Perceptions of Safety at Work: A Framework for Linking Safety Climate to Safety Performance, Knowledge, and Motivation

Transcription

1 Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2000, Vol. 5, No. 3, Copyright 2000 by the Educational Publishing Foundation /00/$5.00 DOI: fl Perceptions of Safety at Work: A Framework for Linking Safety Climate to Safety Performance, Knowledge, and Motivation Mark A. Griffin Queensland University of Technology Andrew Neal University of Queensland Research in the areas of organizational climate and work performance was used to develop a framework for measuring perceptions of safety at work. The framework distinguished perceptions of the work environment from perceptions of performance related to safety. Two studies supported application of the framework to employee perceptions of safety in the workplace. Safety compliance and safety participation were distinguished as separate components of safetyrelated performance. Perceptions of knowledge about safety and motivation to perform safely influenced individual reports of safety performance and also mediated the link between safety climate and safety performance. Specific dimensions of safety climate were identified and constituted a higher order safety climate factor. The results support conceptualizing safety climate as an antecedent to safety performance in organizations. The present study combines theories of individual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993) with theories of organizational climate (L. A. James & James, 1989; L. R. James & Mclntyre, 1996) to develop a framework for investigating perceptions of safety in organizations. This framework provides a link between perceptions of the work environment and individual behavior within the work environment. We differentiate perceptions of the work environment, perceptions of individual behavior in the workplace, and mediational processes thought to underlie individual work performance. These distinctions are important because they allow systematic assessment of conceptually distinct perceptions that may have different causes and consequences within organizations. Recent reviews of the safety literature emphasize the influence of organizational factors on measures of system safety such as accidents and near misses (Hofmann, Jacobs, & Landy, 1995; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1999). Safety climate is an organizational factor commonly cited as an antecedent of system Mark A. Griffin, School of Management~ Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Andrew Neal, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. This research was supported by the Australian Research Council (Grant No. A ). We are grateful for the assistance provided by Heidi Bushell and Adrian Lewis in collecting the data for the study. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark A. Griffin, School of Management, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4001, Queensland, Australia. Electronic mail may be sent to safety, together with factors such as work pressure and communication practices (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996). A key assumption of much of this literature is that the relationship between safety climate and system safety is at least partially mediated by individual safety behavior. However, few studies have elaborated the mechanisms through which organizational factors influence individual safety behavior at work. Because employee perceptions are central to the measurement of climate, this article develops a framework for measuring employee perceptions of safety-related factors in the work environment. We first discuss safety climate in terms of a higher order factor similar to other types of climate in organizations. We next discuss employee safety performance as an aspect of work performance. We then propose a model that links safety climate perceptions to individual safety performance and describe two studies of employee perceptions that test aspects of the model. Safety Climate Safety climate is one type of climate that can be experienced by individuals in organizations. Other climate types that have been identified include climate for customer service (Burke, Borucki, & Hurley, 1992; Schneider, Wheeler, & Cox, 1992) and climate for innovation (N. R. Anderson & West, 1998; Klein & Sporra, 1996). All types of climate are based on individuals' perceptions of the practices, procedures, and rewards in the organization (Schneider, 1990). Perceptions of climate also appear to be hierarchi- 347

2 348 GRIFFIN AND NEAL cally structured. Individuals evaluate specific features of their environment in terms of their personal values and the significance of these features for their overall well-being. L. A. James and James (1989), for example, demonstrated that a number of climate dimensions loaded onto a common higher order factor. This higher order factor reflected "the extent to which the environment is personally beneficial versus personally detrimental (damaging or painful) to one's sense of well-being" (L. R. James, James, & Ashe, 1990, p. 53). Conceptualizations of both general organizational climate and specific types of climate (e.g., customer service) provide a basis for defining the key features of safety climate. Specifically, safety climate should be conceptualized as a higher order factor comprised of more specific first-order factors. The first-order factors of safety climate should reflect perceptions of safety-related policies, procedures, and rewards. The higher order factor of safety climate should reflect the extent to which employees believe that safety is valued within the organization. The preceding arguments suggest some conditions for assessing perceptions of safety climate. Most importantly, only those perceptions that involve individuals' assessment of workplace attributes concerned with safety are considered to be perceptions of safety climate. For example, employee views about management values for safety and personnel policies about safety are clearly perceptions about values and procedures in the wider work environment. In contrast, ratings of risk in the environment, affective reactions to safety issues, normative beliefs about safety, and self-reports of safety behavior are not considered to be perceptions of climate. There is currently no clear agreement about the specific first-order factors that constitute the higher order safety climate factor. One factor that has often been included in safety climate assessment is management values for safety. Management values have been measured in terms of management concern for employee well-being (R. L. Brown & Holmes, 1986), management attitudes toward safety (Dedobbeleer & Beland, 1991; Niskanen, 1994; Zohar, 1980), perceptions that safety is important to management (De Joy, 1994), and production and safety trade-offs (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996). However, there is variation in other factors that have been assessed as part of safety climate. Zohar (1980), for example, identified eight dimensions of safety climate, including factors such as management attitudes, effects of safe conduct on promotion, work pace, and status of safety officers. R. L. Brown and Holmes (1986), however, using a reduced version of Zohar's (1980) measure with a U.S. sample, identified three factors: management concern, management action, and physical risk. Dedobbeleer and Beland (1991) identified only two dimensions of safety climate: management commitment to safety and worker involvement in safety activities. Other studies have obtained a range of factor solutions, incorporating constructs such as individual attitudes to safety and the physical work environment (Cox & Tait, 1991; Hayes, Perander, Smecko, & Trask, 1998; Niskanen, 1994). The results of these studies using different measurement instruments suggest that it is premature to propose a definitive structure for the first-order dimensions of safety climate. As in other areas of organizational assessment, the purpose of the assessment should determine whether specific first-order factors or a global higher order factor is most appropriate (Hogan & Roberts, 1996). For some purposes, such as determining the overall impact of safety climate on safety outcomes, a higher order factor of safety climate will be most appropriate. For other purposes, such as determining the impact of distinct organizational practices on task performance, using specific first-order climate factors will provide more detailed diagnostic information. In the present article, we developed a model that distinguished perceptions of safety climate from other perceptions related to safety. Therefore, the article focuses on the role of a higher order safety climate factor rather than specific first-order factors. Safety Performance Perceptions of safety climate should be distinguished from perceptions of individual knowledge, motivation, and behavior that influence safety in the workplace. Work behaviors relevant to safety can be conceptualized in the same way as other work behaviors that constitute work performance. In this way, models of performance can be applied to safety performance in the workplace. The model of performance used in the present study makes a distinction among the components of performance, the determinants of performance, and the antecedents of performance (Campbell, Gasser, & Oswald, 1996). The components of performance describe the actual behaviors that individuals perform at work. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) proposed two major components of performance: task performance and contextual performance. These two components of performance can be used to differentiate safety behaviors in the workplace. First, based on definitions

3 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY 349 of task performance, we use the term safety compliance to describe the core safety activities that need to be carried out by individuals to maintain workplace safety. These behaviors include adhering to tagout and lockout procedures and wearing personal protective equipment. Second, based on definitions of contextual performance, we use the term safety participation to describe behaviors such as participating in voluntary safety activities or attending safety meetings. These behaviors may not directly contribute to workplace safety, but they do help to develop an environment that supports safety. The determinants of performance represent the proximal causes of variability in performance. These are the factors that are directly responsible for individual differences in task and contextual performance. Campbell et al. (1993) argued that there are only three determinants of individual performance: knowledge, skill, and motivation. Safety performance, therefore, must be determined by knowledge and skills necessary for particular behaviors and by the motivation of individuals to perform the behaviors. The antecedents of performance represent the distal causes of variability in performance. These factors influence performance through their effects on knowledge, skill, and motivation. For work performance in general, antecedents have been identified at both the individual and the organizational level. At the individual level, research suggests that factors such as ability and experience are important antecedents of task performance, whereas personality constructs, such as conscientiousness, are important antecedents of contextual performance (McHenry, Hough, Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Wise, McHenry, & Campbell, 1990). At the organizational level, the climate of an or- ganization can be an important antecedent of performance. At least part of this relationship appears to be mediated by motivation. Individuals attribute meaning and value to features of their work environment (L. A. James & James, 1989). This process is thought to influence motivation and, subsequently, performance. Supporting this proposition, S. P. Brown and Leigh (1996) found that motivation mediated the link between organizational climate and task performance for sales people. It has also been proposed that the relationship between climate and performance can be mediated by knowledge. Organizational climate can influence knowledge by increasing participation in activities such as training (Morrison, Upton, & Cordery, 1997). These findings suggest that safety climate should be classified as an antecedent of safety performance and that the relationship between safety climate and safety performance may be mediated by determinants of safety performance, such as safety motivation and safety knowledge. A Model of Safety Climate and Performance Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of the proposed link between safety climate and safety performance based on previous research within the work performance literature. The model shows that safety climate is a higher order factor comprised of more specific first-order factors and that the influence of safety climate on safety performance is mediated by knowledge, skill, and motivation. Existing models of safety climate do not make the distinctions contained in the proposed framework and sometimes include determinants or components of safety performance as elements of safety climate. For example, worker involvement in safety is commonly cited as an important element of safety climate (De- Antecedents of Determinants of Components Safety Performance Safety Performance Safety Performance no w, Ooe O 'as e.o=n e ~ y Contextual Perfo~,) Figure 1. Summary of relationship among antecedents, determinants, and components of safety performance.

4 350 GRIFFIN AND NEAL dobbeleer & Beiand, 1991; Rundmo, 1994). However, worker involvement refers to the behavior of individuals and should be classified as a component of safety performance. Similarly, the value that individuals personally place on safety (e.g., Cox & Tait, 1991) is an individual motivational construct rather than an aspect of safety climate. The Present Research This article reports two separate studies of safety climate conducted across a range of manufacturing and mining organizations. The overall goal of the research was to assess the applicability of the proposed model to employee perceptions of safety in their workplace. Support for the model of antecedents, determinants, and components of performance would provide a basis for systematic evaluation of safety perceptions at work and for linking safety perceptions to safety outcomes in organizations. Study 1 was based on an organizational survey conducted in seven large manufacturing and mining organizations in Australia. The survey assessed perceptions of a range of safety conditions and practices in each organization. However, the first study was conducted using archival survey data. Safety knowledge was the only determinant of performance that was included in this archival data set. Study 1, therefore, tested a model in which knowledge was the only mediator between safety climate and safety performance. Study 2 was conducted in three manufacturing organizations and was based on a revised version of the instrument used in the first study. The revision allowed measurement of a greater number of safety climate subdimensions and included knowledge and motivation as mediators of the link between safety climate and safety perception. A specific measure of skill was not developed in either of the studies. The first specific goal of the research was to test whether employee perceptions of safety at work could be differentiated in terms of the components, determinants, and antecedents of safety performance. The second goal of the studies was to test the mediational role of knowledge and motivation described in the proposed model. Me~od Study 1 Sample. The sample for Study 1 consisted of 1,403 employees in seven Australian manufacturing and mining organizations. Listwise deletion of cases resulted in a final sample of 1,264 employees for the analyses. The data were archival records from an organization conducting quality assurance audits for the mining and manufacturing industry in Australia. Because the data were obtained from archival records, response rates for the survey were not available. Measures. A questionnaire consisting of 81 items was used to assess a wide range of attitudes, behaviors, and safety procedures. Employees responded on a 5-point scale to all items ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Items from the survey were matched to constructs in the conceptual model by three raters. Items were retained if they were consistently classified by all raters as perceptions of the workplace (12 items), self-reports of safety knowledge (7 items), or self-reports of individual behavior at work (6 items). Safety climate was assessed by four subscales. Manager Values were assessed by three items that asked about the degree to which managers valued safety in the workplace (ct =.72). An example item was "I think management is sincere in its efforts to ensure employee safety." Safety Inspections were assessed by three items that asked about the effectiveness of safety inspections in the organization (a =.69). An example item was "Inspections in this company are effective at identifying unsafe conditions." Personnel Training was assessed by two items that asked about the degree to which staff were trained in safety procedures (a =.73). An example item was "Trained people are available to handle emergencies." Safety Communication was assessed by four items that asked about the way in which safety issues were communicated (a =.74). An example item was "I receive regular updates on technical aspects of safety." Safety Knowledge was assessed by seven items that asked employees to rate their knowledge