Should We Agree to Disagree? The Multilevel Moderated Relationship Between Safety Climate Strength And Individual Safety Motivation

Harrison, Huw Flatau; Griffin, Mark; Gagné, Marylène

doi:10.1007/s10869-020-09696-2

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, González-Romá et al (2002) found support for a climate level and strength interaction in three of six (50%) regression tests involving climates for support, goal orientation, and innovation and the outcomes of group satisfaction and commitment. More recently, Flatau-Harrison et al (2021) proposed that safety climate strength moderates the individual safety climate level–safety motivation relationship. Initial analyses did not support this interaction; however, after reoperationalizing workgroups into larger units, they found a significant interaction.…”

Section: The Interaction Between Climate Level and Strengthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational climate profiles: Identifying meaningful combinations of climate level and strength.

He¹,

Payne²,

Beus³

et al. 2023

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to situation strength theory, organizational climate should have a stronger effect on group behavior when members’ perceptions of the climate are both unambiguous (i.e., very high or very low) and shared than when they are more ambiguous and less shared. In the organizational climate literature, this proposition is typically examined by testing the interaction between climate level (i.e., mean) and strength (i.e., variability); surprisingly, the preponderance of empirical research testing this interaction does not support this theoretical expectation. This may be because the traditional variable-centered approach fails to consider the possibility of overlooked subpopulations consisting of unique combinations of climate level and strength, creating distinct climate profiles. To address this issue, we use a group-centered conceptualization and analyses (i.e., latent profile analysis) to examine the extent to which 302 workgroups (Sample 1) and 107 organizations (Sample 2) evidence statistically and practically meaningful climate profiles. Results revealed four to six distinct climate profiles across multiple climate types were differentially associated with theoretically relevant outcomes, including objective financial measures. Consistent with situation strength theory, groups with strong and favorable profiles tended to have more positive outcomes, whereas groups with weaker, less favorable profiles tended to have less positive outcomes. In contrast, the traditional variable-centered approach was generally unsupportive of an interaction between climate level and strength. Overall, these findings provide evidence that the group-centered approach is a more sensitive statistical modeling technique for testing a fundamental tenet of situation strength theory in the context of organizational climate research.

show abstract

Section: The Interaction Between Climate Level and Strengthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational climate profiles: Identifying meaningful combinations of climate level and strength.

He¹,

Payne²,

Beus³

et al. 2023

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This highly noble behavior is, however, concerning considering the many productivity and health-related complaints that originate from presenteeism, especially so in the current global context of a virulent pandemic. Even positive job characteristics enacted through safety culture and climate can have large and variable implications on health care employee motivation to carry out their jobs safely (Flatau-Harrison et al, 2020), which is concerning given that research already shows that presentees are more likely to make safety errors and mistakes compared with nonpresentees (Niven & Ciborowska, 2015). Employers should be wary of this and be vigilant to maintaining strict sick leave policies in the workplace, which remove the decision-making capability of individuals when unwell.…”

Section: Practice Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the relationship between absence constraints and presenteeism among nurses and midwives: Does social support matter?

Harrison

Vleugels

Kilroy

et al. 2022

Health Care Manage Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The substitution hypothesis identifies absence constraints such as job and organizational demands as key precursors of presenteeism (attending work while ill). However, the relationship between absence constraints and presenteeism might be more complex than traditionally assumed (i.e., curvilinear). Moreover, it also remains unclear whether and how effective social support is in buffering these relationships.Purpose: This study investigates whether the relationship between key absence constraints (i.e., attendance enforcement and work overload) and presenteeism follows a U-shaped curvilinear pattern and whether support mechanisms (i.e., colleague and manager support) moderate the absence constraints-presenteeism relationship.Methodology: To answer these questions, we employed binary logistic regression analysis on survey data from a large and representative sample of nurses and midwives from Ireland (N = 1,037). Results: The relationship between absence constraints and presenteeism is dependent on the type of absence constraint, with attendance enforcement demonstrating a curvilinear relationship and work overload demonstrating a linear relationship. Contrary to expectations, social support had limited impact on this relationship and acted as a "constraint in disguise" in the case of manager support and had no impact in the case of colleague support. Conclusion: Our study challenges the basic tenets of the substitution hypothesis of presenteeism, particularly the idea that eliminating absence constraints always reduces the likelihood of presenteeism among nurses and midwives. Practice Implications: Increasing support to reduce presenteeism is unlikely to be effective in controlling presenteeism among nurses and midwives. Hospitals would be better served by directly targeting the absence constraints of such presenteeism behavior.

show abstract

“…When one internalizes the value, a behaviour is enacted because it is of personal importance, thus no external monitoring is required (Tyler & Blader, 2005). Recent studies have shown that safety motivation – the degree to which one values and places personal importance on safe work practices – is a powerful determinant of safety behaviour (Flatau‐Harrison, Griffin, & Gagne, 2020; Sawhney & Ciglarov, 2019). Nevertheless, meta‐analytic evidence presented by Clarke (2013) suggests that, although placing high personal importance on safe work predicts the more volitional forms of safety behaviour, it seems to be less important in driving safety compliance, and longitudinal research by Neal and Griffin (2006) did not detect a relationship between safety motivation and safety compliance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding compliance with safe work practices: The role of ‘can‐do’ and ‘reason‐to’ factors

Jimmieson

White

2022

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study addresses the psychological mechanisms that lead to compliance with safe work practices among electrical workers. Compliance with safe work practices can be challenging as it involves substantive cognitive effort and often takes place in the presence of multiple competing demands and situational constraints. Guided by expectancy‐value theory, we advance theorizing on compliance by conceptualizing it as a task choice. Our key proposition is that compliance is motivated by the unique and interactive effects of "can‐do" (i.e., self‐efficacy) and "reason‐to" (i.e., perceived usefulness and perceived low cost) psychological states. Distal individual (i.e., safety knowledge and sensation seeking personality) and organizational (i.e., psychological safety climate) antecedents also were considered. Data from a sample of 386 Australian electrical workers in which the focal variables were assessed at Time 1 and compliance with safe work practices was assessed three months later at Time 2 confirmed the hypothesized relationships. A compensating interactive effect between self‐efficacy and perceived usefulness also was found. When self‐efficacy was high, perceived usefulness no longer had a significant positive relationship with compliance. Overall, this study demonstrates that expectancy‐value theory provides a meaningful explanation for the underlying psychological mechanisms that lead to safety compliance. Managers and safety practitioners should focus on cultivating self‐efficacy and utility perceptions when enforcing compliance with safe work practices. Practitioner points This research examined psychological states of a cognitive nature that encourage electricians’ compliance with safe work practices. Self‐efficacy was found to have the strongest positive association with compliance, and to a lesser extent, perceived usefulness. When feelings of confidence in being compliant were high, perceived usefulness no longer had a significant positive relationship with compliance, suggesting a compensating effect.

show abstract

Should We Agree to Disagree? The Multilevel Moderated Relationship Between Safety Climate Strength And Individual Safety Motivation

Abstract: M. (2020). Should we agree to disagree? The multilevel moderated relationship between safety climate strength and individual safety motivation.

Cited by 4 publications

References 55 publications

Organizational climate profiles: Identifying meaningful combinations of climate level and strength.

Organizational climate profiles: Identifying meaningful combinations of climate level and strength.

Understanding the relationship between absence constraints and presenteeism among nurses and midwives: Does social support matter?

Understanding compliance with safe work practices: The role of ‘can‐do’ and ‘reason‐to’ factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About