How Provisional Improvement Notices Influence Employee Voice and Silence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper titled "How provisional improvement notices influence employee 2 voice and silence" examines how provisional improvement notices influences work place dynamics or employee voice by using semi-structured interviews which were conducted with health and safety representatives. 

The following suggestions can be noted:

- literature survey has to be extended by more relevant literature sources,

- introduction should be divided into introduction section and related works section, while section"Related works" will contain more literature sources,

- motivation background is missing, why is your method better than the existing ones?,

- please use more recent literature,

- methods section is not appropriate, some semi-structured interviews are mentioned, but it is not possible to see structure/figure or them.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

The author would like to thank you for your time reviewing the paper and for providing valuable feedback.

 

We have taken considerable time reviewing the paper in light of your comments and hope our efforts address your concerns raised.

 

Warm regards,

 

Author.

 

 

 

 

 

1. - literature survey has to be extended by more relevant literature sources,
2. - please use more recent literature,

The first concern raised concerned the literature review was required to be reviewed and additional content was added to the literature review to increase the relevance of the literature review. The following was added to the paper. Note the updated references which have been added. There have been more recent literature added to the paper. The following sections have been added to expand the literature review.

 

The United Kingdom has legislation that provides either workplace-elected or union-appointed HSRs [6]. Union-appointed HSRs differ from workplace-elected HSRs as they have the power to investigate hazards and complaints, receive information from inspectors and can attend health and safety committees [6]. Union-appointed HSRs as well as workplace-elected HSRs do not have the power to issue safety notices [6].

The European Union Directive 89/391 provides European workers with the power to have elected representatives. Health and safety representatives under the Directive have the right to ask the employer to take appropriate measures and to submit proposals to mitigate hazards or remove sources of danger, however, they do not have the power to issue safety notices [7].

In the United States of America, the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides employee representatives with the power to accompany the regulator when they are inspecting or questioning persons [8]. The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 does not have other legislative provisions granting powers to employee safety representatives [8]. The Canadian Labour Code 1985 has provisions for health and safety representatives which grant them significant powers such as the power to conduct audits and checks, conduct investigations and participate in the development of safety policies but not the power to issue PINs [9].

 

The factors that influence the effectiveness of health and safety representatives mirror many of the internal and external factors highlighted by employee voice. The effectiveness of health and safety representatives is shaped by a strong legislative framework, size and the type of industry sector, casualisation of the workplace, internal labour processes and work intensity, external support from the inspectorate and unions, senior management commitment and their level of health and safety knowledge, whether safety is explicitly outlined in collective agreements, management prioritising a participatory approach to safety and the influence of the organisations’ safety professionals [12-15].

Providing employee voice to workers has been linked to positive outcomes including improving conflict resolution, providing a channel for employees to voice their concerns, granting employees participation in the decision-making process, and improving the issue resolution process [16]. Employee voice structures can address negative behaviours in response to perceived unfairness at work, can lead to increased employee commitment, and can reduce the high human and economic cost of workplace conflict and turnover [16].

Despite the positive benefits that accompany employee voice, there has been evidence that worker participation mechanisms have not been effective and have not achieved their intended goals. A longitudinal case study of a large steelwork’s health and safety committee found that there were significant frustrations between workers and management over a significant period of time, with the following themes persistently emerging: the inability or reluctance of management to deal with plant and equipment safety issues, safety issues were becoming industrial relations issues and management had often attempted to separate employee voice from union collective organisation [17]. A separate study examining the effectiveness of health and safety committees concluded that it would be inadequate to assume that health and safety committees are operating effectively and had fostered greater consultation and promoted high standards of health and safety [18]. Surveys conducted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Victorian Trade Hall Council revealed that 43 per cent of respondents did not believe health and safety committees worked properly or well [19]. The surveys also revealed that management dominated safety committees, budgets and red tape were used to delay action on safety measures and that the same issues were being raised over again in each committee [20].

