1. health and fitness

Journal of Contemporary Management Sciences
Volume 3 (5) 86-99
JCMS Publication, 2014
Journal of
Contemporary
Management
Sciences
THE EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL
SUPPORT, PERCEIVED SUPERVISOR SUPPORT, AND
PERCEIVED CO-WORKER SUPPORT ON SAFETY AND
HEALTH COMPLIANCE
Puah, Lee Na
University of Malaya,
Malaysia ([email protected])
Ong, Lin Dar*
University of Malaya,
Malaysia ([email protected])
Chong, Wei Ying
Segi University,
Malaysia ([email protected])
Abstract
Though knowledge is cumulating, currently very little is known about the combined effects of perceived
organizational support, perceived supervisor support, and perceived co-worker support on safety and health
compliance. In this study, we aim to fill in this gap in the literature by present a quantitative study to illuminate the
relationships among perceived support from organizations, supervisors and co-workers according to their safety and
health compliance behavior at chemical and petroleum process plants. Our findings show that the supports from
organizations, supervisors and co-workers have significant relationships with safety and health compliance.
Furthermore, supervisors’ support has stronger influence in ensuring employees’ compliance behavior.
Keywords: Perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support, perceived co-worker support, safety
and health compliance
1. INTRODUCTION
Safety and health is always on the top list of organization due to its costly impact on people, asset and company
reputation. As safety and health compliance is an important factor to drive down the workplace accidents and
injuries, research about safety and health compliance has become a topic of interest (Landsbergis, 2003). Empirical
research is drawing on them to develop stream of occupational and safety literatures (e.g., Schulte, et al., 2007).
Safety and health compliance refers to the core activities that individuals need to carry out so as to maintain
workplace safety (Neal & Griffin, 2006) and improve the occupational related illness rate (Clarke, 2012). It relates
to intra-role behaviours such as using personal protective equipment correctly, handling hazardous chemical safely
and adhering to standard work procedures and regulations (Clarke, 2012). It is seen as proactive behaviours by
supervisors and workers because it is beyond their normal role requirements which may not be recognized in
employee’s performance evaluation or reward system (Fugas, Meliá, & Silva, 2011). Although these behaviours do
not directly contribute to an individual’s personal safety and health, they help to develop attitude and environment
that support safety (Neal & Griffin, 2006). However the improvement in safety outcome such as lower fatality and
injury rate could be offset once the organization counts the fatal and non-fatal occupational illness (Takala, 2005).
Thus, safety and health compliance is an important aspect of organization control for organizations to improve the
rate of safety and health outcome (Clarke, 2012). Previous research indicates that taking account of the perceived
organizational supports from the various members of the organization can explain safety and health outcome
(Mearns & Reader, 2008). Perceived organizational support as job resources could weaken the relationship between
higher job demands and more frequent hazardous work events (Nick Turner, Chmiel, Hershcovis, & Walls, 2010)
and employee safety voice (Nick Turner, Stride, Carter, McCaughey, & Carroll, 2012). While there have been calls
to investigate the various ways in which perceived organizational support influences safety behaviour (Baran,
Shanock, & Miller, 2012), the empirical evidence on the relationship between perceived organizational support
from various members of the organization on the safety and health compliance is meager.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor
support, perceived co-worker support on safety and health compliance. More specifically, the key objectives of this
study are summarized as follows:
1. To establish if perceived organizational support is related to safety and health compliance.
2. To examine whether perceived supervisor support is related to safety and health compliance.
3. What is the relationship between perceived co-worker support is related to safety and health compliance.
The next section gives literature review, followed by research methodology section which discusses model,
survey questionnaire, and sample and data analysis method. The section after that analyzes the data and provides
results. The final section concludes the study and offer recommendations.
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
In this section, we review the evidence that supports positive relationships between the perceived organizational
supports and the safety and health compliance as well as perceived supports from various members of the
organization and the safety and health compliance. In doing so, we build support for our hypotheses that perceived
organizational supports is positively related to safety and health compliance. Then, we argue that perceived supports
from various members of the organization are positively related to the safety and health compliance.
