Research on influence of organizational ethical climwate on coal miners' safety performance

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.11.1881

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the effects of organizational ethical climate (specifically, caring, rule-based and self-interested climates) on coal miners' safety performance, a chained mediation model containing positive emotions and role-width self-efficacy was constructed. Firstly, a questionnaires survey method was used to gather data from 432 front-line male coal miners across three large-scale coal mining enterprises located in Liaoning, Henan, and Shandong Provinces. Secondly, with positive emotions and role-width self-efficacy as joint mediating variables, and safety performance as the dependent variable, a structural equation model was constructed. And the mediating effect was tested using the Bootstrap method. Finally, the survey data were empirically analyzed using path analysis and mediation effects testing methods. The results show that the mediating effects influence safety performance. Specifically, the caring climate indirectly enhances safety performance through enhancing positive emotions and role-width self-efficacy. the rule-based climate mainly affects safety performance through role-width self-efficacy, whereas the self-interested climate exerts a negative effect. Notably, fostering a caring and rule-based ethical climate, along with enhancing employees' positive emotions and role-width self-efficacy, can significantly improve coal miners' safety performance.

Key words: organizational ethical climate, coal miner, safety performance, mediating effect, positive emotions, role breadth self-efficacy

CLC Number:

X915.2安全社会学

WANG Shiming, LI Yifei, GUO Haonan, LUO Jinbao. Research on influence of organizational ethical climwate on coal miners' safety performance[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(11): 35-42.

Figures/Tables 5

Fig.1

Table 1

Table 2

Fig.2

Table 3

References 27

[1]	张江石, 吴悠, 郭金山, 等. 煤矿环境对煤矿工人个体行为的影响机制研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(2):649-655.
	ZHANG Jiangshi, WU You, GUO Jinshan, et al. Influence mechanism of the coal mine environment on the miners' individual behaviors[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(2):649-655.
[2]	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.
[3]	KHAN N, AHMAD I, ILYAS M. Impact of ethical leadership on organizational safety performance: the mediating role of safety culture and safety consciousness[J]. Ethics & Behavior, 2018, 28(8): 628-643.
[4]	VICTOR B, CULLEN J B. The organizational bases of ethical work climates[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1988, 33(1):101-125.
[5]	MARSHALL S, MAUREEN L A, DONALD O N. The effect of leader moral development on ethical climate and employee attitudes[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2005, 97(2):135-151.
[6]	乔坤, 刘赛. 组织伦理氛围对员工主动性行为的影响研究:工作动机的中介作用[J]. 管理现代化, 2018, 38(4):97-100.
	QIAO Kun, LIU Sai. The influence of organizational erhical climate on employees' proactive behavior the intermediary role of working motivation[J]. Modernization of Management, 2018, 38(4):97-100.
[7]	ASHFORTH B E, HUMPHREY R H. Emotion in the workplace: a reappraisal[J]. Human Relations, 1995, 48(2): 97-125.
[8]	FREDRICKSON B L, COHN M A, COFFEY K A, et al. Open hearts build lives: positive emotions,induced through loving-kindness meditation,build consequential personal resources[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008, 95(5):1 045-1 062.
[9]	CULLEN J B, VICTOR B, BRONSON J W. The ethical climate questionnaire: an assessment of its development and validity[J]. Psychological Reports, 1993, 73(2):667-674.
[10]	刘文彬, 井润田. 组织文化影响员工反生产行为的实证研究:基于组织伦理气氛的视角[J]. 中国软科学, 2010(9):118-129,139.
	LIU Wenbin, JING Runtian. An empirical research of the relationship between organizational culture and counter productive behavior. The perspective of organizational ethical climate[J]. China Soft Science, 2010(9):118-129,139.
[11]	张永军, 杜盛楠, 李永鑫. 为私还是为公:伦理氛围对员工非伦理行为的影响[J]. 心理研究, 2017, 10(5):71-77.
	ZHANG Yongjun, DU Shengnan, LI Yongxin. For self or for organization:test the relationship between ethical climate and unethical behavior[J]. Psychological Research, 2017, 10(5):71-77.
[12]	马璐, 杜明飞. 组织伦理氛围与员工反伦理行为关系的实证研究[J]. 预测, 2014, 33(2):38-43.
	MA Lu, DU Mingfei. Organizational ethical climate and employee's anti-ethical behavior:an empirical study of the relationship[J]. Forecasting, 2014, 33(2):38-43.
[13]	JOSHUA B W, PETER W H, LOIS E T, et al. The norm of reciprocity: scale development and validation in the Chinese context[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2006, 2(3):377-402.
[14]	廖中举. 企业安全绩效研究:内涵、测量及影响因素[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(11):139-144.
	LIAO Zhongju. A literature review of firm's safety performance: its connotation,measurement and factors affecting it[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(11):139-144.
[15]	PENG Jiang, WANG Zhen, CHEN Xiao. Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? a moderated dual-path model[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2019, 159(2):419-433. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3799-0
[16]	STIJIN D, JEROEN S, THOMAS M T. When employees retaliate against self-serving leaders: the influence of the ethical climate[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2021, 168:195-213.
[17]	MINNITI M, BYGRAVE W. A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning[J]. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2001, 25(3): 5-16.
[18]	FREDRICKSON B L, BRANIGAN C. Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires[J]. Cognition & Emotion, 2005, 19(3): 313-332.
[19]	FORGAS J P. Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM)[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1995, 117(1):39-66. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 pmid: 7870863
[20]	HATFIELD E, CACIOPPO J T, RAPSON R L. Emotional contagion[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1993, 2(3): 96-100.
[21]	PARKER S K, WILLIAMS H M, TURNER N. Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006, 91(3):DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636.
[22]	李永占. 真实型领导对员工创新行为的影响:工作投入的中介效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6):854-860.
	LI Yongzhan. The impact of authentic leadership on employees'innovative behavior: the mediating role of work engagement[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(6):854-860.
[23]	周爱保, 刘沛汝, 张彦驰, 等. 自我情绪一致性效应及其可逆性:探究负荷理论[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(4):433-440.
	ZHOU Aibao, LIU Peiru, ZHANG Yanchi. The self-emotion consistence effect and its reversibility: investigation on load theories[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2015, 13(4):433-440.
[24]	黄勇, 彭纪生. 组织内信任对员工负责行为的影响:角色宽度自我效能感的中介作用[J]. 软科学, 2015, 29(1):74-77.
	HUANG Yong, PENG Jisheng. The lnfluence of intra-organizational trust on employee taking charge-the mediating role of role breadth self-efficacy[J]. Soft Science, 2015, 29(1):74-77.
[25]	汤超颖, 艾树, 龚增良. 积极情绪的社会功能及其对团队创造力的影响:隐性知识共享的中介作用[J]. 南开管理评论, 2011, 14(4):129-137.
	TANG Chaoying, AI Shu, GONG Zengliang. The social function of the positive mood and its influence on team creativity: the mediating effect of tacit knowledge sharing[J]. Nankai Business Review, 2011, 14(4):129-137.
[26]	PARKER M H, TURNER J, MCGURGAN P, et al. The difficult problem: assessing medical students' professional attitudes and behaviour[J]. Medical Journal of Australia, 2010, 193(11/12):662-664.
[27]	袁玥. 建筑企业安全文化对安全绩效作用机理的实证研究[D]. 成都: 西南交通大学, 2012.
	YUAN Yue. Mechanism of function of safety culture on safety perfomance inconstruction: an empirical study[J]. Chengdu:Southwest Jiaotong University, 2012.

