Pinion Jr., C (2013) The impact of job control on employee perception of management commitment to safety in an engineering, procurement and construction company. DPh thesis, University of Texas School of Public Health, USA.
Abstract
Literature examining the relationship between job control and safety climate dimensions, such as management commitment to safety is not common. There is potential for job control to mediate the relationship between safety climate and safety outcomes. Therefore, further examination is required to determine if job control alters an employee's perception of management commitment to safety. As injury severity and injury frequencies often vary between business sectors, relationships between job control and safety performance outcomes may also vary (NIOSH, 2012). Specifically, there is a need for more research examining the relationship in the construction industry. METHOD: A 38-item survey was utilized in this cross-sectional study to assess the relationship between self-reported job control and two variables (management commitment to safety and general safety climate). Demographic variables were examined to determine if they modified employee's perception of management commitment to safety in an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) company. Management Commitment to Safety, Job Control and General Safety Climate Scores were calculated for each participant. Linear regression was conducted to analyze the relationship between the Job Control score (JCS) and both Management Commitment to Safety (MCS) and General Safety Climate (GSCS) scores. Analysis of Variance was used to measure difference in mean MCS and GSCS among different categorical groups of six demographic variables: (1) age, (2) education level, (3) region of origin, (4) job position, (5) years worked in construction industry and (6) years worked with the EPC company. Logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship between high job control and two variables (high management commitment to safety and high general safety climate). RESULTS: A total of 754 (77%) surveys were completed by 981 invited participants. Mean Management Commitment to Safety score for all participants was 0. 79 (SD=0. 13) out of a possible 1. 00. Mean Job Control score for all participants was 0. 70 (SD=0. 14). Mean General Safety Climate score for all participants was 0. 81 (SD=0. 14), which is considered high. Linear regression results indicated a statistically significant association between participant-reported job control and management commitment to safety scores (F = 1067. 52, critical value =3. 84 at p=0. 05). Additionally, linear regression results indicated a statistically significant association between participant-reported job control and general safety climate scores (F =818. 89, critical value =3. 84 at p=0. 05). A statistically significant difference in mean categorical Management Commitment to Safety and General Safety Climate scores was found for job position. Participants reporting high job control were 11. 3 (C. I. 6. 5 to 19. 6, p<0. 01) times more likely to report high perception of management commitment to safety scores and 16. 3 (C. I. 7. 5 to 35. 5, p<0. 01) times more likely to report high general safety climate scores. Chi-square results showed a statistically significant relationship between high job control and both high management commitment to safety and high general safety climate. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the need to further examine the relationship between self-reported job control and both perception of management commitment to safety and safety climate. In this study, high job control was positively associated with high perception of management commitment to safety and general safety climate scores. Thus, employee perception of management commitment to safety and general safety climate increases as perceived job control increases. Job position influenced an employee's perception of management commitment to safety and safety climate. Personal demographics were not important in understanding employee perception of management commitment to safety and general safety climate. No significant difference in mean MCS or mean GSCS was identified between categories of the following variables: age, region of origin, educat on level, years worked in the construction industry, and years worked with the EPC Company.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Douphrate, D |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | education; employee; injury; safety; safety climate |
| Index terms: | job control, safety performance, injury, safety climate, survey, construction company, demographic variable, commitment, demographics, dimension, construction industry, logistic regression, variance |
| Subjects: | management, occupational health and safety management, measurement and scaling, health conditions and diseases, industry analysis, statistical analysis, data collection methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, health safety and environment, demography, organization, psychology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Urban Studies, Human Resources, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here