1,720,978 research outputs found
Proactivity and safety in high-reliability systems: Applications of the proactive role-orientation paradigm
No full textIntroduzione e obiettivi
Proattività e partecipazione alla sicurezza da parte della forza lavoro sono due delle aree più importanti di studio nel campo della sicurezza sul lavoro (Hollnagel, 2008; Reason, 2008; Zohar, 2008), secondo un approccio basato sul commitment che si concentra sui contributi positivi alla sicurezza da parte della forza lavoro.
Gli obiettivi della dissertazione sono quindi di contribuire alla definizione di un primo modello psicosociale e multi-dimensionale di orientamento proattivo verso la sicurezza e la prevenzione degli infortuni nei luoghi di lavoro da parte dei lavoratori, mediante: a) la definizione delle componenti cognitivo-motivazionale di proattività verso la sicurezza b) lo sviluppo di strumenti psicometrici c) la verifica della struttura fattoriale del modello d) l’indagine dei legami con altri modelli psicologici esistenti.
Struttura della tesi
Nel primo capitolo, viene riportata una rassegna circa gli aspetti generali di ricerca sul tema generale della proattività nelle organizzazioni, al fine di porre le basi di un modello di "orientamento proattivo alla sicurezza" (acronimo: PROSAFE). Nel secondo capitolo vengono riportati due studi empirici di sviluppo del modello e di verifica della sua validità interna. Nel terzo capito, due ulteriori studi affrontano la verifica di fattori latenti di ordine superiore e della validità di costrutto in prospettiva nomologica. Nel capitolo finale vengono riportate le conclusioni, le implicazioni, i limiti della ricerca, e possibili sviluppi futuri.
Modello teorico della ricerca
Il modello è stato sviluppato alla luce del paradigma cognitivo-motivazionale di proattività nelle organizzazioni (Parker, Walls & Turner, 2006), desclinando costrutti di proattività a problematiche di sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro (i.e. role-breadth self-efficacy, flexible role orientation, change orientation, proactive coping, empowerment, felt resposnibility, responsibility aspiration) (Parker, Bindl & Strauss, 2010). Le dimensioni teoriche del modello PROSAFE sono state quindi teoricamente discusse in relazione ai modelli esistenti di cultura della sicurezza (Reason, 2008; 1997) e dei modelli organizzativi ad alta affidabilità (acronimo: HRO) (Weick, Suitcliffe & Obstefeld, 1999).
Metodologia e fasi della ricerca
Tutte le fasi della ricerca empirica passi sono state realizzate attraverso survey in diverse organizzazioni del Nord Italia nel corso del 2010.
Un questionario è stato inizialmente sviluppato con metodologia qualitativa (con due serie di venti interviste semi-strutturate a testimoni privilegiati) e pretestato in un campione di 90 lavoratori. Lo strumento è composto da sei scale Likert, che misurano i seguenti costrutti: participative self-efficacy; perceived influence and control; psychological ownership; personal responsibility; improvement orientation; anticipatory coping orientation.
Uno studio di validazione con approccio esplorativo è stata condotto su un ampio campione di responsabili preposti per la sicurezza in un’amministrazione universitaria (N = 388).
Successivamente, un secondo studio di validazione con approccio confermativo è stato realizzato su un campione di oltre 600 lavoratori, prevalentemente occupati in imprese del settore chimico.
Infine, uno studio con finalità di validazione nomologica è stato realizzato in un'ulteriore azienda chimica (N = 467) (i.e. produzione di fibre) per considerare i legami teorici del modello con altri modelli psicosociali esistenti nel dominio della sicurezza organizzativa.
Le analisi dei dati raccolti sono state effettuate prevalentemente con modelli ad equazioni strutturali (SEM).
Risultati della ricerca.
Sia le analisi fattoriali esplorative che confermative, hanno mostrato una buona validità fattoriale del modello (varianza spiegata 65%; CFI = .90); gli indici di affidabilità delle misure dei costrutti sono molto buoni (Media Alfa di Cronbach = .86). Inoltre, la validità di costrutto del modello è risultata ottima in relazione alla validità di criterio e in relazione alla validità convergente e discriminante. Analisi differenziali hanno mostrato la capacità del modello di differenziare gli orientamenti verso la sicurezza tra differenti ruoli professionali e contesti.
