ASSE Foundation Research

W

ASSE Foundation ResearchASSE Foundation Research

EmployeeMorale

Examining the link to occupational safety and healthBy Michael Behm

WORKPLACES WITH ACTIVE VISIBLE SAFETYleadership have fewer injuries are often rated as bet-ter places to work and have more satisfied moreproductive employees who are less likely to changejobs (OSHA 2002) ASSE (2002) has taken the posi-tion that safety and health management programsimprove a companyrsquos bottom line including pro-ductivity and employee morale

In 2005 BusinessWeek featured a special advertis-ing section promoting safetyrsquos return on investmentOne core message was that safety improves employ-ee morale which in turn enhances business value(Colford 2005) Gice (1995) contended that increas-ing job satisfaction will reduce workersrsquo compensa-tion claims and that improving job satisfaction isjust as important as hazard reduction in controllingworkersrsquo compensation claims Rechenthin (2004)found that poor safety programs could negativelyinfluence company morale and make recruiting dif-ficult particularly in high-risk industries

What Is a Great Place to WorkGreat Place to Work (GPTW) Institute compiles a

list of the best places to work in the US According tothe institute (2008) a great place to work is one in

which ldquoyou trust the people you workfor have pride in what you do andenjoy the people youworkwithrdquo Figure1 depicts the institutersquos dimensions

Similar to participants in OSHArsquosVoluntary Protection Programs (VPP)GPTW organizations (hereafter calledbest companies) self-nominate and ini-tiate the process The institute distrib-utes a 57-item employee survey calledthe Great Place to Work Trust Index toseveral hundred randomly selectedemployees at each firm (Levering2004) Each organization also completesa culture audit which includes anopen-ended questionnaire and firms

provide supplemental information for review(Rohman 2007)

For 2007 and 2008 Google a global technologyservice provider based in Mountain View CA wasthe number one Best Company to Work For inAmerica Best places to work cover a wide range ofindustries including construction manufacturingand advertising In fact in 2007 the two top compa-nies on the small and medium lists were a construc-tion company (Holder Construction Co) and amining company (Badger Mining Corp) Table 1 (p44) provides a complete industry sector list with dis-tribution The sidebar on p 45 provides a synopsis ofhow the best companies are chosen

The institutersquos processes help companies improvecorporate performance and raise the quality of worklife for employees Moreover using stock marketperformance indicators the data illustrate that thepublicly traded best companies consistently outper-form other major stock indices including theStandard and Poorrsquos 500 and the Russell 3000(GPTW Institute 2008 Lyman 2007) In additionthe institute reports that how employees are treatedadds significantly to the competitive advantagesavailable to the organization

GPTW as a Measure of Employee MoraleFor this research the institutersquos list was used as a

proxy for employee morale This list has been used inprevious research as a construct of employee rela-tions employee attitudes and employee moraleBallou Godwin and Shortridge (2003) used the list asa proxy for successful efforts in creating high work-place attitudesMoskowitz (1985) described the list asa measure of employee attitude and the relationshipbetween employees and managers while Romero(2004) describes it as ameasure of employee relations

In a study on employee morale McKnightAhmad and Schroeder (2001) provide a useful back-ground on the definition of employee morale Theydefine it as the degree to which an employee feels

Michael Behm PhD CSP is anassistant professor in the occupationalsafety program at East Carolina Univer-sity He holds a PhD in Public Healthfrom Oregon State University Before

returning to school full time at OregonState he worked for 11 years as an

occupational safety and healthprofessional for Lenox China and Saint-Gobain Corp In 2009 Behm receivedASSErsquos Presidentrsquos Award for service to

the Society He is a professional memberof ASSErsquos Eastern Carolina Chapter and

a member of its Academics andConstruction practice specialties

42 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY OCTOBER 2009 wwwasseorg

042_049_F3Behm_1001Layout 1 9102009 1116 AM Page 42

board of directors According to Lyman ldquoWersquovealways seen physical safety as a basic item thatemployees expect to be present in any workplacerdquo

Lyman (2007) reported information on certainaspects of the scale showing the differences betweenitem scores between the top 100 and the bottom 100(those companies that tried to be selected in the best100 but ended up in the lower 100 among all nomi-nations) According to Lyman (personal communi-cationApril 22 2008) the physically safe question isone that generates the smallest differences betweenthe best group and the lower group For 2008among the best 100 the positive response was 96for the 100 lower it was 89

Only 12 of the 57 items on the survey reportedaverage levels of positive response above 90 Thisdemonstrates that feeling physically safe is an impor-

good about hisher work and work environmentand use the term broadly to encompass constructssuch as intrinsic motivation job satisfaction workmeaningfulness organizational commitment andwork pride While the term morale has been criti-cized as being too vague (Roethlisberger 1941)more recently Weakliem and Frenkel (2006) suggestthe term employee morale is an underlying concept ofmany of the noted constructs and should be used asa general term to refer to feeling about onersquos job

