Safety Science 105 (2018) 46–54

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

A new look at compliance with work procedures: An engagement T

perspective
⁎
Xiaowen Hua, , Mark Griffina, Gillian Yeoa, Lisette Kansea, Melinda Hodkiewicza,
Katharine Parkesa,b
a
The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
b
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3UD, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research presents a model of employee behaviour related to the use of procedures in safety critical in-
Work procedure dustries. A key contribution is the focus on procedure-related behaviour that is enacted when employees are
Compliance engaged with their work—such as when they invest personal effort into complying with procedures and voice
Engagement suggestions or concerns they have with the procedures. This study examines how these two engaged behaviours,
Voice
namely, effort towards compliance and procedure-related voice behaviour, are influenced by psychological and
Supervisor helping behavior
organizational factors. In doing so, we introduce Kahn’s theory of work engagement into the safety procedure
literature. Survey data were collected from 152 maintainers in a mining corporation in Australia. The data were
analysed using path analysis. Our results indicated that supervisor helping behaviour had a significant positive
effect on effort towards compliance and procedure-related voice, via its influence on perceived usefulness and
job self-efficacy, respectively. The results suggest that employees’ perceptions of the utility value of the pro-
cedures as well as their own capabilities in carrying out their job tasks play a key role in shaping how employees
use procedures. Organizations should influence those perceptions in order to encourage employees’ engagement
in the use of procedures. Our study suggests that this can be achieved by structuring the role of supervisors to
ensure they have the capacity and availability to help their team members.

1. Introduction Although the importance of procedure compliance is well estab-

In safety critical industries, organisations tend to rely on written
procedures to specify how potentially hazardous work tasks should be
executed as a major approach to control risks (Hale and Swuste, 1998).
The terms “safety procedure” and “procedure” have been used in the
literature to cover written guidelines and regulation that have safety
implications (Hale and Borys, 2013a). The critical role of procedures is
demonstrated by the reoccurring finding that a lack of compliance with
procedures is one of the most important factors that contribute to ac-
cidents (Dekker, 2005; Hopkins, 2011), and both scholars and practi-
tioners share a deep interest in understanding employees’ compliance
behaviour (Clarke, 2006). Griffin and Neal (2000) conceptualised
compliance with procedures as a core safety behaviour. Based on this
conceptualisation of safety compliance, a number of follow-up studies
have been conducted to understand the personal and organisational
factors that promote this behaviour (Bronkhorst, 2015; Christian et al.,
2009; Cui et al., 2013; Dahl, 2013; Dahl and Olsen, 2013; Hu et al.,
2016; Li et al., 2013; Nahrgang et al., 2011; Neal and Griffin, 2006).
lished, researchers also recognize that procedures have limitations in
and of themselves. As Praino and Sharit (2016) summarised, procedures
can be difficult to understand and interpret, effortful to carry out, and
may be inappropriate to use when work conditions are different from
anticipated. Acknowledging these limitations of procedures, Hale and
Borys (2013a) proposed that the management of procedures should be a
continuous and dynamic process, through which procedures are im-
plemented, monitored, evaluated and improved. In their procedure
management model, employees’ efforts in applying procedures in the
local task environment are essential for safe operations. Furthermore,
employees are believed to possess valuable experience and knowledge
and thus can contribute to the monitoring and improvement of proce-
dures by speaking up about their experience using procedures.
Despite the recognition that employees can take an active role in
their use of procedures, existing safety research has not investigated the
nature of this role or its antecedents. In the broader organisational
psychology literature, researchers have investigated employee engage-
ment in relation to positive psychological states and active behaviours

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xiaowen.hu@qut.edu.au (X. Hu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.01.019
Received 11 September 2016; Received in revised form 29 January 2018; Accepted 30 January 2018
0925-7535/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Hu et al.
of employees that are particularly important for organisational effec-
tiveness (Macey and Schneider, 2008). The term “engagement” was first
applied by Kahn (1990) to describe the extent to which employees in-
vest themselves in their work role performance. He defined engagement
as “the harnessing of organisational members' selves to their work
roles” (pp. 694). When employees are engaged, they are likely to per-
form a range of behaviours that are beneficial for the organisation,
including putting effort into their work role performance, voice
(speaking up), and advocating for their organisation, among others
(Macey and Schneider, 2008). Following their work, we argue that
employees can invest their psychological self in the use of procedures,
in the same way as they invest their psychological self in their job roles.
When employees are engaged in their use of procedures, they are ex-
pected to expend the effort required to comply with procedures prop-
erly (rather than just ticking the box) and contribute to the organiza-
tions’ procedure management system by voicing any ideas they have for
improving the quality of procedures. By incorporating the work en-
gagement theory (Kahn, 1990), our study contributes to the safety lit-
erature by providing a theoretical framework that captures important
employee behaviours related to the use of procedures in safety critical
industries, beyond the traditional focus on compliance. Also, it serves to
unveil the organisational and psychological processes that drive those
positive behaviours.
In the following section, we begin by conceptualizing two constructs
which are behavioural manifestations of engagement in the context of
procedure use: effort towards compliance, defined as the degree to
which employees direct their personal effort towards complying with
procedures, and procedure-related voice, defined as the degree to
which employees voluntarily raise suggestions or concerns about the
procedures they use. We then draw from Kahn’s theory to develop and
test a model in which supervisor helping behaviour facilitates effort
towards compliance and procedure-related voice behaviour via its in-
fluence on three psychological states: perceived usefulness of proce-
dures, job self-efficacy, and psychological safety. We then test the
model in an empirical study using a sample of maintenance personnel
working in a mining company.
1.1. Engaged behaviour in the context of procedure use
According to Kahn (1990), there are two fundamental character-
istics of engagement: self-employment and self-expression. Self-em-
ployment refers to the investment of personal effort into performing
work tasks. When people are engaged in their work roles, they work
hard and expend effort, and strive to complete the task to the best of
their ability. The second characteristic of engagement is self-expression,
which relates to individuals’ expressions of genuine thoughts and
feelings about their work. This idea of self-expression is similar to voice
behaviour, defined as the discretionary expression of suggestions, ideas,
and concerns regarding work issues with intent to positively contribute
to the organisation or work unit (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Inter-
estingly, researchers who have adopted Kahn’s (1990) framework have
tended to omit voice from their research model (Christian et al., 2011;
Luksyte et al., 2015; May et al., 2004; Rich et al., 2010). On the other
hand, researchers who examine voice (usually within the proactive
behaviour literature) rarely conceptualize this behaviour from an en-
gagement perspective (Morrison, 2014). In our study, we follow Kahn’s
(1990) original work suggesting that voice is an important behavioural
manifestation of engagement, and draw on voice research from the
proactive behaviour literature to develop our hypotheses.
In this study, we draw on the two characteristics of engagement to
describe the actual behaviours that employee perform when they are
engaged in the context of procedure use. We first draw on the effort
investment characteristic of engagement to forward the construct “ef-
fort towards compliance”, defined as the investment of one’s effort to
comply with procedures. This definition of effort towards compliance is
similar to the concept of safety compliance as described in Griffin and
47
Safety Science 105 (2018) 46–54
Neal (2000). Recently, Nahrgang et al. (2011) draw on the work en-
gagement literature and theorised that individuals’ compliance with
safety rules and procedures could be considered as a representation of
employee engagement in the context of workplace safety. In this study,
we following Nahrgang et al. (2011) and views compliance with safety
procedure as an engaged behaviour, and investigate how antecedents of
engagement in the context of procedure use might facilitate this be-
haviour.
Second, drawing on the self-expression characteristics of engage-
ment and the definition of voice (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998), we
define procedure-related voice behaviour as the discretionary expres-
sion of constructive suggestions and concerns regarding the use of
procedures, with the intention to improve the quality of procedures.
Given its sole focus on procedures, procedure-related voice is distinct
from safety voice (Conchie et al., 2012; Tucker et al., 2008), which
involves discretionary acts to speak up about safety-related issues, such
reminding colleagues of procedural steps if they fail to comply with
procedures, and the reporting to one’s supervisor about potential safety
hazards, among others. Procedure-related voice is also distinct from
near-miss and/or accident reporting, which involves the reporting of
actual safety incidents using formal forums (Wright and van der Schaaf,
2005).
Although procedures are meant to represent the best practice of
carrying out work tasks, formal written procedures are not always ap-
plicable to the local task environment, or when there are changes in the
task environment. As Hale and Borys (2013b) argued, frontline em-
ployees tend to have first hand experience of the job task and local task
environment, which allow them to cope well with the varibility and
complexity of reality. Through sharing their thoughts and experiences
with the use of procedures, employees could help leaders and procedure
designers to identify problems with current procedures and to develop
new procedures to adapt to the changing work environment. Given the
positive roles that effort towards compliance and procedure-related
voice might serve, it is important to understand how these behaviours
might be facilitated.
1.2. Proposed model of engaged behaviour
According to Kahn (1990), engagement is influenced by people’s
experience of themselves and their work contexts. In his original eth-
nographic study, Kahn (1990) found that engagement was generated
when three psychological conditions are met: meaningfulness, safety,
and availability. These three psychological conditions are further in-
fluenced by individuals’ perception of their tasks and job roles, the
social system and themselves, respectively. Follow up studies provided
empirical evidence to support the model (May et al., 2004). In the
present study, we consider three psychological states: perceived use-
fulness of procedures, psychological safety, and self-efficacy in one’s
job, as context-specific indicators of meaningfulness, safety, and
availability respectively. Furthermore, we investigate supervisor
helping behaviour as an organisational antecedent that influences en-
gaged behaviour in the context of procedure use via the proposed three
psychological states. The theoretical model is shown in Fig. 1. In the
following section, we first define the three psychological states and
discuss how they are related to effort towards compliance and proce-
dure-related voice. We then describe how supervisor helping behaviour
affects the two engaged behaviours via those three mediating states.
1.3. Psychological states and engaged behaviour
1.3.1. Perceived usefulness of procedures
According to Kahn (1990), the feeling of meaningfulness involves a
sense of return on one’s investments of his/her personal energy. People
experience meaningfulness when they feel their investment of them-
selves is worthwhile and valuable. In the context of procedure use, we
argue that the sense of meaningfulness derives from the perception that
X. Hu et al. Safety Science 105 (2018) 46–54

Supervisor Psychological States Engaged behaviour

behaviour

Perceived Procedure-
usefulness related voice

Supervisor Psychological
helping behaviour safety

Job self-efficacy Effort towards

compliance

Fig. 1. Theoretical model.

the procedures are useful for achieving desired work and safety out- more comfortable to express themselves. A number of empirical studies
comes. The construct of perceived usefulness was first proposed in the have found a positive relationship between psychological safety and
technological acceptance model (TAM, Davis, 1989), defined as the employee voice behaviour (Detert et al., 2007; Liang et al., 2012;
extent to which individuals believe the use of the information system Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009).
can enhance their job performance. Hu et al. (2016) drew on TAM and
H2a. Psychological safety is positively related to effort towards
proposed that individuals also form an evaluation of whether a proce-
compliance.
dure is useful, and such a perception will influence individuals’ use of
the procedure. Research from the compliance/violation literature sug- H2b. Psychological safety is positively related to procedure-related
gests that the primary driving force for taking short-cuts, that is, voice.
withholding one’s effort, is the worker’s perception that they can still
perform the task adequately even if they remove a few steps (Reason
1.3.3. Job self-efficacy
et al., 1998). This research supports the idea that a low level of per-
Psychological availability refers to a sense of having the physical,
ceived usefulness tends to lead to disengagement in the use of proce-
emotional, and psychological resources to engage at a particular mo-
dures. However, there has been no research linking perceived useful-
ment (Kahn, 1990). When people are psychologically available, they
ness of procedures and procedure-related voice behaviour.
feel ready to engage. As May et al. (2004) suggested, this readiness is
H1a. Perceived usefulness of procedures is positively related to effort largely reflected in an individuals’ confidence in their work role. We
towards compliance. argue that in the context of procedure use, job self-efficacy, defined as
an individual’s belief in his or her capabilities to carry out his/her job
H1b. Perceived usefulness of procedure is positively related to
tasks well, reflects an experience of psychological availability because
procedure-related voice.
procedures serve to guide task execution, and are tied to almost every
work task in safety critical industries. People with high job self-efficacy
are likely to feel more capable of carrying out their job tasks and coping
1.3.2. Psychological safety
with work demands effectively, and thus, having more resources to
According to Kahn (1990), the condition of safety is met when in-
invest in the use of procedures than those with low job self-efficacy.
dividuals feel that they are able to show and employ themselves
Previous research on self-efficacy suggests that individuals with high
without fear of negative consequences. He used the term psychological
self-efficacy tend to invest more effort in tasks, setting more difficult
safety to refer to the extent to which individuals believe they will not be
performance goals, and are more persistent in the face of setbacks
punished for speaking up suggestions or concerns. Individuals are more
(Bandura, 1994). In the voice literature, efficacy related cognitions,
likely to engage themselves when they perceive there is a low risk of
such as personal control, influence, and empowerment, have been
doing so. Following Kahn’s argument, we suggest that when employees
shown to be positively related to voice behaviour (Frazier and
feel comfortable expressing themselves at work, they are more likely to
Fainshmidt, 2012; Lam and Mayer, 2014; Tangirala and Ramanujam,
expend effort when complying with procedures, and raise suggestions
2008; Venkataramani and Tangirala, 2010). Taken together, we pro-
about the procedures they use. Supporting this view, a study by Brown
pose that:
and Leigh (1996) found that psychological climate, which they con-
ceptualised as encompassing both psychological meaningfulness and H3a. Job self-efficacy is positively related to effort towards compliance.
psychological safety, was related to effort expenditure at work. In the
H3b. Job self-efficacy is positively related to procedure-related voice.
voice literature, psychological safety has been considered as a key
predictor of voice, because voice often involves either explicitly or
implicitly challenging the status quo, and is therefore associated with 1.4. Supervisor helping behaviour as an organisational antecedent
the risk of being misunderstood or undesirable social consequences
(Morrison and Milliken, 2000). When individuals have high psycholo- Our decision to focus on supervisory behaviour is informed by
gical safety, they perceive less risk associated with expressing them- Kahn’s research (2010) which suggests that one of the most influential
selves compared to those with low psychological safety and are thus factors that shape employees’ judgements about whether to engage is