about safety practices and procedures (a =.73). An example item was "I understand the health and safety regulations relating to my work." Two dimensions of performance in the workplace were measured. Safety Compliance was assessed by three items that asked about individual performance of safety compliance (a =.56). An example item was "I use the correct personal protective equipment for the task I am doing." Safety Participation was assessed by three items that asked about participation that supported safety in the organization but did not necessarily involve performance related to safety (ct =.66). An example item was "I often take part in development of the safety requirements for my job." Correlations among all the scales are reported below the diagonal in Table 1. Analysis. Analyses were conducted using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM). The CFA included a higher order factor analysis in which the first-order climate factors were indicators of a higher order safety climate factor. The SEM analysis assessed the proposed mediational model based on the higher order factor model. Goodness of fit of the various models was judged in terms of Joreskog and Sorbom's (1989) goodness-if-fit index (GFI), the nonnormed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonneu, 1980), the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The CFI is recommended as the best approximation of the population value for a single model (Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994). The NNFI is recommended as an index that takes account of the parsimony of the estimated parameters (Medsker et al.,

5 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY 351 Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities for All Scales in Study 1 Scale M SD Manager Values Safety Inspections Personnel Training Safety Communication Safety Knowledge Safety Compliance Safety Participation Note. Values above the diagonal represent correlations among the first-order factors; values below the diagonal represent correlations among the scales. 1994). The RMSEA has a known distribution and compensates for model complexity (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Results and Discussion The first analysis tested the proposed factor structure comprising safety knowledge, safety compliance, safety participation, and a higher order safety climate factor with four subdimensions. A series of five CFA models were compared, and the results of each model are presented in Table 2. First, a null model that specified no covariation among items was estimated. This null model provided a baseline for comparison with subsequent models. Second, a onefactor model was estimated to test the possibility that all items loaded on a general factor regarding safety perceptions. The one-factor model was a significantly better fit than the null model, AX2(24, N = 1,264) = 6,771.04, p <.001. Third, a three-factor model was estimated that specified the components, determinants, and antecedents of performance depicted in Figure 2 as three factors. This model allowed for the possibility that different dimensions were perceived by employees but that distinctions among specific subdimensions were not meaningful. The model showed a significant improvement in fit, AX2(3, N = 1,264) = , p <.001. Fourth, a four-factor model that differentiated the two components of safety performance was estimated. This model also showed further significant improvement in fit, AX2(3, N = 1,264) = 61.30, p <.001. Fifth, a seven-factor model that differentiated among all the proposed subdimensions depicted in Figure 1 was estimated. This model also showed a further significant improvement in fit, AX2(15, N = 1,264) = 6,771.04, p <.001. The results support the proposition that individual employee perceptions of safety can be differentiated in terms of the antecedents, determi- nants, and components of safety performance. The results also support a distinction between safety compliance and safety participation. Finally, a higher order factor analysis was conducted with the first-order safety climate factors aciing as indicators of a higher order safety climate factor. This model showed an acceptable fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999), although there was a significant decrease in the fit of this model compared with the previous model in which the seven firstorder factors were free to correlate, Ax2(ll, N = 1,264) = 92.56, p <.001. Correlations among the first-order factors are shown above the diagonal in Table 1. Because the higher order model displayed an acceptable fit, subsequent tests of study hypotheses were conducted using the higher order model. The factor loadings of the items are presented in Table 3. Most of the loadings were at acceptable levels. However, the loadings for all of the safety compliance items were lower than expected (less than.45), and one of the factor loadings for the knowledge items was also below.40. This item asked about knowledge for using equipment safely, whereas other items for this factor asked about understanding of safety requirements. The next analysis tested structural paths among the constructs using the higher order safety climate structure. The hypothetical model, in which knowledge mediated the link between safety climate and performance, was compared with a saturated structural model in which safety climate predicted safety knowledge, safety compliance, and safety participation. The saturated structural model has equivalent fit properties to the higher order measurement model and provided a point of comparison for the hypothesized model. The lower section of Table 2 shows that the hypothesized model was