Occupational Safety amp Health ComponentOccupational safety and health is a component of

the respect dimension (Figure 1) To address thisdimension 13 questions are asked on a 5-point fre-quency scale trueuntrue scale (ie almost alwaysuntrue often untrue sometimes untrue and some-times true often true almost always true)

One question is directly related to occupationalsafety and health ldquoThis is a physically safe place toworkrdquo (Lyman personal communication April 172008) Two other questions are also related to occu-pational safety and health although they could haveother underlying meanings in human resources andlabor relations These questions are ldquoThis is a psy-chologically and emotionally healthy place to workrdquoand ldquoOur facilities contribute to a good workingenvironmentrdquo

The question regarding a physically safe place towork scored the highest 96 among the averagescores of 100 best companies in 2007 (GPTW Institute2007) and also in 2008 (Lyman personal communica-tion April 22 2008) This means that 96 of employ-ees among the 100 best companies answered ldquooftentruerdquo or ldquoalmost always truerdquo that their place of workis physically safe Amy Lyman is the director of cor-porate research cofounder and chair of the institutersquos

Abstract The notionthat occupational safetyand health perform-ance is linked to busi-ness performanceincluding employeemorale has widespreadappeal However claimsthat these two conceptsare connected are limit-ed by a lack of data tosupport the con-tentions This researchendeavor analyzes therelationship betweenoccupational safety andhealth performanceand employee moraleusing the Great Place toWork Institutersquos data asthe construct foremployee morale

Figure 1 Great Place to Work Institute model diagramshows how each dimension plays out in the workplaceFI

GURE

1copy2008

GREATPLACETO

WORK

INSTITUTE

INCALL

RIGHTS

RESERV

EDREPRINTEDWITHPERM

ISSION

wwwasseorg OCTOBER 2009 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 43



relationship with work planning andensuring that workers have opportunitiesto voice safety concerns

However for an organization to be abest safe place to work the psychologicaland psychosocial aspects must beaddressed This is difficult to achieve andsustain Amarker in the best companies isthat they moderate the effects of stressboth at home and work (Lyman personalcommunication April 22 2008) Topf(2008) reports that stress can have a dra-matic effect on safety and health perform-ance Spigener (2008) reports that riskexposure can be introduced upstreamthrough the decisions that leaders makeregarding the systems which provideorganizational consequences or that causea state where employees feel psychologi-cally unsafe

An employee who feels psychological-ly unsafe tends to be focused inwardlyand can be more reactive and volatiledepending on the extent of the stress all ofwhich can cause a person to lose focus inthe moment which can adversely affectorganizational safety For example con-sider a shipping employee pressured to

meet end-of-month deliveries If occupational safetyis not a shared value among employees and man-agement the management decision and companyculture regarding end-of-month deliveries couldresult in a psychologically unsafe situation

Workplace violence prevention and wellness pro-grams are key components of this psychological con-struct as well These represent job enlargement andgrowth areas formany SHampE professionals Tomovetheir organizations and safety performance fromgood to great SHampE professionals should considerand evaluate these areas after they have satisfactori-ly addressed the physical and beyond-complianceaspects Itmay be the next step in the professionrsquos tra-jectory Based on Lymanrsquos comments and the analy-sis of the institutersquos data it is likely that some level ofhigh safety performance is a necessity just to be agood place to work This could mean that the rela-tionship between safety level and employee moraleis curvilinear (Figure 2 p 46)

The Relationship BetweenGPTW amp Occupational Safety

In researching the institutersquos selection processstriking similarities were noted between an organiza-tionrsquos path to becoming a best place to work and themanagement philosophy necessary for a high-per-forming safety culture Erickson (1997) found that inhigh safety organizations management communica-tion is honest open and understandable employeesare treated with respect and receive positive feed-back and suggestions are encouraged These charac-teristics are involved in becoming a best place towork as well If these attributes are in place and if

tant component of a site being a great place to workWhile manufacturing or mining can have a greaterdegree of obvious physical safety concerns issues atother sites might include lighting safety at nightergonomics for people working on computers andventilation and air conditioning to keep out asthma-producing materials (Lyman personal communica-tion April 22 2008)

Regarding the two other questions ldquoOur facilitiescontribute to a good working environmentrdquo andldquoThis is a psychologically and emotionally healthyplace to workrdquo the differences between the best 100and the lower 100 groups are larger when comparedto the physically safe question For the facilities ques-tion 91 of employees in the top group answeredldquooften truerdquo or ldquoalmost always truerdquo whereas 75 ofthe employees in the lower group did (Lyman per-sonal communication April 22 2008) for the psy-chologically safe question the difference increases to20mdash83 compared to 63 (Lyman)

The range between the two groups demonstratesthe difficulty in achieving each construct Thesequestions could be viewed as a tiered system of evo-lution beginningwith the physical aspects evolvingto facilitiesdesign and finally extending to employ-eesrsquo psychological well-being This relationship canbe used by SHampE professionals seeking to improvesafety and contribute to the organization being agreat place to work Consider that most average safeplaces to work are attempting to comply with basicOSHA regulations that focus primarily on the phys-ical aspects of workAbove-average safe workplacesseek to exceed OSHA compliance and might focuson issues such as facility design and safety safetyrsquos

