New employee risk

New employee category Level of relevant entry experience Similarity of previous experience Variability of previous experience Generalization of previous experience to new job Time to become experienced in new job New employee risk level... 

The right-hand column of Table 3.1 provides a new employee risk estimate for each type of new employee (although it makes no allowance for age). The risk estimate uses a simple extreme to low scale, but should serve to illustrate that not all new employees are the same in terms of how their past experience, as defined by their new employee category, will influence their safety risk in a new job. Furthermore, note that no type of new employee is fully protected from safety risks by their past experience (past employment history). It is also important to note that experience is only one factor which influences new employee safety risk. Thus, while a new employee may be classified as a moderate-to-low risk in terms of Table 3.1, there may be other factors associated with their entry into a new job which increase their accident potential. Section 3.7.2 in this chapter discusses the assessment of job applicant experience at the time of recmitment and how this can be used to help ensure new employee safety. 

The aim of this book is to provide a comprehensive discussion of the factors which have the potential to increase safety risks for new employees, and the safety issues which current job incumbents face when new employees arrive. The work is written to provide a research-based understanding of the issues associated with new employee safety risks. As such, students completing courses on occupational health and safety may find this book useful. However, the work will also be useful for managers and practitioners looking for solutions to their new employee accident problems. Recommendations to improve new employee safety are made which can easily be adopted, have relatively little cost, and should easily fit within existing processes. 

At its broadest level, there are three different bodies of research that have addressed new employees occupational accident rate. All three literatures clearly show that an employee is more likely to have an accident at work in their initial period of employment in a job. The larger two bodies of literature are those which have examined the relationship between job tenure and accidents, and the relationship between age and accidents. The age literature has tended to focus on young or youth worker, and these workers are often new employees (have relatively short job tenure), but this is not always the case. Generally, the research on the relationship between age and accidents has not attempted to disentangle the relationship between age and job tenure. Nevertheless, and despite some interpretation difficulties, I will examine this literature. Finally, there is a small literature which has looked at the relationship between employee turnover rates and accidents, which is also suggestive of safety issues associated with new employees. OveraU, it seems clear that new employees are a safety risk and may even be classified as a safety hazard. 

A new employee is defined as any individual that has recently started a job. Some research has used the term newcomer to describe a new employee (e.g., MoUeman and van der Vegt 2007). As will be discussed below, a new employee may also be relatively young (e.g., a youth worker entering their first job), but this is not always the case. The label of new employee equally applies to an individual that has previously worked in another job, or in other jobs They are new to job they enter irrespective of their past employment history. Chapter 3 discusses the relationship between experience and accidents, and describes how even an experienced new employee is stiU initially a safety risk. 

Finally, the research examined below tends to link variables within cases for example, data on accidents, age, and job tenure are collected from the same employee (sample of employees) and correlated. While this research clearly shows that new employees suffer accidents, it potentially misses the impact of new employees on their co-workers safety. It is also very likely that some of the accidents suffered by employees that have been working for an organization for some time (what might be termed seiuor employees) may involve a new employee as part of the causal mechanism. Indeed, responsibiUly for industrial fatalities/ accidents has been associated with the fellow worker for over 100 years (see Eastman 1910 Swuste et al. 2010). Thus, overall, new employees are both a safety risk to themselves and potentially a safety risk to all employees in an organization. 

Every person that starts a new job can be classified as a new employee. This is true, regardless of the nature of their previous employment history. Of course whether a new employee is a school leaver or has many years of previous work experience will have implications for their new employee-associated safety risks. However, previous job experience does not remove all the safety risks associated with being a new employee. In Chap. 3, different types of new employee are defined, and how safety issues vary across the four types of new employee is discussed. Arguably, an organization that understands the specific safety issues that are associated with a new employee will be in a better position to manage that employee s safety. It is also important that new employees understand their own vulnerabilities, and strategies are discussed which allow an organization to help different types of new employee protect themselves from risk. 

To understand how the different types of new employee vary in terms of safety risks, it is necessary to explain and discuss what is meant by the nature of experience. Surprisingly, little research appears to have directly addressed the question. 

The importance of understanding new employee safety expectations is further reinforced if expectations are considered within the framework of risk homeostasis theory. Wilde and colleagues developed risk homeostasis theory (see Wilde et al. 2002 Simonet and Wilde 1997) which proposes that as safety feamres (expected or real) are added to a system, users tend to increase their exposure to risk because they feel better protected. For example, if a new employee expects that equipment is well maintained, they may use equipment without checking its functionality. Similarly, if a new employee expects that co-workers will remove hazards from the workplace, or not create hazards, they may not actively engage in as much monitoring for hazards. Put it another way, incorrect safety expectations can lead a new employee to take unexpected risks. 

---