6 352 GRIFFIN AND NEAL Table 2 Assessment of Measurement Model for Individual Responses to Survey Items in Study 1 Model df X 2 GFI RMSEA CFI NNFI Measurement models Null covariance model 276 9, One-factor model 252 2, Three-factor model One climate dimension 249 1, One performance dimension Four-factor model One climate dimension 246 1, Two performance dimensions Seven-factor model Four climate dimensions 231 1, Two performance dimensions Higher order factor model 242 1, Structural models Hypothesized model 244 1, Final model 242 1, Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index. a significantly poorer fit than the saturated structural model, AX2(2, N = 1,264) = , p <.001. Inspection of the path values in the saturated structural model indicated that both the path from safety climate to safety compliance and the path from safety climate to safety participation were necessary for the model. The path coefficients for the final structural model are presented in Figure 2. The figure also shows the loadings of the firstorder safety climate factors on the higher order factor. The results of Study 1 supported the differentiation of the constructs in the proposed model. The safety climate dimensions were distinguished from the other measures in the survey. However, knowledge about safety only partially mediated the link between safety climate and safety performance dimensions. Safety climate also displayed a direct positive relationship with safety compliance and safety participation. The path from safety knowledge to safety participation was also not statistically significant..85 I Safety v Compliance.13 Figure 2. Path estimates from final model for Study t. ns = not statistically significant.

7 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY 353 Table 3 Factor Loadings for Items in Study 1 Factor loading Factor Manager Values Safety Inspections Personnel Training Safety Communication Safety Knowledge Safety Compliance Safety Participation Study 2 The results of Study 1 partially supported the hypothesized mediational model of safety perceptions. Because motivation was not included in the first study, it was not surprising that the full mediational model was not supported. The second study included more specific measures of individual motivation for both safety compliance and safety participation. The measure of safety motivation was included as part of a major revision of the organizational survey used in Study 1. The revision process resulted in a number of changes to the content of the survey. In addition to the measure of motivation, the revised survey also included a more comprehensive assessment of safety climate. The scale construct termed Safety Inspections in Study 1 was expanded to accommodate other management practices relating to safety, such as incident investigations. A new scale was added to the survey assessing perceptions about the adequacy of safety equipment. Many of the items in the new survey were changed so that only one item in each of the common dimensions remained the same across the two surveys. Me~od Sample. The sample for Study 2 consisted of 381 employees in three Australian manufacturing organizations. Listwise deletion of cases resulted in a final sample of 326 employees. The survey was administered by the same organization as for Study 1 The overall response rate for the survey was 57%. Measures. The revised survey assessed five dimensions of safety climate: one knowledge dimension, two motivation dimensions, and two performance dimensions. The Method section for Study 1 reports the items that were the same in both surveys. Employees responded on a 5-point scale to all items ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Safety climate was assessed by five subscales. Manager Values were assessed by four items that asked about the degree to which managers were perceived to value safety in the workplace (a =.90). An example item was "Management values safety." Safety Communication was assessed by four items that asked about the way in which safety issues were communicated (a =.80). An example item was "Feedback is given on safety suggestions and complaints." Safety Practices were assessed by three items that asked about the thoroughness of safety practices, such as inspections and investigations (c~ =.84). An example item was "Accident investigations are always conducted thoroughly." Personnel Training was assessed by four items that asked about the effectiveness of training for safety in the organization (a =.74). An example item was "This organization has a useful and well-developed safety training program." Safety Equipment was assessed by three items that asked about the adequacy of safety equipment (o~ =.75). An example item was "The correct tools and equipment are readily available." Safety Knowledge was assessed by four items that asked about each employee's knowledge of safety practices and procedures (a =.84). An example item was "I have the knowledge I need to safely operate equipment used in my job." Two types of motivational measure were used to match the distinction between task and contextual performance used with measures of safety behavior. Compliance Motivation was assessed by three items that asked about motivation to perform safety-related tasks (a =.80). An example item was "It is important to consistently use the correct personal protective equipment." Participation Motivation was assessed by three items that assessed motivation to participate in activities supporting safety in the organization (or =.81). An example item was "I believe it is important to promote our safety program." Two dimensions of safety performance were assessed. Safety Compliance was assessed by two items that asked about individual proficiency in safety compliance (a =.56). An example item was "I use safe procedures for handling hazardous materials." Safety Participation was assessed by three items that assessed safety behavior that was not directly related to safety compliance (o~ =.73). An example item was "I volunteer for safety-related tasks." Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and correlations among all scales are presented in Table 4.