IndustryNo of paired companies

Average no of OSHA inspections

Riskcategory

Construcon 7 2257 High Mininga 1 1450 High Hospitality 5 720 High Manufacturing 17 647 High Retail 17 626 High BioPharma 4 388 High Media 6 167 LowProfessional services 28 139 LowHealthcare 13 131 LowEducaon and training 1 100 LowTelecom 2 100 LowInformaon technology 14 086 LowFinance and insurance 28 030 LowElectronics 2 000 LowAdversingmarkeng 5 000 Low

150 (total) 389 (avg)

Table 1Table 1

High- amp Low-Risk Industry Groups

Note aIncludes MSHA inspections

Table 1 Best placesto work cover a widerange of industriesincluding construc-tion manufacturing

and advertising



because of the effect of employee number on thedependent variables (safetymeasures) For exampleif a best company with 50000 employees werematched with a firm with 1000 employees differ-ences would exist in areas such as safety staffing andlikelihood of an OSHA inspection This would yieldconfounding variations on the dependent variables

An assumption of this research is that the sitesselected as matching firms would not be selected asgreat places to work if they were nominated Thismethod of matching firms and the assumption iscomparable to previous research where the bestplaceswerematched to firms not on the list (SimonampDeVaro 2006 Fulmer Gerhart amp Scott 2003 Filbeckamp Preece 2003) The difference is that the previousresearch used financial data (eg annual sales rev-enue) as the final deciding match criterion becausethose research efforts focused on financial issues

The result was a list of 300 companies (150 pairs)matched by industry type ownership type andemployee number Independent samples t tests con-firmed the nondifference in employee numbersbetween the two lists Large best companies wereadequately matched based on employee numbers(p = 016) A match for the best small and mediumcompanies was also adequately found (p = 081) Thep values (p gt 005) indicate that the paired companiesrsquoemployee numbers were not significantly different

Measures of safety performance and safety com-mitment that could be located from publicly availablesources were used as data Data came from govern-mental and company websites professional associa-tion directories and publicly available sources Thevariables collected for this research were VPP partic-ipant status number of total OSHAinspections num-ber of OSHA inspections due to complaints andaccidents number of OSHA violations number ofOSHAviolations classified as repeat willful and seri-ous dollar value of OSHA fines number of ASSEmembers employed in the organization and numberof CSPs in the organization

safety is integrated seamlessly into the organizationas a core value the results within individual organi-zations are not surprising

For example according to Tonya Vyhlidal (per-sonal communication Aug 12 2008) director well-ness and life enhancement for Lincoln Industries amanufacturing firm on the institutersquos list for 5 con-secutive years the firm comprehensively integratesemployee wellness and occupational safety Thecompanyworkswith a physical therapist and amas-sage therapist to support proactive wellness pro-grams The benefits are seen not only becausework-relatedmusculoskeletal disorders are at an all-time low but also because such beyond-complianceprograms make the company a great place to work

Study MethodsAll 150 firms (100 large and 50 smallmedium)

on the institutersquos 2007 GPTW list were used in theresearch database To evaluate the relationship be-tween safety and employee morale the researcherneeded a comparison group of places to work thatwere not among the best list To create such a groupthe researcher used a matching procedure wherebyeach firm on the best list was matched to a singlefirm not on the list Matching is a strategy to dealwith and control for extraneous variables andreduce bias (Portney ampWatkins 2000)

The following matching criteria were used Firsta list of all possible comparison firms was generatedbased on industry type (eg education retail con-struction manufacturing) and ownership (privatepublic nonprofit) in relation to the firm on the bestplaces list This information was found on YahooFinance and Hooverrsquos Inc then confirmed on eachcompanyrsquos website

Second because the focus of this research wasemployee safety the potential comparison firm withthe closest number of employees to the best compa-ny was selected as the comparison firm for thematching list Random selection was not used

To pick the 100 Best Companies toWork For the Great Place to WorkInstitute conducts the most extensiveemployee survey in corporate AmericaIn 2007 nearly 100000 employees atthose companies invited to participateresponded to a 57-question survey (theTrust Index) created by the institute aglobal research and consulting firmwith offices in 30 countries

Most of a companyrsquos score (two-thirds) is based on the results of thesurvey which is sent to approximately400 randomly selected employees fromeach company The survey asks ques-tions related to employeesrsquo attitudes

about managementrsquos credibility therespect with which they are treated thefairness evident in workplace policiesand practices pride in onersquos work andcamaraderie

The other third of the scoring isbased on the companyrsquos responses tothe institutersquos Culture Audit whichincludes detailed questions aboutdemographic makeup and pay andbenefit programs as well as a series ofopen-ended questions about the com-panyrsquos management philosophy meth-ods of internal communicationsopportunities compensation practicesand diversity efforts