These themes emphasise the current discourse of how health and safety issues are increasingly becoming industrial relations matters [21]. Furthermore, the industrial relations climate has intensified in the Anglophone countries, where there has been a withering away of employee voice due to the reduction of trade union density and an increase in precarious work practices (i.e. the rise of online platform workers, contracting, subcontracting and labour hire practices) [22,23].

Employee voice is often studied within the discipline of human resource management and accepts a pluralist approach to the employment relationship [24]. Pluralism acknowledges that employee voice is seen as a common goal for both employees and managers and is associated with being pro-social, informal and individual [24]. This understanding has been critiqued for being too partial to management and failing to recognise the competing interests within the employment relationship [25].

Employee silence is often defined as the anthesis of employee voice and is used in this paper to provide an additional perspective to understanding workplace dynamics and how employee silence may influence safety outcomes [26]. Employee silence acknowledges the broader industrial relations environment where there are often competing interests between workers and management [26,27]. Exercising employee silence could include purposely withholding ideas and concerns about their organisation that may harm the overall interests of an organisation [26]. The employee silence literature has identified two primary factors that influence whether employees speak up or not [26]. First is ‘voice efficacy’, which is defined as the perception that speaking up is futile and no one listens [26]. The second is ‘psychological safety’, which is described as the real or imagined consequences of speaking up. Within the workplace context, psychological safety is influenced by multiple factors including how others perceive their image, co-worker relations, their own identity, social capital, career development, the threat of being tasked with unappealing work, and their relationship with their supervisors [26]. Within the safety literature, there are various issues which stop workers from raising issues including the perception that the safety issue was minor, that the risk/harm is part of the job, the fear of negative repercussions that accompany voicing the safety concern, as well as the perception that the worker is often to blame for health and safety issues in the workplace [13,18,28,29].

Safety climate is another lens of analysis used in this paper to provide a further understanding of workplace dynamics and is defined as the employee’s safety attitudes, beliefs and values [30]. Safety climate is shaped by four dimensions, the attitude of senior executives, safety supervision, safety production and environment, and the implementation of safety training and education [30]. Safety climate provides an important approach to understanding the application of PINs and highlights that voice structures must be contextualised within the workplace amongst production and management pressures.

Worker representatives play a significant role in shaping health and safety in the workplace. The International Labour Organisation states that worker representatives improve health and safety outcomes, management practices, safety culture and injury rates [12]. There are several preconditions which must be met for effective worker representation and consultation, including a regulatory framework that provides rights for worker representation, adequate facilities for safety representatives, a commitment of senior management to health and safety, management competence in risk management, training provided to representatives, and strong communication between representatives and their constituents [12]. The most effective worker-representative structures are often found in large organisations with relatively stable employment practices and a strong trade union presence [12]. Health and safety representatives increasingly play a critical role in promoting workplace safety due to the broader changes in the socio-economic environment which has decreased external involvement including the decline in trade union membership, reduced role of safety regulators, and the broader legislative approaches to increase individualisation and ‘responsibilisation’ within the workplace [14]. These shifts describe the growth of responsibility and accountability from employers and regulatory bodies to the workers [31].

Internationally, surveys of employee representatives including the British Workplace Employment Relations Survey 2004 revealed that establishing employee participation structures that were aligned with management and unions had the best opportunity for success [34]. A large portion of employee participation structures dealt with health and safety issues as the overwhelming issue [35]. Despite broader industrial relations issues increasingly dominating safety issues, the survey reported that 76 per cent of union employee representatives had ‘good’ or ‘very good’ relationships with management [35]. Non-union employee representatives had a better relationship with management than their union counterparts, with 92 per cent rating the relationship as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ [35].

