Influencing and Motivating Employee Engagement: An Exploratory Study on Employee

Engagement in Organizational Injury-Prevention Programs

by

Maria Silva-Palacios

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

A dissertation submitted to the faculty

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

August 2021
© Copyright by Maria Silva-Palacios 2021

All Rights Reserved

2
The Committee for Maria Silva-Palacios certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Jennifer Phillips

Yasmin Davidds

Helena Seli, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

2021

3
 Abstract

Using a modified Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model, this study explored employee

perceptions and attitudes about participating in an organization’s injury-prevention program

aimed at reducing sprains and strains and how these perceptions and attitudes were influenced by

authentic leadership. The data was collected through qualitative semi-structured interviews, and

the study participants were comprised of union-represented male employees over the age of 18

who suffered 80% of the sprain and strains injuries in the organization. Findings revealed that

employees’ high levels of self-efficacy and perceived value of the program served as the most

significant motivating factors for their participation in the program. Additional utility value

themes emerged that influenced employee participation, such as decreased pain, lower risk of

injury, and improved well-being. Findings revealed five organizational obstacles that prevented

their participation in the program:1) the prioritization of emergent work, 2) stalled program

efforts due to COVID-19 restrictions, 3) a lack of leadership program support and participation,

although leaders communicated the program’s usefulness for injury-prevention, 4) a

prioritization of safety rule enforcement, and 5) a lack of employee awareness of participation

expectation policies. Lastly, four themes related to authentic leadership were revealed that

influenced employee participation in the program: 1) supervisors encouraged integrous work

behavior, 2) supervisors extended compassion during COVID-19, 3) supervisors encouraged and

facilitated professional work relationships, and 4) supervisors failed to model program

participation. This study concludes with four recommendations based on the findings and

presented in Chapter Five.

iv
 Dedication

I am eternally grateful for you, mama y papa. I could not have achieved this dream without your

sacrifice. You brought us to this country on October 14, 1967, with hopes and dreams of a better

life and that is what you provided. To my son George…my number one fan and love. Thank you

for believing in me, and for your love and support. Continue to pursue your dreams with

relentless passion and perseverance because nothing can stop you. To my brother Dr. Victor

Silva-Palacios, my trailblazer, mentor, and father-figure once our father passed, thank you for

paving the way with love, patience, and grace. To my brother Miguel, thank you for cheering me

on and reminding me that I could do this. To my husband Chris, whether it was an actual

triathlon in which I was competing, or this triathlon of legendary proportions called my doctorate

degree, I will always hear you whisper in my ear “just concentrate on swimming buoy-to-buoy

and before you know it, you’ll be finished.” Thank you for ALL of your love, support, patience,

and encouragement.

Elizabeth Silva, my sister by marriage. Thank you for your encouragement and help after the

countless times I reached out to you (or cried out). My dearest niece, Karen Silva-Hutchison, I

love you and thank you for your encouraging text messages and support throughout this journey.

To my family in Ecuador, uncle Ted and aunt Rosina, you always encouraged and believed in me

from afar, thank you. Finally, my dear cousins Dr. Patricia Silva-Bracco and her wonderful

husband Dr. Efren Santos. I lost you both to COVID-19 this past year. My heart broke because

you could not be here for my graduation as we planned. Thank you for your unconditional love

and support. I love and miss you both so much.

v
 Acknowledgements

I always say, “it takes a village,” and I am deeply grateful for “my village” made up of

people who were the support pillars throughout this process. First and foremost, thank you Dr.

Helena Seli, my dissertation committee chair. I knew I had struck gold when I was assigned to

you. You provided detailed guidance, clarity, grace, and wisdom I needed to get through this

most challenging and transformative journey. Thank you for your dedication and ongoing

support.

Dr. Jennifer Phillips, words cannot express how grateful I am for you. By far, one of the

best professors I had the privilege of calling “my professor.” How did I not choose you for other

classes in this program? I am extremely fortunate, however, that you were on my dissertation

committee. Your laser-focus attention to details in my dissertation refined me in ways I never

imagined. You helped me take a deeper look at my problem of practice and collected data to

ensure I aligned my narrative with my conceptual framework, thank you!

Dr. Yasmin Davidds, my third committee chair member. Since 2016, you have been my

mentor, confidant, my inspiration, and my Authentic Leadership guru. If it were not for you, I

would have never considered USC. Meeting you and graduating from your programs is what

started this journey of finding my value and voice, and my True North. Thank you for your

guidance and unconditional love and safe space.

I am deeply grateful for the help and guidance from Dr. Townsend, Dr. Guadalupe

Montano, and Dr. Sharon Herpin, Dr. Ilda Jimenez, and Dr. Evelyn Castillo. You eased my

anxiety with your help when I struggled at different points in these chapters. Dr. Townsend, I

feel as if you ran the last miles of this marathon race by my side while cheering me all the way to

the finish line, thank you. I could not have done this without your assistance. To my OCL Cohort

12 family and all my professors, it was my honor to be surrounded by wicked smart people who

vi
elevated me continuously, thank you. Also, Dr. Kim Crawford, Dr. Rene Prupes, Dr. Stephanie

Lemus, Dr. Patricia Gonzalez, the Sunday Writing Empowerment Group, and the weekly

Pomodoro Study Group, thank you for the inspiration, support, guidance, peer-reviews, and for

the having the confidence in me when I felt I had none left, and when the imposter syndrome

monster reared its ugly head. Also, I cannot forget, Dr. Kristan Venegas. Although we have

never met in-person, I am forever grateful for your kind heart and compassion, and for your help

with the admissions glitches in 2018. I would not be in this program without you.

To my former co-workers, my wonderful and willing interview participants, my Multi-

Cultural Program sisterhood, family, friends who I consider family, and my Dungeon Fitness

Community/Family. You cheered me on this entire process, supported me in ways imaginable,

allowed me to cry as often as I needed, celebrated me even when I felt I did not deserve it, and

always reminded me that I was warrior and that I COULD do this…thank you, thank you!!

vii
 Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii

Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1

Background of the Problem .................................................................................................1
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................3
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................4
Organizational Goal .............................................................................................................4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................5
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................5
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals.............................................................................7
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .....................................................................8
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ............................................8
Definitions............................................................................................................................9
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................11

Sprains and Strains As Leading Occupational Injuries......................................................11
Occupational Health and Safety Administration ...................................................11
California OSHA ...................................................................................................12
Role of Cal-OSHA Within the Context of Sprains and Strains .............................13
The Physical and Economic Burden of Sprains and Strains ..................................14
Absenteeism ...............................................................................................14
Loss of Productivity ...................................................................................15
Workers’ Compensation Costs ..................................................................15
Employee Health ........................................................................................16
Organizational Injury and Illness Prevention Programs ....................................................16
Programs Designed to Mitigate Injuries and Illnesses ...........................................16
Preventing Disease .....................................................................................17
Promoting Mental Well-Being ...................................................................18
Preventing Injuries .....................................................................................18
Employee Engagement in Programs ......................................................................19
Barriers to Engagement..............................................................................20
Motivators for Engagement .......................................................................21
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework .................................................................23
Field Operations Employee Motivation and Organizational Influences............................23
Motivation Influences ............................................................................................24
Employee Self-Efficacy Related to Participation in the Injury-
Prevention Program .......................................................................25
Employee Value of Participation in Injury-Prevention Program ...............25
Organizational Influences ......................................................................................27
Organizational Priority for Creating a Culture of Positive Perceptions ....27

viii
 Inspiring an Organizational Culture of Safety to Participate in
The Injury-Prevention Program .....................................................28
Accountability Measures to Participate in the Injury-Prevention
Program ..........................................................................................29
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................31
Summary ............................................................................................................................36

Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................37

Research Questions ............................................................................................................37
Overview of Methodology .................................................................................................37
Data Collection and Analysis Plan ....................................................................................39
Participating Stakeholders .....................................................................................39
Interview Instrumentation ......................................................................................40
Interview Procedures .............................................................................................40
Interview Data Analysis .........................................................................................41
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................42
Ethics and the Role of the Researcher ...............................................................................43

Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................44

Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................45
Research Question 1: What Do Employees Perceive As Obstacles, From the Lens
of the Motivational and Organizational Influences, That Prevent Them
from Participating in the Injury Prevention Program? ...........................................46
Field Operations Organization Prioritization of Emergent Work
as an Obstacle ............................................................................................47
COVID-19 as a Program Participation Obstacle ...................................................48
Research Question 2: What Do Employees Perceive As Potential Factors That Can
Motivate Them to Participate in the Injury Prevention Program in Their
Work? .........................................................................................................49
Motivation Influences’ Findings ............................................................................49
Employees Reported High Levels of Self-Efficacy ...................................50
Employees Acknowledge the Program to Have Significant Value ...........51
Program Participation Decreased Pain, Lowered Risk of
Injury, and Improved Well-Being ......................................51
Program Quality Checks Highly Valued and Encouraged
Employee Engagement ......................................................53
Organizational Influences’ Findings ......................................................................54
Organizational Leaders Communicate the Usefulness of the
Program Is for Injury-Prevention ...................................................55
Organizational Culture that Prioritizes Safety Rule Enforcement .............56
Employees Unaware of Participation Expectations Policy ........................60
Research Question 3: What Influence, if Any, Does Authentic Leadership Have
on the Employees’ Likelihood of Participating in the Injury-Prevention
Program? ................................................................................................................63
Supervisors Encouraged Integrous Work Behavior ...............................................63
Supervisors Demonstrated Compassion in the Context of COVID-19 .....64

ix
 Supervisors Fostered Professional Work Relationships ........................................65
Lack of Supervisory Modeling Participation in the Injury-Prevention
Program ......................................................................................................67
Summary of Organizational and Motivation Influences Data ...........................................68

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion..........................................................................71

Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................71
Motivation Influences’ Findings ............................................................................72
Employees Reported High Levels of Self-Efficacy ...................................72
Employees Acknowledge the Program to Have Significant Value ...........73
Organizational Influences’ Findings ......................................................................74
Field Operations’ Organizational Prioritization of Emergent Work
as an Obstacle ................................................................................74
COVID-19 as a Program Participation Obstacle .......................................75
Organizational Leaders Communicate Program’s Purpose As
Injury-Prevention ...........................................................................76
Organizational Culture That Prioritizes Safety Rule Enforcement............77
Employees Unaware of Participation Expectation Policy .........................78
Authentic Leadership Findings ..............................................................................78
Supervisors Encouraged Integrous Work Behavior ...................................79
Supervisors Demonstrated Compassion in the Context of
COVID-19......................................................................................79
Supervisors Fostered Professional Work Relationships ........................................80
Lack of Supervisory Modeling of Participation in the Injury-Prevention
Program ......................................................................................................80
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................81
Recommendation 1: Conduct a Small-Scale Pilot Re-Launch of the
Prevention Program That Includes Weekly Program Quality
Checks ........................................................................................................82
Recommendation 2: Provide a Leadership Training Emphasizing
Injury-Prevention Program as a Safety Program to Encourage
Program Positive Perceptions and Inspire a Culture of
Participation Instead of Emergent Work Prioritization and
Safety Rule Enforcement ...........................................................................83
Recommendation 3: Create Accountability Measures to Increase
Leadership Participation in the Injury-Prevention Program ......................84
Recommendation 4: Conduct an Authentic Leadership Influence
Training Module ........................................................................................84
Integrated Recommendations.................................................................................85
Resources ...................................................................................................86
Activities ....................................................................................................86
Outputs .......................................................................................................86
Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes .....................................................87
Impact ........................................................................................................87
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................88
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................90
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................91

x
References ......................................................................................................................................93

Appendix A: Interview Protocol ....................................................................................................99

xi
 List of Tables

Table 1: Organizational and Stakeholder Goals ..............................................................................7

Table 2: Motivation Influences Related to Employee Engagement in the Injury-
Prevention Program ...............................................................................................26
Table 3: Organizational Influences Related to Employee Engagement in the Injury-
Prevention Program ...............................................................................................30
Table 4: Codes, Constructs, and Influences in the Conceptual Framework Diagram ...................33
Table 5: Qualitative Data Collection Methods Data Sources ........................................................38
Table 6: Participant Pseudonyms and Years of Service ................................................................46
Table 7: Organizational and Motivation Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data ................69

xii
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Diagram ...................................................................................32

xiii
 Chapter One: Introduction

Every seven seconds an employee is injured while working because of a sprain and strain

injury (National Safety Council, 2019). Sprains and strains are the leading cause of non-fatal

occupational injuries in private industry and local and state government (National Safety

Council, 2019). In 2005, the leading injury across all United States industry sectors were sprains

and strains, and they accounted for 41% of workplace injuries requiring days away from work

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006). In 2015, 80% of injuries to private industry workers were

sprains and strains. They accounted for 25% of workers’ compensation costs, making for an

economic burden of $15.1 billion annually (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016; Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention [CDC], 2015). Several factors contribute to an organization’s success

for improving workplace safety and reducing injuries, such as effective safety management

systems and safety leadership (Williams, 2010). Research also suggested that employees who

experience authentic leadership and feel supported by their supervisors are more engaged

(Penger & Cerne, 2014). This study explored employee perceptions and attitudes about

participating in an organization’s injury-prevention program aimed at reducing sprains and

strains and how these perceptions and attitudes were influenced by authentic leadership.

Background of the Problem

There has been an increasing trend of sprains and strains as the prevalent workplace

injury in various United States industries. In 2005, 41% of injuries across all sectors in the

United States were sprains and strains (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006). In 2015, sprains and

strains accounted for 80% of private industry worker injuries (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).

Additionally, research revealed that sprains and strains caused an economic burden to

injured workers and their employers. Employees suffer sprains and strains every seven seconds,

and 70 million doctor visits in the United States are a result of sprain and strain injuries (Center

1
for Disease Control, 2020; National Safety Council, 2019). In 2015, 25% of workers’

compensation costs were attributed to sprains and strains and resulted in a $15.1 billion annual

economic burden (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016; CDC, 2015).

Due to the rise in workers’ compensation costs and employee injuries resulting from

sprains and strains, employers have implemented various types of injury-prevention programs.

Throughout the United States, 68% of employers offered worksite programs aimed at the

reduction and mitigation of injuries (Society of Human Resource Management, 2011). However,

despite these programs, research revealed a lack of employee engagement (Nohammer &

Stummer, 2014). Research indicated that 50% to 75% of employees do not participate in these

worksite programs (Fletcher et al., 2008; Toker et al., 2014).

As previously stated, the quality of the injury-prevention program and of leadership that

employees experience contributes to an organization’s level of employee injury. For example,

research suggested a correlation between authentic leadership and employee engagement.

Penger and Cerne (2014) posited that authentic leadership directly influences employee

engagement. Results of an online study of employees in 391 industries in the United States

revealed that employee engagement was a result of authentic leadership (Jiang & Luo, 2018).

Authentic leadership is an approach that emphasizes the capacity to lead others, and this

approach is guided by five dimensions: leading with the heart, understanding and having passion

for purpose, being driven by core values, creating trusting relationships, and practicing self-

discipline (George, 2003; Northouse, 2016). Authentic leaders demonstrate leading with their

hearts by being empathetic, are aware of their impact on people, take a genuine interest in their

employees, and are able to rally employees toward a common vision (George, 2007).

Authentic leaders increase employee engagement by building trusting and meaningful

relationships. In a study about the correlation of authentic leadership with trust and employee

2
engagement, results indicated that employee engagement increased when there was a sound

sense of trust between employee and leader (Ahamed & Hassan, 2012). Research revealed that

employee engagement increases with leaders who adopt an authentic leadership style. For

example, in a study involving Canadian nurses, results revealed the correlation between authentic

leadership and increased employee engagement (Wong & Laschinger, 2012). Also, leaders who

supported their employees had the capacity to build enduring relationships, and adopting an

authentic leadership style increased employee engagement by building trust demonstrated

commitment to their employees (George, 2003; Penger & Cerne, 2014). Fostering an

organizational culture that focuses on building enduring relationships requires leaders to be

integrity-driven in their actions, demonstrate self-discipline while living out those actions, and be

willing to meet the needs of their stakeholders (George, 2003). To achieve 100% employee

engagement in worksite health and injury-prevention programs, supervisors must be

participatory, supportive, and enthusiastic regarding the program (Drennan, Ramsay, & Richey;

2006).

Importance of Addressing the Problem

The cost of healthcare and workers’ compensation is on the rise resulting from sprain and

strain injuries, and it is compelling companies to action (Valet, 2015). In 2010, sprain and strain

injuries were the number one injury in the construction business, which resulted in 19,120

employee days away from work (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). In 2018, they accounted for

$13.7 billion in workers’ compensation costs (Liberty Mutual Safety Index, 2018), which is 25%

of the entire national burden.

Reducing worker injuries and medical costs is not the only motivation for employers.

Companies are looking to incorporate employee health promotion programs to improve their

image (Nohammer & Stummer, 2014). Companies that invest in programs to improve employee

3
health and reduce healthcare costs create value for stakeholders and shareholders by

demonstrating corporate social responsibility (Burton, 2008). If employees do not engage in

company-provided health promotion programs, employees will continue to suffer sprain and

strain injuries, workers’ compensation costs will continue to rise, and employers will lose

shareholder and stakeholder credibility (Burton, 2008; Reese, 2016).

Organizational Context and Mission

Western Utility Company (WUC, a pseudonym) is a state utility company in the Western

United States that employs over 9,000 people and provides electrical services to approximately

20 million customers across a 50,000-square-mile service area. The mission of WUC is to

provide customers reliable, clean, and affordable energy in a safe manner. The company has

eight sub-organizational units. The Field Operations Organizational Unit (FOOU, pseudonym)

is the largest sub-unit in the company and employs 3,000 ethnically diverse workers,

predominantly Caucasian, Latino, and African American. The FOOU’s mission is the safe

construction and maintenance of the company infrastructure to ensure safe and reliable energy

delivery. Prospective participants within FOOU are 1,200 field union-represented utility

linemen over 18 years of age.

Organizational Goal

In 2019, the WUC’s FOOU incurred 83 sprain and strain injuries. By 2023, the

organization has set the goal that there will be a 25% reduction of sprain and strain injuries in the

field operations workforce, which translates to 21 fewer sprains and strains injuries per year.

This quantifiable goal was established by the director of safety of the FOOU and members of the

organizational sprains and strains initiative team. The team was assembled in 2019 to create a

comprehensive and sustainable plan to identify and address sprains and strains risk factors as

4
well as how to mitigate and reduce them. The organizational safety analytics team provides

monthly data reports to chart progress.