48
X. Hu et al. Safety Science 105 (2018) 46–54

supervisory behaviour. Through interactions with their supervisors, usefulness of procedures.

individuals assess whether their engagement matters, whether it is safe
Second, we suggest that supervisor helping behaviour will facilitate
to express themselves, and whether they have the resources to do so.
engaged behaviour related to the use of procedures via its impact on
This finding is consistent with the broad team literature which suggests
psychological safety. According to Kahn (2010), leader behaviours are
that team members are highly attuned to the behaviour of leaders and
particularly salient cues that subordinates use in evaluating whether
examine leader actions for information about what is expected and
they can safely express themselves at work. Previous research has
acceptable (Tyler and Lind, 1992). In the safety performance literature,
linked leadership behaviour and psychological safety. For example,
a number of supervisor behaviours have been identified as antecedents
Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) found that leader inclusiveness,
of compliance behaviour. For example, Cohen (1977) suggested that
which refers to the degree to which leaders appreciate their employees
frequent interaction and quality communication with leaders promotes
and invite them to participate in decision making processes, is posi-
safety compliance. Leader involvement, defined as leader’s involvement
tively related to psychological safety. Another study from the ethical
in the planning and execution of the daily tasks, was related to safety
leadership literature suggests that ethical leaders tend to foster psy-
compliance (Dahl and Olsen, 2013). Furthermore, Griffin and Hu
chological safety because they convey the belief that high standards of
(2013) suggested that leader monitoring facilitates safety compliance
job performance are valued (Walumbwa and Schaubroeck, 2009). To-
because it helps employees to realise the discrepancy between their
gether, this research suggests that when supervisors act in a supportive
own behaviour and that which is required by procedures. Taken to-
way and convey the message that good job performance is valued and
gether, these studies tend to suggest that when supervisors actively play
appreciated, employees are more likely to feel comfortable expressing
a role in assisting employees with their performance in some way,
themselves at work. Supervisor helping behaviour involves assisting
employees are more likely to comply with procedures. Accordingly, we
employees with their daily tasks, providing guidance and support when
investigate how supervisory helping behaviour, defined as supervisory
employees are in need. It sends out a strong signal that supervisors are
behaviours which are functional in assisting employees’ attainment of
willing to support employees for better work performance. Thus, we
job goals, facilitates engagement in the context of procedure use.
expect that supervisor behaviour will also be positively related to
The concept of supervisor helping behaviour is consistent with
psychological safety, and indirectly, effort towards compliance, and
functional leadership theory, which suggests that an important role of a
procedure-related voice behaviour.
leader is to assist their team members with their job performance
(Morgeson et al., 2010). Supervisor helping behaviour includes but is H5. Supervisor helping behaviour is positively related to psychological
not limited to behaviours such as ensuring employees have the re- safety.
sources and equipment they need for their job, providing task-related
Third, we suggest that supervisor helping behaviour will facilitate
information, and helping employees to perform their job when needed
engaged behaviour related to the use of procedures via its impact on job
(Hackman et al., 1986). Supervisor helping behaviours can be seen as a
self-efficacy. Eden (1990) suggests that supervisors play a significant
valuable job resource as it is instrumental to employees’ work goal at-
role in shaping employee’ efficacy beliefs. Building on this idea, we
tainment. As such, supervisor helping behaviour is motivational in
argue that supervisor helping behaviours are a potential vehicle for two
nature. It increases employees’ perception of the likelihood of success in
experiences that Bandura (1986) suggested as key antecedents of self-
the attainment of job goals, and therefore fosters a willingness to
efficacy: mastery experience and vicarious experience. For employees,
dedicate their effort and ability in work performance (Meijman et al.,
job self-efficacy might come from actual job accomplishments, which
1998). In this study, we suggest that supervisor helping behaviour can
will contribute to positive expectations about one’s ability to carry out
facilitate effort towards compliance and procedure-related voice beha-
job tasks. Supervisor helping behaviour helps to build up mastery ex-
viour through its impact on perceived usefulness of procedures, psy-
perience by assisting employees to achieve their work goals. Employees
chological safety, and job self-efficacy.
who receive more support from their supervisor are likely to possess
First, supervisor helping behaviour will facilitate engaged behaviour
resources to complete their tasks than employees who receive less help
related to the use of procedures via its effect on perceived usefulness of
from their supervisor. As a result, these employees are likely to gain
procedures. TAM suggests that perceived usefulness is a perception
more successful job experiences, which will enhance their job-self ef-
formed over time with individuals’ experience of using the procedure. A
ficacy. Supervisor helping behaviour also involves demonstrating how
number of factors might facilitate the formation of perceived useful-
to do a task for employees. Role modelling by supervisors is important
ness, one of which is “facilitating conditions,” defined as resources that
for efficacy development because employees may lack sufficient in-
are available in the organisation to support IT use (Venkatesh and Bala,
formation by which to gauge their task success. According to Gist and
2008). We argue that supervisor helping behaviour is positively related
Mitchell (1992) modelling demonstrates effective performance strate-
to perceived usefulness because it serves as a facilitating condition for
gies and provides employees with data by which to assess their own
the use of procedures. Given their close interaction with employees and
performance efficacy. Supporting this view, Tierney and Farmer (2002)
knowledge or expertise, supervisors in general serve as the best re-
found that supervisor support for creative performance is linked to
sources to support employees’ use of procedures apart from formal
creative self-efficacy. Taken together, we propose that
training (Hopkins, 2011). Supervisors who help their team members to
achieve their work goals are more likely to provide detailed guidance H6. Supervisor helping behaviour is positively related to job self-
and instructions regarding how work tasks should be carried out, and to efficacy.
ensure that workers have all the resources they need to complete their
Taken hypothesis 1–6, we develop the following two mediation
work tasks. In high-risk industries, procedures capture nearly every
hypotheses:
aspect of work in high-risk organisations. Thus, helpful supervisors are
more likely to provide workers with rationales about why procedures H7. The relationship between supervisor helping behaviour and effort
should be followed and how to perform procedures properly, help to towards compliance is mediated by the three psychological states.
locate necessary equipment and tools to make sure procedures are
H8. The relationship between supervisor helping behaviour and
followed properly, and provide help when employees encounter any
procedure-related voice is mediated by the three psychological states.
difficulties in carrying out procedures. All these serve to support em-
ployees’ experiences with the use of procedures, and hence increase
utility perceptions of procedures. Therefore, we expect that:
H4. Supervisor helping behaviour is positively related to perceived

