See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43488437

Perceptions of safety at work: A

framework for linking safety climate
to safety performance, knowledge,
and motivation

Article in Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · August 2000

DOI: 10.1037//1076-8998.5.3.347 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

565 7,052

2 authors:

Mark Griffin Andrew Neal

University of Western Australia University of Queensland
103 PUBLICATIONS 5,026 CITATIONS 93 PUBLICATIONS 3,688 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Centre for Transformative Work Design View project

Work and Personality development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Andrew Neal on 23 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original docum
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology Copyright 2000 by the Educational Publishing Foundation
2000, Vol. 5, No. 3, 347-358 1076-8998/00/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037fl1076-8998.5.3.347

Perceptions of Safety at Work: A Framework for Linking Safety

Climate to Safety Performance, Knowledge, and Motivation
Mark A. Griffin Andrew Neal
Queensland University of Technology University of Queensland

Research in the areas of organizational climate and work performance was used to develop a
framework for measuring perceptions of safety at work. The framework distinguished perceptions
of the work environment from perceptions of performance related to safety. Two studies
supported application of the framework to employee perceptions of safety in the workplace.
Safety compliance and safety participation were distinguished as separate components of safety-
related performance. Perceptions of knowledge about safety and motivation to perform safely
influenced individual reports of safety performance and also mediated the link between safety
climate and safety performance. Specific dimensions of safety climate were identified and
constituted a higher order safety climate factor. The results support conceptualizing safety climate
as an antecedent to safety performance in organizations.

The present study combines theories of individual
performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Camp-
bell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993) with theories
of organizational climate (L. A. James & James,
1989; L. R. James & Mclntyre, 1996) to develop a
framework for investigating perceptions of safety in
organizations. This framework provides a link be-
tween perceptions of the work environment and in-
dividual behavior within the work environment. We
differentiate perceptions of the work environment,
perceptions of individual behavior in the workplace,
and mediational processes thought to underlie indi-
vidual work performance. These distinctions are im-
portant because they allow systematic assessment of
conceptually distinct perceptions that may have dif-
ferent causes and consequences within organizations.
Recent reviews of the safety literature emphasize
the influence of organizational factors on measures of
system safety such as accidents and near misses
(Hofmann, Jacobs, & Landy, 1995; Hofmann &
Stetzer, 1999). Safety climate is an organizational
factor commonly cited as an antecedent of system
safety, together with factors such as work pressure
and communication practices (Hofmann & Stetzer,
1996). A key assumption of much of this literature is
that the relationship between safety climate and sys-
tem safety is at least partially mediated by individual
safety behavior. However, few studies have elabo-
rated the mechanisms through which organizational
factors influence individual safety behavior at work.
Because employee perceptions are central to the
measurement of climate, this article develops a
framework for measuring employee perceptions of
safety-related factors in the work environment. We
first discuss safety climate in terms of a higher order
factor similar to other types of climate in organiza-
tions. We next discuss employee safety performance
as an aspect of work performance. We then propose
a model that links safety climate perceptions to indi-
vidual safety performance and describe two studies
of employee perceptions that test aspects of the
model.
Safety C l i m a t e

Mark A. Griffin, School of Management~ Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia;
Andrew Neal, School of Psychology, University of Queens-
land, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
This research was supported by the Australian Research
Council (Grant No. A79801483). We are grateful for the
assistance provided by Heidi Bushell and Adrian Lewis in
collecting the data for the study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Mark A. Griffin, School of Management,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4001,
Queensland, Australia. Electronic mail may be sent to
m.griffin @qut.edu.au.
Safety climate is one type of climate that can be
experienced by individuals in organizations. Other
climate types that have been identified include cli-
mate for customer service (Burke, Borucki, & Hur-
ley, 1992; Schneider, Wheeler, & Cox, 1992) and
climate for innovation (N. R. Anderson & West,
1998; Klein & Sporra, 1996). All types of climate are
based on individuals' perceptions of the practices,
procedures, and rewards in the organization (Schnei-
der, 1990).
Perceptions of climate also appear to be hierarchi-

