The relationship between psychological capital, job satisfaction, and safety perceptions in the maritime industry

In two studies we examine whether Psychological Capital (PsyCap) is related to perceptions of safety climate and job satisfaction among maritime workers from three Norwegian shipping companies. Results from Study 1 (N = 486) and Study 2 (N = 594) showed that PsyCap was positively associated with – and explained between 10% and 12% of the variance in perceptions of safety climate. PsyCap contributed to the variance in safety climate after adjusting for social desirable responding. An interaction analysis indicated that officers and non-officers perceived the safety climate as similar when their PsyCap is low, but that officers with high levels of PsyCap have a more positive perception of the safety climate than non-officers with high levels of PsyCap. In Study 2 a positive association was established between safety perceptions and job satisfaction, as well as between PsyCap and job satisfaction in a multicultural sample of maritime workers. Findings from analyses of indirect effects suggest that PsyCap has an indirect (mediating) relationship with perceptions of safety climate through job satisfaction. Altogether, PsyCap and job satisfaction explained 21% of the variance in safety climate. Cross-national differences were established in that the indirect effect was only valid for European workers, and not for Filipinos. An important implication of these findings is that safety focused interventions could benefit from taking PsyCap into account in training and motivating for safety. 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is anopenaccess article under the CCBY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). 1. General introduction In safety critical organizations (SCOs) workers are faced with significant hazards. The maritime industry represents a SCO where maritime workers are exposed to a number of risk factors in combination, for instance weather conditions, navigation failure or accidents during cargo operations. The maritime industry has high potential for accidents and catastrophes due to the nature of the working environment. The maritime industry is regulated by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Still there can be significant differences in the organizational cultures and safety practices onboard ships due to national and/or company specific characteristics. The well-known expression ‘‘happy ship’’ indicates that job satisfaction and individual motivation are considered crucial elements in maritime organizations. Organizational culture is used to capture more generic, trait like aspects of maritime organizations. Organizational climate is more often used about specific, state like capacities that may index a ‘‘happy’’ or ‘‘unhappy’’ ship. Organizational climate is made up of shared perceptions among workers concerning the procedures and practices that are rewarded within a specific organization (Mearns et al., 1998). In SCOs like the maritime industry, safety climate in the form of shared perceptions of safe behavior and loss prevention should have high priority (Zohar, 2010). In the following we will refer to safety climate as ‘‘a coherent set of perceptions and expectations that workers have regarding safety in their organization’’ (Gyekye, 2005, p. 291). According to Mearns et al. (2003) one may see safety climate as a snapshot of selected aspects of organization safety culture at a particular point in time. In the maritime industry it is a vital part of the culture to maintain safety barriers to prevent hazards and accidents from occurring. To keep a safe distance and to detect and defer potential hazards below the surface, have literal and very specific implications in the maritime domain. This focus on potential threats to safety is well illustrated by Reason (1990) in his so-called ‘‘Swiss Cheese Model’’. This model shows how there could be a number of threats to safety barriers in the form of organizational factors (e.g. conflicting goals and priorities), active failures (e.g. mistakes http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.024 0925-7535/ 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). ⇑ Corresponding author at: University of Bergen, Faculty of Psychology, PO Box 7807, 5020 Bergen, Norway. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Bergheim). 1 The terms ‘‘maritime worker’’ and ‘‘crew member’’ are used interchangeably throughout the paper. Safety Science 74 (2015) 27–36