The application of the psychological contract to workplace safety

www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr Journal of Safety Research 37 (2006) 433 441 www.nsc.org The application of the psychological contract to workplace safety Arlene Walker a,, Dorothy M. Hutton b a School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, Geelong Victoria 3217, Australia b Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia Received 21 November 2005; received in revised form 25 April 2006; accepted 26 June 2006 Available online 27 November 2006 Abstract Introduction: Psychological contracts of safety are conceptualized as the beliefs of individuals about reciprocal safety obligations inferred from implicit or explicit promises. Although the literature on psychological contracts is growing, the existence of psychological contracts in relation to safety has not been established. The research sought to identify psychological contracts in the conversations of employees about safety, by demonstrating reciprocity in relation to employer and employee safety obligations. The identified safety obligations were used to develop a measure of psychological contracts of safety. Method: The participants were 131 employees attending safety training sessions in retail and manufacturing organizations. Non-participant observation was used to collect the data during safety training sessions. Content analysis was used to analyze the data. Categories for coding were established through identification of language markers that demonstrated contingencies or other implied obligations. Results: Direct evidence of reciprocity between employer safety obligations and employee safety obligations was found in statements from the participants demonstrating psychological contracts. A comprehensive list of perceived employer and employee safety obligations was compiled and developed into a measure of psychological contracts of safety. A small sample of 33 safety personnel was used to validate the safety obligations. Conclusions and impact on industry: Implications of these findings for safety and psychological contract research are discussed. 2006 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Workplace safety; Psychological contracts; Social exchange theory; Qualitative research; Scale development 1. Introduction Psychological contracts have only recently been applied to the understanding of employment relationships and are believed to be important determinants of employee attitudes and behavior (Anderson & Schalk, 1998; McLean Parks, Kidder, & Gallagher, 1998; Rousseau, 1989, 1990; Schein, 1965). Psychological contracts can be thought of as the perceived mutual obligations between employees and employers, viewed from the employee's perspective (Rousseau, 1990). Employees form expectations about the employment relationship that lead them to believe that certain actions will be reciprocated, this comprises their psychological contract. Applied research on the role of psychological contracts in organizations has established that they can be associated Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 5227 8441; fax: +61 3 5227 8621. E-mail address: arlene.walker@deakin.edu.au (A. Walker). with trust, commitment, citizenship behavior, and intention to leave (Bunderson, 2001; Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Coyle- Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Psychological contracts have mainly been researched in an employment context but there is evidence that they exist in other settings (e.g., Wade-Benzoni & Rousseau, 1998). There is the belief that individuals in organizations can simultaneously develop multiple psychological contracts (Shore et al., 2004). The role of psychological contracts in occupational safety has received little attention. The present research examines the proposition that employees hold psychological contracts of safety. Much of the occupational safety research focuses on safety culture and safety climate, depicted as attitudinal and behavioral phenomena. The safety literature suggests a relationship between safety attitudes and safety behavior and also that safety attitudes and behavior are related to 0022-4375/$ - see front matter 2006 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2006.06.001

434 A. Walker, D.M. Hutton / Journal of Safety Research 37 (2006) 433 441 safety performance (Garavan & O' Brien, 2001; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996; Varonen & Mattila, 2000; Zohar, 2000). The influences on the formation of safety attitudes and behavior have yet to be established. Psychological contracts of safety could provide the cognitive basis to the development of safety attitudes and behavior. Psychological contract theory is based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). A psychological contract is essentially a perceived exchange relationship between the two parties in an employment relationship, namely the employee and the employer. Organizational social exchanges depend on trust that the goodwill actions of one party will be reciprocated by the other party at some time in the future (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). The concept of the psychological contract, adopted in this research, is that first put forward by Rousseau (1989, 1990) and further developed by others (e.g. McLean Parks et al., 1998; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Shore et al., 2002). This conceptualization of the psychological contract is from the individual's perspective, rather than the relational or group perspective evident in earlier definitions of the construct (Roehling, 1997; Shore et al., 2002). Psychological contract theory proposes that implied promises and reciprocal obligations are fundamental components of the psychological contract, although it is also argued that expectations play a role in forming the psychological contract (Shore et al., 2002). A psychological contract develops when an individual believes that promises made by an employer are contingent upon reciprocal actions of the employee (Rousseau, 1990). The psychological contract is uni-lateral in that it is held by a single individual but it contains both employer and employee obligations (Hutton, 2000). The reciprocal nature of psychological contracts has been somewhat controversial in the past (e.g. Guest, 1998a,b; Rousseau, 1998) such that reciprocity needs to be demonstrated if claims are to be substantiated that employees hold psychological contracts. The body of direct evidence for the existence of reciprocity is limited (e.g. Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Dabos & Rousseau, 2004; DeVos, Buyens, & Schalk, 2003) and has been difficult to obtain. Also, the issue of reciprocity has led to debate over which perspectives should be represented in psychological contract research, that is, the employee perspective, the employer perspective, or both perspectives (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000; Shore et al., 2004). Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler (2002) argue that the empirical research has largely neglected the employer perspective and focused exclusively on the employee perspective, by investigating how employees reciprocate perceived employer fulfillment or breach of the psychological contract. Studies examining the employer perspective or both perspectives are becoming more common (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Guest & Conway, 2002; Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002; Porter, Pearce, Tripoli, & Lewis, 1998). Psychological contracts of safety have not been specifically researched. Nevertheless Sully (2001) argued that to better understand the relationship between safety culture, safety behavior, and the individual employee, it was important to understand the dynamics underlying the relationship between employees and their organization. Sully proposed the psychological contract as means of exploring this relationship, arguing that safety was already based on reciprocity involving a duty of care on the part of the employer and a reciprocal obligation to uphold safety standards on the part of the employee. Recently, the occupational safety literature has been extended to examine the role of other organizational social exchange constructs on safety attitudes and behavior. Two types of organizational social exchanges, leader-member exchange and perceived organizational support, have been found to positively influence safety attitudes and behaviors (Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003). Also, perceived organizational support, in the form of management commitment to safety, has been shown to significantly predict non-safety related attitudes and behaviors, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work performance (Michael, Evans, Jansen, & Haight, 2005). These studies suggest that social exchange theory, on which the psychological contract is based, may play an important role in understanding both organizational and safety attitudes and behaviors. The present study expands previous research on social exchange constructs in a safety context to include psychological contracts and extends the understanding of safety attitudes and behaviors. A psychological contract of safety perspective also provides a more balanced view of safety as a contractual exchange relationship between two parties. This is in contrast to the traditional, one-sided view of safety as one party (the employer) versus the other (the employee). Most often the safety literature focuses on the responsibilities and commitment of management in relation to safety, especially on how safety managers or leaders can improve safety culture and climate (e.g. Booth, 1996; DeJoy, 1994; Friend & Pagliari, 2000; Skinner, 2001). This management emphasis is endorsed in the extensive reviews of safety climate measures by Flin, Mearns, O'Connor, and Bryden (2000) and Guldenmund (2000). Both reviews found that, of the three most frequently measured safety climate dimensions, two dimensions related to safety management themes in terms of management commitment and safety systems. The other dimension, risk, was related to employee risk taking behavior and perceptions of hazards and risks. Similarly, safety legislation and safety advertising campaigns in Australia tend to emphasize the responsibilities of employers in relation to safety. When the focus is on employees, it is usually in relation to safety attitudes and behavior, rather than employee safety responsibilities and obligations. With a psychological contract of safety, the perceived social exchange between employers and employees is included in the safety framework. The focus is on the reciprocal safety obligations.

A. Walker, D.M. Hutton / Journal of Safety Research 37 (2006) 433 441 435 Psychological contracts of safety can be conceptualized as the beliefs of individuals about reciprocal safety obligations inferred from implicit or explicit promises. The expectations about workplace safety that employees derive from both societal and organizational influences will not necessarily constitute a psychological contract. Perceived obligations of safety will only become psychological contracts when the individual believes that perceived employee safety obligations and perceived employer safety obligations are contingent on each other. A qualitative approach was adopted in this study to elicit the safety obligations that would comprise a psychological contract of safety. Few researchers have used qualitative methods to investigate the content of the psychological contract and to isolate obligations. The exceptions are Conway and Briner (2002) who used a daily diary method, Guest and Conway (2002) who used interviews; Herriott, Manning, and Kidd (1997) who used critical incident technique, and Rousseau (1990) who used open-ended survey questions. Only one known study (Herriott et al., 1997) used qualitative methods to also illustrate reciprocity between employers and employees in relation to obligations. The present research had two primary aims: (a) to provide qualitative evidence for the existence of psychological contracts of safety, and (b) to use the identified safety obligations to develop a measure of psychological contracts of safety. The specific objectives of the research were to: (a) demonstrate evidence for the existence of psychological contracts of safety through illustrations of reciprocity between employers and employees in relation to safety obligations; (b) identify other implied safety obligations; (c) use the safety obligations to develop items for a measure of psychological contracts of safety; and (d) pilot the measure. 2. Method 2.1. Participants The participants were 131 employees (110 males, 21 females) consisting of highly skilled workers and employees working in supervisory or middle management roles. Potential participants were identified on the basis of attendance at pre-scheduled safety training sessions in two organizations in Australia: a large national retail organization and a heavy manufacturing organization. Of the participants, 82 (65 males, 17 females) were from the retail organization and most held supervisory or middle management positions. Forty nine participants (45 males, 4 females) were from the manufacturing organization and most of these employees were highly skilled workers with two employees being supervisors. The purpose of using employees from two contrasting organizations, such as retail and manufacturing, was to identify employer and employee safety obligations that would be relevant across organizations. 2.2. Rationale and procedure Non-participant observation was selected as the data collection method. Observation methods are unobtrusive, thereby reducing the effects of reactivity on the data and allowing naturalistic investigation (Dyer, 1995). By observing the safety training sessions, the researchers were able to obtain a wide range of employee perceptions of safety during safety discussions. The content of the safety training sessions was not important; of interest were participants' views of safety from which reciprocal obligations of safety could be inferred. The selected methodology was also deemed the least disruptive and costly to the work environment as data could be collected without the use of additional employee time. All the safety training sessions were interactive with employees being encouraged to express their views on safety. Seven one-day safety training sessions were observed, four in the retail organization and three in the manufacturing organization, equating to 56 hours of observations. Overt observations were used. The researchers were introduced at the beginning of each session and consent to observe and record the proceedings via note taking was obtained. Only the employee interactions were of interest to the researchers and subsequent note taking mainly excluded comments made by the trainers when they took place during the free flow of comments and discussions about safety. Continuous unstructured observations of employee interactions were made throughout each training session, with the researchers attempting to record all comments made by the employees. At the end of each training session, the notes were compared, expanded and typed into transcripts. 2.3. Analysis Content analysis was used to analyze the data using NVivo 2.0 qualitative data analysis software. To create categories for the content analysis, text that showed reciprocation between employer and employee were initially isolated. These examples of text were then examined for markers in the language that demonstrated exchanges or contingencies. Types of language markers identified in the data included: If they do/don't do, then we do/don't do ; If/when they, then we and I/we do, but they don't. Similarly, the raw data were also examined for other implied obligations evident through such language indicators as they should ; it is important that ; and we need to The identified language markers used to code the data and an example of text demonstrating each category are displayed in Table 1. To assign data to categories, text containing the identified language markers or text closely resembling these in meaning and the surrounding context was used as the unit of coding. Once all of the data were coded into categories, text within each category was analyzed and inferred meanings and obligations derived. At each phase of the analysis 30% of the data were analyzed by a second researcher and inter-rater reliability using percentage agreement was assessed. An inter-

436 A. Walker, D.M. Hutton / Journal of Safety Research 37 (2006) 433 441 Table 1 Coding categories with text examples Category Text example I/we do., but they don't They do/don't, so I/we do/don't If/when, then I/we/they should.. It is important There's a lack of I/we/they need /have to I/we/they are expected/ obligated to I/we/they don't rater reliability criterion of greater than 80% was achieved. Where the researchers disagreed on interpretation of the data the matter was discussed until agreement was reached. 3. Results 3.1. Identifying obligations We identify hazards and problems in existing stores and try to manage the environment, but then they build new stores and use the exact same design with the same problems. Why don't they change the design when the problems have been identified? They still don't change their behaviour so instead we just teach the new guys our bad habits and in the process we could injure ourselves. When there are no deaths or serious injuries then safety is not on the agenda. We should talk to the injured employee about their injury and ask them what type of duties they think they can do. In this way you get their cooperation. Training in how to use appropriate equipment is important. There was a lack of training when that injury occurred because the person involved did not know that it was a two person job, he did not know the procedures. It's important to recognize and reward but we also need to address the poor behaviour. There are always a couple of cowboys out there. Surely if a work role exacerbates an illness we have an obligation to help them out and make life easier initially. They don't use the proper equipment and they take shortcuts. Explicit and implicit illustrations of reciprocity between participants' perceptions of employer and employee safety obligations were identified in the data. With illustrations of explicit reciprocity, the participants either alluded to commitments that one party would make in return for comparable commitments made by the other party, or they referred to commitments one party had carried out but felt the other party had not reciprocated. For example: It happens here time and time again, management reacts to accidents by punishing the whole workforce, so instead we don't report accidents or we lie about it. Sometimes you identify safety issues and pass them onto your line manager but they don't do anything about it. If an employee is fed up with how you dealt with them and their injury, they will take time off for any little thing to get back at you. The obligations of each party are clearly stated in these three illustrations of explicit reciprocity. In the first example employees indicate that they would be willing to report safety incidents if management did not overreact when incidents occurred. The safety obligations were interpreted as: employees should report safety incidents; and employers should manage safety incidents calmly. In the second example an employee remarks that, as is expected, hazards and risks are reported but management does not reciprocate by investigating the reported hazards and risks. The interpreted safety obligations are: employees should report hazards and risks; and employers should investigate hazards and risks. The third illustration indicates that if employers do not treat injured employees well, employees will reciprocate by taking more time off work than is needed. The interpreted safety obligations are: employers should manage injured or ill employees with compassion; and employees should not take advantage of sick leave. The commitments of each party were not always specifically mentioned in a reciprocal context. In some instances, the commitment of one party was clearly stated and what the reciprocating party was expected to do in return was implied, for example: We're short on shift with people away so we rush, but really we should always work at a safe pace. We take off the pit covers but we don't get the barricades because it would take another half hour to get them, so we just work without them. We're rushing and trying to get finished so we can go home but really we're not working safely. These two illustrations indicate that a lack of resources can impact employee safety behaviors. In both examples employees acknowledge that they sometimes work unsafely because of work pressure. Although not specifically stated, the first comment infers that employers do not provide adequate resources to cover staff shortages, hence employees feel time pressured and compromise safety behavior. The second comment implies an inadequate amount of equipment to get the job done safely. Again while not actually stated, it is inferred that if employers provided more accessible barricades they would be within easy reach and employees would be more likely to use them. From these two illustrations the safety obligations were interpreted as: employers should supply enough resources to get the job done safely; employees should not allow work pressures to compromise their safety; and employees should not take shortcuts when carrying out work processes. In all, 26 instances of reciprocity were identified in the data. Other obligations of safety were also identified in the data whereby employees referred to commitments that should be made by employers or employees in relation to safety. These illustrations were not accompanied by a perception of contingent obligations and were not interpreted as demonstrating reciprocity. Nevertheless, potential safety obligations could be identified in the statements. For example: Every time we go to work on the furnace we have to throw a heap of stuff out of the way that has been left there by the previous shift.

A. Walker, D.M. Hutton / Journal of Safety Research 37 (2006) 433 441 437 We employ a lot of casuals but we do not provide appropriate training to them. Instead we rely on the immediate supervisor to convey the safety message. The first illustration suggests that employees do not always leave a clean work environment for the next work team. The interpreted safety obligation is: employees should maintain a clean, safe work environment. In the second example it is inferred that employers do not provide the same level of safety training to all employees. The safety obligation was interpreted as: employers should provide consistent safety training across all groups of employees. Overall, 50 obligations of safety were identified in the qualitative data consisting of 35 employer obligations and 15 employee obligations of safety. The safety literature was then consulted to expand and develop a comprehensive list of employer and employee safety obligations. Specifically, published safety culture and safety climate measures from Cox and Cox (1991), Davies, Spencer, and Dooley (2001), Hayes, Perander, Smecko, and Trask (1998), Ostrom, Wilhelmsen, and Kaplan (1993), Williamson, Feyer, Cairns, and Biancotti (1997), and Zohar (1980) were reviewed with the purpose of identifying additional obligations. A further 13 employer and 21 employee safety obligations were generated from this literature. To develop the safety obligations into items for a psychological contract of safety measure, a refinement process was carried out as recommended by DeVellis (2003). This included simplifying the language and flow of the statements, removing ambiguities, and rewording double-barreled items. Items were then placed into a questionnaire for a review of the measure by safety personnel. Displayed in Tables 2 and 3 are the 36 employee and 48 employer obligations of safety items used in the questionnaire. Items marked q denote items derived from the qualitative data. 3.2. Preliminary pilot of the items A preliminary pilot test of the items was undertaken to establish content and face validity using a small sample of safety personnel (N = 33) from three different organizations. The safety personnel consisted of safety managers, employees working in occupational health and safety roles, as well as employees acting as team or department safety representatives. Safety personnel were selected as an appropriate sample for the validity check because they were considered to have the expert safety knowledge required to provide appropriate feedback about the items (DeVellis, 2003). Content validity was established by having the safety personnel judge whether the items represented employer and employee safety obligations. To improve face validity, safety personnel were also asked to comment on the wording and clarity of the items. Responses to the items were analyzed for frequency and percentage level agreement. Items where less than 80% of the safety personnel agreed that these were employer or employee safety obligations were considered for deletion from the measure. In addition, responses to questions about wording and clarity of the items were also analyzed to determine whether the items could be improved in any way. Table 2 Employer safety obligation items Employer Safety Obligations 1 Provide personal protective equipment (q) 2 Have visible safety documentation (q) 3 Reward safe working behavior (q) 4 Maintain a safe workplace (q) 5 Take a proactive approach to safety (q) 6 Conduct regular safety training with all employees (q) 7 Supply proper work equipment 8 Investigate hazards and risks (q) 9 Ensure that safety incident investigations do not focus on blame (q) 10 Make sure that work demands do not compromise safety (q) 11 Manage injured or ill employees with compassion (q) 12 Discipline employees who do not use personal protective equipment (q) 13 Keep work equipment functioning properly 14 Ensure that safety documentation details safety procedures (q) 15 Record lost time injury rates honestly (q) 16 Conduct safety induction training with all new employees 17 Inform employees about the injury management process (q) 18 Regularly update safety documentation (q) 19 Encourage employees to report hazards and risks (q) 20 Be familiar with the hazards and risks in the employee's working environment (q) 21 Ensure that safety training addresses the relevant roles and responsibilities of employees (q) 22 Discipline unsafe working behavior (q) 23 Supply enough resources to get the job done safely 24 Provide training in the safe use of work equipment (q) 25 Erect barriers around hazards 26 Encourage employees to report safety incidents or near misses (q) 27 Provide job security for employees who are injured (q) 28 Provide safety signage that can be understood by everyone 29 Encourage safety awareness amongst employees (q) 30 Hold regular safety meetings (q) 31 Ensure that employees can attend safety training sessions (q) 32 Mark out walkways around hazards 33 Manage safety incidents calmly (q) 34 Inform employees about new safety rules 35 Be committed to safety (q) 36 Inform employees about the outcome of safety meetings 37 Provide timely feedback about injury claims (q) 38 Communicate the organization's safety objectives to all employees (q) 39 Listen to employee safety concerns (q) 40 Make safety a priority (q) 41 Discipline employees who break safety rules (q) 42 Involve employees in safety decision making 43 Set a good example for safety behavior 44 Provide honest safety communications (q) 45 Provide on-site safety personnel 46 Find alternate work duties for injured or ill employees (q) 47 Carry out regular safety inspections 48 Carry out safety incident investigations to prevent incidents happening again (q) Note: (q) item derived from the qualitative study. item deleted from the measure following preliminary pilot.

438 A. Walker, D.M. Hutton / Journal of Safety Research 37 (2006) 433 441 Table 3 Employee safety obligation items Employee Safety Obligations 1 Use the personal protective equipment that is provided (q) 2 Be familiar with safety documentation 3 Not take shortcuts when carrying out work processes (q) 4 Maintain a clean, safe work environment (q) 5 Not take advantage of sick leave (q) 6 Willingly participate in safety training 7 Use work equipment properly 8 Inform incoming shifts or work teams of current hazards and risks 9 Report safety incidents or near misses 10 Ensure that work demands do not compromise safety (q) 11 Follow Doctor's advice with regards to workplace injuries (q) 12 Encourage co-workers to use personal protective equipment 13 Report work equipment faults 14 Follow safety rules (q) 15 Make sure that work behavior does not compromise safety (q) 16 Take responsibility for safety (q) 17 Encourage co-workers to report safety incidents or near misses 18 Set an example of safe working behavior 19 Report hazards and risks (q) 20 Co-operate with the injury management process 21 Become informed about new safety rules 22 Care about the safety of co-workers 23 Attend safety meetings 24 Comply with procedures regarding hazards and risks 25 Co-operate with safety investigation teams 26 Not pressure co-workers to break safety rules 27 Be committed to safety (q) 28 Know how to respond in an emergency situation 29 Encourage co-workers to work safely (q) 30 Know what their safety responsibilities are (q) 31 Raise safety concerns 32 Make safety a priority (q) 33 Report co-workers who break safety rules 34 Use personal protective equipment appropriately 35 Take a proactive approach to safety 36 Report safety incidents in an objective, factual manner (q) Note: (q) item derived from the qualitative study. item deleted from the measure following preliminary pilot. Following the analysis, three employer and three employee obligations were deleted from the measure because most safety personnel did not consider these items to be safety obligations (see Tables 2 and 3). Included in the deleted items were the employer obligation to: provide timely feedback about injury claims and the employee obligation do not take advantage of sick leave. One other item provided interesting results. Only half of the participants agreed that report co-workers who break safety rules was an employee obligation of safety, with 27% disagreeing and 23% being unsure. Some safety personnel indicated that reporting co-workers who break safety rules might depend on how serious the breach of safety was considered to be. Others noted that encouraging a system of reporting co-workers who break safety rules could lead to animosity amongst co-workers. Further analysis found that the safety personnel who disagreed with or were unsure about this item being an employee safety obligation were mainly from one organization. It is possible that the response to this item indicated a cultural aspect of this particular organization that might not generalize across to other organizations. On this basis, the decision was made not to delete this item. Future psychometric analysis will determine whether this item remains in the measure. Written feedback provided by the safety personnel led to the rewording of some items. For example, the employer safety obligation, discipline employees who do not use personal protective equipment was reworded as counsel employees who do not use personal protective equipment. Some safety personnel indicated that the term discipline held punitive connotations and might be considered negatively by employees. In the next phase of this research a full pilot test of the measure will be undertaken to determine the psychometric properties of the measure. A multivariate study will also investigate the positive and negative outcomes associated with fulfillment and breach of the psychological contract of safety. To determine fulfillment or breach of the contract, participants will be provided with a list of employer safety obligations and a list of employee safety obligations. Participants will rate the extent to which their employer has met each of the employer safety obligations and the extent to which they have met each of the employee safety obligations. Ratings will be made using a Likert-type scale ranging from not at all met to completely met. 4. Discussion The presence of complex sentence structures indicating contingencies provided qualitative evidence of reciprocity between perceived employer safety obligations and perceived employee safety obligations in the conversations of participants. This demonstrates the presence of a psychological contract of safety in the thinking of employees. In addition, a comprehensive set of perceived employer and employee safety obligations was derived and developed into items for a measure of psychological contracts of safety. The items were validated with a small sample of safety personnel. In psychological contract research, reciprocity has been particularly difficult to demonstrate statistically (e.g. Dabos & Rousseau, 2004) with canonical correlations being unstable as shown in replications of Rousseau's (1990) original findings (Hutton, 2000; Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994). Qualitative evidence of reciprocity is especially scarce. The lack of empirical evidence for reciprocity has led to controversy (e.g. Guest, 1998b; Rousseau, 1998), yet, it is agreed that reciprocal relationships between perceived obligations are fundamental to psychological contracts (Shore et al., 2002). It is therefore important to collect evidence of reciprocity. In the present study, evidence of reciprocity in relation to perceived employer and employee safety obligations was found in the data. This demonstrates that employees have cognitive schemas that can be claimed as psychological

A. Walker, D.M. Hutton / Journal of Safety Research 37 (2006) 433 441 439 contracts of safety. A priori markers of sentence structure helped to identify reciprocal expressions from which employer and employee safety obligations could be inferred. Thus the validity of the findings is strong and goes some way in providing strong evidence for this concept, but further research is needed. More direct evidence for the presence of psychological contracts as cognitive schemas of reciprocity would allow a more detailed understanding of the perceived relationships between employers and employees and strengthen psychological contract theory. The data that showed reciprocal structures were by no means the only form of expression used by the participants when they spoke about safety. One sided expectations of themselves and others were also expressed. Unlike the reciprocal expressions, the one-sided expectations generally required greater interpretation by the researcher in deciding whether the expectations were obligations or not, and whether they were employee or employer obligations. Validity of the interpretation was triangulated by two researchers working on segments of the data and confidence in the interpretations was supported when 80% commonality of interpretations by the two raters was obtained. Throughout the analysis the two organizations were contrasted to ensure that no safety obligation was overlooked. It is possible that an obligation may be of such common practice in an organization, such as managers modeling safe behavior, that this might not arise in the conversations of all participants. Also, the aim of obtaining a comprehensive set of safety obligations meant that the 50 obligations identified in the data were supplemented by obligations derived from the safety culture/climate literature. The overall number was 84 (48 employer and 36 employee safety obligations). The high level of agreement between the 33 safety personnel that these were considered employer and employee obligations of safety provided confidence in the validity of the final list. The number of employer obligations identified in the qualitative data was double the number of employee obligations identified. This is not surprising considering the apparent emphasis placed on management responsibilities and obligations in relation to safety in the literature, including the media and current legislation that may inflate the perception of employer obligations. Attribution theory may provide an alternate explanation for this disparity. With the self-serving bias, individuals tend to internally attribute successes and externally attribute failures (DeJoy, 1994). Certainly, Prussia, Brown, and Willis (2003) found that when safety climate was poor, both employees and managers had a tendency to externally attribute responsibility for safety to the other party. DeJoy (1994) also argued that employees tend to externally attribute safety problems in an effort to remove themselves from direct blame, fault, or responsibility. Therefore, when discussing the state of safety in their organization, employees are less likely to focus on what their own actions or responsibilities contribute to the current situation (internal attributions) and are more likely to focus on the contributing actions or responsibilities of their employer (external attributions). This could explain the discrepancy between the number of employer obligations and the number of employee obligations identified. Finally, the non-participant observational methodology that was used to collect the data meant that the researcher had no influence over the type of safety issues discussed or how employees spoke about these issues. Yet, employees freely spoke about safety in reciprocal terms, using language such as we do but they don't; they don't so we don't; and if they then we to infer safety obligations that had or had not been met by each party. This demonstrated that employees do think and talk about safety in a contractual way and that, from the employee's perspective at least, a psychological contract of safety exists. In addition, employees' use of language such as they should ; we need to ; and it is important that also inferred the safety obligations of each party. The isolation of reciprocity depended less on interpretation when the sentence structure indicating contingency was clear than when it was implied. However, triangulation by two interpreters added rigor to the analysis and reciprocity was demonstrated. Applying psychological contract theory to workplace safety provides a new direction for research in this area. It also extends previous research investigating organizational social exchange constructs in a safety context to increase our understanding of what might impact safety attitudes and behaviors. Future research will psychometrically validate the measure and investigate the positive and negative outcomes associated with fulfillment and breach of the psychological contract of safety. The extent to which the psychological contract of safety shows similar associations with predictors of organizational attitudes and behavior will also be determined. References Anderson, N., & Schalk, R. (1998). The psychological contract in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 637 647. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Booth, R. T. (1996). The promotion and measurement of a positive safety culture. In N. Stanton (Ed.), Human factors in nuclear safety. London: Taylor & Francis. Bunderson, J. S. (2001). How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of professional employees: doctors' responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 717 741. Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 287 302. Cox, S., & Cox, T. (1991). The structure of employee attitudes to safety: A European sample. Work and Stress, 5, 93 106. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. -M. (2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 927 946. Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for the employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 903 930. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. -M., & Kessler, I. (2002). Exploring reciprocity through the lens of the psychological contract: Employee and employer