8 354 GRIFFIN AND NEAL Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations. and Reliabilities for All Scales in Study 2 Scale M SD Manager Values Safety Communication Safety Practices Personnel Training Safety Equipment Safety Knowledge Compliance Motivation Participation Motivation Safety Compliance Safety Participation Note. Values above the diagonal represent correlations among the first-order factors; values below the diagonal represent correlations among the scales. Results and Discussion A similar analytic procedure for Study 1 was adopted in Study 2. First, a series of CFA models was estimated including a higher order factor model. The top section of Table 5 shows the fit of each altema- tive factor model. Beginning with the null covariance model, each sequential nested model showed a significant improvement in fit. The series of comparisons proceeded from the null covariance model to a 1-factor model, AX2(32, N = 326) = 2,204.19, p <.001; a 4-factor model, AX2(6, N = 326) = 1,096.02, p <.001; a 5-factor model, AX2(4, N = 326) = Table 5 Assessment of Measurement Model for Individual Responses to Survey Items in Study 2 Model df X 2 GFI RMSEA CFI NNFI Measurement models Null covariance model 496 5, One-factor model 464 2, Four-factor model 458 1, One climate dimension One motivation dimension One performance dimension Five-factor model 454 1, One climate dimension One motivation dimension Two performance dimensions Six-factor model 449 1, One climate dimension Two motivation dimensions Two performance dimensions Ten-factor model Five climate dimensions Two motivation dimensions Two performance dimensions Higher order climate model Structural models Hypothetical model Final model Note. til~l = goodness-ot-ht index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; NNFI = nonnormed fit index.

9 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY , p <.001; a 6-factor model, AX2(5, N = 326) = 93.66, p <.001; and the full 10-factor model, AX2(30, N = 326) = , p <.001. This result supported a distinction among the proposed first-order constructs. The higher order factor model provided an acceptable fit, although it was a significantly poorer fit compared with the 10-factor model, AXZ(25, N = 326) = 43.75, p <.05. The higher order model was retained to test the mediational links in the proposed model. Correlations among the first-order factors from the measurement model are shown above the diagonal in Table 4. The factor loadings for the higher order factor model are shown in Table 6. The loadings for all of the items were acceptable and generally higher than the loadings obtained for Study 1. Next, we estimated structural paths among the constructs to assess the hypothesized mediational model. Results of these comparisons are presented in the lower part of Table 4. The hypothesized model was a significantly poorer fit than a saturated structural model, AXz(4, N = 326) = 21.11, p <.001. Inspection of significant paths in the saturated structural model indicated a significant negative path from safety compliance motivation to safety participation. Inclusion of this path resulted in a final model that was not significantly different from the saturated model, AX2(3, N = 326) = 3.10, p >.05. Figure 3 shows the final path estimates from the SEM analysis. The results supported the proposed mediational structure because there was no direct path from the higher order safety climate factor to the two safety performance factors. Table 6 Factor Loadings for Items in Study 2 Factor Factor loadings Manager Values Safety Communication Safety Practices Personnel Training Safety Equipment Safety Knowledge Compliance Motivation Participation Motivation Safety Compliance Safety Participation General Discussion The study's framework for assessing employee perceptions of safety is valuable because it allows for systematic assessment of different types of employee perceptions. These perceptions can then be linked to safety outcomes in organizations. Little research has addressed the process through which safety climate translates into safety outcomes for organizations. Investigation of this process is hampered because there is no coherent framework that links employee perceptions of the work environment to specific safety behaviors at work. The proposed framework was based on an integration of recent theories of work performance with theories of organizational climate. Four key attributes of the framework were (a) the use of a higher order construct of safety climate comprising specific firstorder factors, (b) the distinction of perceptions of climate from other safety perceptions, (c) the distinction between task and contextual performance related to safety, and (d) the inclusion of mediational role for knowledge and motivation. Implications of each of these four issues are addressed