Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wasw21
Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership
& Governance
ISSN: 2330-3131 (Print) 2330-314X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wasw21
Retaining Social Workers: The Role of Quality of
Work and Psychosocial Safety Climate for Work
Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational
Commitment
Martin Geisler, Hanne Berthelsen & Tuija Muhonen
To cite this article: Martin Geisler, Hanne Berthelsen & Tuija Muhonen (2019): Retaining Social Workers: The Role of Quality of Work and Psychosocial Safety Climate for Work Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment, Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, DOI: 10.1080/23303131.2019.1569574
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2019.1569574
© 2019 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Published online: 03 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 286
Retaining Social Workers: The Role of Quality of Work and
Psychosocial Safety Climate for Work Engagement, Job
Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment
Martin Geisler , Hanne Berthelsen , and Tuija Muhonen
Centre for Work Life and Evaluation Studies, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
ABSTRACT
The present study investigated how psychosocial safety climate (PSC), job demands (role conflict and work-family conflict), job resources (social sup-port from superiors and social community at work), and assessments for quality of work relate to social workers’ work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The results of the questionnaire study (N = 831) showed that quality of work was strongly related to all three outcomes, whereas PSC was found to be related to social workers’ job satisfaction. The contribution of the study is discussed in relation to under-standing the retention of social workers.
KEYWORDS
job satisfaction;
organizational commitment; psychosocial safety climate; quality; retention; work engagement
Introduction
In the last few decades, workload and stress-related health issues have increased in human service organizations (HSOs) resulting in high turnover rates (Dollard, Dormann, Boyd, Winefield, &
Winefield, 2003; Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin,2001). In many Western societies, this development
has been especially evident among social workers (Astvik & Melin, 2012; Giffords,2009; Griffiths,
Royse, Culver, Piescher, & Zhang, 2017; Tham & Meagher, 2008). Consequently, public social
services face great difficulties with regard to the retention and the recruitment of personnel
(Coffey, Dugdill, & Tattersall, 2004; Kim & Kao, 2014; SKL, Swedish Association of Local
Authorities and Regions,2015; 2016; Tham,2007). The work environment of social workers is an
important societal question as it affects the quality of the services provided and thus the welfare of
society (Smith & Shields,2013; Travis, Lizano, & Mor Barak,2016).
To date, quite a substantial amount of research has examined factors relating to turnover among
social workers (e.g., Kim & Kao, 2014; Kim & Stoner, 2008; Tham, 2007). However, though the
public social services face high turnover rates, many social workers decide to remain in the profession because they are satisfied with their jobs as well as engaged and committed to their
work (Frost, Höjer, Campanini, Sicora, & Kullburg, 2017; Hakanen, Ropponen, Schaufeli, & De
Witte,2018). Enhancing the understanding of the factors that contribute to positive work attitudes
among social workers can add valuable insight for efforts and interventions aiming to increase
retention (Collins,2008).
Based on earlier research, and the theoretical framework of the job demands-resources model
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2014), the present study investigates how two novel work environmental
factors, psychosocial safety climate (Dollard & Bakker, 2010) and perceived quality of work
(Berthelsen, Conway, & Clausen, 2017; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014) could predict indicators of
retention among social workers: work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
CONTACTMartin Geisler martin.geisler@mau.se Malmö University, SE 205 06, Malmö, Sweden. © 2019 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecom mons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
Job demands-resources model
The basic proposition of the job demands-resource (JD-R) model is that work-related outcomes and health issues can be explained by attending to the health impairment process and the motivational process. Each process is triggered by job characteristics, categorized as job demands or job resources
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Job demands are defined as those job characteristics that need effort
and can drain energy (e.g., quantitative demands, role conflict and work–family conflict), thus
triggering the health impairment process. In contrast, job resources are defined as job characteristics that provide possibilities for achievements and support psychological needs (e.g., social support,
feedback, and variation), thereby triggering the motivational process (Bakker & Demerouti,2014). In
addition, the JD-R model proposes that job demands and job resources can have an interactive effect (e.g., resources can buffer against the negative effect of demands, and demands can boost the positive effect of resources) on motivational and health-related outcomes (Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema,
2005; Schaufeli & Taris,2014). The JD-R model is an individual-level approach, as applied in the
present study, but can also be applied to higher-level aggregations (e.g., work units, teams, or
organizations: Schaufeli & Taris,2014).
A vast amount of research has convincingly demonstrated that high levels of job demands and
low/insufficient levels of job resources have negative effects on employees’ health, such as stress and
burnout. In contrast, low/reasonable levels of job demands and high/sufficient levels of job resources have been found to have positive effects on outcomes such as engagement, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment (for overviews of JD-R research, see Bakker & Demerouti,2014, 2017,
2018). For instance, job demands such as role conflict and work–family conflict has been related to
unfavorable job attitudes, lower well-being, and ill health (Hall, Dollard, Tuckey, Winefield, &
Thompson, 2010; Kim & Stoner, 2008;). In contrast, research has shown that job resources like
social support and social community at work relates to positive job attitudes, higher levels of
well-being, and better health (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014; Bliese, Edwards, &
Sonnentag,2017). The JD-R model is a heuristic framework, which makes it applicable to different
occupations. Because of its flexibility, the JD-R model is of practical importance for assessments that seek to generate insights to inform and guide the design of interventions in occupational health
management and human resource (HR) management (Schaufeli & Taris,2014). The antecedents for
retention and turnover can differ between professional groups (Carmeli & Weisberg, 2006). For
these reasons, though similar factors are included in other theoretical models such as the organiza-tional social context (Glisson, Landsverk, Schoenwald, et al., 2008), the JD-R model is considered as a relevant theoretical framework for the current study as it advocates that job demands and resources should be specified for the occupational group being studied. Furthermore, in line with the positive
organizational psychology approach (e.g., Bakker & Schaufeli,2008; Di Fabio,2017; Gable & Haidt,
2005), the present study focuses on the motivational process in the JD-R model.