Any company that has operated forat least 7 years and has more than 1000US employees is eligible to nominateitself (for the large company category)while small (50 to 249 employees) andmedium (250 to 999 employees) com-panies do not face the years in opera-tion restriction Companies involved ina merger acquisition or layoff thataffects more than 25 of the workforcemay be asked to wait until the changein employee size has been completedbefore applying

Note A Lyman personal communicationApril 22 2008

Selecting the 100 Best Companies



Because most OSHA inspections areprogrammed there is no directionalhypothesis associated with the number ofOSHA inspections between the best com-panies and their peers However OSHAalso conducts inspections in response toemployee complaints and accidentsEmployee complaints are a sign of a com-munication breakdown or a lack of trustwithin the organization and would not beindicative of a best place to work(Marrewijk 2004) Best places to worklikely have effective communicationmechanisms that employees use to reportsafety issues a system to resolve these sit-uations and a feedback process

Serious accidents also can be detrimen-tal to employee morale in both the shortterm and the long term Violations that aremore critical (willful repeat and serious)are not likely to be present in best-place-to-work facilities An organizational cul-ture that allows such violations to occur isindicative of a low level of respect whichwould have a negative impact on employ-

ee morale (Marrewijk 2004)Along the same lines and because fewer overall

violations would occur and they would be lesssevere in the best places the total amount of OSHAfines also would be lower among the best places towork Clarke (2006) makes the case to encourageemployers to appeal any and all OSHA citations toreduce long-termOSHAliability Therefore data col-lection included initial and current status wheneverpossible to see whether the best companies aresomehow different from their peers in negotiatingthe elimination or reduction of fines and citations

Hypothesis 2 The best companies will have fewerOSHA inspections due to complaints and accidents ascompared to peers not on the best companies list

Hypothesis 3 The best companies will have fewerOSHA violations (initial and current) as compared topeers not on the list

Hypothesis 4 The best companies will have fewerOSHAviolations categorized as willful repeat and serious(initial and current) as compared to peers not on the list

Hypothesis 5 The best companies list will havesmaller OSHA fines measured in dollars (initial and cur-rent) as compared to peers not on the list

SHampE Staff ProfessionalMemberships amp Certification

Staffing the safety function with educatedtrained personnel is vital to an organizationrsquos long-term safety success ASSE (2009) is the oldest andlargest professional safety organization and hasmore than 30000 members On the ASSE websiteone can search the organizationrsquos membership direc-tory by company name The researcher searched forcompany name and subsidiaries to findASSE mem-bers who work for the best companies and theirmatched firms

Analysis of the data for each variable was madeas pairs only when data were available on at leastone of the two paired companies were both compa-nies included in the data analysis For example inthe results section consider the category ldquoNumberof OSHA inspections due to accident or complaintrdquoSixty-five pairs were reported in the data this meansthat 85 paired companies in the dataset reportedzero OSHA inspections due to accident or com-plaint This decision was made to ensure adequatecomparison to maintain an equal number of bestcompanies and matched companies in the analysis

VPP ParticipantUnder VPPmanagement labor andOSHAestab-

lish cooperative relationships at workplaces thathave implemented a comprehensive safety andhealth management system Acceptance into VPP isOSHArsquos official recognition of an organizationrsquosexemplary occupational safety and health perform-ance (OSHA 2007) VPP and GPTW are both self-selected programs that recognize exemplaryachievements The researcher searched the VPPlist available on theOSHAwebsite to determineVPPstatus among each GPTW company and its matchedcompany

Hypothesis 1 The best companies are more likely tobe VPP participants as compared to peers not on the bestcompanies list

OSHA CitationsCitations for each firm and any subsidiaries were

found using OSHArsquos inspection search data (cover-ing 5 years July 1 2002 to June 30 2007) Onlyclosed cases were included Each organization wassearched using the various firm names and anyknown subsidiaries

Employee morale

Safe

tyle

vel

Poor GreatGoodAverageBelowaverage

Reacve aempts to comply with

OSHA-compliantScant aempts at OSH

Beyond compliance (good) Great safe place to work

Figure 2Figure 2

Hypothesized Relationship BetweenSafety Level amp Employee Morale

Figure 2 Some levelof high safety per-formance is likelya necessity just tobe a good place

to work This couldmean that the rela-tionship betweensafety level and

employee moraleis curvilinear



VPP Participant StatusHypothesis 1 The best companies are more likely to

be VPP participants as compared to peers not on the bestcompanies list

Of the 300 companies analyzed only six had VPPsites within their organization three came from thebest company list three came from the matchedcompany list Therefore no relationship was foundbetween best company status and VPP status Nostatistical test was used

OSHA CitationsThe two study groups experience essentially the

same number of OSHA inspections (p = 0202) This

One highly recognized accredited safety creden-tial is the CSP designation administered by BCSP(Camplin 2008) Sixty-five percent of CSPs areASSEmembers (T Wilkerson personal communicationJan 6 2009) BCSP also has an online directory it canbe searched by employee name but not by companynameA search was conducted for CSPs in each firmby using the names of ASSE members in that firmEach member was individually searched for withinthe CSP directory Therefore hypothesis 7 is writtento include only those safety professionals who areboth ASSE members and CSPs No other certifica-tions (eg ASP CHST OHST) were searched

