Description
Although several studies have examined the effect of organizational safety climate on individual safety behavior, none have examined the relationship between safety climate and employee perceptions of stress. In the current study, I proposed that when safety-job demands, a dimension of safety climate, is examined at the individual level, it can serve as a measure of role conflict. Safety-job demands refer to the extent to which employees perceive the demands to work safely and productively to be in conflict. As such, I hypothesized that safety-job demands would be negatively related to job satisfaction and affective commitment, and positively related to turnover intentions. Lazarus and Folkman's cognitive appraisal model of stress states that when confronted with a stressor, individuals first appraise the extent to which it is stressful (primary appraisal); they then appraise the extent to which it affects their wellbeing and attitudes (secondary appraisal). Based on this model, I hypothesized that perceived stress would mediate the relationships between safety-job demands and the three work-related attitudes in the study, facilitating the two-part appraisal. As employees appraise stressors, there are resources available to assist them in their appraisal. In the current study, I proposed that three resources, nested at different levels of the work environment, would aid employees in the primary and secondary appraisal of safety-job demands. At the individual level, I hypothesized that core self-evaluations (CSE) would moderate both the primary and secondary appraisal of safety-job demands, such that employees with high CSE would perceive safety-job demands to be less stressful, report higher job satisfaction and affective commitment, and report lower turnover intentions. At the department level, I proposed that the manager's attitude toward safety (MATS) would moderate the primary appraisal of safety-job demands in the form of the following research question: will the direction of a manager's attitude (i.e., positive or negative attitude toward safety) or the agreement regarding a manager's attitude (i.e., clear or unclear attitude toward safety, regardless of direction) moderate the relationship between safety-job demands and perceived stress? At the store level, I proposed that social support would moderate both the primary and secondary appraisal of safety-job demands, such that employees who work in stores with high norms of social support would perceive safety-job demands to be less stressful, report higher job satisfaction and affective commitment, and report lower turnover intentions. Results showed strong support for the relationship between safety-job demands and the work-related attitudes, all in the hypothesized directions. However, perceived stress only partially mediated the relationship between safety-job demands and the work-related attitudes. None of the moderating variables buffered the two-part appraisal of safety-job demands, which highlights the complexity of this variable. Future research should consider the framework under which competing workplace demands are measured. For example, workplace urgency in the retail or restaurant industries tends to vary throughout the workweek, and safety-job demands may be more appropriately measured using a within-individual design. Other suggestions for future research include how employee tenure and repeated exposure to safety-job demands relate to the appraisal of safety-job demands.
