团队关系冲突对矿工安全绩效影响的跨层次研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.02.008

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为有效提升煤矿企业安全管理效能,提高矿工安全绩效,基于资源保存理论、社会认知理论和自我决定理论,以团队层面的团队效能感和个体层面的安全动机为中介变量,探讨团队关系冲突(TRC)对矿工安全绩效的跨层次影响机制。对40个班组347名矿工进行问卷调查和实证研究,结果表明:TRC不仅能直接负向影响矿工安全绩效,还能通过团队效能感和矿工安全动机的独立中介作用、链式中介作用间接影响矿工安全绩效;其中,自主安全动机在TRC对安全绩效的影响路径中起到关键作用。

关键词: 团队关系冲突(TRC), 安全绩效, 跨层次, 团队效能感, 安全动机

Abstract:

In order to effectively upgrade safety management efficiency of coal mining enterprises and improve safety performance of miners, based on conservation of resources theory, social cognitive theory, and self-determination theory, cross-level influence mechanism of TRC on miners' safety performance was explored with team efficacy from the perspective of a team and safety motivation from that of individuals as mediating variables. Questionnaire surveys and empirical studies were conducted on 347 miners from 40 teams. The results show that TRC can not only negatively influence safety performance of miners in a direct way, but also indirectly influence it through independent mediating effect and chain mediating effect of team efficacy and safety motivation of miners. Among them, autonomous safety motivation plays a key role in its influence path.

Key words: team relationship conflict (TRC), safety performance, cross-level, team efficacy, safety motivation

桑利斌, 栗继祖. 团队关系冲突对矿工安全绩效影响的跨层次研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(2): 51-58.

SANG Libin, LI Jizu. A cross-level study on influence of team relationship conflict on safety performance of miners[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(2): 51-58.

图/表 5

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 26

[1]	国家矿山安全监察局. 国家矿山安全监察局召开2021年首次新闻发布会[EB/OL]. (2021-01-11). https://www.chinamine-safety.gov.cn/xw/xwfbh/202101/t20210111_376885.shtml.
[2]	贺莹鸽, 连民杰, 江松, 等. 矿工习惯性违章行为风险态势评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(12):62-69. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.12.009
	HE Yingge, LIAN Minjie, JIANG Song, et al. Risk state assessment of coal miners' habitual violation behavior[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(12):62-69. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.12.009
[3]	周明建, 潘海波, 任际范. 团队冲突和团队创造力的关系研究:团队效能的中介效应[J]. 管理评论, 2014, 26(12):120-130,159.
	ZHOU Mingjian, PAN Haibo, REN Jifan. Task conflict and relationship conflict on team creativity: the mediating role of team potency[J]. Management Review, 2014, 26(12):120-130,159.
[4]	RILEY J M, ELLEGOOD W A. Relationship conflict, task conflict and teams' transactive memory systems[J]. International Journal of Educational Management, 2019, 34(3):626-640.
[5]	涂艳红, 杨琼. 团队冲突与知识型员工创新绩效跨层关系研究[J]. 湖南工业大学学报:社会科学版, 2020, 25(6):54-62.
	TU Yanhong, YANG Qiong. An empirical study on the cross-layer relationship between team conflict and innovation performance of knowledge-based employees[J]. Journal of Hunan University of Technology: Social Science Edition, 2020, 25(6):54-62.
[6]	JEHN K A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995, 40(2):256-282. doi: 10.2307/2393638
[7]	SHARMA P D, CHEN X M. Models for predicting potential yield loss of wheat caused by stripe rust in the US Pacific Northwest[J]. Phytopathology, 2011, 101(5):544-554. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-08-10-0215
[8]	陈波, 杨东涛, 潘亮. 基于核心自我评价视角的团队关系冲突与员工拖延行为研究[J]. 管理学报, 2020, 17(2):216-224.
	CHEN Bo, YANG Dongtao, PAN Liang. The influence of team relationship conflict on employee's procrastination behavior: exploring the effects of core self-evaluations[J]. Chinese Journal of Management, 2020, 17(2):216-224.
[9]	NEAL A, GRIFFIN M A, HART P. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior[J]. Safety Science, 2000, 34(1):99-109. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00008-4
[10]	HAAS E J. The role of supervisory support on workers' health and safety performance[J]. Health Communication, 2020, 35(3): 364-374. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2018.1563033
[11]	HOBFOLL S E. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: advancing conservation of resources theory[J]. Applied Psychology, 2001, 50(3):337-421. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062
[12]	BANDURA A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control[M]. New York: Freeman, 1997:133-134.
[13]	那赟, 栗继祖, 冯国瑞. 群体认知对个体不安全行为意向的跨层次影响[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(2):13-19.
	NA Yun, LI Jizu, FENG Guorui. A cross-level influence of group cognition on individual unsafe behavior intention[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(2):13-19.
[14]	孟源, 施建军. 团队社会资本与新产品开发绩效关系研究:以团队效能感为中介变量[J]. 学海, 2020(3):106-111.
	MENG Yuan, SHI Jianjun. Research on the relationship between team social capital and new product development performance: take team efficacy as an intermediary variable[J]. Academia Bimestris, 2020(3):106-111.
[15]	BANDURA A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited[J]. Journal of Management, 2012, 38(1):9-44.
[16]	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. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946
[17]	RYAN R M, DECI E L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being[J]. American Psychologist, 2000, 55(1):68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
[18]	董小刚, 于凌云. 建筑企业安全文化、安全动机与安全服从行为的关系研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(11):30-35.
	DONG Xiaogang, YU Lingyun. Research on relationships between safety culture, safety motivation and safety compliance behavior in construction enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24(11):30-35.
[19]	牛莉霞, 李乃文, 姜群山. 安全领导、安全动机与安全行为的结构方程模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(4):23-29.
	NIU Lixia, LI Naiwen, JIANG Qunshan. SEM of safety leadership, safety motivation and safety behavior[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(4):23-29.
[20]	BANDURA A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change[J]. Psychological Review, 1977, 84(2):191-215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
[21]	李乃文, 赵钰. 矿工自我效能感与安全绩效的关系研究:基于自主型安全动机和工作投入的链式中介作用[J]. 科技促进发展, 2020, 16(6):689-695.
	LI Naiwen, ZHAO Yu. The relationship between miners' self-efficacy and safety performance: autonomous safety motivation and chain mediation of job input[J]. Science & Technology for Development, 2020, 16(6):689-695.
[22]	TEKLEAB A G, QUIGLEY N R. Team deep-level diversity, relationship conflict, and team members' affective reactions: a cross-level investigation[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2014, 67(3):394-402. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.022
[23]	GUZZO R A, YOST P R, CAMPBELL R J, et al. Potency in groups: articulating a construct[J]. British Journal of Social Psychology, 1993, 32(1):87-106. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1993.tb00987.x
[24]	谭冬伟. 煤矿职工心理资本对安全行为的研究:基于安全动机的中介效应[D]. 青岛: 山东科技大学, 2017.
	TAN Dongwei. Research on the psychological capital of coal mine workers' safety behavior: based on the mediating effect of safety motivation[D]. Qingdao: Shandong University of Science and Technology, 2017.
[25]	JAMES L R. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, 67(2):219-229. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219
[26]	PREACHER K J, HAYES A F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models[J]. Behavior Research Methods, 2008, 40(3):879-891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