347
348 GRIFFIN AND NEAL
cally structured. Individuals evaluate specific fea-
tures of their environment in terms of their personal
values and the significance of these features for their
overall well-being. L. A. James and James (1989), for
example, demonstrated that a number of climate di-
mensions loaded onto a common higher order factor.
This higher order factor reflected "the extent to which
the environment is personally beneficial versus per-
sonally detrimental (damaging or painful) to one's
sense of well-being" (L. R. James, James, & Ashe,
1990, p. 53).
Conceptualizations of both general organizational
climate and specific types of climate (e.g., customer
service) provide a basis for defining the key features
of safety climate. Specifically, safety climate should
be conceptualized as a higher order factor comprised
of more specific first-order factors. The first-order
factors of safety climate should reflect perceptions of
safety-related policies, procedures, and rewards. The
higher order factor of safety climate should reflect the
extent to which employees believe that safety is
valued within the organization.
The preceding arguments suggest some conditions
for assessing perceptions of safety climate. Most
importantly, only those perceptions that involve in-
dividuals' assessment of workplace attributes con-
cerned with safety are considered to be perceptions of
safety climate. For example, employee views about
management values for safety and personnel policies
about safety are clearly perceptions about values and
procedures in the wider work environment. In con-
trast, ratings of risk in the environment, affective
reactions to safety issues, normative beliefs about
safety, and self-reports of safety behavior are not
considered to be perceptions of climate.
There is currently no clear agreement about the
specific first-order factors that constitute the higher
order safety climate factor. One factor that has often
been included in safety climate assessment is man-
agement values for safety. Management values have
been measured in terms of management concern for
employee well-being (R. L. Brown & Holmes, 1986),
management attitudes toward safety (Dedobbeleer &
Beland, 1991; Niskanen, 1994; Zohar, 1980), percep-
tions that safety is important to management (De Joy,
1994), and production and safety trade-offs (Hof-
mann & Stetzer, 1996). However, there is variation in
other factors that have been assessed as part of safety
climate. Zohar (1980), for example, identified eight
dimensions of safety climate, including factors such
as management attitudes, effects of safe conduct on
promotion, work pace, and status of safety officers.
R. L. Brown and Holmes (1986), however, using a
reduced version of Zohar's (1980) measure with a
U.S. sample, identified three factors: management
concern, management action, and physical risk. De-
dobbeleer and Beland (1991) identified only two di-
mensions of safety climate: management commit-
ment to safety and worker involvement in safety
activities. Other studies have obtained a range of
factor solutions, incorporating constructs such as in-
dividual attitudes to safety and the physical work
environment (Cox & Tait, 1991; Hayes, Perander,
Smecko, & Trask, 1998; Niskanen, 1994). The re-
sults of these studies using different measurement
instruments suggest that it is premature to propose a
definitive structure for the first-order dimensions of
safety climate.
As in other areas of organizational assessment, the
purpose of the assessment should determine whether
specific first-order factors or a global higher order
factor is most appropriate (Hogan & Roberts, 1996).
For some purposes, such as determining the overall
impact of safety climate on safety outcomes, a higher
order factor of safety climate will be most appropri-
ate. For other purposes, such as determining the
impact of distinct organizational practices on task
performance, using specific first-order climate factors
will provide more detailed diagnostic information. In
the present article, we developed a model that distin-
guished perceptions of safety climate from other per-
ceptions related to safety. Therefore, the article fo-
cuses on the role of a higher order safety climate
factor rather than specific first-order factors.
Safety Performance
Perceptions of safety climate should be distin-
guished from perceptions of individual knowledge,
motivation, and behavior that influence safety in the
workplace. Work behaviors relevant to safety can be
conceptualized in the same way as other work behav-
iors that constitute work performance. In this way,
models of performance can be applied to safety per-
formance in the workplace. The model of perfor-
mance used in the present study makes a distinction
among the components of performance, the determi-
nants of performance, and the antecedents of perfor-
mance (Campbell, Gasser, & Oswald, 1996).
The components of performance describe the ac-
tual behaviors that individuals perform at work. Bor-
man and Motowidlo (1993) proposed two major
components of performance: task performance and
contextual performance. These two components of
performance can be used to differentiate safety be-
haviors in the workplace. First, based on definitions
 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY 349

of task performance, we use the term safety compli-
ance to describe the core safety activities that need to
be carried out by individuals to maintain workplace
safety. These behaviors include adhering to tagout
and lockout procedures and wearing personal protec-
tive equipment. Second, based on definitions of con-
textual performance, we use the term safety partici-
pation to describe behaviors such as participating in
voluntary safety activities or attending safety meet-
ings. These behaviors may not directly contribute to
workplace safety, but they do help to develop an
environment that supports safety.
The determinants of performance represent the
proximal causes of variability in performance. These
are the factors that are directly responsible for indi-
vidual differences in task and contextual perfor-
mance. Campbell et al. (1993) argued that there are
only three determinants of individual performance:
knowledge, skill, and motivation. Safety perfor-
mance, therefore, must be determined by knowledge
and skills necessary for particular behaviors and by
the motivation of individuals to perform the behaviors.
The antecedents of performance represent the dis-
tal causes of variability in performance. These factors
influence performance through their effects on
knowledge, skill, and motivation. For work perfor-
mance in general, antecedents have been identified at
both the individual and the organizational level. At
the individual level, research suggests that factors
such as ability and experience are important anteced-
ents of task performance, whereas personality con-
structs, such as conscientiousness, are important an-
tecedents of contextual performance (McHenry,
Hough, Toquam, Hanson, & Ashworth, 1990; Moto-
widlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Wise, McHenry, &
Campbell, 1990).
At the organizational level, the climate of an or-
ganization can be an important antecedent of perfor-
mance. At least part of this relationship appears to be
mediated by motivation. Individuals attribute mean-
ing and value to features of their work environment
(L. A. James & James, 1989). This process is thought
to influence motivation and, subsequently, perfor-
mance. Supporting this proposition, S. P. Brown and
Leigh (1996) found that motivation mediated the link
between organizational climate and task performance
for sales people. It has also been proposed that the
relationship between climate and performance can be
mediated by knowledge. Organizational climate can
influence knowledge by increasing participation in
activities such as training (Morrison, Upton, & Cord-
ery, 1997). These findings suggest that safety climate
should be classified as an antecedent of safety per-
formance and that the relationship between safety
climate and safety performance may be mediated by
determinants of safety performance, such as safety
motivation and safety knowledge.
A Model of Safety Climate and Performance
Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of the
proposed link between safety climate and safety per-
formance based on previous research within the work
performance literature. The model shows that safety
climate is a higher order factor comprised of more
specific first-order factors and that the influence of
safety climate on safety performance is mediated by
knowledge, skill, and motivation.
Existing models of safety climate do not make the
distinctions contained in the proposed framework and
sometimes include determinants or components of
safety performance as elements of safety climate. For
example, worker involvement in safety is commonly
cited as an important element of safety climate (De-

