Do as you say

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to uncover the effect of psychosocial safety climate (PSC – a climate for psychological health) on managerial quality and the mediating processes explaining that association. It is posited that the alignment between what is said (espoused PSC) and what is done (enacted PSC via managerial quality) is important for successful organizational interventions. Managers’ own psychosocial work factors act as resources to facilitate the enactment of managerial quality. Design/methodology/approach Two waves of survey were administered over a three-month period (n at Time 1=144, n at Time 2=166, overall n=115) in a study of four organizations involved in implementing the Quebec Healthy Enterprise Standard (QHES). A cross-lagged panel analysis was used to determine the temporal direction of the PSC–managerial quality relationship. A longitudinal mediation model of PSC as a determinant of managerial quality was tested using job demands, job control, social support and quality of relationships with subordinates as mediators. Findings The cross-lagged panel analysis showed that PSC is temporally prior to managerial quality in that the relationship between PSC at T1 and managerial quality at T2 was stronger than the relationship between managerial quality at T1 and PSC at T2. A two-wave mediation analysis showed that PSC was positively associated with managerial quality, and that job control partially mediated this relationship. Contrary to expectations, managers’ workload, their social support and the quality of their relationships with subordinates did not mediate the PSC–managerial quality relationship. Research limitations/implications Despite the small sample size and short timeframe of this study, it contributes to knowledge on the resources facilitating managerial quality, which is important for employees’ psychological health. Little is known regarding the mediating processes that explain how managers’ own context and psychosocial work factors affect their management practices during organizational health interventions. Practical implications From a practical view point, this study contributes to the literature showing that managers need to be supported during the implementation of health interventions, and need the leeway to pursue the organization’s prevention objectives. Originality/value Whereas previous studies have focused on describing the impact of leadership behaviors on employee health outcomes, the study offers insights into the resources that help managers translate PSC into action in the implementation of a national standard, the QHES.

Line managers' middle-levelness and driving proactive behaviors in organizational interventions

“…Research suggests that job autonomy (Biron, 2018;Ohly and Scmitt, 2016), senior management leadership and support (Den Hartog and Belschak, 2016;, and downsizings and mergers influence line managers' proactive work behaviors. This paper adds the line managers' middle-levelness to the list of contextual factors affecting their actions during organizational interventions.…”

“…The motivational model of individual-level proactive work behaviors is an appropriate framework for this paper, as line managers were allocated the responsibility for managing the intervention phases. Previous research has found that line managers' autonomy is crucial to achieve the goals of interventions (Biron et al, 2018). Furthermore, job autonomy is crucial for line managers' ability to engage in proactive work behaviors (Ohly and Scmitt, 2016), rendering line managers' middle-levelness and how they manage it a critical factor for the proactive work behaviors they engage in to drive the intervention -or not.…”

Validating the Psychosocial Safety Climate Questionnaire – Integration of Findings from Cognitive Interviews in Germany and Sweden

“…Findings from confirmatory factor analyses support the construct validity of the theoretically based four-factor structure measured by the 12-item version of PSC (Hall et al, 2010;Pien et al, 2018). Despite the theoretical reasoning behind the PSC measure, it seems data most often are collapsed into one single composite PSC score (see e.g., Afsharian et al, 2018;Biron et al, 2018;Bronkhorst, 2015;Idris et al, 2015;Potter et al, 2017). In addition, a 4-item version comprising the theoretical dimensions has been introduced (Dollard & Bakker, 2010).…”

“…The PSC comprises four theoretically based components: how employees perceive the senior management 1) engages, 2) prioritizes, 3) communicates, and 4) involves employees in psychosocial workplace safety issues (Dollard & Bakker, 2010). PSC has been found to be a useful indicator for examining how policies and procedures at the organizational level affect employees' health and well-being (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018;Biron et al, 2018).…”

“…In addition to Australia (Dollard & Bakker, 2010;Hall et al, 2010) and Malaysia (Idris, Dollard & Tuckey, 2015), the PSC measure has recently been translated and used in the Netherlands (Bronkhorst, 2015), Ghana (Ansah, Mintah & Ogah, 2018), France (Huyghebaert et al, 2018), Canada (Biron et al, 2018), and Taiwan (Pien, Cheng & Cheng, 2018). In general, the process of converting the PSC measure to a new context has merely included basic translation-back-translation procedures.…”