Psychosocial safety climate
Psychosocial safety climate (PSC) is a construct that refers to organizational climate in terms of the extent the employees perceive that organizational policies, as well as management practices and procedures, prioritize and ensure the protection of their psychological health and safety (Dollard &
Bakker,2010; Law, Dollard, Tuckey, & Dormann,2011). PSC can be integrated in the JD-R model, as
the basic proposition is that PSC underpins levels of job demands and job resources (Afsharian,
Zadow, Dollard, Dormann, & Ziaian,2017; Bakker & Demerouti, 2018). Furthermore, attending to
PSC is highly relevant because it complies with contemporary public policies for occupational health
and safety (Leka, Jain, & Lerouge,2017; Leka, Jain, Zwetsloot, & Cox, 2010; Potter et al.,2017; The
Swedish Work Environment Authority,2015). In essence, measures of work climate in an organization
captures the perceptions of individuals (i.e., employees). When assessed and analysed on the individual
perception of the organizational climate has a psychological effect on health and well-being. However, employees can share their perceptions of the work climate. When this is the case, measures of work
climate may be aggregated and analyzed on work unit or organizational level—and be referred to as
“organizational climate” (Kuenzi & Schminke,2009). Previous research has mainly approached PSC as
a measure of organizational climate, but also in terms of psychological climate (Garrick et al.,2014). As
the focus of the present study was to investigate how individual perceptions of different work
environmental factors relate to important job attitudes indicative of social workers’ retention,
percep-tions of PSC were analyzed at the individual level (i.e., in terms of psychological climate).
Quality of work
Quality of work is central for employees and organizations. In HSOs, quality of work is closely
related to the direct contact with clients or patients, which is even referred to as“the core of work”
(Hasenfeld, 2010). For example, in health care organizations, quality of care has shown to be an
important indicator of organizational performance (McHugh & Stimpfel, 2012), whereas turnover
rate has a negative effect on quality of care (Castle & Engberg,2005). Although it has been reported
that perceptions of organizational efficiency seem to be important for how social workers’ evaluate
service quality and that this in turn has an effect on social workers’ health and well-being, the direct
effect of quality of work for social workers’ health and well-being has been largely neglected in
previous research (Lee et al.,2013).
Social workers are generally intrinsically motivated and guided by a sense of altruism and
idealism in their work (Smith & Shields,2013). Yet, when confronted with an immense workload,
social workers can either work faster, work more hours, or reduce the level of quality of the work performed. However, lowering the standards for quality of work has been reported to relate to health
impairment and turnover among social workers (Astvik & Melin,2012). Importantly, though social
workers face different conditions in various welfare systems, reports suggest that moral concerns
related to the quality of services has an effect on social workers’ retention in different European
countries and the United States (Frost et al., 2017; Giffords, 2009). To our best knowledge,
researchers have not yet addressed the importance of quality of work for social workers’ work
engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The present study contributes by investigating how perceived PSC and quality of work relate to work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among social workers.
Indicators for retention: work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
Research has demonstrated that work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment
are important antecedents for retention (e.g., Cohen, 1992; Halbesleben & Wheeler,2008; Kim &
Kao,2014; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton,2001). However, though each concept is distinct and unique,
they are intricately related. For instance, work engagement and job satisfaction can have a gain-cycle relationship (i.e., a positive reciprocal relationship over time; Guglielmi, Avanci, Chiesa, Marinari,
Bruni, & Depolo, 2016), whereas, in turn, work engagement (Hakanen, Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008)
and job satisfaction (Srivastiva, 2013; Top, Tarcan, Tekingündüc, & Hekmet, 2013) have been
reported to predict organizational commitment. Hence, individuals’ reasons for retention likely
depend on an overall assessment that includes all aspects covered by the three concepts. Based on this consideration, and to gain a more complete understanding of factors that contribute to the retention of social workers, we chose to include work engagement, job satisfaction, and organiza-tional commitment as indicators for retention in the present research.
Work engagement refers to a state where individuals’ experience high levels of energy and a strong
identification with work and is defined and measured in terms of vigor, dedication, and absorption
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Thus, it is not surprising that work engagement relates to employee
generally more important than job demands for the explanation of work engagement (Bakker,
Albrecht & Leiter, 2011). In particular, social support from superiors and colleagues appear to be
two key factors for enhancing work engagement (Bakker et al.,2014).
Global job satisfaction refers to an individuals’ overall evaluative attitude to the job and is
distinguished from evaluations of satisfaction with specific aspects of the job (e.g., work tasks, pay), personal and work value correspondence (i.e., organizational commitment), and motivation
(i.e., work engagement: see Judge, Weiss, Kammeyer-Mueller, & Hulin, 2017). Job satisfaction has
been demonstrated to be important for retention (see, e.g., Freund,2005; Hellman,1997; Lambert
et al.,2001), and to hold predictive validity for retention beyond the explanation given by
organiza-tional commitment (van der Heijden, van Dam, & Hasselhorn,2009).
Organizational commitment refers to the extent to which individuals affectively identify with and are involved in the organization. Thus, organizational commitment is an affective state based on the perception of concordance between personal values and values distinctive for the employing
organization (Jaskyte & Lee, 2009; Judge et al., 2017). Organizational commitment is especially
dependent on job demands (e.g., role conflict) and organizational support, and considered as
a strong predictor of retention (Cohen,1992; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky,2002).