Antecedents of Determinants of Components

Safety Performance Safety Performance Safety Performance

no w, Ooe O 'as e.o=n e

~ y Contextual P e r f o ~ , )

Figure 1. Summary of relationship among antecedents, determinants,and componentsof

safety performance.
350 GRIFFIN AND NEAL
dobbeleer & Beiand, 1991; Rundmo, 1994). How-
ever, worker involvement refers to the behavior of
individuals and should be classified as a component
of safety performance. Similarly, the value that indi-
viduals personally place on safety (e.g., Cox & Tait,
1991) is an individual motivational construct rather
than an aspect of safety climate.
The Present Research
This article reports two separate studies of safety
climate conducted across a range of manufacturing
and mining organizations. The overall goal of the
research was to assess the applicability of the pro-
posed model to employee perceptions of safety in
their workplace. Support for the model of anteced-
ents, determinants, and components of performance
would provide a basis for systematic evaluation of
safety perceptions at work and for linking safety
perceptions to safety outcomes in organizations.
Study 1 was based on an organizational survey
conducted in seven large manufacturing and mining
organizations in Australia. The survey assessed per-
ceptions of a range of safety conditions and practices
in each organization. However, the first study was
conducted using archival survey data. Safety knowl-
edge was the only determinant of performance that
was included in this archival data set. Study 1, there-
fore, tested a model in which knowledge was the only
mediator between safety climate and safety perfor-
mance. Study 2 was conducted in three manufactur-
ing organizations and was based on a revised version
of the instrument used in the first study. The revision
allowed measurement of a greater number of safety
climate subdimensions and included knowledge and
motivation as mediators of the link between safety
climate and safety perception. A specific measure of
skill was not developed in either of the studies.
The first specific goal of the research was to test
whether employee perceptions of safety at work
could be differentiated in terms of the components,
determinants, and antecedents of safety performance.
The second goal of the studies was to test the medi-
ational role of knowledge and motivation described
in the proposed model.
Study 1
Me~od
Sample. The sample for Study 1 consisted of 1,403
employees in seven Australian manufacturing and mining
organizations. Listwise deletion of cases resulted in a final
sample of 1,264 employees for the analyses. The data were
archival records from an organization conducting quality
assurance audits for the mining and manufacturing industry
in Australia. Because the data were obtained from archival
records, response rates for the survey were not available.
Measures. A questionnaire consisting of 81 items was
used to assess a wide range of attitudes, behaviors, and
safety procedures. Employees responded on a 5-point scale
to all items ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly
disagree). Items from the survey were matched to constructs
in the conceptual model by three raters. Items were retained
if they were consistently classified by all raters as percep-
tions of the workplace (12 items), self-reports of safety
knowledge (7 items), or self-reports of individual behavior
at work (6 items).
Safety climate was assessed by four subscales. Manager
Values were assessed by three items that asked about the
degree to which managers valued safety in the workplace
(ct = .72). An example item was "I think management is
sincere in its efforts to ensure employee safety." Safety
Inspections were assessed by three items that asked about
the effectiveness of safety inspections in the organization
(a = .69). An example item was "Inspections in this com-
pany are effective at identifying unsafe conditions." Person-
nel Training was assessed by two items that asked about the
degree to which staff were trained in safety procedures (a =
.73). An example item was "Trained people are available to
handle emergencies." Safety Communication was assessed
by four items that asked about the way in which safety
issues were communicated (a = .74). An example item was
"I receive regular updates on technical aspects of safety."
Safety Knowledge was assessed by seven items that
asked employees to rate their knowledge about safety prac-
tices and procedures (a = .73). An example item was "I
understand the health and safety regulations relating to
my work."
Two dimensions of performance in the workplace were
measured. Safety Compliance was assessed by three items
that asked about individual performance of safety compli-
ance (a = .56). An example item was "I use the correct
personal protective equipment for the task I am doing."
Safety Participation was assessed by three items that asked
about participation that supported safety in the organization
but did not necessarily involve performance related to safety
(ct = .66). An example item was "I often take part in
development of the safety requirements for my job."
Correlations among all the scales are reported below the
diagonal in Table 1.
Analysis. Analyses were conducted using confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling
(SEM). The CFA included a higher order factor analysis in
which the first-order climate factors were indicators of a
higher order safety climate factor. The SEM analysis as-
sessed the proposed mediational model based on the higher
order factor model. Goodness of fit of the various models
was judged in terms of Joreskog and Sorbom's (1989)
goodness-if-fit index (GFI), the nonnormed fit index (NNFI;
Bentler & Bonneu, 1980), the comparative fit index (CFI;
Bentler, 1990), and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA; Hu & Bentler, 1999). The CFI is recommended
as the best approximation of the population value for a
single model (Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994). The
NNFI is recommended as an index that takes account of the
parsimony of the estimated parameters (Medsker et al.,
 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY 351

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities for All Scales in Study 1
Scale M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Manager Values 2.67 0.88 -- .78 .47 .76 .52 .60 .61
2. Safety Inspections 2.87 0.85 .57 -- .46 .72 .45 .55 .60
3. Personnel Training 2.46 0.88 .36 .33 -- .49 .39 .46 .36
4. Safety Communication 3.00 0.81 .56 .54 .37 -- .59 .68 .83
5. Safety Knowledge 2.26 0.55 .44 .37 .36 .50 -- .60 .53
6. Safety Compliance 2.62 0.60 .31 .30 .26 .36 .38 -- .71
7. Safety Participation 2.90 0.77 .43 .43 .26 .57 .45 .38 --
Note. Values above the diagonal represent correlations among the first-order factors; values below the diagonal represent
correlations among the scales.