2.1 Perceived Organization Support and Safety and Health Compliance
Perceived organizational support is defined as general perceptions of support from the organizations (Baran, et al.,
2012). It refers to employees in organization which forms global beliefs concerning the extent to which the
organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. The employees develop beliefs that their
organization has a positive orientation toward safety when the management conveys concerns for the employees’
safety (Nick Turner, Tucker, Chmiel, Hershcovis, & Stride, 2008). In reciprocate the perceived support; employees
will increase their performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) and safety behavior (Michael, Evans, Jansen, &
Haight, 2005) to the organization. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) study has indicated a positive association
between supportive perception and workers’ safety performance. The support of organization has been shown to be
an important factor in many studies in improving safety performance (i.e., Gyekyem & Salminen, 2007). Moreover,
the social exchange theory posits that employees evaluate their treatment with higher appreciation when they believe
organizations care about their well-being from meaningful organizational practices and structural operational at the
workplace (DeJoy, Della, Vandenberg, & Wilson, 2010). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H1: Perceived organizational support is positively related to safety and health compliance.
2.2 Perceived Supervisor Support and Safety and Health Compliance
A numbers of research have studied the significant roles that leadership and climate play in safe behavior and
accidents (Martínez-Córcoles, Gracia, Tomás, & Peiró, 2011). Supervisor is viewed as an agent or representative
who is acting on behalf of the organization (Baran, et al., 2012). The role of first level supervisor has been confined
to translating safety and health policy and procedures to workers’ practice (Lingard, Cooke, & Blismas, 2012). The
meta-analysis conducted by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) revealed that perceived supervisor support has impact
on employees’ performance. Thus, perceived supervisor support is assumed to increase the employees’ awareness
of safety and health policy, in return, his or her compliance. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H2: Perceived supervisor support is positively related to safety and health compliance.
2.3 Perceived Co-worker Support (PCS) and Safety and Health Compliance
Due to complexity of process plant, employees are required to work as a team to perform their daily tasks. When the
co-workers exchange safety related information about hazards, lesson learnt from the past incidents and concern for
the safety of others, it creates a mutually support safety and health relationship among employees. Turner et al
(2008) argued that co-workers are another important yet often neglected social influence on the safety and health
matters, particularly in communication. Turner et al (2012) found that the probability of employees taking action to
improve workplace safety increases if they receive higher support from co-workers. The findings from Turner et al
(2012) also emphasized on the importance of co-worker support in promoting safety compliance and safety
participation. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H3:
Perceived coworker support is positively related to safety and health compliance.
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Instrumentation and data collection
Questionnaires that have been utilized and validated by researchers in previous studies are used in this study.
According to Yin (Yin, 2009), construct validity is associated with establishing correct operational measurements for
the concepts under study. Thus, this study has adopted this tactic by using scales that have been used in previous
IRC-2014 DUBAI-UAE
3
studies and have adapted them to the current context. The scales used in the questionnaire survey have been
empirically tested for stability and validity.
To assess the reliability of the ensuing measurement device, Cronbach’s alpha is recommended to measure the
internal consistency of a set of items (Hair, Wolfinbarger, Bush, & Ortinau, 2012). Ideally, Cronbach’s alpha scores
should be above 0.70 to ensure against a high level of item redundancy (Hair, et al., 2012). As shown in Table 1, the
reliability of the survey instrument was deemed satisfactory since the Cronbach’s alpha scores were found to range
from 0.801 to 0.947.
Table 1
Summary of the Coefficient alpha α of Each Scale
Variables
Initial
number
of
Cronbach’s Alpha
items
POS
Perceived Organizational Support
10
0.887
PSS
Perceived Supervisor Support
8
0.947
PCS
Perceived Co-worker Support
6
0.908
SHC
Safety and Health Compliance
6
0.801
3.2 Sample and procedure
The participants in our study were employees working for seven chemical and petroleum process plants in Malaysia.
They were managed under the same Environmental, Safety and Health (EHS) policy and management system. The
total size of these seven chemical and petroleum process plants was 5500 permanent employees. 4000 employees
were invited to participate in this survey on voluntary basis which represents 73% of the total workforce.
The self-administered questionnaire in English and Malay were distributed to 4000 employees working at chemical
and petroleum process plants via email. The respondents could either send the complete questionnaire to author’s
email account or login into website to complete the questionnaire.