Description of Stakeholder Groups

The company executive leadership, the organizational middle management, and the field

operations workforce were the three stakeholders for this study. Their joint involvement and

support contributed to the achievement of the overall organizational goal of a 25% reduction in

sprains and strain injuries. Leadership involvement entailed the acknowledgement that non-

engagement in the injury-prevention programs posed a safety risk to the field operations

workforce. Leadership support of the injury-prevention program was tantamount to the

acknowledgement that non-engagement in the program was a safety risk to the workforce. The

field operations workforce was the key stakeholder group as the members contributed to the

achievement of the goal by their engagement in the injury-prevention program aimed at reducing

sprain and strain injuries.

Stakeholder Group for the Study

Although a complete analysis would have involved the three stakeholder groups, for the

purpose of this study, the select group of employees were within the FOOU. This group was

comprised of union-represented male employees over the age of 18 who suffered 80% of the

sprain and strain injuries in the organization. To have a reduction of sprains and strains, by 2023,

100% of FOOU employees will participate in the injury-prevention program. To increase the

participation in this injury-prevention program, I explored the motivation and organizational

factors that influenced employee participation in the injury-prevention program.

The organization did not have a standardized protocol to gauge employee participation in

the injury-prevention program. However, there were two methods to track the correlation

between program participation and a sprain and strain injury occurrence. The first method was

5
the company injury-reporting policy, which mandated that leaders submit an online report

detailing when a work-related injury occurs. After the online report was filed and submitted, an

incident investigation was the next step. The investigation was aimed at uncovering the injury’s

root cause and its contributing factors. For sprain and strain injury investigations, there was a

question in the incident investigation report which asked if the employee participates in the

injury-prevention program. Whether the employee participated was recorded in the report.

Although the organizational safety analytics team provided monthly data reports pertaining to

work-related sprain and strain injuries, there was no tracking system that charted employee

participation in the injury-prevention program. Consequently, the participation inquiry ended

there.

The second tracking method was provided by the FOOU injury-prevention program

manager and vendor. The vendor conducted a functional movement ability assessment on each

employee. The assessments are designed to determine employee’s ability to perform seven

functional movements and assess their pain level, if any. According to the vendor, pain level was

correlated to low assessment scores, and low scores were correlated to high risk of a sprain and

strain injury. An individualized exercise program was prescribed to each employee and was

designed based on the assessment scores each employee obtains. The employees performed their

corrective exercise every morning prior to beginning their work shift. The vendor provided

weekly quality control (QC) visits to ensure employees were utilizing proper exercise form and

technique and to visually track that all employees participated in the program.

The program manager collected the total number of QC visits conducted by the vendor,

the pain-indicator reports, and sprain and strain occurrences per area. Finally, the program

manager created an aggregate data report of the QC visits and participation and pain-indicator

reports and correlated that data to the reduction or increase in sprain and strain injuries per

6
location. The assumption made by the program manager and vendor was that where there was

more participation and correct use of the program, there would be a reduction of sprain and strain

injuries.

Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals

Table 1 presents the Field Operations Organizational Unit’s mission of safe construction

and maintenance of the company infrastructure, the organizational performance goal that by

2023 there will be a 25% reduction of sprain and strain injuries in the field operations workforce,

as well as the Field Operations Organizational Unit goal of achieving 100% employee

participation in the injury prevention program by 2023.

Table 1

Organizational and Stakeholder Goals

Organizational mission
The Field Operations Organizational Unit’s mission is the safe construction and maintenance of
the company infrastructure for the Western Utility Company to provide safe delivery of reliable,
clean, and affordable energy.

Organizational performance goal

By 2023, there will be a reduction of 25% of sprain and strain injuries in the field operations
workforce.

Field Operations Organizational Unit goal

By 2023, 100% of the Field Operations Organizational Unit’s employees will participate in the
injury prevention program designed to reduce sprains and strains.

7
 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this project was to explore the motivational and organizational factors

affecting employee participation in the injury prevention program. Since injury prevention

programs have been shown to have significant positive effects on long-term employee health and

well-being, an increase in employee program participation is desired; the data collected from this

project helped design recommendations, with the goal of achieving 100% employee engagement

in the injury-prevention program and, ultimately, meet the goal of a 25% reduction of sprain and

strain injuries. While a complete performance evaluation would have focused on all stakeholders,

for practical purposes, the FOOU employees, who were union-represented male employees over

the age of 18, were the focus of this analysis. The modified gap analysis focused on

understanding the factors that influence employee participation in the injury prevention program,

specifically their motivation and organizational influences related to their participation in the

injury-prevention program designed to reduce sprains and strains.

The research questions that guided this study are the following:

1. What do employees perceive as obstacles, from the lens of motivation and organizational

influences that prevent their participation in the injury-prevention program?

2. What do employees perceive as potential factors that can motivate them to participate in

the injury-prevention program?

3. What influence, if any, does authentic leadership have on the employees’ likelihood of

participating in the injury-prevention program?

Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework

This study adopted a modified Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model as its

conceptual framework. Clark and Estes’ gap analysis process is a systematic, analytical method

that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the knowledge, motivation and

8
organizational influences that impact stakeholder behavior. The gap analysis framework was

adapted to an exploratory model and implemented as the conceptual framework with an

emphasis on stakeholder motivation and organizational influences. The motivation and

organizational influences that impacted field operations employees’ participation in the injury-

prevention program were generated based on both context-specific research as well as general

learning and motivation theory. In addition, authentic leadership theory was used to explore the

organizational influences. The methodological framework was a qualitative case study consisting

of individual semi-structured interviews and document analysis.

Definitions

Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership theory emphasizes the capacity to lead others guided by five

dimensions: they lead with their heart, they understand and have passion for their purpose, core

values-driven, create trusting relationships, and are self-disciplined (George, 2003; Northouse,

2016).

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is characterized by employees who demonstrate physical and

emotional enthusiasm, motivation, commitment, energy, and vigor in their work.

Health Promotion Programs

Programs or activities that are aimed at promoting and encouraging employee health and

prevention of disease.

Injury-Prevention Programs

Programs or activities that are aimed at prevention of employee injuries.

9
Occupational Injuries

Any damage, wounds, or illness to the body that are a result of a workplace activity from

the work environment.

Sprains and Strains

A musculoskeletal system disease, trauma, or disorder to the connective tissue.

Workers’ Compensation

An insurance system that was established by state law. It is financed by employers and

provides payment to workers or their families specifically for occupational illnesses or injuries.

Organization of the Project

Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the

key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the lack of employee

engagement in organizational injury-prevention program. The organization’s mission, goals and

stakeholders, and the framework for the project were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review

of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of lack of engagement in

workplace injury-prevention programs and the influence that authentic leadership has on

employee engagement in the programs will be addressed. Chapter Two also presents the

employee motivation and organizational influences that will be explored via the study. Chapter

Three details the methodology when it comes to participant choice, data collection, and data

analysis. In Chapter Four, the data are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides a discussion

and recommendations for practice and for future research.

10
 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature

This chapter will explore the literature relevant to employee engagement in

organizational injury-prevention programs. The topics will include sprains and strains as leading

occupational injuries and organizational and illness prevention programs. After a review of the

literature, the focus turns to an understanding of the motivation and organizational influences

examined in the study. A modified Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework is

used to explore these influences.

Sprains and Strains As Leading Occupational Injuries

Across the country, throughout various industry sectors, workers are suffering sprain and

strain injuries every seven seconds (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006; National Safety Council,

2019). In local and state government, and in the private industry, sprains and strains are the

leading cause of non-fatal occupational injuries (National Safety Council, 2019). Consequently,

in 2015, these injuries resulted in 25% of workers’ compensation costs and a $15.1 billion annual

economic burden (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016; CDC, 2015). Employers have various

worksite programs in place to mitigate the economic burden and worker injury caused by sprains

and strains (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006; CDC, 2015; Society of Human Resource

Management, 2011). However, research reveals employees do not participate in these programs

(Nohammer & Stummer, 2014).

Occupational Health and Safety Administration

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is part of the United States

Department of Labor. Their mission is for every worker to return home from work healthy and

whole every day (Safety Business & Legal Resources, 2007; United States Department of

Labor). To ensure worker health and safety in the workplace, Congress created the OSHA Act of

1970. The OSHA Act of 1970 enforces standards in the areas of training, education, assistance,

11
and outreach (United States Department of Labor). Most private-sector employers, some public

sector employers, their respective workers within the 50 states, and certain territories under

federal authority are covered under the OSHA Act (Safety Business & Legal Resources, 2007;

United States Department of Labor, 2012). The specific OSHA Act of 1970 requires identifying

causes of potential work-related illness or injury, explanation of job procedures, the equipment

training necessary to mitigate risks and to perform the work safely (Safety Business & Legal

Resources, 2007). These standards are based on workplace research, experience of unions,

employers, and other stakeholders (Safety Business & Legal Resources, 2007). Additionally,

OSHA has an alliance program which enables employers, government agencies, educational

institutions, professional groups, and labor unions to work together on worker health and safety

mission (Safety Business & Legal Resources, 2007). The alliance program’s goal is to partner

with these institutions for the prevention of workplace illnesses and injuries (Safety Business &

Legal Resources, 2007).

California OSHA

California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) is an agency

that is part of the state’s cabinet-level Department of Industrial Relations. They were federally

approved in 1973 and are monitored by and receive some funding from federal OSHA. Their

authority is outlined and defined in various labor code sections, such as Cal-OSHA Title 8, 24,

and 26 (California Regulatory Law Reporter, 1994). The purpose of the agency is to administer

state programs that ensure worker health and safety by setting and enforcing standards, issuing

licenses and permits, and providing educational certification programs, education assistance, and

outreach (State of California Department of Industrial Relations).

12
Role of Cal-OSHA Within the Context of Sprains and Strains

To ensure California worker health and safety, Cal-OSHA has a program called the

Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). The IIPP became effective in 1991 and is required

for organizations with more than 10 employees (State of California Department of Industrial

Relations, 2020). Under the IIPP guidelines, employers collect their safety policies and practices

to create a company specific IIPP. The IIPP must be created, implemented, maintained, and must

include eight elements: responsibility, compliance, communication, hazard assessment,

investigation, hazard correction, training, and record keeping (Rand Health Quarterly, 2012;

State of California Department of Industrial Relations). To ensure IIPP efficacy, it is essential

that there is leadership and employee responsibility and collaboration in creating the IIPP (State

of California Department of Industrial Relations, 2020).

Within the context of preventing sprains and strains, the first step for identifying risks is

to conduct a hazard assessment. For this step, employers identify specific workplace hazards that

could cause sprain and strain injuries. Once the potential hazards are exposed, the next steps are

correction and communication of exposed hazards (State of California Department of Industrial

Relations, 2020). As a method of hazard correction and communication, employers provide

worker training focused on sprains and strains prevention. Training may take place at the jobsite

or online and communicated through bulletins or emails (State of California Department of

Industrial Relations, 2020).

Record keeping is another step that Cal-OSHA takes to ensure worker health and safety.

Upon completion of training, employees sign a roster, and employers are required to place the

signed roster in a confidential file (State of California Department of Industrial Relations, 2018).

Cal-OSHA has various compliance protocols in place to identify risk factors and ensure that

employers comply with the IIPP’s eight essential elements. One example is that Cal-OSHA

13
inspection officers conduct on-site audits resulting from anonymous calls made to Cal-OSHA

regarding unsafe work practices (United States Department of Labor, 2003). Another example of

employers taking necessary compliance measures is they must post, in a workplace designated

area, the OSHA 300-A Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses Log (OSHA 300A

Log). The injuries which require posting are those requiring more than just first aid, and the log

is posted from February 1 through April 30 the year after the injuries or illnesses occurred (State

of California Department of Industrial Relations, 2020; United States Department of Labor,

2003). If a sprain and strain injury listed on the OSHA 300A Log is of a severity that extends

beyond first aid, CAL-OSHA may initiate an investigation. The investigation’s purpose is to

explore and uncover the factors that led to the injury, gain an understanding of why the incident

occurred, and create effective corrective actions for the prevention of future occurrences (United

States Department of Labor, 2003).

The Physical and Economic Burden of Sprains and Strains

In 2018, 124 million Americans over the age of 18 suffered sprain and strain injuries that

were treated in healthcare facilities (Ahn, 2013). Studies showed that in 2013, 1 of 5 injuries

treated in a medical facility was a sprain or strain (Ahn et al., 2014). Research indicated that

sprains and strains are the most common and costly injuries and affect all age groups (Ahn,

2013). The severity of sprains and strains vary and cause significant burden; however, they

warrant research equivalent to the burden they pose to absenteeism, loss of productivity,

workers’ compensation costs, and employee health (Ahn et al., 2014).

Absenteeism

In 2015, 51 American adults per 100 reported a sprain and strain injury (CDC, 2016) and

these injuries result in days away from work. Sprains and strains affect various body extremities.

Studies revealed that, in 2015, back pain due to a sprain and strain injury caused approximately

14
264 million lost workdays in the United States, which was equivalent to two lost days of work

per every full-time worker (United States Bone and Joint Initiative, 2012). Absenteeism harms

both the worker and the work. Lost time from work leads to a loss of knowledgeable and

experienced workers. Additionally, lost time from work leads to a need for schedule extensions,

which impedes the ability to meet project deliverables by their deadlines (Inyang, 2012).

Loss of Productivity

Loss of productivity is a byproduct of absenteeism. Research revealed the increasing

trend of loss production resulting from absenteeism. In 1995, a study about lower back sprains

and strains showed that back pain was the major cause of productivity loss for United States

workers (Guo et al., 1995). Research in 2011 revealed that productivity costs resulting from

absenteeism was greater than healthcare costs, and there was a $132 billion loss for workers who

suffered a neck or back injury (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). In 2017, sprains and strains

were the leading cause of work-related injuries, which resulted in a $104 million loss in

productivity (National Safety Council, 2019).

Workers’ Compensation Costs

Sprain and strain injuries incur an economic burden and result in high worker

compensation costs. Workers’ compensation claims filed in 2016 and 2017 indicated that sprain

and strain injuries averaged $31,227 per worker annually (National Safety Council, 2020). In

2014, they placed an economic burden on workers’ compensation of $15.1 billion and accounted

for 25% of workers’ compensation costs (CDC, 2015; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). The

steady trend of sprain and strain injuries continued in 2018; they accounted for $13.7 billion in

workers’ compensation costs, which is 25% of the entire national burden (Liberty Mutual Safety

Index, 2018).

15
Employee Health

Adults report sprain and strain injuries more than any other medical condition. In 2015,

50 American adults per 100 reported a sprain and strain injury (United States Bone and Joint

Initiative, 2012). Consequently, when a person suffers a sprain and strain injury, their health and

life are affected. Because of the pain caused by these injuries, routine activities such as getting

dressed, meal preparation, bathing, and walking become limiting and difficult to accomplish

(Center for Disease Control, 2020). Sprains and strains also worsen pre-existing medical

conditions. For example, if a person suffers from diabetes or hypertension, a sprain or strain

limits their ability to get the daily activity needed to manage the preexisting medical condition

(Center for Disease Control, 2020).

Organizational Injury and Illness Prevention Programs

To comply with the 1970 OSHA Act and Cal-OSHA’s IIPP mandate of ensuring worker

health and safety in the workplace, companies and various institutions have implemented

worksite injury-prevention programs (United States Department of Labor, 2020). Research

showed that more than 70% of United States employers offer workplace wellness programs

(Valet, 2015). During his presidency, President George W. Bush expressed concern for

Americans’ lack of activity, poor dietary habits, and insufficient protocols for health

improvement. Consequently, he signed an executive order to promote health and fitness for the

general public (Drennan et al., 2006).

Programs Designed to Mitigate Injuries and Illnesses

Following the 1970 OSHA Act and Cal-OSHA’s IIPP mandate of ensuring worker health

and safety in the workplace, employers have created and implemented programs designed to

mitigate injuries and illnesses in the workplace. One example is a West coast biotechnology

company that extended the support and promotion of health safety offered to employees to the

16
employees’ families as well. They provided safety fairs that included various holistic approaches

for healthful living, such as food, health checks, and massages (Williams, 2010). Also, the

United States Department of Health and Human Services created and launched the 1979 Healthy

People Initiative. Since its launch, employers and various public and private agencies have

created and implemented health promotion programs and services for workers and the

community (Kittleson & Larson, 2005). In October of 2004, the National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health held a symposium focused on the prevention of injury, illness,

and promoting healthful lifestyles (Drennan et al., 2006).

Preventing Disease

From 1994 through 1997, cancer, stroke, and heart disease were identified as the top

three killers of the American population (Kittleson & Larson, 2005). Additionally, Drennan et al.

(2006) stated that according to the Office of the Surgeon General, obesity posed a threat to health

as well because studies revealed that over 60% of American adults were obese and did not

exercise sufficiently for basic health. Obesity causes an increase of fat-to-weight ratio which is

proven to increase the risk of chronic disease (Drennan, 2006). Health promotion initiatives, such

as the Steps to a Healthier U.S. Workforce, served as a platform for awareness about disease risk

factors and prevention practices (Drennan, 2006). Each year, agencies such as the CDC, the

National Institute of Health, and the American Heart Association (AHA) produce critical

information about heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The information is

utilized as an educational resource for the public, healthcare administrators, policymakers,

researchers, media professionals, and others seeking the best available data on these factors and

conditions (AHA, 2018).

17
Promoting Mental Well-Being

There is a correlation between mental well-being and injury and illness. Mental well-

being is foundational for physical health, and studies revealed that employees who do not

experience mental well-being are more prone to injury and illness (Peterson, 2019). Studies

revealed worker mental stress increases the risk of heart disease, which is the leading cause of

death in the United States (Slopen et al., 2012). Mental stressors manifest in physical health

problems, such as hypertension, heart disease, sleep disturbances, musculoskeletal pain, and

fatigue (Nixon et al., 2011). Workplace mental health policies and programs have a positive

impact on mental and physical well-being (Nixon et al., 2011; Rajgopal, 2010). Referral service

programs, such as the employee assistance program, are resources for employees and their

eligible family members who seek critical incident counseling for emotional distress, marriage

and family issues, parenting issues, and addictions. These programs also offer several training

and educational services (CDC, 2019).

Preventing Injuries

In 1998, 44% of occupational injuries reported in the United States were sprains and

strains (Fragala et al., 2003). Sprain and strain injuries have kept momentum. Across the United

States in 2005, sprains and strains accounted for more than 40% of the injuries requiring days

away from work (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006), and in 2015, 80% of private industry worker

injuries resulted from sprains and strains (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).

