The effects of perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support and perceived co-worker support on safety and health compliance

Puah, L. N.; Ong, L. D.; Chong, W. Y.

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

The effects of perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support and perceived co-worker support on safety and health compliance

Autorzy

Puah L. N. , Ong L. D. , Chong W. Y.

Identyfikatory

Warianty tytułu

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

Although knowledge is cumulating, very little is known about the effects of various sources of support on safety and health compliance. This study goes beyond previous research by investigating the relationships among perceived support from organizations, supervisors and co-workers, and employees’ safety and health compliance behaviour at chemical and petroleum process plants. The results of this study show that the support from organizations, supervisors and co-workers was significantly related to employees’ safety and health compliance. Also, the findings reveal that perceived supervisor support has the strongest influence in ensuring employees’ safety and health compliance behaviour.

Słowa kluczowe

perceived organizational support perceived supervisor support perceived co-worker support safety and health compliance

higiena pracy bezpieczeństwo pracy prawa pracownika

Wydawca

Taylor & Francis

Czasopismo

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

Rocznik

2016

Tom

Vol. 22, No. 3

Strony

333--339

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 35 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Puah L. N.

University of Malaya, Malaysia

autor

Ong L. D.

lindar@um.edu.my

University of Malaya, Malaysia

autor

Chong W. Y.

SEGi University, Malaysia

Bibliografia

1. Landsbergis P.A. The changing organization of work and the safety and health of working people: a commentary. J Occup Env Med. 2003;45(1):61–72. doi: 10.1097/00043764-200301000-00014
2. Schulte P.A, Wagner GR, Blanciforti L.A, et al. Work, obesity, and occupational safety and health. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(3):428-436. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.086900
3. Neal A., Griffin M.A. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. J App Psychol. 2006;91(4):946–953. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946
4. Clarke S. The effect of challenge and hindrance stressors on safety behavior and safety outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Occup. Health. Psychol. 2012;17(4):387-397. doi: 10.1037/a0029817
5. Fugas CS, Meliá J.L, Silva S.A. The “is” and the “ought”: how do perceived social norms influence safety behaviors at work? J Occup Health Psychol. 2011;16(1):67-79. doi: 10.1037/a0021731
6. Takala J. Introductory report: decent work - safe work. Geneva: International Labour Office; 2005.
7. Mearns KJ, Reader T. Organizational support and safety outcomes: an un-investigated relationship? Saf Sci. 2008;46(3):388–397. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.002
8. Turner N, Chmiel N, Hershcovis MS, et al. Life on the line: job demands, perceived co-worker support for safety, and hazardous work events. J Occup Health Psychol. 2010;15(4):482–493. doi: 10.1037/a0021004
9. Turner N, Stride CB, Carter AJ, et al. Job demands-control-support model and employee safety performance. Accid Anal Prev. 2012;45:811-817. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.07.005
10. Baran BE, Shanock LR, Miller LR. Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. J Bus Psychol. 2012;27(2):123-147. doi: 10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3
11. Rhoades L, Eisenberger R. Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(4):698-714. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
12. Turner N, Tucker S, Chmiel N, et al. Perceived organizational support for safety and employee safety voice: the mediating role of coworker support for safety. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2008;13(4):319-330. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.4.319
13. Michael JH, Evans DD, Jansen KJ, et al. Management commitment to safety as organizational support: relationships with non-safety outcomes in wood manufacturing employees. J Safety Res. 2005;36(2):171-179. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.03.002
14. Gyekye S., Salminen S. Workplace safety perceptions and perceived organizational support: do supportive perceptions influence safety perceptions? Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2007;13:189–200. doi:10.1080/10803548.2007.11076721.
15. DeJoy DM, Della LJ, Vandenberg RJ, et al. Making work safer: testing a model of social exchange and safety management. J. Saf. Res. 2010;41(2):163-171. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2010.02.001
16. Martínez-Córcoles M, Gracia F, Tomás I, et al. Leadership and employees’ perceived safety behaviours in a nuclear power plant: a structural equation model. Saf Sci. 2011;49(8):1118–1129. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.03.002
17. Lingard H, Cooke T, Blismas N. Do perceptions of supervisors’ safety responses mediate the relationship between perceptions of the organizational safety climate and incident rates in the construction supply chain? J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012;138(2):234-241. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000372
18. Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2009.
19. Hair JJr., Wolfinbarger M, Bush R, et al. Essentials of marketing research. 3rd ed. Columbus (OH): McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2012.
20. Bekes K., John MT, Zyriax R., et al. The German version of the child perceptions questionnaire (CPQ-G11-14): translation process, reliability, and validity in the general population. Clin. Oral Invest. 2012;16(1):165–171. doi: 10.1007/s00784-010-0496-5
21. von Buch SD. The relationship of family influence, top management team’s behavioral integration, and firm performance in German family businesses. San Diego (CA): Alliant International University; 2006.
22. Baruch Y. Response rate in academic studies-a comparative analysis. Hum Relat. 1999;52(4):421–38.
23. Holbrook A, Krosnick JA, Pfent A. The causes and consequences of response rates in surveys by the news media and government contractor survey research firms. In: Lepkowski JM, Tucker C, Brick JM, et al. editors. Advances in telephone survey methodology. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2007. p. 499-528.
24. Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, et al. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986;71(3):500-507. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
25. Basen-Engquist K., Hudmon K.S, Tripp M, et al. Worksite health and safety climate: scale development and effects of a health promotion intervention. Prev. Med. 1998;27(1):111-119. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1997.0253
26. Mearns K, Hope L, Ford MT, et al. Investment in workforce health: exploring the implications for workforce safety climate and commitment. Acc. Anal. Prev. 2010;42(5):1445-1454. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.08.009
27. Lauver KJ, Lester S, Le H. Supervisor support and risk perception: their relationship with unreported injuries and near misses. J Manage Issue. 2009;21(3):327-43.
28. Maertz C.P, Griffeth R.W, Campbell NS, et al. The effects of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. J Organ Behav. 2007;28(8):1059-1075. doi: 10.1002/job.472
29. Li F, Jiang L, Yao X, et al. Job demands, job resources and safety outcomes: the roles of emotional exhaustion and safety compliance. Acc. Anal. Prev. 2013;51:243–251. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.029
30. Ducharme L.J, Martin J.K. Unrewarding work, coworker support, and job satisfaction a test of the buffering hypothesis. Work Occup. 2000;27(2):223-243. doi: 10.1177/0730888400027002005
31. Griffin M.A, Hu X. How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and safety participation: the role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning. Saf Sci. 2013;60:196-202. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.019
32. Halbesleben J.R. The role of exhaustion and workarounds in predicting occupational injuries: a cross-lagged panel study of health care professionals. J. Occup. Health. Psychol. 2010;15(1):1-5. doi: 10.1037/a0017634
33. Brondino M, Silva S.A, Pasini M. Multilevel approach to organizational and group safety climate and safety performance: co-workers as the missing link. Saf Sci. 2012;50(9):1847-1856. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.04.010
34. Coviello NE, Jones M.V. Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research. J Bus Venturing. 2004;19(4):485–508. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.06.001
35. Newman A., Thanacoody R., Hui W. The effects of perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support and intra-organizational network resources on turnover intentions: a study of Chinese employees in multinational enterprises. Pers. Rev. 2011;41(1):56-72. doi: 10.1108/00483481211189947

Uwagi

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-a1c6f521-17bc-4f50-9958-796d583367d9