1994). The RMSEA has a known distribution and compen-
sates for model complexity (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Results and Discussion
The first analysis tested the proposed factor struc-
ture comprising safety knowledge, safety compli-
ance, safety participation, and a higher order safety
climate factor with four subdimensions. A series of
five CFA models were compared, and the results of
each model are presented in Table 2. First, a null
model that specified no covariation among items was
estimated. This null model provided a baseline for
comparison with subsequent models. Second, a one-
factor model was estimated to test the possibility that
all items loaded on a general factor regarding safety
perceptions. The one-factor model was a significantly
better fit than the null model, AX2(24, N = 1,264) =
6,771.04, p < .001. Third, a three-factor model was
estimated that specified the components, determi-
nants, and antecedents of performance depicted in
Figure 2 as three factors. This model allowed for the
possibility that different dimensions were perceived
by employees but that distinctions among specific
subdimensions were not meaningful. The model
showed a significant improvement in fit, AX2(3, N =
1,264) = 800.13, p < .001. Fourth, a four-factor
model that differentiated the two components of
safety performance was estimated. This model also
showed further significant improvement in fit, AX2(3,
N = 1,264) = 61.30, p < .001. Fifth, a seven-factor
model that differentiated among all the proposed
subdimensions depicted in Figure 1 was estimated.
This model also showed a further significant im-
provement in fit, AX2(15, N = 1,264) = 6,771.04,
p < .001. The results support the proposition that
individual employee perceptions of safety can be
differentiated in terms of the antecedents, determi-
nants, and components of safety performance. The
results also support a distinction between safety com-
pliance and safety participation.
Finally, a higher order factor analysis was con-
ducted with the first-order safety climate factors aci-
ing as indicators of a higher order safety climate
factor. This model showed an acceptable fit to the
data (Hu & Bentler, 1999), although there was a
significant decrease in the fit of this model compared
with the previous model in which the seven first-
order factors were free to correlate, A x 2 ( l l , N =
1,264) = 92.56, p < .001. Correlations among the
first-order factors are shown above the diagonal in
Table 1. Because the higher order model displayed an
acceptable fit, subsequent tests of study hypotheses
were conducted using the higher order model.
The factor loadings of the items are presented in
Table 3. Most of the loadings were at acceptable
levels. However, the loadings for all of the safety
compliance items were lower than expected (less
than .45), and one of the factor loadings for the
knowledge items was also below .40. This item asked
about knowledge for using equipment safely,
whereas other items for this factor asked about un-
derstanding of safety requirements.
The next analysis tested structural paths among
the constructs using the higher order safety climate
structure. The hypothetical model, in which knowl-
edge mediated the link between safety climate and
performance, was compared with a saturated struc-
tural model in which safety climate predicted
safety knowledge, safety compliance, and safety
participation. The saturated structural model has
equivalent fit properties to the higher order mea-
surement model and provided a point of compari-
son for the hypothesized model. The lower section
of Table 2 shows that the hypothesized model was
352 GRIFFIN AND NEAL

Table 2
Assessment of Measurement Model for Individual Responses to Survey Items in Study 1
Model df X2 GFI RMSEA CFI NNFI
Measurement models
Null covariance model 276 9,393.36 .40 .25
One-factor model 252 2,622.32 .85 .08 .74 .72
Three-factor model
One climate dimension 249 1,822.19 .89 .07 .83 .81
One knowledge dimension
One performance dimension
Four-factor model
One climate dimension 246 1,760.89 .90 .07 .83 .81
One knowledge dimension
Two performance dimensions
Seven-factor model
Four climate dimensions 231 1,017.95 .94 .05 .91 .90
One knowledge dimension
Two performance dimensions
Higher order factor model 242 1,110.51 .93 .05 .90 .89
Structural models
Hypothesized model 244 1,404.64 .92 .06 .87 .86
Final model 242 1,110.51 .93 .05 .90 .89
Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index;
NNFI = nonnormed fit index.

a significantly poorer fit than the saturated struc-
tural model, AX2(2, N = 1,264) = 294.13, p <
.001. Inspection of the path values in the saturated
structural model indicated that both the path from
safety climate to safety compliance and the path
from safety climate to safety participation were
necessary for the model. The path coefficients for
the final structural model are presented in Figure 2.
The figure also shows the loadings of the first-
order safety climate factors on the higher order
factor.
The results of Study 1 supported the differenti-
ation of the constructs in the proposed model. The
safety climate dimensions were distinguished from
the other measures in the survey. However, knowl-
edge about safety only partially mediated the link
between safety climate and safety performance di-
mensions. Safety climate also displayed a direct
positive relationship with safety compliance and
safety participation. The path from safety knowl-
edge to safety participation was also not statisti-
cally significant.

