APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 91
A. Survey Questionnaire B. Descriptive Statistics C. Question #63 Comments
REFERENCES............................................................................................... 136
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Frequency of Employment Classification of Study Population by Management Level ................................................................................ 60
2. Frequency of Gender of Study Population by Management Level......... 61
3. Age Range of Study Population by Management Level........................ 62
4. Years of Employment at Northland District by Management Level ........ 63
5. Level of Education of Study Population by Management Level ............. 64
6. Racial/Ethnic Group Statistics of Study Population by Management Level............................................................................................................... 65
7. Supervisory Status of Study Population by Management Level............. 65
8. Hypothesis 1: One-Way ANOVA ........................................................... 68
9. Hypothesis 2: One-Way ANOVA ........................................................... 71
10. Management Levels and Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Attendance .............. 72
11. Violence Prevention Lifetime Total Training Hours by Management Level............................................................................................................... 73
12. Northland District Violence Prevention Training Hours by Management Level ...................................................................................................... 74
13. One-Way ANOVA: Workplace Safety is Important to Northland District ............................................................................................................... 74
14. Workplace safety is important for the Northland District to Operate as an Organization .......................................................................................... 75
15. Hypothesis 3: Descriptive Statistics ....................................................... 75
16. Hypothesis 3: Estimates ........................................................................ 76
17. Hypothesis 3: Pairwise Comparisons..................................................... 77
vii
18. Hypothesis 3: Univariate Tests .............................................................. 78
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Workplace homicide has been described as the fastest-growing category
of homicide in the country (Davis, 1997). The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) reported during the period 1980 to 1989, homicide
was the third leading cause of death in American workplaces; accounting for
7,600 deaths or 12% of all deaths from injury in the workplace (NIOSH, 1993;
Mattman, 2001). During this ten year study, 10% of the men and 41% of the
women who died from workplace injuries were homicide victims. Homicide was
the number one cause of death for female employees. In their 1997 report,
“Violence in the Workplace: Risk Factors and Prevention Strategies,” NIOSH
released their updated research which revealed one million workers are
assaulted and more than 1,000 are murdered every year in acts of workplace
violence (an average of 20 homicides per week) (NIOSH, 2001). NIOSH
recommended further research be conducted to gather more detailed information
about occupational homicide and to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of
workplace violence prevention strategies (NIOSH, 1993, 1996b, 1997, 2001).
“Violence in the workplace is a significant public health problem but one
that can be addressed by recognizing the factors that put employees at risk and
taking appropriate preventative actions,” advised Center for Disease Control
(CDC) Director David Satcher, M.D. (NIOSH, 1996b, p. 1). The 1990 on-the-job
2
homicide rates have steadily increased over rates in the 1980s for sales workers,
taxicab drivers, and private security guards. NIOSH-supposed changes may be
due to factors such as increased recognition and recording of cases as work-
related. Additional factors may include increased levels of crime in certain
settings, distribution of resources in response to perceived crime levels, and
changes in training and other work practices.
Most experts on occupational violence agree the success of a workplace
violence prevention program depends to a large extent on the accurate
assessment of the existing workplace environment, operations, and strategies
(NIOSH, 1997). The assessment should include reviewing policies, procedures,
and regulations; risk identification and the stress of workers and management;
management climate and the competence of supervisors and managers; training
programs; trends, and security and safety measures.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze employees’ attitudes
and perceptions toward workplace violence prevention training in order to assess
the impact of the training and its components as a strategy in the overall
workplace violence prevention program. Although violence in the workplace has
been a growing concern in the corporate culture, most employees are unaware of
this trend. Additionally, even if aware, employees and organizations may not
have adequate employment screening procedures or workplace violence
prevention training in place. NIOSH (1993) concluded in their CDC Alert,
“Preventing Homicide in the Workplace,” that “employers and workers should
3
immediately develop and implement prevention strategies on the basis of
available information. They should evaluate the factors or situations in the
workplace that might place workers at risk and carefully consider intervention
efforts that might minimize or remove the risk” (p. 5). Further, NIOSH (1993)
concluded “Few in-depth studies have been conducted to evaluate preventive
measures, but such evaluation is critical to homicide prevention efforts” (p. 5).
The issue of workplace violence was propelled to the forefront of the
workplace agenda by events like the 1991 massacre at the Royal Oak, Michigan
postal facility in which four employees died at the hands of Thomas McIlvane, a
discharged postal employee. This shooting became part of an infamous series of
multiple slayings by U.S. Postal Service employees which took the lives of more
than 35 employees over the next ten years (Denenberg & Braverman, 1999).
However, while the instances of postal facility tragedies were highly publicized,
an insurance industry survey revealed one out of every four U.S. workers
reported being harassed, threatened, or physically attacked on the job in the
previous 12 months (Denenberg & Braverman, 1999, p. 4). Other examples of
less publicized but significant events include:
• Los Angeles, California, 1995 – Willie Woods, a police department
maintenance employee who had received a poor performance
evaluation shot to death four officials of his agency
• Wixom, Michigan, 1996 – Gerald Atkins, described as a “militia
wannabe,” storms a Ford auto plant and kills its manager
4
• Santa Ana, California, 1997 – Arturo Reyes Torres, a highway worker
who has been discharged for theft, returns to a California
Transportation Department yard and kills his former supervisor and
three other employees
• Apex, Nevada, 1998 – Frank Lemos, a chemical plant heavy
equipment operator, crushes to death the plant superintendent with a
bucket from a 100-ton front-end loader. The supervisor had opposed
his worker compensation claim a few years earlier (Denenberg &
Braverman, 1999, p. 6)
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was enacted “to assure
so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful
working conditions” (NIOSH, 2001b, p. iii). Deaths from injuries at work, however,
continue to be a major public health problem with, on average, 16 American
workers dying each day in the workplace (NIOSH, 2001b). In their latest NIOSH
publication, “Fatal injuries to civilian workers in the United States, 1980-1995:
National and state profiles,” Dr. Kathleen M. Rest, Acting NIOSH Director,
(2001b) advised, “Although fatal occupational injuries have decreased over the
years, the burden remains high.” Dr. Rest recommended using the NIOSH report
as the basis for developing strategies to affect the prevention of occupational
fatalities (NIOSH, p. iii).
The kind of behavior a company tolerates may be related to the
occurrences of violence. If harassment, mistrust, intimidation, prejudice, and
authoritarianism are predominant, employees will undoubtedly be less likely to
5
step forward to voice concerns or fears about an escalating co-worker or trust the
company will intervene in the employees’ best interest (Labig, 1995).
“Environments in which people are respected and listened and responded
to are much less likely to produce violent events than those that treat people as
disposable tools. At worksites with positive environments, an employee who is
showing symptoms of withdrawal and isolation, paranoia and rage, helplessness
and depression, and all of the other cognitive and emotional indicators of
overwhelming stress is likely to be recognized and dealt with” (Labig, 1995, p. 3).
Conflict, threats, harassment, and intimidation are some of the greatest
risks to the American worker. The personal, emotional, and financial effects of
violence in the workplace make the assessment of positive intervention
procedures and training an imperative to the health of an organization. NIOSH
(1993) recommended “researchers should further investigate occupational
homicide. Such research is essential for the development of prevention
strategies” (p. 5).
Theoretical Framework
On average, 16 workers die each day in this country due to workplace
violence (NIOSH, 2001). Most organizations cope with workplace violence or
initiate workplace violence prevention programs only after an act of workplace
violence occurs. Research reveals there is no standard workplace violence
prevention program or training curriculum model which applies to every worker
and work environment. Research does indicate prevention programs can help
employees and management prepare for, identify and respond to acts of
6
workplace violence. However, the evaluation of workplace violence prevention
programs and training are either absent or not standardized. While the “pulse” of
attitudes and perceptions of employees should be an everyday observation of
management prior to an incident of violence, little or no research has been
conducted on the attitudinal or perceptual response of employees toward
workplace violence prevention training.
Violent behaviors in the workplace range from making telephone threats to
murder. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports homicide is the second most
common cause of unquantifiable human cost; with workplace violence being very
expensive for companies in terms of increased health care costs and workers’
compensation rates, decreased productivity and lawyers’ fees for defense
against workers’ law suits (Filipczak, 1993). Although workplace violence and
offenders are difficult to predict, management and employees should be aware of
violence in the workplace and prepared to deal with incidents when they occur.
In 1993, the CDC advised little research had been done in the area of
workplace violence (homicides and/or non-fatal assaults at work), and
recommended researchers start to investigate the specific factors associated
with these forms of violence (NIOSH, 1993). Because workplaces and
occupations at greatest risk vary, no single set of prevention strategies will apply
to all workers. One global recommendation from NIOSH (1993), however, is that
employers “provide training in conflict resolution and nonviolent response” (p. 4).
Each person brings to their place of employment a personality preference,
but each is also a product of their unique environmental experiences which have
7
shaped their individual development and the expressions of their personality.
Theories about intellectual development focus on cognitive skills acquired at
particular life stages. Carl Jung theorized that human beings have commonalties
with others who share their type preference, but that each individual is also
unique (Murphy, 1992). Personality type preferences do not predict future
behavior and information on intelligence ranges will not predict how much an
individual will achieve or his/her attitude toward learning. However, the value of
understanding type preferences and personality development helps in providing a
framework to interpret the growth and development of individuals.
Sensing and intuition are the perceiving functions that describe how
individuals prefer to process information. As information is obtained through the
five senses, attention is paid to details and building conclusions based on the
sequential organization of this information. An “intuitive” person receives
information and focuses greater energies on reorganizing the information into
patterns with a holistic and global perspective. Whereas a “sensing” person
examines the details and focuses on the present. The sensing and intuitive
differences develop in childhood and reflect the primary ways individuals
perceive information (Murphy, 1992). Thinking and feeling are the functions that
describe how one makes decisions and research has concluded this function
likely develops after sensing and intuition formation. Thinkers normally use logic
to prove their point, whereas feelers prefer to make decisions based on value
systems. Thinkers prefer trying to prove they are right, while feelers try to
persuade others of their convictions. The relationship styles, needs, and self-
8
esteem of both thinkers and feelers form differently and the characteristics of
both reflect differences in their decision-making processes. Judging and
perceiving refers to attitudes which develop in early childhood. Those with a
judging preference value time to prepare for a task and take pride in work
completed. Those with a perceiving difference prefer to delay decisions and
enjoy change and spontaneity. “Judging and perceiving differences affect how
people live together” (Murphy, 1992, p. 67).
Skinner (1953) stated the terms “cause” and “effect” are no longer widely
used in science. He theorized a “cause” becomes a “change in an independent
variable” and an “effect” a “change in a dependent variable.” The old “cause-and-
effect connection” becomes a “functional relation.” Skinner researched the
causes of human behavior and why people behave as they do. By discovering
and analyzing these causes, he proposed behavior could be predicted. He
concluded, if behavior can be manipulated, it could be controlled.
The functional control exerted by a stimulus allows us to distinguish
between sensing and seeing, perceiving or knowing. Sensing may refer to the
mere reception of stimuli; seeing to the interpretive behavior which a stimulus
controls; and seeing characterizes a special relation between behavior and
stimuli (Skinner, 1953). “Our ‘perception’ of the world, or our ‘knowledge’ of it, is
our behavior with respect to the world. It is not to be confused with the world itself
or with other behavior with respect to the world, or with the behavior of others
with respect to the world” (Skinner, 1953).
9
An attitude is a persisting human state and capability that modifies the
individual’s choices of action. The effect of an attitude is to amplify an individual’s
reaction, either positive or negative, toward some person, thing, or situation. The
strength of an individual’s attitudes toward an item may be indicated by the
frequency with which they make choices, under a variety of circumstances.
Inferences about the possession of attitudes are usually made on the basis of
self-reports, such as questionnaires, that ask an individual their feelings or
perceptions regarding a topic or issue. “Performance that is affected by an
attitude is the choice of a course of personal action” (Gagne et al., 1992, p. 49).
As a result of instruction and over a period of time, a change of attitude would be
revealed as a change in the probability of choosing a particular course of action.
Each individual possesses attitudes toward people, places and activities.
Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia (1964) conducted research on the affective domain
and the class of learned capabilities called attitudes (as cited in Gagne et al.,
1992). Their research greatly contributed to the science of instructional design of
training curriculum and focused on planning for the constant variable of individual
trainee attitudes toward training. An attitude is an internal stated, inferred from
observations of the individual’s behavior; it is not the behavior itself (as cited in
Gagne et al., 1992). As an educational objective, attitudes are an acquired state
of each individual learner and the methods of instruction to be used in
establishing desired attitudes differ considerably from those used in application to
the learning of intellectual skills and verbal information (Gagne et al, 1992).
10
In the instructional design of the training curriculum, with attitudinal
change as the intended outcome of instruction, training must be developed to
either ensure direct reinforcement of personal action choices or upon human
modeling to bring about vicarious reinforcement of the learner (Gagne et al,
1992). The retrieval of verbal information and certain intellectual skills may be
required when learners are acquiring new attitudes. Direct methods may involve
the achievement of success in some learning accomplishment which will likely
lead to a positive attitude toward that activity.
Human modeling (Bandura, 1969, 1977), as an indirect method, involves
the observation of a human model by learners (as cited in Gagne et al., 1992, p.
89). Gagne (1984) advised that the model be someone whom the learners
respect or can identify with whom they perceive as credible and powerful (as
cited in Gagne et al., 1992). Observations of a model making desired choices of
personal action, such as exhibiting safety awareness, must be followed by
observing that the action leads to satisfaction or pleasure on the part of the
model. Bandura (1969) identified this step in the process as “vicarious
reinforcement” (as cited in Gagne et al, 1992, p. 89).
Fredrick Bartlett (1932), a British psychologist, first theorized the existence
of abstract cognitive structures called “schemas” (Howard, 2000). If schemas are
similar to an experience, he proposed they render our memories accurate; if they
are different, they color our memories accordingly. Howard (2000) stated, “Our
schemas differ from each other’s just as our experiences do…Most learning
appears to be a process of fitting new information into old schemas. Our existing
11
schemas tend to determine how we evaluate and shape new information unless
we work hard to establish new schemas” (p. 476). Howard (2000) credits Hart
with defining learning as “the acquisition of useful schemas” which Hart called
programs. Hart theorized a program as a sequence used for attaining a
preselected goal and as such programs are triggered when the learner
recognizes a pattern.
Examining how employees perceive their work environment may help
determine the effectiveness of an organization. During the 1990s, the incidents of
violence and homicide at U.S. post offices caused expressions, such as “going
postal” to become part of our culture (Braverman, 1999). A reference to the post
office by an employee in a tense workplace situation was comparative to
someone shouting “I’ve got a bomb” at an airport security checkpoint. Due to the
preponderance of live media broadcasts regarding the violence which transpired
at several U.S. post offices, some common perceptions (myths) surfaced such
as, “Postal workers as a group are more violent than other people,” and “Abusive
postal managers drive workers to violence and sometimes to murder”
(Braverman, 1999, p. 29). Both statements have been found to be untrue based
on empirical evidence and research statistics of violence committed at post
offices, as compared to other industries and occupations. In fact, a 1994
research report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
comparing national workplace homicide rates with those of the U.S. Postal
Service revealed the rate of homicide in the U.S. Postal Service is actually lower
than that of the general U.S. working population (Braverman, 1999).
12
Several factors can influence the effectiveness of training. Some include
the quality and effectiveness of the curriculum; the quality and manner of
facilitation and facilitator; the environment; and the attitude and receptiveness of
the student. Therefore, it is critical that a thorough training evaluation be
conducted. It is not only important to find out if training was effective, but also
why it was effective (Quinones, 1997). “Evaluation techniques must become
more sophisticated if they are to provide useful information for improving training”
(p. 193). Quinones (1997) hypothesized, “It is clear that trainee perceptions of
the work environment, or climate, can have an impact on the success of training
programs. Climates can affect whether organizational members attend training
as well as their use of the trained skills on the job” (p. 192).
Goldstein (1993) recommended a thorough organizational assessment to
identify potentially negative perceptions be conducted to ascertain whether these
perceptions could interfere with the successful implementation of an otherwise
well-designed training program (Quinones, 1997).
As a first step in determining the effectiveness of training, all key factors
that may have contributed to the impact of the training should be identified.
Focusing on variables that may have influenced individual attitudes, perceptions,
or performance brings credibility to the training program and helps show the
effects of training (Phillips, 1997a). Obtaining information directly from training
participants is an easy method to isolate the impact of training. Participants are
believed to be capable of providing an accurate estimate of how much of a
performance improvement is related to the training program. Phillips (1997a)
13
advised that the impact of training on important output variables should be
evaluated showing the impact of training using measures such as productivity,
quality, cost and response times.
Almost any training program will improve job satisfaction if it is perceived
to be successful by the participants. Employee satisfaction is perhaps one of the
most important intangibles gleaned from effective workplace training. “Employee
job satisfaction is closely correlated with absenteeism and turnover, both of
which are linked with some training programs” (Phillips, 1997a, p. 207). Attitude
survey data can be linked to training results if the survey instrument is created
eliciting attitudinal and perceptual responses to the effectiveness of the training
course.
Gagne, Briggs, and Wager (1992) defined studies of the effectiveness of a
system as a whole as “summative evaluations.” A summative evaluation is
normally conducted after the system has passed through its formative stage of
point-by-point revisions. A summative evaluation could be conducted at the time
of the first field test or years later, however, “summative evaluations need to be
conducted under an equally varied range of conditions” (Gagne et al., 1992, p.
30).
The current study identified and analyzed employees’ attitudes and
perceptions toward workplace violence prevention training in order to assess the
impact of the training and its components as a strategy in the overall workplace
violence prevention program. It attempted to identify employees’ awareness of
their work environment and the impact violence has on operational effectiveness.
14
The results could assist management and employees in minimizing violence in
the workplace, help improve the overall workplace violence prevention training
program, and help to provide an environment more conducive to productivity and
efficiency.
Significance of the Study
Workplace violence is increasing at an alarming rate and workplace
violence prevention programs are growing in significance to each employee and
corporation. Workplace violence prevention training is neither standardized or
legislated in the United States. Furthermore, little research has been conducted
to evaluate workplace violence prevention training programs. A study is needed
to survey employees in order to ascertain their attitudes and perceptions toward
their organization’s workplace violence prevention training. The research findings
should yield information valuable to the field of training effectiveness research.
In January 1994, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health (OSH) Joseph Dear stated, “it is now OSHA’s (Occupational Safety and
Health Administration) policy to cite employers who fail to adequately protect
their workers from acts of violence under Section 5(a) of the OSH Act, which
requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized
hazards likely to cause death or serious bodily harm” (Labig, 1995, p. 5). OSH
and the CDC believed many workplace murders are preventable and therefore
constitute a violation of the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA).
15
NIOSH (1997) reported, “The circumstances of workplace violence differ
significantly from those of other types of homicides. While most workplace
homicides are robbery-related, less that 10% of homicides in the general
population occur during a robbery” (p. 1). In the general population, about 50% of
all murder victims were related to their assailants; whereas the majority of
workplace homicides are believed to occur among people who do not know each
other. NIOSH (1997) reported, “These differences call for unique prevention
measures targeted specifically to the workplace” (p. 1).
A study was needed to determine the attitudes and perceptions of
employees toward workplace violence training. A limited amount of research is
available pertaining to employees’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace
violence prevention training. NIOSH (1992) recommended “Evaluation of the
effectiveness of various strategies alone, and in combination with other efforts, is
critical to the design of new strategies and to the development of a
comprehensive workplace homicide prevention effort” (p. 4). NIOSH (1992)
further proposed, “Behavioral strategies, such as training in conflict resolution
and nonviolent response, should also be examined in detail to determine the
salient features of training programs and approaches to implementation” (p. 4).
“We as a society cannot afford to tolerate violence against working men
and women,” advised former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E.
Shalala (NIOSH, 1996b). “As we pursue the fundamental efforts needed to
reduce the level of violence in society in general, we also must take strategic
steps to protect Americans from violence on the job” (NIOSH, 1996b, p. 1). The
16
goal of this study is to assess workplace violence prevention training as a
component of the overall workplace violence prevention program and contribute
to the evaluation research recommended by NIOSH.
The U.S. government service agency requesting this study has an annual
operating revenue of $68.5 billion, 700,000 career employees, and serves seven
million customers daily at 37, 579 operating locations nationwide. The agency
has a workplace violence prevention program but its training impact has not been
assessed. The management decision to be made, based on this study, is
whether the current Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the
Workplace training course will make a positive workplace violence prevention
impact and to determine if the course should be revised or expanded to provide
additional or more frequent information to all agency employees.
Research Hypotheses
The research hypotheses for this study were as follows:
Hypothesis 1: There is no statistically significant difference in
nonsupervisory’s, supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward
workplace violence.
Hypothesis 2: There is no statistically significant difference in
nonsupervisory’s, supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward
workplace violence prevention training.
Hypothesis 3: There is no statistically significant difference in the attitudes
and perceptions among nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managers who have
received workplace violence prevention training and those nonsupervisory,
17
supervisory or managers who have not received workplace violence prevention
training.
Delimitation
This study was delimited by attempting to identify only the extent to which
employees perceive workplace violence prevention training. It was assumed they
were able to comment on their feelings and perceptions toward workplace
violence prevention training.
Limitations
Because the data came from a questionnaire, the instrument itself and the
participants’ truthfulness in responding to the statements were limitations. The
study was further limited by the subjects’ bias, communication skills, and
interpretation of the survey questions. The research conducted was limited to a
U.S. government service agency with employees located at several locations in
Minnesota and Wisconsin.
The limitations which affected the outcome of this project are as follows:
a. Employees who have never witnessed or observed workplace violence
may be more likely to answer survey questions toward the strongly
disagree side of the Likert scale.
b. Employees who have been victims of workplace violence or had
witnessed or observed workplace violence may be more likely to
answer survey questions toward the strongly agree side of the Likert
scale.
18
c. Agreement with the effects of workplace violence prevention training
may be heavily based on previous workplace violence prevention
training or the present course experience and include the method of
instruction and the instructor.
d. The educational levels of course participants may affect answers to
questions concerning the effect of formal education and workplace
violence prevention training and the potential for lessening acts of
workplace violence.
e. Some participants may view this research as a means to validate the
fulfillment of the agency’s workplace violence prevention program and
the course itself.
f. Participants have no incentive for completing the research
questionnaire and may not complete the survey in its entirety or be
selective in question responses.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were adopted:
Assault: An unlawful threat or attempt to physically harm someone; a
violent attack.
Attitude: A mental position or feeling with regard to a fact or state.
Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace: A
workplace violence prevention training program produced by VisionPoint (©2001
VisionPoint Productions, Inc., www.vppi.com) and used by the U.S. government
service agency proposed for this study. The program includes a 17-minute video,
19
facilitator’s guide, participant handouts, and self-study pocket reminder cards.
The training course uses a multi-media approach (video, lecture, and group
discussion). Course objectives include understanding employee behaviors which
may lead to workplace violence, workplace conflict management and
communication skills, and agency workplace violence policies and procedures.
Executive and administrative schedule (EAS) employee: U.S. Postal
Service entry- and mid-level management positions which include postmasters,
customer services, and managers of postal operations. High-level management
positions include officials, executives, plant managers, department managers,
superintendents, and salaried supervisory members of management. The EAS
workforce also includes administrative judges, economists, rate commissioners,
rate classification specialists, and part-time postmasters working in small towns
with populations less than 1000.
Exempt employee: An employee who receives an annual salary and is
exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Hate crimes: Coined in the late 1980s to emphasize criminal conduct
motivated by prejudice, it focuses on the psyche of the criminal rather than on the
criminal’s conduct. It attempts to extend the civil rights paradigm into the world of
crime and criminal law (Roleff, 2001).
Inquisite® web survey system: An Internet company providing commercial
online survey services (Inquisite, Inc., Austin, TX, www.inquisite.com).
Manager: A supervisory employee in charge of the overall performance of
a team of employees.
20
Nonsupervisory employee: A worker performing operational work tasks for
another.
Postal career executive service (PCES) employee: U.S. Postal Service
executives, senior-level officers, district managers, bulk mail center managers,
vice presidents, and the deputy postmaster general.
Perception: An individual’s understanding or environmental awareness
through one’s senses.
Supervisory employee: An hourly or salaried employee responsible for
overseeing the completion of operational tasks by one or a team of employees.
Workplace climate: The social, emotional, and psychological environment
within which employees and supervisors function; the general atmosphere and/or
attitude within the workplace.
Workplace intervention analyst: An exempt staff employee responsible for
the prevention and response to various employee behavioral issues including
workplace violence, discrimination, and inappropriate employee or management
behaviors. Duties involve investigating allegations, training workplace violence
prevention, and programs designed to maintain a harmonious working
environment.
Workplace violence: Incidents within the service industry or company
caused by any of the following: alcohol and substance abuse, workplace climate,
personnel safety issues, and other related issues.
Workplace violence prevention program: A management-sponsored
program which increases awareness of employees to the effects and response to
21
workplace violence. It involves procedures and training for prescreening new
employees, new hire orientation, security policies, and post-violence incident
reviews and recommendations.
Summary
Organizations cannot isolate themselves from societal trends. With the
increase of workplace violence incidents, came the increase in awareness and
education programs concerning workplace violence. Overt workplace violence
behaviors are present in society, but employees may not realize the prevalence
of acts of workplace violence or understand how to identify and report employee
behaviors of those individuals who may possess the potential to be involved in a
workplace violence incident.
22
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Background According to a Department of Justice report, there were close to 1.8
million violent offenses in 1995. During that year, violent offenses affected one in
twenty Caucasians, one in sixteen African-Americans, one in twenty-four females
and one in seventeen males (Palmer, 1998). Occupational violence has become
a serious problem facing workers and employers alike. Incidents of work violence
were virtually unheard of until the 1970s. Since then, these incidents have more
than tripled. Most experts agree that substance abuse, corporate downsizing,
and poverty are major contributors to occupational violence.
An accurate assessment of workplace violence and its effects on male
and female employees is hard to ascertain, due to non-standardized record
keeping and an unwillingness by some victims to report acts of violence due to
fears of reprisal or appearances of inadequacy. However, according to a 1994
U.S. Department of Justice Report, men had a greater possibility than women to
experience a violent crime. In fact, the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported in the 1995 National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries
that homicide was the second leading cause of death on the job for men and the
leading cause of death on the job for women (Davis, 1997).
23
Senior management has started to recognize the enormity of the financial
consequences associated with workplace violence. The three most affected
areas are costly litigations, lost productivity and damage control. Research
conducted by the Workplace Violence Research Institute in 2001 revealed that
multiple lawsuits were filed against the employer in each instance where the act
resulted in death or injuries. Litigation usually involves allegations of negligent
hiring or retention (Mattman, 2001).
Workplace violence has occurred in any type of occupation or work
environment. The highest number of work related homicide deaths (37%)
occurred in retail trade, with the services industry accounting for 17% of the
deaths and public administration another 11%. The occupational group with the
highest number of work-related homicides was sales workers (22%) with service
occupation workers accounting for another 18%. Executives, administrators, and
managers accounted for 14% (Baron, 1993). While the NIOSH (1996a) and
Department of Justice (1996) statistics revealed the growth of incidents of
violence in the workplace, the proposed study will concentrate on a U.S.
government service agency. The service industry encompasses any company
providing a paid or free service to other companies or consumers. NIOSH
(2001a) classified the following organizations under “services”: business
services; automobile and repair services; private household services; personal
services excluding private households; entertainment & recreation services;
hospitals; health services, excluding hospitals; educational services and other
professional services.
24
Every company surveyed in 2001 by the Workplace Violence Research
Institute which had a workplace violence related incident, reported a “dramatic
increase in employee turnover and an equally dramatic drop in employee morale”
(Mattman, 2001, p. 2). Those surveyed cited the fact most employees accept
responsibility for their safety and security at home, but feel it is the employer’s
responsibility to provide a safe work environment. Employees feel betrayed when
a violent incident occurs at work.
For the victims of violent crime, homicide took the lives of 1,071 working
during 1994 with 56% of the victims working in retailing or other service
industries (NIOSH, 1996c, p. 1). Male workers comprised 83% of the victims of
workplace homicide, with males comprising only 55% of the employed population
in the United States. Homicide was also the leading cause of fatal injury for
female workers, accounting for 42% of the fatal injuries to women (NIOSH,
1996c, p. 3).
Over half of all victimizations sustained at work are not reported to the
police. One survey of those who did not report their attack revealed that 40%
said they believed the incident to be a minor or “private” matter. An additional
27% did not file a police report because they had reported the incident to another
official, such as a company security guard (U.S. Department of Justice, 1993).
For every workplace murder, there are scores of injuries, stabbings, suicides,
shootings, beatings, rapes, psychological traumas, and mental health problems
which occur at work. According to a 1994 American Management Association
survey, more than half of 311 companies who responded said at least one of
25
their workers had been attacked, threatened, or killed on the job in the past four
years (Labig, 1995, p. 3).
The U.S. Department of Justice reported one of every six crimes occurs at
work, with over one million victims of violent crime committed while working or on
duty (Labig, 1995). These victimizations account for 15% of the over 6½ million
acts of violence experienced by U.S. residents age 12 or older. The
Northwestern National Life Insurance Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health released a study showing that one of four workers was harassed,
threatened, or attacked on the job between July 1992 and July 1993 (Labig,
1995). Workplace violence cost over half a million employees 1,751,100 days of
work each year, an average of 3.5 days per crime. Missed work resulted in over
$55 million in lost annual wages. Sixteen percent of workplace violence victims
suffered physical injuries and 10% of these injuries required medical care (Labig,
1995).
Management can neither assume nor predict the attitudes and perceptions
of their employees to the fact workplace violence exists. One thing almost all
incidents of workplace violence have in common is that sometime before the
emotionally enraged employee reached the breaking point and committed an act
of violence, he/she unfailingly exhibited telltale signs of pending trouble. Those
signs were either undetected, unreported, ignored by, or treated lightly by co-
workers (Baron, 1993). Unfortunately, perception of the future potential violent
actions of another employee is not an exact science and employees almost
never report their feelings to management for several reasons. One reason may
26
be the belief it is socially unacceptable to be branded a “snitch.” Other reasons
include the consistent barrier between labor and management and the American
penchant for giving a person the benefit of the doubt.
Restoring the corporation’s reputation following charges of incompetent or
irresponsible management may require a major commitment of both human and
financial resources. Depending upon the industry and frequency of incidents of
violence in the workplace, most managers may not proactively deal with
workplace violence until a situation occurs.
While homicides in the workplace occurred in a wide variety of
occupations, several specific occupations reported higher rates. During 1994,
more than 50 homicides included supervisors and proprietors in sales
occupations, taxicab drivers and chauffeurs, cashiers, managers of food and
lodging establishments, food preparation and service occupations, police,
detectives, and prison guards (Causey, 1998).
Management should have a better understanding of the potential and
effects of workplace violence. A lack of training for supervisory personnel,
however, exists in many organizations where the focus is solely on productivity
and little time or inclination is made to take notice of an employee’s personal
problems. To be effective, supervisors should have training and awareness in the
following topics: stress and conflict management; effective communication; team
building; dealing with difficult and demanding people; and managing change.
Supervisors should be trained to perceive early warning signs of employee stress
and spend time walking around and interacting with their team performing
27
“management by observation” (Baron, 1993). McClure (1996) recommended that
managers identify high-risk behaviors, such as the recent loss of a loved one or a
divorce, and they should help the employee get help. She believed managers
help enhance the quality of life for each employee and that the “balance between
caution and compassion will make the role as a manager a little less tough” (p.
204).
Research on the Causes of Workplace Violence Some violence committed in the workplace is motivated by prejudice. In
1997, over 8,000 hate crime incidents were reported in the United States (Roleff,
2001). Incidents occur almost once per hour. Roleff (2001) stated “For criminal
conduct to constitute a hate crime, it must be motivated by prejudice and there
must be a causal relationship between the criminal conduct and the officially
designated prejudice” (p. 24).
Workplace violence is the result of many factors all converging at the
wrong time and at the wrong place. Violence results from accessibility to the
business by the public and from the anger of disgruntled employees or the rage
of relatives or friends, such as jilted lovers or estranged spouses. According to
Labig (1995), there are no simple answers to questions about who commits
workplace violence, but he identified six common sources of violence on the job:
strangers, who typically are involved in the commission of a crime, such as
robbery, or who have a grudge against the business; current or past customers;
current and former co-workers who commit murders; current and former co-
28
workers who threaten and assault; spouses or lovers involved in domestic
disputes; and those infatuated with or who stalk employees (p. 33).
Is there a profile for someone who commits acts of violence in the
workplace? While it is true commonalities exist, it would be a grave mistake to
disregard suspected symptoms because the individual did not fit the below
profile. According to research by the Workplace Violence Research Institute
(2001), the following are some of the commonalities identified in offenders of
workplace related violence:
• White male, 35 to 45 years of age
• Migratory job history
• Loner with little or no family or social support
• Chronically disgruntled
• Externalizes blame; rarely accepts responsibility for things gone wrong
• Takes criticism poorly
• Identifies with violence
• More than a casual user of drugs and/or alcohol and
• A keen interest in firearms and other dangerous weapons
McClure (2000) identified anger and conflict as major issues in today’s
workplace and that too often someone at work expresses anger, or gets into
conflicts which range from inappropriate to high-risk incidents. At times, angry
employees can traumatize a workplace or, at a minimum, create an environment
that is negative, hostile, and frightening. When violence erupts, it can manifest in
the form of physical attacks using a variety of weapons.
29
The FBI reported firearms have long been the weapon of choice for
homicides, rising from 61% of all murders in 1988 to 70% in 1993 (Cox, 1997).
For every death by a rifle or shotgun in 1992, handguns took nearly nine lives (p.
7). Approximately 70% of 1994’s total 23,305 murders in America involved
firearms, usually a handgun. Of these deaths, about two thirds were under the
age of thirty-five. Over 30% of workplace violence victims faced armed offenders
and almost a third of these offenders had a handgun (Cox, 1997).
Societal costs due to firearm injuries have continued to rise. In 1992,
researchers estimated the total annual cost for firearm injury and death at $63.4
billion (Cox, 1997). Much of this cost is due to survivors’ lost working days with
hospital stays and rehabilitation expenses exuding significant costs.
Murder is the second highest cause of workplace death, followed only by
motor vehicle deaths, as reported by the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health statistics. Approximately 20% of these deaths involved the use of a
handgun while 80% were killed by various instruments such as clubs, knives and
other weapons (Alexander & Fowles, 1996).
Workplace Violence Prevention Training Programs
Corporations have a legal, moral and ethical responsibility to provide a
safe working environment. Workplace violence impacts an organization on many
levels. Workplace violence prevention programs help companies protect
employees, avoid costly litigations, preserve the company’s reputation, improve
the bottom line and help maintain a safe and secure work environment.
30
Employers have a general duty to “furnish to each employee, employment
and a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are
causing, or likely to cause, death or serious harm to the employee” under federal
and state Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations
(Sandler, 1994, p. 40). OSHA clearly stated employers are legally required to
provide a safe workplace. Even if there is not any immediate threat of workplace
violence, it is essential to recognize this danger and liability and to plan for it
(Holyoke, 1997).
Davis (1997) reported corporate America spends $4.2 to $6.24 billion per
year in the aftermath of workplace violence. This money is expended on
increased security and protective measures, relocation and/or repair of existing
property, increased absenteeism, increased attrition rates, trauma care for
employees (both physical and emotional trauma), loss of productivity, and stress
disability retirements. As of 1994, an estimated 80% of American companies and
organizations had not taken any steps toward dealing with violence in the
workplace. Of companies which had, 97% had done so in reaction to a workplace
violence incident. Since violence is random and unpredictable, one may conclude
it is not worth the time or money to try to prevent it. However, the incidence of
workplace violence continues to rise. According to a documented statistic stated
in the April 1995 issue, “Be a Manager, Go to Jail,” from the Scripps Center
International Newsletter, Volume 2, the incidence of workplace violence is going
up about 6% per year (Davis, 1997).
31
The best defense against crime at work is to be aware of all security
measures offered by the employer and to take necessary precautions to protect
yourself and your valuables. With more women than ever working in the
workforce today, there has been a steady increase in violent crimes involving
women. In fact, homicide was the leading cause of workplace death for women
during the 1990s (Dyer, 1996).
Some tips workers can take to proactively lessen their potential to become
a victim of workplace violence include, paying attention to information regarding
employer security measures. Being aware of security guards, patrols, and
stations and procedures can greatly aid the worker to respond correctly during
emergency situations (p. 118). Dyer (1996) recommended the following key
points to remember in helping prevent workplace violence: Check your individual
personnel record and know who has access to it; find out which police precinct
covers your place of employment; secure valuables and work records; never
provide personal employee information to callers; let your office know
destinations and schedules when you travel outside of the office; monitor access
to secure areas by all visitors; always stand near the control panel in an elevator
and get off immediately if you feel uncomfortable with other riders; avoid
confrontations with coworkers; stay out of isolated locations at the workplace
when working alone; walk out with other employees to your car at the end of the
day and avoid working late unless there are other employees working with you.
Dyer (1996) further recommended women in high-risk jobs should discuss safety
32
precautions with their employers and take common-sense steps to safeguard
themselves.
Baron (1993) opined that it is wise for every company to have a plan in
place. He recommended, “each business should evaluate its physical security
policies, its crisis management policies, and develop a plan for preventing and
managing potential violence from employees and/or outsiders” (p. 153). Baron
(1993) advised that sound plans should include the training to identify potential
perpetrators and to instruct managers, supervisors, and workers to follow
company procedures. Additionally, open communication between management
and employees is encouraged as well as detailed instructions for handling the
aftermath of a violent incident. Davis (1997) proposed once a workplace violence
policy and a crisis management team were in place, and first-level supervisors
and managers trained to recognize the warning signs of violent behavior and to
intervene appropriately, the final step in an effective workplace violence
prevention and intervention program was to make sure all employees are aware
of the program. Davis (1997) recommended disseminating the company policy
and that employees should understand what is considered violent behavior, how
to report incidents of such behavior and what the consequences were for
exhibiting such behavior.
Even the most carefully screened and trained workplace may experience
a violent act. There is not an exact science as to what should be included in a
workplace violence prevention program. However, there are practices,
processes, and security devices that can be implemented to reduce the exposure
33
of individuals to violent acts. The installation of bullet proof glass, closed-circuit
television cameras to monitor common use areas, hidden panic buttons, beepers
for human resources and security personnel and having security personnel, on
the premises before and after hours are only a few of the security measures
companies can take to protect and prevent violence in the workplace.
Background checks, psychological screening tests, pre-employment screening
behavioral interviews, and drug tests are additional security practices that can be
employed when selecting a person for employment.