 

The following are the updated references which have since been added to the paper:

 

26. Nechanska, E.; Hughes, E.; Dundon, T. Towards an integration of employee voice and silence. Human Resource Management Review 2020, 30, 100674, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.11.002.
27. Luo, T. Safety climate: current status of the research and future prospects. Journal of Safety Science and Resilience 2020, 1, 106-119.
28. Boland, M. Review of the model Work Health and Safety laws Final report. 2018.
29. Hennink, M.; Hutter, I.; Bailey, A. Qualitative research methods; Sage: 2020.
30. Cullinane, N.; Donaghey, J. Employee Silence. In Handbook of Research on Employee Voice, Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T., Freeman, R., Eds.; Edward Edgar: Cheltenham, 2020; pp. 474-485.
31. Bluff, E.; Johnstone, R. COVID-19 and the Regulation of Work Health and Safety. Australian Journal of Labour Law 2021, 34, 112-129.
32. Dahlman, S.; Heide, M. Strategic internal communication: A practitioner’s guide to implementing cutting-edge methods for improved workplace culture; Routledge: 2020.
33. Peretz, R.A.; Luria, G.; Kalish, Y.; Zohar, D. Safety climate strength: the negative effects of cliques and negative relationships in teams. Safety science 2021, 138, 105224.
34. Donaghey, J.; Dundon, T.; Cullinane, N.; Dobbins, T.; Hickland, E. Managerial silencing of employee voice. In Employee Voice at Work, Holland, P., Teicher, J., Donaghey, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, 2019; pp. 113-128.

 

 

2. - introduction should be divided into introduction section and related works section, while section"Related works" will contain more literature sources,

This has now been added to the paper, there is a new section labelled “1.1 Related Works and Literature Review”

3. - motivation background is missing, why is your method better than the existing ones?

 

The motivational background for the paper demonstrating the gap in the literature has been added to the paper. Additional motivation for the selection of methodology has been added to provide a broader understanding of the use of methods and why it was used. The rationale for the use of semi-structured interviews is provided and the author believes the data provided is significant and the analysis and discussion is a novel contribution to the literature. The following sentences were added.

 

1.2 Motivational Background

This study builds on the surveys by providing greater contextualisation of the workplace through the use of case study methodology. This contributes to a richer understanding of the workplace dynamics, including how HSRs interact with management, the situations HSRs would use PINs within their workplace, and how HSRs believe management would respond to PINs. This study also combines both the theoretical understanding of employee voice and employee silence to provide a broader in-depth understanding of the various factors that influence the use of PINs in the workplace and the situations where HSRs would issue PINs to their employers.

2.0 Methods

Semi-structured interviews were selected for several reasons, they granted the researcher the opportunity to ask follow-up questions and to clarify the responses of the respondents and they also provided the interviewees with the freedom to describe in detail their experiences, the context and their rationale [36].

Case study methodology was used as an important tool to combine the experiences of the HSRs within their workplace. Case study methodology provides a greater contextualisation and is best used to understand ‘why’ when the focus is on a living phenomenon [37]. Each case study provides a segregated understanding of each community, as they are influenced by different cultures, customs, histories and practices.

 

 

5. - methods section is not appropriate, some semi-structured interviews are mentioned, but it is not possible to see structure/figure or them.

The following has been added to the methodology section to outline the structure of the interviews for further reference.

The interview questions focused on the following themes:

• When did the HSR expect to issue PINs
• Did HSRs understand how PINs were issued
• How did they expected PINs would be received within the workplace
• Their work environment
• Their relationship with unions and management
• Other formal safety grievance procedures

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I feel that the introduction could be extended somewhat to describe / / compare with somewhat comparable legislative systems such as the safety representative approach under  UK OSH legislation.

Research on safety leadership and interface between employers and employees e.g. work of Dov Zohar re safety culture  could  be considered.

I feel that more comprehensive information on methods can be included. For example, could an Appendix be added giving questionnaire use be included.

Also I suggested the paper be rearranged to give  a  description of companies surveyed be included in the methods section.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

The author would like to thank you for your time reviewing the paper and for providing valuable feedback.

