复杂性理论视角下员工安全生产违规的前因组态研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.03.0451

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为揭示员工安全生产违规(EWSV)与其前因条件之间的复杂因果关系,提升安全治理效能,首先,基于复杂性理论,构建一个整合当代威慑理论、保护动机理论和社会学习理论的综合模型,从领导、同事和员工3个视角识别出影响EWSV的6种前因条件;然后,使用模糊集定性比较分析法 (fsQCA)揭示什么样的前因条件组态会导致高EWSV。研究结果表明:单一条件并不构成高EWSV的必要条件,但是,领导安全惩罚缺失(SLPO)和同事安全生产违规(CWSV)在产生高EWSV上发挥较普适的作用;5种条件组态构成的3类驱动模式均可导致高EWSV。3种条件组态导致非高EWSV,降低CWSV和提高员工感知正式惩罚对促成非高EWSV至关重要;多种前因条件的不同组合方式均可导致高EWSV,高EWSV与其多种前因条件之间存在并发性、等效性和非对称性的复杂因果关系。

关键词: 复杂性理论, 员工安全生产违规(EWSV), 前因组态, 正式惩罚, 安全道德信念, 模糊集定性比较分析(fsQCA)

Abstract:

In order to reveal the complex causality between EWSV and their multiple antecedent conditions, and to improve the efficiency of safety governance, a comprehensive model integrating contemporary deterrence theory, protection motivation theory, and social learning theory was constructed from a perspective of complexity theory. Based on this, six antecedent conditions affecting EWSV were identified from three perspectives: leader, coworker, and employee. Then, the fsQCA was used to reveal what configuration of antecedent conditions would lead to high level of EWSV. The results show that a single antecedent condition is insufficient to explain high level of EWSV but safety-specific leader punishment omission and coworker work safety violations(CWSV) play universal roles in forming high level of EWSV. Three types of driving modes composed of five condition configurations can lead to high level of EWSV. Three types of condition configurations lead to non-high level of EWSV. Reducing CWSV and improving employees' perception for formal sanctions are crucial for achieving non-high level of EWSV. Different combinations of multiple antecedent conditions can lead to high level of EWSV, and there is a complex causality (concurrency, equivalence, and asymmetry) between high level of EWSV and their antecedent conditions.

Key words: complexity theory, employee work safety violations (EWSV), antecedent configuration, formal sanctions, safety-specific moral belief, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)

中图分类号:

X915.2安全社会学

刘林, 吴金南, 梅强. 复杂性理论视角下员工安全生产违规的前因组态研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(3): 9-19.

LIU Lin, WU Jinnan, MEI Qiang. Research on configurational causes of employee work safety violations: from a complexity theoretical perspective[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(3): 9-19.