Retention of social workers—the role of job demands, job-resources, and organizational factors
Professional tenure and public authority are two factors that seem to have a general impact on retention and turnover among social workers. Specifically, higher turnover rates have been reported among newly
qualified social workers (Astvik & Melin,2012; Barbee et al.,2009), and social workers practicing public
authority (e.g., within the child and youth services and/or financial aid services: Coffey et al.,2004;
Collins,2008; SKL, Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions,2015,2016). Furthermore,
previous research has explored how various work environmental factors relate to social workers reten-tion and turnover. Next, we give a descripreten-tion of factors highlighted in this research.
Social work is a demanding occupation. However, it has been reported that role conflict and
work–family conflict are two types of job demands that seems to be particularly significant for social
workers’ retention and turnover (Jaskyte & Lee, 2009; Johnco, Salloum, Olson, & Edwards, 2014;
Kim & Stoner, 2008). For example, role conflict and work–family conflict has been reported to
predict social workers emotional exhaustion and work withdrawal (Travis et al.,2016) as well as job
satisfaction (Lizano & Mor Barak,2015).
As social work inevitably places high demands on employees, the importance of adequate job resources is vital. With regard to the retention of social workers, previous research notes the importance of job resources in terms of a supportive environment in general (i.e., social community
at work) and social support from superiors (Frost et al., 2017; Johnco et al., 2014; McFadden,
Campbell, & Taylor,2014).
Social service departments are subjected to high organizational constraints compared to other
occupational sectors (Coffey et al.,2004). Indeed, how social service organizations are perceived by
the employed social workers has been demonstrated to have an effect on retention (Frost et al.,2017;
Jaskyte & Lee,2009; Lee et al.,2013; McFadden et al.,2014). Yet ultimately, work engagement, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment—as well as the decision to remain or to leave the job—
is an individual issue for each social worker.
The present study
The aim of the present study was to introduce and investigate how two novel work environmental
factors: PSC (Dollard & Bakker,2010) and quality of work (Berthelsen et al.,2017; Schaufeli & Taris,
2014) relate to important indicators of retention among social workers: work engagement, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Building on the insights of previous research, the present study included predictor variables (i.e., job demands and job resources) reported to be of specific
importance for social workers’ retention—to investigate if, and to what extent, PSC and quality of work add unique variance explained for the three outcome variables. Based on this rationale, specific hypotheses were stated for all predictor variables, with respect to the expected relations when accounting for the contribution of all predictor variables (i.e., the full regression model).
The following hypotheses were stated for the present study. First, PSC is suggested to reflect specific aspects of the psychological climate that underpins levels of job demands and job resources. Thus, we expected (Hypothesis 1) that PSC would be positively related to the three outcome measures work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
Second, as the job demands, role conflict and work-family conflict have been reported to relate to
turnover among social workers, we expected (Hypothesis 2) role conflict and work–family conflict to
be negatively related to work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Third, job resources have been reported to be important for positive outcomes, and a supportive environment and experiencing support from managers are factors of specific relevance for social workers’ turnover and retention. Hence, we expected (Hypothesis 3) two aspects of social relations at work, namely, social community at work and social support from superiors, to be positively related to social workers work engagement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Finally, previous research indicates that conditions that enable high-quality work are important
for social workers’ health and well-being. Thus, we expected (Hypothesis 4) perceived quality of work
to be positively related to work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
Methods
Participants and procedure
The data for the present study were collected as part of a workplace survey, conducted within the municipal social services in a larger Swedish city. An active dialogue between the researchers, representatives of the municipality (i.e., managers and the HR department), and representatives of the employees (i.e., labor unions) preceded the data collection. The municipality was provided with a link to a web survey, and invitations to participate in study were sent out by emails to all 1,044 social workers, by the municipality. The web survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. In total, 831 social workers participated in the survey (80% participation rate). As the focus of the present study was on social workers working directly with clients, participants reporting a management position (n = 96), or who had not answered this question (n = 10), were excluded. Thus, the final sample consisted of 725 social workers (women = 85%, professional tenure: ˂1 year = 20%; 1–2 years = 20%; 2–5 years = 23%; 5–7 years = 8%; ˃7 years = 29%, practicing public authority = 76%). The present study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board, Lund Secretariat (dnr: 2015–476), and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Materials and measures
The present study collected data primarily by use of the validated Swedish medium-length version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ II: Berthelsen, Hakanen, & Westerlund,
2018; Berthelsen, Westerlund, & Kristensen, 2014; Pejtersen, Kristensen, Borg, & Bjorner, 2010).
COPSOQ II includes a number of scales pertaining to employees’ perceptions and experiences of
their work conditions and health. COPSOQ II is a generic and comprehensive instrument, which has been translated into more than 20 languages. Research from numerous countries has contributed to
the validation of its use in research as well as for workplace assessments (Kristensen,2010; Nübling,
Burr, Moncada, & Kristensen, 2014). In addition, the data collection included scales concerning
work engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), quality of work (Berthelsen et al., 2017;
Predictors
Psychosocial safety climate. The present study used the short PSC version (PSC-4: Berthelsen &
Muhonen,2017; Dollard & Bakker,2010), which includes four of the 12 items from the full-length
version. Participants rated each item on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). An item example is,“Senior management show support for stress prevention through
involvement and commitment.”
Role conflicts. Role conflict (RC) was measured by three items from the COPSOQ II (Berthelsen
et al., 2014; Pejtersen et al., 2010). The items were rated on five-point scales from 1 (to a very low
degree) to 5 (to a very high degree). The scores are then converted to the scale 0 to 100 (i.e., 0, 25, 50,
75, 100). An item example is,“Are contradictory demands placed upon you at work?”
Work–family conflict. Work–family conflict (WFC) was assessed by three items from the COPSOQ II. The items were rated on four-point scales from 0 (no, not at all) to 3 (yes, definitely). Scores are
then converted to the scale 0 to 100 (i.e., 0, 33, 67, 100). An item example is,“Do you feel that your
work drains so much of your energy that it has a negative effect on your private life?”
