DIMENSIONS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS ... - Springer Link

Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, Spring 2005 (2005) DOI: 10.1007/s10869-004-2230-2

DIMENSIONS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND SAFETY IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY George W. Watson Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

Dow Scott Loyola University Chicago

James Bishop New Mexico State University

Treasa Turnbeaugh Marsh Risk Consulting

ABSTRACT: This paper extends theories explaining the influence of social determinants on workplace safety. Specifically, we applied social capital theory’s emphasis of trust, shared norms, and faithfulness to obligations to the outcomes of at-risk behavior and perceptions of a safe work environment. Data provided by 395 employees of a major steel company supported the hypothesis that shared employee norms predicted both perceptions of work environment safety and at-risk behavior, trust in supervisor predicted perceptions of a safe work environment, and belief in management’s safety values predicted at-risk behaviors. KEY WORDS: workplace safety; social capital theory; safety culture.

Injuries and death resulting from workplace accidents remains one of the most costly factors, both personally and financially, in transacting business today. In 2001, there were over 3.9 million disabling injuries and 5,300 deaths in American workplaces1 (National Safety Council, 2003) costing over $132.1 billion—a figure exceeding the combined profits Address correspondence to George W. Watson, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Sutliff Hall Room 235, 400 East Second Street, Bloomsburg, PA 17815. E-mail: [email protected]. This study received funding from Marsh, Inc. in support of their continuing interest in creating safer more productive work environments. We would like to thank William Grimes, Dean Larson and Dennis Morajda for their support and contribution to this research. 1 These figures do not include the events of September 11, 2001. 303 0889-3268/05/0300-0303/0 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

304

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

reported for the top ten Fortune 500 companies in the same year. Moreover, costs to those injured include lost wages, medical costs not paid by the employer, potential limits on future employment and advancement, and restricted ability to enjoy personal pursuits. Though the causes of industrial accidents are many and varied, the leading cause is the at-risk behavior of employees themselves. While the direct importance of at-risk-behavior is made clear by the general principle that people who engage in risky conduct are more likely to be injured, injure others, or cause damage, the degree of risk associated with the working environment is also important. Employees who perceive that their work environment is safe are likely to have more positive attitudes toward their employer than those who do not (Hoffman, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003). Given that at-risk behavior and work environment safety are important issues in today’s workplace, then if follows that antecedents related to them are also important. Social capital theory (SCT) suggests several social dimensions of an organization’s environment that both influence individual behavior and shape perceptions of the work environment (Coleman, 1988). These dimensions include employees’ direct supervision, normative examples of co-worker practices, and management policy and practices (Geller, 1991). Although some research has emerged addressing some social factors within these dimensions, their combined and relative effects have not been adequately addressed (Zohar, Dov, Luria, & Gil, 2004). With this in mind we chose factors we judged to be of particular importance to safety related behavior and perceptions of work enviFigure 1 Hypothesized Model + To simplify the presentation of the model, correlations among the exogenous variables are not shown. Numbers in parentheses are values for constrained paths

δ1 (.3 5 )

λ 11 X1

Trus t in Supe rvis o r

γ 11

ξ1

P e rc e ive d Wo rk Enviro nme nt Safe ty

γ 12 λ 22 δ2

X2

λ 33 δ3 (.4 2 )

X3

Y1

η1

ε1 (.3 3 )

Co -wo rke r Safe ty No rms

ξ2

(.2 1 )

λ 11

γ 22 γ 23

Manage me nt Safe ty Value s

ξ3

At-risk Be havio r

η2

λ 22

Y2

ε2 (.2 4 )

G. W. WATSON, D. SCOTT, J. BISHOP, AND T. TURNBEAUGH

305

ronment safety: specifically, trust in supervisor, co-worker safety norms, and management safety values. The purpose of this study, then, is to employ SCT to propose relationships between safety related components of the organization’s social environment and at-risk behavior and perceived work environment safety and test these relationships using an appropriate sample. To accomplish our purpose, we first review several approaches to the problem of workplace safety. We then articulate an approach using social capital theory and use this theory to hypothesize relationships among our safety related social factors and outcomes. See Figure 1. Finally, we test our hypotheses and discuss the implications of the results and potential directions for future research.

APPROACHES TO WORKPLACE SAFETY Historically, there have been four major approaches to improving safety in the workplace. The first approach has been to focus on the work environment itself: making it physically safer. The major thrust in this approach has been to revise policies, redesign jobs, and engineer and ergonomically design tasks with the human factor in mind (Ramsey, 1995). In recent studies, the importance of these factors has received increased attention commensurate with the surfacing of cumulative trauma disorders, such as carpel tunnel syndrome (Bencivenga, 1996). In fact, HR researchers and practitioners expect new OSHA regulations regarding ergonomics to influence the way jobs are done in several major industries (OSHA, 2000). The ergonomic approach emphasizes improving the fit between human physiological capacities and workplace demands. The psychological and sociological aspects of workplace safety are de-emphasized in an effort to better match job requirements with the behaviors that humans can perform safely and comfortably. A second focus has been to identify traits in employees that are more likely to lead to accident. The underlying question is whether there are human traits that make some people more prone to accidents than others. In particular, neuroticism and extroversion are hypothesized to detract from an individual’s vigilance toward matters of safety (Hansen, 1988; Smith & Kirham, 1981). Empirical findings support the link between extroversion and ‘‘accident proneness’’ while the link between neuroticism and ‘‘accident proneness’’ is supported only in cases of advanced neuroticism. In contrast with the job design and trait models, a third approach attempts to convince employees to behave more safely. Behavioral modification models of safety emphasize that specific conduct can be

306


encouraged by organizations that enhances safety related outcomes. For example, Geller (1990) argues that management can demonstrate a visible commitment through the institutionalization of rewards and sanctions that enhance safe conduct. In addition, Salzer-Azaroll and De Santamaria (1980) found positive behavior changes when safety feedback systems were integrated into the daily routine of production. Salzer-Azaroff, Loafma, Merante, and Hlavack (1990) found that multidimensional models including feedback, reinforcement processes and repetitive goal setting have positive effects on the behaviors that improve safety-related outcomes. A fourth general framework for understanding safety improvement is from the interpersonal or social perspective. The central question in the social approach is: what interpersonal factors enhance safety in the workplace? In an apparent foreshadowing of Goldberg, Dar-EL, and Rubin (1991), Zohar (1980) investigated the role of safety climates. Safety climate is considered one dimension of a multi-dimensional organizational climate. Safety climate reflects employees’ perceptions about the relative importance of safe conduct. Perceptions of safety climate, according to Zohar, pivot on four dominant factors: perceived relative importance of the safety committee, importance of safety training, work pace, and the perceived status of the safety officer. Clarke (1999) argued in a related vein—that organizational activities such as elevating the status of the safety officer and improving interpersonal communications can foster a positive safety culture. Zohar (2002), examined managerial behavior in the form of safety related feedback and found that as safety goal interactions increased, perceptions of the safety climate improved, specific safety behaviors increased (ear-plug use), and injury rates decreased. In sum, Zohar’s contributions highlight the importance of structural factors in enhancing perceptions of the safety climate and reducing injury rates. The role of the organizational culture has also been investigated for its effects on safety related perceptions and behaviors. O’Toole (2002) concluded that employee perceptions of the safety system are linked to management’s perceived commitment to safety, which in turn, is linked to injury rates. In addition, Clarke (1999) found that accurate inter-group perceptions regarding safety issues were essential to the building of trust between levels of the organization. Other social-theory based models have also been proposed. Geller (1999) for example, outlined the positive effects of interpersonal trust in the establishment of effective observation and feedback systems. He argued that trust is an important component in the open reception and delivery of safety related performance feedback. Also, Roberts and Geller (1995) developed the approach of ‘‘actively caring’’ to describe a more communitarian organization safety atmosphere. Actively caring cowork-


307

ers behave in ways that optimize safety for themselves and their coworkers. Geller (1991) proposed that three psychological factors underlie the formation of an atmosphere of active caring: positive selfesteem, a sense of belonging, and the social conditions of empowerment. Social exchange theory has also formed a foundation for research in safety. Hoffman and Morgeson (1999) found significant links between leader–member exchange (LMX) and perceived organizational support (POS) to safety-related communications, perceptions of safety commitment and ultimately, accidents. For POS the authors used a generalized (non-safety specific) scale essentially tapping the extent to which the organization was perceived as considerate toward and cared about the member. LMX was also measured with a generalized scale pertaining to the perceived quality of the relationship the member has with the supervisor. Hoffman, et al. (2003) examined the relationship between LMX and safety role definitions as moderated by the safety climate. They found the LMX-Safety Role definitions were moderated by safety climate and that safety role definitions were positively related to safety citizenship behaviors. Their concept of safety climate included several dimensions: management attitude toward safety, social status, safety behavior, and safety reward. In this study the measures of these dimensions were combined into one score. A SOCIAL CAPITAL MODEL OF WORKPLACE SAFETY While research in workplace safety has matured, new social context theories that emphasize the combined effects of multi-dimensional factors in interpersonal relationships have emerged. One such theory, SCT, shows promise in explaining the influential processes that help in developing safe working environments or cultures (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Following the interpersonal dimensions of social capital presented by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), we examine the relationship of trust, shared norms, and management’s safety values with the safety related outcomes of at-risk behaviors and perceptions of workplace safety. Social capital is among the most recent in a series of theories in interpersonal capital that have developed over the past 40 years. Each theory considers the social aspects of organizational life and insists that interpersonal associations provide dividends to the people that invest in them. Furthermore, each theory claims that collectives fostering these interpersonal associations also derive benefits from them. The nature of these dividends varies among the theories as does the normative determination about what constitutes an adequate organizational return for an individual’s contributions (Portes, 1998). Several of the more influential of these theories include the predecessors of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), human capital theory (e.g., Coleman, 1988), and psycho-

308


logical contracts (for a review see Rousseau, 1995). (For a more detailed perspective see: Belliveau, O’Rielly, & Wade, 1996; Burt, 1997; Coleman, 1998; Chung & Gibbons, 1997; Friedman & Krackhardt, 1997; Fukuyama, 1995; Leanna & Van Buren, 1999; Pennings, Lee, & Van Witteloostujin, 1998; Putnum, 1995.) Relational Dimensions of Social Capital Putnum (1995), argued that ‘‘we must sort out the dimensions of social capital, which is clearly not a unidimensional concept’’ (1995, p. 72). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) following Putnum’s admonition, crafted several theoretical dimensions they believe comprise social capital that include structural, cognitive, and relational dimensions. Of particular interest to us is their conceptualization of the relational dimension. This dimension includes factors that characterize the nature of interpersonal relationships within the organization. Specifically, these factors include meeting obligations, trust, and norms. As our hypotheses unfold we assert that these factors are related to at-risk behavior and perceived work environment safety. Thus, unlike previous research we examine the simultaneous effects of these relational dimensions on the safety outcomes of at-risk-behaviors and perceived work environment safety. In general, obligations represent a commitment to undertake a duty. Rousseau’s (1995) psychological contract research emphasized the importance of meeting implied or explicit expectations of employees. Although many organizations undertake a sincere effort to ensure a safe work environment, it is not uncommon for some managers to simply pay lip service to safety (Gavin, 1986). Because managers establish policies, fund safety programs, and oversee employee conduct, their impact on safety is both pervasive and profound. Moreover, their engagement in meeting the obligations of a safe working environment are likely to influence worker behavior and attitudes. Indeed, employees’ perceptions of management’s sincerity and values toward creating a safe workplace will be reflected in their perceptions of the work environment. We believe that risky behavior, whether required due to job tasks and design, or attributable to work pace, or simply enacted through personal choice, is less likely to occur in organizations where management sincerely values safe conduct. In addition, if management in perceived as insincere then employees may reasonably see only two alternatives; exit, or a fatalistic acceptance of whatever consequences occur. Neither of these options reduces risky behavior and may, at times, encourage it. Therefore:


309

Hypothesis 1: Managements safety values are negatively related to at-risk behavior. Trust also is present in the relational dimension of Nahapiet’s and Ghoshal’s (1998) model of social capital. The relational dimension stresses the significance of interpersonal relationships in the facilitation of mutually advantageous exchange. Interpersonal trust (e.g., Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998; Sheppard & Sherman, 1998) has been at the center of theorizing about cooperative and productive interaction for some time (e.g., Barnard, 1938; Blau, 1964). Indeed, for sociologists, trust is central to successful social cooperation (e.g., Homans, 1964). Within this context, and because we can never be assured that the effort we make to help others will ever be reciprocated, we are obliged to trust that they will be (Blau, 1964). Coleman (1988, P.S103) argues that social capital depends upon this trustworthiness and further concludes that: ‘‘without a high degree of trustworthiness among the members of the group, the institution could not exist.’’ The importance of trust and its inter-relationships with other manifestations of social capital, such as safe work environments, is not yet fully understood. In the classical sense trust is defined as a confidence in the integrity, character, ability, and truth of another (American Heritage Dictionary). In the organizational sciences trust is likely to be understood as an individual’s willingness to be vulnerable to others (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). The psychological predisposition toward personal vulnerability can influence workplace safety in at least two ways. First, Geller (1999) linked interpersonal trust to the constructive feedback vital in sustaining and improving safety related behavior. Workers, Geller argues, must feel safe in receiving and giving criticism of other’s safety related behavior. Second, shared perceptions of distrust can inspire active resistance to the establishment of oversight programs. People will avoid, if possible, being evaluated by those they do not trust to make honest, unbiased assessments of their behavior. We believe that the psychological assurance of trusting that one’s supervisors will act on behalf of one’s health and welfare will enhance one’s perceptions of work environment safety. Similarly, trusting that supervisors will not politicize the safety program or goals for their own gains will also positively enhance perceptions of a safe work environment. Therefore; Hypothesis 2: Trust in supervisor is positively related to perceived work environment safety.

310


Norms constitute the relational factors by which people in organizations govern themselves and their interface with others (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). These frameworks generally inform members about what is considered right or wrong, good or bad. Shared normative frameworks are second only to trust in their broad recognition as an underlying factor in the formation of social capital. In fact, when a norm is effective ‘‘it constitutes a powerful, though sometimes fragile, form of social capital (Coleman, 1988, P.S104).’’ Shared norms have also been linked to more effective interpersonal cooperation (Starbuck, 1983), and are significant factors in the development of trust because they help us to interpret and understand co-workers’ behavioral intentions, and predict their attitudinal and behavioral responses (Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998). For example, Roberts and Geller found that the norm of ‘‘actively caring’’ enhanced the climate of organizational safety. Within this context, actively caring ‘‘… takes the form of looking for environmental hazards and unsafe work practices and implementing appropriate corrective actions …’’ (1995, p. 53). Such shared norms should be strongly related to the organization’s safety climate. Hence we posit that safety norms, those that govern expectations for others’ behaviors and establish boundaries for appropriately safe personal conduct, are powerful organizational assets and should be reflected in reduced-at-risk behavior. Furthermore, norms that shape what is appropriate and inappropriate conduct should also enhance one’s perceptions of work environment safety. Therefore: Hypothesis 3: Co-worker safety norms are positively related to perceived work environment safety. Hypothesis 4: Co-worker safety norms are negatively related to at-risk behavior. We also believe that certain relationships in our hypothesized model should be compared with others. In particular, it is important to examine the relative strength of the relationships that safety norms of co-workers has with the dependent variables to those of the other independent variables. This variable is particularly important since co-worker interaction is among the most salient features of the workplace. Field theory asserts that individuals’ reactions to an environment are determined to a great extent by both the proximity and salience of the perceived elements (Mathieu & Hamel, 1989). Most of the impact an organization has on its members is derived jointly from people with whom members associate in the course of organizational activities and from the tasks they perform (Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). Furthermore, workers are usually in the presence of


311

their co-workers more than their supervisors or upper management. Hence, they are exposed to co-worker norms continually and receive constant feedback as to how their own behavior conforms with or varies from established norms. This suggests that, Hypothesis 5: The relationship between co-worker safety norms and perceived work environment safety is stronger than that between trust in supervisor and perceived work environment safety (c12 > c11). Hypothesis 6: The relationship between co-worker safety norms and at-risk behavior is stronger than that between management safety values and at-risk behavior (c22 > c23).