Companies have created and implemented programs to reduce workplace injuries;

however, a healthful workplace takes commitment and understanding that a unique approach is

needed for each work environment (Burton, 2008). Ergonomic and stretching programs are

valuable injury-prevention tools used to mitigate employee sprain and strain injuries (Chim,

2014; Drennan et al., 2006).

18
 Ergonomics. Ergonomics is described as the science of fitting the work environment to

the employee, and the term comes from the Greek words ergon, which means work, and nomoi,

which refers to natural laws (State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-

CIO, 2012). Ergonomists study the relationship between work environment demands and the

human body (Choi & Woletz, 2015). In 1999, the OSHA Ergonomic Standard was released and

mandated for employers as a strategy to reduce and prevent sprains and strains (Center for

Disease Control, 2020). Eight risk factors cause sprains and strains in the workplace: repetition,

excessive force, awkward postures, static postures, vibration, poorly designed tools and

equipment, extreme temperature, and poorly designed workspaces (State Building &

Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO, 2012).

Stretching Programs. Workplace stretching exercise programs are used in various

sectors as a first defense against sprain and strain injuries (Drennan, 2006). In a study conducted

over a 3-month period on employees at construction sites working in strenuous positions, results

showed that a morning 10-minute daily exercise routine maintained or increased joint and

muscle flexibility and endurance (Ahlborge & Holmstrom, 2005). Researchers found that

stretching contributed to increased worker physical range of motion and decreased discomfort

associated with sprain and strains (Choi & Woletz, 2015). Additional benefits of stretching

exercises are improved posture, increased flexibility, stress relief, and improved circulation

(Choi & Woletz, 2015).

Employee Engagement in Programs

As sprain and strain injuries continue to lead nationally as the most prevalent

occupational injury, and with OSHA mandates requiring employers to address them, many

employers have created and implemented programs. In the United States, 68% of employers

offer worksite programs; however, studies showed there is lack of engagement in the programs,

19
and approximately only 50% to 75% of employees participate (Fletcher et al., 2008; Nohammer

& Stummer, 2014; Society of Human Resource Management, 2011; Toker et al., 2014).

Research indicated there are various barriers and motivators for employee engagement in

workplace programs designed to prevent and mitigate injuries and illnesses (Fletcher et., 2008;

Lai, 2009).

Barriers to Engagement

Studies showed there were various barriers for employee participation in company

programs such as program design, self-efficacy, work involvement, lack of management support,

benefit expectations, and organizational culture (Fletcher et al., 2008; Nohammer & Stummer,

2013; Toker et al., 2015). A major barrier was related to program design, such as access to

location, time limitations to participate, and faulty synchronization between employee

availability and program schedule (Fletcher et al., 2008; Nohammer & Stummer, 2013; Toker et

al., 2015). Another major barrier was employee self-efficacy. Studies showed that employees did

not feel physically capable of performing the exercises because they felt fearful and self-

conscious (Fletcher et al., 2008; Nohammer & Stummer, 2013).

Work involvement was another barrier. Employees believed they were too busy with

work to participate. Additionally, employees’ low interest in participation was related to low

expectations of program benefits (Nohammer & Stummer, 2013; Toker et al., 2015). Insufficient

management support for employee participation in the program and an unstable organizational

culture was another key finding. Program participation suffered when the leadership’s primary

emphasis was on productivity, performance, and profit, and not on employee health and safety

(Drennan et al., 2006; Nohammer & Stummer, 2013).

20
Motivators for Engagement

There are extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors that drive employee engagement

(Lai, 2009). An example of extrinsic motivation is the workplace environment. Studies on

employee engagement in workplace programs indicated that employees are motivated to engage

in programs when their leaders support the programs and enthusiastically participate in them

(Drennan et al., 2006). Another extrinsic motivator is the positive interpersonal relationships

employees have with their leaders. Employees are motivated to engage when they experience

supporting and caring relationship with their leadership. (Lai, 2009). Self-efficacy and value are

intrinsic motivators that influence employee engagement. Research showed that, when

employees believe in their ability to accomplish a goal and perceive the program as valuable,

they are motivated intrinsically and will engage in the task or behavior (Clark & Estes, 2008;

Rouse, 2016).

Authentic Leadership. Developed by Bill George (2007), authentic leadership is an

approach to leadership that focuses on five essential leader attributes: authentic leaders lead with

their heart, understand and have passion for their purpose, are core values-driven, create trusting

relationships, and are self-disciplined (George, 2003; Northouse, 2016). Authentic leaders lead

with their heart, and serve their people with compassion, empathy, and make tough decisions

from an intuitive and cognitive space (George, 2007; Northouse, 2016).

An authentic leader has a passion-filled purpose. When leaders serve without a passionate

purpose, they become susceptible to lead from a place of narcissism because they are ego-driven

(George, 2007). Conversely, authentic leaders are core values-driven and lead with integrity;

they make decisions from a place of conviction to do the right thing (Northouse, 2016). Creating

trusting relationships is an essential mark of an authentic leader. They understand the

foundational ingredient for building and creating a positive work environment is by fostering and

21
sustaining relationships built on trust (George, 2007). Authentic leaders live a self-disciplined

life. They understand the importance of the congruence between actions and words, and they

model their words with actions (George, 2003; Northouse, 2016).

A critical step in becoming an authentic leader is a transformational journey that occurs

when leaders embrace various crises in their lives. George (2007) refers to these crises as

crucibles, which are essential for becoming an authentic leader. Crucibles are adversities

experienced in life and are the foundation for pain, growth, and change that leaders can use as a

force for transforming organizations (George, 2007). Instead of being victimized by their

crucible, authentic leaders utilize their crucibles as a driving force for leading organizations with

empathy, compassion, vulnerability, and passion (George, 2003; 2007).

Influence of Authentic Leadership on Employee Engagement. There is a correlation

between authentic leadership and employee engagement. Authentic leaders are aware of their

influence on people and know how to build trusting relationships; consequently, they are able to

engage employees toward a common vision (George 2007; Penger & Cerne, 2014). In a study

about authentic leadership’s influence on employee engagement, a survey of 386 workers from

1,500 Taiwanese service and manufacturing companies indicated that employees who trusted

their leaders were more positively engaged. Trust is the basis of meaningful relationships

between leader and employee, and research showed that a mutually reinforcing relationship

between trust and work engagement exists (Ahmed & Hassan, 2011). Another study about

employee engagement resulting from authentic leadership involved 391 workers from a variety

of industries in the United States; the findings indicated that employee engagement was a

byproduct of authentic leadership (Jiang & Luo, 2018).

22
 The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Framework

For this study, a modified Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model with a focus on

motivation and organizational influences was used as the conceptual framework. This framework

focuses on identifying, evaluating, and analyzing individual and organizational performance by

understanding how motivation and organizational gaps affect actual performance level and

desired organizational goal. The identification of key business goals is the first step. Next is

determining performance gaps, followed by gap analysis. The fourth step is cause validation and

prioritization. The following step is solution development. More than 60% of organizational

change strategies utilized by companies are not sustained as a result of misdiagnosis and

assumption of performance gaps, which leads to the implementation of inappropriate solutions

(Clark & Estes, 2008). The last and most critical step is results evaluation. Gap analysis is a

methodical and systematic approach to effective and sustainable organizational change (Clark &

Estes, 2008).

This study was designed as an exploratory study. The goal was to identify both assets and

gaps that affect performance. Once the stakeholder goal and competency were determined,

motivation and organizational influences on stakeholder capacity were generated and based on

context-specific general learning and motivation literature. These influences will be presented

next.

Field Operations Employee Motivation and Organizational Influences

Workers in the United States suffer from sprain and strain injuries every seven seconds.

These injuries cause debilitating pain, and harm workers’ lives personally, economically, and

professionally (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006; National Safety Council, 2019). Approximately

70% of companies in the United States offer various worksite injury and illness prevention

programs to mitigate workers’ physical and economic burden (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006;

23
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015; Society of Human Resource Management,

2011). Despite the injury and illness programs that employers offer, research indicated that only

50% to 75% of workers engaged in the programs (Fletcher et al., 2008; Nohammer & Stummer,

2014; Society of Human Resource Management, 2011; Toker et al., 2014).

There is a relationship between employee engagement and authentic leadership style

(Alok & Israel, 2012). Authentic leadership is a critical factor in addressing organizational

challenges. If corporations focus on hiring and developing authentic leaders, they will nurture

employee engagement in their organizations (B. Fielkow, personal communication, October 23,

2018; George, 2007). This section adopted a modified Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis

framework to identify the motivation and organizational factors that influence FOOU employee

engagement in an injury-prevention program.

Motivation Influences

The literature review focused on motivation-related influences that are pertinent to

FOOU employee participation in the injury-prevention program. According to Clark and Estes

(2008), motivation is important because it is the drive that propels employee behavior to

complete tasks. It involves three motivational indicators: active choice, persistence, and mental

effort. Active choice is characterized by an intentional action to complete a work goal.

Persistence is the decision to continue pursuing a goal despite any distractions or challenges.

Once a person chooses a goal and is tenaciously persistent to complete it, they decide how much

mental effort they will invest to complete the goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Several motivational

constructs bring about the motivated behaviors of choice, persistence, and mental effort, such as

self-efficacy, value orientation, attributions, task value, and goal orientation. The two

motivational constructs discussed in this section are self-efficacy and task value.

24
Employee Self-Efficacy Related to Participation in the Injury-Prevention Program

This study reviewed literature that focuses on the underlying factors that drive individual

motivation, collective beliefs and experiences, and perception about the potential of being

effective as emphasized by Clark and Estes (2008). At the core of human behavior is the desire

to be effective; however, according to Bandura’s (2000) self-efficacy theory, the motivation and

commitment to accomplish goals, the mental effort a person chooses to invest to achieve them,

and the persistence to overcome challenges in the face of distraction are influenced by how

positively or pessimistically the person thinks and believes (Bandura, 2000; Clark & Estes,

2008).

The FOOU employees’ motivation to participate in the injury prevention program is

diminished if they do not believe they can perform the exercises. For example, if an employee is

unable to perform the prescribed exercises because of their physical inability, they may be

apprehensive to participate in the program with modifications. Modifications can give the

perception that if they cannot perform the exercises as prescribed, they will be deemed incapable

of meeting the required physical work demands. Research stated that leaders can nurture self-

efficacy, reinforce collective-efficacy, and encourage engagement by creating a positive team

environment that encourages commitment to the well-being of the group (Bandura, 2000; Clark

& Estes, 2008; George, 2007; Goette et al., 2012). This study explored whether field operations

employees possessed the confidence in their ability to fully participate in the injury prevention

program.

Employee Value of Participation in Injury-Prevention Program

What a person perceives as valuable predicts their decision regarding what to engage in,

persist at, or invest their mental effort into (Clark & Estes, 2008). The study explored employees’

value perceptions pertinent to engaging in an injury-prevention program. Everyone is unique and

25
is motivated intrinsically in various ways. Motivation is the driving force for business success

and uncovering what a person values and connecting them to the benefit of achieving business

goals will increase their work commitment (Clark & Estes, 2008; Parijat & Bagga, 2014).

Expectancy value theory of motivation provides a framework for assessing, interpreting,

and evaluating what propels employees to make decisions, their persistence, and mental effort

for the task choice (Chiang & Jang, 2008; Clark & Estes, 2008; Trautwein et al., 2012).

Expectancy value theory served as an effective model to explore what specific extrinsic

outcomes motivate the FOOU employees to participate in the injury-prevention program. In the

FOOU, leaders espouse health and safety as an organization value and priority; however, as it

relates to participation in the injury program, more value was given to production and

performance. Prioritizing performance and production does not reinforce the value of

participation in the program and the benefit it provides (Williams, 2010). Table 2 identifies the

motivation constructs and motivation influences that were related to employee engagement in the

injury-prevention program.

Table 2

Motivation Influences Related to Employee Engagement in the Injury-Prevention Program

Motivation construct Motivation influence

Self-Efficacy Field operations organization employees need to believe they are
capable of fully participating in the injury-prevention program.
Utility Value Field operations organization employees need to see the value of
participation in the injury-prevention program.

26
Organizational Influences

According to Clark and Estes (2008), understanding organizational gaps that hinder

performance is key for organizational success. Cultural settings and models are important

influences on organizational change efforts and achievement (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).

Successful change can be attained when company leaders prioritize their organizational climate

through practices, incentives, and policies (Schneider et al., 1996). The three organizational

influences explored in this section are 1) the need for the organization to create a culture that

encourages positive perceptions about the usefulness of the injury-prevention program, 2) the

need for the organization needs to create a culture of safety that inspires employees to participate

in the injury-prevention program, and 3) the need for the organization to have accountability

policies and protocols about participation expectations in the injury-prevention program.

Additionally, authentic leadership theory was used to explore the three organizational influences

as it pertains to the FOOU leaders and employees.

Organizational Priority for Creating a Culture of Positive Perceptions

Culture and teams derive power from shared and reinforced assumptions and are

influenced by a larger organizational environment (Druskat & Wolff, 2015; Schein, 2017).

Personal or collective beliefs and perceptions are powerful predictors of human behavior (Clark

& Estes, 2008). Employee commitment to their organization, its leaders, and company business

goals is driven by the employees’ perceptions and beliefs. Both individual and group beliefs and

perceptions are the foundation of culture.

This study explores the organizational influences on employee perceptions of the

usefulness of the injury-prevention program, such as their perception of leaderships’ espoused

words versus their actions regarding worker safety and health. Lack of congruence between

leaders’ actions and their words perpetuates employee perception of corporate hypocrisy

27
(Wagner et al., 2009). Corporate hypocrisy is characterized as the belief that a firm claims to be

something that it is not (Wagner et al., 2009). A mismatch between leaders’ words and their

actions fosters employee resentment, distrust, and apathy for safety (George, 2007; Williams,

2010). One of the character attributes of an authentic leader is to lead by their values

consistently. Integrity is the compass that guides their behavior and practices (George, 2003).

The FOOU leaders set the standard for behavior. By focusing on leading their organizations

utilizing authentic leadership attributes, they have an opportunity to influence and transform the

safety culture (George, 2003). Additionally, leaders will improve organizations by emphasizing

and modeling that safety is more important than performance and productivity and by

prioritizing safety when making decisions that affect the organization, (Williams, 2010).

When leaders do not exemplify integrity and fail to lead by example, employees can

believe that the company and organization care more for productivity than their health and safety

(William, 2010). Consequently, employees are more apt to take safety shortcuts and not

participate in programs, which puts them at risk for injuries (Avolio et al., 2004; George, 2003;

Northouse, 2016; Williams, 2010). Conversely, when leaders exemplify integrity, lead with

purpose, are consistent in words and actions, and do not live by double-standards, they build

credibility, foster and sustain trust, and build thriving organizations where employees fulfill their

potential (Avolio et al., 2004; Clark & Estes, 2008; George, 2003; Williams, 2010).

Inspiring an Organizational Culture of Safety to Participate in the Injury-Prevention Program

This section will explore how inspiring an organizational culture influences FOOU

employee participation in the injury-prevention program. Culture reflects the beliefs, language,

behaviors, and practices of an organization because culture is dynamic, and it is transferred to

others in the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008; Northouse, 2016; William, 2010). Leaders set

the tone for their organizational culture. Studies show that a leader has the power to derail or

28
destroy an organization as well as to transform an organization and rally employees toward a

shared vision (Burker, 2018; George, 2007).

Authentic leadership, culture, and employee engagement are interdependent, and when

leaders foster a culture of trust, support, compassion, and encouragement, employees are

inspired, engaged, and the organizational culture thrives (Avolio et al., 2004; George, 2003,

George et al., 2007). Leaders can develop their own authentic leadership style over a course of

time (George, 2003); it takes commitment, tenacity, and conscious effort (Sweetman, 2016).

Leaders play a critical role in connecting safety to health and fitness programs. For the FOOU

leaders to inspire employee participation in the injury-prevention program, it is critical that they

cultivate a safety culture that encourages and models organizational commitment to the health

and safety of their employees. It is then that employees will embrace and engage in the programs

(Drennan et al., 2006; William, 2010). This study explored how FOOU employees perceive the

organization’s leadership influences their participation in the injury-prevention program.

Accountability Measures to Participate in the Injury-Prevention Program

An additional ingredient for change effort success is to identify and assess cultural

settings and the influence they have on achieving performance goals. When cultural settings

barriers are not addressed, performance problems arise (Clark & Estes, 2008). A leader’s mindset

is a critical component for effective change efforts. It is important for leaders to prepare their

organization for change by understanding the cultural climate, identifying and assessing the

organizational needs, and then taking necessary strategic and methodical action (Burke, 2018;

Clark & Estes, 2008; Northouse, 2016; Williams, 2010). Leaders must model the behavior they

desire to foster and sustain, be passionate about the change effort, and align their goals with

those of the organization and company (Burke, 2018; Clark & Estes, 2008; George, 2003).

Without specific and clear goals about leaders’ expectations, employees are unable to connect

29
the importance with the corporate and organizational goals; consequently, they create their own

goals and practices that may not align with the organization or the company (Clark & Estes,

2008). Table 3 lists the organizational influences that are related to employee engagement in the

injury prevention program.

Table 3

Organizational Influences Related to Employee Engagement in the Injury-Prevention Program

Organizational influence Organizational influences

category
Cultural Model Influence 1
Cultural Model Influence 2
Cultural Setting Influence
The organization needs to have a culture that encourages
positive perceptions about the usefulness of the injury-
prevention program.
The organization needs to have a culture of safety that inspires
employees to participate in the injury-prevention program.
The organization needs to have accountability policies and
protocols about participation expectations in the injury-
prevention program.

30
 Conceptual Framework

A framework guides a study and draws upon literature, concepts, and theories (Merriam

& Tisdell, 2016). A modified Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis was used as the framework for

this study to explore the motivation and organizational influences on employee engagement in

the organization injury prevention program. Authentic leadership theory was also used to further

explore the organizational influences. These influences served as the foundational structures for

this study and are presented in the conceptual framework illustration beginning from left to right

(Figure 1 on the following page), and Table 4 (on subsequent page) identifies and further defines

the figure abbreviations.