49
X. Hu et al. Safety Science 105 (2018) 46–54

2. Method
2.1. Sample
Two maintenance units of a global mining organisation participated
in the present study. Both units were based in the same remote geo-
graphical region. Unit 1 was responsible for the maintenance and repair
of power, water, communications, and other services; the personnel was
predominantly electronics and communications technicians, and elec-
tricians. Unit 2 was responsible for the maintenance and repair of heavy
mobile equipment; the majority of the personnel were heavy diesel
mechanics/fitters and auto-electricians.
2.2. Procedure
The surveys were distributed to a total of 313 maintainers (181 in
Unit 1 and 152 in Unit 2). The majority of the surveys were completed
on-site during scheduled safety meetings, but personnel who were ab-
sent when the surveys were distributed could complete the survey on-
line. Paper surveys were forwarded to the researchers in individual
sealed envelopes by company staff returning from the site. In total, 192
surveys were received (61% response rate). Of the surveys returned, 90
were from Unit 1 and 102 from Unit 2. A total of 152 surveys were
sufficiently complete to be included in the data analysis. As in the
overall study population, the great majority of this sample (n = 148,
97%) were men.
2.3. Measures
In order to reduce response fatigue, we used the minimum number
of items possible, with three to five items to measure each study vari-
able. All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale. Actual items used
in this study and the factor loadings are reported in Table 1. As a
procedural remedy to mitigate common method variance (CMV), we
used different anchoring for the predictor and outcome variables. For
supervisor helping behaviour and the three psychological states, we
used an extent based anchor with 1 indicating “strongly agree” and 5
indicating “strongly disagree.”. For the two outcome variables, we used
a frequency based anchor with 1 indicating “very little” and 5 in-
dicating “A great deal.” Another procedure remedy we adopted was to
separate the predictor and outcome sections in the survey. As Podsakoff
et al. (2003) stated, measuring variables at different parts of the same
questionnaire is a standard practice that can to some extent alleviate
CMV. In addition to the procedural remedy, we conducted more rig-
orous analyses for CMV, which are presented in the Results section.
Supervisor helping behaviour was assessed by five items adapted from
Morgeson et al. (2010)’s team leadership questionnaire. The original
questionnaire contains a wide range of leadership behaviours that
support the team. Items related to supervisors helping team members
accomplish work tasks were selected. An example item is: “Provides
team members with task-related instructions”. The Cronbach alpha for
the current sample is 0.95.
Job self-efficacy was assessed by three items adapted from Chen
et al., (2001)’s general self-efficacy scale. To make sure we measure
self-efficacy in one’s job, we added the phrase “In my job” at the be-
ginning of this scale. An example item is “I think that I can obtain
outcomes that are important to me.”. The Cronbach alpha for the cur-
rent sample is 0.84.
Perceived usefulness was measured by three items adapted from
Viswanath Venkatesh and Davis (2000). An example item is “Proce-
dures help me to do my job safely”. The Cronbach alpha for the current
sample is 0.88.
Procedure-related voice behaviour was measured by three items
adapted from Liang et al. (2012). The instruction asked respondents
“Thinking about your work over the past 6 months, to what extent have
you…” An example of item is “Raised suggestions to improve existing
procedures.” The Cronbach alpha for the current sample is 0.85.
Effort towards compliance was measured by three items from Neal
and Griffin (2006) safety compliance measure. The instruction asked
respondents “Thinking about your work over the past 6 months, to what
extent have you…” An example item is “Used all the safety equipment
specified by the procedure to do your job.” The Cronbach alpha for the
current sample is 0.87.
Control variables
To control for alternative explanations of our results, we controlled
for the demographic variables of age and tenure. Previous research has
shown that employees with longer tenure may be more comfortable
with speaking up (e.g. Stamper and Dyne, 2001). We also controlled for
Site to account for the effect of different work climates. We also con-
trolled for management commitment to safety, which is the most pro-
minent predictor of employee safety behaviour (Beus et al., 2010).

Table 1
Factor loadings from confirmatory factor analysis of key study variables.