图/表 5

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 52

[1]	ZHANG Wei, ZHU Shuangna, ZHANG Xiao, et al. Identification of critical causes of construction accidents in China using a model based on system thinking and case analysis[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 121: 606-618. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.038
[2]	王郅强, 王凡凡. 挂牌督办对地方安全生产治理效果的影响机制研究[J]. 管理学刊, 2020, 33(3): 1-13.
	WANG Zhiqiang, WANG Fanfan. Research on the mechanism of public administrative urging supervision influencing the effect of local production safety governance[J]. Journal of Management, 2020, 33(3): 1-13.
[3]	ZHANG Jiangshi, ZHANG Wenyue, XU Peixui, et al. Applicability of accident analysis methods to Chinese construction accidents[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 2019, 68: 187-196. doi: S0022-4375(18)30200-7 pmid: 30876510
[4]	刘林, 梅强, 常志朋. 国内 70 年来员工不安全行为研究: 发展阶段、研究热点及趋势分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(3): 1-12. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.03.001
	LIU Lin, MEI Qiang, CHANG Zhipeng. Research on employees' unsafety behavior in China from 1949 to 2018: development stage, research hotspot and trend analysis[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(3): 1-12. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.03.001
[5]	LIANG Huakang, ZHANG Shoujian. Impact of supervisors' safety violations on an individual worker within a construction crew[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 120: 679-691. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.08.014
[6]	管仲尧, 项天, 方东平, 等. 改进的建筑工人疲劳与不安全行为实验测量方法[J]. 清华大学学报:自然科学版, 2021, 61(10): 1186-1194.
	GUAN Zhongyao, XIANG Tian, FANG Dongping, et al. Improved experimental measurement method of construction worker fatigue and unsafe behavior[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University:Science & Technology, 2021, 61(10): 1186-1194.
[7]	李乃文, 刘孟潇, 牛莉霞. 辱虐管理对安全绩效的影响:心理痛苦和心智游移的链式中介作用[J]. 软科学, 2019, 33(9): 60-63.
	LI Naiwen, LIU Mengxiao, NIU Lixia. Effects of abusive supervision on safety performance:the chained mediation of psychological distress and mind wandering[J]. Soft Science, 2019, 33(9): 60-63.
[8]	李永娟, 蒋丽, 胥遥山, 等. 工作压力与社会支持对安全绩效的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2011, 19(3): 318-327.
	LI Yongjuan, JIANG Li, XU Yaoshan, et al. The effect of work stress and social support on safety performance[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2011, 19(3): 318-327.
[9]	NEAL A, GRIFFIN M A. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91(4): 946-953. pmid: 16834517
[10]	GRILL M, NIELSEN K, GRYTNES R, et al. The leadership practices of construction site managers and their influence on occupational safety: an observational study of transformational and passive/avoidant leadership[J]. Construction Management and Economics, 2019, 37(5): 278-293. doi: 10.1080/01446193.2018.1526388
[11]	王丹, 董冉. 包容型领导对员工安全绩效的影响:一个有调节的链式中介模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(1): 18-23. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.01.0362
	WANG Dan, DONG Ran. Influence of inclusive leadership on employees' safety performance: a moderated chain mediation model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(1):18-23. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.01.0362
[12]	XIA Nini, XIE Qiuhao, GRIFFIN M A, et al. Antecedents of safety behavior in construction: a literature review and an integrated conceptual framework[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2020, 148:DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2020.105834.
[13]	CORNELISSEN P A, HOOF J, JONG M. Determinants of safety outcomes and performance: a systematic literature review of research in four high-risk industries[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 2017, 62: 127-141. doi: S0022-4375(16)30349-8 pmid: 28882259
[14]	刘林, 吴金南, 常志朋. 安全违规行为的人际传染效应研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(8): 22-29. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.08.004
	LIU Lin, WU Jinnan, CHANG Zhipeng. Study on interpersonal contagion effect of safety violation behaviors[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(8):22-29. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.08.004
[15]	DU Yunzhou, KIM P H. One size does not fit all: strategy configurations, complex environments, and new venture performance in emerging economies[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2021, 124: 272-285. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.059
[16]	MAALOUF M M, HOQUE I. Applying fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to identify pathways for improving occupational health and safety performance[J]. Safety Science, 2022, 156: DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105903.
[17]	RUSSO I, CONFENTE I, GLIGOR D M, et al. To be or not to be (loyal):is there a recipe for customer loyalty in the b2b context?[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2016, 69(2): 888-896. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.002
[18]	LEISCHNIG A, WOODSIDE A G. Who approves fraudulence? configurational causes of consumers' unethical judgments[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2019, 158: 713-726. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3703-3
[19]	WOODSID A G. Embrace perform model: complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2014, 67(12): 2495-2503. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.006
[20]	王如冰, 万欣, 毛鹏, 等. 乘客不安全行为与地铁事故关联性的fsQCA[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(7): 152-158. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.07.023
	WANG Rubing, WAN Xin, MAO Peng, et al. Relevance study between unsafe behaviors of passengers and metro accidents based on fsQCA[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(7):152-158. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.07.023
[21]	D'ARCY J, DEVARAJ S. Employee misuse of information technology resources: testing a contemporary deterrence model[J]. Decision Sciences, 2012, 43(6): 1091-1124. doi: 10.1111/deci.2012.43.issue-6
[22]	CHENG Lijiao, LI Ying, LI Wenli, et al. Understanding the violation of is security policy in organizations: an integrated model based on social control and deterrence theory[J]. Computers & Security, 2013, 39: 447-459. doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2013.09.009
[23]	VANCE A, FELLOW S, SIPONEN M, et al. Effects of sanctions, moral beliefs, and neutralization on information security policy violations across cultures[J]. Information & Management, 2020, 57(4):DOI:10.1016/j.im.2019.103212.