31
Figure 1

Conceptual Framework Diagram

32
Table 4

Codes, Constructs, and Influences in the Conceptual Framework Diagram

Code Construct Influence

MSE Motivation: Self- Field operations organization employees need to believe they are
efficacy capable of fully participating in the injury-prevention program.
MUV Motivation: Field operations organization employees need to see the value of
Utility value participation in the injury-prevention program.
CMI1 Cultural Model The organization needs to have a culture that encourages positive
Influence 1 perceptions about the usefulness of the injury-prevention
program.
CMI2 Cultural Model The organization needs to have a culture of safety that inspires
Influence 2 employees to participate in the injury-prevention program.
CSI1 Cultural Setting The organization needs to have accountability policies and
Influence 1 protocols about participation expectations in the injury-
prevention program.
ALQ Authentic Supervisors need to display the five dimensions of authentic
Leadership leadership: heart, purpose, values, relationships, and self-
Dimensions discipline.

The far-left cylindrical-shape support pillar illustrates the motivation influence, self-

efficacy (MSE). This influence represents employees’ need to believe they are capable of fully

participating in the injury-prevention program. The next pillar immediately to the right illustrates

the motivation influence, utility value. This influence represents employees’ need to see the

value of participation in the injury-prevention program. To optimize program engagement, it is

important for the field operations employees to believe in their ability to perform the injury

prevention exercises and to acknowledge the program to be of value. Self-efficacy and utility

value are foundational for behavior and performance because human beings will engage in an

activity if they perceive themselves as competent and that benefits will derive from achieving a

specific task (Bandura, 2012; Clark & Estes, 2008).

33
 The third cylindrical-shape support pillar illustrates the first cultural model organizational

influence. This influence represents that the organization needs to have a culture that encourages

positive perceptions about the usefulness of the injury-prevention program. The fourth support

pillar illustrates the second cultural model organizational influence, which represents that the

organization needs to have a culture of safety that inspires employees to participate in the injury-

prevention program. It is important for organizational leaders to foster a culture of safety and one

that encourages positive perceptions about the usefulness of an injury prevention program

(Williams, 2010; Drennan et al., 2006).

The fifth support pillar illustrates the cultural setting influence. This influence represents

that the organization needs to have accountability policies and protocols about participation

expectations in the injury-prevention program. To optimize employee engagement, it is essential

for organizational leaders to establish accountability policies and protocols pertaining to

participation in an injury prevention program (William, 2010). The sixth and final cylindrical-

shape support pillar illustrates the five dimensions of authentic leadership theory: heart, purpose,

values, relationships, and self-discipline.

Heart is the first authentic leadership dimension. Leading with heart is vital for

optimizing employee engagement because according to George (2003), leaders who lead with

their heart possess compassion, insight, empathy, are sensitive to their employee needs, and

genuinely desire to help those they lead. Additionally, authentic leaders who lead with their heart

can foster a culture of trust, consequently, they are able to engage their employees toward a

common vision and transform organizations (George, 2003).

Purpose is the next authentic leadership dimension. Leaders who understand their

purpose foster a culture of trust, enthusiasm, and commitment (George, 2003, 2007; Northouse,

2016). According to Covelli et al. (2017), authentic leaders who lead with purposeful meaning

34
are better skilled to manage organizational challenges effectively. Consequently, employees trust

authentic leaders and are secure they will make decisions for the good of the organization and

not for self-gain (Alok & Israel, 2012).

Values is the next dimension. Values drive leader behavior and influence the

organizational culture, and leaders who lead from their values, such as integrity, avoid egocentric

decisions that compromise their values (Alok & Israel, 2012; George et al., 2007). Relationship

follows values. Building enduring relationships are foundational for authentic leadership.

Leaders who are committed to establishing enduring relationships foster trust with their

employees and shareholders; consequently, their employees are loyal and engaged (George,

2003, 2007; Northouse, 2016).

Self-discipline is the last authentic leadership dimension. Self-disciplined leaders align

their values, intentions, and behaviors, and self-disciplined leaders demonstrate consistency

between what they say and what they do (Mazutis, 2010). Authentic leaders understand the

importance of practicing self-discipline in their personal and professional lives, such as

committing to congruency between actions and words, and the positive influence this

congruency has on engaging employees and transforming an organization (George, 2003;

Northouse, 2016).

Finally, the importance of maintaining the upward directional arrows in between each

pillar structure serves as a metaphor for the relational importance and relevance of connecting

the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model and the five dimensions of authentic leadership

theory to achieve employee engagement in the organizational injury prevention program and the

2023 organizational performance goal of a 25% reduction in sprain and strain injuries in the field

operations workforce.

35
 Summary

This chapter explored literature pertinent to employee engagement in an organizational

injury-prevention program. The literature revealed the correlation between employee

engagement and motivational constructs, such as self-efficacy and utility value (Clark & Estes,

2008). Additionally, the literature demonstrated the organizational influences that propel change

efforts forward, such as creating a culture of positive perceptions about the usefulness of the

injury-prevention program, the organization needs to have a culture of safety that inspires

employees to participate in the injury-prevention program, the importance of creating and

implementing organizational accountability measures, and authentic leadership theory (Burke,

2018; Clark & Estes, 2008; George, 2007; Northouse, 2016; Williams, 2010). A modified Clark

and Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework with a focus on the motivation and

organizational influences was explored to gain understanding about their influence on the FOOU

employee participation in the organizational injury-prevention program.

36
 Chapter Three: Methodology

The purpose of the study was to explore the interdependence between the motivation and

organizational influences as they relate to FOOU employees’ engagement in the organization

injury-prevention program. This chapter outlines data collection methods, instrumentation,

participant selection and rationale, and concludes with ethical implications, the role of the

researcher, and a discussion of limitations and delimitations.

Research Questions

The research questions used to frame this study were the following:

1. What do employees perceive as obstacles, from the lens of the motivation and

organizational influences, that preventing them from participating in the injury

prevention program?

2. What do employees perceive as potential factors that can motivate them to participate in

the injury prevention program in their work?

3. What influence, if any, does authentic leadership have on the employees’ likelihood of

participating in the injury prevention program?

Overview of Methodology

A qualitative research approach was used for this study. According to Merriam and

Tisdell (2016), the goal of qualitative research is to explore and understand the perspective of

those who are being studied and the meaning of their experience. According to McEwan and

McEwan (2003), in qualitative research, the focus is on the explanation and interpretation of

what the researcher hears, observes, and sees. The data source used for this study was semi-

structured interviews. This approach was best suited for this study that sought to explore, in their

own words, FOOU employee perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs about the motivators and

obstacles related to participating in the injury-prevention program. Semi-structured interviews

37
provided the space for rich, in-depth data gathering (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Table 5 indicates

the data collection method used for each research question.

Table 5

Qualitative Data Collection Method Data Source

Research questions Interviews

1.What do employees perceive as obstacles, X

from the lens of the motivation and
organizational influences, that prevent them
from participating in the injury prevention
program?

2.What do employees perceive as potential X

factors that can motivate them to participate
in the injury prevention program?

3.What influence, if any, does authentic X

leadership have on the employees’ likelihood
of participating in the injury prevention
program?

38
 Data Collection and Analysis Plan

The data source detailed in this section is interviews. For this data source, a description of

the participating stakeholders, instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedures are

detailed. Additionally, strategies for maximizing credibility and trustworthiness are discussed.

Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016),

interviewing is a common source of data in a qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were

chosen and were best suited for this study because the purpose of this research was to explore

stakeholder motivation and organizational influences on participating in the injury-prevention

program. The semi-structured interview approach is not rigid. Instead, the questions in this

approach are open-ended and worded with uncomplicated and easy-to-understand vocabulary.

This allowed the participants to share their experiences and beliefs in their own words (Merriam

& Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, this interview approach allowed asking probing questions for

clarification of meaning or as follow-up questions before the interview concluded (Merriam &

Tisdell, 2016).

Participating Stakeholders

Purposive sampling was used for this study because the participant experience reflects the

topic of study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The participating stakeholders were recruited from

five work locations within FOOU that had the least participation in the injury prevention

program. These work locations suffer 80% of the company’s sprain and strain injuries (WUC,

2019). Initially, an email invitation was to be extended to 40 employees within the five locations,

with the goal that 10 employees would self-select to participate in the study. If more than 10

individuals would have volunteered, 10 would have been randomly chosen to participate in the

interviews. However, because of COVID-19’s impact on this workforce, an organizational leader

requested the researcher create a recruitment flyer for distribution to the employees. The flyer,

39
stating the purpose of the study, the university and program association, the researcher contact

information, was shared with leadership. The leadership distributed the flyer to the stakeholder

sample within the five locations and employees self-selected. Nine employees contacted the

researcher to express interest in study participation.

Interview Instrumentation

The researcher conducted the data collection. This study did not rely on instruments

created by other researchers and allowed for a person-to-person encounter with the participants

in order to elicit rich data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A pre-

interview checklist was used to ensure required steps were taken to conduct effective interviews.

This included basic information such as the interviewee’s name, time, date, and location of the

interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The interview protocol reviewed with the participants

consisted of an introduction, stating the researcher’s name and the purpose of the study as well as

an overview of the general interview structure, such as the number of questions asked, interview

length, and definition of terms used in the interview (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

Interview Procedures

An interview guide containing the questions was used to ensure the topic was covered in

its entirety (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews were recorded and included notetaking as

a precautionary measure in the event of a recording mishap. Recording the interviews allowed

the researcher to focus on the participant. The 16 open-ended interview questions created from

the research questions were centered around the purpose of the study, which was to explore the

motivation and organizational influences related to FOOU employee perceptions about

participation in the injury-prevention program.

The first two questions were designed to explore the participants’ experience or history

and understanding of the organizational purpose of the injury-prevention program. The following

40
four questions were meant to elicit understanding of whether the participants believed the injury-

prevention program merited value. The next two questions were related to motivation,

specifically self-efficacy, and value. They were designed to elicit responses regarding whether

the participants believed they can perform the injury-prevention program exercises and explore

their beliefs about program value. The last four questions focused on the organizational

influences that motivated or acted as barriers for engagement in the injury-prevention program.

Three questions were included and designed as reminders for the researcher to ask if clarification

or follow-up information was needed (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

One-hour Zoom interviews were conducted, and telephone interviews were prepared as a

backup option in the event the participants did not have access to Zoom, but all participants were

able to access Zoom for the interviews, so telephone interviews were not needed. Explicit

permission from the participant was requested and obtained for audio and video recording. Once

the recording was transcribed, the researcher destroyed the interview recording.

The recording feature was turned off by default at the beginning of each meeting with the

interviewees until permission to record was obtained from the interviewee; this was done to

ensure participant confidentiality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To further protect interviewee

confidentiality, the option for the interviewee to mask their name during the Zoom session was

offered. In the event the interviewee was not comfortable with a Zoom recording, even in an

audio-only format where their video was blank and name was masked, the researcher was

prepared to record the session via phone or another device if the interviewee permitted; however,

these measures were not needed, as all participants agreed to being recorded.

Interview Data Analysis

Once the data were collected, the next step was consolidation and interpretation to make

meaning of the data the researcher has heard, seen, and read to answer the research questions

41
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The data analysis process entailed

various steps. The first step was the organization and preparation of the data to be analyzed and

included transcribing interviews and typing field notes. Computer data analysis software was

used for aid in this step (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The next step was reading and reviewing

data to generate ideas from the interviewees’ responses (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &

Tisdell, 2016).

Coding the data was the next step. Coding involves assigning codes to the categories

created from the notes, audio, or recordings captured during the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell,

2016). The codes reveal major findings in qualitative research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For

this study, a priori motivation and organizational influence-codes were used to gain

understanding of collected data. Lastly, a qualitative narrative was used to describe the themes

uncovered in the data analysis process. The narrative included the researcher chronicling events,

detailed discussions, visual figures, and perspectives from multiple interviewees (Creswell &

Creswell, 2018). It was important, as the researcher, to analyze the responses gathered in this

process and identify the themes that reflected the motivation and organizational influences

pertaining to employee engagement in the injury prevention program.

Credibility and Trustworthiness

As the key data collection instrument, to ensure credibility and trustworthiness, it was

critical that I maintained constant vigilance and reflexivity about my ethical conduct, personal

beliefs, and biases throughout the process. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), in

qualitative research, neither research design, analytical techniques, procedures, nor methods

ensure rigor. Instead, it requires the researcher’s commitment to a rigorous thought process about

conducting the research ethically, which is essential for maximizing credibility and

trustworthiness.

42
 Another method to maximize credibility and trustworthiness is the use of triangulation.

According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), triangulation ensures credibility by utilizing multiple

sources of data. Credibility and trustworthiness was ensured for this study by cross-checking by

conducting nine interviews to obtain multiple perspectives on the study topic. Researcher

reflexivity is another strategy to maximize credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell,

2016). It was critical that I reflected constantly on the data collecting and analyzing process to

ensure my positionality did not interfere with the study’s integrity. Another manner in which

credibility and trustworthiness was maximized was through asking follow-up and probing

questions to gain additional participant insight and perspective (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Ethics and the Role of the Researcher

As the key data collection instrument in this study, I needed to maintain constant

awareness and reflexivity about my own personal assumptions, values, and biases. To address

potential ethical issues, participants were informed about the data collection process with an

information sheet and were assured of confidentiality. Additionally, the interview participants

were informed of their ability to withdraw from the interview any time without reprisal (Merriam

& Tisdell, 2016).

Constant awareness and reflexivity was critical to mitigate positionality so that the

proximity to the subject or relationships with the participants did not interfere with the research

and findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Throughout the data collection process, I was respectful

and non-threatening, and I held myself responsible and accountable throughout the process.

43
 Chapter Four: Findings

This study used a modified Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework to

explore the motivation and organizational influences as they relate to the Field Operations

Organizational Unit (FOOU) employees’ engagement in the organization injury-prevention

program designed to reduce sprains and strains. In addition, authentic leadership theory was used

to explore organizational influences, such as how leader attributes and leader-employee

relational dynamics influence engagement. The research questions that guided this study are the

following:

1) What do employees perceive as obstacles, from the lens of the motivation and

organizational influences, that prevent them from participating in the injury-prevention

program?

2) What do employees perceive as potential factors that can motivate them to participate in

the injury-prevention program in their work?

3) What influence, if any, does authentic leadership have on the likelihood of employee

participation in the injury-prevention program?

The qualitative data collection process included nine semi-structured interviews

conducted via Zoom. The semi-structured interview approach allowed the participants to share

their experiences and beliefs in their own words to describe the barriers and motivators that

influenced their participation in the injury-prevention program. The second data source was

documents and artifacts, which included the organizational accident prevention policy manual.

The objective was to analyze policies and procedures to determine if organizational expectations

exist for employee participation in the injury-prevention program. The data analysis began

during the semi-structured interviews and continued through the a priori coding process.

Observation of emergent themes occurred simultaneously during the interviews and coding. This

44
chapter presents an overview of the participating stakeholders and the findings from the

qualitative semi-structured interviews.

Participating Stakeholders

Using purposive sampling, the stakeholder population invited to participate in the semi-

structured interviews were 40 FOOU ethnically diverse male employees over 18 years of age,

from the work location that had both the least participation in the injury prevention program, and

an employee population that suffers 80% of the company’s sprain and strain injuries. Initially, an

email invitation was to be extended to 40 employees, with the goal that 10 employees would

self-select to participate in the study. If more than 10 individuals would have volunteered, 10

would have been randomly chosen to participate in the interviews. However, because of the

COVID-19 impact on this workforce, an organizational leader requested a recruitment flyer to

distribute. The flyer stated the purpose of the study, the university and program association, and

contact information and was emailed to the organizational leader. The leader distributed the flyer

to the stakeholder population sample and employees self-selected. Nine employees contacted the

researcher to express interest in study participation. The participants’ years of service with the

company ranged from 12 to 31 years. The nine interviews were all conducted via Zoom and

audio-recorded with participant permission. For protection of the participants and to ensure

confidentiality, pseudonyms were assigned to each name; job classifications and work locations

were omitted from this study. Each audio file was transcribed utilizing Rev software then coded

using Delve software and Microsoft Excel for further analysis. The organizational and

motivation a priori codes revealed in this study along with emergent themes were used to

construct overarching study themes. Table 6 (on the following page) illustrates the study

participants’ demographics by their names (pseudonyms) and years of service with the company.

45
Table 6

Participant Pseudonyms and Years of Service

Participant # of years of
pseudonym service
John 20
Michael 16.5
Christopher 12
Thomas 15
Larry 26
Henry 11.5
Jack 18
William 31
Gerry 24

Research Question 1: What Do Employees Perceive As Obstacles, From the Lens of the

Motivation and Organizational Influences, That Prevent Them From Participating in the

Injury Prevention Program?

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were the data collection method used to explore

the first research question related to the motivation and organizational influences participants

perceived as obstacles that prevented them from participating in the injury-prevention program.

The findings related to the motivation influences revealed that the organizational obstacles did

not deter the employees from participating in the program, thus the motivation influences will be

covered in the findings for Research Question 2. This section includes the findings about the

participants perceptions, from the lens of organizational influences, that prevented them from

participating in the program.

The findings from the nine participants semi-structured interviews related to the

organizational influences that they perceived as obstacles from preventing their participation in

the program were determined as a need. Employees reported that the prioritization of emergent

46
work and COVID-19 served as obstacles which prevented their participation in the injury-

prevention program.

Field Operations Organization Prioritization of Emergent Work as an Obstacle

Seven out of nine interviewees described that their organizational leaders and immediate

supervisors prioritized safety; however, four out of the seven participants stated their leaders

prioritized emergent work over safety. William shared that if emergent work came up at seven in

the morning, which is the time given to employees to perform the program exercises, “The FMS

will be skipped over, you are going right to work and getting right to your work. And that

happens all the time. Safety is not the number one priority, first thing in the morning.” William

(all participant names are pseudonyms) described the mixed messages from the organizational

leaders and his immediate supervisor by noting, “Now, the hierarchy might say, we want safety,

safety, safety, but the lower management is about production.” Additionally, William added that

if one challenges the leader about being allowed to perform the exercises, “he’d just say, hey,

you can do FMS later. Productivity and not canceling outages and a whole lot of other things

[…] take priority over safety.”

Michael described his experience about emergent work in a similar way. He said, “If it’s

a really pressing job and high profile, we're willing to bend some of the safety rules or flat out

ignore them.” Jack indicated that even in the middle of performing the exercises, they were

asked to stop because of work: “I’ll be honest, sometimes we get rushed out to work and don't

get to finish the exercises.” Thomas shared that emergent work prioritized his personal safety

along with the crews’ safety. He noted:

They actually wanted me to travel to and through some fire roads and forestry department

roads that if they get snowed in, I would get my truck stuck. And I would be out there in

47
 the middle of nowhere, no radio communication, no cell phone communication, because

it's out of range.