The forward–backward translation method is used to develop the Malay version of the questionnaire. As Bekes,
John, Zyriax, Schaller, & Hirsch (2012) pointed out a questionnaire that is translated from one language to another
should be back translated into the original language. Further, they argued that those doing back translation should be
familiar with both languages involved. Following the above guidelines, two translators, bilingual in English and
Malay, separately translated the English version of the items into Malay (forward translation). These translators are
instructed to retain the meaning of the items as closely to the original as possible. The resulting items are then
compared to assess the item-by-item similarity across the two translations. In the case of discrepancies, or
disagreements, the translators discussed and revised the items until consensus are reached. When the Malay
translation is finalized, the items are then back-translated (from Malay to English) by two other bilingual in English
and Malay, following the same comparison and revision process.
The duration of the data collection was 10 days. The deadline of survey was included in the first email sent to
employees. The first reminder was sent to employees on the 3 rd day and the last reminder on the 8th day. Responses
either via email or web survey increased when the reminder was sent out.
In total, 510 usable questionnaires were received, a response rate of 12.75%. 75 usable questionnaires were collected
via email and 435 via online survey. According to Buch (2006), the response rate of 5% to 30% are typical in mail
survey. Conventionally, scholars presumed that higher response rate assured more accurate survey results (Baruch,
1999). However, there are evidences in recent reports that there were no statistically difference between reports with
high response rate and reports with low response rate (Holbrook, Krosnick, & Pfent, 2007). Moreover, the response
rate of the study compared well with response rate reported for similar surveys (Buch, 2006) and that is considered
acceptable in this type of research.
3.3 Measures
All of the study participants responded to a four page, self-reported questionnaire, including a cover page explaining
the purpose of the study. We measured the variables on an ordinal scale using a Likert scale that range from 5 was a
“strongly agree”, 4 was a “agree”, 3 was a “neutral”, 2 was a “disagree” and 1 was a “strongly disagree”. A higher
mean score on a variable would indicate greater agreement.
3.3.1 Perceived Organization Support (POS)
This section consists of ten item-scales to test the employees’ belief concerning the general support provided by their
organization for their well-being. The first 8 items with an even balance of positively and negatively worded items
that were selected from POS scale developed by Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa (1986). The alpha
coefficient of the scale for the eight POS items was 0.89.
Item POS 9 and POS 10 are the specific statements on the employees’ belief on general support provided to improve
and maintain their health. Item POS 9 was selected from health climate items developed by Basen-Egguist,
Hudmon, Tripp and Chamberlain (1998) and item POS 10 was adapted from study of Mearns, Hope, Ford and
Tetrick (2010) on health climate of offshore employees. The alpha coefficient for item POS 9 and POS 10 were 0.64
and 0.68 respectively.
3.3.2 Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS)
The eight-item scale measures the respondent’s opinion on social support from their supervisor are adapted from
studies of Lauver, Lester and Le (2009); Maertz, Griffeth, Campbell and Allen (2007); Mearns, Hope, Ford and
Tetrick (2010) and Li, Jiang, Yao and Li (2013). The safety in the statement has been replaced with safety and
health. The alpha coefficient for the first four PSS items was 0.87. The alpha coefficient for the PSS items five till
eight was 0.72.
3.3.3 Perceived Co-worker Support (PCS)
This section is to measure respondents’ perception that their co-workers care for their well-being and support them
IRC-2014 DUBAI-UAE
5
at work. The six-item scales are adapted from the studies of Li, Jiang, Yao and Li (2013); Eisenberger, Hungtington,
Hutchison and Sowa (1986); Turner S. , Chmiel, Turner, Hershcovis and Stride (2008) and Ducharme and Martin
(2000).
3.3.4 Safety and Health Compliance
This section is aimed to measure the safety compliance in terms of core safety and health activities that should be
carried out by employees in order to maintain workplace safety. The six-item scale was adopted from the studies of
Griffin and Hu (2013), Mearns et al (2010), Neal and Griffin (2006) and Halbesleben (2010). Item SC2, SC4 and
SC6 are the negatively worded items.
4. Results
4.1 Sample Characteristics
Table 2 shows that majority of the respondents are below 35 years old, non-executive and from the production and
engineering department of process plants. Majority of them have worked with the plants for more than 5 years and
are married with children. Regarding the gender of the sample, there were more male respondents than female
respondents. The result is expected since there were more male employees working at Chemical and Petroleum
process plants.
