By Melania Munteanu (MSc 2019/20)

In 2020, the number of reported cases of work-related stress, anxiety and depression was 828,000, which is 347,000 higher that previous years (HSE, 2020). Longitudinal studies (HSE, 2006) show a positive relationship between an increase in accidents and poor mental health. This has significant implications for organisations, demonstrating that employee wellbeing should be at the heart of health and safety management.

The concept of safety culture originates in studies exploring organisations that run high risk, complex operations, whereby failure can lead to significant or catastrophic outcomes. Such organisations are known as High Reliability Organisations. In defining safety culture, academic journals found consensus in that it describes ‘the way we do things around here.’ Reason (1997) describes a positive safety culture as an informed and just culture that generates trust, flexibility and fosters learning.

The World Health Organisation defined wellbeing as ‘a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not … the absence of disease or infirmity (Rokho, 2012: 2)’. Wellbeing measures the extent to which a person is flourishing by being engaged and enjoying life, having meaningful relationships, experiencing positive and negative emotions and bouncing back quickly from challenges (Ryan et al., 2019).

What is the relationship between positive emotion and engagement?

Work-related positive emotion is described as a relatively short-lived, intense affective experience that is focused on specific objects or situations. For example, employees can experience a few moments of joy in relation to a work-related outcome (Gray and Watson, 2002). Engagement is categorised as: psychological, whereby individuals are engrossed in a state of ‘flow’ (Schaufeli et al. 2006); cognitive, whereby employees actively valuate activities and engage in goal setting and self-regulation activities (Bandura 2008); behavioural, which includes employee social involvement and citizenship behaviour in the workplace (Appleton et al. 2006).

A study conducted by Ouweneel et al. (2013) investigated the assumption that experience of positive emotion is an important predictor of work engagement. Results of the study showed a positive loop effect on both positive emotion and work engagement. It was found that whilst positive emotion precedes work engagement, engagement also predicts positive emotion (Ouweneel et al., 2013).

The findings of this study

• Findings indicate that employees who experienced frequent positive emotions are more likely to perceive a positive safety culture. The quantitative analysis delved deeper and identified that whilst there is a significant relationship between positive emotion and engagement, as well as positive emotion and perceived positive safety culture, engagement does not predict a perceived positive safety culture and it unfortunately does not mediate the relationship between positive emotion and a perceived positive safety culture.
• Respondents who reported feeling joy and pride at work also experienced a culture of trust. Additionally, people who felt that their organisation nurtured a culture of trust also identified that colleagues felt more encouraged to report incidents and were more likely to learn from them. Specifically, there seemed to be appreciation for ‘wellbeing and safety’ moments in meetings, where colleagues and managers shared experiences. This is in line with the findings from research on positive safety culture, whereby trust is the bedrock for a learning, reporting culture that enables the organisations to identify, learn and change unsafe practices and behaviours (Brown & Holmes, 1986).
• Interestingly, some respondents in leadership positions indicated that wellbeing ‘did not apply to them’ as senior members of the organisation. In other words, the responsibility to ensure their teams were well was prioritised over their own wellbeing. Research undertaken by Nielsen et al. (2016) indicates that leaders’ own health and wellbeing may influence their ability to manage employee safety, health and performance. A leader low in wellbeing may resort to unhelpful/toxic leadership tactics because they may not have the necessary resources to engage with employees.
• Results also highlighted the importance of leadership visibility in enabling the experience of positive emotion, as well as shaping a perceived positive safety culture. By encouraging staff to report incidents and to look after themselves and each other, leadership succeeded in creating a culture where employees felt listened to, cared for and trusted. Based on the results of the qualitative analysis, employees seemed to have displayed desired behaviours, such as going the extra mile in their work, reporting incidents and learning from each other. This is in line with the social exchange theory, whereby employees recognise the organisations’ commitment to safety as company support, and reward it with greater commitment, participation, and loyalty (DeJoy, et al., 2010; Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997).
• In the context of organisational life, individuals who experience positive emotions are more likely to positively engage with a safety culture, proactively take on additional tasks and experience more motivation in relation to safety behaviours (Sonnentag, 2003). Evidence of this can be found in Torodova, Bear and Weingart’s (2014) ‘task conflict model’, which demonstrates a strong correlation between active positive emotions, job satisfaction and engagement in the context of safety. Moreover, this finding also supports the assumption made by the conservation of resources theory explored in the study, that both positive emotion and engagement are resources that employees utilise to support them in their jobs.

What can organisations learn from these findings?

This research identified the importance of considering wellbeing as a key factor in having a healthy safety culture. It shows that having a unified workstream tackling both wellbeing and safety is recommended for optimal results. It also shows that investing in employee engagement programmes with the purpose of establishing a healthy safety culture may not be the most effective use of organisational budgets. In fact, interventions that help employees enhance their capacity to experience positive emotions may, in turn, enhance both engagement and a positive safety culture. A recommended intervention could be ACT training, which helps employees expand their psychological flexibility and thus enhance employee capacity to experience positive emotions. This, in turn, broadens their repertoire for action, as explained by the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001).

By David Ward 2019/20

Almost twenty years since Section 28’s repeal, LGBT inclusion in education has had a rocky path. Whilst students report lower levels of homophobic bullying (Stonewall, 2017) and programmes like No Outsiders have been created (DePalma & Atkinson, 2009), LGBT inclusion in the curriculum can be seen as radical or disruptive (Hall, 2021). Despite wider societal acceptance and legislation, there is a significant minority of homophobic views (Rudoe, 2018) and parental actions against LGBT topics within the classroom are now couched in the veiled homophobia of parental rights and ideological concerns (Nash & Browne, 2021). Some schools are torn between maintaining status quo or going out on a limb for the LGBT community. But what does this mean for those on the frontline – out LGBT teachers?

When fourteen teachers out to one or more groups in school were interviewed about how they navigate authenticity when coming out in schools, and what impact they think coming out has had, four distinct themes emerged, outlined below.

Construction of Identity

Participants emphasised coming out as a continual journey and not a singular event, noting that as an out teacher coming out to new colleagues, students and parents is a frequent occurrence – as is the anxiety over reactions. They were also quick to clarify that coming out is a personal choice and should not be imposed onto every teacher, or used to shame those who cannot (Neary, 2013). Many participants had no issues bringing together their gay and teacher identities, in contrast to previous findings from some closeted teachers (Lee, 2019), but some specified they were ‘teachers who were gay’ as opposed to ‘gay teachers’, an interesting distinction and emphasis of how one identity relates to the other. 

Authentic leadership – or leading in a way that is representative of your true self – was used to understand participant identity formation, using Crawford, Dawkins, Martin and Lewis’s (2019) adapted framework, comprised of: awareness of the behaviour of the self and others, sincerely presenting the true self to others when considering context, using balanced processing by considering information available to make decisions that benefit all, positive moral perspective, and the ability to utilise informal influence to inspire others.

Participants considered authenticity as presenting your ‘true’ self, though exactly how this is presented is context-dependent and may be complicated, for example with the incongruence that can occur if a participant ‘passes’ for straight (Marrs & Station, 2016). Authenticity was also considered as understanding how not disclosing sexuality – or hiding it when directly questioned – could negatively impact the self and others. Choosing how and when to come out and balancing this with the potential negative impacts on the teacher themselves shows a level of balanced processing and awareness of behaviour that ties neatly into authentic leadership.

Teacher as…

Participants viewed as their purpose as a teacher as beyond an educator and felt they were world builders, providing a glimpse of wider society beyond the at times homogenous communities they serve. They took great honour in being the role models they did not have at school, showing students a happy, confident and successful gay person was possible, though were not always able to represent all aspects of the community. When looking at authentic leadership, moral perspective and informal influence is clearly visible here, with positive comments, disclosures from students and support from staff cited as making coming out ‘worth it’.

Burden of Visibility

Participants often felt frustrated and uneasy following coming out, especially as a sole representative representing a diverse community. Even within this study, almost all participants were lesbian or gay, with no trans or bisexual representation. There may be less incentive for these groups to come out due to the lack of school support, the current social climate, or other factors, but these communities need to be reached. Gray, Harris and Jones (2016) found schools gave conflicting signals: prizing heteronormativity, whilst being aware of the need for role models. This led to out gay teachers having to advocate for the LGBT community whilst being penalised – overtly or covertly – for being a member of said community. This hyperfocus on out gay teachers may also allow straight teachers to avoid needing to support LGBT inclusion (Rudoe, 2018).

Reluctant Acceptance

Participants talked about not feeling completely integrated in the school community. Many felt tolerated by schools rather than celebrated (especially in the shadow of Section 28) and subject to covert homophobia. Participants sensed an invisible line of how they can behave without drawing ire, often only found when crossed (Hall, 2021). The implications of Section 28 are clear, with participants here and in a Lee (2019) study finding Section 28-era teachers unwilling to come out and unable to reconcile their gay and teacher identities. Stonewall (2014) also found schools and teachers unsure of whether they can teach LGBT issues at all. More overtly, participants were told during training or as newer teachers, to avoid mentioning their partner – by fellow teachers who continually mentioned their husbands, wives or children. This silencing removes a way for participant to show their whole selves to the students and build a trusting relationship (Ferfolja & Hopkins, 2013)

So, what does this mean for schools?

Alleviate the burden

LGBT teachers should not be the only ones advocating for their communities, potentially burning out or being obstructed by others. All staff should be involved in creating a safe space for all.

Walk the talk

Having the right policies in place is a great start – but the school needs to live these. Policies are not enacted in a vacuum, but by school staff. If they are not interested, trained or comfortable with a policy, it won’t be enacted right. Schools should not be conducting box-ticking exercises but making active steps to inclusion.

Support your staff

Schools need to stand by their staff – it does not go unnoticed. Participants tell of homophobic incidents with parents, students or other staff members, and are quick to praise the school leaders who deal with these swiftly and effectively, learning quickly from mistakes they make.

Create an inclusive culture

It is not gay teachers who should be tasked with ‘fixing’ school culture – it is school leadership. Leaders need to be brave when tackling homophobia, understand the importance of inclusion, be proactive in training and policies, and stand behind their gay teachers right to be themselves, however that is enacted. There is a net benefit here to all parts of the school community, but this must start at the top.

David Ward, MSc Organisational Psychology student, City, University of London.