Distinction between contextual safety behaviors and task safety behaviors

1. Distinction between contextual safety behaviors and task safety behaviors Peter Y. Chen, Colorado State University Acknowledgement: Dr. Lorann Stallones, Autumn Krauss, and Lori Anderson Snyder. Part of the findings was supported by Grant Number R49/CCR811509 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. Job Performance Model • Declarative Knowledge • Procedural Knowledge and Skills • Motivation • Contextual performance • Task performance Effectiveness Antecedents

3. Task Performance

4. Contextual Performance

5. Conceptual Distinction Between Contextual and Task Performance • Van Scotter & Motowidlo (1996) • Conway (1999) • Pond, Nacoste, Mohr, & Rodriguez, 1997 • Vey & Campbell, 2004 • Fisher & Hartel, 2004

6. Safety Task Behavior • Griffin & Neal (2000) • Safety compliance • Burke, Sarpy, Tesluk, & Smith-Crowe (2002): General Safety-Performance Scale (GSS) • Use PPE • Engage in work practices to reduce risk • Communicate health and safety information • Exercise employee rights and responsibilities

7. Use PPE

8. Engage in work practices to reduce risk

9. Safety contextual behavior • Griffin & Neal (2000) • Safety participation • Hofmann et al.’s (2003) • Safety citizenship behavior (SCB) • Helping-volunteering for safety committees. • Voice-raising safety concerns during planning sessions • Stewardship-protecting fellow crew members from safety hazards • Whistleblowing-reporting crew members that violate safety procedures • Civic virtue-attending safety meetings • Initiating safety related change-trying to improve safety procedures.

10. attending safety meetings

11. improve safety procedures

12. Conceptual Distinction Between Safety Contextual and Task Performance • Griffin & Neal (2000) • The correlation between safety participation and safety compliance is 0.38 (0.71). • Hofmann et al. (2003) • Majority of respondents considered behaviors described in the citizenship safety behavior scale to be above and beyond that expected for their jobs. • 6 items in GSS were considered to be significantly more required for the job compared to the safety citizenship behaviors.

13. The Present Study • Objectives • Factorial evidence • Outcomes • Antecedents

14. Overview of studies • Burke et al. GSS (four dimensions) and Hoffmann et al. SCB (six dimensions) • Study A: 151 union pipe fitters • Study B: 73 union pipe fitters • Study C: 96 union pipe fitters • Study D: 82 union pipe fitters Professor Michiel Kompier

15. Factorial Evidence I: Studies A-D • Both the scree plot and eigenvalues-greater-than-one rule based on the principal Axis factor analysis suggested that one-factor is the optimal number.

16. Factorial Evidence II: Studies A-D Parallel Analysis 95th percentile random data eigenvalues are derived from 5000 random data

17. Factorial Evidence III: Studies A-DMinimum Average Partial (MAP) test

18. Factorial Evidence IV: Studies A-D • Two-factor structure (2 = 273.81, df = 34; CFI = .93; GFI = .86; RMSEA = .14). r = .78.  = .89. • One-factor structure (2 = 416.48, df = 35; CFI = .89; GFI = .79; RMSEA = .18) • Result of the CFA for the two-factor structure outperformed the one-factor structure (2 = 140.7, df = 1)

19. Psychological model of Safety Behavior at Work • Declarative Safety Knowledge • Procedural Safety Knowledge and Skills • Safety Motivation Organizational Antecedents • Safety contextual behaviors • Safety task behaviors Safety Outcomes Individual Antecedents

20. Safety Outcome: Injuries (Studies A-D)

21. Safety Motivation: Study A • Valence • Perceived undesirability of four injury outcomes • Require first aid treatment • Require medical treatment but no missed work • Miss work but require no medical attention • Require medical attention and missed work • Instrumentality • perceived relationship between safety performance and an injury outcome • Expectancy • perceived relationship between effort exerted and safety performance.

22. Safety Motivation and Safety Behaviors

23. Organizational Antecedents • Study C: Roe ambiguity, role conflict, interpersonal conflict, workload, situational constrains • Study D: Procedural Justice, Positive Contractor Support, and Leader-Member Exchange

24. Results of Study C

25. Results of Study D

26. Conclusion I • At the conceptual level, safety task behavior seems different from safety contextual behavior. • Implications • Validity of intervention strategies • Which strategies are useful to increase different types of safety behaviors • Safety outcomes • Principle of Parsimony

27. Conclusion II • Based on the factor analysis, two factors are suggested, although both factors are highly related. • No differential prediction for self-reported injuries, although safety contextual behaviors predict injuries beyond safety task behaviors • No evidence to support different antecedents for both behaviors in the present data, although interpersonal conflict seems predicting contextual safety behaviors. • The results can be quite different between self-report and multiple sources.