[24]	LUO Xin, LI Han, CHEN Yan. Understanding information security policy violation from a situational action perspective[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 2020, 22(3): 739-772. doi: 10.17705/1jais
[25]	BACHMAN R, PATERNOSTER R, WARD S. The rationality of sexual offending: testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault[J]. Law & Society Review, 1992, 26(2): 343-372. doi: 10.2307/3053901
[26]	MYYRY L, SIPONEN M, PAHNILA S, et al. What levels of moral reasoning and values explain adherence to information security rules? an empirical study[J]. European Journal of Information Systems, 2009, 18: 126-139. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2009.10
[27]	LIU Lin, MEI Qiang, JIANG Lixin, et al. Safety-specific passive-avoidant leadership and safety compliance among Chinese steel workers: the moderating role of safety moral belief and organizational size[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021, 18:DOI:10.3390/ijerph18052700.
[28]	HOVAV A, D'ARCY J. Applying an extended model of deterrence across cultures: an investigation of information systems misuse in the U. S. and South Korea[J]. Information & Management, 2012, 49(2): 99-110. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2011.12.005
[29]	VANCE A, SIPONEN M, PAHNILA S. Motivating is security compliance: insights from habit and protection motivation theory[J]. Information & Management, 2012, 49(3/4): 190-198. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2012.04.002
[30]	CHOUDHRY R M, FANG D. Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: investigating factors on construction sites[J]. Safety Science, 2008, 46(4): 566-584. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.027
[31]	FLOYD D L, PRENTICE-DUNN S, ROGERS R W. A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory[J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010, 30(2): 407-429. doi: 10.1111/jasp.2000.30.issue-2
[32]	YOON C, HWANG J W, KIM R. Exploring factors that influence students' behaviors in information security[J]. Journal of Information Systems Education, 2012, 23(4): 407-416.
[33]	BOEHMER J, LAROSE R, RIFON N, et al. Determinants of online safety behavior: towards an intervention strategy for college students[J]. Behavior & Information Technology, 2015, 34(10): 1022-1035.
[34]	TSAI H, JIANG M, ALHABASH S, et al. Understanding online safety behaviors: a protection motivation theory perspective[J]. Computers & Security, 2016, 59: 138-150. doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2016.02.009
[35]	CHOU H L, SUN C Y. The moderating roles of gender and social norms on the relationship between protection motivation and risky online behavior among in-service teachers[J]. Computers & Education, 2017, 112: 83-96. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.003
[36]	HWANG I, KIM D, KIM T, et al. Why not comply with information security? an empirical approach for the causes of non-compliance[J]. Online Information Review, 2017, 41(1): 2-18. doi: 10.1108/OIR-11-2015-0358
[37]	LIANG Huakang, LIN K Y, ZHANG Shoujian, et al. The impact of coworkers' safety violations on an individual worker: a social contagion effect within the construction crew[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 2018, 15(4): 773-793.
[38]	HINKIN T R, SCHRIESHEIM C A. An examination of "nonleadership": from laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2008, 93(6): 1234-1248. doi: 10.1037/a0012875 pmid: 19025245
[39]	OLSEN O K, HETLAND J, MATTHIESEN S B, et al. Passive avoidant leadership and safety non-compliance: a 30 days diary study among naval cadets[J]. Safety Science, 2021, 138:DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105100.
[40]	MULLEN J E, KELLOWAY E K. Safety leadership: a longitudinal study of the effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes[J]. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 2011, 82(2): 253-272.
[41]	刘林, 梅强. 我国企业领导者安全奖惩缺失量表编制[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(5): 2121-2128.
	LIU Lin, MEI Qiang. Developing an indigenous scale of safety-specific leader reward and punishment omission in China[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(5): 2121-2128.
[42]	TREVINO L K. The social effects of punishment in organizations: a justice perspective[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1992, 17(4): 647-676. doi: 10.2307/258803
[43]	梅强, 张超, 李雯, 等. 安全文化、安全氛围与员工安全行为关系研究:基于高危行业中小企业的实证[J]. 系统管理学报, 2017, 26(2): 277-286.
	MEI Qiang, ZHANG Chao, LI Wen, et al. Relationship among safety culture, safety climate and safety behavior:an empirical analysis of SMEs in high-risk industry[J]. Journal of Systems &Management, 2017, 26(2): 277-286.
[44]	VANCE A, SIPONEN M. Is security policy violations: a rational choice perspective[J]. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 2012, 24(1): 21-41. doi: 10.4018/JOEUC
[45]	SIPONEN M, VANCE A O. Neutralization: new insights into the problem of employee systems security policy violations[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2010, 34(3): 487-502. doi: 10.2307/25750688
[46]	HERATH T, RAO H R. Protection motivation and deterrence: a framework for security policy compliance in organizations[J]. European Journal of Information Systems, 2009, 18(2): 106-125. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2009.6
[47]	杜运周, 贾良定. 组态视角与定性比较分析(QCA):管理学研究的一条新道路[J]. 管理世界, 2017, 33(6): 155-167,186.
[48]	杜运周, 李佳馨, 刘秋辰, 等. 复杂动态视角下的组态理论与QCA方法:研究进展与未来方向[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(3): 180-197,226.
	DU Yunzhou, LI Jiaxin, LIU Qiuchen, et al. Configurational theory and QCA method from a complex dynamic perspective: research progress and future directions[J]. Management World, 2021, 37(3): 180-197,226.
[49]	PAPPAS I O, WOODSIDE A G. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2021, 58:DOI:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310.
[50]	MAIER C, LAUMER S, JOSEPH D, et al. Turnback intention: an analysis of the drivers of it professionals' intention to return to a former employer[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2021, 45(4): 1777-1806.
[51]	FISS P C. Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54(2): 393-420. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
[52]	MATTKE J, MAIER C, WEITZEL T, et al. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in information systems research: status quo, guidelines, and future directions[J]. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2022, 50:208-240. doi: 10.17705/1CAIS

