A workplace level intervention to reduce inappropriate behaviour in schools
Author(s): Maarit Varita                                                                               Country: Finland
Is the intervention sector specific?	No
Is the intervention usable with different enterprise sizes?	Yes
Is the intervention equally applicable to both genders?	Yes
Is the intervention based on theory?	Yes
Can the intervention approach be adapted/ tailored?	Yes
Does the intervention promote CSR and how?	The intervention was not explicitly linked to responsible business practices although it does promote employee well-being.
Does the intervention promote social dialogue and how?	Employees, supervisors and safety delegates worked collaboratively together; the authorities of the city supported the work.
Overview (including risk assessment and law – legal requirements etc.): The intervention was carried out in eight primary schools in one municipality in Finland. There were between 25-90 teachers and other members of staff in the schools. The aim of the intervention was to reduce the amount of perceived inappropriate behaviour, perceived bullying and observed bullying in the work units. Only inappropriate behaviour and bullying among staff was looked at, not inappropriate behaviour by pupils. The intervention was based on the environmental view on the antecedents of workplace bullying.
Implementation:   The project lasted approximately one year. In each school the interventions included: - a starting meeting with  a pre-intervention survey and training about the phenomenon and causes of bullying (about 2 hours) - a feedback session with training and discussion about bullying, particularly about the risks of inappropriate behaviour in the specific school (about 1½ hours) - a joint event for all the participants  (1/2 day) - a meeting where a post-intervention survey was conducted with discussion  (about 1/2 hour) - a feedback session with discussion  (about 1 hour).
Practical applications: The intervention demonstrated that this kind of an approach works and there are plans to adapt the same procedure in other workplaces in the city.
Innovative aspects:   Inappropriate behaviour and bullying were directly discussed in the workplace with the whole staff several times during one year.
Evaluation (including process issues, outcomes and sustainability): Pre- and post-intervention measurements were used. The pre-intervention questionnaire included questions on different forms of inappropriate behaviour, perceived bullying, observed bullying, psychosocial work environment, including atmosphere in the workplace and some questions on leadership style. The post-intervention questionnaire included the same questions on inappropriate behaviour and bullying, and questions about the intervention and the effectiveness of the activities carried out.
Benefits (including cost effectiveness): The results demonstrated that by bringing up inappropriate behaviour and bullying with the whole staff, and discussing and examining the risk situations and antecedents of bullying in the respective work unit it is possible to gain positive results. A slight decrease in some forms of perceived inappropriate behaviour, and observed bullying was received. The intervention was experienced positively. Many employees reported that they paid more attention to their own behaviour toward co-workers than before, and that they intervened more easily if they saw inappropriate behaviour occurring. Many employees found that not enough had been done in their own workplace to reduce inappropriate behaviour. The reason for this was most often due to a high workload experienced by the majority of employees.
References: Vartia, Maarti (2009). Vastuullisen työkäyttäytymisen pilottihanke Vantaan kaupungissa. (Responsible behaviour at work - A pilot project in the city ofVantaa). Vautsi, Vantaan kaupungin henkilöstölehti, 14-15.  (In Finnish)
Comments:   Commitment of the supervisor is important so that all the meetings can be arranged.  In schools the meetings were arranged after-school hours. High workload and big incidents (in this case school shooting that happened during the year) have considerable effect on the process.