Table Of ContentPortland State University
PDXScholar
Dissertations and Teses Dissertations and Teses
1-1-2011
Proactive Personality and Big Five Traits in Supervisors and
Workgroup Members: Efects on Safety Climate and Safety
Motivation
Michael Anthony Buck
Portland State University
Let us know how access to this document benefts you.
Follow this and additional works at: htp://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds
Recommended Citation
Buck, Michael Anthony, "Proactive Personality and Big Five Traits in Supervisors and Workgroup Members: Efects on Safety Climate
and Safety Motivation" (2011). Dissertations and Teses. Paper 268.
10.15760/etd.268
Tis Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Teses by an authorized
administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact
Proactive Personality and Big Five Traits in Supervisors and Workgroup Members:
Effects on Safety Climate and Safety Motivation
by
Michael Anthony Buck
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Applied Psychology
Dissertation Committee:
Donald M. Truxillo, Chair
Leslie B. Hammer
Talya N. Bauer
Katherine E. McDonald
Berrin Ergodan
Portland State University
©2011
i
ABSTRACT
In 2009 there were 3.28 million non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Of these injuries and illnesses, 965,000 resulted in
lost days from work. In addition there were 4,340 workplace fatalities. Given the
number of occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities, and the associated direct and
indirect costs, organizations have sought to improve safety at work. Safety climate and
safety motivation are two variables hypothesized to affect safety behaviors and safety
outcomes. Safety climate refers to the shared perceptions of workgroup members, of
the organizations’ commitment to safety as evidenced by heir immediate supervisors’
pattern of implementing safety policies and procedures (Zohar, 2003). Therefore, the
workgroup supervisor plays an major role in the development of safety climate. Social
exchange theory and previous studies of leadership styles and safety suggest that
supervisors who convey concern for subordinates’ well-being increase workers’
motivation to reciprocate by increasing their safe behaviors at work. However, no
research to date has examined the relationship between supervisors’ personality and
workers perceptions of safety climate, or the effect of Big Five trait-level variables on
workers safety motivation. In this study I hypothesize that supervisors’ proactive
personality and three Big Five traits will be positively related to workers’ safety
climate perceptions. In addition, I hypothesize that four Big Five traits in workers will
be positively related to workers safety motivation. Finally, I hypothesize that group-
ii
level safety climate will be significantly related to individual-level safety motivation
after controlling for workers’ personality.
Participants in this study were maintenance and construction workers from a
municipal city bureau, in 28 workgroups, totaling 146 workers and 28 supervisors.
Workgroup sizes vary but averaged 6.21 members, including the supervisor. The data
were collected in small groups (paper-and-pencil) and electronically (on-line); workers
and supervisors answered questionnaire items on personality variables, safety climate,
safety motivation, safety behaviors, and safety outcomes. In addition, archival data on
safety outcomes were collected. The data were analyzed using a combination of
multiple regression, multi-level modeling, and path analysis to test hypotheses and
answer research questions.
Both proactive personality and Big Five traits in supervisors accounted for
incremental variance in aggregated workgroup safety climate over controls. In
addition, workgroup safety climate and individual workers’ cautiousness were
significant predictors of workgroup safety motivation in a hierarchical linear model.
At the individual level of the model, only the traits of cautiousness and morality were
significant predictors of individual safety motivation. Tests of the Neal and Griffin
(2004) model showed that safety motivation partially mediated the relationship
between individual safety climate and safety participation behaviors. In addition,
safety motivation fully mediated the relationships between morality and both safety
compliance and safety participation behaviors. Finally, safety motivation partially
iii
mediated the relationship between cautiousness and both safety compliance and safety
participation behaviors.
The results suggest that supervisor personality can have an effect on the on
workgroup safety climate perceptions. In addition, this study provided evidence that
Big Five traits are useful predictors of the antecedents of accidents and injuries.