Social support from superiors. Three items of the COPSOQ II measured social support from superiors (SSS) The items were rated on 5-point scales, ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (always).
Scores are then converted to the scale 0 to 100 (i.e., 0, 25, 50, 75, 100). An item example is,“How
often do you get help and support from your immediate superior, if needed?”
Social community at work. Social community at work (SCW) was measured by three items from the COPSOQ II. The items were rated on 5-point scales from 0 (never) to 4 (always). The scores are then
converted to the scale 0 to 100 (i.e., 0, 25, 50, 75, 100). An item example is, “Do you feel part of
a community at your place of work?”
Quality of work. Quality of work (QW) was assessed by two items, one developed and tested as part
of the Swedish validation study of COPSOQ II (Berthelsen et al.,2017), and one developed by the
International COPSOQ Network for inclusion in COPSOQ III (COPSOQ International Network,
2018). The items were rated on 5-point scales from 1 (to a very low degree) to 5 (to a very high
degree). The scores are then converted to the scale 0 to 100 (i.e., 0, 25, 50, 75, 100). The two items
were,“Are you satisfied with the level of quality in the services that is conducted at your work-place?”
and“To what extent do you find it possible to perform your work tasks at a satisfactory quality?”
Dependent variables
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) measures three
dimensions of work engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli & Bakker,2004). The
present study used the short version with nine items (Schaufeli et al.,2006), rated on 7-point scales
ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). An item example is,“I am enthusiastic about my work.”
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction (JS) was measured by four items from the COPSOQ II. The items were rated on 5-point scales scored from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Scores are then
converted to 0 to 100 (i.e., 0, 25, 50, 75, 100). An item example is,“Regarding your work in general,
how pleased are you with your job as a whole, everything taken into consideration?”
Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment (OC) was measured by three items from the COPSOQ II. The items were rated on 5-point scales from 1 (to a very low degree) to 5 (to a very
high degree). Scores are then converted to 0 to 100 (i.e., 0, 25, 50, 75, 100). An item example is,“Do
Results Data analyses
Data were analyzed with SPSS (ver. 24). To test the hypotheses, descriptive statistical analyses, correlational analyses, and hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted.
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Means, Standard Deviations, reliability scores (Cronbach’s alpha), and distributions are reported in Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha scores were satisfactory for all scales (Nunnaly,1978).
Relationships between all scales and measures were analyzed by Pearson’s correlation (Table 2).
Significant correlations were observed between all scales. Job demands (i.e., role conflict and work– family conflict) were negatively related to work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. In contrast, PSC, job resources (i.e., social support from superiors and social commu-nity at work), and quality of work were positively related to work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Finally, correlations for the three outcome measures showed strong relations between work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses
The data were screened for violations of assumptions. Scatterplots and normal P-plots for standar-dized residuals confirmed the assumptions of linearity, normality, and homogeneity of variance.
Durbin-Watson statistics were acceptable (1.91–1.97), and variance inflation factors (VIFs) were less
than 10 (1.59–1.61), indicating that the assumptions for independence of errors was met and that multicollinearity was not an issue.
Hierarchical regression analyses were performed (Table 3) to test the hypotheses and investigate
the relationships between work characteristics and work environmental factors to the respective outcomes measures. Separate regression analyses were performed for each of the three outcomes: Table 1.Descriptive statistics
Mean (SD) Cronbach’s alpha Observed range Skewness Kurtosis Psychosocial safety climate 7.7 (3.3) .88 0–16 −.138 .117 Psychosocial safety climate 71.3 (19.4) .83 0–100 −.885 .701 Social community at work 80.8 (14.0) .80 16.67–100 −.570 .860 Role conflict 45.6 (17.1) .68 0–100 −.067 .195 Work-family conflict 44.2 (28.2) .82 0–100 .243 −.922 Quality of work 62.0 (18.3) .76 0–100 −.262 .364 Work engagement 4.0 (0.9) .93 0–6 −.527 .683 Job satisfaction 64.2 (16.6) .77 0–100 −.353 .371 Organizational commitment 65.7 (18.9) .67 8.33–100 −.335 −.136 Table 2.Correlations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Psychosocial safety climate —
2. Social support from superiors .420 —
3. Social community at work .204 .299 —
4. Role conflict −.354 −.246 −.147 — 5. Work-family conflict −.296 −.250 −.137 .363 — 6. Quality of work .388 .346 .267 −.486 −.365 — 7. Work engagement .316 .330 .264 −.383 −.312 .511 — 8. Job satisfaction .412 .428 .267 −.429 −.389 .578 .562 — 9. Organizational commitment .398 .481 .396 −.401 −.385 .601 .605 .706 — Note. All correlations are significant at p ˂ .001.
Table 3. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Work engagement Job satisfaction Organizational commitment β ΔR 2 F Change Adj R 2 β ΔR 2 F Change Adj R 2 β ΔR 2 F Change Adj R 2 Step 1. .05 19.09*** .02 7.96*** .04 13.51*** Professional tenure .04 − .04 − .07* Public authority − .08* .02 − .03 Step 2. .09 65.91*** .16 134.86*** .15 123.40*** Psychosocial safety climate .04 .11*** .06 Step 3. .08 32.86*** .12 58.73*** .11 52.32*** Role conflict − .10** − .13*** − .07* Work-family conflict − .08* − .13*** − .12*** Step 4. .05 24.70*** .05 29.30*** .13 79.95*** Social support superiors .14*** .17*** .22*** Social community at work .10** .05 .18*** Step 5. .06 62.09*** .33 .08 101.69*** .43 .09 125.39*** .51 Quality of work .32*** .36*** .38*** Note . Standardized beta weights are from the fifth step of the regression analyses. *p ˂ .05, ** p ˂ .01, *** p ˂ .001
work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The regression analyses were conducted by entering the independent variables in five distinct steps. Step 1 controlled for the potential confounding effect of the background factors professional tenure (i.e., time in the profes-sion) and public authority (dummy-coded as 1/0: 1 = practicing public authority). In Step 2, PSC was added to the model. Step 3 added job demands in terms of role conflict and work–family conflict, whereas Step 4 added the job resources social community at work and social support from superiors. Finally, in Step 5, quality of work was added.