below. First, the framework incorporated safety climate as a higher order factor comprising specific first-order factors (L. R. James & Mclntyre, 1996). Perceptions of workplace systems related to safety were the defining feature of the higher order safety climate factor. This conceptualization is important because it allows the role of the higher order factor to be investigated in relation to other safety-related perceptions and in relation to organizational outcomes. The proposed framework extends previous discussions of safety climate that have focused on the dimensionality of safety climate (Dedobbeleer & Beland, 1991; Zohar, 1980). The framework does not resolve disagreement about the number of subdimensions of safety climate or provide a definitive conclusion about the content of these dimensions. However, the framework allows for consistent development of further specific dimensions of safety climate within the construct of a higher order safety climate factor. Second, the framework provides a basis for distinguishing other perceptions related to safety. In particular, safety climate was distinguished from self-reports of individual safety performance and from the motivational and knowledge determinants of this behavior. Differentiating safety climate from other perceptions of safety in organizations allows hypotheses regarding the mechanisms through which safety climate influences safety performance to be developed and tested. Previous

10 356 GRIFFIN AND NEAL ~.14 _/ ~--Safety~~ / Figure 3. Path estimates from final model for Study 2. ns = not statistically significant. studies have confounded these issues (Dedobbeleer & Beland, 1991). Furthermore, the exclusion of factors such as affective reactions to safety and perceptions of risk from the construct of safety climate allows a clearer focus on the key element of climate, namely, the perception of values, policies, and procedures within the organization. The third feature of the framework was the division of safety performance into behaviors directly related to safe work practices (safety compliance) and behaviors that support the overall safety of the organization (safety participation). The results support a distinction between task and contextual performance within the safety domain (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). It is meaningful to distinguish between safety activities that are prescribed as part of the job and safety activities that support the broader organizational context. Previous research has focused on safety behaviors such as wearing the correct protective clothing. These behaviors are directly related to the safety of the individual performing the behavior. The current framework extends safety performance to include activities such as participating in safety meetings and encouraging the safety of others. These contextual behaviors can enhance the safety of the team, the work environment, or the organization as a whole. It has long been recognized that contextual behaviors play an important role in maintaining organizational effectiveness (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Contextual safety behaviors are likely to play an important role in the maintenance of overall system safety. Finally, the mediation of safety climate through motivation and knowledge within the framework provides an individual process that links safety climate to specific performance outcomes. The results support the proposal that knowledge and motivation mediate the impact of safety climate on individual safety behavior. This distinction is important because it identifies mechanisms through which safety climate is likely to influence safety performance (Campbell et al., 1993). In addition, the framework allows the inclusion of other antecedents that may influence knowledge and motivation for safety. For example, the risk level of a particular industry, organizational characteristics such as size and structure, and characteristics of the workforce can also be included in the framework as antecedents to individual safety performance. These antecedents may be related to safety climate but are also conceptually distinct. Although the framework received general support, two aspects were not fully supported and require further investigation. First, the negative link between safety compliance motivation and safety participation was not expected. This negative relationship is consistent with resource allocation models of performance that propose goaloriented task motivation can reduce participation in contextual behaviors (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Wright, George, Farnsworth, & McMahan, 1993). Second, safety knowledge was not related to safety participation in Study 1. However, safety knowledge was positively related to both safety compliance and safety participation in Study 2.