57
v Compliance
.85 I .25
.81 Safety .62
.13

Figure 2. Path estimates from final model for Study t. ns = not statistically significant.
 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY
Table 3
Factor Loadings for Items in Study 1
Factor 1 2
Manager Values .73
Safety Inspections .77
Personnel Training .82
Safety Communication .69
Safety Knowledge .73
Safety Compliance .44
Safety Participation .71
Study 2
T h e results o f S t u d y 1 partially supported the h y -
p o t h e s i z e d m e d i a t i o n a l m o d e l o f safety perceptions.
B e c a u s e m o t i v a t i o n w a s n o t i n c l u d e d in the first
study, it w a s n o t surprising that the full m e d i a t i o n a l
m o d e l w a s n o t supported. T h e s e c o n d s t u d y included
m o r e specific m e a s u r e s o f individual m o t i v a t i o n for
b o t h safety c o m p l i a n c e a n d safety participation. T h e
m e a s u r e o f safety m o t i v a t i o n w a s i n c l u d e d as part o f
a m a j o r revision o f the organizational s u r v e y u s e d in
Study 1.
T h e revision p r o c e s s resulted in a n u m b e r o f
c h a n g e s to the c o n t e n t o f the survey. In addition to
the m e a s u r e o f motivation, the r e v i s e d s u r v e y also
i n c l u d e d a m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e a s s e s s m e n t o f safety
climate. T h e scale c o n s t r u c t t e r m e d Safety I n s p e c -
tions in Study 1 w a s e x p a n d e d to a c c o m m o d a t e other
m a n a g e m e n t practices relating to safety, s u c h as in-
cident investigations. A n e w scale w a s a d d e d to the
s u r v e y a s s e s s i n g perceptions a b o u t the a d e q u a c y o f
safety e q u i p m e n t . M a n y o f the i t e m s in the n e w
s u r v e y were c h a n g e d so that only o n e i t e m in e a c h o f
the c o m m o n d i m e n s i o n s r e m a i n e d the s a m e across
the two surveys.
Me~od
Sample. The sample for Study 2 consisted of 381
employees in three Australian manufacturing organizations.
Listwise deletion of cases resulted in a final sample of 326
employees. The survey was administered by the same or-
ganization as for Study 1 The overall response rate for the
survey was 57%.
Measures. The revised survey assessed five dimen-
sions of safety climate: one knowledge dimension, two
motivation dimensions, and two performance dimensions.
The Method section for Study 1 reports the items that were
the same in both surveys. Employees responded on a 5-point
scale to all items ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5
(strongly disagree). Safety climate was assessed by five
353
Factor loading
3 4 5
.66 .65
.66 .58
.69
.68 .62 .58
.68 .67 .49 .36
.44 .44 .37
.61 .56
subscales. Manager Values were assessed by four items that
asked about the degree to which managers were perceived
to value safety in the workplace (a = .90). An example item
was "Management values safety." Safety Communication
was assessed by four items that asked about the way in
which safety issues were communicated (a = .80). An
example item was "Feedback is given on safety suggestions
and complaints." Safety Practices were assessed by three
items that asked about the thoroughness of safety practices,
such as inspections and investigations (c~ = .84). An exam-
ple item was "Accident investigations are always conducted
thoroughly." Personnel Training was assessed by four items
that asked about the effectiveness of training for safety in
the organization (a = .74). An example item was "This
organization has a useful and well-developed safety training
program." Safety Equipment was assessed by three items
that asked about the adequacy of safety equipment (o~ =
.75). An example item was "The correct tools and equip-
ment are readily available."
Safety Knowledge was assessed by four items that asked
about each employee's knowledge of safety practices and
procedures (a = .84). An example item was "I have the
knowledge I need to safely operate equipment used in
my job."
Two types of motivational measure were used to match
the distinction between task and contextual performance
used with measures of safety behavior. Compliance Moti-
vation was assessed by three items that asked about moti-
vation to perform safety-related tasks (a = .80). An exam-
ple item was "It is important to consistently use the correct
personal protective equipment." Participation Motivation
was assessed by three items that assessed motivation to
participate in activities supporting safety in the organization
(or = .81). An example item was "I believe it is important to
promote our safety program."
Two dimensions of safety performance were assessed.
Safety Compliance was assessed by two items that asked
about individual proficiency in safety compliance (a = .56).
An example item was "I use safe procedures for handling
hazardous materials." Safety Participation was assessed by
three items that assessed safety behavior that was not di-
rectly related to safety compliance (o~ = .73). An example
item was "I volunteer for safety-related tasks."
Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients, and
correlations among all scales are presented in Table 4.
354 GRIFFIN AND NEAL

Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations. and Reliabilities for All Scales in Study 2
Scale M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Manager Values 2.24 0.75 -- .54 .46 .49 .39 .43 .22 .25 .16 .24
2. Safety Communication 2.89 0.79 .48 -- .65 .64 .58 .56 .19 .24 .39 .44
3. Safety Practices 2.53 0.79 .45 .52 -- .55 .48 .43 .19 .17 .31 .29
4. Personnel Training 2.40 0.64 .45 .52 .42 -- .65 .58 .27 .26 .45 .38
5. Safety Equipment 2.50 0.77 .37 .46 .40 .53 -- .55 .18 .09 .31 .21
6. Safety Knowledge 2.52 0.73 .36 .47 .35 .50 .44 -- .26 .33 .50 .70
7. Compliance Motivation 1.44 0.53 .19 .14 .16 .26 .13 .20 -- .80 .32 .26
8. Participation Motivation 1.84 0.64 .22 .22 .16 .26 .12 .24 .65 -- .29 .53
9. Safety Compliance 1.65 0.69 .16 .26 .27 .34 .20 .34 .27 .18 -- .50
10. Safety Participation 2.83 0.89 .18 .33 .24 .32 .19 .47 .19 .42 .30 --
Note. Values above the diagonal represent correlations among the first-order factors; values below the diagonal represent
correlations among the scales.