 

We have taken considerable time reviewing the paper in light of your comments and hope our efforts address your concerns raised. We have included the revised paper which is attached.

 

Warm regards,

 

Author.

 

 

 

 

 

1. I feel that the introduction could be extended somewhat to describe / / compare with somewhat comparable legislative systems such as the safety representative approach under  UK OSH legislation.
2. Research on safety leadership and interface between employers and employees e.g. work of Dov Zohar re safety culture  could  be considered.

 

The author has added in Western different countries and has extended the literature review to include the work of DoV Zohar.

 

The United Kingdom has legislation that provides either workplace-elected or union-appointed HSRs [6]. Union-appointed HSRs differ from workplace-elected HSRs as they have the power to investigate hazards and complaints, receive information from inspectors and can attend health and safety committees [6]. Union-appointed HSRs as well as workplace-elected HSRs do not have the power to issue safety notices [6].

The European Union Directive 89/391 provides European workers with the power to have elected representatives. Health and safety representatives under the Directive have the right to ask the employer to take appropriate measures and to submit proposals to mitigate hazards or remove sources of danger, however, they do not have the power to issue safety notices [7].

In the United States of America, the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides employee representatives with the power to accompany the regulator when they are inspecting or questioning persons [8]. The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984 does not have other legislative provisions granting powers to employee safety representatives [8]. The Canadian Labour Code 1985 has provisions for health and safety representatives which grant them significant powers such as the power to conduct audits and checks, conduct investigations and participate in the development of safety policies but not the power to issue PINs [9].

 

 

Safety climate is another lens of analysis used in this paper to provide a further understanding of workplace dynamics and is defined as the employee’s safety attitudes, beliefs and values [30]. Safety climate is shaped by four dimensions, the attitude of senior executives, safety supervision, safety production and environment, and the implementation of safety training and education [30]. Safety climate provides an important approach to understanding the application of PINs and highlights that voice structures must be contextualised within the workplace amongst production and management pressures.

From a safety climate perspective, organisational communication is an ongoing complex continuous process which workers and management create, maintain and change [43]. Communication includes both formal and informal interactions as they create shared meanings and safety climate within a work organisation [44]. Managers can play a significant role in conveying the organisational message through formal communication and can create conditions for greater informal communication between colleagues [44]. The degree of management influence on communication between workplace subgroups can be varied but could be improved if management provides common goals or integrative tasks that can lead to positive outcomes [44].

 

 

 

 

3. I feel that more comprehensive information on methods can be included. For example, could an Appendix be added giving questionnaire use be included.

 

The following has been added to the methodology section to outline the structure of the interviews for further reference.

The interview questions focused on the following themes:

• When did the HSR expect to issue PINs
• Did HSRs understand how PINs were issued
• How did they expected PINs would be received within the workplace
• Their work environment
• Their relationship with unions and management
• Other formal safety grievance procedures

 

4. Also I suggested the paper be rearranged to give  a  description of companies surveyed be included in the methods section.

The author would respectfully disagree with the reviewer on this comment. The methodology used is case study methodology, which requires providing the case studies as results.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      This paper used semi-structured interviews. However, the reviewer is not able to find the associated data. The results section showed only concise results. The author has to re-write the results.

2.      In the introduction section, from line 40 to line 43, it shows the end of the introduction. But from line 44 to line 71, that looks like a literature review.

3.      The research motivation cannot be found.

4.      Research questions must be described prior to the methods section.

5.      In line 177, this paper has the subsection 4.1. However, where is the subsection 4.2.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

The author would like to thank you for your time reviewing the paper and for providing valuable feedback.

 

We have taken considerable time reviewing the paper in light of your comments and hope our efforts address your concerns raised. We have included the revised paper which is attached.

 

Warm regards,

 

Author.

 

 

 

 

1. This paper used semi-structured interviews. However, the reviewer is not able to find the associated data. The results section showed only concise results. The author has to re-write the results.