Nello studio delle reti nomologiche del modello, relazioni statisticamente significative con variabili organizzative e di partecipazione alla sicurezza hanno ulteriormente supportato la validità convergente e concorrente del modello (CFI = .98), evidenziando relazioni causali come il livello di coinvolgimento dei supervisori e i processi organizzativi di sicurezza dei work-team, e con outcome comportamentali di partecipazione: iniziativa, comunicazione, cura attiva per la sicurezza.
Conclusioni
I diversi studi realizzati supportano la struttura fattoriale ipotizzata con sei componenti di "orientamento proattivo verso la sicurezza" (modello PROSAFE). Un fattore latente di secondo ordine è stato evidenziato mediante analisi confermative al fine di spiegare il rapporto tra le singole componenti del modello. La validità di costrutto è stata evidenziata secondo prospettive diverse: validità di criterio, discriminante e convergente. Il modello presenta relazioni significative con dimensioni del clima di sicurezza e dei processi di sicurezza nei gruppi di lavoro.
Implicazioni teoriche e pratiche sono discusse per l'avanzamento delle teorie e dei modelli della proattività nel dominio della sicurezza organizzativa.
Ai fini dell’avanzamento teorico, questo è il primo modello psicologico multidimensionale che tenta di spiegare l'orientamento proattivo dei lavoratori verso la sicurezza sul lavoro a livello individuale secondo un approccio psicosociale, andando oltre gli approcci con finalità tassonomiche. L'approccio integrativo del modello PROSAFE qui proposto, a nostra conoscenza, è anche attualmente una delle poche applicazioni delle teorie organizzative sulla proattività nel dominio della sicurezza sul lavoro. Future ricerche potranno contribuire al miglioramento dei modelli teorici in entrambi i domini della sicurezza e della proattività (Zohar, 2008).
Implicazioni pratiche possono essere considerate in relazione allo sviluppo di sistemi di management della sicurezza nei gruppi di lavoro che supportano un orientamento proattivo verso la sicurezza e il miglioramento continuo agendo sui processi di leadership e di team-work, elicitando negli individui e nei work-team alti livelli di motivazione proattiva verso la sicurezza e alti livelli di mindfulness nei work-team.
Limiti
Infine, alcuni limiti della ricerca devono essere menzionati. In primo luogo, i quattro studi riportati sono basati su dati soggettivi self-reported; ciò solleva questioni di validità dei risultati in termini di common method bias (Spector, 1992). Inoltre, tutti gli studi sono stati condotti con disegno di ricerca cross-sectional. Future ricerche dovranno verificare la validità predittiva del modello con l’uso di analisi multilivello e con tecniche multi-tratto multi-metodo (uso di dati oggettivi e valutazioni esterne).
In secondo luogo, la struttura fattoriale del modello è stata inizialmente testata in un campione composto interamente da responsabili preposti per la sicurezza provenienti da un unico contesto organizzativo universitario. Inoltre, nel terzo studio confermativo non è stato possibile condurre analisi multi-gruppo per verificare l’invarianza strutturale del modello nelle singole organizzazioni, a causa della complessità del modello e delle dimensioni carenti di alcuni sottocampioni organizzativi. Ulteriori ricerche dovranno verificare la generalizzazione del modello in diversi ruoli e contesti organizzativi.
Infine, nel quarto studio non è stato possibile aggregare i dati individuali a livello del work-team in prospettiva di multi-livello, in considerazione della richiesta dei sindacati di garantire l'assoluto anonimato ai partecipanti alla ricerca. Ricerche future dovranno verificare possibili effetti cross-levels degli antecedenti organizzativi selle motivazioni e gli orientamenti di proattività verso la sicurezza descritti in questa dissertazione.Introduction and aims
Proactivity and participation in safety by the workforce have been one of the major areas in the occupational and organizational safety research field for at least fifteen years (Hollnagel, 2008; Reason, 2008; Zohar, 2008). These lines of research are mainly focused on active contributions and safety commitment by the workforce, rather than on the traditional, reactive and control-based approaches to safety (Barling & Hutchinson, 2000).
In light of these considerations, the central aims of this dissertation are to provide a significant contribution to the theoretical development of an integrated model of proactive orientation by workers toward safety management and accident prevention in the workplace (Turner, Chmiel & Walls, 2005), by:
a) describing the single components of the broader “proactive orientation towards safety” (acronym: PROSAFE) by individuals, in the light of cognitive-motivational perspective defined by Turner and Parker (2004)
b) developing related psychometric instruments starting from existing psychometric instruments related to psychosocial aspects of proactivity in organizations
c) exploring and confirming the internal factorial validity of the model
d) investigating the nomological links of the “proactive safety orientation” model with other salient organizational safety models (i.e. safety climate dimensions; collective mindfulness in HRO systems) to get proof of construct validity of the new model
Dissertation structure
A review of the general proactivity literature with discussion of potential applications of the proactivity paradigms in the safety field are initially presented in the first chapter, in order to lay the foundations of a new model of “proactive safety orientation”.