Scale Items Loading

Supervisor practice
Supervisor helping behaviour Works with the team to develop the best possible approach to its work 0.91
Provides team members with task-related instructions 0.91
Helps the team make sense of ambiguous situations 0.92
Works with team members to help do work 0.90
Makes sure that the equipment and supplies the team needs are available 0.76

Cognitive-motivational states
Perceived usefulness Procedures guide me to do my job effectively 0.76
Following procedures takes away the risk factor in my job 0.57
I find the procedures useful in my job 0.90
Job self-efficacy I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks 0.81
I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me 0.65
I believe I can succeed at almost any endeavour to which I set my mind 0.93
Psychological safety I can express my true feelings regarding my job 0.88
I can freely express my thoughts 0.71
Expressing your true feelings is welcomed 0.55

Procedure-related behaviour
Voice Raised suggestions to improve existing procedures 0.82
Voiced opinions on procedures which are problematic to use 0.76
Compliance Used all the necessary safety equipment to do your job 0.85
Used the correct safety procedures for carrying out your job 0.96
Ensured the highest levels of safety when you carry out your job 0.71

50
X. Hu et al.
Table 2
Comparison of measurement models.
Model Model description
1 Six factors
2 Five factors: two types of engaged behaviour into one factor while the others remain
independent factors
3 Four factors: three psychological states combined into one factor while the others remain
independent factors
** p < 0.01.
2.4. Confirmatory factor analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using Mplus
7.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 2010) to test whether the six key study
constructs are distinct from each other. CFA results produced appro-
priate model fit (χ2 = 244.06., p < .001; df = 137; χ2/df = 1.57;
CFI = 0.95; TFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.06; and SRMR = 0.06). We also
tested two comparison models: (1) combining items measuring voice
and effort towards compliance into an overall construct, and (2) com-
bining items measuring the three psychological states into an overall
construct. As shown in Table 2, both of these two models produced
poorer fit (with Model 1: Chi-square = 521.61, p < .01; df = 160; χ2/
df = 3.26; CFI = 0.80; TLI = 0.76; RMSEA = 0.12; and SRMR = 0.13;
with Model 2: Chi-square = 540.04, p < .01; df = 164; χ2/df = 3.29;
CFI = 0.80; TLI = 0.76; RMSEA = 0.12; and SRMR = 0.12). The lack
of fit of these two alternative models suggests that it is more desirable
to treat the six constructs separately in our analysis.
2.5. Analysis
We used path analysis in Mplus (Muthén and Muthén, 2010) to test
our hypotheses that the two forms of engaged behaviour (i.e., effort
towards compliance and procedure-related voice) are both influenced
by the three psychological conditions of engagement (perceived use-
fulness, psychological safety and perceived usefulness), which are then
each influenced by supervisor helping behaviour. We tested a fully
saturated model that included all paths in Fig. 1. To test the mediating
effects of the three psychological conditions, we also added all possible
indirect paths from supervisor helping behaviour to the two outcome
variables. In addition, all paths from the control variables (age, main-
tainer experience, management commitment to safety, and unit) to
other variables in the model were specified. This fully saturated model
allowed us to test whether the hypothesized paths were significant and
also to evaluate the significance of paths that were not hypothesized.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics
Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for
all variables. The bivariate correlations are consistent with the main
effects we hypothesized. Both types of engaged behaviour are related to
the three psychological states, except for the correlation between job
self-efficacy and effort towards compliance, which was not significant.
All three psychological states are correlated with supervisor helping
behaviour.
3.2. CMV test
As the data were drawn from a single source and self-reported by
respondents, the data might be vulnerable to common method variance
(CMV). Since the four-factor model fit the data much better than the
one-factor model, CMV tended not to be unduly problematic in light of
the principle of Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We
51
Safety Science 105 (2018) 46–54
Chi-square df Change in chi- RMSEA CFI TFI SRMR
square
218.12 137 0.06 0.95 0.94 0.06
302.39 142 84.27** 0.09 0.91 0.89 0.09
540.04 164 321.92** 0.12 0.80 0.76 0.12
further examined a four-factor model with the addition of a latent
method factor to examine the impact of CMV in our study. This model
showed an acceptable fit (Chi-square = 338.65, p < .01; df = 168; χ2/
df = 2.01; CFI = 0.91; TFI = 0.90; SRMR = 0.09; RMSEA = 0.08).
Thus we followed Castanheira (2015) to use CFI difference between the
two models for comparison. As the CFI difference (0.04) was compar-
able to the rule of thumb of close to or smaller than 0.05, the impact of
the method factor was not a big issue (Bagozzi and Yi, 1990;
Castanheira, 2015). Taken together, there is no evidence that cmv is
systematically influencing the results of the study.
3.3. Hypothesis testing
The results of the path analysis summarised in Fig. 2. Hypotheses 1a
to 3b proposed links between the three psychological states and the
engaged behaviours of effort to compliance and procedure-related
voice. There were significant paths between perceived usefulness and
effort towards compliance (β = 0.24), supporting Hypothesis 1, and
between job self-efficacy and procedure related voice (β = 0.25), sup-
porting Hypothesis 3b. The other paths in this part of the model were
not statistically significant. Specifically, psychological safety was not
related to effort towards compliance nor procedure-related voice, so
Hypothesis 2a and 2b were not supported. Hypothesis 3a, which holds
that job self-efficacy was related to effort towards compliance, was not
supported.
Supervisor helping behaviour was related to all three psychological
states (β = 0.31 for perceived usefulness; β = 0.41 for psychological
safety; β = 0.31 for job self-efficacy). Therefore, Hypothesis 4, 5, and 6
were supported. In addition, supervisor helping behaviour also had an
important direct effect on effort towards compliance (β = 0.36), sug-
gesting the important role of this organisational factor in encouraging
compliance with procedures.
To test hypothesis 7 and 8, which propose that supervisor helping
behaviour influences effort towards compliance and procedure-related
voice via the three psychological states, we followed the procedures
recommended by James et al. (2006). We estimated the indirect effects
with the coefficients from the full model and then used bootstrapping
methods to construct confidence intervals based on 1000 random
samples with replacement from the full sample (Stine, 1989). According
to Shrout and Bolger (2002), mediation is present when the size of an
indirect effect is significantly different from zero. Hypothesis 7 holds
that supervisor helping behaviour will influence effort towards com-
pliance via the three psychological states. This is only supported in the
case of perceived usefulness. In this path, the coefficient for perceived
usefulness was 0.14, and the 95 percent confidence interval excluded
zero (0.003, 0.22). Therefore, hypothesis 7 was partially supported.
Hypothesis 8 holds that the three psychological states mediate the effect
of supervisor helping behaviour on voice behaviour. This was only
supported in the case of job self-efficacy. The coefficient for this path
was 0.09, and the 95 percent confidence interval excluded zero (0.002,
0.18). Therefore, Hypothesis 8 was partially supported.
X. Hu et al. Safety Science 105 (2018) 46–54

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.