Results and Discussion model, each sequential nested model s h o w e d a sig-

A similar analytic procedure for Study 1 was
adopted in Study 2. First, a series o f C F A m o d e l s was
estimated including a higher order factor model. The
top section o f Table 5 s h o w s the fit o f each altema-
tive factor model. Beginning with the null covariance
nificant i m p r o v e m e n t in fit. The series o f compari-
sons proceeded f r o m the null covariance model to a
1-factor model, AX2(32, N = 326) = 2,204.19, p <
.001; a 4-factor model, AX2(6, N = 326) = 1,096.02,
p < .001; a 5-factor model, AX2(4, N = 326) =

Table 5
Assessment of Measurement Model for Individual Responses to Survey Items in Study 2
Model df X2 GFI RMSEA CFI NNFI
Measurement models
Null covariance model 496 5,019.39 .30 .26
One-factor model 464 2,815.20 .58 .12 .48 .44
Four-factor model 458 1,719.18 .73 .08 .72 .70
One climate dimension
One knowledge dimension
One motivation dimension
One performance dimension
Five-factor model 454 1,663.25 .74 .07 .73 .71
One climate dimension
One knowledge dimension
One motivation dimension
Two performance dimensions
Six-factor model 449 1,569.59 .75 .07 .75 .73
One climate dimension
One knowledge dimension
Two motivation dimensions
Two performance dimensions
Ten-factor model 419 660.26 .89 .04 .95 .94
Five climate dimensions
One knowledge dimension
Two motivation dimensions
Two performance dimensions
Higher order climate model 444 704.01 .88 .04 .94 .94
Structural models
Hypothetical model 448 725.12 .88 .04 .94 .93
Final model 447 707.11 .88 .04 .94 .94
Note. til~l = goodness-ot-ht index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index;
NNFI = nonnormed fit index.
 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY 355

55.93, p < .001; a 6-factor model, AX2(5, N = General Discussion

326) = 93.66, p < .001; and the full 10-factor model,
AX2(30, N = 326) = 909.33, p < .001. The study's framework for assessing employee
This result supported a distinction among the pro- perceptions of safety is valuable because it allows for
posed first-order constructs. The higher order factor systematic assessment of different types of employee
model provided an acceptable fit, although it was a perceptions. These perceptions can then be linked to
significantly poorer fit compared with the 10-factor safety outcomes in organizations. Little research has
addressed the process through which safety climate
model, AXZ(25, N = 326) = 43.75, p < .05. The
translates into safety outcomes for organizations. In-
higher order model was retained to test the media-
vestigation of this process is hampered because there
tional links in the proposed model. Correlations
is no coherent framework that links employee per-
among the first-order factors from the measurement
ceptions of the work environment to specific safety
model are shown above the diagonal in Table 4. The
behaviors at work.
factor loadings for the higher order factor model are The proposed framework was based on an integra-
shown in Table 6. The loadings for all of the items tion of recent theories of work performance with
were acceptable and generally higher than the load- theories of organizational climate. Four key attributes
ings obtained for Study 1. of the framework were (a) the use of a higher order
Next, we estimated structural paths among the construct of safety climate comprising specific first-
constructs to assess the hypothesized mediational order factors, (b) the distinction of perceptions of
model. Results of these comparisons are presented in climate from other safety perceptions, (c) the distinc-
the lower part of Table 4. The hypothesized model tion between task and contextual performance related
was a significantly poorer fit than a saturated struc- to safety, and (d) the inclusion of mediational role for
tural model, AXz(4, N = 326) = 21.11, p < .001. knowledge and motivation. Implications of each of
Inspection of significant paths in the saturated struc- these four issues are addressed below.
tural model indicated a significant negative path from First, the framework incorporated safety climate as
safety compliance motivation to safety participation. a higher order factor comprising specific first-order
Inclusion of this path resulted in a final model that factors (L. R. James & Mclntyre, 1996). Perceptions
was not significantly different from the saturated of workplace systems related to safety were the de-
model, AX2(3, N = 326) = 3.10, p > .05. Figure 3 fining feature of the higher order safety climate fac-
shows the final path estimates from the SEM analy- t o r . This conceptualization is important because it
allows the role of the higher order factor to be inves-
sis. The results supported the proposed mediational
tigated in relation to other safety-related perceptions
structure because there was no direct path from the
and in relation to organizational outcomes. The pro-
higher order safety climate factor to the two safety
posed framework extends previous discussions of
performance factors.
safety climate that have focused on the dimensional-
ity of safety climate (Dedobbeleer & Beland, 1991;
Zohar, 1980). The framework does not resolve dis-
agreement about the number of subdimensions of
safety climate or provide a definitive conclusion
Table 6 about the content of these dimensions. However, the
Factor Loadings for Items in Study 2 framework allows for consistent development of fur-
ther specific dimensions of safety climate within the
Factor loadings construct of a higher order safety climate factor.
Factor 1 2 3 4 Second, the framework provides a basis for dis-
Manager Values .91 .89 .85 tinguishing other perceptions related to safety. In
Safety Communication .75 .73 .70 .62 particular, safety climate was distinguished from
Safety Practices .79 .78 .74 .71 self-reports of individual safety performance and
Personnel Training .76 .74 .63 from the motivational and knowledge determinants
Safety Equipment .86 .81 .52
Safety Knowledge .70 .60 .58 .54 of this behavior. Differentiating safety climate
Compliance Motivation .93 .79 .59 from other perceptions of safety in organizations
Participation Motivation .81 .79 .71 allows hypotheses regarding the mechanisms
Safety Compliance .71 .64 through which safety climate influences safety per-
Safety Participation .76 .70 .68 formance to be developed and tested. Previous
356 GRIFFIN AND NEAL
.61
~ .14
_/
~--Safety~~ /
Figure 3. Path estimates from final model for Study 2. ns = not statisticallysignificant.
studies have confounded these issues (Dedobbeleer
& Beland, 1991). Furthermore, the exclusion of
factors such as affective reactions to safety and
perceptions of risk from the construct of safety
climate allows a clearer focus on the key element
of climate, namely, the perception of values, pol-
icies, and procedures within the organization.
The third feature of the framework was the di-
vision of safety performance into behaviors di-
rectly related to safe work practices (safety com-
pliance) and behaviors that support the overall
safety of the organization (safety participation).
The results support a distinction between task and
contextual performance within the safety domain
(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). It is meaningful to
distinguish between safety activities that are pre-
scribed as part of the job and safety activities that
support the broader organizational context. Previ-
ous research has focused on safety behaviors such
as wearing the correct protective clothing. These
behaviors are directly related to the safety of the
individual performing the behavior. The current
framework extends safety performance to include
activities such as participating in safety meetings
and encouraging the safety of others. These con-
textual behaviors can enhance the safety of the
team, the work environment, or the organization as
a whole. It has long been recognized that contex-
tual behaviors play an important role in maintain-
ing organizational effectiveness (Katz & Kahn,
1966). Contextual safety behaviors are likely to
play an important role in the maintenance of over-
all system safety.
.19
Finally, the mediation of safety climate through
motivation and knowledge within the framework pro-
vides an individual process that links safety climate
to specific performance outcomes. The results sup-
port the proposal that knowledge and motivation me-
diate the impact of safety climate on individual safety
behavior. This distinction is important because it
identifies mechanisms through which safety climate
is likely to influence safety performance (Campbell et
al., 1993). In addition, the framework allows the
inclusion of other antecedents that may influence
knowledge and motivation for safety. For example,
the risk level of a particular industry, organizational
characteristics such as size and structure, and char-
acteristics of the workforce can also be included in
the framework as antecedents to individual safety
performance. These antecedents may be related to
safety climate but are also conceptually distinct.
Although the framework received general sup-
port, two aspects were not fully supported and
require further investigation. First, the negative
link between safety compliance motivation and
safety participation was not expected. This nega-
tive relationship is consistent with resource allo-
cation models of performance that propose goal-
oriented task motivation can reduce participation
in contextual behaviors (Kanfer & Ackerman,
1989; Wright, George, Farnsworth, & McMahan,
1993). Second, safety knowledge was not related
to safety participation in Study 1. However, safety
knowledge was positively related to both safety
compliance and safety participation in Study 2.
 PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY
Limitations and F u r t h e r D e v e l o p m e n t
The aim of this study was to develop a framework
for measuring perceptions of safety in the workplace.
The use of self-report measures within the framework
is therefore appropriate. However, the study is lim-
ited by not having access to measures of safety be-
yond individual perceptions. The common method of
measurement may have increased the strength of the
relationship among constructs. However, the pro-
posed distinctions among constructs were supported
by the confirmatory analyses, and previous studies
have demonstrated a link between safety behaviors
and accidents in organizations (Hofmann & Stetzer,
1996). Measurement of the relationship between em-
ployee perceptions and indicators of both the work
context and individual behavior is necessary to fur-
ther validate the constructs and to assess the impact
of safety perceptions on workplace outcomes. A fur-
ther limitation of the study was cross-sectional mea-
surement. It was not possible to test the causal rela-
tionships proposed in the theoretical framework, and
longitudinal assessment would provide further vali-
dation of specific relationships. Finally, neither study