440 A. Walker, D.M. Hutton / Journal of Safety Research 37 (2006) 433 441 perspectives. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 69 86. Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees and employers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 52 72. Davies, F., Spencer, R., & Dooley, K. (2001). Summary guide to safety climate tools. Retrieved March 11, 2004, from http://www.hse.gov.uk/ research/otopdf/1999/oto99063.pdf DeJoy, D. M. (1994). Managing safety in the workplace: An attribution theory analysis and model. Journal of Safety Research, 25, 3 17. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeVos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organizational socialization: adaptation to reality and theroleofreciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 537 559. Dyer, C. (1995). Beginning research in psychology: A practical guide to research methods and statistics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell. Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34, 177 192. Friend, M. A., & Pagliari, L. R. (2000). Establishing a safety culture: Getting started. Professional Safety, 45, 30 32. Garavan, T. N., & O' Brien, F. (2001). An investigation into the relationship between safety climate and safety behaviours in Irish organisations. Irish Journal of Management, 22, 141 170. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161 178. Guest, D. E. (1998a). Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 649 664. Guest, D. E (1998b). On meaning, metaphor and the psychological contract; A response to Rouseau (1998). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 673 677. Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the psychological contract: an employer perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 12, 22 38. Guldenmund, F. W. (2000). The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Safety Science, 34, 215 257. 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, 145 161. Herriot, P., Manning, W. E. W. G., & Kidd, J. M. (1997). The content of the psychological contract. British Journal of Management, 8, 151 162. Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1999). Safety-related behaviour as a social exchange: The role of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 286 296. Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 170 178. Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 307 339. Hutton, D.M. (2000). Employee psychological contracts. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Deakin University, Victoria, Geelong. Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not seeing eye to eye: differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 39 56. McLean Parks, J., Kidder, D. L., & Gallagher, D. G. (1998). Fitting square pegs into round holes: Mapping the domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 697 730. Michael, J. H., Evans, D. D., Jansen, K. J., & Haight, J. M. (2005). Management commitment to safety as organizational support: Relationships with non-safety outcomes in wood manufacturing employees. Journal of Safety Research, 36, 171 179. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22, 226 256. Ostrom, L., Wilhelmsen, C., & Kaplan, B. (1993). Assessing safety culture. Nuclear Safety, 34, 163 172. Porter, L. W., Pearce, J. L., Tripoli, A. M., & Lewis, K. M. (1998). Differential perceptions of employers' inducements: Implications for psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 769 782. Prussia, G. E., Brown, K. A., & Willis, P. G. (2003). Mental models of safety: do managers and employees see eye to eye? Journal of Safety Research, 34, 143 156. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574 599. Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137 152. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245 259. Roehling, M. V. (1997). The origins and early development of the psychological contract construct. Journal of Management History, 3, 204 217. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121 139. Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389 400. Rousseau, D. M. (1998). The problem of the psychological contract considered. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 665 671. Schein, E. (1965). Organisational psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219 227. Shore, L., Coyle-Shapiro, J., Taylor, S., Tetrick, L., Eisenberger, B., Folger, R., et al. (2002). Psychological contracts: Definitions and distinctiveness. Retrieved November 21, 2003, from www.rhsmith.umd.edu/hcit/ news/news4.html Shore, L., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. -M., Liden, R. C., McLean Parks, J., et al. (2004). The employee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol. 23 (pp. 291 370). Skinner, M. (2001). LP creates a safety culture. Occupational Health and Safety, 70, 99 101. Sully, M. (2001). When rules are not enough: Safety regulation and safety culture in the commercial driving context. Paper presented at the Insurance Commission of Western Australia Road Safety Conference, Perth, WA. Varonen, U., & Mattila, M. (2000). The safety climate and its relationship to safety practices, safety of the work environment and occupational accidents in eight wood-processing companies. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 761 769. Wade-Benzoni, K.A., Rousseau, D.M. (1998). Building relationships around tasks: Psychological contracts in faculty-doctoral student collaborations. Unpublished manuscript, Pittsburgh, PA. Williamson, A. M., Feyer, A., Cairns, D., & Biancotti, D. (1997). The development of a measure of safety climate: The role of safety perception and attitudes. Safety Science, 25, 15 27. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96 102. Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effects of group climate on micro accidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 587 596.

A. Walker, D.M. Hutton / Journal of Safety Research 37 (2006) 433 441 441 Arlene Walker received her M.Psych (Industrial and Organizational) from Deakin University. She is currently a PhD candidate and a lecturer in organizational psychology at Deakin University. Her research interests include occupational safety, psychological contracts and employee health and well being. Dorothy M. Hutton received her PhD from Deakin University. She recently retired as a lecturer in organizational psychology from Deakin University and currently works as a consultant to Telstra Australia. Her research interests include occupational health and safety, psychological contracts and qualitative methods.