1. Age 2.58 0.90

2. Gender 0.97 0.16 0.11
3. Tenure 3.15 0.86 0.24** 0.08
4. Site 1.45 0.50 −0.08 −0.02 0.11
5. Supervisor helping behaviour 3.48 1.07 0.15 −0.00 −0.26** −0.37**
6. Perceived usefulness 3.45 0.90 0.33** 0.09 −0.03 −0.17** 0.40**
7. Psychological safety 3.39 0.88 −0.04 −0.07 −0.08 −0.28** 0.41** 0.29**
8. Job self-efficacy 4.14 0.55 0.15 0.07 0.20** 0.05 0.23** 0.20** 0.25**
9. Effort towards compliance 4.23 0.69 0.24** 0.06 −0.07 −0.30* 0.47** 0.41** 0.27** 0.11
10. Voice behaviour 3.64 0.85 −0.03 0.05 0.27** −0.26** 0.24** 0.21** 0.28** 0.34** 0.25**
11. Management commitment to safety 4.17 0.79 0.30** −0.14 −0.03 −0.28** 0.33** 0.33** 0.29** 0.24* 0.29* 0.15

* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.

4. Discussion
4.1. Summary
Procedures are more effective when employees not only comply
with them but also suggest appropriate improvements. We investigated
whether more engaged employees were more likely to implement
procedures in this way. Guided by Kahn (1990)’s work on engagement,
we conceptualised two engaged behaviours related to employees’ use of
procedures, namely: effort towards compliance and procedure-related
voice behaviour. Furthermore, we developed a conceptual framework
that identified how these two behaviours are shaped by three psycho-
logical states: perceived usefulness of procedures, psychological safety,
and job self-efficacy, which in turn, are prompted by supervisor helping
behaviour.
The bivariate correlations for each psychological state were posi-
tively related to the two engaged behaviours, except for the relationship
between job self-efficacy and effort towards compliance, which was not
significant. However, when examining the effects together, we found
that only perceived usefulness of procedures was significantly related to
effort towards compliance, and only job self-efficacy was related to
procedure-related voice. No other psychological states had significant
effects on engaged behaviours when these two predictors were taken
into consideration. Finally, we identified supervisor helping behaviour
as an organisational antecedent that prompts effort towards compliance
via its impact on perceived usefulness, and that influences procedure-
related voice via its impact on job self-efficacy. Below, we elaborate on
how our studies contribute to theory.
4.2. Theoretical contribution
A key theoretical implication of our study is the examination of
employee behaviours related to the use of procedures from an en-
gagement perspective. Drawing on work performance literature, Griffin
and Neal (2000) proposed that compliance with procedures is an im-
portant aspect of employee safety performance (Griffin and Neal,
2000). Most previous research, when examining positive behaviour
related to use of procedures, tend to focus on the act of compliance, or
violation behaviours. However, as Hale and Borys (2013b) suggest that
employees can play a more active role in the procedure management
process by participating in the monitoring and improvement of proce-
dures. Building on Kahn’s (1990) work on work engagement, we pro-
pose that engaged behaviour in the context of procedure use should
include effort towards compliance, as well as procedure-related voice

Supervisor WsLJchological Sƚaƚes ngageĚ behaviour

behaviour

WerceiveĚ .24** īorƚ ƚoǁarĚs

.32** usefulness compliance

.36**
Supervisor WsLJchological
helping safeƚLJ
.41**
behaviour

.33**
Job self- WroceĚure-
eĸcacLJ relaƚeĚ voice
.25**
Note: Only significant paths were shown
**: p <.01
*: p < .05
Fig. 2. Tested structural model.

