Proactivity and safety in high-reliability systems: Applications of the proactive role-orientation paradigm

Introduction and aims Proactivity and participation in safety by the workforce have been one of the major areas in the occupational and organizational safety research field for at least fifteen years (Hollnagel, 2008; Reason, 2008; Zohar, 2008). These lines of research are mainly focused on active contributions and safety commitment by the workforce, rather than on the traditional, reactive and control-based approaches to safety (Barling & Hutchinson, 2000). In light of these considerations, the central aims of this dissertation are to provide a significant contribution to the theoretical development of an integrated model of proactive orientation by workers toward safety management and accident prevention in the workplace (Turner, Chmiel & Walls, 2005), by: a) describing the single components of the broader “proactive orientation towards safety” (acronym: PROSAFE) by individuals, in the light of cognitive-motivational perspective defined by Turner and Parker (2004) b) developing related psychometric instruments starting from existing psychometric instruments related to psychosocial aspects of proactivity in organizations c) exploring and confirming the internal factorial validity of the model d) investigating the nomological links of the “proactive safety orientation” model with other salient organizational safety models (i.e. safety climate dimensions; collective mindfulness in HRO systems) to get proof of construct validity of the new model Dissertation structure A review of the general proactivity literature with discussion of potential applications of the proactivity paradigms in the safety field are initially presented in the first chapter, in order to lay the foundations of a new model of “proactive safety orientation”. Then, two multi-study empirical research with factorial and construct validation aims are reported in chapter two and three. In the final conclusion chapter, research implications, limits and further research lines are discussed. Theoretical research model The research model was developed at the light of the cognitive-motivational paradigm of proactivity in organizations (Parker, Walls & Turner, 2006) and starting from existing constructs of proactivity adapted to safety issues (i.e. role-breadth self-efficacy, flexible role orientation, change orientation, proactive coping, empowerment, responsibility aspiration). Then, the new model components were discussed in relation to safety culture models (Reason, 2008; 1997) and high-reliability organization processes models (Weick, Suitcliffe & Obstefeld, 1999). Research phases and methodology Empirical research steps were achieved by means of a survey methodology and techniques in several organizations in Northern Italy during 2010. i) A questionnaire, which was developed with a qualitative methodology (by two series of 20 interviews) and pretested in a sample of 90 workers. The new questionnaire is composed of six Likert-type scales, which measures the following constructs: participative self-efficacy; perceived influence and control; psychological ownership; personal responsibility; improvement orientation; anticipatory coping orientation. ii) An explorative factorial validation study was carried over with a large sample of team safety heads of an University administration (N=388). Construct validity was explored in relation to criteria, convergent and discriminant validity. iii) Then, a confirmatory validation study was carried out in a sample of more than 600 workers, who were prevalently employed in chemical firms. Also, the hypothesis of a higher latent factor was tested, to explain inter-correlations among the model components. Data analyses were computed with structural equation models (SEM). iv) Finally, a nomological study was carried out in chemical firm (N=467) to test links with existing models of safety in organizations and a specific psychological path influence on safety participation criteria. Hypotheses verification was computed with SEM models. Research results a) Both explorative and confirmatory factorial analyses have shown a mainly good factorial validity (explained variance index: 65%); reliability indexes of measures are very good (M of Alpha =.86). b) The construct validity of the model was good in relation to criteria dimensions (i.e. safety voice), convergent validity (i.e. safety values and leadership) and discriminant validity (i.e. risk-orientation). c) Moreover, the hypothesis of a higher latent factor was also verified (CFI = .90). d) Differential ANOVA analyses showed the capability of the model to discriminate the safety orientations between professional roles and contexts. e) Significant links of the PROSAFE model with safety participation variables (i.e. safety initiative; active caring for safety) and organizational antecedents highlighted positive associations with other safety dimensions and model (i.e. supervisor involvement in safety; team safety processes) and specific mediated effects of “proactive safety orientations” (CFI = .98). Conclusions The different studies which were carried out supported the hypothesized model structure with six cognitive-motivational components. Then, construct validity of the PROSAFE model was highlighted with different perspectives. Moreover, a higher latent factor was highlighted with confirmatory analysis in order to explain the strong relationship among single components of the model. Finally, significant nomological links were shown in association with safety climate dimensions and team mindfulness. Specific psychological paths of influence on participation behaviors and mediated effects by “proactive motivations” can be assumed. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed for the advancement of a theory of proactivity in the organizational safety domain. For theory purposes, this is the first psychological multi-dimensional model that attempts to explain the proactive worker orientation to safety in the workplace with a psychosocial approach (i.e. cognitive-motivational paradigm) and at an individual level, beyond the mere observation of behavioural participation by workers and groups in organizations. The integrative approach of the PROSAFE model proposed here, to our knowledge, is also one of the few applications of organizational proactivity theories in the workplace safety domain. We believe that future research on, and further applications of, the proactivity paradigm in this organizational domain, might contribute to the progress of both safety and proactivity theories and research (Zohar, 2008). Practical implications could be considered in relation to the development of safety management systems that support proactive orientations toward safety, improving safety leadership and team processes to increase proactive motivations toward safety and collective mindfulness by individuals and teams. Some limitations should be mentioned. Firstly, all four studies reported used only self-reported data, which raises questions of a common method bias (Spector, 1992). Moreover, all studies were carried out with cross sectional design. Consequently, further predictive validity analyses of the PROSAFE model should be carried out with longitudinal design, and using multi-trait and multi-method techniques (i.e. external evaluations; use of objective data). Secondly, the structure of the model was initially tested in a sample composed by only safety heads from a single organization. Moreover, the number of participants in the confirmatory study was not sufficient to conduct multi-group analyses to test structural and parameter invariance within specific organizations. Consequently, further research is necessary to generalize our results across occupations and organizations. Thirdly, in the last nomological network study, it was not possible to aggregate individual data with multilevel perspectives, given the explicit request of management and unions to guarantee the absolute anonymity of participants. Future research in necessary to test cross-level effects of organizational antecedents on proactive psychological states toward safety here described.