included assessment of skill. Further development of
the model should incorporate a distinct measure of
skill. The defining quality of skilled performance is
that it is accurate and effortless (J. R. Anderson,
1983). This quality makes it difficult to assess skill
independently of motivation and performance when
using self-report data. One way of assessing skill
independently of other dimensions is for individuals
to assess their prior performance in relation to the
amount of effort that they put in.
In addition to addressing the above limitations,
future research can be guided by the proposed frame-
work in two ways. First, additional dimensions of
climate can be incorporated. The framework clearly
identifies the way that these climate dimensions
should be conceptualized and assessed. Specific cli-
mate dimensions should focus on perceptions of rel-
evant features of the work context that are likely to be
shared across members of the work group. For ex-
ample, the perceived clarity of goals for safety could
be assessed to capture the degree to which individu-
als perceive the goals of the organization to be linked
to safety in the workplace.
Second, more specific measures of safety perfor-
mance can be developed to extend the way that
performance is reported by individuals in organiza-
tions. Performance requirements vary across organi-
zations, and it is likely that successful safety perfor-
mance also depends on the work context. Further
357
elaboration of safety performance using the current
framework may include subdimensions of task and
contextual performance to provide more detailed di-
agnosis of safety perceptions in the organization.
Conclusion
The theories of performance developed by Camp-
bell, Motowidlo, and their colleagues, together with
theories of organizational climate, provide a useful
framework for measuring perceptions of safety at
work. The results of the study provide a systematic
framework for further investigation of the impact of
employee perceptions, employee behavior, and orga-
nizational safety outcomes. The framework will pro-
vide a basis for ongoing articulation of the core
dimensions of safety climate and the mediating role
of employee knowledge, skill, and motivation. This
framework will also aid the design and evaluation of
organizational interventions designed to enhance
safety outcomes. The results of the study, therefore,
provide a new step in developing a coherent model
that links safety climate to safety in the workplace.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate
for work group innovation: Development and validation
of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 19, 235-258.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. G. (1980). Significance tests
and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance struc-
tures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the
criterion domain to include elements of contextual per-
formance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates
(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, R. L., & Holmes, H. (1986). The use of a factor-
analytic procedure for assessing the validity of an em-
ployee safety climate model. Accident Analysis and Pre-
vention, 18, 455-470.
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at
psychological climate and its relationship to job involve-
ment, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 81, 358-368.
Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Hurley, A. E. (1992).
Reconceptualizing psychological climate in a retail ser-
vice environment: A multiple stakeholder perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 717-729.
Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The
substantive nature of performance variability. In K. R.
Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in
organizations (pp. 258-299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
358 GRIFFIN AND NEAL
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager,
C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt,
W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection
in organizations (pp. 35-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cox, S., & Tait, R. (1991). Reliability, safety and risk
management: An integrated approach. Oxford, England:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dedobbeleer, N., & Beland, F. (1991). A safety climate
measure for construction sites. Journal of Safety Re-
search, 22, 97-103.
DeJoy, D. M. (1994). Managing safety in the workplace: An
attribution theory analysis and model. Journal of Safety
Research, 25, 3-17.
Hayes, B. E., Perander, J., Smecko, T., & Trask, J. (1998).
Measuring perceptions of workplace safety: Develop-
ment and validation of the work safety scale. Journal of
Safety Research, 29, 145-161.
Hofmann, D. A., Jacobs, R. R., & Landy, F. J. (1995). High
reliability process industries: Individual, micro, and
macro organizational influences on safety performance.
Journal of Safety Research, 26, 131-149.
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level inves-
tigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and ac-
cidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 307-339.
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1999). The role of safety
climate and communication in accident interpretation:
Implications for learning from negative events. Academy
of Management Journal, 41, 644-657.
Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and non-issues
in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 17, 627-637.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Mod-
eling, 6, 1-55.
James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work
environment perceptions: Explorations into the measure-
ment of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
739-751.
James, L. R., & Mclntyre, M. D. (1996). Perceptions of
organizational climate. In K. Murphy (Ed.), Individual
differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 416-450).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. (1990). The meaning
of organizations: The role of condition and values. In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp.
40-84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbem, D. (1989). LISREL VII." User's
reference and guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and
cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment in-
teraction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 657-690.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of
organizations. New York: Wiley.
View publication stats
Klein, K. J., & Spotra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innova-
tion implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21,
1055-1080.
McCloy, R. A., Campbell, J. P., & Cudeck, R. (1994). A
confirmatory test of a model of performance determi-
nants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 493-503.
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson,
M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results:
The relationship between predictor and criterion do-
mains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335-354.
Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A
review of current practices for evaluating causal models
in organizational behavior and human resources manage-
ment research. Journal of Management, 20, 439-464.
Morrison, D. L., Upton, D. M., & Cordery, J. (1997, April).
Organizational climate and skill utilization. Paper pre-
sented to the 12th Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis,
MO.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that
task performance should be distinguished from contex-
tual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
475-480.
Niskanen, T. (1994). Assessing the safety environment in
the work organization of road maintenance jobs. Acci-
dent Analysis and Prevention, 26, 27-39.
Rundmo, T. (1994). Associations between safety and con-
tingency measures and occupational accidents on off-
shore petroleum platforms. Scandinavian Journal of
Work, Environment and Health, 20, 128-131.
Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An applica-
tion of the climate construct. In B. Schneider (Ed.),
Organizational climate and culture (pp. 383-412). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Wheeler, J. K., & Cox, J. F. (1992). A
passion for service: Using content analysis to explicate
service climate themes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
77, 705-716.
Wise, L. L., McHenry, J., & Campbell, J. P. (1990). Iden-
tifying optimal predictor composites and testing for gen-
eralizability across jobs and performance factors. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 43, 355-366.
Wright, P. M., George, J. M., Farnsworth, S. R., & McMa-
han, G. C. (1993). Productivity and extra-role behavior:
The effects of goals and incentives on spontaneous help-
ing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 374-381.
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations:
Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 12, 78-85.
Received June 9, 1999
Revision received D e c e m b e r 6, 1999
A c c e p t e d January 19, 2000 •