Denenberg and Braverman (1999) recommended the following topics be
included in a workplace violence prevention program in order to ensure
employees are aware of potential security hazards and know how to protect
themselves and their co-workers through established policies and procedures:
• The workplace violence prevention policy
• Risk factors that cause or contribute to assaults
• Early recognition of escalating behavior or recognition of warning signs
or situations that may lead to assaults
• Ways of preventing or diffusing volatile situations or aggressive
behavior
• Information on multicultural diversity to develop sensitivity to racial and
ethnic issues and differences
34
• A standard response action plan for violent situations, including
availability of assistance, response to alarm systems and
communication systems
• Policies and procedures for reporting and record-keeping and
• Polices and procedures for obtaining medical care, counseling,
workers’ compensation, or legal assistance after a violent episode or
injury
Braverman (1999) identified seven steps to workplace violence
prevention:
1. Getting support from the top;
2. Forming a workplace violence risk audit team;
3. Performing a workplace violence risk audit;
4. Developing workplace violence prevention policies and procedures;
5. Conducting training in those policies and procedures;
6. Arranging for easy, nonpunitive access to medical and mental health
expertise; and
7. Having clear, commonsense policies and procedures for terminations
and layoffs.
He advised the entire process of developing a violence prevention
program – “from the risk audit, through team formation, to policy development,
through training and implementation – can be accomplished effectively only with
35
the visible support and participation of the top level of company (and union)
leadership” (p. 125).
Mantell (1994) postulated a seven-step workplace violence prevention
model. This model goes full-circle and encompasses all of the visible and
invisible factors surrounding the problem of workplace violence. Mantell believed
his approach was a “benchmark for defusing violence in the workplace” and
including the following steps:
1. Pre-employment screening;
2. Informed, aware management trained to see the early warning signs;
3. Management understanding of the Golden Rule of employee
treatment;
4. Education programs to teach employees and the organization how to
respond to threatening interpersonal situations;
5. Counseling services for employees and their families for job or
personal problems;
6. Proper security measures to protect the organization and the
employees; and
7. Workplace violence aftermath training.
Mantell (1994) offered one last piece of advice to businesspeople from all
companies: “Don’t wait for something bad to happen before you react. Move
forward with an intervention plan and act on it before violence in the workplace
strikes your company and your employees” (p. 263).
36
Senior management must take the following active steps to improve their
company’s business success and to prevent violence: “create a positive
organizational environment; get to know employees and avoid the dangerous
consequences of the isolation of the corporate office; personally take
precautions, set the tone and think ahead; and be proactive in managing change”
(Labig, 1995).
The chief executive plays a critical role in shaping the company’s
environment and can do one of four things: become the voice of reason and
strategic direction; be a constructive and challenging role model; fall victim to
group pressure and reinforce the downward spiral; or become quick to anger and
blame and exacerbate the high risk of provocation and violence in the company
(p. 143).
Training programs should be evaluated to improve the instruction
provided. A primary learning objective of workplace violence prevention training
is attitudinal change. Attitudes are best conceived and measured as a
consistency in “choices of personal action” toward some class of object, persons
or events (Gagne, 1992) and often measured by obtaining self-reports via the
use of questionnaires. The effectiveness of achieving accurate learner self-
reporting has been achieved when learners are assured the assessment is not
intended as an adversary process and their responses are anonymous (Gagne et
al., 1992).
A zero-tolerance policy toward violence in the workplace is the best policy
to implement. Workers need to understand the policy and their responsibility to
37
report threatening situations. Supervisors must be trained as to how to respond
to the problem, referring the worker to professional help, if need be. Education is
the key factor in striving to reduce violence in the workplace (Palmer, 1995).
Perceptual and Attitudinal Effects of Training
Charles Silberman’s aphorism that “crime is as American as Jesse James”
is an accurate and growing perception in America (Mantell, 1996). While no
approach can provide the guarantee workplace violence will never happen,
educating and training employees how to respond to threatening interpersonal
situations can help employees learn healthy ways of resolving conflict and help
management identify effective methods to protect and secure business
operations.
The perceptual and attitudinal effects of workplace violence prevention
training have not been completely captured. Robert Bjork (1994) stated,
“perceived similarity, or the lack thereof, of new tasks to old tasks is a critical
factor in the transfer of training…To the extent feasible, a training program
should provide a learned representation that permits the learner to recognize
when the knowledge and skills acquired during training are and are not
applicable to new problems” (Howard, 2000).
Burden (2000) promulgated his Knowledge Management theory, “New
equipment, new or changed job functions, new employees, new procedures and
new subjects of study – all of these require training to provide both current users
and new employees with the necessary skills to be able to use the change
agents in the most effective and efficient ways possible.” He further stated, “The
38
main issue with change that most current employees in an organization have is
the alleged value of all of the changes,” and recommended an environment
wherein all employees share in their functional knowledge throughout the
organization (p. 50).
In evaluating the effectiveness of workplace violence prevention training, it
is important to analyze the training curriculum to ensure it meets the needs of the
learners. Howard (2000) recommended, “Before teaching someone a new skill or
body of knowledge, first find out what the learner already knows that is similar
and then proceed with the instruction, pointing out the ways in which this learning
is similar to or different from the learner’s existing schemas” (p. 50). Broad and
Newstrom (1992) identified the manager, trainer, and learner each play an
important part in transferring learning back to the job, albeit the timing of the
involvement of the three roles is different (Howard, 2000). Broad and Newstrom
(1992) recommended the learner be involved before the learning with pre-work,
for the manager to be involved during the learning with observation and input and
the trainer to be involved after the learning through support and feedback.
Violence in the workplace is perceived and affects the individual employee
in many ways. Immediately after an incident losses in productivity can be
attributed to the non-availability of the killed or injured worker; work interruptions
caused by police and internal security investigations; damage to the facility; time
lost by surviving employees discussing the incident and details leading up to it;
decreased efficiency and productivity due to post-traumatic stress, and time
spent by employees in counseling sessions. Businesses that suffered incidents
39
of violence in the workplace also reported a dramatic increase in the employee
turnover and equally dramatic drop in employee morale. Business surveys of
employees revealed most individuals felt the employer had the responsibility of
providing a safe work environment, not that the government was responsible
(Workplace Violence, CPCU Journal, 1995).
The purpose of workplace violence prevention training is primarily to help
employees report signals of potential danger to management. Shop-floor
employees, first-line managers, and shop stewards are normally the best
detectors, yet many serious cases of workplace violence stem from the failure to
transmit warning signals to the responsible levels of the organization early
enough to intervene. Corporate culture often discourages reporting and
managers take initiative and act independently wherever possible to avoid higher
management with problems. Case in point, during a postal service violence
prevention training session consisting of managers and union members, a letter
carrier voiced the frustration of reporting that one employee had threatened
another. The supervisor who had received the initial report was present and
replied, “Well, let me know if anything happens.” By the time the training was
over, every manager came to understand the seriousness of the incident and the
duty to up channel the report (Denenberg & Braverman, 1999). At another postal
service session, after receiving training that a team composed of union and
management members would respond to behavioral issues, a clerk who was a
union steward expressed his relief and advised that he had been dealing with a
union member who had been acutely suicidal for months and the clerk felt he had
40
nowhere to go with the problem because “it might have hurt the guy’s job
security.” “A good violence prevention policy creates options for diligent union
leaders like that steward.”
While it may be difficult to accurately assess the attitudes, perceptions and
reactions of employees to workplace violence prevention training, employees
should be able to perceive and report the warning signs of violent behavior.
Davis (1997) identified nine danger signals which are highly correlated to
workplace violence:
1. Fascination with weapons;
2. Substance abuse;
3. Severe stress;
4. History of violence;
5. Severe changes in psychological functioning;
6. Decreased or inconsistent productivity;
7. Social isolation and poor peer relationships;
8. Poor personal hygiene; and
9. Drastic changes in personality.
Only one of these signals has to be present in the individual and they are
not one-time occurrences. They are almost always part of a pattern and usually
suggestive of an overall style of non-compliance (p. 30). NIOSH (1996a) advised
“Training should not be regarded as the sole prevention strategy but as a
component in a comprehensive approach to reducing workplace violence.
Training should emphasize the appropriate use and maintenance of protective
41
equipment, adherence to administrative controls and increased knowledge and
awareness of the risk of workplace violence.”
Summary Violent crime and the fear of violence in the workplace has become a
growing threat in American society. According to the Chicago-based National
Safe Workplace Institute, 750 men and women died at the hands of rage-filled
co-workers in 1992. These cases, coupled with an estimated 111,000 workplace
violence incidents not ending in death, have cost American businesses about
$4.2 billion in lost work time, employee medical benefits and legal expenses
(Mantell, 1994).
Violence is one of the most troubling issues facing management today.
The workplace is not immune to the effects of violence and statistics indicate
violence has become a fundamental organizational problem (O’Leary-Kelly,
Griffin, & Glew, 1996). Ample evidence indicates increased concerns about
personal safety, feelings of alienation, and perceptions of threats are influenced
as much by indirect exposure as by personal encounter with violence (O’Leary-
Kelly et al., 1996). With these types of statistics and implications, corporations
are increasingly being held legally liable for safety, health, and behavioral issues
of employees in their workplace.
It is time for American businesses to recognize the crucial role they play in
helping prevent workplace violence. From pre-employment screening and
42
employee education and counseling services to fair employee treatment and
proper security procedures and responses to emergencies, corporation
management and employees should understand and acknowledge the potential
for workplace violence and how to mitigate or respond to incidents of violence.
43
CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Methodology
Employee attitudes and perceptions toward workplace violence prevention
training were evaluated as an overall workplace violence prevention strategy. A
study was needed to determine the effectiveness of workplace violence training
to ascertain whether existing methodology is ensuring a transference of learning
to each employee and if behavioral (attitudinal and perceptual) changes are
directly linked to the training received.
A survey was administered to a sample group of 1000 employees and
qualitative and quantitative methods were used to determine what employees
perceive as to the effect the workplace violence prevention training had on
identifying, neutralizing or responding, and coping to acts of violence in the
workplace. This study was requested by a U.S. government service agency
interested in assessing the quality and delivery of their workplace violence
prevention training and its effect on assigned employees.
Research Hypothesis
The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze employees’ attitudes
and perceptions toward workplace violence prevention training in order
44
to assess the impact of the training and its components as a strategy in the
overall workplace violence prevention training program.
The research hypotheses of this study were the following:
Hypothesis 1: There is no statistically significant difference in nonsupervisory’s, supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace violence.
Hypothesis 2: There is no statistically significant difference in nonsupervisory’s, supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace violence prevention training.
Hypothesis 3: There is no statistically significant difference in the attitudes and perceptions among nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managers who have received workplace violence prevention training and those nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managers who have not received workplace violence prevention training.
The independent variable, job classification of employees (nonsupervisory,
supervisory and manager), was used to compare differences between
employees located throughout the organization’s service offices located in
Minnesota and Wisconsin. Additional independent variables included education
level, years of employment, nonsupervisory, supervisory or manager status, and
previous attendance at formal workplace violence prevention training by the
employees surveyed. The dependent variable was the total survey component
score rating of employees’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace violence
prevention training.
In determining the overall level of awareness of workplace violence in the
workplace, questions were developed to measure: (1) attitudes toward
understanding how acts of violence directly impact the operations of a workplace;
(2) attitudes toward whether workplace violence prevention training affects
attitudinal changes which lessen or stop incidents of workplace violence; and (3)
45
attitudes toward knowledge gained from any workplace violence prevention
training. The researcher analyzed the questionnaire data and determined the
level of awareness employees had with the current workplace environment and
how it was impacted by violence.
This chapter explains the process and is divided into the following
sections: population, sample, research design, instrumentation, data collection,
and treatment of data and summary.
Population
Various preliminary steps were conducted in preparation for this study.
Coordination with the U.S. government service agency’s workplace intervention
analyst and human resources manager yielded the request and approval to
conduct research within their agency. The population consisted of 1000
employees located in over 50 service offices throughout the states of Minnesota
and Wisconsin. These employees held various levels of experience and included
nonsupervisory, supervisory, and management personnel. The population was
selected by the researcher from an employee roster provided by the U.S.
government service agency Workplace intervention analyst. Those individuals
selected should have attended the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence
in the Workplace training course offered to them during 2002 and 2003.
Sample
46
The sample was to consist of employees (nonsupervisory, supervisory,
and managers) from the exempt employee population. The researcher planned
to select employees by name from an inclusive alphabetized roster of all 1000
exempt employees. By request of the U.S. government service agency, the entire
population was surveyed because of the desire to gain a wider response rate
from small service offices who might not have been chosen to participate in this
study. Since the survey was administered via e-mail message with a connection
to a survey on an Internet site, each population member had access to corporate
e-mail. The original population, however, was estimated at 1500 but only 1000
were later determined to have access to corporate e-mail.
Statistical power refers to the probability a particular test of statistical
significance will lead to the rejection of a false null hypothesis. Four factors are
considered in statistical power analysis: sample size; level of significance;
directionality, and effect size (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996). The researcher chose a
95% confidence interval and .05% level of significance (p = .05) for the purpose
of this study. “It is now fairly well accepted in the research community that in
most instances, the 95% level of confidence represents a reasonable balance
between the risks of Type I and Type II errors” (Rea & Parker, 1997).
According to Rea and Parker (1997), a small population is considered less
than 100,000 and for each level of confidence (95% or 99%), required sample
sizes can be calculated for various confidence intervals in terms of proportions.
Rea and Parker created a “minimum sample sizes for selected small populations”
chart which revealed a minimum sample size of 278 would be required for an
47
approximate population of 1000 with a 95% confidence interval and +/- 5%
margin of error (p. 121). While systematic random sampling (one of every three
employees) would identify a sample of 333 employees, convenience sampling
was requested by the organization proposed to be studied in order to assess
total population response to a new technology, online surveying. Therefore,
surveys were sent to all 1000 exempt employees. “Inferential statistics can be
used with data collected from a convenience sample if the sample is carefully
conceptualized to represent a particular population” (Gall et al., 1996, p. 229). I
opined the convenience sample of 1000 exempt employees is representative of
the U.S. Government service agencies nationwide exempt workforce.
Research Design
The study involved descriptive research with descriptive statistics being
used to analyze the data. The study design was survey research with a
questionnaire developed to generate data for analysis. The survey participants
were nonsupervisory, supervisory, and management employees from a U.S.
government service agency. A survey questionnaire instrument was administered
to a sample group from this agency in order to assess the employee attitudes
and perceptions toward workplace violence and workplace violence prevention
training. The research survey was accomplished online via an e-mail hyperlink to
an Internet Web-based survey. The questionnaire consisted of questions
primarily founded on the Likert scale which is a measure of attitudes ranging from
very positive to very negative. The scale was based on a numerical score from 1
to 5 which would allow respondents to indicate how strongly they disagree (1) or
48
agree (5) with carefully constructed statements relating to their workplace
violence awareness and training experiences. In addition, demographics were
collected to measure response degrees based on length of time since last
workplace violence prevention training, race, ethnicity, gender, years of service,
educational levels, marital status, and employment classification. Before the
research instrument (questionnaire) was ready for final distribution, it was piloted
and received final University of North Texas Institutional Review Board (UNT
IRB), doctoral committee, and service agency approval for usage.
Instrumentation
The survey instrument for this research study was developed by the
researcher based on a review of literature, Delphi technique and designed
primarily for use in this study. The survey was sent to the researcher’s
dissertation committee and University of North Texas Center for Interdisciplinary
Research Office (UNT CIRO) for review, recommendations and approval. The
survey was then submitted to the UNT IRB for review and approval of human
subject research. The survey was pilot-tested to determine reliability and validity
prior to being utilized in this study. Once approved, the survey was sent via an
Internet hypertext link embedded in an e-mail sent to each study participant.
The researcher utilized the Delphi technique in the development of the
research instrument. This methodology helped solicit and summarize the opinion
of subject matter experts as to the organization, structure, and quality of
instrument questions. The survey questionnaire was distributed to five U.S.
government service agency workplace intervention analysts located nationwide
49
and the local agency’s human resources manager. All six members of the Delphi
panel were asked to rate the effectiveness of each of the survey instruments’
items on a Likert scaling of 1-5, with 1 being “Not Important” and 5 being “Very
Important” to assessing employees’ attitudes and perceptions of workplace
violence prevention training. Each panel member was asked to review the
accuracy of questions concerning specific training components of their agency’s
Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course.
Key learning points of the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the
Workplace training course are:
• why prevention starts with general awareness
• how subtle incidents can build dangerously
• why ignoring even small incidents can cause later problems
• what to do when behaviors exceed normal boundaries
• who to report incidents to – and when
• how personal problems can spill over into real and threatening
workplace problems and
• what are S.A.F.E. techniques
The program ensures that managers and employees alike:
• understand the importance of staying aware
• learn how to analyze common workplace situations
• discover ways to factor in personal feelings
• find ways to engage in a solution and
• stay S.A.F.E.
50
The Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training
program was produced in 2001 and only used once by the agency being studied.
During a one-hour course consisting of video, lecture, and class discussion
components, attendees learn to identify and describe workplace violence
behaviors, understand their role in reporting individuals exhibiting potentially
violent behavior, and how to respond to incidences of workplace violence.
Fertal (1996) stated, “Although training takes time, its length says nothing
of its effectiveness in improving employee performance” (p. 7). He further added,
“Length itself is not an appropriate unit of measurement for specifying training”
(p. 7). The agency utilizing the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the
Workplace training course believes this one-hour stand-alone course in
workplace violence prevention meets or exceeds the cognitive and affective
domain training objectives they desire: to ensure their employees can identify,
manage, and react appropriately to behaviors and situations involving workplace
violence.
The researcher established an average score of 3 on a 1-5 scaling, to be
used as the determining factor of whether or not to utilize the specific question in
the final questionnaire. Questions receiving a 1 or 2 rating by over 50% of the six
member panel would be eliminated from the instrument. Panel responses were
compiled and reviewed by the researcher. All of the questions received an
average score above 3 and were accepted as questionnaire statements.
The final survey was used to gather data via an online Internet-based
survey consisting of approximately 62 questions and a demographic response
51
section. The primary questions were used in assessing employee attitudes and
perceptions toward workplace violence in general, the workplace violence
prevention training content and delivery, and whether training received has made
a behavioral difference in the respondent. The importance of each respondent’s
input will be highlighted along with the random and confidential nature of the
survey.
The final survey was divided into four sections: Workplace Violence
Awareness; Workplace Violence Prevention Program; Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry)
Preventing Violence in the Workplace training; and Individual Demographics. The
questionnaire consisted of 62 items scored with a Likert-type format. The
responses range from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1) and very likely
(5) to very unlikely (1).
Gall et al. (1996) advised the number of respondents in a pretest need not
be large…“as few as 20 individuals often are sufficient” (p. 298). Approximately
80 exempt (nonsupervisory, supervisory, and management) employees from the
agency studied were contacted by the researcher and asked to participate in a
pilot study of the questionnaire. The agencies’ workplace intervention analyst
provided an alphabetized personnel roster from which the researcher randomly
selected individuals for use in the pilot study. The researcher identified himself,
discussed the purpose of the study, and requested cooperation and feedback
concerning completion and identification of major flaws or suggestions for
improvement to the questionnaire. The 80 employees used were not a part of the
research study.
52
Instrument reliability was estimated utilizing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
According to Gall et al. (1996), “tests that yield scores with a reliability of .80 or
higher are sufficiently reliable for most research purposes.” Nunnally (1978)
suggested “the generally accepted standard for reliability estimates is above .70”
(Huck and Cormier, 1996, p. 81). The reliability analysis in this study, based on
the test for internal consistency, indicated an alpha score of .82. However, only
12 of the 80 employees responded to the pilot test (15% response rate). After
consultation with the researcher’s committee and further statistical review, a
decision was made to move forward with the final research study based on the
reliability, albeit from a limited response, achieving a reliability score above .80.
