Advertisement

Team Conscientiousness, Team Safety Climate, and Individual Safety Performance: a Cross-Level Mediation Model

  • Xiaohong XuEmail author
  • Nhan Le
  • Yimin He
  • Xiang Yao
Original Paper
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Responding to calls for studies to examine the cross-level influence of team personality composition, we hypothesized a cross-level mediation model of the effects of different operationalizations of team conscientiousness (i.e., mean, minimum, maximum, and variance) on individual safety performance through team safety climate. We tested our model using a three-wave longitudinal design with a sample of 451 employees and 70 supervisors nested within 70 teams from two branches of one hospital. The results of our multilevel path analyses indicated that the mean, minimum, and variance—but not maximum—operationalizations of team conscientiousness at time 1 were significantly related to team safety climate at time 2. Further, team conscientiousness (i.e., mean, minimum, and variance) at time 1 exerted a top-down influence on both self-ratings and supervisor ratings of individual safety compliance and safety participation at time 3 through team safety climate at time 2, suggesting that team personality composition can influence outcomes at different levels of analyses. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

Team composition Conscientiousness Safety climate Safety performance Cross-level analysis 

Notes

References

  1. Antonioni, D., & Park, H. (2001). The effects of personality similarity on peer ratings of contextual work behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 54, 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. In S. T. Fiske (Ed.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 1–26). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc..Google Scholar
  3. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 274–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beus, J. M., Dhanani, L. Y., & McCord, M. A. (2015). A meta-analysis of personality and workplace safety: Addressing unanswered questions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beus, J. M., Munoz, G. J., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2015). Personality as a multilevel predictor of climate: An examination in the domain of workplace safety. Group & Organization Management, 40, 625–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beus, J. M., Munoz, G. J., Arthur, W., Jr., & Payne, S. C. (2013). A multilevel construct validation of safety climate. In L. A. Toombs (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventy-third Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (CD), ISSN 1543-8643 (Vol. 2013, p. 10843).Google Scholar
  13. Beus, J. M., Payne, S. C., Bergman, M. E., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2010). Safety climate and injuries: An examination of theoretical and empirical relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 713–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bliese, P. D., & Jex, S. M. (2002). Incorporating a multilevel perspective into occupational stress research: Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Buck, M. A. (2011). Proactive personality and big five traits in supervisors and workgroup members: Effects on safety climate and safety motivation. Doctoral dissertation, Portland State University.Google Scholar
  18. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Workplace injuries and illnesses in 2017. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/osh.pdf.
  19. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chao, G. T., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Major, D. A., & Gardner, P. (1994). The effects of organizational tactics and contextual factors on newcomer socialization and learning outcomes. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Chair), Transitions during organizational socialization: Newcomer expectations, information seeking, and learning outcomes. Symposium conducted at the 9th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
  21. Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1103–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. (2005). A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non-occupational settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. (2008). An examination of the role of personality in work accidents using meta-analysis. Applied Psychology, 57, 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dong, X. S., Wang, X., Largay, J. A., & Sokas, R. (2015). Long-term health outcomes of work-related injuries among construction workers—findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of youth. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 58, 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In K. Roland & G. Feris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 101–145). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  31. Friswell, R., & Williamson, A. (2010). Work characteristics associated with injury among light/short-haul transport drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 2068–2074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gevers, J. M., & Peeters, M. A. (2009). A pleasure working together? The effects of dissimilarity in team member conscientiousness on team temporal processes and individual satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gonzalez-Mulé, E., DeGeest, D. S., McCormick, B. W., Seong, J. Y., & Brown, K. G. (2014). Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 988–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 905–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hansen, C. P. (1989). A causal model of the relationship among accidents, biodata, personality, and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hsu, H. Y., Kwok, O. M., Lin, J. H., & Acosta, S. (2015). Detecting misspecified multilevel structural equation models with common fit indices: A Monte Carlo study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 197–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 885–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2011). Personality configurations in self-managed teams: A natural experiment on the effects of maximizing and minimizing variance in traits. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1701–1732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. International Labor Organization. (2017). Safety and health at work. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm.
  43. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kaplan, S., & Tetrick, L. E. (2011). Workplace safety and accidents: An industrial and organizational psychology perspective. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 455–472). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  45. Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M., & Donaldson, M. S. (1999). To err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations: Review update. In N. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 412–469). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Stevens, C. K. (2005). When opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73, 935–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., Crawford, E. R., & Methot, J. R. (2011). A review of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 130–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mathisen, G. E., Martinsen, O., & Einarsen, S. (2008). The relationship between creative personality composition, innovative team climate, and team innovativeness: An input-process-output perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 139–153).Google Scholar
  56. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. Advances in Group Processes, 9, 237–280.Google Scholar
  57. Moynihan, L. M., & Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 327–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  60. Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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, 946–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ployhart, R. E., & Schneider, B. (2005). Multilevel selection and prediction: Theories, methods, and models. In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 495–516). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  63. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Postlethwaite, B., Robbins, S., Rickerson, J., & McKinniss, T. (2009). The moderation of conscientiousness by cognitive ability when predicting workplace safety behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 711–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prewett, M. S., Brown, M. I., Goswami, A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2018). Effects of team personality composition on member performance: A multilevel perspective. Group & Organization Management, 43, 316–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Raju, N. S., & Brand, P. A. (2003). Determining the significance of correlations corrected for unreliability and range restriction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27, 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rogelberg, S. G., & Stanton, J. M. (2007). Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2011). Perspectives on organizational climate and culture. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Building and developing the organization (pp. 373–414). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  72. Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shaw, L., & Sichel, H. S. (1971). Accident proneness. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  74. Steiger, J. H. & Lind, J. C. (1980). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the psychometric society, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
  75. Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 959–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Stewart, G. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of personality in teams. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 183–204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  77. Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. (2005). An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 343–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wallace, J. C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Workplace safety performance: Conscientiousness, cognitive failure, and their interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 316–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. West, R., Elander, J., & French, D. (1993). Mild social deviance, type-a behavior pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 587–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zohar, D. (2003). Safety climate: Conceptual and measurement issues. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 123–142). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2003). The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: A cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 744–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.School of Psychological and Cognitive SciencesPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations