A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-Level Relationships Between Organization and Group-Level Climates.

Abstract

Organizational climates have been investigated separately at organization and subunit levels. This article tests a multilevel model of safety climate, covering both levels of analysis. Results indicate that organization-level and group-level climates are globally aligned, and the effect of organization climate on safety behavior is fully mediated by group climate level. However, the data also revealed meaningful group-level variation in a single organization, attributable to supervisory discretion in implementing formal procedures associated with competing demands like safety versus productivity. Variables that limit supervisory discretion (i.e., organization climate strength and procedural formalization) reduce both between-groups climate variation and within-group variability (i.e., increased group climate strength), although effect sizes were smaller than those associated with cross-level climate relationships. Implications for climate theory are discussed.

Safety climate dimensions as predictors for risk behavior

“…The present study adopts a multi-dimensional approach to safety climate (Cooper and Philips, 2004;Zohar and Luria, 2005) and demonstrates (1) the differential direct impact of these safety climate dimensions (management commitment to safety, priority of safety, pressure for production) on risk behavior and (2) a complex relationship between these three safety climate dimensions in influencing unsafe behavior at work. In support of our hypothesis, and in line with previous research examining their impact on safety performance, we found that employee risk behavior was negatively related to management commitment and priority of safety, and positively related to pressure for production (see Hypothesis 1).…”

“…senior manager, supervisor) is however ambiguous in some studies despite the large differences in their roles and perceived influence by employees (Clarke, 1999;Flin et al, 2000). In the present study we focus on employees' perceptions of senior management commitment to safety as senior managers "undoubtedly set the tone and tempo for organizational atmosphere, establish priorities and allocate resources" (Flin et al, 2000, p. 186) and as their safety policies, procedures, and actions are critical in limiting supervisor discretion in policy implementation (Zohar and Luria, 2005).…”

“…Finally, in contrast to Naveh et al (2005) the present study focused on employees' perceptions of senior management rather than direct supervisor commitment to safety. As previously mentioned, these groups have different roles, with senior management focusing on safety policy-making and the establishment of safety procedures to facilitate policy implementation, and supervisors executing these procedures (Zohar and Luria, 2005). To date research that considers perceptions of both senior managers and direct supervisors simultaneously is sparse and yields contradictory findings regarding the impact of different management levels on employee safety behavior (e.g.…”

“…talk about safety, invest resources in creating a safe work environment, involve employees in safety matters, consideration of safety matters in job design and congruence between managerial safety talk and managerial actions (Zohar, 1980;Hoffmann and Stetzer, 1996;Geller, 2001;Clarke and Ward, 2006). It is important to note that safety climate, as a socially construed indication of desired employee behavior, originates simultaneously from both policy and procedural actions of senior management and supervisory actions demonstrated by frontline or shop-floor supervisors (Zohar and Luria, 2005). The managerial level at which commitment is examined (i.e.…”

Safety climate and the Theory of Planned Behavior: Towards the prediction of unsafe behavior

“…Since the landmark paper on this topic by Zohar (1980) some 28 years ago, safety climate research has evolved to embrace a range of themes. An ongoing part of the research effort is devoted to improving measures of safety climate (e.g., Flin et al, 2000;Hahn and Murphy, 2008;Zohar and Luria, 2005) or adapting those measures to particular cultures (e.g., Lin et al, 2008). Other researchers have focused on identifying safety climate variables with the aim of constructing models to explain the interactions among the variables and their impact on safety performance (e.g., Fogarty, 2004Fogarty, , 2005Hahn and Murphy, 2008).…”