The survey participants were asked to voluntarily respond to the survey
instrument and the 62 open and closed-answer questions were written in such a
manner as to allow the participants an opportunity to quickly answer the
questionnaire in a minimum amount of time (estimated 10-15 minutes). The
survey was accessed and completed online via an Internet-based survey site.
Data Collection
The research was conducted in January and February 2004 at a U.S.
government service agency located in St. Paul, Minnesota. The sample
consisted of nonsupervisory, supervisory, and management employees from this
agency. These employees were selected from among a roster of all exempt
employees. The use of random sampling helps ensure the sample will be
representative of the population with regard to sex, age, and other demographic
factors. While random sampling was to be conducted, the organization to be
53
studied requested convenience group sampling. The survey, therefore, was
electronically mailed to the 1000 exempt population. The study was designed to
identify the positive and negative impact of the effect of workplace violence
prevention training as perceived by each employee. These perceptions, along
with recommendations for improvement, are provided.
Completion of the survey was voluntary and prefaced with a notice that
completion of the survey was an indication of voluntary consent by the
respondent. There was no means of linking the answers on the research survey
instrument to a participant in this study except through analysis of various
demographic data. The survey (Appendix A) contained a letter to the
respondents confirming absolute anonymity, a brief explanation of the study, and
an offer to share the results of the study upon completion.
The survey instrument was transmitted via an Internet hyperlink
embedded in an e-mail message from the researcher to each respondent with a
notice indicating survey completion was voluntary and a request for completion,
estimated at 10-15 minutes, within five business days of e-mail receipt. After six
business days, a follow-up e-mail with an Internet hypertext link to the online
survey was transmitted to all study participants with a request to complete the
survey, if they had not done so.
It was assumed any results determined through this study would be
directly applicable to the entire organization since all nonsupervisory,
supervisory, and management employees possess similar employment
characteristics and demographics.
54
Treatment of Data
The researcher used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS® 11.0 for Windows®, Chicago, IL, www.spss.com) for data processing
and analysis. All responses were contained in an online data file available only to
the researcher and employees at Inquisite®, Inc., the web survey systems online
company being used to launch the research survey. Data was analyzed to
support the research questions of this investigation and determine the numerical
means for the questionnaire.
The data obtained from the research instrument was analyzed through the
use of several statistical tests to include one-way and three-by-two analysis of
variance (ANOVA). Significant F statistics were followed by post-hoc contrasts
designed to investigate mean differences among the three management groups.
Analysis of all data collected was also presented using descriptive statistics. The
mean, mode, and median responses were presented as well as the standard
deviation from the population and the variance of the responses. Inferential
statistics were used to draw conclusions about the current attitude and
perceptions of the population regarding the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing
Violence in the Workplace training course.
A test of statistical significance was performed to determine the retention
or rejection of the hypotheses. One-way ANOVA was used to observe a ratio of
differences/error terms to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. Three-by-two (3x2) ANOVA
was used to observe a ratio of differences/error terms to test Hypothesis 3. The
primary independent variables in this study were nonsupervisory, supervisory,
55
and management job status. The researcher was interested in determining
differences in the attitudes and perceptions of employees toward the
effectiveness of workplace violence prevention training. Those differences were
tested for statistical significance at the .05 level of significance.
Data were analyzed in one-way and three-by-two ANOVAs to establish
overall significance. The outcome of the one-way and three-by-two ANOVA F-
tests revealed additional post hoc investigative tests should be conducted. Post
hoc comparisons were made with Sidak’s test for multiple comparisons to
determine which pairs of the three management group means differed.
The total survey score was the dependent variable. Measuring the
attitudes and perceptions of workplace violence prevention training was a
primary goal of this research and determining if there were variances amongst
sample participants based on nonsupervisory, supervisory, or management job
status, age, gender, years of employment, and location of work. For Parts I, II
and III of the questionnaire, a minimum average component segment score of 4,
based on the Likert 1-5 scaling, was used as a threshold to indicate effective
individual perceptual and attitudinal responses.
Summary
Media coverage of workplace violence in America during the past few
years has increased awareness in American society that this is a major societal
and organizational issue. It is unknown if corporate leadership believes education
and awareness is part of the armament to combat workplace violence. Some
56
organizations have implemented various types of workplace violence prevention
programs. The organization at the center of this study has a workplace violence
prevention training program employed in their workplace. This strategy has not
been measured or validated.
The focus of this research was to determine whether employees
understand their roles and responsibilities in ensuring episodes of violence in the
workplace do not go unchallenged. Events of societal violence in America during
the 1980s, 1990s, and today have demonstrated acts of violence in the
workplace are not disappearing. In fact, complaint and incident rates of violence
for several career fields have been on the rise. Every act of conflict or violence in
the workplace detracts from an employees ability to do their jobs to the best of
their ability. Senior corporate leadership should understand they cannot revert to
an isolationist viewpoint against societal trends. Even with workplace violence
prevention training people will occasionally behave inappropriately. Few
corporations realize this problem or have adopted workplace violence prevention
programs. These programs are needed as a medium to reiterate workplace
violence is present and to educate all employees on their roles and
responsibilities when confronting conflict or violent behavior.
This study identified and analyzed employees’ attitudes and perceptions
toward workplace violence prevention training in order to assess the impact of
the training and its components as a strategy in the overall workplace violence
prevention program of a U.S. government service agency. The independent
variables were nonsupervisory, supervisory, or management job status,
57
educational level, years of employment, previous attendance at formal workplace
violence prevention training, and compared differences among employees in 50
service offices. The dependent variable was the total survey component score
rating of survey responses toward workplace violence prevention training. The
population consisted of 1000 exempt employees and involved descriptive
research. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze resultant survey data. Prior
to survey implementation, a critical review of the instrument was made as well as
a pilot study. Instrument validity and reliability was assessed utilizing Cronbach’s
alpha and appropriate changes made to the survey instrument before primary
utilization. The instrument used to gather data for this study was an online
Internet survey sent to each respondent via an e-mail message, containing a
hyperlink to the survey. Explanation of the study and a request to voluntarily
complete an anonymous survey was provided to each participant with directions
to respond to each of 62 item statements. The instrument used received final
approval by the UNT IRB for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research prior
to survey implementation.
58
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Introduction
The goal of this study was to test the following hypotheses:
1. There is no statistically significant difference in nonsupervisory’s,
supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace
violence.
2. There is no statistically significant difference in nonsupervisory’s,
supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace
violence prevention training.
3. There is no statistically significant difference in the attitudes and
perceptions among nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managers who have
received workplace violence prevention training and those nonsupervisory,
supervisory and managers who have not received workplace violence prevention
training.
Study population demographics are described. The findings are reported
by hypothesis number as listed above.
Description of Study Population
The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze employees’ attitudes
and perceptions toward workplace violence prevention training in order
59
to assess the impact of the training and its components as a strategy in the
overall workplace violence prevention program. An online survey was
administered in January and February 2004 to 1000 U.S. government agency
employees located in 50 separate locations within Minnesota and Wisconsin to
determine their attitudes toward workplace violence prevention training. Within
five business days after the survey was launched, two hundred and eighteen
employees responded. As planned, an e-mail message reminder was sent to the
survey population on the sixth business day. Per the U.S. government agency
request, there were no incentives offered for completing the survey and the
respondents’ replies remained voluntary and anonymous. A total of one hundred
and two employees responded prior to the scheduled survey termination date
(total of ten business days from survey launch to termination). Upon final
analysis, three hundred and twenty (32%) surveys were returned, analyzed, and
are discussed in this chapter. All returned surveys were completed and their data
used in the statistical analyses reported.
For the purposes of this study, Table 1 was broken down into three distinct
groups. Nonsupervisory employees were identified as all those in 1a. Support
Staff (HR/IS/Clerical Administrative) with a total of 69 (21%) respondents.
Supervisory employees were identified as 1b. Direct Line Supervisor (108 –
33.75%); 1c. Postmaster (Below Level 18) (17 – 5.31%); and 1d. Postmaster
(Level 18 and Above) (66 – 20.63%) for a total of 191 respondents (60%). There
were 60 managers (19%) in the study population identified as 1e. Manager (59 –
60
18.44%) and 2. District Manager, Vice President, Large City Postmaster,
Postmaster General, or Large Plant Manager (1 - .31%).
Table 1 indicates the breakdown of the study population according to
employment status by management level.
Table 1
Frequency of Employment Classification of Study Population by Management Level
69 69
100.0% 21.6%
108 108
56.5% 33.8%
17 17
8.9% 5.3%
66 66
34.6% 20.6%
59 59
98.3% 18.4%
1 1
1.7% .3%
69 191 60 320
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement level
1a. Support Staff(HR/IS/ClericalAdministrative)
1b. Direct Line Supervisor
1c. Postmaster (BelowLevel 18)
1d. Postmaster (Level 18and Above)
1e. Manager
2. District Manager, VicePresident, Large city...
65. My employmentis classified as:
1 - EAS Employee
2 - PCES Employee
Total
nonsupervisory supervisory managers
management level
Total
Table 2 indicates frequency of gender for the study population. There
were 207 male (64%) and 114 female (36%) respondents (N = 320). There were
30 (43.5%) nonsupervisory, 127 (66.5%) supervisory, and 49 (81.7%) managerial
male respondents. There were 39 (56.5%) nonsupervisory, 64 (33.5%), and 11
(18.3%) managerial female respondents.
61
Table 2
Frequency of Gender of Study Population by Management Level
30 127 49 206
43.5% 66.5% 81.7% 64.4%
39 64 11 114
56.5% 33.5% 18.3% 35.6%
69 191 60 320
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement level
Male
Female
68. Gender
Total
nonsupervisory supervisory managers
management level
Total
The population (N = 320) ranged in age from 26 to over 66 years of age.
Median age was 53, with 51-55-year-olds (n = 103) comprising 32.19% of the
study population. There were four (1.25%) 26-30 year old; seven (2.19%) 31-35
year old; 16 (5.00%) 36-40 year old; 46 (14.38%) 41-45 year old; 87 (27.19%)
46-50 year old; 50 (15.63%) 56-60 year old; and six (1.88%) 61-65 year old
employees. One (0.31%) employee indicated he/she was age 66 or older. Table
3 indicates the age ranges for the study population by management level.
62
Table 3 Age Range of Study Population by Management Level
1 3 4
1.4% 1.6% 1.3%
1 5 1 7
1.4% 2.6% 1.7% 2.2%
4 10 2 16
5.8% 5.2% 3.3% 5.0%
11 25 10 46
15.9% 13.1% 16.7% 14.4%
21 49 17 87
30.4% 25.7% 28.3% 27.2%
18 63 22 103
26.1% 33.0% 36.7% 32.2%
11 31 8 50
15.9% 16.2% 13.3% 15.6%
2 4 6
2.9% 2.1% 1.9%
1 1
.5% .3%
69 191 60 320
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement level
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
66 and older
72.Age:
Total
nonsupervisory supervisory managers
management level
Total
The population (N = 320) contained individuals with less than one year to
over 20 years of employment with the Northland District. Three employees
(0.94%) had worked for less than one year; four employees (1.25%) had 1-2
years employment; seven (2.19%) had 3-5 years; 44 (13.75%) had 6-10 years;
29 (9.06%) had 11-15 years; 61 (19.06%) had 16-20 years; and 172 employees
held more than 20 years of individual service (53.75%). Table 4 indicates the
63
years of Northland District employment for the study population by management
level.
Table 4
Years of Employment at Northland District by Management Level
1 2 3
1.4% 1.0% .9%
3 6 2 11
4.3% 3.1% 3.3% 3.4%
11 28 5 44
15.9% 14.7% 8.3% 13.8%
9 14 6 29
13.0% 7.3% 10.0% 9.1%
9 45 7 61
13.0% 23.6% 11.7% 19.1%
36 96 40 172
52.2% 50.3% 66.7% 53.8%
69 191 60 320
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement level
Less than 1 year
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
20 or more years
64. Number ofyears I haveworked for theNorthlandDistrict:
Total
nonsupervisory supervisory managers
management level
Total
Table 5 indicates the highest level of education completed by study
respondents. Responses revealed 32 participants (10%) had completed high
school or had a GED; 26 (8.13%) completed vocational or technical school; 118
participants (36.88%) had attended some college; 47 (14.69%) held an
Associate’s degree; 78 (24.38%) held a Bachelor’s degree; and 19 (5.94%) held
a Master’s or higher degree (N = 320).
64
Table 5
Level of Education of Study Population by Management Level
6 20 6 32
8.7% 10.5% 10.0% 10.0%
3 20 3 26
4.3% 10.5% 5.0% 8.1%
16 82 20 118
23.2% 42.9% 33.3% 36.9%
15 24 8 47
21.7% 12.6% 13.3% 14.7%
18 40 20 78
26.1% 20.9% 33.3% 24.4%
11 5 3 19
15.9% 2.6% 5.0% 5.9%
69 191 60 320
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement level
High School/GED
Vocational/TechnicalSchool
Some College
Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree or higher
70. Highestlevel ofeducationcompleted:
Total
nonsupervisory supervisory managers
management level
Total
Table 6 indicates the racial and ethnic group statistics for the study
population reported by management level (N = 320). Caucasian or non Hispanic
white respondents comprised 95% of the study population (304 employees).
There were 6 African-American or non Hispanic black (1.88%); 2 Mexican-
American or Mexican origin (0.63%); 3 Asian American, oriental or Pacific
islander (0.94%); and 5 employees who responded to “Other” (1.56%).
65
Table 6
Racial/Ethnic Group Statistics of Study Population by Management Level
1 4 1 6
1.4% 2.1% 1.7% 1.9%
66 180 58 304
95.7% 94.2% 96.7% 95.0%
2 2
1.0% .6%
3 3
1.6% .9%
2 2 1 5
2.9% 1.0% 1.7% 1.6%
69 191 60 320
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement level
African-American orBlack (Non Hispanic)
Caucasian or White(Non Hispanic)
Mexican-American orMexican Origin
Asian American,Oriental, Pacific Islander
Other
71.Racial/EthnicGroup:
Total
nonsupervisory supervisory managers
management level
Total
Table 7 identifies the supervisory status of the study population reported
by management level (N = 320). A total of 190 respondents (59.38%) indicated
they were a supervisor and 130 (40.63%) respondents indicated they were not
supervisors.
Table 7 Supervisory Status of Study Population by Management Level
52 45 33 130
75.4% 23.6% 55.0% 40.6%
17 146 27 190
24.6% 76.4% 45.0% 59.4%
69 191 60 320
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement level
No
Yes
66. I am a supervisor:
Total
nonsupervisory supervisory managers
management level
Total
66
Data Analysis
Hypothesis 1 stated: There is no statistically significant difference in
nonsupervisory’s, supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward
workplace violence.
A one-way ANOVA procedure was conducted to determine the difference
in nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managerial employees’ perceptions toward
workplace violence. The first 46 survey question responses were analyzed at the
.05 level of significance. Analysis compared each groups’ perceptions toward
workplace violence. The test revealed similarities in nonsupervisory, supervisory,
and managerial employees’ perceptions. The mean score for the first 46 items of
the questionnaire ranged from 1.15 to 4.62 on a 5-point Likert scale using the
highest score possible as 5 (strongly agree); followed by 4 (agree); 3 (neutral); 2
(disagree); and 1 (strongly disagree), the lowest score.
Although the perceptions of the three groups of employees differed
slightly, there were significant differences at the .05 level in relation to Questions
7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, and 46 of the survey amongst
perceptions of nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managerial respondents as
depicted in Table 10. Based on this finding, the null hypothesis was rejected.
A Sidak post hoc test for multiple comparisons was performed and is
attached (Appendix B). A difference in perceptions between nonsupervisors and
managers was indicated for Question 7, ”Employees working for the Northland
District are treated with respect, regardless of their job” (p = .001). The following
additional differences were observed: supervisors and managers differed on their
67
responses to Question 8, “I believe there is a likelihood for an act of workplace
violence within the Northland District” (p = .044); nonsupervisors and managers
differed in their responses to Question 10, “The Northland District provides a
working environment with employees knowledgeable of what is considered
workplace violence or violent behaviors” (p = .035); nonsupervisors and
managers differed in their responses to Question 14, “I believe there is no
discrimination within the working environment of the Northland District” (p =
.030); nonsupervisors and managers differed in their responses to Question 15,
“My personal feelings of being safe at work would change if the Northland District
instituted new policies” (p = .022); supervisors and managers differed in their
responses to Question 18, “I feel the potential for verbal assault by a family
member or relative working with me is…” (p = .008); nonsupervisors and
managers differed in their responses to Question 36, “I feel comfortable reporting
potential workplace violence” (p = .000); supervisors and managers differed in
their responses to Question 37, “I feel I have the necessary knowledge and
training to help prevent instances of workplace violence” (p = .016);
nonsupervisors and managers differed in their responses to Question 38, “I feel I
have the necessary communication skills to manage conflict situations in the
workplace” (p = .001); nonsupervisors and managers differed in their responses
to Question 39, “I feel I am ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety”
(p = .032); supervisors and managers differed in their responses to Question 44,
“I understand the workplace violence prevention policies and programs within the
Northland District” (p = .005); nonsupervisors and managers differed in their
68
responses to Question 45, “I feel my supervisor has the training required to
effectively deal with behaviors which could lead to potential acts of workplace
violence” (p = .012); and supervisors and managers differed in their responses to
Question 46, “I feel I have received effective workplace violence prevention
training” (p = .012).
Table 8 is the one-way ANOVA for Hypothesis 1.
Table 8 Hypothesis 1: One-Way ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 15.289 2 7.644 6.435 .002
Within Groups 376.558 317 1.188
7. Employees working for the Northland District are treated with respect, regardless of their job.
Total 391.847 319
Between Groups 6.912 2 3.456 3.089 .047
Within Groups 354.638 317 1.119
8. I believe there is a likelihood for an act of workplace violence within the Northland District.
Total 361.550 319
Between Groups 4.019 2 2.009 3.524 .031
Within Groups 180.728 317 .570
10. The Northland District provides a working environment with employees knowledgeable of what is considered workplace violence or violent behaviors. Total 184.747 319
Between Groups 9.772 2 4.886 3.649 .027
Within Groups 424.525 317 1.339
14. I believe there is no discrimination within the working environment of the Northland District.
Total 434.297 319
Between Groups 7.680 2 3.840 4.864 .008
Within Groups 250.270 317 .789
15. My personal feelings of being safe at work would change if the Northland District instituted new policies.
Total 257.950 319
(table continues)
69
Table 8 (continued)
Between Groups 5.442 2 2.721 5.365 .005
Within Groups 159.753 315 .507
18. I feel the potential for verbal assault by a family member or relative working with me is...
Total 165.195 317
Between Groups 23.226 2 11.613 11.789 .000
Within Groups 312.271 317 .985
36. I feel comfortable reporting potential workplace violence.
Total 335.497 319
Between Groups 6.159 2 3.079 3.944 .020
Within Groups 247.513 317 .781
37. I feel I have the necessary knowledge and training to help prevent instances of workplace violence.
Total 253.672 319
Between Groups 9.333 2 4.666 7.065 .001
Within Groups 209.389 317 .661
38. I feel I have the necessary communication skills to manage conflict situations in the workplace.
Total 218.722 319
Between Groups 5.387 2 2.694 3.748 .025
Within Groups 227.800 317 .719
39. I feel I am ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
Total 233.188 319
Between Groups 4.532 2 2.266 5.315 .005
Within Groups 135.156 317 .426
44. I understand the workplace violence prevention policies and programs within the Northland District.
Total 139.688 319
Between Groups 9.374 2 4.687 4.532 .011
Within Groups 327.814 317 1.034
45. I feel my supervisor has the training required to effectively deal with behaviors which could lead to potential acts of workplace violence.
