Bringing risk back in: managers' prioritization of the work environment during the pandemic

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-03-2022-0041
• Published date: 15 July 2022
• Date: 15 July 2022
• Pages: 4-19
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Healthcare management,HR & organizational behaviour,Human resource policy,Employee welfare
• Author: Cathrine Reineholm,Christian Ståhl,Daniel Lundqvist

Bringing risk back in: managers’

prioritization of the work

environment during the pandemic

Cathrine Reineholm, Christian St



ahl and Daniel Lundqvist

Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Link€

oping University,

Link€

oping, Sweden and

HELIX Competence Centre, Link€

oping University, Link€

oping, Sweden

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of the paper is to investigate managers’experiences of managing work environment

and risks during the Covid-19 pandemic and to explore how managers might use these experiences to develop

future risk management.

Design/methodology/approach –Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 18 Swedish managers

at different hierarchical levels working in 11 different organizations. A directed content analysis was carried

out, informed by theory on risk management.

Findings –The results point to the pandemic as a societal crisis which workplaces needed to manage through

large means of improvisation. Regular work environment routines were put to the test, and several deficiencies

in the work environment and risk management were identified. Organizations that handle occupational safety

and risks on a daily basis through established routines were less affected and could easier adjust work

environment and risk management, compared to organizations prioritizing the social and organizational work

environment, which had to re-prioritize and start paying more attention to the physical work environment and

to bring risk management into their daily routines.

Originality/value–The study offers an account of how managers in different labor market sectors in Sweden

have acted in the midst of the pandemic by handling real-time crises, how these experiences can be used for

engaging in retrospective learning and how this may imply changes to their prospective risk management.

Keywords Leaders, Systematic work environment management, Risk management, Prospective risk

management, Covid-19, Sweden

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

During the Covid-19 pandemic, several governments have introduced restrictions and

periods of lockdown in order to prevent the spread of the virus. This has had an enormous

impact on workplaces and has implied new challenges for managers to maintain operations

while adhering to regulations and restrictions (Eurofond, 2021).

In contrast to many other countries, Sweden used a softer strategy as a response to the

pandemic. Rather than issuing a lockdown, great responsibility was put on citizens and

employers to secure physical distancing to prevent contagion. Preschools and elementary

schools have been open throughout the pandemic, as well as stores and shopping malls,

although the government issued limitations in March 2020 regarding a maximum number of

customers in stores and guests in restaurants, and later on also limitations in opening hours.

IJWHM

16,1

4

© Cathrine Reineholm, Christian St



ahl and Daniel Lundqvist. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited.

This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may

reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-

commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of

this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Funding: This research was funded by Forte: Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life

and Welfare [Award number: 2019-00851].

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8351.htm

Received 25 March 2022

Revised 23 May 2022

21 June 2022

Accepted 30 June 2022

InternationalJournal of Workplace

Health Management

Vol. 16 No. 1, 2023

pp. 4-19

Emerald Publishing Limited

1753-8351

DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-03-2022-0041

Other recommendations included working from home if possible, which was mandated for

governmental employees unless their work required physical presence in the workplace. Online

classes were recommended for students in upper secondary school/high school , and in

universities (Public Health Agencyof Sweden, 2022). In the state sector, the share of employees

working from home ranged between 52 and 73% between 2020 and 2021, while this was

significantly less common among other public sector workers (municipal workers and

healthcare employees), ranging from 11 to 36%; in the private sector, the share of employees

working from home ranged between 29 and 42% (Statistics Sweden, 2021). Unlike many

countries, Sweden has thus had many people working on-site, but with restrictions enforced

through a specific pandemic legislation. Consequently, the challenges for managers in Sweden

have presumably been different from countries where lockdown has simply prevented

workplaces from maintaining their business (e.g. Appelgren, 2021;Ipsen et al., 2020).

Risk is in general described as an incipient th reat or exposure to danger, and according to

Lupton (2013) it also involves imagining the consequences. To prevent risks and to promote

health at work, organizations in Europe are obliged to systematically assess and evaluate the

work environment according to European Union (2022). In Sweden, extensive national

legislation established by theSwedish Work Environment Authority regulates employeehealth

andsafety. The legalbasis for the work environment management is theWork Environment Act

(SFS, 1977:1160), with a purpose to prevent occupational illness and accidents, and to ensure a

good work environment. Although the employer has the main responsibility for the work

environment, employers and employees cooperate in creating a good work environment. The

responsibilityfor the systematicwork environmentmanagement is put onmanagers, delegated

mainly to first-line managers, and the basic activities are described in the provision for

Systematic Work Environment Management(AFS 2001:1 Eng). This management includes all

aspects of the work environment and shall, besides being systematic and planned, also be a

natural part of everyday work in the organization. The systematic work environment

management is a continuous process, often portrayed as a cycle, consisting of four recurring

activities: (1) examination, (2) assessment of revealed risks, (3) addressing risks, and (4) follow-up,

where all parts are connected and required (AFS 2001:1 Eng).

Although legislation regarding the work environment in Sweden is extensive, there are

several organizations that do not accomplish their legal commitments (Hellman et al., 2019).

Possible explanations or reasons for this are complexities in the implementation of

regulations, which is influenced by power relations embedded in occupational health and

safety systems, resources of inspectorates, and possibilities for worker representation

(MacEachen et al., 2016); lack of time; and that provisions and policy documents are abstract

with little practical guidance (Hellman et al., 2019). A Swedish study by Frick (2014) found

that most organizati ons had the documents f or the systematic work e nvironment

management (e.g. task allocation, risk assessments, action plans) but these procedures

were not always comprehensive nor implemented. The main problem is that managers rarely

have enough time and resources for the work environment management (Frick, 2014). In

addition to work environment regulations, managers are also obliged to follow various laws

and regulations from other authorities related to their activities and their organization. The

pandemic may have led to increased attention to managing emergent risks, since it has

encompassed new types of situations and restrictions which was difficult to anticipate and

plan for. When the work situation changes, employers are responsible for considering all

possible risks, to act and reduce the risks (Carvalhais et al., 2021). However, most managers

lack competence regarding crisis management, probably because Sweden has been hit by few

major crises or disasters during the last century (Hugelius et al., 2021). On the other hand, the

study by Lethin et al. (2021) showed that Swedish care staff reported more support from the

management and clear guidelines during the Covid-19 pandemic compared to care staff in

Italy, Germany and the UK.

The work

environment

during the

pandemic

5