After the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the interview participants responses in

this study, the findings in this section revealed that although the Field Operations Organization

prioritized safety, employees reported they perceived receiving mixed messages from the

leadership about the importance of safety. Interviewees reported that emergent work was

prioritized over safety and served as an obstacle that prevented them from participating in the

program.

COVID-19 as a Program Participation Obstacle

Seven out of nine interview participants described COVID-19 as an obstacle for their

participation in the injury-prevention program. John indicated that once COVID-19 restrictions

began, “I think it's been zero participation.” Henry shared a similar experience: “Well, again,

we're not currently stretching.” William stated that COVID-19 changed the on-site reporting, “so

we don't even report to our yard anymore. Nobody has done anything since COVID-19, as far as

I'm aware of.” Gerry described the personal impact on his body because of COVID-19. He said,

“When this pandemic started, and we stopped doing the FMS. When we stopped doing it at

work, I don't know about everybody else, but I really felt the difference.” Similarly, Michael

described how the injury-prevention program impacted his well-being. He said, “Well, when I

was doing it, it actually helped me with some mobility issues I had, but ever since this COVID

thing, they've since stopped it.”

Larry shared that he was looking forward to resuming participation in the program. He

said, “I'm a little saddened by it, and I'm eagerly waiting for the time where we can get back into

the crew room where it's spacious and we can perform our stretches.” Thomas shared that because

48
of the restrictions, they were not able to perform their exercises in the office and the outdoor

terrain was not suitable. He said,

We're not in a classroom setting anymore, especially due to COVID; we're on pods, and

we're no longer at the office. We could do outdoor exercises at our trucks, but a lot of

times, we're in an area where it's rocky or muddy.

The findings in this section revealed that COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, such as the

change in the site-reporting policies and unstable terrain at the job locations, were perceived as

obstacles for employee participation in the program. Additionally, the interviewees reported that

the COVID-19-related changes due to the pandemic restrictions affected their well-being

negatively, and reported they were anxiously awaiting to resume their participation in the

program.

Research Question 2: What Do Employees Perceive As Potential Factors That Can

Motivate Them to Participate in the Injury Prevention Program in Their Work?

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were the data collection method used to explore

this second research question related to the potential factors that motivated employee

participation in the program. The following section includes the motivation and organizational

influences findings that the participants perceived as potential factors which motivated them to

participate in the program.

Motivation Influences’ Findings

The findings from the nine participant semi-structured interviews related to the

motivation influences, self-efficacy, and utility value, which employees perceived as motivating

factors for their participation were determined as an asset. The collected data revealed that

employees reported high levels of self-efficacy to perform the injury-prevention exercises and

49
acknowledged the injury-prevention program to be of significant value were reported as

motivators for their participation.

Additional themes emerged in the semi-structured interviews related to utility value and

will be discussed in this section. Employees reported they experienced program benefits that

extended beyond work, such as decreased pain, lowered risk of injury, and improved well-being.

Additionally, employees reported that the program quality checks provided by the vendor

encouraged their participation in the program.

Employees Reported High Levels of Self-Efficacy

Interview participants were asked how they felt about their ability to perform the injury-

prevention exercises correctly. All nine participants reported they mastered all the injury-

prevention program exercises. Jack rated his ability to perform the exercises numerically. He

said, “I feel, for the most part, I would give it a 90% to 95% ratio that I can effectively perform

all of those stretches and exercises they've given us.”

Henry reported that he attributed his ability to perform the exercises correctly to his

attention to proper technique, desire to master the exercises, and practice. He noted, “In

anything, the more you do it, the better you get. Form is everything, so I tried to pay attention to

it. But wanted to get better and wanted to do better.” Christopher reported he mastered the

exercises including the more difficult exercises. He said, “I’m pretty confident. I found no

problem whatsoever in any of the exercises, sometimes even some of the exercises that were

above my grade.” Similar to Christopher, John shared:

I feel pretty good. I think I mastered some of the basic moves and timewise, I think half

an hour, that's what they're giving to us at work. I'll start with my hands, then my back,

the roller, then the other exercises. Depending on your phase, but I kind of really master a

few of those and I stick to them.

50
 The findings in this section revealed that employees reported high levels of self-efficacy,

and this functioned as a motivating factor for program participation. The findings also revealed

that participants were not only efficacious in performing the exercises, but expressed interest in

achieving mastery-level skills for performing the program exercises. The participants attributed

their exercise mastery to their attention to proper technique, their desire to master the exercises,

and practice.

Employees Acknowledge the Program to Have Significant Value

Interview participants were asked to describe the value, if any, of the injury-prevention

program and their perception of what they could gain from participation. Six out of the nine

interviewees reported that they perceived the program to be of significant value. Additional value

themes emerged during the interviews. The six interview participants indicated that the injury-

prevention program provided value beyond work. They reported that their program participation

contributed to a decrease in body pain, it improved their physical well-being, lowered their risk

of injury, and benefited their home life. Additionally, five of the six interviewees indicated that

the program quality checks provided by the vendor also encouraged their participation.

Program Participation Decreased Pain, Lowered Risk of Injury, and Improved

Well-Being. Christopher reported that he learned things in the program, and that he would

“share some of that information with family and friends. It is not only a tool only to stretch.”

Additionally, Christopher mentioned that he learned valuable information about nutrition

lifestyle changes. He said, “I use it as a tool to educate myself to diet. There was education about

eating properly, taking care of your body and how the body works so employees can exercise or

even eat healthier.”

Jack added that the program could add years to their careers as utility linemen. He said,

“You can gain longevity of the use of your body and body parts. This is a strenuous job. You use

51
every ounce of your body tissue, muscle, joints, and they hurt.” Henry added that the program

helped with his body because of the awkward body positions while working:

We just work in funky positions. We put our bodies through hard paces. It's more a

realization too at my age to say, hey, I got to take care of my body a little better. The

value in it was health, and longevity, physical care for my body right now.

Similarly, Thomas reported that because of his participation in the program, he

experienced less body pain and acquired better movement. He noted, “It means less pain. A lot

of times I had back issues. So, after doing the program exercises, it strengthened my back and

my core. I have better balance.” He concluded by describing additional benefits to his home life:

“Playing with my kids. I just feel overall better.” Thomas reported that as a utility lineman, he

worked in awkward positions daily. He said, “It’ll help reduce the risk of getting injured because

of all the different ways that we’re contorting our bodies every day. He added there was no

reason not to participate. He said, “Why wouldn't I want to do it? If it's something that's going to

make me more mobile and less susceptible to injury.”

Larry shared that he has experienced body issues in the past and that participation in the

program has alleviated them. He said, “I’ve had some hip issues that I think now I've gotten

healthier, as far as mobility wise.” He added “I had some back issues. Just like a car wearing

down. I was showing signs and I started doing a variety of these exercises and little by little a lot

of that stuff just went away.” Larry raved that by participating in the program, “you’ll strengthen

your back; you'll strengthen your abs and core.” He continued that because of his participation in

the program he avoided injuring other body parts “like putting my arm out of the socket. I can

associate the usefulness of it because of the things that we do at work.” Larry ended the

interview by noting, “By participating in the program, it's going to make you more valuable to

the company and less apt to get hurt.”

52
 Thomas reported he has noticed improvement and less pain since participating in the

program, “especially as the workforce is getting older and the daily tasks that we do over and

over. It has strengthened my back which means less pain. I feel better and it makes life better.”

He concluded that by participating in this program he feels as he did when he first started as a

lineman: “You gain all the movements you had before and that just makes our life better.”

Gerry expressed the same sentiments as Thomas; he said, “By going through the program

every day, my body feels so much better. I believe I’ll live longer. I'll give you a statement, I’ll

live longer.” He concluded the interview by adding, “My flexibility, my back doesn't hurt as

much, I'm more energetic because of it.”

The findings in this section revealed that the employee’s acknowledgement of the

program to have significantly valuable benefits that decreased their body pain, lowered their risk

of injury, and improved their well-being also extended beyond work. Participants reported that

they valued the program significantly because of the health benefits they experienced, the

increased ability to conduct their work effectively, and the knowledge they gained about correct

exercise performance. Another motivating factor was the benefits of additional information

related to nutritional lifestyle changes that were extended to the employees’ family and friends.

Program Quality Checks Highly Valued and Encouraged Employee Engagement.

During the interview, John reported that “more of the program instructors visiting the work

locations would have been more helpful with participating because he could talk about certain

injuries, certain body aches and pains.” John concluded the interview by sharing:

The personal touch made it feel like this is for me. I'm going to dig my teeth into this

thing. It became more important and relevant to me. In terms of my acceptance and

participating of it. It’s like having a teacher and the student, and if you let the student just

53
 do it themselves, they lose track, they lose interest. If they would’ve showed up a little

more often, I think I would have been a lot more engaged.

William shared his interest in increased quality checks because it “made it a lot easier to

participate when they would show up once a week and correct you if you're doing something

wrong or show us a better way to do it.” Henry shared the same sentiments about the value of

the vendor quality checks, “I wish they would do more of the program coaches or teachers come

out more and work with the guys.” He concluded the interview by noting, “That's when I started

to buy in more, it was with the personal touch, it made it more personal directed about what my

issues.”

The findings in this section revealed that employees highly valued the program quality

checks provided by the vendor because it provided personal coaching to discuss their specific

pain and injuries, proper body alignment and exercise technique. They shared that these program

benefits facilitated and sustained their belief in the program value and confirmed they served as

motivating factors for their participation.

Organizational Influences’ Findings

The findings from the nine participants semi-structured interviews related to the

organizational influences that they perceived as obstacles from preventing their participation in

the program were determined as a need. Employees reported that the prioritization of emergent

work and COVID-19 served as obstacles which prevented their participation in the injury-

prevention program. leaders communicated the usefulness of the program, that an organizational

culture existed which prioritized the enforcement of safety rules, and that employee did not recall

if organizational policies and protocols existed pertaining to participation expectations in the

injury-prevention program.

54
Organizational Leaders Communicate the Usefulness of the Program Is for Injury-Prevention

Six out of the nine interview participants responded that their organizational leaders and

immediate supervisors communicated to them that the purpose of the program was stretching to

prevent injuries. Chris said that his understanding of the program, as communicated by his

leaders, was to “stretch prior to starting work, if you will. Loosen up the limbs a little bit,

stretch.” Gerry recounted that his immediate supervisor communicated the usefulness of the

program more in depth, “He probably did talk a lot about strains and sprains, and the things that

it'll help prevent injuries.” Michael reported that his immediate supervisor communicated the

usefulness of the program as “it’s to help keep your body injury-free.” Another participant,

Henry, indicated that the organizational leaders and his immediate supervisor communicated the

usefulness in depth as well and included a comparison to the former program:

The communication was that it's a better stretch program than what was previous, that it

was a way, obviously, to monitor our movement moving forward, good or bad, to

monitor it and to focus in on areas of concern or issues, be it a certain muscle, or the

back, the arm, the shoulder, the leg, the knee, to focus on that. As it continued, it was a

most definite dynamic program that would change with time, and with work, and certain

areas that may be sore or maybe it worked harder than others, but it was basically a

continuing dynamic program that was going to help us better our stretching and minimize

injuries at work.

Jack reported that the leadership communicated, “It’s for us, for our safety to keep our

bodies moving.” Additionally, Jack mentioned that his direct supervisor expanded on the

explanation of the program’s usefulness given by executive leadership by saying, “It's to make

sure we have a long and illustrious career without injury, without permanent damage to your

body later on down in life.” Thomas shared that his leadership communicated the program was

55
for injury-prevention, and leadership included specific job tasks like “[…] improving our

mobility, our injury prevention should get better because of the odd movements while we're on

the pole, off our hooks, or the amount of bending we're doing from a bucket trucks trying to

reach certain work areas.”

Although Michael shared that his immediate supervisor communicated the program was

for injury prevention, he also described his supervisor as being doubtful about the program.

Michael recounted that his supervisor said to him, “Everything's got a purpose, everything's

money-driven. If they keep us healthy and it helps their bottom line, they're going to do it.”

Another participant, Larry, shared that his supervisor said of the program, “It's a waste of time.”

John recounted that the message he received from the leaders about the program’s usefulness

was, “[It is] going to relieve some of the stress on the muscles and all the other body parts”;

however, he noted, “I don't think they were on board with the program.”

The findings in this section revealed that Field Operations Organizational leaders

communicated the usefulness of the program was for injury-prevention. The findings revealed

that although the leaders communicated the usefulness of the program was designed to prevent

and minimize work-related injuries, and to maximize and extend their careers as utility linemen,

they reported that their supervisors expressed doubt about the program purpose and value.

Organizational Culture That Prioritizes Safety Rule Enforcement

When asked about what their immediate supervisors did to create a culture of safety, five

out of the nine interviewees described their immediate supervisors as being supportive of safety.

However, seven out of the nine described there was a culture that prioritized enforcement of

safety rules. John described his immediate supervisor as someone who focused on fostering a

culture of following and enforcing safety rules. He shared, “Other than enforcing the APM rules

that we have at work and all the safety protocols and just making sure guys really do what they're

56
supposed to do, that’s it.” Additionally, John mentioned he experienced a positive shift of the

organizational safety culture by the executive leadership. He said, “From about five years to

now, they've been really expressing safety. If you're tired, don't do this, safety is before work.”

However, John shared that he was unsure if his immediate supervisor was being supportive of

safety because it was mandated by the executive leadership level and because he was a union

steward:

Because I'm a union steward, we get a lot of support from him when it comes to safety. I

don't know if it is because he knows he's going to get some grievances or because that's

where he sees the safety. I'll say he's been very supportive when it comes to safety

because it's been handed down from the top supervisors. Really, they're not pushing the

boundaries when it comes to safety. If we need this and we need that, or if something

breaks, we have their hundred percent support most of the time.

Michael described his experience with the organizational leaders’ perspective on safety

as, “Follow all the rules; do as you're told.” In contrast, he said of his immediate supervisor, “He

cares about safety. It's very rare that he, honestly, doesn't care about safety. I have to give it to

him; he is pretty safety conscious I'd say 98% of the time.” Thomas reported that his immediate

supervisor “for the most part, has my back when it comes to safety.” However, his perspective of

the organizational leaders differed. He explained, “I feel that sometimes when we have people in

a power position that never came from the field, they don't understand these safety aspects of our

job.” He continued “they will push and sometimes forget and throw safety out the window. It's

up to us and my immediate supervisor to squash that with our higher ups.” Thomas described his

immediate supervisor as one who emphasized safety mostly as it pertained to performing job

tasks. He said, “Safety is always a word that's iterated. Anytime we're talking about any task

really, it's on our tailboard forms.” Thomas reported that he experienced his immediate

57
supervisor as being supportive, “Anytime we're working a big job, any type of weekend work,

night outages, my immediate supervisor makes crew visits.”

Furthermore, Thomas indicated that his immediate supervisor focuses generally on

ensuring safety rules are followed. He said, “He's checking certain safety items on his list,

putting the chock down in front of the tire so the truck doesn't roll away.” He stated that his

immediate supervisor “makes sure we have our hard hats on, we're wearing our other PPE,

leather gloves, and Nomex suits.”

Henry observed that the leadership espoused the importance of following safety rules. He

said, “It's talked about quite often. It's definitely something that they've made a big deal and

made it known that they're going to make a priority.” Henry also shared, “I've been on jobs when

I've heard him say, hey, do this or change that. Meaning, add extra cones, hey, take extra

coverup.” He continued that his immediate supervisor reminds them constantly of the rules they

need to consider. He recounted his supervisor bringing up additional possible issues or hazards,

asking, "Did you guys remember to think of this? Did you guys look at this, these two or three

extra things?" Henry shared that another way he feels his immediate supervisor is supportive of

safety is by making himself available to the crews. He said, “I think being present around the

crew during actual crew work then just telling guys that if they need more help, more hands,

assistance, more time, just let us know.”

Jack reported that he experienced the organizational leadership and his immediate

supervisor as being those who prioritized safety rules as well as their personal safety. He noted,

“In the organization, leaders take safety very seriously. I think they believe in safety; they

believe in everybody going home to their family every day.” He added, “My direct supervisors

are very big on safety. They promote safety, they visit the crews, make sure everybody's okay,

make sure we're following the rules.” Jack also recounted that his leadership would stop work in

58
progress to discuss potential hazards and risks. He noted, “If they see something that could be

imminent danger, they will stop us and talk to us about it.” Jack concluded the interview by

sharing that his experience with leadership was more than following and enforcing safety rules.

He said, “They promote safety culture. That's not just safety and safety rules, that's driving, that's

walking, talking, being on the phone, any procedure policy, all of that is addressed on a

consistent basis in our yard.” Another participant, William, described that his immediate

supervisor expects employees “to know the rules. We know we're supposed to follow the rules,

the APM and work techniques.” He added that the organization’s leadership fosters a culture of

enforcing rules and noted, “As far as our district leadership team, they tell you to follow the

safety rules, but that's about it.”

Gerry expressed experiencing his organizational leadership as supportive and described

management’s safety culture and practices as “important, it's number one; the availability of

anything that we need to be safe. They participate in our safety culture. I feel supported.” He

concluded the interview by elaborating about his immediate supervisor’s safety involvement:

He's involved from the start of the day to the end of the day, and we thank him for it. He

participates in all our safety meetings. He makes sure all of us get them—the safety

bulletins; he's intimately involved. He makes sure we got all the tools and safety

equipment that we need to be safe. I think the number one thing is he comes out and visit

the crews and talk to us about being safe on a regular basis. And that's super, super

important when it comes to our job, because he's just involved in our job. He really is

involved.

In this section, the findings revealed the although the Field Operations Organizational

leaders espoused that safety was important and was taken seriously, the participants’ perception

was that leadership emphasis was on a culture that prioritized the enforcement of following

59
safety rules instead of a culture that inspired participation in the program and other personal

safety concerns. The findings also indicated that employees have experienced a positive culture

shift throughout the recent five years disseminated from the executive leadership level. The

participants reported that the executive leadership encouraged organizational leaders to extend

safety practices beyond rules and include personal involvement, such as conducting frequent

crew visits and an emphasis on employee personal safety, such a driving safety and the effects of

fatigue, however, at the local leadership level, the emphasis was on safety rule enforcement.

Employees Unaware of Participation Expectations Policy

The interviewees were asked if any policies existed that required or encouraged

participation in the injury-prevention program. Six out of the nine interviewees reported that they

were unaware whether such a policy existed. Five of the six interview participants described that

their leadership espoused such a policy; however, four of the six reported there was no

enforcement of the espoused expectations.