Work engagement
For work engagement, the full model (see adjusted R2) provided a quite substantial amount of
variance explained (33%). When added to the model, each step provided a unique and significant
contribution of variance explained (see:ΔR2, F change). In the full model, all predictor variables—
except for PSC—provided a significant contribution (see β) for social workers’ work engagement in
the expected directions. Thus, the results provided support for Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, but no support for Hypothesis 1.
Job satisfaction
With regard to job satisfaction, the model provided a considerable amount of variance explained (43%). Again, when added to the model, all steps provided a significant contribution of variance explained. In the full model, all predictor variables, except for social community at work, provided
a significant contribution to the explanation of social workers’ job satisfaction. Hence, the results
supported Hypotheses 1, 2, and 4 but provided only partial support for Hypothesis 3.
Organizational commitment
The regression analyses for organizational commitment explained a substantial amount of the variance (51%). Each of the hierarchical regression steps provided a significant contribution of variance explained. The full model demonstrated that all predictor variables significantly contributed to the explanation of social workers organizational commitment, with the exception of PSC, which was not found to hold significance in the full model. Thus, the results of the regression analysis for organizational commitment provided support for Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 but only partial support for Hypothesis 1.
General discussion
Considering the high turnover rates among social workers in the public social services, the aim of the present study was to improve the understanding of factors contributing to the retention of social workers, by investigating the relationship between specific work environmental factors and positive work attitudes. Specifically, the present study focused on factors contributing to positive work attitudes among social workers, because such attitudes relate to retention (Halbesleben & Wheeler,
2008; Kim & Kao,2014; Lambert et al.,2001; Meyer et al.,2002). Furthermore, in this investigation,
we explored the importance of two novel work environmental factors for social workers work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment: PSC and quality of work.
Overall, the results provided partial support for our Hypothesis 1, stating PSC to be positively related to the three dependent variables work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. In the full regression models, PSC did provide a significant contribution to the
explanation of social workers’ job satisfaction—but not to the explanation of work engagement or
organizational commitment. This result is somewhat surprising as previous research reports
a positive relation between PSC and work engagement (Afsharian et al.,2017; Dollard & Bakker,
2010). Yet previous research on the relation between PSC and work engagement has investigated the
effect of PSC on an aggregated group level (Dollard & Bakker, 2010), whereas the present study
PSC is best understood as an antecedent for job resources and job demands (Dollard & Bakker,
2010), or in terms of a moderator in relation to job demands–resources and outcomes (Garrick et al.,
2014). Our results show that PSC is important for social workers’ job satisfaction, but the importance
of PSC for organizational commitment did not hold significance in the full regression model. This difference in the result is noteworthy because job satisfaction and organizational commitment are highly related concepts (e.g., r = .71, in the present study). Yet the observed differences show that the
two concepts are distinct and unique (e.g., van der Heijden et al.,2009). One interpretation of our
results is that they demonstrate that PSC in terms of psychological climate is important for job satisfaction, whereas PSC in terms of organizational climate is important for engagement (Afsharian
et al.,2017).
The results of the present study corroborate the importance of specific job demands (i.e., role
conflict and work–family conflict) and job resources (i.e., social community at work and social
support from superiors) for social workers’ retention, reported by previous research (e.g., Frost et al.,
2017; Johnco et al., 2014; Lizano & Mor Barak, 2015; Travis et al., 2016). Overall, confirming
Hypotheses 2, our results demonstrate that job demands in terms of role conflict and work–family
conflict have a negative effect on social workers’ work attitudes. The two job demands were most
strongly related to social workers’ job satisfaction but also related to work engagement and organizational commitment. Moreover, in support of Hypothesis 3, the results showed that job resources in terms of social support from superiors and social community at work were positively related to work attitudes among social workers. This is line with the reports by previous research and
underlines the importance of supportive management and collegial relations for social workers’
retention (Frost et al., 2017). In fact, the results show that support from superiors and social
community at work were most strongly related to social workers organizational commitment, compared to work engagement and job satisfaction. Overall, social support from superiors was the strongest job resource predictor.
Finally, the present study provides new insights to the retention of social workers, by demonstrating the importance of quality of work for positive work attitudes among social workers. Confirming Hypothesis 4, perceived quality of work was found to be a strong predictor for all three positive work attitudes. These results are intriguing and accentuated by the fact that quality of work was included in the final step of the regression models. Our results confirm the notion reported by previous research, suggesting that quality of work is a factor that seems to be
important for the retention of social workers (Astvik & Melin,2012; Lee et al.,2013). Specifically,
our findings suggest that when conditions for conducting high-quality work exist, this has
a strong positive effect on social workers’ work engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment. One possible interpretation of the observed importance for quality of work is that it reflects the extent that social workers perceive that it is possible to provide services that are in
line with their own personal motives and convictions for the job (e.g., Smith & Shields, 2013).
More specifically, if social workers perceive that prerequisites for high-quality work exist, this might be a key precursor for engagement, satisfaction, and commitment. Conversely, when conditions for quality of work are not present, this can have a deteriorating effect on the
motivational process (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).