Total 337.188 319
Between Groups 5.796 2 2.898 4.242 .015
Within Groups 216.576 317 .683
46. I feel I have received effective workplace violence prevention training.
Total 222.372 319
70
Hypothesis 2 stated: There is no statistically significant difference in
nonsupervisory’s, supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward
workplace violence prevention training.
A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to determine the difference in
nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managerial employees’ perceptions toward
workplace violence prevention training. Survey questions #4, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 37, and 46 were analyzed at the .05 level of significance to help
determine group differences for Hypothesis 2.
Although the perceptions of the three groups of employees differed
slightly, there were significant differences at the .05 level in relation to Questions
37 and 46 of the survey amongst perceptions of nonsupervisory, supervisory,
and managerial respondents as depicted in Table 9 (Question #37: F (2, 317) =
3.944 and p = .020 and Question #46: F (2, 317) = 4.242 and p = .015. Both p>
.05).
It was determined the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the
Workplace training course had a positive impact upon nonsupervisory,
supervisory, and managerial employees alike. Only 12.82% (41 of 320) of all
employees felt they did not have the necessary knowledge or training to help
prevent instances of workplace violence (Question 37). Of the total respondents
(N = 320), 89% answered favorably to Question #46, “I feel I have received
effective workplace violence prevention training.” Therefore, based on this
finding, the null hypothesis was rejected. Table 11 is the one-way ANOVA for
Hypothesis 2.
71
Table 9 Hypothesis 2: One-Way ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 6.159 2 3.079 3.944 .020
Within Groups 247.513 317 .781
37. I feel I have the necessary knowledge and training to help prevent instances of workplace violence.
Total 253.672 319
Between Groups 5.796 2 2.898 4.242 .015
Within Groups 216.576 317 .683
46. I feel I have received effective workplace violence prevention training.
Total 222.372 319
Hypothesis 3 stated: There is no statistically significant difference in the
attitudes and perceptions among nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managers
who have received workplace violence prevention training and those
nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managers who have not received workplace
violence prevention training.
A three-by-two-way ANOVA procedure was conducted to determine the
difference in nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managerial employees’
perceptions toward workplace violence prevention training amongst those who
had or had not attended the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the
Workplace training course. Responses to Questions #47 and #61 were analyzed
at the .05 level of significance. Analysis compared each groups’ perceptions
toward their understanding of workplace violence and their agencies workplace
violence policy, both of which are provided during training.
During pairwise comparative analysis, a significant difference was
observed within the supervisory group and between those supervisors who had
72
attended Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training
and those who had not attended this course (mean difference = -.534/.534). The
following respondent groups responded positively to Question #47 indicating they
had attended training: nonsupervisors: 61 (M = 3.84); supervisors: 158 (M =
3.87) and managers: 50 (M = 3.88). Based on the significant difference amongst
the supervisory group, the null hypothesis was rejected.
Of the participants, 269 out of 320 (84%) responded they had attended the
agencies’ Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training
course. Table 10 identifies the management levels and counts of those who have
or had not attended Be S.A.F.E (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace
training.
Table 10
Management Levels and Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Attendance
Value Label N
1.00 non supervisory 62
2.00 supervisory 164Management level
3.00 managers 521 No 947. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not
Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV). 2 Yes 269
Table 11 indicates the total lifetime hours of violence prevention training
per study participant by management level. Six (1.88%) employees indicated
attending less than 1 hour of training; 27 (8.44%) had 1-2 hours; 69 (21.56%)
had 3-5 hours; 70 (21.88%) had 6-10; and 148 (46.25%) indicated they had
73
attended more than 10 hours of workplace violence prevention training in their
life (N = 320).
Table 11 Violence Prevention Lifetime Total Training Hours by Management Level
1 5 6
1.4% 2.6% 1.9%
21 58 17 96
30.4% 30.4% 28.3% 30.0%
24 35 11 70
34.8% 18.3% 18.3% 21.9%
23 93 32 148
33.3% 48.7% 53.3% 46.3%
69 191 60 320
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement level
Less than 1 hour
3-5 hours
6-10 hours
More than 10 hours
73. Please indicatethe number of hoursof violence preventiontraining you haveundergone in your life:
Total
nonsupervisory supervisory managers
management level
Total
Table 12 indicates the total individual hours of violence prevention training
the participant received while an employee of the Northland District and reported
by management level. A total of 15 respondents (4.69%) indicated having less
than 1 hour of training; 40 (12.50%) had 1-2 hours; 87 (27.19%) had 3-5 hours;
72 (22.50%) had 6-10 hours; and 106 (33.13%) had more than 10 hours of total
violence prevention training as a Northland District employee.
74
Table 12
Northland District Violence Prevention Training Hours by Management Level
4 9 2 15
5.8% 4.7% 3.3% 4.7%
30 72 25 127
43.5% 37.7% 41.7% 39.7%
20 42 10 72
29.0% 22.0% 16.7% 22.5%
15 68 23 106
21.7% 35.6% 38.3% 33.1%
69 191 60 320
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement levelCount% withinmanagement level
Less than 1 hour
1-5 hours
6-10 hours
More than 10 hours
74. Please indicatethe number of hoursof violence preventiontraining you haveundergone while anemployee of theNorthland District:
Total
nonsupervisory supervisory managers
management level
Total
Table13 provides the one-way ANOVA reporting for group variance in
relation to Question #1, “Workplace safety is important for the Northland District
to operate as an organization.”
Table 13
One-Way ANOVA : Workplace Safety is Important to Northland District
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 2.426 2 1.213 1.917 .149
Within Groups 200.574 317 .633
1. Workplace safety is important for the Northland District to operate as an organization.
Total 203.000 319
Table 14 provides the descriptive statistics for those who perceived
workplace safety as being important for the Northland District to operate
effectively.
75
Table 14 Workplace safety is important for the Northland District to operate as an organization.
66. I am a supervisor:
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Mean Std. Deviation N
No 4.50 1.033 16
Yes 4.77 .549 114No
Total 4.74 .629 130
No 4.75 .672 32
Yes 4.51 .922 158Yes
Total 4.55 .888 190
No 4.67 .808 48
Yes 4.62 .797 272Total
Total 4.63 .798 320
Table 15 displays the descriptive statistics for Hypothesis 3.
Table 15 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
management level
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Mean Std. Deviation N
No 3.00 . 1
Yes 3.84 .711 61Non supervisory
Total 3.82 .713 62
No 3.33 .516 6
Yes 3.87 .640 158Supervisory
Total 3.85 .642 164
No 4.00 .000 2
Yes 3.88 .558 50Managers
Total 3.88 .548 52
No 3.44 .527 9Total
Yes 3.86 .640 269
76
management level
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Mean Std. Deviation N
Total 3.85 .641 278
Table 16 displays the estimates for Hypothesis 3.
Table 16 Estimates Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
95% Confidence Interval
management level
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Mean Std. Error Lower
Bound Upper Bound
No 3.000 .639 1.741 4.259non supervisory
Yes 3.836 .082 3.675 3.997
No 3.333 .261 2.819 3.847Supervisory
Yes 3.867 .051 3.767 3.967
No 4.000 .452 3.110 4.890Managers
Yes 3.880 .090 3.702 4.058
Table 17 displays the pairwise comparisons for Hypothesis 3.
77
Table 17 Pairwise Comparisons Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
95% Confidence Interval for
Difference(a)
Management level
(I) 47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
(J) 47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.(a)
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
No Yes -.836 .645 .196 -2.105 .433Non supervisory Yes No .836 .645 .196 -.433 2.105
No Yes -.534(*) .266 .046 -1.057 -1.023E-02
Supervisory Yes No .534(*) .266 .046 1.023E-
02 1.057
No Yes .120 .461 .795 -.788 1.028Managers
Yes No -.120 .461 .795 -1.028 .788
Based on estimated marginal means
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Side.
Table 18 displays the univariate tests for Hypothesis 3.
78
Table 18 Univariate Tests Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
management level Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Noncent. Parameter
Observed Power(a)
Contrast .688 1 .688 1.682 .196 1.682 .253Non supervisory Error 111.183 272 .409
Contrast 1.647 1 1.647 4.029 .046 4.029 .516Supervisory
Error 111.183 272 .409
Contrast 2.769E-02 1 2.769E-02 .068 .795 .068 .058
Managers Error 111.183 272 .409
Each F tests the simple effects of 47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV) within each level combination of the other effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
a Computed using alpha = .05
Summary
The mean for all three groups was highest in relationship to the question
workplace safety was important for the Northland District (their working
environment) to operate successfully as an organization. The data also revealed
all three employee groups agreed on the importance of workplace violence
prevention training and the agencies Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Workplace Violence
Prevention training program.
79
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze employees’ attitudes
and perceptions toward workplace violence prevention training in order to assess
the impact of the training and its components as a strategy in the overall
workplace violence prevention program. During 2002-2003, employees of the
U.S. government service agency surveyed during this study underwent
mandatory workplace violence prevention training using a vendor training
program, Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace.
Variables of interest were attitudes and perceptions of employees toward the
training content, method of delivery, and overall individual and operational
impact. The survey was conducted using an online survey tool whose hyperlink
was forwarded to each survey participant via an electronic mail message.
Participation was voluntary as acknowledged by completion of the survey.
This chapter presents a summary of the study, offers conclusions in
regard to the study’s findings, and discusses implications and recommendations
for further research.
80
Study Summary
This study analyzed the perceptions of nonsupervisory, supervisory, and
managerial employees toward their individual feelings toward workplace violence,
workplace violence prevention training, and their agency’s utilization of a third
party vendor training product for mandatory training on workplace violence
prevention training (Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the
Workplace training course).
The study was requested by a U.S. government service agency interested
in assessing the attitudes and perceptions of their employees toward their
formalized workplace violence prevention training program. No previous studies
had been conducted on the analysis of the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing
Violence in the Workplace training course at the U.S. government service agency
and few studies had previously been conducted to determine attitudes and
perceptions toward workplace violence prevention training.
The following research hypotheses were presented in this study:
1. There is no statistically significant difference in nonsupervisory’s,
supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace
violence.
2. There is no statistically significant difference in nonsupervisory’s,
supervisory’s, and managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace
violence prevention training.
3. There is no statistically significant difference in the attitudes and
perceptions among nonsupervisory, supervisory, and managers who have
81
received workplace violence prevention training and those nonsupervisory,
supervisory, and managers who have not received workplace violence prevention
training.
The three research hypotheses were formulated to determine the
perceptions of employees at a U.S. government service agency regarding their
attitudes and perceptions toward workplace violence and workplace violence
prevention training. The raw data relating to research hypotheses 1 and 2 were
analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The raw data relating to
hypothesis 3 were analyzed using three-by-two (3 x 2) ANOVA.
Hypothesis 1 was rejected, signifying there was a statistically significant
difference at the p > .05 level between the nonsupervisory, supervisory, and
managerial employees’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace violence.
Hypothesis 2 was rejected, signifying that there was a statistically
significant difference at the .05 level in nonsupervisory’s, supervisory’s, and
managers’ attitudes and perceptions toward workplace violence prevention
training.
Hypothesis 3 was rejected, signifying there was a statistically significant
difference in the attitudes and perceptions among nonsupervisory, supervisory,
and managers who have received workplace violence prevention training and
those nonsupervisory, supervisory and managers who have not received
workplace violence prevention training. The data indicated nonsupervisory,
supervisory, and managerial employees perceive workplace violence prevention
training to be important.
82
Research analysis revealed no observations of perceptual differences
between nonsupervisors and supervisors. Managers and supervisors differed
with managers believing a greater likelihood of workplace violence existed.
However, managers believed employees were knowledgeable of workplace
violence procedures and had received effective training.
Managers differed from nonsupervisors with managers having a more
positive perception that employees were treated with respect, were comfortable
reporting violence, and possessed necessary skills and training. Nonsupervisors
believed workplace discrimination existed and that management was ultimately
responsible for workplace safety.
Findings
1. Nonsupervisory employees who had attended workplace violence
prevention training tended to rate items that dealt with the positive effects of
training higher than those nonsupervisory employees who had not received
workplace violence prevention training.
2. Managerial employees tended to perceive a higher level of workplace
harmony than nonsupervisory and supervisory employees.
3. Supervisors who had over ten hours in workplace violence prevention
training tended to have lower positive ratings of the effectiveness of workplace
violence prevention training than nonsupervisory employees receiving initial or
relatively new workplace violence prevention training.
4. Employees acknowledged the concern and need for continued formal
workplace violence prevention training.
83
5. Employees indicated a relationship between pre-employment screening
procedures and the ability to identify an employee who may be involved in an act
of workplace violence.
6. The Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace
training course received overall positive ratings.
7. There were a disproportionate number of white respondents (95%)
completing the surveys (304/N = 320). There was no difference in the perception
by race toward workplace violence prevention training. Based on the limited data
by race, the perceptions and attitudes could not be adequately interpreted.
8. Employees accepted the ease of online survey technology and their
ability to quickly complete an online survey. Survey tracking was completed real-
time and response rates were higher than the U.S. Government agency’s paper-
based mail surveys completed in the same allotted time period.
9. Nonsupervisory employees perceived less treatment with respect,
regardless of their job, than supervisory or managerial employees.
10. A pattern of low perceptual responses appeared for nonsupervisory,
supervisory, and managerial employees in response to their belief of the
likelihood an act of workplace violence could occur within the Northland District.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were
reached:
84
1. There was a difference amongst nonsupervisory, supervisory, and
managerial employees regarding their attitudes and perceptions toward
workplace violence and workplace violence prevention training.
2. Workplace violence prevention training should be conducted by
professional trainers knowledgeable of the subject and current agency local
environment.
3. While employees agree management holds the overall responsibility for
workplace safety, employees indicated a higher response for assuming individual
accountability in workplace safety. Employees’ response for individual
accountability for workplace safety was higher than supervisors or managers.
The acknowledgement of workplace violence prevention training was essential
for employee workplace safety.
4. Surveyed employees feel the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing
Violence in the Workplace training course was effective in providing them the
tools and skills necessary to react to incidents of workplace violence.
5. Employees indicated they preferred multi-media (video, lecture &
discussion) formatted training highlighting real-life situations which have occurred
in their agency. Workplace violence cases should be current and their outcomes
and lessons learned should be discussed to reinforce the agency’s commitment
to workplace safety.
6. Supervisors with significant workplace violence prevention training
possessed less optimism regarding workplace violence prevention.
85
Recommendations
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)(1996a)
continues to pursue research and prevention efforts to reduce the risk of
workplace violence. “The murder of an average 20 workers each week is
unacceptable and should not be considered the cost of doing business in our
society” (NIOSH, 1996a, p. 2). NIOSH (1996a) recommended organizations
conduct evaluation research to determine the effectiveness of various prevention
strategies.
Based on the findings of this study, there are several distinct types of
recommendations that are made and are supported by the data.
Recommendations for workplace violence prevention training are as follows:
1. The U.S. government service agency should continue utilizing formal
workplace violence prevention training and provide it initially and annually as part
of employee ancillary training. Knowledgeable instructors should facilitate the
training in person. The agency should carefully consider intervention efforts that
might minimize or remove the risk of occupational violence or homicide (NIOSH,
1993).
2. Analysis and development of a supplemental workplace violence
prevention training module should be developed for supervisory and managerial
employees who have been employed for more than five years. A more
challenging and case-based training course would be beneficial to enhance
learning competencies of those charged with identifying and responding to
situations involving workplace violence. Phillips (1997) identified situational case
86
studies as a popular training technique. Through case-based training,
participants are provided the opportunity to analyze information and make
decisions about their particular situation.
3. Real situations from the U.S. government service agencies historical
past should be incorporated into training revealing situational behaviors,
response, investigation, analysis, remedies, and lessons learned. Phillips (1997b)
advised one of the intangible measures for improving training is to “discuss with
clients or sponsors the impact of training” (p. 172). Follow-up evaluations help
identify improvements for training programs.
4. A system should be established to ensure employees receive follow-up
managerial communication of the status of situations of workplace violence which
have occurred in their work environment. Periodic agency communications
should highlight and summarize the effects of workplace violence and actions
taken.
5. Supervisors and management should encourage the open door policy
of reporting employee behaviors to prevent incidents of workplace violence.
6. Phillips (1997a) stated, “Employee satisfaction is one of the most
important measures (p. 207). He noted survey instruments designed around
issues related to training are normally launched at a prescribed time frame after
training and that this approach is very expensive (p. 207). The U.S. government
service agency should pursue the use of online surveys to lessen the cost of
survey administration and increase their response times and rates.
87
7. Supervisors and managers should assess and ensure their
nonsupervisory employees understand workplace violence prevention policies
and procedures and that they feel comfortable reporting potential acts of
workplace violence to their supervisor or appropriate authorities.
8. Follow-up climate assessment surveys should be performed with
nonsupervisory employees to isolate and identify issues by job position relating
to workplace relations, discrimination, and the perceptions of respect.
9. Further assessment regarding the low responses by all three
management levels to their belief of the likelihood for an act of workplace
violence within the Northland District should be explored and appropriate
workplace safety measures, if required, instituted.
10. The U.S. government service agency should continue to utilize the Be
S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course.
Approximately 85% of the respondents had attended this course and 84%
answered in the affirmative the training had increasing their understanding of
workplace violence and their agencies workplace violence prevention policy.
Additionally, 80% of respondents preferred the multi-media form of teaching this
course offered (lecture, video, and discussion).
11. The U.S. government service agency should further explore the
utilization of Inquisite® Web survey technology. The survey technology allows
the author to rapidly create and launch online surveys in order to assess
employee perceptions. The real-time administration affords the surveyor the
ability to instantly tract the status of their survey at any time. Of the respondents,
88
83% indicated the online survey was easy to complete. Online surveying would
be a strategic compliment to the THINQ® Training Server learning management
system (LMS) (THINQ, Ltd., Thames Valley Park, United Kingdom,
www.uk.thinq.com) launched in February 2002 by the U.S. government service
agency in an effort to reduce travel and training costs. THINQ® offers e-learning
courses which could be evaluated using Inquisite® Web surveying.
Recommendations for further study are as follows:
1. Additional research should be conducted within the U.S. government
service agency surveyed during this research study to assess overall employee
attitudes and perceptions toward the workplace violence prevention training
program curriculum and its effectiveness. NIOSH (1996a) recommended
employers assess the risk of violence in their workplaces and develop
appropriate prevention programs and policies.
2. This study should be replicated in other places of employment utilizing
formalized workplace violence prevention training programs.
3. Further research should be conducted that assesses the effectiveness
of formal workplace violence prevention training and the best methods for
conducting training for various work environments. Phillips (1997a) stated
“evaluation provides input to determine if objectives are being (or have been)
met” (p. 36). He believed the evaluation process reminds participants what they
should have applied on the job and the subsequent results (Phillips, 1997a).
4. Further research should be conducted that identifies appropriate
training curriculum to be utilized for supervisory and managerial employees of the
89
U.S. government service agency researched, as well as, all other organizations
which provide formal training to all levels of employees. NIOSH (1997)
recommended “a workplace violence prevention program should include a
system for documenting incidents, procedures to be taken in the event of
incidents, and open communication between employers and workers” (p. 2).
5. A more robust 1-10 scaling versus the Likert 1-5 scaling should be
utilized in participant assessments in order to yield more definitive statistical
analysis when surveying homogenous populations. While Likert-type attitude
instruments normally yield ordinal data, it is not very plausible to presume the
resulting total scores possess the characteristics of “equal intervals” that are
embodied in interval and ratio levels of measurement (Huck & Cormier, 1996).
6. The U.S. government service agency should utilize NIOSH resources
as a basis for developing strategies to prevent occupational fatalities. NIOSH
(1996c) recommended utilizing reports like their “Violence in the Workplace, Risk
Factors and Prevention Strategies, Current Intelligence Bulletin 57” as the
foundation for developing a comprehensive strategy for reducing violence in the
workplace.
7. NIOSH (1996c) recommended evaluation research be conducted to
determine the effectiveness of various prevention strategies. Based on this study,
further workplace violence prevention training program evaluations should be
identified and administered within the U.S. government service agency.
Summary
90
Based on the findings of this study, workplace violence prevention training
is perceived as being very important to all levels of employment: nonsupervisory,
supervisory, and managerial. Further research studies need to be performed to
continually assess the effectiveness of workplace violence prevention training in
not only the agency surveyed, but in every environment where formalized
workplace violence prevention training is provided.
91
APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
92
e-mail Subject Line: Workplace Violence Prevention Training Questionnaire e-mail Text: Dear Participant: This questionnaire is in support of a research project being conducted to determine your opinion of workplace violence prevention training within your organization. This research was requested by the Northland District and your response is important. Please read each question carefully and select the response that best describes your opinion. Your participation is voluntary and there are no personal benefits in completing the questionnaire except in the potential you have in identifying policies, procedures or environmental factors which could be modified or enhanced to improve workplace safety. This research has the consent of the University of North Texas Institutional Review Board, (940) 565-3940), the Northland District Workplace Improvement Analyst, Randy Forsman, and is being used for doctoral research purposes. You may withdraw your participation at any time. Your answers are confidential and your identity will remain anonymous. This survey is being conducted online via a Web survey service at Inquisite.com. Completion of the survey indicates your voluntary consent. Results of this survey will be available to you in the future through the Northland District Workplace Improvement Analyst. Completion time is estimated at 10-15 minutes. Please complete your survey within five business days. A follow-up e-mail will be sent in five days if you are unavailable to complete this survey at this time. Please print a copy of this letter for your records. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact me, Randy Forsman or Dr Michelle Walker, University of North Texas, (940) 565-2154. Thank you for your participation. David J. Adriansen, B.A., M.A.O.M. Michelle Walker, Ph.D. Doctoral Candidate Department of Technology & Cognition University of North Texas University of North Texas Denton, Texas Denton, Texas Please click on this link to access the questionnaire: http://comarketing.inquisiteasp.com/surveys/UT7R27
93
Workplace Violence Prevention Training Questionnaire This survey is comprised of four parts: Workplace Violence Awareness; Workplace Violence Prevention Training; Be SA.F.E. (Not Sorry) Workplace Violence Prevention Training (required Violence Prevention training classes held in Fiscal Year 2003); and Individual Demographics. Your willingness and assistance in completing all four parts will provide the best results which may help in making future program changes.
Part I: Workplace Violence Awareness The following questions concern your feelings toward workplace violence awareness. For each of the following statements, please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement. CLICK ON ONE NUMBER FOR EACH RESPONSE STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 1. Workplace safety is important for the Northland 1 2 3 4 5 District to operate as an organization. 2. I have not witnessed any form of workplace 1 2 3 4 5 violence in my current job assignment. 3. I have not been the victim of a form of workplace 1 2 3 4 5 violence during my lifetime. 4. There is a relationship between the level of 1 2 3 4 5 workplace violence prevention training or formal education a person possesses and the potential for that person to commit an act of workplace violence. 5. The relations between people of different races 1 2 3 4 5 working within the Northland District are usually good. 6. The relations between people of different ethnic 1 2 3 4 5 backgrounds working within the Northland District are usually good.
94
CLICK ON ONE NUMBER FOR EACH RESPONSE STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 7. Employees working for the Northland District 1 2 3 4 5 are treated with respect, regardless of their job. 8. I believe there is a likelihood for an act of 1 2 3 4 5 workplace violence within the Northland District. 9. Management is responsible for maintaining 1 2 3 4 5 workplace safety within the Northland District. 10. The Northland District provides a working 1 2 3 4 5 environment with employees knowledgeable of what is considered workplace violence or violent behaviors. 11. I look forward to learning more about 1 2 3 4 5 workplace violence prevention in the future. 12. I feel safe from workplace violence. 1 2 3 4 5 13. The Northland District does a good job 1 2 3 4 5 pre-screening employees for initial employment. 14. I believe there is no discrimination within the 1 2 3 4 5 working environment of the Northland District. 15. My personal feelings of being safe at work 1 2 3 4 5 would change if the Northland District instituted new policies. 16. There is no relationship between 1 2 3 4 5 pre-employment screening procedures and the ability to identify an employee who may be involved in an act of workplace violence.
95
For each of the following statements, please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement. CLICK ON ONE NUMBER FOR EACH RESPONSE VERY VERY UNLIKELY LIKELY 17. I feel the potential for verbal assault 1 2 3 4 5 by an employee known to me is… 18. I feel the potential for verbal assault by a 1 2 3 4 5
family member or relative working with me is… 19. I feel the potential for verbal assault 1 2 3 4 5 by an employee unknown to me is… 20. I feel the potential for verbal assault 1 2 3 4 5 by a visitor or stranger to me is… 21. I feel the potential for verbal assault 1 2 3 4 5
by a previously employed worker to me is… 22. I feel the potential for physical assault 1 2 3 4 5 by an employee known to me is… 23. I feel the potential for physical assault by a 1 2 3 4 5 family member or relative working with me is… 24. I feel the potential for physical assault 1 2 3 4 5 by an employee unknown to me is… 25. I feel the potential for physical assault 1 2 3 4 5 by a visitor or stranger to me is… 26. I feel the potential for physical assault 1 2 3 4 5 by a previously employed worker to me is…
96
Part II: Workplace Violence Prevention Training The following questions concern your feelings toward workplace violence prevention training. For each of the following statements, please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement. CLICK ON ONE NUMBER FOR EACH RESPONSE
STRONGLY STRONGLY
DISAGREE AGREE 27. There is a relationship between workplace 1 2 3 4 5 violence prevention training and harmonious working relations. 28. Without a workplace violence prevention 1 2 3 4 5 program the success of the Northland District’s mission will be impacted. 29. Workplace violence prevention training is 1 2 3 4 5 necessary for the Northland District to operate safely. 30. There is no relationship between workplace 1 2 3 4 5 violence prevention training and reducing or stopping acts of workplace violence. 31. I believe a relationship exists between the level 1 2 3 4 5 level of workplace violence prevention training a person receives and their ability to be responsible for an act of workplace violence. 32. Workplace violence prevention training would 1 2 3 4 5 make me feel safer at work. 33. Without workplace violence prevention, the 1 2 3 4 5 Northland District will still operate as a successful organization. 34. I believe training on employee behavior could 1 2 3 4 5 help me identify and report an employee I perceive as having potential to be involved in a workplace violence incident. 35. Workplace violence prevention training would 1 2 3 4 5
97
positively impact safety amongst our employees. CLICK ON ONE NUMBER FOR EACH RESPONSE STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 36. I feel comfortable reporting potential 1 2 3 4 5 workplace violence. 37. I feel I have the necessary knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 and training to help prevent instances of workplace violence. 38. I feel I have the necessary communication 1 2 3 4 5 skills to manage conflict situations in the workplace. 39. I feel I am ultimately responsible for 1 2 3 4 5 improving workplace safety. 40. I feel my supervisor is ultimately 1 2 3 4 5 responsible for improving workplace safety. 41. I feel senior management is ultimately 1 2 3 4 5 responsible for improving workplace safety. 42. I feel the National Institute for Occupational 1 2 3 4 5 Safety and Health (NIOSH) is ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety. 43. I feel local or state government is ultimately 1 2 3 4 5
responsible for improving workplace safety.
44. I understand the workplace violence 1 2 3 4 5 prevention policies and programs within the Northland District. 45. I feel my supervisor has the training 1 2 3 4 5
required to effectively deal with behaviors which could lead to potential acts of workplace violence
98
46. I feel I have received effective workplace 1 2 3 4 5 violence prevention training. Part III: Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training The following questions concern your feelings toward the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace one-hour workplace violence prevention training you may have attended in 2002 or 2003. Please indicate your responses regarding this training.
For each of the following statements, please CLICK ON ONE ANSWER FOR EACH RESPONSE OR TYPE IN YOUR ANSWER 47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training. Yes ___ No ___ (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV) 48. Please indicate the components of workplace violence prevention training you recall attending during the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training. (YOU MAY MARK MORE THAN ONE)
Video ___ Lecture ____ Discussion ____ 49. Please indicate the effectiveness of the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training components. (PLEASE MARK ONCE PER COMPONENT)
Video Not Effective ____ Effective ____ Extremely Effective ____ Lecture Not Effective ____ Effective ____ Extremely Effective ____ Discussion Not Effective ____ Effective ____ Extremely Effective ____
50. The previous workplace violence prevention training I received with the Northland District before attending Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training was (MARK ONE) Valuable ___ Not Valuable ___ Never Had Training ___ Don’t Know ___ 51. The Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course format seemed well planned. (MARK ONE) Yes ___ No ___ 52. The Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course provided an understanding of my roles and responsibilities regarding workplace violence prevention. (MARK ONE) Yes ___ No ___
99
53. After attending Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training, I have a better understanding of what constitutes workplace violence. (MARK ONE) Yes ___ No ___ 54. After attending Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training, I know how to distinguish the obvious behaviors of potential workplace violence. (MARK ONE) Yes ___ No ___ For each of the following statements concerning Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training, please indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement. CLICK ON ONE NUMBER FOR EACH RESPONSE STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 55. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) will help me 1 2 3 4 5 effectively handle potential workplace violence situations. 56. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) helped me 1 2 3 4 5 understand the importance of taking action if I observe a potentially dangerous situation. 57. After attending Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry), 1 2 3 4 5 I am more confident in MY ability to analyze a potentially dangerous situation. 58. The instructor’s presentation of Be S.A.F.E. 1 2 3 4 5 (Not Sorry) was effective. 59. The content of the Be S.A.F.E. Not Sorry) 1 2 3 4 5 training course met my training needs. 60. I liked the method of instruction 1 2 3 4 5 (video/lecture/discussion) used in teaching the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training course. 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing 1 2 3 4 5 Violence in the Workplace training increased my understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace
100
violence policy. 62. Which form of violence prevention training do you prefer? (PLEASE MARK ONE ITEM)
Video only ____ Video/Lecture/Discussion _____ CD-ROM only ____ Lecture only _____ Self-study brochure only ____ Role-playing only _____ Discussion only ____ Internet/Web-based only _____ Other (please describe) _____________________________________ 63. I believe the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course could be improved by: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Part IV: Individual Demographics The following questions are for research purposes only and will not be used to identify any individual. CLICK ON ONE ANSWER FOR EACH RESPONSE OR TYPE IN YOUR ANSWER 64. Number of years I have worked for the Northland District: _____________ 1 – Less than 1 year 2 - 1 to 2 years 3 – 3 to 5 years 4 – 6 to 10 years 5 – 11 to 15 years 6 – 16 to 20 years 7 – 20 or more years
101
65. My employment is classified as:
1 - EAS Employee: a. Support Staff (HR/IS/Clerical Administrative) ___ b. Direct Line Supervisor ____ c. Postmaster (Below Level 18) ____ d. Postmaster (Level 18 and Above) ____ e. Manager ___ 2 - PCES Employee: District Manager, Vice President, Large city Postmaster, Postmaster General or Large Plant Manager ___
66. I am a supervisor: Yes ___ No ___ Number of employees I supervise:
0 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16 or More
67. Work location (city only): ____________________
68. Gender: 1 - Male 2 - Female 69. Marital Status: 1 - Unmarried (including Single, Divorced, and Widowed) 2 - Married
3 - Separated 4 - Domestic Partner
70. Highest level of education completed:
1 - Attended High School but did not complete 2 - High school/GED
3 - Vocational/technical school
4 - Some College 5 - Associate’s Degree
102
6 - Bachelor’s Degree 7 - Master’s Degree or higher 71. Racial/Ethnic Group: 1 - African-American or Black (Non Hispanic) 2 - Native American (Indian, Alaskan, Hawaiian) 3 - Caucasian or White (Non Hispanic) 4 - Mexican-American or Mexican Origin 5 - Asian American, Oriental, Pacific Islander 6 - Puerto Rican, Cuban, Other Latino or Hispanic 7 - Other 72. Age: 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66 and older 73. Please indicate the number of hours of violence prevention training you have undergone in your life: 1 - Less than 1 hour 2 - 1-2 hours 3 - 3-5 hours 4 - 6-10 hours 5 - More than 10 hours 74. Please indicate the number of hours of violence prevention training you have undergone while an employee of the Northland District:
103
1 - Less than 1 hour 2 - 1-2 hours 3 - 3-5 hours 4 - 6-10 hours 5 - More than 10 hours THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
This is the first time we have used Inquisite.com as an online Web survey. We are interested in your feedback as to ease in completing this survey. PLEASE CLICK ON ONE NUMBER FOR YOUR RESPONSE STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE
AGREE
75. This online survey was easy to complete. 1 2 3 4 5
104
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
105
ONE-WAY ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 2.426 2 1.213 1.917 .149
Within Groups 200.574 317 .633
1. Workplace safety is important for the Northland District to operate as an organization.
Total 203.000 319
Between Groups 9.919 2 4.960 2.840 .060
Within Groups 553.568 317 1.746
2. I have not witnessed any form of workplace violence in my current job assignment.
Total 563.488 319
Between Groups .238 2 .119 .055 .947
Within Groups 686.109 317 2.164
3. I have not been the victim of a form of workplace violence during my lifetime.
Total 686.347 319
Between Groups 5.586 2 2.793 2.284 .104
Within Groups 387.636 317 1.223
4. There is a relationship between the level of workplace violence prevention training or formal education a person possesses and the potential for that person to commit an act of workplace violence. Total 393.222 319
Between Groups 3.400 2 1.700 2.927 .055
Within Groups 184.088 317 .581
5. The relations between people of different races working within the Northland District are usually good.
Total 187.488 319
Between Groups 2.908 2 1.454 2.058 .129
Within Groups 223.979 317 .707
6. The relations between people of different ethnic backgrounds working within the Northland District are usually good.
Total 226.888 319
Between Groups 15.289 2 7.644 6.435 .002
Within Groups 376.558 317 1.188
7. Employees working for the Northland District are treated with respect, regardless of their job.
Total 391.847 319
Between Groups 6.912 2 3.456 3.089 .047
Within Groups 354.638 317 1.119
8. I believe there is a likelihood for an act of workplace violence within the Northland District.
Total 361.550 319
106
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3.708 2 1.854 2.407 .092
Within Groups 244.164 317 .770
9. Management is responsible for maintaining workplace safety within the Northland District.
Total 247.872 319
Between Groups 4.019 2 2.009 3.524 .031
Within Groups 180.728 317 .570
10. The Northland District provides a working environment with employees knowledgeable of what is considered workplace violence or violent behaviors. Total 184.747 319
Between Groups 1.481 2 .740 .956 .386
Within Groups 245.507 317 .774
11. I look forward to learning more about workplace violence prevention in the future.
Total 246.987 319
Between Groups 2.561 2 1.280 1.315 .270
Within Groups 308.627 317 .974
12. I feel safe from workplace violence.
Total 311.187 319
Between Groups .518 2 .259 .218 .804
Within Groups 376.454 317 1.188
13. The Northland District does a good job pre-screening employees for initial employment.
Total 376.972 319
Between Groups 9.772 2 4.886 3.649 .027
Within Groups 424.525 317 1.339
14. I believe there is no discrimination within the working environment of the Northland District.
Total 434.297 319
Between Groups 7.680 2 3.840 4.864 .008
Within Groups 250.270 317 .789
15. My personal feelings of being safe at work would change if the Northland District instituted new policies.
Total 257.950 319
Between Groups 2.774 2 1.387 1.228 .294
Within Groups 358.026 317 1.129
16. There is no relationship between pre-employment screening procedures and the ability to identify an employee who may be involved in an act of workplace violence. Total 360.800 319
17. I feel the potential for verbal assault by an employee known to me
Between Groups 5.170 2 2.585 1.368 .256
107
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Within Groups 599.051 317 1.890 is...
Total 604.222 319
Between Groups 5.442 2 2.721 5.365 .005
Within Groups 159.753 315 .507
18. I feel the potential for verbal assault by a family member or relative working with me is...
Total 165.195 317
Between Groups 3.303 2 1.652 1.335 .265
Within Groups 392.084 317 1.237
19. I feel the potential for verbal assault by an employee unknown to me is...
Total 395.387 319
Between Groups 4.643 2 2.321 1.481 .229
Within Groups 496.907 317 1.568
20. I feel the potential for verbal assault by a visitor or stranger to me is...
Total 501.550 319
Between Groups .738 2 .369 .252 .777
Within Groups 460.683 315 1.462
21. I feel the potential for verbal assault by a previously employed worker to me is...
Total 461.421 317
Between Groups 3.080 2 1.540 2.052 .130
Within Groups 237.917 317 .751
22. I feel the potential for physical assault by an employee known to me is...
Total 240.997 319
Between Groups .248 2 .124 .584 .558
Within Groups 67.249 317 .212
23. I feel the potential for physical assault by a family member or relative working with me is...
Total 67.497 319
Between Groups 2.199 2 1.100 2.156 .118
Within Groups 161.688 317 .510
24. I feel the potential for physical assault by an employee unknown to me is...
Total 163.888 319
Between Groups 2.597 2 1.298 1.692 .18625. I feel the potential for physical
assault by a visitor or stranger to me is... Within
Groups 243.275 317 .767
108
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Total 245.872 319
Between Groups .127 2 .064 .064 .938
Within Groups 314.120 317 .991
26. I feel the potential for physical assault by a previously employed worker to me is...
Total 314.247 319
Between Groups 1.271 2 .635 .895 .409
Within Groups 224.929 317 .710
27. There is a relationship between workplace violence prevention training and harmonious working relations.
Total 226.200 319
Between Groups .666 2 .333 .532 .588
Within Groups 198.506 317 .626
28. Without a workplace violence prevention program the success of the Northland District's mission will be impacted.
Total 199.172 319
Between Groups .620 2 .310 .502 .606
Within Groups 195.677 317 .617
29. Workplace violence prevention training is necessary for the Northland District to operate safely.
Total 196.297 319
Between Groups 1.206 2 .603 .708 .493
Within Groups 269.782 317 .851
30. There is no relationship between workplace violence prevention training and reducing or stopping acts of workplace violence.
Total 270.988 319
Between Groups 2.482 2 1.241 1.422 .243
Within Groups 276.615 317 .873
31. I believe a relationship exists between the level of workplace violence prevention training a person receives and their ability to be responsible for an act of workplace violence. Total 279.097 319
Between Groups .448 2 .224 .225 .799
Within Groups 315.352 317 .995
32. Workplace violence prevention training would make me feel safer at work.
Total 315.800 319
Between Groups .970 2 .485 .507 .603
Within Groups 303.327 317 .957
33. Without workplace violence prevention training, the Northland District will still operate as a successful organization.
Total 304.297 319
109
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Between Groups .836 2 .418 .592 .554
Within Groups 223.761 317 .706
34. I believe training on employee behavior could help me identify and report an employee I perceive as having potential to be involved in a workplace violence incident. Total 224.597 319
Between Groups .711 2 .356 .555 .575
Within Groups 203.239 317 .641
35. Workplace violence prevention training would positively impact safety amongst our employees.
Total 203.950 319
Between Groups 23.226 2 11.613 11.789 .000
Within Groups 312.271 317 .985
36. I feel comfortable reporting potential workplace violence.
Total 335.497 319
Between Groups 6.159 2 3.079 3.944 .020
Within Groups 247.513 317 .781
37. I feel I have the necessary knowledge and training to help prevent instances of workplace violence.
Total 253.672 319
Between Groups 9.333 2 4.666 7.065 .001
Within Groups 209.389 317 .661
38. I feel I have the necessary communication skills to manage conflict situations in the workplace.
Total 218.722 319
Between Groups 5.387 2 2.694 3.748 .025
Within Groups 227.800 317 .719
39. I feel I am ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
Total 233.188 319
Between Groups .406 2 .203 .200 .819
Within Groups 321.544 317 1.014
40. I feel my supervisor is ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
Total 321.950 319
Between Groups 1.670 2 .835 .686 .505
Within Groups 386.201 317 1.218
41. I feel senior management is ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
Total 387.872 319
42. I feel the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Between Groups 2.644 2 1.322 1.131 .324
110
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
Within Groups 370.603 317 1.169 (NIOSH) is ultimately responsible for
improving workplace safety.
Total 373.247 319
Between Groups 1.232 2 .616 .541 .583
Within Groups 360.740 317 1.138
43. I feel local or state government is ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
Total 361.972 319
Between Groups 4.532 2 2.266 5.315 .005
Within Groups 135.156 317 .426
44. I understand the workplace violence prevention policies and programs within the Northland District.
Total 139.688 319
Between Groups 9.374 2 4.687 4.532 .011
Within Groups 327.814 317 1.034
45. I feel my supervisor has the training required to effectively deal with behaviors which could lead to potential acts of workplace violence.
Total 337.188 319
Between Groups 5.796 2 2.898 4.242 .015
Within Groups 216.576 317 .683
46. I feel I have received effective workplace violence prevention training.
Total 222.372 319
Sidak Post-Hoc Tests for Multiple Comparisons
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Supervisory .11 .112 .714 -.16 .37non supervisory Managers -.12 .140 .791 -.45 .22
non supervisory -.11 .112 .714 -.37 .16
supervisory Managers -.22 .118 .167 -.51 .06
1. Workplace safety is important for the Northland District to operate as an organization.
managers non supervisory .12 .140 .791 -.22 .45
111
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Supervisory .22 .118 .167 -.06 .51
Supervisory .44 .186 .055 -.01 .88non supervisory Managers .38 .233 .279 -.18 .94
non supervisory -.44 .186 .055 -.88 .01
supervisory Managers -.06 .196 .988 -.53 .41
non supervisory -.38 .233 .279 -.94 .18
2. I have not witnessed any form of workplace violence in my current job assignment.
managers Supervisory .06 .196 .988 -.41 .53
Supervisory .07 .207 .983 -.43 .56non supervisory Managers .06 .260 .995 -.57 .68
non supervisory -.07 .207 .983 -.56 .43
supervisory Managers -.01 .218 1.000 -.53 .51
non supervisory -.06 .260 .995 -.68 .57
3. I have not been the victim of a form of workplace violence during my lifetime.
managers Supervisory .01 .218 1.000 -.51 .53
Supervisory -.17 .155 .602 -.55 .20non supervisory Managers .16 .195 .795 -.31 .63
non supervisory .17 .155 .602 -.20 .55
supervisory Managers .33 .164 .120 -.06 .73
non supervisory -.16 .195 .795 -.63 .31
4. There is a relationship between the level of workplace violence prevention training or formal education a person possesses and the potential for that person to commit an act of workplace violence.
managers
Supervisory -.33 .164 .120 -.73 .06
Supervisory .09 .107 .802 -.17 .34non supervisory Managers -.18 .135 .429 -.51 .14
non supervisory -.09 .107 .802 -.34 .17
supervisory Managers -.27(*) .113 .049 -.54 .00
non supervisory .18 .135 .429 -.14 .51
5. The relations between people of different races working within the Northland District are usually good.
managers Supervisory .27(*) .113 .049 .00 .54
112
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Supervisory -.02 .118 .998 -.30 .27non supervisory Managers -.26 .148 .233 -.61 .10
non supervisory .02 .118 .998 -.27 .30
supervisory Managers -.24 .124 .158 -.54 .06
non supervisory .26 .148 .233 -.10 .61
6. The relations between people of different ethnic backgrounds working within the Northland District are usually good.
managers Supervisory .24 .124 .158 -.06 .54
Supervisory -.37 .153 .050 -.73 .00non supervisory Managers -.69(*) .192 .001 -1.15 -.22
non supervisory .37 .153 .050 .00 .73
supervisory Managers -.32 .161 .139 -.71 .07
non supervisory .69(*) .192 .001 .22 1.15
7. Employees working for the Northland District are treated with respect, regardless of their job.
managers Supervisory .32 .161 .139 -.07 .71
Supervisory .15 .149 .671 -.21 .51non supervisory Managers -.23 .187 .514 -.68 .22
non supervisory -.15 .149 .671 -.51 .21
supervisory Managers -.38(*) .157 .044 -.76 -.01
non supervisory .23 .187 .514 -.22 .68
8. I believe there is a likelihood for an act of workplace violence within the Northland District.
managers Supervisory .38(*) .157 .044 .01 .76
Supervisory .01 .123 1.000 -.29 .31non supervisory Managers -.27 .155 .231 -.64 .10
non supervisory -.01 .123 1.000 -.31 .29
supervisory Managers -.28 .130 .096 -.59 .03
non supervisory .27 .155 .231 -.10 .64
9. Management is responsible for maintaining workplace safety within the Northland District.
managers Supervisory .28 .130 .096 -.03 .59
Supervisory -.09 .106 .798 -.34 .1710. The Northland District provides a working
non supervisory Managers -.34(*) .133 .035 -.66 -.02
113
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
non supervisory .09 .106 .798 -.17 .34
supervisory Managers -.25 .112 .076 -.52 .02
non supervisory .34(*) .133 .035 .02 .66
environment with employees knowledgeable of what is considered workplace violence or violent behaviors. managers
Supervisory .25 .112 .076 -.02 .52
Supervisory -.11 .124 .770 -.40 .19non supervisory Managers -.21 .155 .425 -.59 .16
non supervisory .11 .124 .770 -.19 .40
supervisory Managers -.11 .130 .794 -.42 .21
non supervisory .21 .155 .425 -.16 .59
11. I look forward to learning more about workplace violence prevention in the future.
managers Supervisory .11 .130 .794 -.21 .42
Supervisory -.14 .139 .662 -.48 .19non supervisory Managers -.28 .174 .287 -.70 .14
non supervisory .14 .139 .662 -.19 .48
supervisory Managers -.14 .146 .715 -.49 .21
non supervisory .28 .174 .287 -.14 .70
12. I feel safe from workplace violence.
managers Supervisory .14 .146 .715 -.21 .49
Supervisory .04 .153 .990 -.33 .41non supervisory Managers .12 .192 .888 -.34 .59
non supervisory -.04 .153 .990 -.41 .33
supervisory Managers .08 .161 .941 -.30 .47
non supervisory -.12 .192 .888 -.59 .34
13. The Northland District does a good job pre-screening employees for initial employment.
managers Supervisory -.08 .161 .941 -.47 .30
Supervisory -.35 .163 .093 -.74 .04non supervisory Managers -.53(*) .204 .030 -1.02 -.04
non supervisory .35 .163 .093 -.04 .74
14. I believe there is no discrimination within the working environment of the Northland District.
supervisory Managers -.18 .171 .658 -.59 .23
114
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
non supervisory .53(*) .204 .030 .04 1.02
managers Supervisory .18 .171 .658 -.23 .59
Supervisory -.04 .125 .985 -.34 .26non supervisory Managers -.42(*) .157 .022 -.80 -.05
non supervisory .04 .125 .985 -.26 .34
supervisory Managers -.38(*) .131 .011 -.70 -.07
non supervisory .42(*) .157 .022 .05 .80
15. My personal feelings of being safe at work would change if the Northland District instituted new policies.
managers Supervisory .38(*) .131 .011 .07 .70
Supervisory .23 .149 .327 -.13 .59non supervisory Managers .13 .188 .871 -.32 .58
non supervisory -.23 .149 .327 -.59 .13
supervisory Managers -.10 .157 .887 -.48 .28
non supervisory -.13 .188 .871 -.58 .32
16. There is no relationship between pre-employment screening procedures and the ability to identify an employee who may be involved in an act of workplace violence. managers
Supervisory .10 .157 .887 -.28 .48
Supervisory .31 .193 .297 -.15 .77non supervisory Managers .14 .243 .912 -.44 .73
non supervisory -.31 .193 .297 -.77 .15
supervisory Managers -.17 .203 .802 -.65 .32
non supervisory -.14 .243 .912 -.73 .44
17. I feel the potential for verbal assault by an employee known to me is...
managers Supervisory .17 .203 .802 -.32 .65
Supervisory .20 .100 .143 -.04 .44non supervisory Managers -.12 .126 .696 -.42 .18
non supervisory -.20 .100 .143 -.44 .04
supervisory Managers -.32(*) .106 .008 -.57 -.07
non supervisory .12 .126 .696 -.18 .42
18. I feel the potential for verbal assault by a family member or relative working with me is...
managers Supervisory .32(*) .106 .008 .07 .57
115
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Supervisory -.25 .156 .294 -.63 .12non supervisory Managers -.14 .196 .868 -.61 .34
non supervisory .25 .156 .294 -.12 .63
supervisory Managers .12 .165 .863 -.28 .51
non supervisory .14 .196 .868 -.34 .61
19. I feel the potential for verbal assault by an employee unknown to me is...
managers Supervisory -.12 .165 .863 -.51 .28
Supervisory .19 .176 .632 -.23 .61non supervisory Managers -.10 .221 .955 -.63 .43
non supervisory -.19 .176 .632 -.61 .23
supervisory Managers -.29 .185 .312 -.74 .15
non supervisory .10 .221 .955 -.43 .63
20. I feel the potential for verbal assault by a visitor or stranger to me is...
managers Supervisory .29 .185 .312 -.15 .74
Supervisory .12 .172 .876 -.30 .53non supervisory Managers .05 .215 .995 -.47 .56
non supervisory -.12 .172 .876 -.53 .30
supervisory Managers -.07 .179 .972 -.50 .36
non supervisory -.05 .215 .995 -.56 .47
21. I feel the potential for verbal assault by a previously employed worker to me is...
managers Supervisory .07 .179 .972 -.36 .50
Supervisory .07 .122 .932 -.23 .36non supervisory Managers -.19 .153 .498 -.56 .17
non supervisory -.07 .122 .932 -.36 .23
supervisory Managers -.26 .128 .125 -.57 .05
non supervisory .19 .153 .498 -.17 .56
22. I feel the potential for physical assault by an employee known to me is...
managers Supervisory .26 .128 .125 -.05 .57
Supervisory .03 .065 .963 -.13 .1823. I feel the potential for physical assault by a
non supervisory Managers -.04 .081 .926 -.24 .15
116
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
non supervisory -.03 .065 .963 -.18 .13
supervisory Managers -.07 .068 .637 -.24 .09
non supervisory .04 .081 .926 -.15 .24
family member or relative working with me is...
managers Supervisory .07 .068 .637 -.09 .24
Supervisory -.11 .100 .635 -.35 .13non supervisory Managers -.26 .126 .113 -.56 .04
non supervisory .11 .100 .635 -.13 .35
supervisory Managers -.15 .106 .380 -.41 .10
non supervisory .26 .126 .113 -.04 .56
24. I feel the potential for physical assault by an employee unknown to me is...
managers Supervisory .15 .106 .380 -.10 .41
Supervisory .20 .123 .297 -.10 .49non supervisory Managers .03 .155 .996 -.34 .40
non supervisory -.20 .123 .297 -.49 .10
supervisory Managers -.17 .130 .489 -.48 .14
non supervisory -.03 .155 .996 -.40 .34
25. I feel the potential for physical assault by a visitor or stranger to me is...
managers Supervisory .17 .130 .489 -.14 .48
Supervisory .04 .140 .986 -.29 .38non supervisory Managers .00 .176 1.000 -.42 .43
non supervisory -.04 .140 .986 -.38 .29
supervisory Managers -.04 .147 .991 -.39 .32
non supervisory .00 .176 1.000 -.43 .42
26. I feel the potential for physical assault by a previously employed worker to me is...
managers Supervisory .04 .147 .991 -.32 .39
Supervisory .05 .118 .969 -.24 .33non supervisory Managers .19 .149 .496 -.17 .55
non supervisory -.05 .118 .969 -.33 .24
27. There is a relationship between workplace violence prevention training and harmonious working relations. supervisory
Managers .14 .125 .592 -.16 .44
117
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
non supervisory -.19 .149 .496 -.55 .17
managers Supervisory -.14 .125 .592 -.44 .16
Supervisory .09 .111 .796 -.18 .36non supervisory Managers .14 .140 .693 -.20 .47
non supervisory -.09 .111 .796 -.36 .18
supervisory Managers .05 .117 .971 -.23 .33
non supervisory -.14 .140 .693 -.47 .20
28. Without a workplace violence prevention program the success of the Northland District's mission will be impacted.
managers Supervisory -.05 .117 .971 -.33 .23
Supervisory .04 .110 .982 -.23 .30non supervisory Managers .13 .139 .709 -.20 .47
non supervisory -.04 .110 .982 -.30 .23
supervisory Managers .10 .116 .791 -.18 .38
non supervisory -.13 .139 .709 -.47 .20
29. Workplace violence prevention training is necessary for the Northland District to operate safely.
managers Supervisory -.10 .116 .791 -.38 .18
Supervisory .10 .130 .804 -.21 .42non supervisory Managers -.04 .163 .994 -.43 .35
non supervisory -.10 .130 .804 -.42 .21
supervisory Managers -.14 .137 .650 -.47 .18
non supervisory .04 .163 .994 -.35 .43
30. There is no relationship between workplace violence prevention training and reducing or stopping acts of workplace violence.
managers Supervisory .14 .137 .650 -.18 .47
Supervisory -.22 .131 .253 -.54 .09non supervisory Managers -.16 .165 .708 -.55 .24
non supervisory .22 .131 .253 -.09 .54
supervisory Managers .06 .138 .958 -.27 .39
non supervisory .16 .165 .708 -.24 .55
31. I believe a relationship exists between the level of workplace violence prevention training a person receives and their ability to be responsible for an act of workplace violence. managers
Supervisory -.06 .138 .958 -.39 .27
118
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Supervisory .03 .140 .997 -.31 .36non supervisory Managers .11 .176 .896 -.31 .53
non supervisory -.03 .140 .997 -.36 .31
supervisory Managers .09 .148 .916 -.27 .44
non supervisory -.11 .176 .896 -.53 .31
32. Workplace violence prevention training would make me feel safer at work.
managers Supervisory -.09 .148 .916 -.44 .27
Supervisory -.02 .137 .999 -.35 .31non supervisory Managers -.15 .173 .755 -.57 .26
non supervisory .02 .137 .999 -.31 .35
supervisory Managers -.13 .145 .729 -.48 .21
non supervisory .15 .173 .755 -.26 .57
33. Without workplace violence prevention training, the Northland District will still operate as a successful organization.
managers Supervisory .13 .145 .729 -.21 .48
Supervisory -.07 .118 .894 -.36 .21non supervisory Managers .05 .148 .980 -.30 .41
non supervisory .07 .118 .894 -.21 .36
supervisory Managers .13 .124 .672 -.17 .42
non supervisory -.05 .148 .980 -.41 .30
34. I believe training on employee behavior could help me identify and report an employee I perceive as having potential to be involved in a workplace violence incident. managers
Supervisory -.13 .124 .672 -.42 .17
Supervisory .05 .112 .951 -.22 .32non supervisory Managers .15 .141 .655 -.19 .49
non supervisory -.05 .112 .951 -.32 .22
supervisory Managers .09 .118 .816 -.19 .38
non supervisory -.15 .141 .655 -.49 .19
35. Workplace violence prevention training would positively impact safety amongst our employees.
managers Supervisory -.09 .118 .816 -.38 .19
Supervisory -.27 .139 .148 -.61 .0636. I feel comfortable reporting potential
non supervisory Managers -.83(*) .175 .000 -1.25 -.41
119
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
non supervisory .27 .139 .148 -.06 .61
supervisory Managers -.56(*) .147 .000 -.91 -.21
non supervisory .83(*) .175 .000 .41 1.25
workplace violence.
managers Supervisory .56(*) .147 .000 .21 .91
Supervisory .10 .124 .794 -.20 .40non supervisory Managers -.26 .156 .249 -.64 .11
non supervisory -.10 .124 .794 -.40 .20
supervisory Managers -.37(*) .131 .016 -.68 -.05
non supervisory .26 .156 .249 -.11 .64
37. I feel I have the necessary knowledge and training to help prevent instances of workplace violence.
managers Supervisory .37(*) .131 .016 .05 .68
Supervisory -.15 .114 .454 -.43 .12non supervisory Managers -.52(*) .143 .001 -.87 -.18
non supervisory .15 .114 .454 -.12 .43
supervisory Managers -.37(*) .120 .007 -.66 -.08
non supervisory .52(*) .143 .001 .18 .87
38. I feel I have the necessary communication skills to manage conflict situations in the workplace.
managers Supervisory .37(*) .120 .007 .08 .66
Supervisory -.09 .119 .849 -.37 .20non supervisory Managers -.38(*) .150 .032 -.74 -.02
non supervisory .09 .119 .849 -.20 .37
supervisory Managers -.30 .125 .054 -.60 .00
non supervisory .38(*) .150 .032 .02 .74
39. I feel I am ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
managers Supervisory .30 .125 .054 .00 .60
Supervisory .08 .141 .915 -.26 .42non supervisory Managers .10 .178 .930 -.33 .52
non supervisory -.08 .141 .915 -.42 .26
40. I feel my supervisor is ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
supervisory Managers .01 .149 1.000 -.34 .37
120
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
non supervisory -.10 .178 .930 -.52 .33
managers Supervisory -.01 .149 1.000 -.37 .34
Supervisory .17 .155 .599 -.20 .55non supervisory Managers .18 .195 .732 -.29 .65
non supervisory -.17 .155 .599 -.55 .20
supervisory Managers .01 .163 1.000 -.39 .40
non supervisory -.18 .195 .732 -.65 .29
41. I feel senior management is ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
managers Supervisory -.01 .163 1.000 -.40 .39
Supervisory .16 .152 .666 -.21 .52non supervisory Managers .28 .191 .357 -.17 .74
non supervisory -.16 .152 .666 -.52 .21
supervisory Managers .13 .160 .805 -.25 .51
non supervisory -.28 .191 .357 -.74 .17
42. I feel the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
managers Supervisory -.13 .160 .805 -.51 .25
Supervisory .15 .150 .668 -.21 .51non supervisory Managers .14 .188 .835 -.31 .59
non supervisory -.15 .150 .668 -.51 .21
supervisory Managers -.01 .158 1.000 -.39 .37
non supervisory -.14 .188 .835 -.59 .31
43. I feel local or state government is ultimately responsible for improving workplace safety.
managers Supervisory .01 .158 1.000 -.37 .39
Supervisory .15 .092 .281 -.07 .37non supervisory Managers -.15 .115 .452 -.43 .12
non supervisory -.15 .092 .281 -.37 .07
supervisory Managers -.30(*) .097 .005 -.54 -.07
non supervisory .15 .115 .452 -.12 .43
44. I understand the workplace violence prevention policies and programs within the Northland District.
managers Supervisory .30(*) .097 .005 .07 .54
121
95% Confidence
Interval
Dependent Variable (I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
supervisory -.01 .143 1.000 -.35 .34non supervisory managers -.44(*) .180 .042 -.87 -.01
non supervisory .01 .143 1.000 -.34 .35
supervisory managers -.44(*) .150 .012 -.80 -.08
non supervisory .44(*) .180 .042 .01 .87
45. I feel my supervisor has the training required to effectively deal with behaviors which could lead to potential acts of workplace violence.