变量	组成信度	AVE
TRC	0.851	0.589
TE	0.925	0.608
ASM	0.902	0.606
CSM	0.899	0.599
SC	0.849	0.586
SP	0.899	0.597

变量	TRC	TE	ASM	CSM	SC	SP
TRC	0.767	—	—	—	—	—
TE	-0.581^**	0.779	—	—	—	—
ASM	-0.572^**	0.611^**	0.778	—	—	—
CSM	-0.576^**	0.609^**	0.491^**	0.773	—	—
SC	-0.549^**	0.585^**	0.581^**	0.590^**	0.765	—
SP	-0.573^**	0.604^**	0.586^**	0.395	0.459^**	0.772

层次	因变量	路径	标准化估计值	S.E.	t值	p值
同层次	TE	TRC→TE	-0.594	0.051	-8.410	^***
	SC	ASM→SC	0.538	0.048	8.431	^***
	SC	CSM→SC	0.551	0.045	7.714	^***
	SP	ASM→SP	0.562	0.061	9.158	^***
	SP	CSM→SP	0.206	0.072	0.530	0.495
跨层次	因变量	模型	γ₀₀	γ₀₁	σ²	τ₀₀
	SC	零模型	5.352^***	—	0.494	0.361^***
		TRC→SC	4.662^***	-0.431^***	0.317	0.293^***
		TE→SC	4.549^***	0.480^***	0.346	0.182^***
	SP	零模型	5.515^***	—	0.535	0.349^***
		TRC→SP	4.206^***	-0.467^***	0.363	0.225^***
		TE→SP	4.494^***	0.492^***	0.352	0.298^***
	ASM	零模型	5.137^***	—	0.466	0.395^***
		TRC→ASM	4.934^***	-0.485^***	0.325	0.194^***
		TE→ASM	5.069^***	0.547^***	0.472	0.386^***
	CSM	零模型	5.325^***	—	0.623	0.261^***
		TRC→CSM	4.764^***	-0.422^***	0.306	0.272^***
		TE→CSM	5.022^***	0.512^***	0.417	0.295^***

效应	变量	点估计值	置信区间
			Bias-Corrected 95%		Percentile 95%
			下限	上限	下限	上限
总效应	TRC→SC	-0.416	-0.421	-0.354	-0.424	-0.363
总效应	TRC→SP	-0.487	-0.482	-0.336	-0.473	-0.357
效应	变量	点估计值	置信区间
			Bias-Corrected 95%		Percentile 95%
			下限	上限	下限	上限
间接效应	TRC→SC	-0.364	-0.345	-0.237	-0.331	-0.215
间接效应	TRC→SP	-0.381	-0.376	-0.223	-0.382	-0.249
直接效应	TRC→SC	-0.052	-0.107	-0.073	-0.115	-0.067
直接效应	TRC→SP	-0.107	-0.264	-0.195	-0.282	-0.198