Table 2
Sample Characteristics of the Respondents
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Gender
Female
62
12.1
Male
449
87.9
Below 25 years old
42
8.2
26-30 years old
194
38.0
31-35 years old
90
17.6
41-45 years old
50
9.8
46-50 years old
55
10.8
51-55 years old
25
4.9
More than 55 years old
47
9.2
Single
125
24.5
Married with children
335
65.6
Age
Marital Status
Married without children
45
8.8
Widow/ Widower/ Divorcee
6
1.2
Less than 5 year
208
40.7
6-10 years
110
21.5
11-15 years
65
12.7
16-20 years
39
7.6
21-25 years
42
8.2
More than 25 years
47
9.2
Non-Executive
313
61.3
Junior Executive
108
21.1
Senior Executive
65
12.7
Manager
20
3.9
Senior Manager
5
1.0
Production
175
34.2
Engineering
177
34.6
HSE & Security
31
6.1
Technical
83
16.2
Administration (HR, IT, Finance, Purchasing & etc.)
43
8.4
Logistic & Distribution
2
0.4
Years of Service with Organization
Job Level
Department
4.1 Correlation Analysis
Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to measure the association and potential relationships between two
or more variables. The significant level for all correlation coefficient was set at 0.01(2-tailed). Table 3 presents
means, standard deviations, and inter-scale correlations, for all study variables.
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations and correlations for study variables
Measures
M
SD
1
2
3
POS
3.63
0.65
(.887)
PSS
3.86
0.68
0.678**
(.947)
PCS
3.79
0.65
0.523**
0.509**
(.908)
SHC
4.09
0.68
0.347**
0.372**
0.341**
4
(.801)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
IRC-2014 DUBAI-UAE
7
N=511. POS=Perceived Organizational Support; PSS = Perceived Supervisor Support. PCS = Perceived Coworker
Support. SHC = Safety and Health Compliance
Note from Table 3 that all 3 hypotheses were supported through Pearson correlation analyses. There is a
medium strength and positive relationship between perceived organizational support (POS) and safety and health
compliance (SHC) (r =0.347, p<0.005), between perceived supervisor support (PSS) and safety and health
compliance (SHC) (r = 0.455, p<0.005), and between perceived co-worker support (PCS) and safety and health
compliance (SHC) (r = 0.341, p<0.005). As the r
PSS-SHC
is greater than r
PCS-SHC,
we concluded that the relationship
between perceived supervisor support and safety and health compliance is stronger than the relationship between
perceived co-worker support and safety and health compliance.
4.3 Multiple Regression Analysis
Multiple regression analysis is conducted to understand the relationship between independent variables and
dependable variable. The coefficient of multiple determinations in multiple regressions, R 2 explains how much of the
variance in the dependable variable is explained by the model. The model was run to predict safety and health
compliance as well as participation from perceived organizational support (POS), perceived supervisor support
(PSS), and perceived co-worker support (PCS).
The R2 of the model is 0.432 which means this model explains 43.2% of the variance in safety and health
compliance. Moreover, the ANOVA analysis indicates this model as whole is statistically significant (F (4, 506) =
29.051, p<0.005). All three independents variables added statistically significant to the prediction of Safety and
Health compliance, p<0.005. Thus, the multiple regression equation for the model is as follow:
SHC = 1.821 + 0.209PSS + 0.175PCS
5. Discussion
The current study explored the combined effect of perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support,
and perceived co-worker support on safety and health compliance. We hypothesized that (i) perceived organizational
support is positively related to safety and health compliance; (ii) Perceived supervisor support is positively related to
safety and health compliance; and (iii) Perceived coworker support is positively related to safety and health
compliance. The findings reported here indicate full support for our hypotheses.
These results are consistent with the previous study (i.e., Brondino, Silva, & Pasini, 2012; Gyekye & Salminen,
2007). Gyekye and Salminen (2007) revealed that the perceived level of support in organization is apparently
closely associated with workplace safety perception and other organizational and social factors which are important
to safety and health. Furthermore, the result confirms the previous finding (Brondino, Silva, & Pasini, 2012) where
co-workers’ safety climate had a stronger influence on safety behaviours, and in particular on safety participation
than supervisor’s safety climate at individual level as well at group level.