52
X. Hu et al.
behaviour. By including procedure-related voice as new criteria in
safety research, we provide researchers with new opportunities to un-
derstand the role employees play to contribute to an effective procedure
management system.
Our research also elaborates the psychological processes that facil-
itate engaged behaviour in the context of procedure use. Drawing on
Kahn (1990)’s model of personal engagement, we proposed that per-
ceived usefulness of procedures, psychological safety, and job self-ef-
ficacy are three psychological states that drive effort towards com-
pliance and procedure-related voice behaviour. We found that when all
three factors were considered together, only perceived usefulness of
procedures was related to effort towards compliance, and only job self-
efficacy was related to procedure-related voice. Psychological safety did
not have an effect on effort towards compliance nor procedure-related
voice behaviour. Our findings suggest that the three psychological
states are not equal in predicting the two types of engaged behaviours.
A possible explanation for the stronger link between perceived useful-
ness and effort towards procedure is that many of the procedures in this
organisational context might be well understood. In this case, effort is
largely a question of the perceived value of making an effort rather than
a question of whether one is capable of effort (efficacy) or faces per-
sonal risks by putting in effort (psychological safety). On the other
hand, the confidence and sense of control associated with efficacy are
likely to be more important for procedure-related voice procedure-re-
lated voice because employees need to be sure of the credibility of their
suggestions. Under these circumstances, it might be expected that
psychological safety would also be important for procedure-related
voice. The lack of a unique relationship might reflect that in safety-
critical industries, speaking up about procedures is often formally en-
couraged and is not personally risky, but still, requires confidence that
one can make effective suggestions. Further research is required to
understand fully how the content of engagement plays a role in shaping
the prediction power of the three psychological states.
We identify supervisor helping behaviour as an organisational
antecedent that facilitates engaged behaviour in the use of procedures.
Our results suggest that supervisor helping behaviour influences pro-
cedure-related voice through its impact on job self-efficacy, and it in-
fluences effort towards compliance through its impact on perceived
usefulness. In addition, we also found a direct effect between supervisor
helping behaviour and effort towards compliance, suggesting the im-
portance of this behaviour in promoting procedure compliance. Our
research adds novel content in safety compliance research by going
beyond the traditionally safety-specific approach, which focuses on
employees’ safety motivation and safety knowledge, and organisational
safety climate as potential antecedents of compliance behaviour
(Christian et al., 2009). However, researchers have also acknowledged
that compliance with procedures is an integral part of one’s job, and can
be influenced by a number of non-safety related factors. Our findings
provide more theoretical and empirical evidence that engaged beha-
viour in the use procedures is related to non-safety related motivational
states, which are facilitated by general leadership practice.
4.3. Practical implication
We found that employees’ engaged behaviours in the use of proce-
dures are driven by two distinct cognitive-motivational states.
Understanding these cognitive-motivational processes will be of interest
to managers and safety professionals who are responsible for the im-
plementation of procedures. Our results suggest that effort towards
compliance might be driven by the perceived utility value of proce-
dures. Although procedures are designed to guide and support em-
ployees’ work, employees cannot be expected to comply with proce-
dures that are not seen as useful. It is important for organisations to
identify strategies to ensure the utility value of procedures is properly
communicated to employees. Also, our results suggest that in order to
obtain useful insights from employees about how procedures can be
53
Safety Science 105 (2018) 46–54
improved, it is important to foster employees’ confidence in their ca-
pacity to carry out their jobs. Our results suggest that both perceived
usefulness and job self-efficacy can be facilitated when supervisors
provide support for employees to achieve their job goals. In addition,
supervisor helping behaviour also directly encourages employees’ effort
towards compliance. As such, organisations could encourage em-
ployees’ engagement with the use of procedures by structuring super-
visors’ roles in a way that ensures they can provide support to their
team members.
4.4. Limitation and future research
This study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design of
this study precludes any conclusion regarding the direction of causality.
However, we have adopted procedural remedies as means to reduce
CMV, and we also performed a few post hoc analyses, the results sug-
gested that CMV was not influencing the results of this study.
Furthermore, Kahn’s theory of engagement (1990) would predict the
direction of the relationship as we hypothesized. The second limitation
concerns the use of self-reported voice and compliance, as individuals
might have a biased perception of their performance or answer the
questions in a socially desirable manner. However, previous studies
suggest that self-report might be more appropriate for measures such as
effort allocation, which is a subjective psychological state and might
not be readily observable. Also, previous research supports the use of
self-reported measures of voice (Detert and Burris, 2007) rather than
single other-ratings of voice behaviour, which might provide a limited
picture of an individuals’ voice behaviour as individuals may voice to
different parties. Finally, the relationship was only tested in a sample of
maintainers, which means the relationship identified in this study
might be contingent upon the characteristics of the procedures that
have been investigated. This factor needs to be taken into consideration
when interpreting our findings. Furthermore, Parallel case study(s) in
other safety critical industries might be helpful to understand how
contextual factors might contribute to and influence the relationships
investigated in this study.
This research serves as a preliminary attempt to understand orga-
nisational factors that might influence employees’ engagement in the
use of procedures. Future research might investigate more organisa-
tional factors that might facilitate and/or hinder engaged behaviours in
this context. Another direction of research is to examine the boundary
conditions of the relationship identified in this study. For example, we
found that job self-efficacy was positively related to voice behaviour.
However, (Hale and Borys, 2013a, 2013b) suggested that experienced
operators, those who have high job self-efficacy, are inclined to ignore
procedures and do the task based on their prior experience, instead of
speaking up to improve procedures. For these experienced operators,
voiceing up about procedures may be viewed as pointless, whereas
simply not following the procedure may be seen as more behaviourally
efficient. Future research could investigate the factors that prompt the
decision to voice/keep silent. Finally, longitudinal designs could be
adopted to understand the direction of the relationships. For example,
the relationship between perceived usefulness and effort towards
compliance might be reciprocal. It is possible when people invest their
effort towards procedure compliance they see the positive outcome
associated with using procedures, and thus perceive them to be useful.
4.5. Conclusion
Drawing on Kahn’s engagement theory, we identified two beha-
viours through which employees might contribute to an effective pro-
cedure management system: allocation of effort in complying with the
procedures, and voicing up their thoughts and opinions about the
procedures they use. Our results indicated that when employees per-
ceive the procedures are useful for their jobs, they are more likely to
invest in their effort when complying with procedures. When they are
X. Hu et al.
more confident with their job, they are more likely to speak up about
their opinions about the procedures. Furthermore, we also found that
supervisor could facilitate the perceived usefulness of procedures and
employees’ job self-efficacy by helping employees to achieve their job
goals. Our research contributes to the research in the area of procedure
compliance by identifying the key behaviours which are functional in
procedure management, and how they might be induced by super-
visors.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.01.019.
References
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1990. Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod ma-
trices: the case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 75
(5), 547–560.
Bandura, A., 1986. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. J. Soc.
Clin. Psychol. 4 (3), 359–373.
Bandura, A., 1994. Self-efficacy. Wiley Online Library.
Beus, J.M., Payne, S.C., Bergman, M.E., Arthur, W., 2010. Safety climate and injuries: an
examination of theoretical and empirical relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 (4),
713–727.