Two insurance companies were on the best com-pany list These firms and their matchedpairs provide loss control services that area function of their external business ratherthan their internal safety commitment Itcould not be determined whether staffingwas for external or internal purposes Toaccount for that uncertainty these fourfirmswere not included in theASSEmem-ber and CSP analysis

Hypothesis 6 The best companies will havemore ASSE members on staff as compared topeers not on the best companies list

Hypothesis 7 The best companies will havemore ASSE members on staff who are CSPs ascompared to peers not on the list

Each variable was assessed for normaldistribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test None of the variables werenormally distributed (p lt 005) The non-parametric counterpart to the independ-ent samples t test the Mann-Whitney Utest was used This test examines the vari-ables as ranks and tests differencebetween the two groups

High- amp Low-Risk GroupsAll analyses were performed includ-

ing all 150 matched pairs regardless ofindustry It was observed that severalindustry groups within the data had lessdata than other groups In other wordshigh- and low-risk groups were includedin the dataset A cluster analysis allowscategories to be broken into similargroups based on a particular variable Thebest variable available in this dataset tosignify the difference between high- andlow-risk firms was the number of OSHAinspections (Table 1 p 44)

Results amp DiscussionResults and data for each variable are

shown in Table 2 Mean is shown only toprovide a sense of the data and to explorehow the best companies compared to theirpeers the data are not normally distrib-uted and nonparametric statistics wereused for the analysis A level of signifi-cance of 005 was used

VariableBest company ormatched irm

No of companiesin the analysis Mean

Signiicantp value

No of OSHA inspecons in the 5-year period

Best companyMatched firm

150150

322385

No0202

No of OSHA inspecons dueto accident or complaint


6565

209354

Yes 0023

No of inial violaonsBest companyMatched firm

150150

323572

No0151

No of current violaons Best companyMatched firm

150150

280519

No0108

No of inial serious willfulor repeat violaons


5252

488852

Yes 0008

No of current seriouswillful or repeat violaons


5252

338648

Yes 0006

Total amount of inial penalty


5858

$11119$25454

Yes 0011

Total amount of currentpenalty


5858

$5402 $16330

Yes 0006

No of ASSE members in theorganizaon


5555

424184

Yes 0001

No of CSPs in theorganizaon


2828

204089

Yes 0001

Table 2Table 2

Results All Companies

Variable High risk Low risk Alla

No of OSHA inspecons in the 5-year period 0665 0074 0202No of OSHA inspecons due to accident or complaint 0410 0001b 0023c

No of inial violaons 0158 0200 0152No of current violaons 0126 0206 0108No of inial serious willful or repeat violaons 0032c 0053 0008b

No of current serious willful or repeat violaons 0014c 0109 0006b

Total amount of inial penalty 0044c 0041c 0011c

Total amount of current penalty 0025c 0038c 0006b

No of ASSE members in the organizaon 0003b 0004b 0001b

No of CSPs in the organizaon 0001b 0480 0001b

Table 3Table 3

Results p Values

Note Results p-valuesmdashbreakdown by high- and low-risk industry and all firms Mann-Whitney p values comparing high- and low-risk firmsaAs reported in Table 2 bDenotes a significant difference at the p lt 001 level between best placesto work and their peers cDenotes a significant difference at the p lt 005 level between best placesto work and their peers

Tables 2 and 3 Sevenhypotheses were test-ed to evaluate howthe best companiescompared to peersnot on the list Theresults of this researchdemonstrate thatoccupational safetyand health perform-ance and manage-ment is a significantcomponent ofemployee morale



ASSE members on staff as compared to peers not onthe best companies list

The results across all firms and high-risk andlow-risk firms were significant and supported thehypothesis The best companies have more safetystaff who are ASSE members Staffing the safetyfunction with members of the leading occupationalsafety organization demonstrates that these employ-ers recognize the need for staff who seek profession-al development It also demonstrates that the bestworkplaces are staffing the function at a higher levelthan their peers

Because a certain level of safety is an integralcomponent of being a best place to work the resultsmight seem surprising since these organizationsmay not need ASSE members on their staff anylonger However these organizations recognize thevalue of the safety professional in some aspects Thataspect may be exceeding compliance although it isnot evident in the VPP-status data Beyond-compli-ance initiatives are not limited to VPP and it may bethose non-OSHA-compliance issues that have agreater effect on employee morale and help toexplain the differences on the institutersquos questionabout ldquobeing a psychologically and emotionallyhealthy place to workrdquo As noted such safety pro-grammatic issues that would affect this constructmight include wellness programs workplace vio-lence prevention and occupational stress

Hypothesis 7 The best companies will have moreASSE members on staff who are CSPs as compared topeers not on the list