 

Semi-structured interviews results are usually transcripts of the interview which was taken place. There is no presentation of associated raw data for qualitative methodology such as interviews. I had taken the liberty to present the results of the semi-structured interviews as individual case studies and in concise results.

 

2. In the introduction section, from line 40 to line 43, it shows the end of the introduction. But from line 44 to line 71, that looks like a literature review.

 

The author notes the reviewer’s comments and this section has been relabelled

1.1 Related Works and Literature Review

 

3. The research motivation cannot be found.

 

This has been added below:

1.2 Motivational Background

This study builds on the surveys by providing greater contextualisation of the workplace through the use of case study methodology. This contributes to a richer understanding of the workplace dynamics, including how HSRs interact with management, the situations HSRs would use PINs within their workplace, and how HSRs believe management would respond to PINs. This study also combines both the theoretical understanding of employee voice and employee silence to provide a broader in-depth understanding of the various factors that influence the use of PINs in the workplace and the situations where HSRs would issue PINs to their employers.

4. Research questions must be described prior to the methods section.

The research motivation or research question is provided before the research question. As outlined above.

 

5. In line 177, this paper has the subsection 4.1. However, where is the subsection 4.2.

This was a formatting issue. Please note this has been addressed now.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The methods section of this article is insufficient. It is unclear how participants were recruited, how cases were selected, the methods for interviewing, recording, and coding the data.

It is unclear if this study was considered human subjects research. 

It would be helpful to the reader to provide a visualization of the employee voice framework. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

The author would like to thank you for your time reviewing the paper and for providing valuable feedback.

 

We have taken considerable time reviewing the paper in light of your comments and hope our efforts address your concerns raised. We have included the revised paper which is attached.

 

Warm regards,

 

Author.

 

 

 

 

1. The methods section of this article is insufficient. It is unclear how participants were recruited, how cases were selected, the methods for interviewing, recording, and coding the data.

The following has been added to the methods section:

 

Participants were recruited through an ad placed in an HSR newsletter. The unions, the safety regulator and the employer association were contacted directly. The interview took place either over the telephone or face-to-face. With the consent of the participant, the interview was recorded and later transcribed and sent back to the participants to confirm the validity of the interview. Once the data had been obtained, the data was analysed through thematic analysis. University research ethical approval was granted before engaging the participants.

 

 

2. It is unclear if this study was considered human subjects research. 

 

The following has been added to the methods section:

 

University research ethical approval was granted before engaging the participants.

 

 

3. It would be helpful to the reader to provide a visualization of the employee voice framework. 

 A diagram has been created and added to Section 1.1 and is shown in Diagram 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Diagram 1 - check journal template - number of figures and please improve this diagram 1.

 

The rest of suggestions was improved.

Author Response

Good afternoon Reviewer,

 

I have reviewed your comments on the requirements of the journal. I have included an extended title and capton. 

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/safety/instructions#figures

 

Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear, Authors, 

Could  I suggest that  it would  be useful to  give Diagram 1 a  Title. Also,  one or  two sentences in the text explaining the dimensions of  Diagram 1 would enhance the manuscript.  

Author Response

Good afternoon Reviewer,

I have reviewed the comments and provided a caption and a short title for the diagram.

A paragraph has been included in the revised manuscript outlining the purpose of the diagram.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper could be published in this journal.

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 4 Report

My primary concern still regards the qualitative analysis. How many coders were involved in coding the transcripts? How was the code book developed? I am concerned that the single author solely coded the transcripts. The way the analysis component is currently written is the qualitative equivalent to stating "statistical analyses were conducted" in a quantitative paper. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I hope these comments provides sufficient clarification of the methodology of the paper.

The codebook is provided in section 3.1. The sole author was the only person responsible for reviewing the paper. The author was supervised by 2 supervisors who had reviewed the data and the results and approved for the thesis to be submitted. The codebook was developed through inductive methodology after the data was collected.

Kind regards,

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved by authors accroding to reviews to I agree with its publication in Safety.