METHOD Sample and Survey Administration This study was conducted in the sheet rolling division of steel manufacturing plant owned by a Fortune 100 company in the Midwest. A total of 408 production employees took part in the survey, which was approximately 49% of the Division’s employee population. This cross section consisted of those employees who were randomly pulled from production during a one-week administration period. This cross-section was reflective of the demographics of the workforce in which the majority were men (approximately 85%) with an average age of 48. Approximately 80% had finished high school and 3% had some college. The sample was proportionally representative of all facilities and departments in the division. The work involved the use of cranes to dip coils of steel into vats of chemicals for the finishing process.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Measures of Reliability among the Variables (Coefficient Alphas are on the Diagonal) Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Trust in supervision Co-worker safety norms Management safety values Safe work environment At-risk behavior Note: * p < .01; ** p < .001.

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

3.85 4.47 3.35 4.16 2.60

1.20 .94 1.27 1.03 .95

(.76) .18** .43** .43** ).17*

(.76) .14* .27** ).38**

(.74) .32** ).23**

(.69) ).23**

(.73)

312


Table 2 Factor Loading of Scale Items Factor Loadings Variables and Items Trust in Supervisor 1. If I make a mistake, my supervisor is not willing to ‘‘forgive and forget’’ (R) 2. My supervisor is friendly and approachable 3. My supervisor can be trusted Safety Norms of Co-workers 1. If we see someone working in a unsafe manner, members of my work crew will remind them to work safely 2. Members of my work crew try to improve safety in our work area 3. Members of my work crew almost always wear their safety equipment 4. If members of my work crew noticed a safety hazard, they will take corrective action Belief in Management’s Safety Values 1. Management will compromise safety for increased productivity (R) 2. Management does not listen to employees’ suggestions for improving safety (R) 3. The only thing that matters to Management is getting the job done (R) Perceptions of a Safe Work Environment 1. My work area is very safe 2. I have the protective equipment I need to work safely 3. The equipment in my work area is well guarded At-risk Behavior 1. I always follow the safety rules 2. I take short-cuts to get my work done (R) 3. I often break safety rules to get the job done (R) 4. I never take risks at work

1

2

3

4

5

.63 .73 .82 .71

.86 .43 .67

.53 .73 .84

.69 .56 .72

.663 .69 .64 .58

Employees left the main manufacturing area in groups of 20–40 to complete the survey in a company conference room. An outside research team administered the survey, and no managers or supervisors were in the room when the survey was completed. The survey was confidential and employees were paid for the time it took to complete it. A total of 13 surveys had to be dropped because they were incomplete.


313

Measures The participants responded to items measured by six-point Likert scales. The response options ranged from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (6). The means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities of our scales are reported in Table 1. All items appear in Table 2. Analysis Prior to testing our hypotheses, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the 17 items of our scales. The indices used to assess model fit were the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the non-normed fit index (NNFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). These fit indices are recommended based on sample size and number of parameters estimated (Gerbing & Anderson, 1992; Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994; Rigdon, 1996). The results of the CFA indicate that the measurement model fit the data well: v2(109) ¼ 242.47; RMSEA ¼ .056; NNFI ¼ .92; CFI ¼ .93. All items loaded significantly on their intended factors. See Table 2. RESULTS In order to test the hypothesized model (See Figure 1), a covariance matrix was used as input to LISREL 8.54 (Jo¨reskog & So¨rbom, 1993). Figure 2 Standardized Path Estimates for the Hypothesized Model **p < .01, one-tailed