One participant, John, reported that he did not recall if a policy existed even though they

were paid and allotted 30 minutes to participate every morning prior to beginning their work

shift. He said, “I don't remember any policy, but I know that everybody is given half an hour for

the exercise in the morning.” Additionally, John indicated that the allotted time was loosely

monitored. He said, “Whether you do the stretching or whatever it might be, you are allowed half

an hour, and nobody's ever taken that away.” John concluded by stating, “Besides any other

encouragement or checking if you're doing it right or wrong, I haven't seen that from our

supervision.”

Michael described the organization’s management and his immediate supervisor as not

holding employees accountable for participating even though participation was supposedly

mandatory. He said, “They don't hold you to that.” He furthered shared that if employees did not

60
participate in the program, they were told to prepare for the workday. He described his

supervisors as telling him, “Be productive and go get your trucks. Start loading and getting them

ready for the day's work.” Michael indicated that because of the loose expectations for

participation, “You get out of stretching anyway.” He concluded that in his experience, the

immediate supervisor occasionally observed their participation:

He just comes out of his office every so often to check up if we're doing them. If his

supervisor found the employees were not participating, he would tell us, “What are you

guys doing? Shouldn't you be stretching?” So basically, he just comes and checks... But

that's about as far as it goes.

Thomas indicated, “I don't know if it's an actual policy that we do this program, but they

have definitely encouraged us to do it.” He added that his immediate supervisor said, “The

company is allowing you to do this program for the first half hour of the day.” Similar to

Michael, Thomas described his immediate supervisor as seeing value in the program, thus the

participation encouragement. He described his supervisor as saying, “The company is allowing

you to do this program for the first half hour of the day. So why wouldn't you want to do it?” He

noted that his immediate supervisor reiterated the benefit of the program as “[…] something

that's going to make you more mobile, make you less susceptible to injuries and the company's

paying you this time to go ahead and do it; why wouldn't you want to?”

Additionally, Thomas stated that his immediate supervisor ensured participation with

periodic observation and called it to their attention if the employees were not participating. He

recounted his supervisor as saying, “either you're in here, and if you're not stretching, then you

need to be outside getting trucks ready, gathering tools and equipment.” Additionally, Thomas

reported that his supervisor reminded the employees they were on company hours if they did not

participate: “If you want that half hour of pay, then you need to be working. Otherwise, you

61
should not be sitting down and on your phone. You need to be doing the program then.” Thomas

concluded that he did not perceive the supervisor’s verbal mandate as a policy, only as

suggestion. He said, “that tells me that it's not mandatory. I don't think it is a policy if they're

telling me we have a choice to either stretch or get ready for the work day.”

Henry said he was not aware that a written policy existed; however, he described his

immediate supervisor observing participation by “walking around to each individual station and

would say, Hey you, what are you doing? Get up and stretch.” Like herding the sheep.” Larry

reported that the extent to which his immediate supervisor encouraged participation was to

remind employees by saying, “Okay, let's go out in the stretch room, take your 30 minutes and

get out there.” William reported that although the union supported the program, he did not recall

that there was a mandate. He said, “I don't think there's any policy. I know the union came out

for a while and said they backed this program and that we should stretch and do this, this is what

we're paid to do.” Gerry indicated that he perceived he was required to participate due to his job

classification; however, he shared, “I don't know if that's a policy. I just know that being a

lineman is one of, and they give you’re the time to participate, and he expects you to do it

because of that.

The findings in this section revealed that besides the company providing a 30-minute pay

incentive for the linemen to participate in the program prior to beginning their work shift and the

occasional supervisor observations to ensure employees were performing the exercises, the

participants reported they were unaware or could not recall if any written policies and procedures

existed related to program participation expectations. Additionally, the participants shared that

the verbal mandate was interpreted by the linemen as a suggestion for participation because they

were given an option to either participate or prepare the work trucks for the daily work. The

62
participants reported that they perceived these options as a lack of personal responsibility and

accountability for participation.

Research Question 3: What Influence, if Any, Does Authentic Leadership Have on the

Employees’ Likelihood of Participating in the Injury-Prevention Program?

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were the data collection method used to explore

this third research question related to participant perception about immediate supervisor

leadership attributes, specifically, if supervisors exemplified any authentic leadership attributes

that influenced employee participation in the injury-prevention program.

The following section includes themes that emerged related to the likelihood of authentic

leadership attributes and their influence on employee participation in the program. The themes

covered in this section are the following: 1) Supervisors Encouraged Integrous Work Behavior,

2) Supervisory Demonstrated Compassion in the Context of COVID-19, 3) Supervisors Fostered

Professional Work Relationships, and 4) Lack of Supervisory Modeling Participation in the

Injury-Prevention Program.

Supervisors Encouraged Integrous Work Behavior

When participants were asked to describe a time when their immediate supervisor

inspired them to be a better person, six out of the nine participants responded their immediate

supervisors encouraged them to “do the right thing” at work. Jack shared that his immediate

supervisor encouraged him to interact with coworkers with integrity even while under stressful

circumstances:

About two weeks ago. I was having a bad day. I had an employee do something really

dumb, and I was a little harsh. My supervisor pulled me to the side and said, "Hey, you

could have gone a little easier on him," and I said, "You're right, I could have." So I went

out and I talked to that employee, and I told him that I just didn’t want him to injure

63
 himself and put me in a position where I had to tell his family what he did is what got

him hurt.

Similarly, Gerry described an occasion when his supervisor counseled him because he

was experiencing a difficult time with a peer. He recounted, “it was getting tough being

respectful towards this particular employee. And my supervisor was right, when I did what was

right, it seems like the relationship between myself, and that employee got a lot better.” Gerry

added, “it’s hard to do the right thing when people are not doing what they are supposed to do.

It's hard, but he pushed me to do the right thing and it ended up working out.” He concluded the

interview by stating that because of that incident, the relationship between he and that employee

improved, and he describes how the improvement influenced the employee as well. “My boss

inspired me to do something better and I think I rubbed off on him and made him even get

better.” Larry described his immediate supervisor as someone who encouraged and modeled

integrity by ensuring he worked the hours for which he was paid. Larry said of his supervisor,

“He would work at his desk until three o'clock because we earned eight hours pay for eight hours

work.”

In this section, the study findings revealed that six out of the nine interview participants

perceived their supervisors encouraged integrous behavior at work despite stressful

circumstances related to relational work conflicts. They also reported that because their

supervisors encouraged behavior characterized by integrity, it resulted in the improvement of

interpersonal relationships with those they encountered at work and inspired them to better

leaders.

Supervisors Demonstrated Compassion in the Context of COVID-19

When participants were asked to describe a time when their immediate supervisor

demonstrated kindness to them, six out of the nine interviewees shared their immediate

64
supervisors demonstrated kindness by showing compassion during COVID-19. Christopher

shared that his immediate supervisor expressed gratitude toward employees. He said, “He called

each individual and shared his gratitude of how appreciative that he was of what we been

through in the last year or two and going through COVID.”

Similarly, Jack reported that during the last year, he suffered a back injury and his

immediate supervisor showed special interest in him. He recalled, “I strained my back during

COVID, and I told him I was fine, that I just needed to stretch it out. Instead of telling me to go

home, he took care of me.” Jack added, “He put me in the office for about four days so I could

rest up and heal, and he checked on me every morning and every afternoon, because I would

stretch twice a day with the program.” Michael shared a similar experience with his immediate

supervisor:

When I was sick with COVID, he would call and check up on me to ask if I need

anything. He would check in every so often to make sure me and my family were okay.

He offered to get food for us.

The study findings revealed that six out of the nine interview participants perceived their

supervisors encouraged integrous behavior at work despite stressful circumstances related to

relational work conflicts. They also reported that because their supervisors encouraged behavior

characterized by integrity, it resulted in the improvement of interpersonal relationships with

those they encountered at work and inspired them to better leaders.

Supervisors Fostered Professional Work Relationships

Interview participants were asked how they would describe the relationship with their

immediate supervisor. Six out of the nine participants reported that their immediate supervisors

fostered a professional work relationship with them, and three of the six participants added that

there was a personal component to the relationship as well. Jack described the relationship with

65
his immediate supervisor as more than a professional one: “He's more than just my supervisor.

He is a friend, he's a mentor, he leads by example. He is very respectful, and I have a very fond

respect for him as well.” Larry shared that he experienced a similar relationship with his

supervisor; he described it as “more than professional. Because of the length of time that we

have worked together, there is a bit of friendship there. I could call him a friend.”

Three of the six participants reported that although a professional work relationship

existed, they described their relationship with their supervisor as “complicated.” Henry shared

that the relationship with his supervisor is professional overall; however, he also described it as

complicated because his perception is that his supervisor is disconnected from the work and from

what it takes to get work done:

I’m not a disgruntled worker, I love the company, but he doesn’t understand the reality of

the level of work that's out there and what it takes to train a good solid field employee.

We're all overworked. We have too much going on, not enough resources to do our job

effectively.

The study findings in this section revealed that six out of the nine interview participants

reported their supervisors fostered a professional work relationship. The participants also shared

that because of the length of their professional working relationship, a deeper connection was

established that was characterized by friendship, respect, and fondness. Additionally, the

participants perceived their supervisors as mentors and role models. In contrast, one participant

specifically, expressed that despite the professional work relationship, he experienced his

supervisor as someone who was disconnected to what it took to conduct the work with adequate

resources, which consequently impacted the relationship negatively.

66
Lack of Supervisory Modeling Participation in the Injury-Prevention Program

Interviewees were asked to describe their immediate supervisors’ participation in the

injury-prevention program. Although two out of the nine interview participants reported that

their supervisors modeled full participation, seven out of the nine interviewees reported there has

been little to zero supervisor participation in the program. Michael shared, “Since he’s been my

supervisor, I've never seen him do it.” Larry described his supervisor’s participation as, “Yeah,

zero. Big fat zero,” and described his supervisor’s non-participation as “hypocritical.” Larry

concluded this portion of the interview with his view about the importance of his supervisor

modeling desired behavior about participation in the injury-prevention program. He said, “It is

very hypocritical for him to suggest we participate then not participate himself. It’s a problem

because he is a leader and I think it's a role that he should consider if he wants us to participate.”

John shared that COVID-19 influenced his supervisor’s participation slightly and then that

participation dwindled completely:

Prior to COVID-19, his participation was about 5%. A few times out of the week I may

have seen him participating, but then he would disappear or not participate with the

group. He may have participated in the stretches with us occasionally in a meeting or

when higher leaders were present. After COVID-19, I think it has been zero participation.

In this section, the study findings revealed that seven out of the nine interviewees

reported there had been little to zero supervisor participation in the program. The participants

also shared that they viewed their supervisors’ encouragement for employees to participate, yet

not participating themselves as hypocritical behavior. The responses are indicative that their

supervisors failed to lead by example.

67
 Summary of Organizational and Motivation Influences Data

This qualitative study explored the motivation and organizational influences as they

relate to the Field Operations Organizational Unit employees’ engagement in the organization

injury-prevention program designed to reduce sprains and strains. Additionally, authentic

leadership theory was used to explore organizational influences, such as how leader attributes

and leader-employee relational dynamics influenced employee participation in the program.

The participants’ shared experiences related to the motivation influences’ findings

indicated that employees reported high levels of employee self-efficacy and their significant

value of the program served as participation motivators. The organizational influences explored

in this study revealed the attitudes and beliefs of the Field Operations Organization employees

and the culture in which they function. Leader communications to employees about the

usefulness of the program, the prevailing organizational culture that prioritized the enforcement

of safety rules, and the inability of employees to recall if organizational participation expectation

policies and protocols existed were perceived by participants as mixed messages about safety

and were described as obstacles to employee participation.

The data related to these organizational influences revealed a paradox related to the

interpretation about the meaning of safety culture between leadership and participants.

Participants reported that the culture fostered by leadership that prioritized emergent work and

safety rule enforcement, and the lack of leadership support and participation in the program did

not align with employee perception about the importance of the participation.

Additionally, the participants’ reported experiences indicated that the organizational

influences findings pertaining to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and the prioritization of

emergent work over safety also served as obstacles. However, despite the organizational

influences’ obstacles revealed in this study, the employees were not deterred from participating

68
in the injury-prevention program. Authentic leadership theory findings related to leader attributes

and their influence on employee participation in the program revealed that leaders’ lack of

modeling program participation negatively affected their participation. Table 7 presents the

organizational and motivation findings revealed in the study and their determination as an asset

or a need.

Table 7

Organizational and Motivation Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data

Influence type Findings Asset or

Organizational influence
(cultural model: usefulness)
Organizational influence
(cultural model: emergent
work and safety rules)
Organizational influence
(cultural model:
accountability)
Motivational influence
(utility value)
Motivational influence
(self-efficacy)
need
Organizational leaders communicate the Asset
usefulness of the program is for injury
prevention
Organizational culture that prioritizes Need
emergent work and the enforcement of safety
rules
Employees unable to remember if Need
organizational accountability policies and
protocols exist about participation
expectations
Employee acknowledgement of the injury Asset
prevention program to be of significant value
Employees have high levels of self-efficacy to Asset
perform the injury prevention exercises

69
 The organizational cultural model influence pertaining to the Field Operations

Organization supervisors’ communication to the employees about the purpose of the program as

stretching to prevent injuries was determined to be an asset. The organizational cultural model

influence related to the prioritization of safety rules’ enforcement was determined to be a need.

The organizational cultural setting influence pertaining to any injury-prevention program

accountability policies regarding participation expectations was determined to be a need.

The study findings related to the motivation influences revealed employees’ high levels of self-

efficacy and utility related to participation in the injury-prevention program, and both influences

were determined to be assets. Lastly, the study findings related to how the authentic leadership

attributes influenced employee participation in the program was determined to be a need. Based

on the collected data and related literature, Chapter Five will present recommendations for

solutions as described in this chapter that will address the identified organizational, motivation,

and authentic leadership needs as they relate to the Field Operations Organization employee

participation in the injury-prevention program.

70
 Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion

This chapter discusses the findings related to the organizational and motivation factors

that influenced or served as obstacles for employee participation in the Field Operations

Organization (FOOU) injury-prevention program. This chapter also discusses the findings

related to the likelihood of Authentic Leadership as an influence on employee engagement in the

program. Finally, this chapter ends with practice recommendations based on the study findings, a

discussion of the limitations and delimitations, recommendations for future research, and a

conclusion summarizing the organizational and motivation influences related to employee

participation in the injury-prevention program.

Discussion of Findings

In 2019, the FOOU employees, comprised of union-represented male employees over the

age of 18, incurred 83 sprain and strain injuries, which accounted for 80% of the injuries in the

organization (WUC, 2019). Utilizing a modified Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual

framework, the purpose of this qualitative research study was to explore the FOOU employees’

perceptions about the organizational and motivation influences related to their engagement in the

organization injury-prevention program designed to reduce sprains and strains. In addition,

authentic leadership theory was used to explore organizational influences such as whether and

how leader attributes and leader-employee relational dynamics influence engagement. The

research questions and framework allowed for the exploration, identification, and understanding

of the organizational and motivation assets and needs related to employee engagement in the

injury-prevention program. The research questions that guided this study are the following:

1. What do employees perceive as obstacles, from the lens of the motivation and

organizational influences, that prevent them from participating in the injury-prevention

program?

71
 2. What do employees perceive as potential factors that can motivate them to participate in

the injury-prevention program in their work?

3. What influence, if any, does authentic leadership have on the employees’ likelihood of

participating in the injury-prevention program?

Motivation Influences’ Findings

Exploration of the motivation influences took place through semi-structured interviews

with participants. This section presents the findings that employees experienced high levels of

self-efficacy to perform the program exercises and acknowledged the injury-prevention program

to be of significant value. The collected data reported by the interviewees revealed that these

factors served as motivators for their participation in the program.

Employees Reported High Levels of Self-Efficacy

This study included exploring the employees’ perception about their ability to participate

fully in the injury prevention program. When interview participants were asked to describe their

perception of their ability to perform the injury-prevention exercises correctly, nine out of the

nine participants reported they mastered all the injury-prevention program exercises. These

findings related to the employees’ self-efficacy and their acknowledgment of the program as

significantly valuable is congruent with what Clark and Estes (2008) literature established about

what drives motivation. Clark and Estes (2008) posited that the underlying factors that drive

individual motivation are collective beliefs and experiences and perceptions about the potential

of being effective.

Despite the challenges in the Field Operations organizational culture related to inspiring

and encouraging employees to participate in the injury-prevention program, all interviewees

reported high levels of self-efficacy that served as a motivation to participate in the program.

72
 These findings align with the self-efficacy theory literature by Bandura’s (2000) and

Clark and Estes's (2008) literature about motivation. They established that the motivation and

commitment to accomplish goals, the mental effort a person chooses to invest to achieve them,

and the persistence to overcome challenges in the face of distraction are influenced by how

positively or pessimistically the person thinks and believes.

Additionally, these findings aligned with literature related to mastery goal orientation that

states creating mastery orientation enhances motivation, learning, and performance (Clark, 1999;

Clark and Estes, 2008; Pintrich, 2003). Participants reported high levels of self-efficacy related

to performing program exercises and expressed a focused interest in achieving mastery-level

skills for performing program exercises.

Employees Acknowledge the Program to Have Significant Value

The interviewees were asked to describe their value on the injury-prevention program and

their perception of what they could gain from participation. Six out of the nine interviewees

reported that they perceived the program to be of significant value. The findings are congruent

with the literature, which pointed out that what a person perceives as valuable predicts their

individual decisions regarding engagement, persistence, or investment of their mental effort

(Clark & Estes, 2008).

Program Participation Decreased Pain, Lowered Risk of Injury, and Improved

Well-Being. This first sub-theme emerged revealed that the injury-prevention program provided

value beyond work. Participants reported that their participation in the program improved their

physical well-being, lowered their risk of injury, and benefited their home life. Additionally, the

injury-prevention program vendor provided a training module that educated the employees with

valuable nutrition and lifestyle information that employees perceived as valuable to share with

their friends and family. Although this theme emerged during the interviews, the findings

73
revealed that these additional benefits provided by the program were motivators that propelled

their decision for continued engagement. The findings related to this theme align with the

literature about the expectancy-value theory of motivation as a framework for assessing,

interpreting, and evaluating what propels employees to make decisions, their persistence, and

mental effort for the task choice (Chiang & Jang, 2008; Clark & Estes, 2008; Trautwein et al.,

2012).

Program Quality Checks Highly Valued and Encouraged Employee Engagement.