11 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY 357 Limitations and Further Development The aim of this study was to develop a framework for measuring perceptions of safety in the workplace. The use of self-report measures within the framework is therefore appropriate. However, the study is limited by not having access to measures of safety beyond individual perceptions. The common method of measurement may have increased the strength of the relationship among constructs. However, the proposed distinctions among constructs were supported by the confirmatory analyses, and previous studies have demonstrated a link between safety behaviors and accidents in organizations (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996). Measurement of the relationship between employee perceptions and indicators of both the work context and individual behavior is necessary to further validate the constructs and to assess the impact of safety perceptions on workplace outcomes. A further limitation of the study was cross-sectional measurement. It was not possible to test the causal relationships proposed in the theoretical framework, and longitudinal assessment would provide further validation of specific relationships. Finally, neither study included assessment of skill. Further development of the model should incorporate a distinct measure of skill. The defining quality of skilled performance is that it is accurate and effortless (J. R. Anderson, 1983). This quality makes it difficult to assess skill independently of motivation and performance when using self-report data. One way of assessing skill independently of other dimensions is for individuals to assess their prior performance in relation to the amount of effort that they put in. In addition to addressing the above limitations, future research can be guided by the proposed framework in two ways. First, additional dimensions of climate can be incorporated. The framework clearly identifies the way that these climate dimensions should be conceptualized and assessed. Specific climate dimensions should focus on perceptions of relevant features of the work context that are likely to be shared across members of the work group. For example, the perceived clarity of goals for safety could be assessed to capture the degree to which individuals perceive the goals of the organization to be linked to safety in the workplace. Second, more specific measures of safety performance can be developed to extend the way that performance is reported by individuals in organizations. Performance requirements vary across organizations, and it is likely that successful safety performance also depends on the work context. Further elaboration of safety performance using the current framework may include subdimensions of task and contextual performance to provide more detailed diagnosis of safety perceptions in the organization. Conclusion The theories of performance developed by Campbell, Motowidlo, and their colleagues, together with theories of organizational climate, provide a useful framework for measuring perceptions of safety at work. The results of the study provide a systematic framework for further investigation of the impact of employee perceptions, employee behavior, and organizational safety outcomes. The framework will provide a basis for ongoing articulation of the core dimensions of safety climate and the mediating role of employee knowledge, skill, and motivation. This framework will also aid the design and evaluation of organizational interventions designed to enhance safety outcomes. The results of the study, therefore, provide a new step in developing a coherent model that links safety climate to safety in the workplace. References Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, R. L., & Holmes, H. (1986). The use of a factoranalytic procedure for assessing the validity of an employee safety climate model. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Hurley, A. E. (1992). Reconceptualizing psychological climate in a retail service environment: A multiple stakeholder perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature of performance variability. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

12 358 GRIFFIN AND NEAL Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cox, S., & Tait, R. (1991). Reliability, safety and risk management: An integrated approach. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann. Dedobbeleer, N., & Beland, F. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction sites. Journal of Safety Research, 22, DeJoy, D. M. (1994). Managing safety in the workplace: An attribution theory analysis and model. Journal of Safety Research, 25, Hayes, B. E., Perander, J., Smecko, T., & Trask, J. (1998). Measuring perceptions of workplace safety: Development and validation of the work safety scale. Journal of Safety Research, 29, Hofmann, D. A., Jacobs, R. R., & Landy, F. J. (1995). High reliability process industries: Individual, micro, and macro organizational influences on safety performance. Journal of Safety Research, 26, Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1999). The role of safety climate and communication in accident interpretation: Implications for learning from negative events. Academy of Management Journal, 41, Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, James, L. R., & Mclntyre, M. D. (1996). Perceptions of organizational climate. In K. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The role of condition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbem, D. (1989). LISREL VII." User's reference and guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Klein, K. J., & Spotra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21, McCloy, R. A., Campbell, J. P., & Cudeck, R. (1994). A confirmatory test of a model of performance determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20, Morrison, D. L., Upton, D. M., & Cordery, J. (1997, April). Organizational climate and skill utilization. Paper presented to the 12th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, Niskanen, T. (1994). Assessing the safety environment in the work organization of road maintenance jobs. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26, Rundmo, T. (1994). Associations between safety and contingency measures and occupational accidents on offshore petroleum platforms. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 20, Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, B., Wheeler, J. K., & Cox, J. F. (1992). A passion for service: Using content analysis to explicate service climate themes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, Wise, L. L., McHenry, J., & Campbell, J. P. (1990). Identifying optimal predictor composites and testing for generalizability across jobs and performance factors. Personnel Psychology, 43, Wright, P. M., George, J. M., Farnsworth, S. R., & McMahan, G. C. (1993). Productivity and extra-role behavior: The effects of goals and incentives on spontaneous helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, Received June 9, 1999 Revision received December 6, 1999 Accepted January 19, 2000