Violence in the workplace

Pedersen, Henrik Stener; Holm Christiansen, Rune

Overview

Article

Violence in the workplace

Published: 18 September 2005

Henrik Stener Pedersen,

Rune Holm Christiansen

Health and well-being

A recent study undertaken by the Danish Centre for Alternative Social Analysis (CASA [1]) examines the relations between the psychosocial working environment and violence in the workplace.[1] http://www.casa-analyse.dk/1

Research by the Danish Centre for Alternative Social Analysis (CASA) estimates that violence in the workplace is becoming an increasing problem. From 1993 to 2001, the proportion of employees, in the salaried employees and civil servants trade union confederation, reporting exposure to violence increased from 11% to 21%. Risk of exposure to violence depends on the sector and occupation, and is also related to psychosocial work environment factors and the well-being of the employees.

A recent study undertaken by the Danish Centre for Alternative Social Analysis (CASA) examines the relations between the psychosocial working environment and violence in the workplace.

Risk of exposure to violence, by sector

Research by the Danish National Institute of Occupational Health indicates that the prevalence of violence in the workplace was relatively stable throughout the 1990s, at approximately 8%. However, the CASA study focuses on particular sectors with above average contact with the public, and finds that the proportion of these workers reporting violence increased from 11% to 21% between 1993 and 2001.

CASA uses the results of two surveys concerning violence in the workplace, conducted among workers in the sectors organised under FTF - Salaried Employees and Civil Servants Confederation (Funktionærernes og Tjenestemændenes Fællesråd; in Danish). Employees in this field consist of nurses, primary and secondary school teachers, childcare professionals, social counsellors, police officers, and finance and insurance officials. Even though the specific jobs of FTF members differ, the jobs share the common feature of having interaction with non-colleagues, i.e. people external to the organisation, firm or administration.

**Table 1: Prevalence of violence by sector, 2001**
Prevalence of violence by sector, 2001
Employment sector	% of all respondents exposed to violence within past year	Number of respondents
Teaching associate professionals	22%	364
Health service	25%	392
Social agencies	46%	65
Day and residential personal care institutions	17%	218
Public administration	11%	28
Police force	53%	45
Finance and insurance	9%	203
National defence	5%	21
Other	14%	26
Total	21% average	1,362

Source: Christiansen, J. M., “Vold på arbejdet - med særlig vægt på FTF-medlemmers arbejdspladser”, CASA, Copenhagen, 2005

As Table 1 shows, violence is most frequently experienced by police officers. This is not hugely surprising, given the nature of the occupation. However, employees at social agencies, primarily social counsellors, also experience a very high level of exposure to violence. Overall, although there are considerable differences in the prevalence of violence in the sectors represented above, the rates are much higher than the recorded 8% national level (except for national defence, finance and insurance, and public administration). The main reason for this gap is that the primary source of violence is the interaction with clients and customers. Furthermore, high risk of exposure to violence coincides with certain public sector occupations.

In addition, the data in the CASA study indicate that:

the rate of violence increases with the size of the workplace;
violence occurs most frequently for those working at night;
managers are as exposed to violence as employees;
overall, both sexes are equally exposed to violence;
the younger the employee, the more likely exposure to violence seems to be;
as the length of service in the workplace increases, the risk of exposure to violence decreases.

Increase in violence or in reporting?

The question of whether the increased reporting of violence indicates an increase in its prevalence, or an increased tendency to report violent incidents, cannot be answered by the statistics. This is because the questionnaire leaves it up to the respondent to define violence. Therefore, a qualitative approach has been taken to explore the statistical findings further.

The study concludes that:

A redefinition of the term violence has taken place over the years. Previously, violence was understood to mean physical violence only; the addition of an extra question in the questionnaire on threats about violence, combined with the respondent’s changing perceptions, account for some of the increase in reporting.
In the last 10 years or so, increased societal attention to the issue of violence at work has led to a change of attitude among workers towards violence; thus, the patterns of registration and reporting have changed.
Nevertheless, the exposure to violence among workers interacting with non-colleagues while working has increased in frequency and intensity.

Relations between the psychosocial work environment and violence

The study identified strong relations between the psychosocial work environment and exposure to violence.

**Table 2: Violence and well-being at work**
Violence and well-being at work
Prevalence among those exposed to violence at work
Stress
Stress		26%		No stress		19%
Burnt-out
High (scale)		32%		Low (scale)		13%
Work exhausts me physically
Sometimes (weekly/daily)		32%		Never/few times a year		15%
Sick leave within the last year
None	17%	1-7 days	22%	8-29 days	26%	30 days	23%
Job satisfaction
Very/to some degree dissatisfied		31%		Very/to some degree satisfied		20%
I often think of quitting my job
Fully agree		34%		Fully disagree		19%

Source: Christiansen, J. M., “Vold på arbejdet - med særlig vægt på FTF-medlemmers arbejdspladser”, CASA, Copenhagen, 2005

The differences in these various factors of well-being, among those exposed to violence, are all significant, though ‘sick leave within the last year’ is only slightly so. Workers stating that they are stressed, burnt-out, exhausted by work, etc, are more likely to be exposed to violence at work. However, it must be mentioned that the extent to which psychosocial work factors contribute to the prevalence of violence, or to which the prevalence of violence causes a worsened psychosocial work environment, cannot be determined in exact terms.

Concepts and definitions

In the 1993 survey, the question on violence was: ‘Have you, within the last 12 months, been exposed to violence or threats about violence in relation to your work?’ In the 2001 survey, this question was broken down into the following two questions: ‘Have you, within the last year, while working, been exposed to physical violence?’ and ‘Have you, within the last year, while working, been exposed to psychological violence, threats about violence?’

The definition of violence in the CASA study differs from that defined in the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions report, Preventing violence and harassment in the workplace. In the latter, violence includes sexual and racial harassment, mobbing and bullying. In the CASA study, however, these (along with armed robbery) are not included in the definition of violence. Instead, they are represented by separate questions in the questionnaire.

About the study

The study considers the results of two surveys conducted among the 450,000 members of the FTF, in 1993 and 2001. Data from these surveys are analysed in relation to violence. The samples in both surveys are approximately 2,000 FTF members, and response rates are approximately 70%. This is followed by qualitative research to gain insights in interpreting the statistics.

The study Violence at work (Vold på arbejdet - med særlig vægt på FTF-medlemmers abejdspladser - 290Kb pdf; in Danish), by J.M. Christiansen, is available on the CASA website.

Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.

Eurofound (2005), Violence in the workplace, article.