The second sub-theme related to value that emerged in this study was the quality checks

provided by the injury-prevention program vendor. Five of the six interviewees indicated that the

program quality checks provided by the vendor served as a motivation for their participation in

the injury-prevention program. The quality checks served as a conduit to mastering the exercises,

which increased employee self-efficacy and consequentially served as ongoing participation

motivation. These findings also aligned with the literature about motivation and its influence on

business success. The research established that by identifying employees’ value and then

connecting those employees to the benefit of achieving business goals, employees would

increase their work commitment (Clark & Estes, 2008; Parijat & Bagga, 2014).

Organizational Influences’ Findings

The study findings related to the organizational influences were explored through

conducting semi-structured interviews and are discussed in this section. Findings revealed that

the organization influences prioritization of emergent work and COVID-19 pandemic restrictions

served as obstacles for employee participation in the injury-prevention program. In addition, the

study findings revealed that the organizational obstacles identified in this study did not deter

employees from participating in the program. Additional themes covered in this section include

organizational leaders’ communication about the program’s purpose, an organizational culture

74
that emphasizes the enforcement of safety rules, and the employee’s lack of awareness of

policies about participation in the program.

Field Operations’ Organization Prioritization of Emergent Work as an Obstacle

When interviewees were asked to describe their perception of the importance of safety to

their leadership, seven out of nine interviewees described that their organizational leaders and

immediate supervisors prioritized safety. Four out of the seven participants stated that their

leaders prioritized emergent work over safety. The findings in this study revealed that although

participants reported that their leadership generally espoused the importance of safety,

participants shared that productivity, high profile assignments, and emergent work were

prioritized over safety rules and employee safety. These findings are congruent with the literature

findings presented by Drennan et al. (2006) and Nohammer and Stummer (2013). They

established that an unstable organizational culture where leadership’s primary emphasis was on

productivity, performance, and profit, and not on employee health and safety, served as barriers

to employee participation in programs (Drennan et al., 2006; Nohammer & Stummer, 2013).

Although the leaders espoused health and safety as an organizational value and priority,

the findings revealed that more value was given to production, performance, and emergent work.

These findings aligned with the research literature about how prioritizing performance and

production does not reinforce the value of participation in the program and the benefits it

provides (Williams, 2010). The findings in this study also aligned with the literature research

related to employee perceptions when they experience corporate hypocrisy. Wagner et al. (2009)

posited that when employees perceive incongruency between leader words and actions, about

worker safety and health, it results in barriers to employee participation in injury-prevention

programs (Wagner et al., 2009).

75
COVID-19 as a Program Participation Obstacle

Interviews were conducted amid the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in many

restrictions which affected the way employees conducted their work and participation of the

injury-prevention program, such as location access to perform the exercises and the cancelation

of the program in several work location because of COVID-19.

Seven out of nine interview participants reported that COVID-19 was an obstacle for

their participation in the injury-prevention program. Interview participants shared various

emotions about how COVID-19 restrictions served as barriers to participation, including feelings

of sadness for the inability to participate in a program, an inability to perform exercises in their

office location as they did prior to the pandemic, an eagerness for the program to resume, and

descriptions of the ways in which the lack of participation affected their physical well-being.

Although the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic were not covered in the original

literature review, the findings aligned with the literature research in this study about the effect of

program design on employee engagement in injury-prevention programs. Literature established

that program design can serve as a barrier to employee participation in an injury-prevention

program. Program design barriers such as access to location, time limitations on participation,

and faulty synchronization between employee availability and program schedules, served as

obstacles for employee participation in injury-prevention programs (Fletcher et al., 2008;

Nohammer & Stummer, 2013; Toker et al., 2015).

Organizational Leaders Communicate Program’s Purpose As Injury-Prevention

When interviewees were asked to describe what their leadership had communicated to

them about the program's purpose, six out of the nine interview participants responded that their

leaders communicated the purpose of the program was a stretching program to prevent injuries.

The participant responses varied from a detailed description of the program as a safety program

76
designed to prevent sprains and strains, and as a program to help employees conduct difficult and

repetitious work performed in awkward body postures. Additionally, participants reported that

some managers demonstrated a lack of support for the program; the managers articulated doubt

in the program benefits and communicated to their subordinates that it was a wasteful use of

time. These findings aligned with the literature reviewed in Chapter Two related to factors that

reduce employee interest in program participation. The literature revealed that employees

experience reduced interest in program participation when there are low expectations of program

benefits and a lack of leadership support (Nohammer & Stummer, 2013; Toker et al., 2015).

Organizational Culture That Prioritizes Safety Rule Enforcement

Five out of the nine interviewees described their immediate supervisors as being

supportive of safety; however, seven out of the nine reported that their leaders focused primarily

on the enforcement of following safety rules. The findings revealed a paradox between safety

culture and safety enforcement. Interview participants shared that leadership focused primarily

on strict enforcement of safety rule compliance rather than participation in the injury-prevention

program and other safety concerns. They reported an acknowledgment of an organizational

culture shift over the last five years, specifically at the highest leadership level to set the tone for

all organizational leaders to emphasize all aspects of safety. These safety aspects included

making efforts to be more present and available for employee concerns regarding fatigue, driving

safely, additional needed equipment and resources for their safety, and ensuring that employees

returned home safely after work. However, the participants’ perception was that leadership

emphasis was on a culture that prioritized the enforcement of following safety rules instead of a

culture that inspired participation in the program and other personal safety concerns. These

findings aligned with the literature that leaders set the tone for organizational culture and that it

reflects the beliefs, language, behaviors, and practices of an organization because culture is

77
dynamic, and it is transferred to others in the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008; Northouse,

2016; William, 2010).

Employees Unaware of Participation Expectation Policy

Six out of the nine interviewees reported that they were unaware of whether such a policy

existed, and five of the six interview participants described that their leadership espoused a

policy existed. However, four interviewee participants reported that other than the allotted 30-

minute participation time and periodic supervisor observation to confirm participation,

supervisors only loosely monitored this time. Additionally, the participants reported they were

given an alternative if they did not want to participate, such as preparing and loading their work

trucks for the day's job. The reported findings revealed that managers did not set clear goals

about program participation expectations.

These findings suggested that the unclear message from leaders resulted in employees

doubting or recalling if participation expectation policies existed, and congruent with the

literature about the importance for leaders to set and communicate clearly to employees about

organizational goals. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that if leaders do not communicate

organizational goal expectations in a clear and specific manner, employees are unable to connect

the importance of the corporate and organizational goals, thus employees create their own goals

that may not align with the company or the organization.

Authentic Leadership Findings

The correlation between authentic leadership and employee program participation was

explored through nine semi-structured interviews with participants. This section presents the

findings from four themes: 1) supervisors encouraged integrous work behavior, 2) supervisors

demonstrated compassion in the context of COVID-19, 3) supervisors fostered professional work

relationships, and 4) supervisors failed to model participation in the injury-prevention program.

78
Supervisors Encouraged Integrous Work Behavior

Six out of the nine participants reported that when they experienced conflicts with a peer,

their immediate supervisors counseled, encouraged, and modeled values-driven and self-

disciplined behavior that focused on relationship dynamics, specifically conflict resolution,

without sacrificing integrity. The participants reported that when they treated their peers with

integrity and self-discipline under stressful circumstances, the relationships improved, and

conflicts were resolved. Consequently, the employees with whom the participants experienced

the challenges emulated the behavior with other staff. One of the tenets of authentic leadership

theory is core values and self-discipline to carry out those values (George, 2003; Northouse,

2016). These findings are congruent with authentic leadership style attributes that suggest that

building and fostering an organizational culture that focuses on building enduring relationships

requires leaders to be integrity-driven, practice self-discipline in living out the values, and be

willing to meet their stakeholders (George, 2003). Additionally, these findings align with

authentic leadership theory that states employees are inspired by ethical leaders and are more

loyal and committed to the leaders, which can impact an organization positively (George, 2003;

Northouse, 2016).

Supervisors Demonstrated Compassion in the Context of COVID-19

Six out of the nine participants reported that their supervisors expressed gratitude and

appreciation toward their employees for their daily work during difficult pandemic times. The

participants also reported that their supervisors took a genuine interest in employees’ well-being

and the employees’ families by extending a helping hand, such as delivering food to them and

accommodating their work schedule to meet the employee and family’s needs. These findings

pertaining to how leadership demonstrated compassion are congruent with the literature on

79
authentic leadership attributes that authentic leaders show empathy by leading with their hearts

and take a genuine interest in their employees (George, 2003).

Supervisors Fostered Professional Work Relationships

Six out of the nine participants reported there was a personal component to the

relationship. The participants categorized their relationships with their supervisors in various

ways, such as mentors who lead by example, friends, and friends who had earned their fond

respect. Three participants categorized their work relationship with their supervisors as both

professional and complicated because they perceived that a supervisory disconnect existed about

the work and what it takes to get the work done. They reported feeling unsupported regarding the

allocation of resources and personnel needed to conduct work safely and effectively. These

findings aligned with authentic leadership theory literature regarding the importance for leaders

to support their employees, and to establish a connection and trust to optimize employee

engagement. Authentic Leadership Theory literature suggested that leaders can rally their

employees toward a shared vision when they support and are committed to their employees, can

build trusting and enduring relationships that fosters a connection, which impacts an organization

in a positive manner (George, 2003; Northouse, 2016; Penger & Cerne, 2014).

Lack of Supervisory Modeling of Participation in the Injury-Prevention Program

Interview participants described their immediate supervisors’ participation in the injury-

prevention program. Although two out of the nine interview participants reported that their

supervisors modeled full participation, seven out of the nine participants reported little to no

supervisor participation in the program even before implementing COVID-19 pandemic

restrictions. One participant described his supervisor’s non-participation as hypocritical and

elaborated on the significance of leaders modeling desired behavior and the effect that the lack of

interest and participation had on employee engagement in the injury-prevention program.

80
Another tenet of authentic leadership theory is to lead by example instead of setting a double

standard for themselves and their employees (George, 2003).

These findings are congruent with the literature related to authentic leadership theory.

Literature also suggested achieving 100% employee engagement in worksite health and injury-

prevention programs; supervisors must be participatory, supportive, and enthusiastic regarding

the program (Drennan, Ramsay, & Richey; 2006). Additionally, when leaders do not exemplify

integrity and fail to lead by example, employees lose trust that the company and organization

care more for productivity than their health and safety (William, 2010). Finally, leaders must

model the behavior they desire to foster and sustain, be passionate about the change effort, and

align their goals with those of the organization and company (Burke, 2018; Clark & Estes, 2008;

George, 2003).

Recommendations for Practice

The four recommendations presented in this section that will address the needs identified

in the findings are the following: 1) conduct a small-scale pilot re-launch of the injury-prevention

program that includes weekly program quality checks, 2) provide leadership training that

emphasizes injury-prevention program as a safety program, 3) create accountability measures for

leadership participation in the injury-prevention program, and 4) conduct an authentic leadership

influence training module.

The practice recommendations are guided by the modified Clark and Estes (2008) gap

analysis conceptual framework used in this study to explore the motivation and organizational

influences related to the FOOU employees’ engagement in the organization injury-prevention

program; additionally, these recommendations are grounded in the research literature pertaining

to each recommendation.

81
Recommendation 1: Conduct a Small-Scale Pilot Re-Launch of the Injury-Prevention

Program That Includes Weekly Program Quality Checks

Findings driving this recommendation are the participants’ reported responses about the

COVID-19 pandemic restrictions that served as an obstacle for their participation. Seven out of

nine interview participants described COVID-19 as an obstacle to their participation in the

injury-prevention and specified that program participation dropped to zero once the pandemic

restrictions began. A viable solution for this finding is to conduct a small-scale pilot of the

injury-prevention program that includes weekly program quality checks.

The recommendation is consistent with literature that emphasized the importance of

employers offering programs designed to mitigate injuries and illnesses and promote health and

fitness (Drennan et al., 2006). This recommendation also aligns with literature by the United

States Department of Labor. The literature stated that companies and various institutions must

implement worksite injury-prevention programs to comply with the 1970 OSHA Act and Cal-

OSHA’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) mandate for ensuring worker health and

safety (United States Department of Labor, 2020). This mandate resulted in more than 70% of

United States employers implementing workplace wellness programs (Drennan et at., 2006;

Valet, 2015).

Literature also indicated that since the executive orders were signed, employers and

various public and private agencies have created and implemented health promotion programs

and services for workers and the community (Kittleson & Larson, 2005). This recommendation

is also consistent with literature that highlighted strategies and practices designed to prevent

change effort failures. Mourier and Smith (1999) suggested that small-scale implementations that

include a pilot in a few locations improve the chances for success to prevent change effort

failures.

82
Recommendation 2: Provide a Leadership Training Emphasizing Injury-Prevention

Program as a Safety Program to Encourage Program Positive Perceptions and Inspire a

Culture of Participation Instead of Emergent Work Prioritization and Safety Rule

Enforcement

The study finding driving this recommendation is the participants’ perception that their

leaders communicated the program's purpose as being stretching to prevent injuries instead of

acknowledging it as a safety program. Additional findings driving this recommendation are

based on the participants’ reported responses about leaders prioritizing emergent work over

safety and participants’ reported experiences related to a culture emphasizing safety rule

enforcement. Four out of the seven participants stated their leaders prioritized emergent work

over safety almost daily, which prevented their participation in the program prior to their work

shift. Seven out of the nine described a culture that prioritized enforcement of safety rules.

Leadership needs to understand and acknowledge this program as a vital safety program

designed to prevent and mitigate sprain and strain injuries to inspire a culture that encourages

positive perceptions about the program instead of prioritizing emergent work and safety rule

enforcement. Equally vital to encourage positive program perceptions is for leaders to

communicate the program purpose with enthusiasm. This recommendation to provide leadership-

focused training to emphasize the program as a safety program, to inspire positive program

perceptions instead of the prioritization of emergent work and safety rule enforcement, is an

appropriate solution because it is consistent with literature by Williams (2010), who posited that

a leader could influence, reinforce, and model safety behaviors for their employees and to

communicate the message with passion and enthusiasm. Leaders have an opportunity to

influence that safety must be a daily priority, otherwise, they will send a message that normalizes

productivity and emergent work (Agnew & Snyder, 2008). Additional literature by Drennan et

83
al. (2006) aligns with the findings. Literature indicates that leadership participation, support, and

enthusiasm is essential to achieve 100% employee engagement in worksite health and injury-

prevention programs.

Recommendation 3: Create Accountability Measures to Increase Leadership Participation

in the Injury-Prevention Program

The study findings driving this recommendation are based on five of the six interview

participants who indicated that their leadership espoused a policy that existed; however, four of

the six reported no enforcement of the espoused expectations. Another finding driving this

recommendation is that seven out of the nine interviewees reported little to zero supervisory

participation in the program. Creating accountability measures to increase leadership program

participation is an appropriate solution because it is consistent and supported by the literature.

Clark and Estes (2008) indicated that leaders must set and communicate organizational goals and

expectations. Otherwise, employees cannot connect the importance of company and

organizational goals. Additional literature about the impact that leadership’s focus on production

has on program participation supports this recommendation. Literature indicated that program

participation suffered when the leadership’s primary emphasis was on productivity, performance,

and profit, and not on employee health and safety (Drennan et al., 2006; Nohammer & Stummer,

2013). Drennal et al. (2006), Nohammer and Stummer (2013), and Williams (2010) indicated

that when leaders prioritized performance, productivity, and profit over employee safety and

health, program participation suffered, and it minimized the importance of safety.

Recommendation 4: Conduct an Authentic Leadership Influence Training Module

The study findings driving this recommendation are based on participants' responses

about leaderships’ lack of modeling program participation. Seven out of the nine participants

reported there had been little to no supervisor participation in the program even before

84
implementing COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The interviewees perceived the lack of leader

participation as hypocritical because they believed it was important for leaders to lead by

example.

The leadership training module is an appropriate solution that could provide an

opportunity to educate leaders about the importance of their participation and the positive

influence on employee engagement, and it aligns with the literature related to authentic

leadership theory. Literature suggested that leaders must participate in a program with

enthusiasm to achieve 100% employee engagement in worksite health and injury prevention

(Drennan, Ramsay, & Richey; 2006). Literature also indicated that because authentic leaders are

aware of their influence on people, they can build trusting relationships, and consequently, they

can engage employees toward a common vision (George 2007; Penger & Cerne, 2014)

Integrated Recommendations

The four recommendations in this chapter were based on the findings in this study: 1)

conduct a small-scale pilot re-launch of the injury-prevention program that includes weekly

program quality checks, 2) provide leadership training emphasizing the injury-prevention

program as a safety program to encourage positive program perceptions and inspire a culture of

participation instead of emergent work prioritization and safety rule enforcement, 3) create

accountability measures to increase leadership participation in the injury-prevention program,

and 4) conduct an authentic leadership influence training module.

These recommendations serve as an opportunity to implement sustainable organizational

change efforts for FOOU related to employee engagement in the organizational injury-

prevention program. The framework for this change model chosen to implement the

recommendations is the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model (2004). This change model is an

action-oriented systematic method that allows the stakeholders to gather information about

85
program objectives and resources needed to plan, implement, and the desired program results

(Kellogg, 2004). Each component of the logic model template is presented in this section.

Resources

This section of the logic model describes detailed resources needed to accomplish the

following activities (Kellogg, 2004). Resources include any financial, human, organizational, or

community programs that are available to accomplish the work (Kellogg, 2004). Resources

pertaining to these recommendations may include but are not limited to a dedicated task force of

multiple stakeholders, such as a program vendor representative. Additional resources may

include several organizational leaders, safety directors, training personnel, organizational

leadership sponsors, and a funding strategy for training.

Activities

This section of the logic model consists of activities that utilize the resources listed in the

previous column of the template. These activities need to be chosen intentionally so to produce

outputs for program implementation and may include technology, tools, processes, or events

(Kellogg, 2004). Activities pertaining to the recommendations for these findings may include,

but not limited to, procurement of a training location, recruitment of project managers, and

training specialists to facilitate the training. Additionally, activities may include the development

of training curriculum, purchasing of training materials, and creation and dissemination of

company and organizational communications.

Outputs

This section of the logic model details the direct results of the program activities and may

include types of services expected to be delivered by the program (Kellogg, 2004). Output

examples may include measurable data to illustrate that the chosen activities have been

completed (Kellogg, 2004). Outputs pertaining to the recommendations in this study may include

86
but are not limited to leaders receiving their individual program scores, training program metrics,

and statistics, and evaluation. Other output for the recommendations may include distribution of

training communications, the number of training material produced, a record of who was trained,

and what stakeholders gained an understanding of training program.

Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes

Kellogg (2004) describes this section of the logic model as a process that consists of

specific changes brought about by the training. The outcomes may include participants' behavior,

skills, and level of functioning and can be short-term or long-term (Kellogg, 2004). Short-term

goals should be achieved within one to three years and longer-term outcomes within a four-to-

six-year timeframe (Kellogg, 2004). The outcomes pertaining to the recommendations in this

study, may include but are not limited to attitudes, perceptions, and belief changes about the

training purpose and quantifiable data that reflects those changes.

Impact

This last section of the logic model process is impacted. The impact is intended or

unintended organizational changes resulting from the program that occurs within seven to ten

years from the beginning of the implementation process (Kellogg, 2004). Impact pertaining to

the recommendations may include, but is not limited to, measurable data reflecting that change,

an increase in participants’ confidence, skills, or knowledge, and an improved organizational

culture. Although the short-term and long-term outcomes are achieved after the implementation

of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model for change, it is imperative that this process not

end with the desired impact. A systematic and ongoing method to measure training effectiveness

must be included.

87
 Limitations and Delimitations

According to Goes and Simon (2013), all studies, regardless of how well they are

constructed and conducted, have limitations and delimitations. Constraints that flow from a

study’s methodological design and that are out of researchers’ control and can potentially affect a

study are referred to as limitations; in contrast, delimitations flow directly from choices made by

the researcher (Goes & Simon, 2013). There were three limitations in this study.

The first limitation was the inability to obtain documents and artifacts as a data collection

method. The document to be analyzed was the organizational accident prevention policy manual.

The objective was to analyze whether policies and procedures existed pertaining to participation

in the injury-prevention program and determine if organizational expectations existed for

employee participation. The next document to be analyzed was the sprain and strain prevention

initiative created in 2019. My employment with the company ended in July 2020; therefore,

these documents were no longer accessible. The subsequent document to be analyzed was a

qualitative survey created and administered by the vendor contracted by the company that offers

the injury-prevention program referenced in this study. Since my employment with the company

terminated in July 2020, these documents were no longer accessible to me.

The second limitation in this study was utilizing interviews as a data collection method.

According to Hewitt (2007), utilizing interviews in a qualitative study is a highly favored method

to collect data because it captures participant perspectives and meaning about their experiences

relevant to the study topic; however, some limitations can arise. Creswell and Creswell (2018)

stated that the researcher’s presence might alter how the participants answer the questions. I am a

former safety and environmental specialist and subject matter expert involved with the

implementation of company injury prevention programs; consequently, the participants could

88
have perceived my presence as an authority figure that could have interfered with their desire to

answer the questions truthfully.

The third limitation was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in

COVID-19 restrictions that affected the participant recruitment process and prohibited in-person

interviews. Initially, the participant recruitment process entailed extending an in-person

invitation to 40 employees with the goal of 10 employees self-selecting to participate in the

study. If more than 10 individuals volunteered, 10 would randomly be chosen to participate. This

limitation was mitigated by creating a recruitment flyer, per the organizational leaders’ request,

detailing the purpose of the study, participant criteria, and researcher contact information. The

flyer was emailed to the organizational district supervisors, and they manually distributed the

flyers to the employees. This process delayed the recruitment by one month; however, nine

participants were successfully recruited. Additionally, the interviews were conducted via Zoom

instead of the employees’ natural work setting. The participants experienced challenges with

access to Zoom because the company prohibits this application on the company network. This

limitation was mitigated by providing a Zoom tutorial and forwarding the Zoom information to

their personal email or cellular phones.

A delimitation in this study was the chosen stakeholder group. They are the FOOU

employees who work in the locations with the lowest participation in the injury prevention

program. Conducting a research study solely with this population sample could have generated

inaccuracies in the data because the participants would have provided only one perspective

pertaining to motivation and barriers for participation in the injury prevention program. To

mitigate potential limitations and delimitations, it was critical for me to maintain constant

awareness of personal biases and ensure ethical behavior, confidentiality, and fair treatment

throughout the process as required by the IRB. Another delimitation in this study was the lack of

89
interview protocol questions pertaining to an important leadership attribute, developing trusting

relationships. Trust is an integral component for organizational change (Northouse, 2016). Many

participants implied issues of trust; however, it was not specifically explored.

Recommendations for Future Research

The focus of this qualitative research study was to explore the FOOU employees’

perceptions about the organizational and motivation influences related to their engagement in the

organization injury-prevention program designed to reduce sprains and strains. Authentic

leadership theory explores organizational influences, such as how leader attributes and leader-

employee relational dynamics influence engagement. While this study provided

in-depth data reflecting participant perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes related to the organizational

and motivation influences, and the influence of the relational dynamics between employee and

their immediate supervisor relationship on their participation in the injury-prevention program,

future studies are recommended.

A focus for future exploration could more specifically center on authentic leadership.

Authentic leadership theory is still in a developmental phase; thus, future studies should be

considered specifically relating to the implications of authentic leadership and building trusting

relationships (Northouse, 2016). Trust is an integral component for organizational change, and

although the presence of trust was implied in many of the participants' responses pertaining to

the relationships with their supervisors, it was not distinctly explored.

Another focus for future studies could be the influence of authentic leadership on

employee participation in injury-prevention programs. Although in this study, authentic

leadership literature strongly revealed a direct influence on employee engagement in general,

literature was not found about how authentic leadership influenced employee engagement in

organizational injury-prevention programs specifically. Lastly, a focus for future exploration

90
could be centered around the impact of COVID-19, an exploration specifically if the pandemic

restrictions increased sprain and strain injuries.

Conclusion

According to the National Safety Council (2019), an employee suffers a sprain and strain

injury every seven seconds while working. Sprains and strains are the leading occupational

injury in various sectors within the United States (National Safety Council, 2019). Throughout

the United States, approximately 70% of employers offer worksite programs to prevent and

mitigate injuries (Society of Human Resource Management, 2011). Despite employers’ efforts to

address these injuries, 50% to 75% of employees do not participate in the worksite programs

(Fletcher et al., 2008; Toker et al., 2014).

Daily, the FOOU linemen perform strenuous physical labor for extended periods in

awkward positions and often work in extreme weather conditions. This work performed under

these conditions resulted in 80% of the organization’s injuries in 2019 (WUC, 2019), despite the

organizational injury-prevention program in place designed to prevent and mitigate sprain and

strain injuries. In this study, findings related to motivation influences revealed that the

participants reported high levels of self-efficacy and belief that the program was of significant

value, served as motivating factors for program participation.

The findings in this study related to the organizational influences revealed that employees

perceived both the prioritization of emergent work and COVID-19 as obstacles that prevented

their participation in the injury-prevention program. Additional organizational influences

obstacles such as the leaders communicating that purpose of the program was for injury

prevention, yet their lack of modeling participation, a prevalent organizational culture which

prioritized the enforcement of safety rules, and lack of employee awareness if program

participation policies existed, were perceived by the interview participants as mixed safety

91
messages about safety. However, despite the organizational challenges, employees were not

deterred from participating in the program.

Through the lens of authentic leadership theory, the study findings revealed that

participants described their immediate leaders as those who encouraged integrous behavior at

work, demonstrated compassion for them during COVID-19, and fostered a professional work

relationship, which served as motivation for continued participation in the program. However,

the data also indicated that immediate supervisors did not model participation in the injury-

prevention program, which served as a challenge to participation. Despite these organizational

obstacles, employees remained motivated and continued their engagement in the program.

To reduce and mitigate the sprain and strain injuries in the organization, the linemen must

continue their engagement in the program. Equally as critical, the leadership must acknowledge

how non-engagement poses a safety risk to the utility linemen workforce. Leaders set the tone

for their organizational culture (Burke, 2018; George, 2007). According to George (2007),

leaders must be well-equipped for change, model the way, and be contagiously passionate about

change and the process.

To cultivate a safety culture whereby employees engage in health and safety initiatives

such as therapeutic exercise, senior-level leadership must prioritize the initiative by drawing the

connection between fitness and safety and communicating that to the organization; consequently,

the participation rate should be increased to 100% (Drennan, Ramsay, & Richey, 2006).

Employees will embrace and engage in health and fitness programs 100% when supervisors

model daily enthusiasm, participation, and support (Drennan et al., 2006). The findings in this

study determined the four recommendations to address the needs related to employee

engagement in the organizational injury-prevention program that will prevent and mitigate sprain

and strain injuries from occurring in this organization.

92
 References

Ahamed, F., & Hassan, A. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust, and employees’ work

engagement. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 6(3), 165–168

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300040844

Ahn, J., Nana, A. A. & Miller, A. N. (2014). United States Bone and Joint Initiative. The burden

of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States (BMUS).

https://www.boneandjointburden.org/fourth-edition/vb22/sprains-and-strains

Alok, K., & Israel, D. (2012). Authentic leadership & work engagement. The Indian Journal of

Industrial Relations, 47(3), 498–510. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23267340?pq-

origsite=summon&seq=1

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R., (2004). Unlocking

the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders’ impact follower attitudes and

behaviors. Management Department Faculty Publications.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/156

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Sprains and strains again the most common workplace injury,

November 2006. United States Department of Labor.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2006/nov/wk3/art01.htm?view_full

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Musculoskeletal disorders, November 2016. United States

Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh2.pdf

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days

away from work, November 2009. United States Department of Labor.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh2_11092010.pdf

93
Burton, J. (2008). A business case for a healthy workplace. Industrial Accident Prevention

Association. http://www.oxfordcounty.ca/Portals/15/Documents/WorkplaceHealth/

fd_business_case_healthy_workplace.pdf

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Ergonomics and musculoskeletal disorders.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ergonomics/

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Work-related musculo-skeletal disorders and

ergonomics. https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/health-strategies/

musculoskeletal disorders/

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Mental health in the workplace. Mental

health disorders and stress affect working-age Americans. https://www.cdc.gov/

workplacehealthpromotion/tools-resources/pdfs/WHRC-Mental-Health-and-Stress-in-

the-Workplac-Issue-Brief-H.pdf

Chim, J. (2014). The FITS model office ergonomics program: A model for best practice. IOS

Press Content Library, 48(4) 495–501. https://content.iospress.com/articles/work/

wor01806

Choi, S. D., & Woletz, T. (2015). Do stretching programs prevent work-related musculoskeletal

disorders? Journal of Safety, Health and Environmental Research, 6(2).

Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right

performance solutions. Information Age.

Drennan, F., S., Ramsay, J. D., & Richey, D. (2006). Integrating employee safety & fitness: A

model for meeting NIOSH’s steps to a healthier U.S. workforce challenge. Professional

Safety, 51(1), 26–35. www.asse.org

Fletcher, G. M, Behrens, T. K., & Domina, L. (2008). Barriers and enabling factors for worksite

physical activity programs: A qualitative examination. Journal of Physical Activity and

94
 Health, (5)3, 418–429. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ed05/ee840023bff99969

0406e06459e5e74d3b6e.pdf

Fragala, G., & Pontani-Bailey, L. (2003). Addressing occupational strains and sprains

musculoskeletal injuries in hospitals. American Association of Occupational Health

Nurses, 51(6), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/216507990305100604

George, B. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. Jossey-Bass.

George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic leadership.

Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2007/02/discovering-your-authentic-leadership

Guo, H. R., Tanaka, S., Cameron, L. L., Seligman, P. J., Behrens, V. J., Ger, J., Wild, D. K. &

Putz-Anderson, V. (1995). Back pain among workers in the United States: national

estimates and workers at high risk. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 28(5), 591–

602. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8561169/

Hewitt, J. (2007). Ethical components of researcher–researched relationships in qualitative

interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1149–1159. https://journals-sagepub-

com.libproxy2.usc.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/1049732307308305

Holmstrom, E., & Ahlborg, B. (2005). Morning warming-up exercise—effects on

musculoskeletal fitness in construction workers. Applied Ergonomics, 36(4), 513–519.

doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2004.10.015

Inyang, N., Al-Hussein, M., Eng, P., El-Rich, M., & Al-Jibouri, S. (2012). Ergonomic analysis

and the need for its integration for planning and assessing construction tasks. Journal of

Construction Engineering & Management, 138(12), 1370–1376

Jiang, H., & Luo, Y. (2018). Crafting employee trust: From authenticity, transparency to

engagement. Journal of Communication Management, 22(2), 138–160,

https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-07-2016-0055

95
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,

41(4), 212–218, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Lai, C. (2009). Motivating employees through incentive programs. Jyvaskyla University of

Applied Sciences. https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/17561/jamk_

1237444488_5.pdf? s

Larson, K., & Kittleson, M. (2005). An exploratory study of manufacturing employees’ interest

in health promotion activity in a rural region. American Journal of Health Studies, 20(2),

92–98.

Lezin, N., & Watson-Castillo, S. (2018). United States Bone and Joint Initiative. The hidden

impact of musculoskeletal disorders on Americans. https://www.boneandjointburden.org/

docs/BMUS%20Impact%20of%20MSK%20on%20Americans%20booklet_4th%20Editi

on%20%282018%29.pdf

Liberty Mutual Insurance (2018). Liberty mutual workplace safety index., February 2018.

https://business.libertymutualgroup.com/business-insurance/Documents/Services/

Workplace%20Safety%20Index.pdf

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Mirza, B. (2011). Identify, treat and prevent MSDs. Society of Human Resource Management,

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/risk-management/pages/

identifypreventandtreatmsds.aspx

National Safety Council (2019). Workplace injuries. https://www.nsc.org/work-safety/tools-

resources/infographics/workplace-injuries

96
Nixon, A., Mazzola, J. J., Bauer, J., Krueger, J. R., & Spector, P. E. (2011). Can work make you

sick? A meta-analysis of the relationships between job stressors and physical symptoms.

Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organizations, 25(1), 1–22,

https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2011.569175

Nohammer, E., Stummer, H. & Schusterschitz, C. (2014). Employee perceived barriers to

participation in worksite health promotion. Journal of Public Health, 22, 23–31, DOI

10.1007/s10389-013-0586-3

Northouse, P., G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE.

Penger, S., & Cerne, M. (2014) Authentic leadership, employees’ job satisfaction, and work

engagement: a hierarchical linear modelling approach. Economic Research-Ekonomska

Istraživanja, 27(1), 508–526, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2014.974340

Slopen, N., Glynn, R. J., Buring, J. E., Lewis, T. T., Williams, D. R., & Albert, M. A. (2012).

Job strain, job insecurity, and incident cardiovascular disease in the Women’s Health

Study: Results from a 10-year prospective study. PLoS ONE, 7(7), doi:

10.1371/journal.pone.0040512

State of California Department of Industrial Relations (2020). Cal-OSHA-safety & health.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/

United States Department of Labor. (2012). State Building & Construction Trades Council of

California. Preventing sprains, strains, and repetitive motion injuries, Instructor’s guide.

https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/fy11_sh-22310-11_Instructor_

Guide.pdf

United States Department of Labor (2020). Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

https://www.osha.gov/aboutosha

97
Toker, S., Heaney, C.A. & Ein-Gar, D. (2015) Why won’t they participate? Barriers to

participation in worksite health promotion programs. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 866–881, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.968131

Valet, V. (2015). More than two-thirds of U.S. employers currently offer wellness programs

study says. Forbes Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/vickyvalet/2015/07/08/more-

than-two-thirds-of-u-s-employers-currently-offer-wellness-programs-study-

says/#6c5d9f2f231d 8, 2015

Wong, C. & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2013). Authentic leadership, performance, and job

satisfaction: the mediating role of empowerment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(4),

947-959. https://doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06089.x

Williams, J. (2010). Keeping people safe. The human dynamics of injury prevention.

Government Institutes.

98
 Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Interview Preamble

I want to thank you for taking time out of your schedule to meet with me and agreeing to

participate in my study by answering some questions. This interview will take about an hour.

I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at USC and am conducting a study on employee

engagement in the organization’s injury prevention program. I am not here as an employee of

this organization or to make a professional assessment or judgment of your performance as a

leader. I would like to emphasize that today I am only here as a researcher collecting data for my

study. The information you share with me will be placed into my study as part of the data

collection. Your name will not be disclosed to anyone or anywhere outside the scope of this

study and will be known only to me specifically for this data collection. While I may use a direct

quote from you in my study, I will not provide your name specifically and will remove any

potentially identifying information. I will gladly provide you with a copy of my final product

upon request.

Your participation is entirely voluntary. You may skip any questions you do not want to

answer, and you may stop this interview at any time. I will record the interview to help me

capture all your responses accurately and completely. This recording will not be shared with

anyone outside the scope of this project. If you would like me to stop recording at any point, I

will do so. The recording will be transferred to my password-protected files on a cloud file

storage account and will be deleted from the recording device immediately upon transfer. I will

be using a third party such as rev.com to transcribe the recording and all files will be returned to

me upon finalization of the transcription. The recording and all other data will then be destroyed

after three years from the date my dissertation defense is approved. With that, do you have any

questions about the study before we get started? If not, please review and keep the information

99
sheet. I would like your permission to begin the interview. May I also have your permission to

record this conversation?

Thank you.
Maria Silva-Palacios

Interview questions Research Concept being measured

question

1. What is your experience (or history) with the RQ1 Culture of Safety
existing injury-prevention program?

2.What is your understanding of the program’s RQ1 Culture of Positive

purpose? Perceptions and Culture of
Safety

3. What reasons, if any, that you believe RQ1, 2 & 3 Self-Efficacy, Value,
someone may have for not wanting to Culture of Positive
participate in the program? Perceptions, and Culture of
Safety

4. Please describe what reasons, if any, you RQ,2, & 3 Self-Efficacy, Value,
believe someone may have for wanting to Culture of Positive
participate in the program. Perceptions, and Culture of
Safety

5.Please tell me what you can learn, if anything, RS2 Value

by participating in the program.
What can you gain?

6.Please tell me how you feel about your ability RS2 Self-Efficacy
to fully perform the FMS exercises.

7. Please tell me about your level of RS2 Self-Efficacy

preparedness, if any, to implement the program
exercises in your day.

8. Please tell me what the organization has RS1 & 3 Culture of Positive
communicated to you about the purpose of the Perceptions and Culture of
program. Safety

9. Please tell me what policies, if any, exist RS1 Accountability

within the organization that either require or
encourage participation in the FMS program.

100
10. Please describe what, if anything, your RS1 & 3 Culture of Safety and
immediate supervisor has communicated about Accountability
participating in the program.

11. Please describe your immediate supervisor’s RS1 Culture of Positive

participation in the FMS program. Perceptions and Culture of
Safety
12. What does your immediate supervisor do to
create a culture of safety
13. Can you tell me about a time when your
supervisor demonstrated (insert dimensions).

101
 ProQuest Number: 28722051

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2022 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA