Relationship of Psychosocial Safety Climate and Workplace Psychosocial Risks: A Randomized Trail among Personnel of an Oil and Gas Company in Iran

Oil and gas industry is a main revenue generation for Iran, and thousands of employees are involved in various oil and gas fields. From numerous health hazards which commonly occur in the industry one of them is psychosocial hazards. Studies confirmed a crucial step to control and understanding workplace psychosocial risk factors is developing and monitoring of policies, rules, and plans to promote health at work. This research conducted in an Iranian oil and gas company in Tehran in the period of 2011 and 2012. 248 participants were randomly selected and assigned in the study. Two questionnaires HSE and SCAT used in order to assess workplace psychosocial risks and attitude of personnel to safety climate. The result of HSE scores revealed relationships and role sub-scales in psychosocial risks were in abysmal situation. Personnel’s attitude to safety climate at the organization displayed communication, priority of safety, and involvement were at the level of “dissatisfied”. Also there was a medium positive correlation between work environment and managers’ support, relationships and change p<0.01. These findings show that safety climate factors namely communication, work environment, supportive environment, inversely affects workplace psychosocial risks. Overall, the outcomes supported the possibility that personnel attitudes to safety climate at company were predictive of higher psychosocial risks. Progress in safety climate and the psychosocial aspects of safety climate may diminish the experience psychosocial risks. Development of policies and procedures with aim of reduce psychosocial risks should be considered in Iran.


Introduction
Since 1920 oil and gas industry has become the main revenue generation for Iran (Mohamedi, 2011). National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) reported thousands of employees are involved in various oil and gas fields (NIOC, 2012).
One of the high-risk occupations in terms of health, safety, and environment is working in the field of oil and gas industry. Numerous hazards which commonly occur in the industry involve chemicals (toxic, sensitising substances), physical concerns (noise, vibration), biological effects (food poisoning), ergonomic activities (manual handling methods), and psychosocial impacts (work overload, long working hours, work relationships) (Gardner, 2003). Psychosocial risks factors are "elements that impact employees' psychological responses to work and work conditions, potentially causing psychological health problems" (Samra, Gilbert, Shain, & Bilsker, 2009).
There are three different workplace situations in the oil and gas industry, including oil fields, laboratories, and offices, which expose employees to different health risks. Research findings show addressing and dealing with Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics Table 2. Means, Standard Deviation for HSE factors scores and distribution of employees by levels of action needed * Urgent action needed / -In the HSE manual there are no scores for section "Good, but need for improvement" in role scale.
The means and standard deviations for HSE factor scores discovered the dire conditions of two psychosocial risks that are relationships and role sub-scales. As table 2 shows, 54.9% were in "urgent action needed" level for relationships score and 53.9% were in "urgent action needed" level for role scale. Table 3 shows result of the different levels of socio-demographic factors. Females had higher demands score than males (p=0.046). Those more than 35 years of age had higher peer support and change scores than those <35 (p=0.045 and p=0.002 respectively). Those in staff departments had higher relationships scores than those in operational departments (p=0.049). "Managers-seniors" had higher demands scores than those in "officers-engineers" position (p=0.009). Those with >10 years of experience had higher scores for peer support, relationships and change (p=0.0035, p=0.022 and p=0.031 respectively). Undergraduates had higher scores for relationships and role than graduate employees ( p=0.012 and p=0.001 respectively).  Table 3. Mean scores for employees for each sub-scale compared across different socio-demographic factors Generally, results shows many of the psychosocial risks specifically need to be improved.

Safety Climate Assessment Tool (SCAT)
Safety climate assessment tool (SCAT) measures satisfaction levels of employees in nine factors (management commitment, communication, priority of safety, safety rules and procedures, supportive environment, involvement, personal priorities and need for safety, personal appreciation of risk, and work environment). Management commitment, safety rules and procedures, supportive environment, personal priorities and need for safety, personal appreciation of risk, and work environment were at the level of "Satisfied" with means of 3.10, 3.10, 3.17, 3.57, and 3.07 respectively. Communication, priority of safety, and involvement were at the level of "Dissatisfied" with means of 5.86, 5.66 and 5.99 respectively. Radar chart of means for SCAT (Figure 1), shows the "dissatisfied "levels of SCAT sub-scales compared to "satisfied" levels. From the index line (≥6), we can see clearly which components are under index line and which ones are above.   The multiple linear regression shows that "Supportive environment" and "work environment" scores significantly and inversely affects demands scores (p=0.003, p=0.001) respectively. "Involvement" scores significantly and inversely affects control scores (p=0.014). "Management commitment"," Supportive environment", "Communication", and "Work environment" scores significantly and inversely affects manager's support scores (p=0.013, p=0.012, p=0.001, p=0.001 respectively).  Table 8. Multiple linear regression for HSE scores with SCAT sub-scales "Communication", "safety rules and procedures" supportive environment", and "work environment" scores significantly and inversely affects peer support scores (p=0.036, p=0.020, p=0.001, p=0.05 respectively). "Management commitment and "Work environment" scores significantly and inversely affects relationships scores (p=0.001, p=0.002 respectively). "Personal priority and need for safety" scores significantly and inversely affects role scores (p=0.004). "Supportive environment", "involvement", and "work environment" scores significantly and inversely affects change scores (p=0.015, p=0.001, p=0.017 respectively). (Table 8) 3.3.2 Effect of Psychosocial Risk Factors on Safety Climate Table 9. Multiple linear regression for safety

Climate Scores with HSE Sub-Scales
The multiple linear regression shows that "demand", "manager's support" and "relationships" scores significantly and inversely affects management commitment scores ( p=0.002, p=0.007, and 0.014 respectively). "Manager's support" and "relationships" scores significantly and inversely affects communication scores (p=0.037, and 0.001 respectively). "Demands" scores significantly and inversely affects supportive environment scores (p=0.001). "Change" scores significantly and inversely affects involvement scores (p=0.002). "Demands" and "role" scores significantly and inversely affects personal priorities and need for safety scores (p=0.002). "Demands" and "relationships" scores significantly and inversely affects work environment (p=0.001 and p=0.019 respectively) (

Workplace Psychosocial Risk Factors using the HSE Management Standards Indicator Tool
The HSE Management Standards Indicator Tool has two levels which describe acceptable conditions (Doing very well: need to maintain performance; and Good: but needs improvement). The other two levels signified a dangerous and unacceptable degree of risk in the workplace (Clear: need for improvement; and Urgent: action required).
The results showed that "relationships" and "role" factor needed urgent attention to recover. There are numerous reasons that are connected to disappointing relationships at work. One possible explanation is that because job security effect on relationships (Landsbergis, Grzywacz, & LaMontage, 2012), while unemployment rate is high in Iran( around 11.5% in 2011) (Press.TV, 2012). Therefore the anxiety of having stability of employment for work life may cause workers allow unkind behaviours. Also a workplace environment without trust could set relationships in trouble (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994).
Ineffective communication, impact low relationship at workplace (Fairhurst, 1993;Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989;Sias, 2005). "Communication factor," in current research was at a level dissatisfaction and may lead to increase psychosocial risk.
Although most previous studies focused on demand and control as psychosocial risks at the workplace but reviewing studies of Schuster, Kessler & Aseltine (1990), and Spector and Jex's study in 1998, as cited in (Inoue & Kawakami, 2010), and (Fujiwara, Tsukishima, Tsutsumi, Kawakami, & Kishi, 2003;Tsuno et al., 2009) found relationships is an strong factor on predicting stress in the workplace whereas there is a paucity of study about workplace relationships.
The "role" factor was another psychosocial risk in current research, it showed duties in the workplace are not quite clear and should be developed. The correlation between "relationships" and "role" (r=0.195, p<0.01), pointed that clear roles will recover relationships. Deficiency of clarity in roles may affect an workplace's relationship by producing conflict among employees (Pomaki, Supeli, & Verhoeven, 2007;Saijo, Ueno, & Hashimoto, 2008).
In general, the result of this research was in-line with other researches, that underlined the necessity of improvement in workplace psychosocial risk factors specifically relationships (Fairhurst, 1993;Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989;Sias, 2005).

Prevalence of Workplace Safety Climate Using the Safety Climate Assessment Tool (SCAT)
Excluding "communication, priority of safety and involvement" factors, it was found that participants were satisfied with and had a positive attitude to other safety climate factors (management commitment, safety rules and procedures, supportive environment, personal priorities, need for safety, personal appreciation of risk and work environment). A low score (<6) for "communication" was reported in 41.7% of participants, which indicated communication between employees and managers was unsatisfactory; especially in regards to safety issues. It was discovered that managers were neither committed to bring safety information to the attention of personnel, nor to inform them of current concerns and issues within the workplace. In addition, employees did not receive praise for working safely. Cohen et al. (1975), Smith et al. (1975 and Shannon et al. (1997) were in agreement that one important key factor that effected lower accident rates and safety performances was good communication between management and employees; whereby, supervisors gave information to workers regarding safety issues (Mearns, Whitaker, & Flin, 2003). Therefore, when utilising the behavioural approach regarding safety within the workplace, workers were motivated to behave in a safe manner. An example would be when employees received praise for acting in a safe manner (Cox, Jones, & Rycraft, 2004).
The results of this research reflected on how relationships and role scores, as workplace psychosocial risk factors, were connected and related to safety climate factors. A moderate, positive and significant correlation between the relationship score and the communication factor (r=0.297, p<0.01) indicated that communication was related to interpersonal relationships. When employees' relationships were not exceptional, communication was unlikely to be at a satisfactory level.
A study proved that enhanced communication within work environments was linked to a decline in workplace violence; moreover, communication problems within the workplace resulted in unpleasant relationships (Hinkka, Kuoppala, Väänänen-Tomppo, & Lamminpää, 2013). Enhanced communication in an organisation allowed the www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 11, No. 12; transmission of information and the interaction between employees to be managed easily (Peiró Silla, 2000). Therefore, communication affected relationships among subordinates and supervisors.
Dissatisfaction with the priority of the safety factor was expressed by 56.8% of participants. This implied that the management clearly considered the safety of employees as unimportant, and safety issues were not a high priority. Safety procedures were not carefully followed and the management did not consider safety to be of equal importance as the success of company projects.
A company with an excellent safety climate would allocate their highest priority to safety. Geller (1994) demonstrated few essential principles when practicing an enhanced safety climate, for example: involving employees in devising safety rules; using a behaviour-based approach within the company; employers focusing on achieving success and not on avoiding failure; employers paying attention to employees' self-esteem and empowering safety as a priority rather than a value (Choudhry, Fang, & Mohamed, 2007). Employers should involve employees in appraising the calculation of safety within the organisation (Zohar & Luria, 2003).
Managers should base their actions on safety rules, since the absence of such rules may lead employees to perceive the company as having a low safety priority. In addition, managers must recognise which safety issues should be of high priority and what behaviours are expected to be rewarded and reinforced. Zohar, as the founder of safety climates, explained that if output was more important than safety, employees will align their deeds in accordance to the detriment of safety (Zohar, 2010).
This study revealed that involvement was also at an unsatisfactory level, which played an important role in the workplace. Of the respondents, 35.9% were dissatisfied with the involvement factor in the company. It illustrated that those respondents were not involved in important safety issues at work and were not involved in the on-going review of safety. Flin et al. (1996) confirmed the need to consider involvement of employees in safety-related decisions as a vital role on safety performance (Cox & Cheyne, 2000). Involvement is a behavioural-approach that allows employees to be part of the decision-making process; this empowers workers by providing them with the responsibility of making vital decisions in setting goals (Vredenburgh, 2002).
A Finnish study Vartia (1996) discussed the scenario where managers or supervisors tended to solve conflicts in their own authoritarian way, causing a poor safety climate and promoting workplace bullying. Based on the reactance theory (e.g., Brehm & Brehm, 1981), when workers felt supervisors or managers were unsupportive, they tend to not practice (or to resist) safety behaviours and rules in order to "get back" at the management (Kelloway & Barling, 2010). Therefore, when employees believed that they had no voice when it came to the workplace's safety policies, they developed a sense of indifference.
Other studies revealed that when the management intended to make a decision which was related to personnel by listening (Singer & Obach, 2013) and engaging personnel in the decision-making as 'a key role of involvement in the workplace', a positive association with employee motivation and psychological well-being was present (Felstead, Gallie, Green, & Zhou, 2010). This research also discovered a positive correlation between role and involvement (r=0.151, p<0.05). Involvement, collaboration and safety management were also factors of the safety climate (Hřivik, Tharaldsen, Baste, & Moen, 2009).
The results displayed a correlation between work environment scores of the safety climate scale and relationship scores of the HSE scale. The relationship scores had a moderately positive, significant connection with the work environment factor (r=0. 329, p<0.01). Safety climate played an essential role to improve psychosocial risks in the workplace. A Norwegian study demonstrated that bullying and harassment were associated with the social environment at work (Einarsen, 2000). When there was a poor work environment and a weak management style, there was a significant expectation of increased bullying (Agervold & Mikkelsen, 2004;Einarsen, Raknes, & Matthiesen, 1994;Salin & Hoel, 2011). However, a satisfied attitude with the work environment contributed to high levels of a psychosocial safety climate. In the absence of psychological health and safety within a workplace, high rates of bullying and harassment were observed, which in turn, reduced the relationship scores (Salin, 2003).
When reviewing the mental health aspect of a safety climate in a workplace, a study on the occupational safety climate demonstrated that poor communication was a predictor of depressive symptoms (Cho et al., 2008). A small, yet significant, negative relationship between depression associated with personal priorities and the need for safety (p<0.01) with the work environment (p<0.05) was found. Improvements in the work environment may decrease the risk of depression symptoms (Wang, Schmitz, Dewa, & Stansfeld, 2009 Williamson (2001) and Stansfeld and Candy (2006) found that if health and safety procedures were properly conducted, they may help identify work-related stress and recognise certain personnel groups that were more susceptible to stress. In addition, the psychosocial work environment models, such as Cox, Griffiths, and Rial-Gonzalwz (2000) and Dollard and Bakker (2010), illustrated that the psychosocial safety climate may affect mental health status.
A study by Hofmann and Stetzer (1996) regarding chemical processing workers discovered a positive relationship between workplace psychosocial risks and unsafe practices within the workplace. A study in China also presented an association between the organisational climate and job satisfaction in workers (Siu, Phillips, & Leung, 2004). In accordance with the current research, a study on workers of oil and gas companies detected that the common stressor among employees and managers was poor communication. They concluded that good communication in the workplace may protect employees from the dangerous effects of further stressors, and this would contribute to improved safety (Brešić et al., 2007).