Trust in Supervisor ξ1

Co-Worker Safety Norms ξ2

+.54**

R2= .42

+ .25**

Perceived Work Environment Safety

-.46**

η1

R2= .27 At-risk Behaviour

-.23** Management Safety Values ξ3

η2

314


Following the procedures outlined by Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996), we created manifest indicators for each latent construct by averaging the items for each scale. Creating single indicators from the scales enhances the subject-to-degrees-of-freedom ratio and allows a more rigorous test of the structural portion of our model. Because, a covariance matrix was used as input, we set the error variance for each manifest indicator to the product of the variance of the scale, and the quantity one minus the reliability of the scale. The values to which the error variances were set appear in Figure 1. The exogenous variables were allowed to correlate. Figure 2 displays the completely standardized path coefficients for the relationships in the model. Completely standardized path coefficients are reported because of their suitability in comparing relative contributions explained variance (Bagozzi, 1980). Direct Relationships The fit indices for the hypothesized structural model were v2(3) ¼ 3.86, RMSEA ¼ .027; NNFI ¼ .99, and CFI ¼ 1.00. These results indicate that the data fit the hypothesized model well (Medsker et al., 1994). Based upon the strength of the path coefficients, all hypotheses were supported (Hypothesis 1: c23 ¼ ).23, t ¼ )3.59, p < .01; Hypothesis 2: c11 ¼ .55, t ¼ 8.49, p < .01; Hypothesis 3: c12 ¼ .25, t ¼ 3.86, p < .01; Hypothesis 4: c22 ¼ ).46, t ¼ )7.23, p < .01). Comparative Relationships In order to test comparative relationships we used the alternative models approach (Jo¨reskog, 1993) in which we constrained the paths to be compared to be equal and employed the v2 difference test to determine if the differences were significant. Hypothesis 5 was not supported since c11 > c12. On the other hand, Hypothesis 6 was supported when c22 > c23 (|).46| > | ).19| and the difference was significant, Dv2(1) ¼ 5.16, p < .05.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Accidents that result in death, injury, and property damage are important problems in the workplace. Although safety has been approached from a variety of different frameworks, new and more comprehensive theories can assist us to better understand and manage safety issues. This study extends theories that argue that characteristics of the organization’s social environment are related to workplace safety. To accomplish this we investigated the relationships between specific


315

relational factors of social capital have with at-risk behavior and perceived work environment safety. We found support for the relationship between co-worker safety norms and both at-risk behavior and perceived work environment safety. In addition, trust in supervisor was related to perceived work environment safety and management safety values was related to at-risk behaviors. The results illustrate the importance of management polices and practices that emphasize safety, and equally important, the degree to which management follows through on the implementation of such policies and practices. In addition, the degree to which employees believed that management is truly committed to safety was significantly related (negatively) to the degree to which they engaged in behavior that would put them at risk of an accident. Studies of firstlevel leadership have produced a plethora of theories and empirical findings that emphasize its importance. The results of this study further support the notion that trust in first-level leadership is significantly related to perceptions of a safe working environment (Hypothesis 2). Like leadership, the behavior and norms of one’s peers has received much study and its importance has been well established. Our results add to the breadth of this knowledge with respect to the safety dimension. Safety norms of co-workers were significantly related to both perceptions of a safe working environment (Hypothesis 3) and at-risk behaviors (hypothesis 4), respectively. This study, similar to other field research, has limitations. One limitation is that the subjects are mostly male (85%). Although there is no reason to believe this condition has detrimental effects on generalizability of the study, it should, nonetheless, be noted. As with all types of studies of this type, common method variance, or mono-method bias, is a concern. That is, it can be argued that relationships among the variables could be inflated since they were all taken from a single source, individual employees. The nature of the constructs, as well as the theoretical explanations of their relationships, made it necessary to assess the variables from the perspective of the same individual. As individual ratings are required to assess support, commitment, and felt responsibility, we could not use ratings from other sources to control for method variance. Spector claims self-reports can be useful for deriving insights about how people feel about and react to their jobs as well as understanding relationships among feelings and perceptions. He notes that ‘‘the reasonableness of using self-reports depends upon the purpose of the study’’ (1994, p. 387). There are several directions to take SCT with regard to safety. First, it would be fruitful to understand the relationships between social capital and actual accident rates and costs. This study may reveal more about the importance of the social climate relative to workplace safety. One of

316


the realities of organizational life is that not all supervisors or managers are proactive about safety. Social capital’s role in combating fatalism and ensuring the presence of worker voice in the safe production process would be a worthwhile investigation. Because organizations differ considerably, the importance of the dimensions of social capital are likely to vary from one organization to the next. For example, trust in one’s supervisor or co-workers may be critical in the steel industry, but perhaps not so important for college professors, where the environment is not as threatening to one’s health. Social capital’s role in helping to overcome resistance to change, or its role in creating resistance to change also can be of importance. Positive social capital may enhance the possibilities of improvements, but negative social capital—that is, social capital that encourages pockets of shared behaviors and perceptions that are contrary to the collective’s best interests—may inhibit organizational improvements. Furthermore, there are likely to be cross-cultural differences in the formation and maintenance of social capital and how these differences affect management approaches to problems and opportunities. In sum, SCT appears to be a promising vein of research in our efforts to reduce accidents and foster a safe working environment.

