International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 8, Issue 2 (February 2021), Pages: 17-21

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Examining the dimensions of employee safety behavior: Validation from the microfinance sector of Pakistan

 Author(s): Hira Rani Shaikh *, Syed Mir Mohammad Shah

 Affiliation(s):

 Sukkur Institute of Business Administration, Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Pakistan

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8604-4896

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2021.02.003

 Abstract:

Employee safety behavior is a dynamic phenomenon that takes place in every organization where employee’s concerns are taken for granted. Organizations and their respective authority are in search of ways to reduce the magnitude of such behavior by counseling employees. Research scholars play an important role in understanding and developing employee safety behavior. In this regard, specifically for assessing the way and magnitude of employee safety behavior (ESB), researchers have developed a tool to measure it. For achieving such an objective, researchers theoretically proposed the indicators to measure employee safety behavior effectively. These behaviors were: Avoidance and aggression coded as SBAV (safety behavior for avoidance) and SBAG (safety behavior for aggression). The present study strengthens the theoretical rationale of previous studies and validated the psychometric properties of employee safety behavior in the Pakistani context. 400 employees from 11 branches situated in different regions were surveyed, and data was analyzed using SMART PLS 3.0–software prominent due to its methodological usefulness. Findings illustrated that instrument satisfaction met the criteria of internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity for both ESB dimensions. Findings clearly demonstrated that the ESB scale is effective enough in measuring employee safety behavior in the microfinance sector of Sindh, Pakistan. Hence, Future researchers are recommended to use this tool in measuring employee safety behavior in developing countries, specifically in Pakistan. 

 © 2020 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Employee safety behavior, Aggression, Avoidance, Microfinance banks, Pakistan

 Article History: Received 20 March 2020, Received in revised form 1 August 2020, Accepted 11 September 2020

 Acknowledgment:

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

  Shaikh HR and Shah SMM (2021). Examining the dimensions of employee safety behavior: Validation from the microfinance sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 8(2): 17-21

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

----------------------------------------------

 References (30)

  1. Barling J, Kelloway EK, and Iverson RD (2003). Accidental outcomes: Attitudinal consequences of workplace injuries. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(1): 74-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.1.74   [Google Scholar] PMid:12553530
  2. Chan ME and McAllister DJ (2014). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39(1): 44-66. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0419   [Google Scholar]
  3. Chapin J (2001). It won't happen to me: The role of optimistic bias in African American teens' risky sexual practices. Howard Journal of Communication, 12(1): 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646170119661   [Google Scholar]
  4. Chin WW (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22: 7-16.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Cox SJ and Cheyne AJT (2000). Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Safety Science, 34(1-3): 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00009-6   [Google Scholar]
  6. Duffy MK, Ganster DC, and Pagon M (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2): 331-351. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069350   [Google Scholar]
  7. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 382-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313   [Google Scholar]
  8. Freeman D and Garety PA (2004). Paranoia: The psychology of persecutory delusions. Psychology Press, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203508633   [Google Scholar]
  9. Freeman D, Garety PA, and Kuipers E (2001). Persecutory delusions: Developing the understanding of belief maintenance and emotional distress. Psychological Medicine, 31(7): 1293-1306. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170100455X   [Google Scholar] PMid:11681555
  10. Freeman D, Garety PA, Bebbington PE, Smith B, Rollinson R, Fowler D, and Dunn G (2005). Psychological investigation of the structure of paranoia in a non-clinical population. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 186(5): 427-435. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.186.5.427   [Google Scholar] PMid:15863749
  11. Geladi P and Kowalski BR (1986). Partial least-squares regression: A tutorial. Analytica Chimica Acta, 185: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2670(86)80028-9   [Google Scholar]
  12. Hair JF, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2): 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202   [Google Scholar]
  13. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, and Kuppelwieser VG (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 26(2): 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128   [Google Scholar]
  14. Kramer RM (2001). 1. Organizational paranoia: Origins and dynamics. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23: 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23002-0   [Google Scholar]
  15. Krejcie RV and Morgan DW (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3): 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308   [Google Scholar]
  16. McCroskey JC (1982). Oral communication apprehension: A reconceptualization. Annals of the International Communication Association, 6(1): 136-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1982.11678497   [Google Scholar]
  17. Mullen J (2004). Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work. Journal of Safety Research, 35(3): 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2004.03.011   [Google Scholar] PMid:15288561
  18. Neal A and Griffin MA (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946   [Google Scholar] PMid:16834517
  19. Nifadkar S, Tsui AS, and Ashforth BE (2012). The way you make me feel and behave: Supervisor-triggered newcomer affect and approach-avoidance behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5): 1146-1168. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0133   [Google Scholar]
  20. Parker SK, Axtell CM, and Turner N (2001). Designing a safer workplace: Importance of job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive supervisors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3): 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.3.211   [Google Scholar] PMid:11482633
  21. Rancer AS, Baukus RA, and Amato PP (1986). Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness and marital satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 3(1): 28-32.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Salkovskis PM (1991). The importance of behaviour in the maintenance of anxiety and panic: A cognitive account. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 19(1): 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0141347300011472   [Google Scholar]
  23. Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Henseler J, and Hair JF (2014). On the emancipation of PLS-SEM: A commentary on Rigdon (2012). Long Range Planning, 47(3): 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.007   [Google Scholar]
  24. Shaw L and Sichel HS (2013). Accident proneness: Research in the occurrence, causation, and prevention of road accidents. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Sutherland VJ and Cooper CL (1991). Personality, stress and accident involvement in the offshore oil and gas industry. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(2): 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90103-I   [Google Scholar]
  26. Tepper BJ (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2): 178-190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556375   [Google Scholar]
  27. Tepper BJ, Duffy MK, and Shaw JD (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5): 974-983. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.974   [Google Scholar] PMid:11596813
  28. Tepper BJ, Moss SE, Lockhart DE, and Carr JC (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1169-1180. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159918   [Google Scholar]
  29. Vogel RM and Mitchell MS (2017). The motivational effects of diminished self-esteem for employees who experience abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 43(7): 2218-2251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314566462   [Google Scholar]
  30. Wold H (1975). Soft modelling by latent variables: The non-linear iterative partial least squares (NIPALS) approach. Journal of Applied Probability, 12(S1): 117-142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021900200047604   [Google Scholar]