A limitation of this study is its cross-sectional nature. In this study, we employed a cross-sectional research design to
explore the combined effect of perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support, and perceived co-
worker support on safety and health compliance. Cross-sectional research design is used widely by international
occupational and organizational researchers all over the world (Coviello & Jones, 2004). Despite its static nature to
capture the underlying relationship between certain variables in a given study (Coviello & Jones, 2004), this method
allows researchers to measure and collect data on certain observations as quickly as possible. Since our study
investigates the perception about the organizational support, supervisor support and co-worker support on safety and
health compliance behaviour among workers of chemical and petroleum process plants, we deemed the crosssectional design is the most suitable approach to present such perceptions among the segments of the population of
interest. Coviello and Jones (2004) pointed out that cross-sectional research design can provide credible finding with
proper precautions to ensure the reliability and validity of data collected.
Another limitation of the study is the instrument used. A structured questionnaire survey was used as the main tool
to collect data for this study. The data were collected in a time frame of 10 days. Hence, these data do not adequately
capture possible change over time and representing just a given point in time. Furthermore, the findings may be
distorted by respondents’ bias and misinformation. Thus, future research, for example longitudinal design, which can
provide more comprehensive view and richness understanding of organizational climate and safety behaviour would
be preferable on assessing how the link between perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support,
and perceived co-worker support on safety and health compliance developed over time.
6. Conclusion and Implications
This study showed that supervisors’ support has stronger influence in ensuring employees’ compliance behaviour to
company procedure and practices. The findings are important for organization to formulate their safety and health
intervention and initiatives. As employees perceive supervisor as an agent of organization; hence, they will comply
with company policy, procedures and practices under their supervisor’s supervision. The frequent routine violation
to company safety and health procedures is an indication to management when the supervisors fail to play their role
in reinforcing employees’ compliant behaviour. The company should take the necessary actions to supervisors to
improve their supervisory skills as safety and health intervention. In addition, the company can also establish
consequence management systems which include supervisor and employees if the employees fail to comply to
safety and health procedures and practices.
As supervisor support is relatively inexpensive resource as compared to other opinions (Newman, Thanacoody, &
Hui, 2011). Organizational should reinforce the safety and knowledge of supervisors in order to ensure full safety
and health compliance at process plant. However, if the organization wants to increase employees’ participation in
safety and health activities such as meeting, audit or active in reporting unsafe act and unsafe conditions found at
workplace, it should train a group of employees as change agents to promote the participation of employees instead
of official communication via supervisors.
IRC-2014 DUBAI-UAE
9
References:
1- Baran, B. E., Shanock, L. R., & Miller, L. R. (2012). Advancing organizational support theory into the
twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(2), 123-147.
2- Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies-A comparative analysis. Human relations, 52(4),
421-438.
3- Basen-Engquist, K., Hudmon, K. S., Tripp, M., & Chamberlain, R. (1998). Worksite health and safety
climate: scale development and effects of a health promotion intervention. Preventive medicine, 27(1), 111119.
4- Bekes, K., John, M. T., Zyriax, R., Schaller, H.-G., & Hirsch, C. (2012). The German version of the child
perceptions questionnaire (CPQ-G11-14): translation process, reliability, and validity in the general
population. Clinical Oral Investigations, 16(1), 165-171.
5- Brondino, M., Silva, S. A., & Pasini, M. (2012). Multilevel approach to organizational and group safety
climate and safety performance: Co-workers as the missing link. Safety Science, 50(9), 1847-1856.
6- Buch, V. (2006). The relationship of family influence, top management team's behavioral integration, and
firm performance in German family businesses., Alliant International University, San Diego.
7- Clarke, S. (2012). The Effect of Challenge and Hindrance Stressors on Safety Behavior and Safety
Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 387-397.
8- Coviello, N. E., & Jones, M. V. (2004). Methodological issues in international entrepreneurship research.
Journal of Business Venturing, 19(4), 485-508.
9- DeJoy, D. M., Della, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Wilson, M. G. (2010). Making work safer: Testing a
model of social exchange and safety management. Journal of Safety Research, 41(2), 163-171.