The results across all firms and high-risk firmswere significant and supported the hypothesisAmong low-risk firms the research found no differ-ence between staffing of ASSE members who areCSPs between the best companies and their peersHigh-risk best places recognize that a higher level ofsafety expertise is needed because of the industryand risk status Thus these organizations view CSPcertification as a necessity for safety staff

Low-risk best companies on the other hand donot see the benefit of employing a CSP as comparedto peers These firms see the value of a safety profes-sional (seeASSEmember data) but do not appear tobelieve it necessary that the individual be a CSP Thisis an interesting finding and may explain the previ-ous contention that safety professionals might beasked to take on larger responsibilities across all bestplaces For example the best places both high-riskand low-risk see the value in employing safety pro-fessionals but only the high-risk best places need thesafety specialist This is an area for future research

ConclusionsThe results of this research demonstrate that occu-

pational safety and health performance andmanage-ment is a significant component of employeemoraleAkey aspect of this research is that the previous anec-dotal claims are supported by these data Organ-izations with high levels of employee morale havefewer OSHA inspections due to accidents or com-

result was expected as most OSHA inspections arerandom Simply having an inspection does notimply higher or lower employee morale

However it is hypothesized that the best compa-nies will have fewer violations fewer OSHA inspec-tions due to accidents and complaints and fewerOSHA violations categorized as willful repeat andserious as compared to their peers


Overall GPTW companies experience fewerOSHA inspections due to complaints and accidentscompared to peers not on the list (p = 0023) The bestcompanies have effective mechanisms of communica-tion that apparently include safety and healthMoreover these firms have fewer incidents that resultin an OSHA inspection

However interesting differences are found whenanalyzing the high- and low-risk industry groups sep-aratelyAmong high-risk industries no differencewasnoted in the number of OSHAinspections due to com-plaints and accidents between best places and theirpeers (p = 0410) Conversely among low-risk indus-tries a highly significant difference was found in thenumber of OSHAinspections between best places andtheir peers (p = 0001) The low-risk best places had farfewer OSHA inspections due to complaints and acci-dents compared to the matching firms

Hypothesis 3 The best companies will have fewerOSHA violations as compared to peers not on the list

The analysis showed no significant differencesbetween the best places and their peers in any of thesix category breakdowns tested (all initial and cur-rent high-risk initial and current low-risk initial andcurrent) Table 3 shows detailed p values

Hypothesis 4 The best companies will have fewerOSHA violations categorized as willful repeat and seri-ous as compared to peers not on the list

Willful repeat and serious violations would sig-nal a breakdown in the safety management systemand in communicationmdashmeaning the organizationis unaware of its safety responsibility or does notcare These are not attributes of a great workplace

Both the initial and current violations among allfirms in the dataset were significantly different andsupported the hypothesis [initial (p = 0008) and cur-rent (p = 0006)] Among high-risk firms the datawere also significant and supported the hypothesis[initial (p = 0032) and current (p = 0014)] Howeveramong low-risk firms the results found in this dataanalysis were not significant

Hypothesis 5 The best companies will have smallerOSHA fines measured in dollars as compared to peersnot on the list

The results across all firms high-risk and low-risk firms were significant and supported thehypothesis Best places have fewer violations (al-though not significant) fewer willful repeat andserious violations and therefore have smaller mon-etary penalties when compared to their peers

Hypothesis 6 The best companies will have more

Occupationalsafety and

health perfor-mance canand should

play a largerpart in

enhancingemployeemorale ascompanies

seek to movefrom good

to great



(Ed) The Safety Professionalrsquos Handbook Management Applications(Vol 1) Des Plaines IL ASSE

Clarke B (2006) OSHA citations Understanding their poten-tial long-term impact Professional Safety 41(1) 46-48

Colford J (2005 Sept 12) The ROI of safety BusinessWeek(special advertising section)

Erickson J (1997 May) The relationship between corporateculture and safety performance Professional Safety 42(5) 29-33

Filbeck G amp Preece D (2003) Fortunersquos best 100 companiesto work for in America Do they work for shareholders Journal ofBusiness amp Accounting 30(5) 771-797

Fulmer I Gerhart B amp Scott K (2003) Are the 100 best bet-ter An empirical investigation of the relationship between beinga ldquogreat place to workrdquo and firm performance Personnel Psychol-ogy 56(4) 965-993

Gice J (1995) The relationship between job satisfaction andworkersrsquo compensation claims CPCU Journal 48(3) 178-183

Great Place to Work Institute (2007 Apr 18-20) Examplefeedback report (Exhibit at the 2007 Great Place to Work confer-ence Los Angeles CA USA) San Francisco Author

Great Place to Work Institute (2008) What we do SanFrancisco Author Retrieved Aug 21 2009 from httpwwwgreatplacetoworkcomgptwwhatwedophp

Levering R (2004) Creating a great place to work Why it isimportant and how it is done Corrections Today 66(5) 86-88

Lyman A (2007 April 18) Diverse people great ideas extra-ordinary accomplishments Presentation at the 2007 Great Place toWork Conference Los Angeles CA USA