Then, two multi-study empirical research with factorial and construct validation aims are reported in chapter two and three.
In the final conclusion chapter, research implications, limits and further research lines are discussed.
Theoretical research model
The research model was developed at the light of the cognitive-motivational paradigm of proactivity in organizations (Parker, Walls & Turner, 2006) and starting from existing constructs of proactivity adapted to safety issues (i.e. role-breadth self-efficacy, flexible role orientation, change orientation, proactive coping, empowerment, responsibility aspiration). Then, the new model components were discussed in relation to safety culture models (Reason, 2008; 1997) and high-reliability organization processes models (Weick, Suitcliffe & Obstefeld, 1999).
Research phases and methodology
Empirical research steps were achieved by means of a survey methodology and techniques in several organizations in Northern Italy during 2010.
i) A questionnaire, which was developed with a qualitative methodology (by two series of 20 interviews) and pretested in a sample of 90 workers. The new questionnaire is composed of six Likert-type scales, which measures the following constructs: participative self-efficacy; perceived influence and control; psychological ownership; personal responsibility; improvement orientation; anticipatory coping orientation.
ii) An explorative factorial validation study was carried over with a large sample of team safety heads of an University administration (N=388). Construct validity was explored in relation to criteria, convergent and discriminant validity.
iii) Then, a confirmatory validation study was carried out in a sample of more than 600 workers, who were prevalently employed in chemical firms. Also, the hypothesis of a higher latent factor was tested, to explain inter-correlations among the model components. Data analyses were computed with structural equation models (SEM).
iv) Finally, a nomological study was carried out in chemical firm (N=467) to test links with existing models of safety in organizations and a specific psychological path influence on safety participation criteria. Hypotheses verification was computed with SEM models.
Research results
a) Both explorative and confirmatory factorial analyses have shown a mainly good factorial validity (explained variance index: 65%); reliability indexes of measures are very good (M of Alpha =.86).
b) The construct validity of the model was good in relation to criteria dimensions (i.e. safety voice), convergent validity (i.e. safety values and leadership) and discriminant validity (i.e. risk-orientation).
c) Moreover, the hypothesis of a higher latent factor was also verified (CFI = .90).
d) Differential ANOVA analyses showed the capability of the model to discriminate the safety orientations between professional roles and contexts.
e) Significant links of the PROSAFE model with safety participation variables (i.e. safety initiative; active caring for safety) and organizational antecedents highlighted positive associations with other safety dimensions and model (i.e. supervisor involvement in safety; team safety processes) and specific mediated effects of “proactive safety orientations” (CFI = .98).
Conclusions
The different studies which were carried out supported the hypothesized model structure with six cognitive-motivational components. Then, construct validity of the PROSAFE model was highlighted with different perspectives. Moreover, a higher latent factor was highlighted with confirmatory analysis in order to explain the strong relationship among single components of the model. Finally, significant nomological links were shown in association with safety climate dimensions and team mindfulness. Specific psychological paths of influence on participation behaviors and mediated effects by “proactive motivations” can be assumed.
Theoretical and practical implications are discussed for the advancement of a theory of proactivity in the organizational safety domain.
For theory purposes, this is the first psychological multi-dimensional model that attempts to explain the proactive worker orientation to safety in the workplace with a psychosocial approach (i.e. cognitive-motivational paradigm) and at an individual level, beyond the mere observation of behavioural participation by workers and groups in organizations.
The integrative approach of the PROSAFE model proposed here, to our knowledge, is also one of the few applications of organizational proactivity theories in the workplace safety domain. We believe that future research on, and further applications of, the proactivity paradigm in this organizational domain, might contribute to the progress of both safety and proactivity theories and research (Zohar, 2008).
Practical implications could be considered in relation to the development of safety management systems that support proactive orientations toward safety, improving safety leadership and team processes to increase proactive motivations toward safety and collective mindfulness by individuals and teams.
Some limitations should be mentioned.
Firstly, all four studies reported used only self-reported data, which raises questions of a common method bias (Spector, 1992). Moreover, all studies were carried out with cross sectional design. Consequently, further predictive validity analyses of the PROSAFE model should be carried out with longitudinal design, and using multi-trait and multi-method techniques (i.e. external evaluations; use of objective data).