10- Ducharme, L. J., & Martin, J. K. (2000). Unrewarding work, coworker support, and job satisfaction a test
of the Buffering Hypothesis. Work and Occupations, 27(2), 223-243.
11- Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
12- Fugas, C. S., Meliá, J. L., & Silva, S. A. (2011). The “ Is” and the “ Ought” : How Do Perceived Social
Norms Influence Safety Behaviors at Work? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 67-79.
13- Griffin, M. A., & Hu, X. (2013). How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and safety
participation: The role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning. Safety Science, 60, 196-202.
14- Gyekye, S., & Salminen, S. (2007). Workplace safety perceptions and perceived organizational support: Do
supportive perceptions influence safety perceptions? International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics, 13, 189-200.
15- Hair, J., Wolfinbarger, M., Bush, R., & Ortinau, D. (2012). Essentials of Marketing Research: Third
Edition: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
16- Halbesleben, J. R. (2010). The role of exhaustion and workarounds in predicting occupational injuries: a
cross-lagged panel study of health care professionals. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 1.
17- Holbrook, A., Krosnick, J. A., & Pfent, A. (2007). The causes and consequences of response rates in
surveys by the news media and government contractor survey research firms. Advances in telephone survey
methodology, 499-528.
18- Landsbergis, P. A. (2003). The changing organization of work and the safety and health of working people:
a commentary. Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 45(1), 61-72.
19- Lauver, K. J., Lester, S., & Le, H. (2009). Supervisor support and risk perception: Their relationship with
unreported injuries and near misses. Journal of managerial issues, 327-343.
20- Li, F., Jiang, L., Yao, X., & Li, Y. (2013). Job demands, job resources and safety outcomes: The roles of
emotional exhaustion and safety compliance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 51, 243-251.
21- Lingard, H., Cooke, T., & Blismas, N. (2012). Do perceptions of supervisors’ safety responses mediate the
relationship between perceptions of the organizational safety climate and incident rates in the construction
supply chain? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(2), 234-241.
22- Maertz, C. P., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen, D. G. (2007). The effects of perceived
organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28(8), 1059-1075.
23- Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F., Tomás, I., & Peiró, J. M. (2011). Leadership and employees’ perceived
safety behaviours in a nuclear power plant: a structural equation model. Safety Science, 49(8), 1118-1129.
24- Mearns, K., Hope, L., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2010). Investment in workforce health: Exploring the
implications for workforce safety climate and commitment. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(5), 14451454.
25- Mearns, K. J., & Reader, T. (2008). Organizational support and safety outcomes: An un-investigated
relationship? Safety Science, 46(3), 388-397.
IRC-2014 DUBAI-UAE
11
26- Michael, J. H., Evans, D. D., Jansen, K. J., & Haight, J. M. (2005). Management commitment to safety as
organizational support: Relationships with non-safety outcomes in wood manufacturing employees.
Journal of Safety Research, 36(2), 171-179.
27- 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. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 946-953.
28- Newman, A., Thanacoody, R., & Hui, W. (2011). The effects of perceived organizational support,
perceived supervisor support and intra-organizational network resources on turnover intentions: A study of
Chinese employees in multinational enterprises. Personnel Review, 41(1), 56-72.
29- Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698.
30- Schulte, P. A., Wagner, G. R., Blanciforti, L. A., Cutlip, R. G., Krajnak, K. M., Luster, M., et al. (2007).
Work, obesity, and occupational safety and health. American journal of public health, 97(3).
31- Takala, J. (2005). Introductory report: Decent work–Safe work. Vienna: Geneva, International Labour
Organization.
32- Turner, N., Chmiel, N., Hershcovis, M. S., & Walls, M. (2010). Life on the line: Job demands, perceived
co-worker support for safety, and hazardous work events. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
15(4), 482.
33- Turner, N., Stride, C. B., Carter, A. J., McCaughey, D., & Carroll, A. E. (2012). Job Demands–Control–
Support model and employee safety performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 811-817.
34- Turner, N., Tucker, S., Chmiel, N., Hershcovis, M. S., & Stride, C. B. (2008). Perceived organizational
support for safety and employee safety voice: the mediating role of coworker support for safety. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 319.
35- Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods: SAGE Publications.