Relationship between SCAT and HSE
The results illustrated that psychosocial risk factors (HSE subscales) were positively related to workplace safety climate. Management commitment and work environment subscales of the safety climate were related to all HSE subscales. A large correlation was seen between work environment with demands (r=0.447), managers' support (r=0.359), relationships (r=0.329), role (r=0.212) and change (r=0.343, p<0.01).
The results displayed a significant relationship between some psychosocial subscales and safety climate subscales in the company. It revealed that safety climate factors may influence psychosocial risks in the workplace and vice versa. Psychosocial risk factors, specifically demands, manager's support and relationships, influenced the attitude of employees in regards to the safety climate; especially for management commitment, communication and work environment.
The mitigation of workplace psychosocial risk factors is an important reason to develop health and safety policies to monitor the work environment; leading to the promotion of workplace mental health .
From a theoretical standpoint, Kahn and Byosiere (1992) proposed that work environment characteristics had an influence on producing role conflict in the workplace (Pomaki et al., 2007). Along these lines, a study found that psychological risks (such as high demand) may increase unsafe behaviour within the workplace (Siu et al., 2004).
A study in safety climate and supervisory behaviour demonstrated that if supervisors were not concerned about safety while they were interacting with subordinates, workers would not follow safely rules. They further found that supervisor's support of subordinates increased safety climate scores (Zohar & Luria, 2003).
The results of the current research were in-line with another study that portrayed the lack of safety climate policies (or procedures that target improving job demands) tend to prevail for long periods within the workplace. A consequence of the lack of procedures to report work overload led to increased conflicts and relationship problems; especially when employees' concerns were not adhered to, or the importance of psychological well-being was not recognised (Dollard & Bakker, 2010). Therefore, an enhanced safety climate aided employees to better cope with their job demands and relationships by the development of appropriate strategies.
PSC model indicated that the psychosocial safety climate and communication affected the psychosocial risks in the workplace. Recent studies confirmed that the psychosocial safety climate was able to clarify the roots of demand, supervisor's support, justice and other job resources (Dollard & McTernan, 2011;Rickard et al., 2012). In addition, it was found that a positive psychosocial safety climate may control workplace bullying and harassment. It was clarified that a positive psychosocial safety climate may be a leading indicator for bullying, harassment, job resources and psychological health (Law, Dollard, Tuckey, & Dormann, 2011).
Overall, this study supported other research findings. It confirmed that the positive attitude of employees to safety climate factors was closely linked to the HSE factors in the workplace. If the management had a commitment to health and safety procedures and safety rules, it can attain a potentially positively impact on psychosocial risks.

Conclusion
Overall, the need of policies about psychosocial risks and psychosocial safety climate to guide employers to promote health is concerning. Ethical policies for supporting proper workplace relationships may contribute to low level score of psychosocial risks at work. The study supported the possibility that employees' attitude to www.ccsenet.org/ass Asian Social Science Vol. 11, No. 12; safety climate was correlated to psychosocial risks at the workplace. Employers should pay more attention to relationship role and communication factors. Safety climate factors may impact psychosocial risks in the workplace and vice versa.