Conclusions
In conclusion, the main finding was a consistent positive relationship between the quality of the work performed and the three important predictors for retention of social workers: work engage-ment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Surprisingly we found that, in our model, PSC was only a significant predictor for job satisfaction.
Implications
The present study has some implications for practice as well as for future research.
Most importantly, our findings indicate that being able to conduct work of good quality is essential for social workers work engagement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment, which, in turn, are important for retention of staff. Therefore, addressing quality of work at different organizational levels is of high relevance for HR practices within the public social services. At a strategic and tactical level, it is relevant to ensure working conditions that enable social workers to provide good quality services for their clients. To do that managers need to analyze which factors that promote or prevent social workers to conduct work of good quality. Examples of factors to consider could be adequate staffing, relevant labor division among occupational groups, and providing opportunities for development and learning. For work groups, discussions aiming at a mutual understanding of what level of quality is realistic and satisfactory can contribute to increased role clarity and priority setting for the individual social worker. Besides, initiating such discussions of the core of work may also contribute to improved social support from superiors and work-related community in the work group, which are important job resources for health and well-being at the individual level, as shown in the present study. Furthermore, as turnover has
a negative effect on quality (Castle & Engberg,2005), it is important that HR practices in HSOs consider
the association between the organizational context (e.g., climate) of the human service system, the nature (e.g., quality) of the services provided, and the well-being of the workers (Hemmelgarn, Glisson, & James,
2010; Lee et al.,2013). In this regard, we note that, even though the essence of quality in human services
can be expected to be quite specific, HR practices in HSOs may adhere to recommendations from
research on service quality at large—because the basic precursors for service quality seem to be rather
general (see e.g., Aryee, Walumbwa, Seidu, & Otaye,2016). Moreover, attending to workers’ evaluations
of quality of work can inform and guide HR practices in HSOs, as an indication of actual service quality that corresponds to evaluations of quality by service recipients as well as to objective measures of quality
in terms of both processes and outcomes (McHugh & Stimpfel,2012).
However, it will be an important task for future research to investigate the complex interplay between working conditions and quality of work in social services further, by applying longitudinal and multilevel designs as well as register-based outcomes on quality of work.
Our expectations regarding the importance of PSC were only partly corroborated and to some extent in contrast to previous research. This calls for further studies to clarify the role of PSC. However, the findings of a positive relationship between PSC and job satisfaction support the relevance of managerial attention to develop, maintain, and actively communicate policies and practices to ensure that employees are confident that their psychological health is a valued and prioritized concern.
Finally, further research needs to investigate the potential effect of PSC and quality of work for actual retention and staff turnover.
Limitations and strengths
The present study has a number of limitations. One is that the data are cross-sectional, which prohibits causal claims about the directions of relationships. Future research should investigate causality by the use of a longitudinal design. Another limitation is that the study relies on
self-reports with the potential risk of common method bias. Still, the correlation matrix (Table 2) makes
the potential for common method error transparent. In addition, the different results for the three outcomes indicate a limited risk of common method bias.
We consider the use of validated instruments (PSC and COPSOQ II) as an advantage, whereas the operationalization of quality of work by only two items might be a potential disadvantage. However,
the two items demonstrated a satisfactory reliability (α = .76), and an advantage is that they are
generic, making future comparisons with other occupational groups possible. Still, we acknowledge the difficulties of defining and measuring quality and encourage future research to address this issue. One possibility may be to use a multifaceted approach and include both subjective (i.e., self-reports)
and objective (e.g., normative criteria or client-evaluations) indicators in order to get a more
complete picture for the quality concept (see, e.g., Geisler & Allwood,2015).
The close relations to clients is suggested to be a fundamental characteristic, and even a defining
feature of “the core,” of human service work (Hasenfeld,2010). Based on this, we believe that the
findings regarding quality of work can be generalized to social work in general, whereas the findings regarding PSC are expected to be more contextually dependent.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by AFA Insurance [130301; 170262]; the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [2016-07220]; Malmö University.
ORCID
Martin Geisler http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7422-6382
Hanne Berthelsen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4573-4548
Tuija Muhonen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5972-4933
References
Afsharian, A., Zadow, A., Dollard, M. F., Dormann, C., & Ziaian, T. (2017). Should psychosocial safety climate theory
be extended to include climate strength? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(4), pp. 496–507.
doi:10.1037/ocp0000101
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Seidu, E. Y. M., & Otaye, L. E. (2016). Developing and leveraging human capital resource
to promote service quality: Testing a theory of performance. Journal of Management, 42(2), 480–499. doi:10.1177/
0149206312471394
Astvik, W., & Melin, M. (2012). Coping with the imbalance between job demands and resources: A study of different
coping patterns and implications for health and quality in human service work. Journal of Social Work, 13(4),
337–360. doi:10.1177/1468017311434682
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4–28. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2010.485352
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job Demands-Resources theory. In C. Cooper & P. Chen (Eds.), Well-being:
A complete reference guide (Vol. III, pp. 37–64). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job-Demands Resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. doi:10.1037/ocp0000056
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Multiple levels in the Job Demands-Resources theory: Implications for
employee well-being and performance. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being. nobascholar
(pp. 593–604). Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170–180. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work-engagement: The JD-R approach. Annual Review
of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 389–411. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing
organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147–154. doi:10.1002/job.515
Barbee, A. P., Antle, B., Sullivan, D. J., Huebner, R., Fox, S., & Hall, J. C. (2009). Recruiting and retaining child welfare
workers: Is preparing social work students enough for sustained commitment to the field? Child Welfare, 88(5), 69–86.
Berthelsen, H., Conway, P. M., & Clausen, T. (2017). Is organizational justice climate at the workplace associated with
individual-level quality of care and organizational affective commitment?– A multi-level, cross-sectional study of
dentistry in Sweden. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 91(2), 237–245. doi:10.1007/
s00420-017-1275-2
Berthelsen, H., Hakanen, J. J., & Westerlund, H. (2018). Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire - a validation study
Berthelsen, H., & Muhonen, T. (2017). Psykosocialt säkerhetsklimat– Ett sätt att mäta organisatoriskt och socialt
säkerhetsklimat [Psychosocial safety climate– A measure of organizational and social safety climate] (Report No.
327). Stress research institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
Berthelsen, H., Westerlund, H., & Kristensen, T. S. (2014). COPSOQ II– En uppdatering och språklig validering av den
svenska versionen av en enkät för kartläggning av den psykosociala arbetsmiljön på arbetsplatser [COPSOQ II– An
update and linguistic validation of the Swedish version of a survey for mapping the psychosocial work environment at workplaces] (Report No. 326). Stress research institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm.
Bliese, P. D., Edwards, J. R., & Sonnentag, S. (2017). Stress and well-being at work: A century of empirical trends
reflecting theoretical and societal influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 389–402. doi:10.1037/apl0000109
Carmeli, A., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Exploring turnover intentions among three professional groups of employees.
Human Resource Development International, 9(2), 191–206. doi:10.1080/13678860600616305
Castle, N. G., & Engberg, J. (2005). Staff turnover and quality of care in nursing. Medical Care, 43(6), 616–626.
doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000163661.67170.b9
Coffey, M., Dugdill, L., & Tattersall, A. (2004). Stress in social services: Mental well-being, constraints and job
satisfaction. British Journal of Social Work, 34(5), 735–746. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch088
Cohen, A. (1992). Antecedents of organizational commitment across occupational groups: A meta analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13(6), 539–558. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379
Collins, S. (2008). Statutory social workers: Stress, job satisfaction, coping, social support and individual differences.
British Journal of Social Work, 38, 1173–1193. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm047
COPSOQ International Network. (2018). Scales and Items of COPSOQ III questionnaire. Retrieved October 29, 2018,
from https://www.copsoq-network.org/assets/Uploads/annex1-Dimensions-and-items-in-the-COPSOQ-III-questionnaire-060718.pdf
Di Fabio, A. (2017). Positive healthy organizations: Promoting well-being, meaningfulness, and sustainability in
organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1938. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01938
Dollard, M. F., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments,
psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
83(3), 579–599. doi:10.1348/096317909X470690
Dollard, M. F., Dormann, C., Boyd, C. M., Winefield, H. R., & Winefield, A. H. (2003). Unique aspects of stress in
human service work. Australian Psychologist, 38(2), 84–91. doi:10.1080/00050060310001707087
Freund, A. (2005). Administration in social work. Commitment and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of Turnover
Intentions among Welfare Workers, 29(2), 5–21. doi:10.1300/J147v29n02_02
Frost, L., Höjer, S., Campanini, A., Sicora, A., & Kullburg, K. (2017). Why do they stay? A study of resilient child
protection workers in three European countries. European Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1080/
13691457.2017.1291493
Gable, S. L., & Haidt, J. (2005). What (and why) is positive psychology? Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 103–110.
doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.103
Garrick, A., Mak, A. S., Catchcart, S., Winwood, P. C., Bakker, A. B., & Lushington, K. (2014). Psychosocial Safety
Climate Moderating the Effects of Daily Job Demands and Recovery on Fatigue and Work Engagement. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 694–714. doi:10.1111/joop.12069
Geisler, M., & Allwood, C. M. (2015). Competence and quality in real-life decision making. PLoS ONE, 10(11),
e0142178. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142178
Giffords, E. D. (2009). An examination of organizational commitment and professional commitment and the
relation-ships to work environment, demographic and organizational factors. Journal of Social Work, 9(4), 386–404.
doi:10.1177/1468017309346232
Glisson, C., Landsverk, J., Schoenwald, S., Kelleher, K., Hoagwood, K. E., Mayberg, S., & Green, P. (2008). Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: Implications for research and practice.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 35, 98–113. doi:10.1007/
s10488-007-0148-5
Griffiths, A., Royse, D., Culver, K., Piescher, K., & Zhang, C. (2017). Who stays, who goes, who knows? A state-wide
survey of child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 77, 110–117. doi:10.1016/j.
childyouth.2017.04.012
Guglielmi, D., Avanzi, L., Chiesa, R., Mariani, M. G., Bruni, I., & Depolo, M. (2016). Positive aging in demanding
workplaces: the gain cycle between job satisfaction and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1224. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01224
Hakanen, J. J., Ropponen, A., Schaufeli, W. B., & De Witte, H. W. (2018). Who is engaged at work? A large-scale study
in 30 European Countries. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001528
Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The Job-Demands Resource model: A three-year cross-lagged
study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress, 22(3), 224–241. doi:10.1080/
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job
performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22(3), 242–256. doi:10.1080/02678370802383962
Hall, G. B., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., Winefield, A. H., & Thompson, B. M. (2010). Job demands, work-family
conflict, and emotional exhaustion in police officers: A longitudinal test of competing theories. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 237–250. doi:10.1348/096317908X401723
Hasenfeld, Y. (2010). The attributes of Human Service Organizations. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as
complex organizations (2nd ed., pp. 291–310). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Hellman, C. M. (1997). Job satisfaction and intent to leave. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(6), 677–689.
doi:10.1080/00224549709595491
Hemmelgarn, A. L., Glisson, C., & James, L. R. (2010). Organizational culture and climate: Implications for service and
interventions research. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complex organizations (2nd ed., pp. 229–250).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Jaskyte, K., & Lee, M. (2009). Organizational commitment of social workers: An exploratory study. Administration in
Social Work, 33(3), 227–241. doi:10.1080/03643100902987283
Johnco, C., Salloum, A., Olson, K. R., & Edwards, L. M. (2014). Child welfare workers perspectives on contributing
factors to retention and turnover: Recommendations for improvement. Children and Youth Services Review, 47,
397–407. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.10.016
Judge, T. A., Weiss, H. M., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Hulin, C. L. (2017). Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect–
A century of continuity and of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 356–374. doi:10.1037/apl0000181
Kim, H., & Kao, D. (2014). A meta-analysis of turnover intention predictors among U.S. child welfare workers.
Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 214–223. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.09.015
Kim, H., & Stoner, M. (2008). Burnout and turnover intention among social workers: Effects of role stress, job
autonomy and social support. Administration in Social Work, 32(3), 5–25. doi:10.1080/03643100801922357
Kristensen, T. S. (2010). A questionnaire is more than a questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3
suppl), 149–155. doi:10.1177/1403494809354437
Kuenzi, M., & Schminke, M. (2009). Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research
agenda for organizational work climate literature. Journal of Management, 35(3), 634–717. doi:10.1177/
0149206308330559
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2001). The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of
a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. The Social Science Journal, 38, 233–250.
doi:10.1016/S0362-3319(01)00110-0
Law, R., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., & Dormann, C. (2011). Psychosocial safety climate as a lead indicator of
workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health and employee engagement. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 43(5), 1782–1793. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.010
Lee, E., Esaki, N., Kim, J., Greene, R., Kirkland, K., & Mitchell-Herzfeld, S. (2013). Organizational climate and burnout
among home visitors: Testing mediating effects of empowerment. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 594–602.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.01.11
Leka, S., Jain, A., & Lerouge, L. (2017). Work-related psychosocial risks: Key definitions and an overview of the policy
context in Europe. In: Lerouge L. (Ed.), Psychosocial risks in labour and social security law (pp. 1–12). Aligning
Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63065-6_1
Leka, S., Jain, A., Zwetsloot, G., & Cox, T. (2010). Policy-level interventions and work-related psychosocial risk
management in the European Union. Work & Stress, 24(3), 298–307. doi:10.1080/02678373.2010.519918
Lizano, E. L., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2015). Job burnout and affective wellbeing: A longitudinal study of burnout and job
satisfaction among public child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 18–28. doi:10.1016/j.
childyouth.2015.05.005
McFadden, P., Campbell, A., & Taylor, B. (2014). Resilience and burnout in child protection social work: Individual
and organizational themes from a systematic literature review. British Journal of Social Work, 45(5), 1546–1563.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct210
McHugh, M., & Stimpfel, A. W. (2012). Nurse reported quality of care: A measure of hospital quality. Research in
Nursing and Health, 35(6), 566–575. doi:10.1002/nur.21503
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative
commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Mor Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social
work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and meta-analysis.
Social Service Review, 75(4), 625–661. doi:10.1086/323166
Nübling, M., Burr, H., Moncada, S., & Kristensen, T. S. (2014). COPSOQ International Network: Co-operation for
research and assessment of psychosocial factors at work. Public Health Forum, 22(1), A1–3. doi:10.1016/j.
phf.2013.12.019
Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial
Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3), 8–24. doi:10.1177/1403494809349858
Potter, R. E., Dollard, M. F., Owen, M. S., O’Keefe, V., Bailey, T., & Leka, S. (2017). Assessing a national work health
and safety policy intervention using the psychosocial safety climate framework. Safety Science, 100, 91–102.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.05.011
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A
multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. doi:10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short
questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. doi:10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources model: Implications for improving
work and health. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health:
A transdisciplinary approach (pp. 43–68). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4
Shuck, B., Reio, T. G., & Rocco, T. S. (2011). Employee engagement: an examination of antecedents and outcome
variables. Human Resource Developments International, 14(4), 427-455. doi:10.1080/13678868.2011.601587
SKL, Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. (2016). Rekryteringsläget inom socialtjänsten– Barn och
unga samt ekonomiskt bistånd. [The situation for recruitment within the public social services– The children and
youth services and the financial aid services.]. SKL, Stockholm.
SKL, Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. (2015). Ekonomiskt bistånd – En förstudie inför ett
utvecklingsarbete. [Financial aid– A pilot study for development work.]. SKL, Stockholm.
Smith, D. S., & Shields, J. (2013). Factors related to social service workers’ job satisfaction: Revisiting Herzberg’s
motivation to work. Administration in Social Work, 37, 189–198. doi:10.1080/03643107.2012.673217
Srivastiva, S. (2013). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment relationship: Effect of personality variables.
Vision, 17(2), 159–167. doi:10.1177/0972262912483529
Swedish Work Environment Authority. (2015). Organizational and social work environment (AFS 2015:4).
Tham, P. (2007). Why are they leaving? Factors affecting intention to leave among social workers in the child welfare.
British Journal of Social Work, 37, 1225–1246. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl054
Tham, P., & Meagher, G. (2008). Working in human services: How do experiences and working conditions in child
welfare social work compare? British Journal of Social Work, 39, 807–827. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm170
Top, M., Tarcan, M., Tekingündüc, S., & Hekmet, S. (2013). An analysis of relationships among transformational
leadership, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational trust in two Turkish hospitals.
International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 28, 217–241. doi:10.1002/hpm.2154
Travis, D. J., Lizano, E. L., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2016).‘I’m so stressed!’: A longitudinal model of stress, burnout and
engagement among social workers in child welfare settings. British Journal of Social Work, 46, 1076–1095.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct205
van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., van Dam, K., & Hasselhorn, H. M. (2009). Intention to leave nursing– The importance of
interpersonal context, work-home interference, and job satisfaction beyond the effect of occupational commitment.