REFERENCES Bagozzi, R. P. (1980). Causal modeling in marketing. New York: John Wiley & Sons Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Belliveau, M., O’Rielly, C., & Wade, J. (1996). Social capital at the top: Effects of social similarity and status on CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 29(6), 1568–1593. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Burt, R. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339–365. Chung, L., & Gibbons, P. (1997). Corporate entrepreneurship: The roles of ideology and social capital. Group and Organization Management, 22(1), 10–30. Clarke, S. (1999). Perceptions of organizational safety: Implications for the development of a safety culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(1), 185–189. Cobb, A., & Wooten, K. (1998). The role social accounts play in a ‘‘justice intervention.’’ In R. Woodman & W. Passmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 11, pp. 243–295) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl), 95–120. Craske, S. (1968). A study of the relationship between personality and accident history. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 399–404. Doney, P., Cannon, J., & Mullen, M. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601–620. Eysenck, H. (1962). The personalities of drivers and pedestrians. Medicine, Science and the Law, 3, 416–423. Fine, B. J. (1963). Introversion–extroversion and motor vehicle driver behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 16, 95–100.


317

Friedman, R., & Krackhardt, D. (1997). Social capital and career mobility. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(3), 316–334. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. Gavin, J. (1986). Observations for a long-term, survey-guided consultation with a mining company. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21(2), 201–220. Geller, E. (1990). Performance management and occupational safety: Start with a safety belt program. Issues in performance management, New York: The Haworth Press. Geller, E. (1991). If only more would actively care. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 607–612. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit indices for structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 132–160. Goldberg, A., Dar-El, M., & Rubin, A. (1991). Threat perception and the readiness to participate in a safety program. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(2), 109–122. Hansen, C. P. (1988). Personality characteristics of the accident involved employee. Business and Psychology, 2(4), 346–365. Hoffman, D., & Morgeson, F. (1999). Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: The role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 286–296. Hoffman, D., Morgeson, F., & Gerras, S. (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(1), 170–178. Homans, G. C. (1964). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms, New York: Harcourt Brace. Jo¨reskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jo¨reskog, K. G., & So¨rbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Smith, D. (1997). Social capital, income inequality and morality. American Journal of Public Health, 87(9), 1491–1498. Leanna, C., & Van Burren, H. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555. Lewicki, R., McAllister, D., & Bies, R. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458. Mathieu, J. E., & Hamel, K. (1989). A causal model of the antecedents of organizational commitment among professionals and nonprofessionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34, 299–317. Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resource management research. Journal of Management, 20, 439–464. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–285. National Safety Council, (2002). Report on Injuries in America, 2001. Website Resource. URL:http//:www.nsc.org/library/rept2000.htm O’Toole, J. (2002). The relationship between employee’s perceptions of safety and organizational culture. Journal of Safety Research, 33(2), 231–243. Pennings, J., Lee, K., & Van Witteloostujin (1998). Human capital, social capital, and firm dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 425–440. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24. Portes, A., & Landolt, P. (1996). The downside of social capital. The American Prospect. May–June, 1996, 18–26. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 10(January), 24–35. Rigdon, E. E. (1996). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 369–379. Roberts, D., & Geller, E. (1995). An actively caring model for occupational safety. Applied Preventive Psychology, 4(1), 53–59.

318


Robinson, S. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 574–599. Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different afterall: A cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 393–404. 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. Shaw, L. (1971). The validity and usefulness of the concept of accident proneness. In L. Shaw & H. S. Sichel (Eds.), Accident proneness, New York: Pergamon. Sheppard, B., & Sherman, D. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 422–437. Smith, D. J., & Kirkham (1981). Relationship between personality characteristics and driving records. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 229–231. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392. Starbuck, W. (1983). Organizations as action generators. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 91–102. Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Loafma, B., Merante, R., & Hlavack, A., (1990). Improving occupational safety in a large industrial plant: A systematic replication. Research Studies in Performance Management, 3, 557–580. Sulzer-Azaroll, B., & De Santamaria, M. (1980). Industrial safety hazrd reduction through performance feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 287–295. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 96–102. Zohar, D. (2002). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadershipbased intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 156–163. Zohar, D., Dov, R., Luria, G., Gil, L. (2004). Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory safety practices: Scripts as proxy of behavior patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 322–333.