Bronkhorst, B., 2015. Behaving safely under pressure: the effects of job demands, re-
sources, and safety climate on employee physical and psychosocial safety behavior. J.
Saf. Res. 55, 63–72.
Brown, S.P., Leigh, T.W., 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to
job involvement, effort, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 (4), 358–368.
Castanheira, F., 2015. Perceived social impact, social worth, and job performance:
mediation by motivation. J. Organizational Behav. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.
2056.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., Eden, D., 2001. Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational Res. Methods 4 (1), 62–83.
Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C., Burke, M.J., 2009. Workplace safety: a meta-
analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 (5),
1103–1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/A0016172.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., Slaughter, J.E., 2011. Work engagement: a quantitative re-
view and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Pers. Psychol. 64
(1), 89–136.
Clarke, S., 2006. The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: a meta-
analytic review. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 11 (4), 315–327.
Cohen, A., 1977. Factors in successful occupational safety programs. J. Saf. Res. 9,
168–178.
Cui, L., Fan, D., Fu, G., Zhu, C.J., 2013. An integrative model of organizational safety
behavior. J. Saf. Res. 45, 37–46.
Dahl, O., 2013. Safety compliance in a highly regulated environment: a case study of
workers' knowledge of rules and procedures within the petroleum industry. Saf. Sci.
60, 185–195.
Dahl, O., Olsen, E., 2013. Safety compliance on offshore platforms: a multi-sample survey
on the role of perceived leadership involvement and work climate. Saf. Sci. 54,
17–26.
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. Mis Q. 13 (3), 319–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249008.
Dekker, S., 2005. Why we need new accident models.
Detert, J.R., Burris, E.R., 2007. Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door
really open? Acad. Manage. J. 50 (4), 869–884.
Detert, J.R., Trevino, L.K., Burris, E.R., Andiappan, M., 2007. Managerial modes of in-
fluence and counterproductivity in organizations: a longitudinal business-unit-level
investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (4), 993–1005.
Eden, D., 1990. Pygmalion in Management: Productivity As a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.
Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
Frazier, M.L., Fainshmidt, S., 2012. Voice climate, work outcomes, and the mediating role
of psychological empowerment: a multilevel examination. Group Organization
Manage. 37 (6), 691–715.
Gist, M.E., Mitchell, T.R., 1992. Self-efficacy - a theoretical-analysis of its determinants
and malleability. Acad. Manage. Rev. 17 (2), 183–211.
Griffin, M.A., Hu, X.W., 2013. How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and
safety participation: the role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning. Saf. Sci. 60,
196–202.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., 2000. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety
climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J. Occup. Health Psychol.
5 (3), 347.
Hackman, J.R., Walton, R.E., Goodman, P.S., 1986. Leading groups in organizations.
Designing effective work groups.
Hale, A., Borys, D., 2013a. Working to rule or working safely? Part 2: the management of
safety rules and procedures. Saf. Sci. 55, 222–231.
Hale, A., Borys, D., 2013b. Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: a state of the art
54
Safety Science 105 (2018) 46–54
review. Saf. Sci. 55, 207–221.
Hale, A.R., Swuste, P., 1998. Safety rules: procedural freedom or action constraint? Saf.
Sci. 29 (3), 163–177.
Hopkins, A., 2011. Risk-management and rule-compliance: decision-making in hazardous
industries. Saf. Sci. 49 (2), 110–120.
Hu, X.W., Griffin, M.A., Bertuleit, M., 2016. Modelling antecedents of safety compliance:
incorporating theory from the technological acceptance model. Saf. Sci. 87, 292–298.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., Brett, J.M., 2006. A tale of two methods. Organizational Res.
Methods 9 (2), 233–244.
Kahn, W.A., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement
at work. Acad. Manage. J. 33 (4), 692–724.
Kahn, W. A. (2010). The essence of engagement: lessons from the field. Handbook of
Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, pp. 20-30.
Lam, C.F., Mayer, D.M., 2014. When do employees speak up for their customers? A model
of voice in a customer service context. Pers. Psychol. 67 (3), 637–666.
Li, F., Jiang, L., Yao, X., Li, Y., 2013. Job demands, job resources and safety outcomes: the
roles of emotional exhaustion and safety compliance. Accid. Anal. Prev. 51, 243–251.
Liang, J., Farh, C.I.C., Farh, J.L., 2012. Psychological antecedents of promotive and
prohibitive voice: a two-wave examination. Acad. Manage. J. 55 (1), 71–92.
Luksyte, A., Avery, D.R., Yeo, G., 2015. It is worse when you do it: examining the in-
teractive effects of coworker presenteeism and demographic similarity. J. Appl.
Psychol. 100 (4), 1107–1123.
Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., 2008. The meaning of employee engagement. Indus. Organ.
Psychol. 1 (1), 3–30.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L., Harter, L.M., 2004. The psychological conditions of mean-
ingfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J.
Occup. Organizational Psychol. 77, 11–37.
Meijman, T.F., Mulder, G., Drenth, P.J.D., Thierry, H. (1998). Psychological aspects of
workload. In: Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 2.
Morgeson, F.P., DeRue, D.S., Karam, E.P., 2010. Leadership in teams: a functional ap-
proach to understanding leadership structures and processes. J. Manage. 36 (1),
5–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376.
Morrison, E.W., 2014. Employee voice and silence. Ann. Rev. Organizational Psychol.
Organizational Behav. 1 (1), 173–197.
Morrison, E.W., Milliken, F.J., 2000. Organizational silence: a barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25 (4), 706–725.
Muthén, L.K., Muthén, B.O., 2010. Mplus: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables:
User's Guide (pp. 1998-2007). Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, pp. 1998–2007.
Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P., Hofmann, D.A., 2011. Safety at work: a meta-analytic
investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement,
and safety outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 96 (1), 71–94.
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., 2006. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate,
safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels.
J. Appl. Psychol. 91 (4), 946–953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946.
Nembhard, I.M., Edmondson, A.C., 2006. Making it safe: The effects of leader inclu-
siveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in
health care teams. J. Organizational Behav. 27 (7), 941–966.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
Praino, G., Sharit, J., 2016. Written work procedures: Identifying and understanding their
risks and a proposed framework for modeling procedure risk. Saf. Sci. 82, 382–392.
Reason, J., Parker, D., Lawton, R., 1998. Organizational controls and safety: the varieties
of rule-related behaviour. J. Occup. Organizational Psychol. 71, 289–304.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A., Crawford, E.R., 2010. Job Engagement: antecedents and Effects
on Job Performance. Acad. Manage. J. 53 (3), 617–635.
Shrout, P.E., Bolger, N., 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:
new procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 7 (4), 422.
Stamper, C.L., Dyne, L.V., 2001. Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: a
field study of restaurant employees. J. Organizational Behav. 22 (5), 517–536.
Stine, R., 1989. An introduction to bootstrap methods examples and ideas. Sociological
Methods Res. 18 (2–3), 243–291.
Tangirala, S., Ramanujam, R., 2008. Employee silence on critical work issues: the cross
level effects of procedural justice climate. Pers. Psychol. 61 (1), 37–68.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S.M., 2002. Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and re-
lationship to creative performance. Acad. Manage. J. 45 (6), 1137–1148.
Tyler, T.R., Lind, E.A., 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. Adv. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 25, 115–191.
Van Dyne, L., LePine, J.A., 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of
construct and predictive validity. Acad. Manage. J. 41 (1), 108–119.
Venkataramani, V., Tangirala, S., 2010. When and why do central employees speak up?
An examination of mediating and moderating variables. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 (3),
582–591.
Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., 2008. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decision Sci. 39 (2), 273–315.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204.
Walumbwa, F.O., Schaubroeck, J., 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice
behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety.
J. Appl. Psychol. 94 (5), 1275–1286.
Wright, L.B., van der Schaaf, T.W., 2005. Near miss versus accident causation in the UK
railway industry. Rail Hum. Factors: Support. Integr. Railway 429–437.