When Does Safety Climate Help? A Multilevel Study of COVID-19 Risky Decision Making and Safety Performance in the Context of Business Reopening

Abstract

Businesses are gradually reopening as lockdown measures for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are being relieved in many places across the globe. It is challenging but imperative for businesses to manage the risk of infection in the workplace and reopen safely. Drawing on risky decision-making theory and the job demands-resource model of workplace safety, we examined the influences of employees’ COVID-19 risk perception on their safety performance at work. On the one hand, COVID-19 risk perception motivates employees to perform safely; on the other hand, COVID-19 risk perception could also undermine safety performance through triggering anxiety. In an effort to find ways that alleviate the negative implications of risk perception, we also tested a cross-level interaction model where the risk perception–anxiety relation is weakened with a favorable team safety climate as well as low abusive supervision. Our data were collected from car dealership employees located in China in March 2020, when businesses just started to reopen in locations where these data were collected. Results showed that COVID-19 risk perception was positively related to anxiety, which in turn undermined safety performance. This negative effect canceled out the direct positive effects of COVID-19 risk perception on safety performance. In addition, cross-level interaction results showed that the buffering effect of team safety climate on the risk perception–anxiety relation was diminished with an abusive supervisor. Our findings provide valuable and timely implications on risk management and workplace safety during a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The influence of pandemic-related workplace safety practices on frontline service employee wellbeing outcomes

“…Emerging literature on WSPs during this pandemic has already provided important insights into the influence of various pandemic related stressors on safety compliance ( Probst, Lee, & Bazzoli, 2020 ) and wellbeing of employees ( Lin, Shao, Li, Guo, & Zhan, 2021 ); as well as the role of the organization ( He et al, 2021 , Kim et al, 2021 ) and leaders ( Yuan et al, 2020 , Zhang et al, 2020 ) in promoting employee engagement and conformance to safety procedures. For instance, a recent study conducted in China revealed that FLE perceptions of risks from COVID-19 translated into anxiety, which further led to lower levels of safety related behaviors ( Wang, He, Sheng, & Yao, 2022 ). Further, the literal life-and-death implications of what organizations can do to ensure the safety of FLEs (e.g., option to work at home, use of personal protective equipment) have been discussed in both the popular press and academic journals, all of which highlight the physical and psychological impact of WSPs on employee wellbeing ( Carnevale and Hatak, 2020 , Finsterwalder and Kuppelwieser, 2020 , Voorhees et al, 2020 ).…”

Forced shift to teleworking: how abusive supervision promotes counterproductive work behavior when employees experience COVID-19 corporate social responsibility

“…In the context of a virtual workplace where supervisors employ abusive tactics, the employees may find themselves lacking the necessary resources to cope with the stressful conditions (Zhang et al, 2019). Furthermore, abusive supervision during forced teleworking heightens employees' ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 (Wang et al, 2022), which in turn triggers anxiety and insecurity, hindering employees' ability to remain present in the moment (Alo et al, 2023;Zheng et al, 2022). Consequently, employees experience resource depletion due to abusive supervision in the context of COVID-19.…”

“…Consequently, work barriers have emerged, leaving managers uncertain about employees' productivity and engagement (Heidt et al ., 2022; Lewis et al ., 2023; McPhail et al ., 2023). This new reality has triggered destructive behavior among leaders (Wang et al ., 2022; Simard and Parent-Lamarche, 2021), leading to the development of abusive supervision. Abusive supervision refers to “subordinates' perception of the extent to which supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile verbal and nonverbal behaviors, excluding physical contact” (Tepper, 2000, p. 178).…”

How Fear of External Threats Plays Roles: An Examination of Supervisors’ Trait Anger, Abusive Supervision, Subordinate Burnout and CCB

“…First, abusive supervision may trap subordinates in a negative state and damage their well-being, as illustrated by increased burnout [ 28 ]. Simultaneously, in times of uncertainty and economic turndown, some employees may also worry about external threats, such as the negative impact of industry turndown on organizations, the loss of revenues or sales, and the possibility of losing their jobs [ 42 ]. In the time of COVID-19, those worries become realistic as some companies have closed, and some industries continue layoffs [ 43 ].…”