managers supervisory .44(*) .150 .012 .08 .80
supervisory .13 .116 .614 -.15 .41non supervisory managers -.23 .146 .327 -.58 .12
non supervisory -.13 .116 .614 -.41 .15
supervisory managers -.35(*) .122 .012 -.65 -.06
non supervisory .23 .146 .327 -.12 .58
46. I feel I have received effective workplace violence prevention training.
managers supervisory .35(*) .122 .012 .06 .65
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N
1.00 non supervisory 62
2.00 supervisory 164Management level
3.00 managers 52
1 No 947. I have attended the one hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV). 2 Yes 269
122
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
management level
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Mean Std. Deviation N
No 3.00 . 1
Yes 3.84 .711 61Non supervisory
Total 3.82 .713 62
No 3.33 .516 6
Yes 3.87 .640 158supervisory
Total 3.85 .642 164
No 4.00 .000 2
Yes 3.88 .558 50Managers
Total 3.88 .548 52
No 3.44 .527 9
Yes 3.86 .640 269Total
Total 3.85 .641 278
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Noncent. Parameter
Observed Power(a)
Corrected Model 2.472(b) 5 .494 1.209 .305 6.047 .428
Intercept 280.997 1 280.997 687.436 .000 687.436 1.000
Q47 .914 1 .914 2.236 .136 2.236 .319
GROUP .915 2 .458 1.119 .328 2.239 .246
GROUP * Q47 .806 2 .403 .986 .375 1.971 .221
Error 111.183 272 .409
123
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Noncent. Parameter
Observed Power(a)
Total 4232.000 278
Corrected Total 113.655 277
a Computed using alpha = .05
b R Squared = .022 (Adjusted R Squared = .004)
Custom Hypothesis Tests #1 Contrast Coefficients (L' Matrix) Management level Simple Contrast(a)
Parameter Level 2 vs. Level 1 Level 3 vs. Level 1
Intercept .000 .000
[Q47=1] .000 .000
[Q47=2] .000 .000
[GROUP=1.00] -1.000 -1.000
[GROUP=2.00] 1.000 .000
[GROUP=3.00] .000 1.000
[GROUP=1.00] * [Q47=1] -.500 -.500
[GROUP=1.00] * [Q47=2] -.500 -.500
[GROUP=2.00] * [Q47=1] .500 .000
[GROUP=2.00] * [Q47=2] .500 .000
[GROUP=3.00] * [Q47=1] .000 .500
[GROUP=3.00] * [Q47=2] .000 .500
The default display of this matrix is the transpose of the corresponding L matrix.
a Reference category = 1
Contrast Results (K Matrix) Dependent Variable
management level Simple Contrast(a) 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
Contrast Estimate .182Level 2 vs. Level Hypothesized Value 0
124
Dependent Variable
management level Simple Contrast(a) 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized) .182
Std. Error .349
Sig. .602
Lower Bound -.504
1
95% Confidence Interval for Difference Upper
Bound .869
Contrast Estimate .522
Hypothesized Value 0
Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized) .522
Std. Error .396
Sig. .189
Lower Bound -.258
Level 3 vs. Level 1
95% Confidence Interval for Difference Upper
Bound 1.302
a Reference category = 1
Test Results
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
Source Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Noncent. Parameter
Observed Power(a)
Contrast .915 2 .458 1.119 .328 2.239 .246
Error 111.183 272 .409
a Computed using alpha = .05
125
126
Custom Hypothesis Tests #2
Contrast Coefficients (L' Matrix)
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in
the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Simple Contrast(a)
Parameter Level 2 vs. Level 1
Intercept .000
[Q47=1] -1.000
[Q47=2] 1.000
[GROUP=1.00] .000
[GROUP=2.00] .000
[GROUP=3.00] .000
[GROUP=1.00] * [Q47=1] -.333
[GROUP=1.00] * [Q47=2] .333
[GROUP=2.00] * [Q47=1] -.333
[GROUP=2.00] * [Q47=2] .333
[GROUP=3.00] * [Q47=1] -.333
[GROUP=3.00] * [Q47=2] .333
The default display of this matrix is the transpose of the corresponding L matrix.
a Reference category = 1
Contrast Results (K Matrix) Dependent Variable
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV). Simple Contrast(a)
61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my understanding of
workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
Contrast Estimate .417
Hypothesized Value 0
Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized) .417
Level 2 vs. Level 1
Std. Error .279
127
Dependent Variable
Sig. .136
Lower Bound -.132
95% Confidence Interval for Difference Upper
Bound .965
a Reference category = 1
Test Results
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
Source Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Noncent. Parameter
Observed Power(a)
Contrast .914 1 .914 2.236 .136 2.236 .319
Error 111.183 272 .409
a Computed using alpha = .05
Custom Hypothesis Tests #3
Contrast Coefficients (L' Matrix)(a)
Contrast
Parameter L1 L2 L3
Intercept 0 0 0
[Q47=1] 1 1 1
[Q47=2] -1 -1 -1
[GROUP=1.00] 0 0 0
[GROUP=2.00] 0 0 0
[GROUP=3.00] 0 0 0
[GROUP=1.00] * [Q47=1] 1 0 0
[GROUP=1.00] * [Q47=2] -1 0 0
[GROUP=2.00] * [Q47=1] 0 1 0
[GROUP=2.00] * [Q47=2] 0 -1 0
[GROUP=3.00] * [Q47=1] 0 0 1
128
Contrast
[GROUP=3.00] * [Q47=2] 0 0 -1
The default display of this matrix is the transpose of the corresponding L matrix.
a supervise by group Contrast Results (K Matrix)(a)
Dependent Variable
Contrast 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
Contrast Estimate -.836
Hypothesized Value 0
Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized) -.836
Std. Error .645
Sig. .196
Lower Bound -2.105
L1
95% Confidence Interval for Difference Upper
Bound .433
Contrast Estimate -.534
Contrast Results (K Matrix)(a)
Dependent Variable
Contrast 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
Std. Error .266
Sig. .046
Lower Bound -1.057
L2
95% Confidence Interval for Difference Upper
Bound -1.023E-02
Contrast Estimate .120
Hypothesized Value 0
Difference (Estimate - Hypothesized) .120
Std. Error .461
Sig. .795
L3
95% Confidence Interval for Difference
Lower Bound -.788
129
Contrast
Upper Bound 1.028
a Based on the user-specified contrast coefficients (L') matrix: supervise by group
Test Results
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
Source Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Noncent. Parameter
Observed Power(a)
Contrast 2.362 3 .787 1.926 .126 5.779 .495
Error 111.183 272 .409
a Computed using alpha = .05
Estimates
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
95% Confidence Interval
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
management level
Mean Std. Error Lower
Bound Upper Bound
non supervisory 3.000 .639 1.741 4.259
supervisory 3.333 .261 2.819 3.847No
managers 4.000 .452 3.110 4.890
non supervisory 3.836 .082 3.675 3.997
supervisory 3.867 .051 3.767 3.967Yes
managers 3.880 .090 3.702 4.058
130
Pairwise Comparisons
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
95% Confidence Interval for
Difference(a)
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
(I) management level
(J) management level
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.(a)
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
supervisory -.333 .691 .949 -1.992 1.326non supervisory managers -1.000 .783 .493 -2.881 .881
non supervisory .333 .691 .949 -1.326 1.992
supervisory managers -.667 .522 .493 -1.921 .588
non supervisory 1.000 .783 .493 -.881 2.881
No
managers supervisory .667 .522 .493 -.588 1.921
supervisory -3.102E-02 .096 .984 -.263 .201non supervisory managers -4.393E-02 .122 .978 -.337 .249
non supervisory 3.102E-02 .096 .984 -.201 .263
supervisory managers -1.291E-02 .104 .999 -.262 .236
non supervisory 4.393E-02 .122 .978 -.249 .337
Yes
managers supervisory 1.291E-02 .104 .999 -.236 .262
Based on estimated marginal means
A Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Sidak.
Univariate Tests
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
131
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Noncent. Parameter
Observed Power(a)
Contrast .889 2 .444 1.087 .339 2.175 .240No
Error 111.183 272 .409
Contrast 6.126E-02 2 3.063E-02 .075 .928 .150 .061
Yes Error 111.183 272 .409
Each F tests the simple effects of management level within each level combination of the other effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
A Computed using alpha = .05
Estimates
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
2. management level * 47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry)
Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION
IV).
95% Confidence Interval
management level
47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Mean Std. Error Lower
Bound Upper Bound
No 3.000 .639 1.741 4.259non supervisory
Yes 3.836 .082 3.675 3.997
No 3.333 .261 2.819 3.847supervisory
Yes 3.867 .051 3.767 3.967
No 4.000 .452 3.110 4.890managers
Yes 3.880 .090 3.702 4.058
132
Pairwise Comparisons
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
95% Confidence Interval for
Difference(a)
management level
(I) 47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
(J) 47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV).
Mean Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.(a)
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
No Yes -.836 .645 .196 -2.105 .433non supervisory
Yes No .836 .645 .196 -.433 2.105
No Yes -.534(*) .266 .046 -1.057 -1.023E-02
supervisory Yes No .534(*) .266 .046 1.023E-
02 1.057
No Yes .120 .461 .795 -.788 1.028managers
Yes No -.120 .461 .795 -1.028 .788
Based on estimated marginal means
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
A Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Sidak.
Univariate Tests
Dependent Variable: 61. Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) training increased my
understanding of workplace violence and my agencies workplace violence policy.
management level Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig. Noncent. Parameter
Observed Power(a)
Contrast .688 1 .688 1.682 .196 1.682 .253non supervisory Error 111.183 272 .409
133
Contrast 1.647 1 1.647 4.029 .046 4.029 .516supervisory Error 111.183 272 .409
Contrast 2.769E-02 1 2.769E-02 .068 .795 .068 .058
managers Error 111.183 272 .409
Each F tests the simple effects of 47. I have attended the one-hour Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace training course (IF NO, SKIP TO SECTION IV). within each level combination of the other effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
A Computed using alpha = .05
134
APPENDIX C
QUESTION 63 COMMENTS
135
63. I believe the Be S.A.F.E. (Not Sorry) Preventing Violence in the Workplace
training could be improved by:
1 We concentrate on violence in the craft. We need to address violence in Management. 2 Video of role playing with all levels of management demonstrating their roles, responsibilities
and how they support the individuals who have had to report. Demonstrate how protection of self and property is accomplished the person that has had to report
3 Using professional (accredited) facilitators and not just someone who's available from the district. 4 Unrelated to SAFE: No place for comments in this survey but DEFINITELY should be.....
It contains skewed questions and some of the words in them require definition before they can be answered. Isn't "somewhat likely" less likely than "likely"? Confusing.
5 Trained instructors handling the discussion portion of the training. 6 Taking up case studies. 7 Stressing personal responsibility and common sense. Each employee responsible for their actions.8 Smaller groups to facilitate more discussion - professional trainers 9 Should also touch on reverse discrimination, equal is equal, no quotas or "special" considerations. 10 Remove the goofy music from the video, ask people to pay attention, require some
feedback/accountability, ensure the mid-level supervisors understand their role and take it seriously. It won't be safe unless supervisors follow through.
11 Providing postal inspectors as teachers, and also they should come to the work floor for vigilance. 12 Provide training to craft employees in a more formal setting (not on the workroom floor). 13 Provide examples of what actions have been taken when employees have reported violence. 14 Practicing what is preached. 15 Possibly more discussion related to real-life situations that have happened in our agency. 16 Other than dialogue of the video, it could be enhanced with general discussion. 17 Not sure at this point. 18 Not had training. 19 None. 20 No suggestions at this time. 21 No recommendation. 22 No improvement is needed. 23 New material each year, not same video. 24 More to postal employees in their environments. 25 More sophisticated discussion concerning different individual's perception of workplace violence. 26 More live examples which have actually happened on the workroom floor. 27 More lecture training. 28 More interactive with students. 29 More current statistical data; increase/decrease of incidents; examples of/and how dealt with. 30 More answers as far as what discipline results with zero tolerance. 31 Lecture, discussion, role playing. 32 Labor person attending the class. 33 Interaction. 34 Include consequences of bad behavior. 35 If employee is showing signs of workplace violence, someone from the outside should interview
and take action. 36 How it pertains to Mail Processing employees. Too centered on Customer Service.
136
37 Having middle management start working on their "people" skills and stop bullying their employees.38 Having an interactive section for personnel for greater understanding and verbal input. 39 Having a trainer give the training instead of sending it in the mail. 40 Having a trained professional come in and do the video/talk. 41 Having A Trained Person Give The Training/Called EAP on Violence & got in trouble. 42 Having a professional administer the course. 43 Giving us the latest, greatest information and make it work related. 44 For a different approach, try using non-USPS instructors? 45 Follow-ups and reinforcing training. 46 Following through with what we say we believe in. 47 Follow-up videos, Internet, etc (2 times a year). 48 Focusing on Management Training & the need to follow through and up on the claims. 49 Ensuring that the facilitator is qualified to lead such an important topic and not someone that was
told to give this class. 50 Don't treat people as if they have no common sense. If people don't already understand these
concepts, then they shouldn't have been hired in the first place... 51 Discussions on how to handle a violent confrontation when it is actually occurring - in offices
without security personnel. 52 Discussing this issue more that once a year and especially after an incident has occurred
in an work area with all employees (major incident, not minor). 53 Couldn't be improved on. 54 Completing/reviewing on a yearly basis. 55 Changing the video each year with new situations. Not seeing the same thing each year. 56 Bring to all employees not just management. 57 Better statistics - local stats & Postal versus Industry. Survey Question 31 is ambiguously/poorly wri
omissions for questions on this survey should be allowed rather than forcing a response. 58 Better screening of employees before their hired. 59 Allowing outside instructors to present the training and visit with manager on what steps to
take to correct possible violence issues. 60 All levels of employees need to be trained, not just PM’s. 61 After the Training is completed: Once an incident is reported there is action and follow up.
Too many times I have seen situations where no immediate or impressionable actions are taken. This leads to complacency and a "why bother" attitude.
62 Actually having more interaction and workshop (practical assignments) with the attendees (audience).
63 Actually having instructors that are interested in presenting this as a topic that is serious and everyone needs to be aware of and to understand.
137
REFERENCES
Alexander, M., Jr., & Fowles, J.H. III. (1996). Weapons in the workplace.
South Carolina Business Journal 15(7), 1-2.
Baron, S. A. (1993). Violence in the workplace: A prevention and management guide for businesses. Ventura, CA: Pathfinder Publishing of California.
Braverman, M. (1999). Preventing workplace violence: A guide for employers and practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Burden, P. R. (2000). Knowledge management: The bibliography. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Causey, M. (1998, July 28). On guard against workplace violence. The Washington Post, p. B2.
Cox, V. (1997). Guns, violence, and teens. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers.
Davis, D. A. (1997). Threats pending fuses burning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Denenberg, R. V., & Braverman, M. (1999). The violence-prone workplace: A new approach to dealing with hostile, threatening, and uncivil behavior. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Dyer, G. M. (1996). Safe, smart and self-reliant: Personal safety for women and children. Rockville, MD: Safety Press.
Fertal, A. (1996). Specify training by performance – not by the pound. Technical & Skills Training, (April ed.) [Online] Available: http://www.astd.org (visited 2004, Aug 16).
Filipczak, B. (1993). Armed and dangerous at work. Training 30(7), 39-44.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction, (6th ed.). New York: Longman.
Gagne, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning, (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
138
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J. & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design, (4th ed.). Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Holyoke, L. (1997, June). Half of southern California firms report workplace violence. Workforce 27.
Howard, P. J. (2000). The owner’s manual for the brain, (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Bard Press.
Huck, S. W. & Cormier, W. H. (1996). Reading statistics and research, (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Labig, C. D. (1995). Preventing violence in the workplace. New York: American Management Association.
Mantell, M. R. (1994). Ticking bombs: Defusing violence in the workplace. New York: Irwin Professional.
Mattman, J. W. (2001). Preventing violence in the workplace. Workplace Violence Research Institute. Available Online: http://noworkviolence.com/articles/preventing_violence.htm (visited 2004, May 1).
McClure, L. F. (1996). Risky business: Managing employee violence in the workplace. New York: The Haworth Press.
McClure, L. F. (2000). Anger and conflict in the workplace: Spot the signs, avoid the trauma. Manassas Park, VA: Impact Publications.
Murphy, E. (1992). The developing child: Using Jungian type to understand children. Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.
NIOSH (1989). National traumatic occupational fatalities: 1980-1985. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 89-116.
NIOSH (1992). Homicide in U.S. workplaces: A strategy for prevention and research. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 92-103.
NIOSH (1993). NIOSH Alert: Preventing homicides in the workplace. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No.93-109.
NIOSH (1996a). NIOSH Current efforts and future directions: Research and prevention. [Online] Available: http://www/cdc/gov/niosh/violcurr.html (visited 2004, October 17).
139
NIOSH (1996b). NIOSH report addresses problem of workplace violence, suggests strategies for preventing risks. Cincinatti, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS. [Online] Available: http://www/cdc/gov/niosh/violpr.html (visited 2004, September 2).
NIOSH (1996c). Violence in the workplace: Risk factors and prevention strategies. Current Intelligence Bulletin 57, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 96-100, Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS.
NIOSH (1997). NIOSH facts: Violence in the workplace. [Online] Available: http://www/cdc/gov/niosh/violfs.html (visited 2004, May 8)
NIOSH (2001a). Fatal injuries to civilian workers in the United States, 1980-1995. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 2001-129.
NIOSH (2001b). Fatal injuries to civilian workers in the United States, 1980-1995: National and state profiles. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub No. 2001-129S.
O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R.W., & Glew, D.J. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management Review 21(1), 225-253.
Palmer, J. (1998). Everything you need to know when you are the victim of a violent crime. New York: Rosen Publishing Group.
Phillips, J. J. (1997a). Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods, (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Phillips, J. J. (1997b). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Quinones, M. A. (1997). Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Rea, L. M. & Parker, R. A. (1997). Designing and conducting survey research, (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roleff, T. L. (2001). Hate crimes. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
Sandler, H.M. (1994). Doing violence in the workplace. Occupational Hazards 56(10), 31-32.
140
U.S. Department of Justice. (1986). Domestic violence (National Institute of Justice Publication No. NCJ 97220). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1990). Handgun crime victims (Bureau of Justice Statistics Publication No. NCJ-123559). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Justice. (1994).
U.S. Department of Justice. (1993). Criminal victimization in the United States, 1993 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Publication No. NCJ-151657). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Violence and theft in the workplace (Bureau of Justice Statistics Publication No. NCJ-148199). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Violence in the workplace widespread, study shows. (1996, August 15). The Nashville Tennessean, p. 2C.
Warchol, G. (1998). Workplace violence, 1992-1996. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice.
Workplace Violence: Analysis of the issues and recommendations to reduce the exposure. (1995, Dec). CPCU Journal 48(4), 208-216.
