Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
5.2 Discussion of Results
4. To what degree do employees feel that OHS has improved given the intervention of increased and strategic OHS practices?
5. Do employees perceive a reduced risk of exposure to workplace hazards because of the intervention of increased and strategic OHS practices?
The results relate to each of the hypotheses developed for the study.
Regarding H1, Pearson’s correlation for the factors is over .6 (r=.693), showing a high level of correlation between pre- and post-intervention. The t-test shows a p-value of less than .001. Thus, the results are statistically significant, and productivity changed significantly after the intervention.
Hence, H1 is supported.
It aligns with the prior studies that predict that effective OHS policy implementation and related interventions positively affect employee productivity (Ghahramani et al., 2012; Trucco & De Capitani, 2015;
Bayram, 2022). For instance, Bayram (2022) finds that training, knowledge, motivation, and compliance at the organizational level improve safety productivity and may have economic benefits. These reflect the best
practices implemented in SIBCA LLC during the period of observation. The findings confirm that they are effective at improving productivity among workers, as measured by productive hours.
It also theoretically supports (and is supported by) O’Donnell’s (2000) model, which connects workplace motivation, safety, and employee productivity. According to Riedel et al. (2001), it is a “pathway to
productivity” that occurs when OHS is improved, reducing absenteeism.
The increased number of productive hours in this study appears to support it. It does, however, call the model into question because it relies solely on reduced absenteeism and increased hours as indicators of effectiveness. That is, are hours alone sufficient to measure productivity when linking it to
health and safety? There is an apparent need to create a more standardized and definitive way to measure productivity regarding OHS, which captures a more complete picture of the ways OHS improvement drives increased productivity, and improved performance.
It aligns with previously observed gaps in the literature, where measuring productivity is an area of significant challenge because there is no universal definition for or acceptable measure of employee productivity (Sauermann, 2016).
Regarding H2, the t-test for the pair of variables therein also demonstrated a statistically significant change, with a p-value of less than .001, confirming the hypothesis. Andersen et al. (2019) group intervention into five categories: legislation, inspection, training, campaigning, and device use. Each category has an impact on the decisions made at SIBCA LLC and the outcomes achieved during the intervention between pre- and post-testing. The implementation of UAE legislation influenced the
decision-making process and the interventions that the company decided to implement. The decision-making process was also influenced by inspection or consideration of previous concerns. It resulted in training, increased awareness, and the implementation of clearer policies and procedures, including the use of devices or PPE. Overall, the literature shows various interventions and intervention types have been used to try to improve workplace-related health and safety. It was reflected in the implementation of change at SIBCA LLC in that a diverse set of interventions were implemented over 13 months to establish change that aligns with the best practices noted in the literature.
Regarding H3, the t-test for the pair of variables therein also demonstrated a statistically significant change, with a p-value of less than .001, confirming the hypothesis. Thus, there is a statistically significant
difference in the perception of risk exposure before and after the
intervention. This shift is particularly significant in terms of governmental regulation and the national call for change. The law states that the employer must provide all employees with the necessary means of protection from hazards and job-related injury or disease. They must provide training and instructional materials to increase and ensure awareness (UAE Labour Law, 2001). Thus, this change is among the most significant in showing that SIBCA LLC’s new interventional protocol or implementation of OHS policy and procedures changes is compliant with the expectations for change, as per the government. However, the change from a theoretical perspective and the need for change to improve employee productivity is no less significant.
In the academic literature, there is a connection between employee stress and loss of productivity. A link between exposure to hazards and feelings of stress also exists. James (2006) notes that exposure to hazards is linked with reduced productivity and can be attributed to work-related ill health, stress, anxiety, depression, and disorders at the musculoskeletal level. Thus, interventions must emphasize on reducing workers’ exposure to hazards to improve OHS, morale, and productivity.
Regarding H4, the t-test for the pair of variables therein also demonstrated a statistically significant change, with a p-value of less than .001, confirming the hypothesis. Logically, this result is expected. As the intervention became more established, policies and procedures became more visible as a result of the active implementation. Employees should expect to see an increase in policies and procedures, as well as their use, before and after the intervention. However, there is a need for a more efficient way to measure the effectiveness of the policies and procedures, determine if they are effective, and continually make adjustments for improvement (NCEMA,
2016). The support for the hypothesis that there is perceived change does not prove the change's quality or its effect on realizing OHS in the
workplace. Nonetheless, the literature suggests that as employee awareness increases, so does the understanding of and compliance with OHS policies and procedures, inducing an improvement in safety (Navaneethakrishnan, 2019). Thus, the fact that employees were self-reporting an increase in the visibility and emphasis of policies and procures indicates an overall
improvement in the safety culture and SIBCA LLC workplace environment.
On H5, the t-test for this pair of variables also revealed a statistically significant difference with a p-value less than .001, confirming the
hypothesis. It is closely related to the previous point about increased
adherence to established policies and procedures. The increase in awareness is significant because the literature concludes that employee awareness of health and safety risks, precautions, and protocols is critical to preventing harm, reducing economic losses, and improving productivity (Loney et al., 2012). Thus, seeing the anticipated gain in awareness should be indicative that the policies and procedures, which center around education and
training, are having the desired effect on the overall awareness of employees regarding the changes being made and the overall goal of the changes in OHS policy and procedure.
Finally, regarding H6, the t-test for the pair of variables therein demonstrated a statistically significant change, with a p-value of less than .001, confirming the hypothesis. The result is consistent with the findings on the prior hypothesis, as theoretically, an increase in the intervention's application and the employees' awareness of the change in OHS practices should induce increased participation. Existing literature has established that employees must be actively engaged in the change process for interventions to be effective (Hafner et al., 2015). It is also reflected in the CDC’s (2018)
evaluative procedure, which emphasizes the significance of changing organizational culture, as evidenced by changes in organizational members’
behaviors. That is, policy and procedural changes, as well as increased awareness, are not relevant to increased safety unless they result in
increased participation. Thus, the change in participation level, as evidenced by H1–H6 confirmations, demonstrates that the intervention has the desired effect on the employee population.
Such confirmations in and of themselves do not confirm the strength or interrelation of the elements of those hypotheses. As a result, regression analysis was used to test the second set of hypotheses. These hypotheses were created to test the strength and direction of the factors’ relationship.
That is, they determined how each of the sub-elements in the employee survey related to one another and the realized increase in employee productivity.
H7 was confirmed by a negative coefficient and outcome in the linear regression analysis. Anderson (2021) and Hunt and Rasmussen (2007) raise concerns regarding unethical or poor OHS practices and the negative impact on employee wellness and productivity. The results of this study show that implementation of the improved OHS practices at SIBCA LLC improves the ethical treatment of employees and positively impacts productivity. In other words, exposure to workplace hazards declined due to OHS
implementation. Further, as exposure to workplace hazards declined, performance or the measure of employee productivity improved. Thus, H7 was confirmed, which aligns with the existing research expectations. The result is significant in the context of the UAE because work-related injuries are a serious cause for concern in the UAE (Loney et al., 2012; Alao et al., 2020). There is a known historical pattern of harm in terms of work-related injury and employers’ lack of understanding of the importance of OHS. The
success of the intervention in SIBCA LLC demonstrates a break from that pattern as well as the power of interventions to actively address that concern and effect change.
H8 was measured using linear regression, which determined that the significance level met the required alpha, where p=.038. The results correspond to the contextual concern and induce findings relevant to the UAE. In the UAE, falls account for 52% of all injuries, followed by traffic collisions at 18%, crush or heavy object-related injuries at 13%, and falls or trips without the complication of height at 11% (Barss et al., 2009).
Additionally, foot injuries account for approximately 7% of all hospital admissions, 61% of which are work-related (Tadros et al., 2010). What most (if not all) of these injuries have in common is that they are avoidable and would result in lost work time and productivity. As a result, if policies and procedures are developed and actively implemented to reduce OHS-related illness and injury, productivity should rise. Regarding SIBCA LLC, H8 was supported, as confirmed by the linear analysis. The OHS policies and programs are theoretically considered significant, per the model created by O'Donnell (2000), as these programs improve the psychological and physical well-being of the employees. Using this theoretical model, Riedel et al. (2001) shows that the reduction in compensation costs shows
improved safety given the policies and procedures, resulting in increased productivity or at least profitability (Riedel et al., 2001). Thus, the
confirmation that the implementation of the intervention induced a feeling that OHS policies and procedures were improved is consistent with the expectations established for the study and prior research findings.
H9 was confirmed via linear regression and corresponding p-value, which was p=.043. Employee attitudes and awareness have always been important factors in the implementation and effectiveness of OHS change.
According to Taruwona and Suzanna (2010), OHS-related incidents find a negative attitude and low morale, which can reduce or harm individual employee productivity and may lead to an increase in the frequency of future incidents. As a result, raising awareness is critical for improving morale and lowering individual risk of harm. Loney et al.’s (2012) study is closely related to this principle, which asserts that employee awareness of health, safety-related risks, and related interventions are critical to using OHS policies and practices to prevent harm, inducing reduced economic losses and increased productivity. This study supports the notion, for employee productivity at SIBCA LLC increases as employee awareness of OHS policies and protocols increases. It is also supported by the CDC (2018) OHS development process, which calls for planning and
implementing strategic interventions, measuring them against employee perception and increased productivity to determine the effectiveness of change.
Finally, H10 was rejected based on the significance of the linear regression analysis, p=.576, which was above the .05 threshold. However, the literature indicates that participation is a well-supported and critical component. Employees must actively participate in whatever OHS
interventions are implemented for them to be effective (Hafner et al., 2015).
It is theoretically supported further by the CDC’s (2018) evaluative procedure, which seeks to measure the change in organizational culture or change in organizational behaviors. This change cannot occur without the participation of individual members or employees of SIBCA LLC.
In summary, the evidence suggests an improved focus on OHS and assurance that policies and procedures are being actively implemented to realize change are needed, as they effectively reduce risk and raise awareness. Thus, employees must be aware of the changes and actively
engage in the realization of change for the OHS intervention to be effective.
If realized, and OHS is improved because of appropriate intervention, the change should be measurable in the positive change in productivity. Thus, the use of the primary principles within the Workplace Health and Safety Survey (Institute of Work and Health, 2016), in alignment with the CDC model for establishing and evaluating positive change in OHS, is
appropriate for framing change and establishing its success. Further, the intervention is statistically significant in all tested areas in providing a positive change, thus improving employee productivity.