Secondly, the structure of the model was initially tested in a sample composed by only safety heads from a single organization. Moreover, the number of participants in the confirmatory study was not sufficient to conduct multi-group analyses to test structural and parameter invariance within specific organizations. Consequently, further research is necessary to generalize our results across occupations and organizations.
Thirdly, in the last nomological network study, it was not possible to aggregate individual data with multilevel perspectives, given the explicit request of management and unions to guarantee the absolute anonymity of participants. Future research in necessary to test cross-level effects of organizational antecedents on proactive psychological states toward safety here described
Reclutamento online: Il ruolo della fiducia verso la tecnologia
No full textIn recent years, online recruitment has become a prevalent human resource management practice worldwide. Although studies emphasized the importance of candidates' perceptions related to the recruiting web site attributes, there is no research focused on the effects of trust toward the IT technology during the online application process. Given the importance of trust dynamics in personnel recruitment, the aim of this study is to investigate the role of trust towards the web platforms supporting online recruitment. Results, from a sample of university students including 330 participants, showed that trust toward the web site affects both directly and indirectly - via company attractiveness -The intention to apply for a job
Psycosocial aspects of technology acceptance in organizations
No full textInformation technologies acceptance may be defined as the will of a group of users to employ information technology in order to carry out the tasks technology is meant to help (Davis, 1989; Dillon, 2001). Acceptance may be conceptualized as the outcome variable of a psychological process the potential users of a technology carry out in order to take decisions regarding the use of the technology itself. The main research objective of this study is to contribute to the validation of a model in which variables deriving from different theoretical contributions are integrated and which is able to predict and explain the phenomenon of technology acceptance in different organizational contexts
Orientamento proattivo alla sicurezza nel lavoro: Studio qualitativo degli antecedenti motivazionali
No full textMeta-analyses and research have highlighted the importance of employees' participation in workplace safety. The present research designs an original model of proactive safety orientation which considers existing constructs of proactivity, adapted to organizational safety issues in the workplace. Qualitative data was obtained through semi-interviews with 18 expert of safety and analysed using content analysis. Findings shows six dimensions of proactivity that can be attributed to three managerial areas of Reason, competence, cognizance and commitment
Psychological ownership in organization: A contribution to the Italian validation of pierce and colleagues scale
No full textWe present a contribution to the Italian validation of the scale of Pierce Van Dyne e Cummings (1992) concerning the organizational ownership. This construct even internationally widely adopted is mostly absent in the scientific Italian debate. Using data from a sample of 598 Italian employees, was studied both the internal and external validity of the version with seven items that of the one with four. The results showed better psychometric properties of the shorter version and good evidence with regard to internal and external validity
Proactive role-orientation toward workplace safety: Psychological dimensions, nomological network and external validity
Full text linkIn the light of the relevance of workers’ participation and initiative in improving safety in the workplace, a new measurement tool is presented to assess multiple psychological drivers (proactive motivations; future orientations) which support a proactive orientation by individuals toward safety management and accident prevention in the workplace. This validation study was developed with a survey methodology in two industrial samples (N = 327; 196) from the chemical and manufacturing sectors. The factor structure of the tool was tested with CFA’s. The analyses evidenced the goodness of a multidimensional structure, with a general superordinate dimension indicator of the overall construct of individuals’ proactive safety-role orientation. Moreover, the analysis of the nomological network of the new model showed positive correlations with both behavioral criteria (safety voice; safety initiative) and supervision antecedents (safety-specific transformational leadership) which were measured at the individual level. Finally, the external validity was positively verified by significant correlations with organizational outcomes assessed at the team level through external measures (supervisor evaluations; data archives) which were collected at team level (N = 32) in the following six months from the main survey. Theoretical and practical implications with indications for future research conclude the article
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
The role of psychological ownership in the relationship between Leader-member exchange and job satisfaction
No full textThe purpose of this research is to expand previous work in the field of psychological ownership (PO) by introducing a model where PO plays a mediator role between leader-member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction. The data were collected in a furniture manufacturing company located in Italy. Sample size was 442 participants. Results showed a positive relationship between LMX and psychological ownership and between job satisfaction and psychological ownership in an organizational context. The results are stable with respect to various tenure levels, but different depending on the job position in the organization: for staff employees, PO has a fully mediating role, whereas for line employees, it is a partial mediator
- …