Suggestions for training managers and future research are also discussed.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ....................................................................................................... vii
Chapter I
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Chapter II
Safety Climate ........................................................................................................ 6
Chapter III
Individual Differences and Safety ......................................................................... 38
Chapter IV
Safety Outcomes .................................................................................................... 84
Chapter V
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................ 98
Chapter VI
Method ................................................................................................................. 106
Chapter VII
Results ................................................................................................................. 118
Chapter VIII
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 137
References ........................................................................................................... 181
Appendices
A: Supervisor Survey ..................................................................................... 217
B: Worker Survey ........................................................................................... 222
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Safety Climate Studies by Country of Origin ....................................... 150
Table 2: Safety Climate Studies by Industrial Sector .......................................... 151
Table 3: Comparison of Internal Consistency and Validity
between Trait and Factor Measures ..................................................................... 152
Table 4: NEO-PIR Trait Descriptors ................................................................... 153
Table 5: Safety Motivation Items from Griffin, Neal, and Colleagues ............... 155
Table 6: Study Measures ..................................................................................... 156
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics for Individual-Level Study Variables ................. 157
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Supervisor-Level Study Variables ................ 158
Table 9: Intercorrelations and Internal Consistencies for Workers (Level 1) ..... 159
Table 10: Intercorrelations and Internal Consistencies for
Supervisors (Level 2) .......................................................................................... 161
Table 11: Predicting Workgroup Safety Climate with Proactive
Personality and Organizational Safety Climate Perceptions: Hypothesis 1 ........ 163
Table 12: Predicting Workgroup Safety Climate with Altruism, Friendliness, and
Cheerfulness: Hypothesis 2 ................................................................................ 164
Table 13: Predicting Workgroup Safety Climate with Agreeableness
And Extraversion Traits: Research Question 1 ................................................... 165
Table 14: Predicting Safety Motivation with Four Big Five Traits:
Hypotheses 3 and 4 .............................................................................................. 166
Table 15: Predicting Safety Motivation with Workgroup Safety Climate:
Hypotheses 5 ....................................................................................................... 167
Table 16: Conscientiousness Traits Predicting Safety Motivation:
Research Question 2 ............................................................................................ 168
vi
Table 17: Agreeableness Traits Predicting Safety Motivation:
Research Question 3 ............................................................................................ 169
Table 18: Agreeableness and Conscientiousness Factors
Predicting Safety Motivation ............................................................................... 170
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Multilevel Model of Hypothesized Relationships ............................... 171
Figure 2: A Multilevel Safety Climate Model From Zohar (2003a) ................... 172
Figure 3: Neal and Griffin (2004) Framework for Conceptualizing
Safety Climate and Safety Behavior .................................................................... 173
Figure 4: Path Model From Griffin and Neal (2000) Study 1 ............................. 174
Figure 5: Path Model From Griffin and Neal (2000) Study 2 ............................. 175
Figure 6: Path Model From Neal, Griffin, and Hart (2000) ................................ 176
Figure 7: Organizational Safety Climate as a Moderator .................................... 177
Figure 8: Basic Level 1 Path Model .................................................................... 178
Figure 9: Level 1 Mediation Model ..................................................................... 179
Figure 10: Study Model Showing Results of Hypothesis Tests .......................... 180
Introduction 1
Chapter I
Introduction
While occupational injuries, illnesses, and fatalities have long been a concern
to organizations, they have become central organizational issues since the passage of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. In 2009 there were 3.28 million non-
fatal occupational injuries and illnesses (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Of these
injuries and illnesses, 965,000 resulted in lost days from work. The incidence rate for
non-fatal injuries and illnesses was 3.6 per 100 workers, which is the lowest rate since
2003. Occupational illnesses were much less common than injuries accounting for
slightly more than 5% of the 3.28 million non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses.
In addition, there were 4,340 occupational fatalities in 2009, which represents a
decrease from the 5,214 occupational fatalities in 2008.
The Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety publishes the annual
Workplace Safety Index which identifies the leading causes of the most disabling
injuries in the United States, and estimates the direct costs of these injuries. In 2005,
overexertion, falls, bodily reactions to slips and trips not involving falls, and being
struck by an object accounted for nearly one-half of all disabling injuries (Liberty
Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 2008). The direct costs of these injuries was
estimated at $48.3 billion. Indirect costs are difficult to calculate, but they are
generally considered to be four times greater than the direct costs (Neville, 1998). If
that ratio continues to hold, indirect costs of these disabling injuries would be
approximately $193 billion in 2005. Liberty Mutual has also tracked changes in injury