变量	校准锚点			描述性统计
变量	5%	50%	95%	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值
SLRO	1.00	2.00	4.00	2.35	0.88	1.00	4.67
SLPO	1.00	2.00	4.00	1.92	1.00	1.00	5.00
CWSV	1.00	1.60	4.30	1.78	0.97	1.00	5.00
ESMB	1.42	4.67	5.00	4.05	1.14	1.00	5.00
EPFS	2.86	20.00	25.00	18.42	6.63	1.78	25.00
EPAC	2.92	20.29	25.00	19.06	6.79	1.67	25.00
CWSV	1.00	1.60	4.15	1.79	0.92	1.00	4.80

条件变量	高EWSV		非高EWSV
条件变量	一致性	覆盖度	一致性	覆盖度
SLRO	0.862	0.866	0.605	0.636
~SLRO	0.499	0.467	0.682	0.922
SLPO	0.798	0.847	0.382	0.587
~SLPO	0.610	0.406	0.890	0.866
CWSV	0.856	0.904	0.342	0.522
~CWSV	0.548	0.365	0.937	0.904
ESMB	0.548	0.399	0.765	0.806
~ESMB	0.734	0.684	0.430	0.579
EPFS	0.521	0.385	0.859	0.917
~EPFS	0.887	0.813	0.424	0.561
EPAC	0.553	0.381	0.873	0.870
~EPAC	0.811	0.815	0.379	0.551

条件变量	S1a	S1b	S2a	S2b	S3
SLRO	●		●	●	●
SLPO		●	●	●	●
CWSV	●	●	●	●
ESMB					⊗
EPFS	⊗	⊗		⊗	⊗
EPAC	⊗	⊗	⊗		⊗
原始覆盖度	0.701	0.667	0.666	0.699	0.563
唯一覆盖度	0.044	0.010	0.009	0.042	0.016
一致性	0.973	0.986	0.987	0.982	0.982
解的覆盖度	0.779
解的一致性	0.962

条件变量	NS1	NS2	NS3
SLRO		●	●
SLPO	⊗		⊗
CSPV	⊗	⊗	⊗
ESMB			●
EPFS	●	●	●
EPAC	●	●
原始覆盖度	0.721	0.507	0.434
唯一覆盖度	0.234	0.021	0.013
一致性	0.976	0.973	0.987
解的覆盖度	0.754
解的一致性	0.971