Marrewijk M (2004) The social dimension of organizationsRecent experiences with Great Place to Work assessment practicesJournal of Business Ethics 55(2) 135-146

McKnight D Ahmad S amp Schroeder R (2001) When dofeedback incentive control and autonomy improve morale Theimportance of employee-management relationship closenessJournal of Managerial Issues 13(4) 466-482

Moskowitz M (1985) Lessons from the best companies towork for California Management Review 27(2) 42-47

OSHA (2002 Fall) Safety and health add value To your busi-ness To your workplace To your life Job Safety and HealthQuarterly 14(1)

OSHA (2007) Voluntary Protection Programs WashingtonDC Author Retrieved Aug 21 2009 from httpwwwoshagovdcspvppindexhtml

Portney L amp Watkins M (2000) Foundations of clinicalresearch (2nd ed) Upper Saddle River NJ Prentice Hall Health

Rechenthin D (2004) Project safety as a sustainable competi-tive advantage Journal of Safety Research 35(3) 297-308

Roethlisberger F (1941)Management and morale CambridgeMA Harvard University Press

Rohman J (2007 Apr 19) Introduction to the Great Place toWork model Presentation at the 2007 Great Place to Work Confer-ence Los Angeles CA USA

Romero E (2004) Are the great places to work also great per-formers Academy of Management Executive 18(2) 150-152

Simon D amp DeVaro J (2006) Do the best companies towork for provide better customer satisfactionManagerial andDecision Economics 27(8) 667-683

Spigener J (2008) Culture The only way to get to zeroProceedings of the 2008 ASSE Professional Development ConferenceLas Vegas NV USA

Topf M (2008) Beyond compliance Breaking through to thenext level of SHampE excellence Proceedings of the 2008 ASSEProfessional Development Conference Las Vegas NV USA

Weakliem D amp Frenkel S (2006) Morale and workplaceperformanceWork and Occupations 33(3) 335-361

AcknowledgmentsThe author thanks Brian Briley and Marshall Walker for their helpin collecting the data for this research Dr Amy Lyman director ofcorporate research cofounder and chair of the board of directorsof Great Place to Work Institute provided valuable information onthe institute its data and the process of becoming a best place towork Thanks also to the ASSE Foundation which provided thefinancial support for this research as well as a constructive reviewby its Research Committee and approval of its trustees

plaints serious willful or repeat violations andlower monetary penalties Furthermore these work-places appear to have recognized the value of thesafety professional They staff the safety function dif-ferently from comparison companies They employmore ASSE members and within the high-riskindustries they employ a greater number of CSPs

The results also demonstrate that occupationalsafety and health performance can and should playa larger part in enhancing employee morale as com-panies seek to move from good to great Whilebeyond-compliance safety initiatives are an impor-tant factor in helping organizations improve it is thepsychological safety initiatives that appear to be akey component in an organizationrsquos improvement

SHampE professionals have opportunities for jobenlargement in nontraditional safety areas such aswellness workplace violence prevention occupa-tional stress minimization and off-the-job safety AtASSErsquos Safety 2008 conference former (and recentlyreappointed) NIOSH director John Howard and for-mer OSHA administrator Edward Fouke encour-aged SHampE professionals to use their skill set in anexpansive manner that contributes to the organiza-tionrsquos value

The results of this study suggest that in the bestworkplaces ASSE members are getting involved inother aspects of human capital enhancement such aswellness and other programs that make these com-panies the best places to work Combined with theother beyond-compliance issues this creates a situa-tion in which SHampE professionals are being soughtafter by leading organizationsmdashnot solely because oftheir technical safety expertise but rather because oftheir skill set in enhancing organizational resources

These results support the notion that maintaininga good safety management system can be a value-added function and that SHampE professionals play akey role in that endeavor Future research shouldexplore the role of the SHampE professional in the bestcompanies and how their safety skill set contributesto overall organization value

Additional research to advance the concepts dis-cussed would include evaluating the best compa-niesrsquo safety and health management systemsthrough case studies or other research endeavorsThe comparison survey questions between the best100 and the lower 100 are interesting data A futurestudy might be conducted between companies thatapply to be a best place to work to determine thesafety and health management differences andwhether they are significant in moving a companyfrom good (lower 100) to great (best 100)

ReferencesASSE (2002) Addressing the return on investment for safety

health and environmental management programs [white paper]Des Plaines IL Author

ASSE (2009) American Society of Safety Engineers fact sheetDes Plaines IL Author

Ballou B Godwin N amp Shortridge R (2003) Firm valueand employee attitudes on workplace quality Accounting Hori-zons 17(4) 329-341

Camplin J (2008) General safety management In J Haight


board of directors According to Lyman ldquoWersquovealways seen physical safety as a basic item thatemployees expect to be present in any workplacerdquo

Lyman (2007) reported information on certainaspects of the scale showing the differences betweenitem scores between the top 100 and the bottom 100(those companies that tried to be selected in the best100 but ended up in the lower 100 among all nomi-nations) According to Lyman (personal communi-cationApril 22 2008) the physically safe question isone that generates the smallest differences betweenthe best group and the lower group For 2008among the best 100 the positive response was 96for the 100 lower it was 89

Only 12 of the 57 items on the survey reportedaverage levels of positive response above 90 Thisdemonstrates that feeling physically safe is an impor-

good about hisher work and work environmentand use the term broadly to encompass constructssuch as intrinsic motivation job satisfaction workmeaningfulness organizational commitment andwork pride While the term morale has been criti-cized as being too vague (Roethlisberger 1941)more recently Weakliem and Frenkel (2006) suggestthe term employee morale is an underlying concept ofmany of the noted constructs and should be used asa general term to refer to feeling about onersquos job

Occupational Safety amp Health ComponentOccupational safety and health is a component of

the respect dimension (Figure 1) To address thisdimension 13 questions are asked on a 5-point fre-quency scale trueuntrue scale (ie almost alwaysuntrue often untrue sometimes untrue and some-times true often true almost always true)

One question is directly related to occupationalsafety and health ldquoThis is a physically safe place toworkrdquo (Lyman personal communication April 172008) Two other questions are also related to occu-pational safety and health although they could haveother underlying meanings in human resources andlabor relations These questions are ldquoThis is a psy-chologically and emotionally healthy place to workrdquoand ldquoOur facilities contribute to a good workingenvironmentrdquo

The question regarding a physically safe place towork scored the highest 96 among the averagescores of 100 best companies in 2007 (GPTW Institute2007) and also in 2008 (Lyman personal communica-tion April 22 2008) This means that 96 of employ-ees among the 100 best companies answered ldquooftentruerdquo or ldquoalmost always truerdquo that their place of workis physically safe Amy Lyman is the director of cor-porate research cofounder and chair of the institutersquos

Abstract The notionthat occupational safetyand health perform-ance is linked to busi-ness performanceincluding employeemorale has widespreadappeal However claimsthat these two conceptsare connected are limit-ed by a lack of data tosupport the con-tentions This researchendeavor analyzes therelationship betweenoccupational safety andhealth performanceand employee moraleusing the Great Place toWork Institutersquos data asthe construct foremployee morale

Figure 1 Great Place to Work Institute model diagramshows how each dimension plays out in the workplaceFI

GURE

1copy2008

GREATPLACETO

WORK

INSTITUTE

INCALL

RIGHTS

RESERV

EDREPRINTEDWITHPERM

ISSION
















Riskcategory


150 (total) 389 (avg)

Table 1Table 1




and advertising






































Employee morale

Safe

tyle

vel





Figure 2Figure 2























Signiicantp value



150150

322385

No0202



6565

209354

Yes 0023


150150

323572

No0151


150150

280519

No0108



5252

488852

Yes 0008



5252

338648

Yes 0006



5858

$11119$25454

Yes 0011



5858

$5402 $16330

Yes 0006



5555

424184

Yes 0001



2828

204089

Yes 0001

Table 2Table 2










Table 3Table 3

Results p Values































to great






















































Riskcategory


150 (total) 389 (avg)

Table 1Table 1




and advertising






































Employee morale

Safe

tyle

vel





Figure 2Figure 2























Signiicantp value



150150

322385

No0202



6565

209354

Yes 0023


150150

323572

No0151


150150

280519

No0108



5252

488852

Yes 0008



5252

338648

Yes 0006



5858

$11119$25454

Yes 0011



5858

$5402 $16330

Yes 0006



5555

424184

Yes 0001



2828

204089

Yes 0001

Table 2Table 2










Table 3Table 3

Results p Values































to great













































































Employee morale

Safe

tyle

vel





Figure 2Figure 2























Signiicantp value



150150

322385

No0202



6565

209354

Yes 0023


150150

323572

No0151


150150

280519

No0108



5252

488852

Yes 0008



5252

338648

Yes 0006



5858

$11119$25454

Yes 0011



5858

$5402 $16330

Yes 0006



5555

424184

Yes 0001



2828

204089

Yes 0001

Table 2Table 2










Table 3Table 3

Results p Values































to great


























































Employee morale

Safe

tyle

vel





Figure 2Figure 2























Signiicantp value



150150

322385

No0202



6565

209354

Yes 0023


150150

323572

No0151


150150

280519

No0108



5252

488852

Yes 0008



5252

338648

Yes 0006



5858

$11119$25454

Yes 0011



5858

$5402 $16330

Yes 0006



5555

424184

Yes 0001



2828

204089

Yes 0001

Table 2Table 2










Table 3Table 3

Results p Values































to great


























































Signiicantp value



150150

322385

No0202



6565

209354

Yes 0023


150150

323572

No0151


150150

280519

No0108



5252

488852

Yes 0008



5252

338648

Yes 0006



5858

$11119$25454

Yes 0011



5858

$5402 $16330

Yes 0006



5555

424184

Yes 0001



2828

204089

Yes 0001

Table 2Table 2










Table 3Table 3

Results p Values































to great




































































to great
















































































ASSE Foundation Research

Documents