量表名称	维度	题项	计分结果	Cronbach's α	χ²/df	CFI	RMSEA
组织伦理氛围量表^[10]	关怀导向	“在煤矿中我通常把个人利益看的很重”等15个题项	得分越高,越符合情况	0.86	2.42	0.92	0.05
	规则导向
	自利导向
积极情绪量表^[25]	—	“工作中我充满热情”等5个题项	得分越高,积极情绪越高昂	0.85	2.51	0.94	0.04
角色宽度自我效能量表^[26]	—	“我能对煤矿长远面临的长远问题作出考量并提出意见”等7个题项	得分越高,角色宽度自我效能感越强	0.87	2.37	0.96	0.04
安全绩效量表^[27]	安全遵守行为	“在作业现场我会主动纠正工友的错误操作和想法”等12个题项	得分越高,安全绩效越高	0.93	2.32	0.95	0.05
	安全参与行为
	安全结果

变量	M	SD	1关怀型伦理氛围	2规则型伦理氛围	3自利型伦理氛围	4积极情绪	5角色宽度自我效能	6安全绩效
1关怀型伦理氛围	3.72	0.79	1	—	—	—	—	—
2规则型伦理氛围	3.69	0.66	0.158	1	—	—	—	—
3自利型伦理氛围	3.08	0.92	-0.279^**	-0.337^**	1	—	—	—
4积极情绪	3.77	0.85	0.425^**	0.396^**	-0.386^**	1	—	—
5角色宽度自我效能	3.64	0.66	0.456^**	0.439^**	-0.467^**	0.384^**	1	—
6安全绩效	3.86	0.89	0.489^**	0.397^**	-0.388^**	0.295^**	0.336^**	1

模型	效应类型	效应量	SE	置信区间	效应占比/%
关怀型伦理氛围—安全绩效	总间接效应	0.30	0.04	[0. 23,0. 38]	41.67
	路径1:关怀型伦理氛围→积极情绪→安全绩效	0.12	0.03	[0. 05,0. 19]	16.67
	路径2:关怀型伦理氛围→角色宽度自我效能→安全绩效	0.12	0.03	[0. 06,0. 17]	16.67
	路径3:关怀型伦理氛围→积极情绪→角色宽度自我效能→安全绩效	0.06	0.01	[0. 04,0. 07]	8.33
规则型伦理氛围—安全绩效	总间接效应	0.17	0.04	[0. 23,0. 42]	29.31
	路径1:规则型伦理氛围→积极情绪→安全绩效	0.02	0.01	[-0. 02,0. 05]	3.45
	路径2:规则型伦理氛围→角色宽度自我效能→安全绩效	0.14	0.03	[0. 06,0. 17]	24.14
	路径3:规则型伦理氛围→积极情绪→角色宽度自我效能→安全绩效	0.01	0.01	[-0. 03,0. 04]	1.72
规则型伦理氛围—安全绩效	总间接效应	0.17	0.04	[0. 23,0. 42]	29.31
	路径1:规则型伦理氛围→积极情绪→安全绩效	0.02	0.01	[-0. 02,0. 05]	3.45
	路径2:规则型伦理氛围→角色宽度自我效能→安全绩效	0.14	0.03	[0. 06,0. 17]	24.14
	路径3:规则型伦理氛围→积极情绪→角色宽度自我效能→安全绩效	0.01	0.01	[-0. 03,0. 04]	1.72