Work-safety tension, perceived risk, and worker injuries: A meso-mediational model Alyssa K. McGonagle a, ⁎, Lisa M. Kath b a University of Connecticut, Department of Psychology, 406 Babbidge Road, Unit 1020 Storrs, CT, 06269-1020 USA b San Diego State University, Department of Psychology, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4611 USA abstract article info Article history: Received 23 July 2010 Accepted 14 September 2010 Available online 16 October 2010 Keywords: Worker safety Worker injuries Safety climate Risk perceptions Work-safety tension Introduction: Work-safety tension arises when workers perceive that working safely is at odds with effectively doing their jobs. We proposed that workers’ perceptions of work-safety tension would be associated with higher levels of perceived risk, which would, in turn, relate to worker injuries on the job. Method: Grocery store workers (n = 600) completed an online survey and organizational worker injury reports were obtained for a two-year period following the survey. Survey results were linked to subsequent worker injuries using hierarchical generalized linear modeling. Results: We found support for the proposed meso-mediation model: department work-safety tension predicted subsequent worker injuries, partially through an association with workers’ risk perceptions. Conclusions: Safety researchers and consultants and organizational leaders should look beyond typically-examined safety climate constructs, such as management commitment to safety, and pay particular attention to workers’ perceptions of work-safety tension. © 2010 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Workplace safety has many stakeholders—it is important to workers, organizational leaders, and policy makers. Worker injuries are costly to organizations and can be devastating to workers and their families. Workplace safety research suggests that worker accidents and injuries are generally not traceable to a single factor; instead multiple, interrelated factors (including those related to the physical and psychosocial working environment, aspects of the job, and individual differences) affect worker safety. The current study examines two interrelated factors, (a) work-safety tension (or an incompatibility of work and safety) and (b) risk perceptions, as they relate to workers’ on-the-job injuries. Researchers have been studying occupational safety since the 1930's. Yet at least two clear trends have emerged in safety research in the past 20 years. First, there is a greater emphasis on psychosocial factors that impact safety: for instance social exchange (Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999), communication (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1998), and safety climate (e.g., Zohar, 1980). Second, a proliferation of statistical methods to model multilevel organizational data has spurred an integration of contextual (organization and group-level) safety factors such as safety climate with individual-level safety factors such as employee knowledge, skill, cognition, and motivation to help understand worker safety (e.g., Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996; Neal & Griffin, 2006; Neal, Griffin, & Hart, 2000; Zohar & Luria, 2005). Examining multiple, interrelated factors simultaneously has contributed much to our understanding of worker safety in recent years. 1.1. Safety Climate Research has demonstrated that safety climate relates to workers’ safety behaviors and accidents/injuries (Christian, Bradley, Wallace, & Burke, 2009; Clarke, 2006). Safety climate refers to workers’ percep- tions of the priority or value of safety at work in light of competing behaviors and demands. Safety climate includes, but also goes beyond, formal safety rules and procedures — which may not be supported by management, other workers, or even the nature of the job itself. Safety climate is a complex construct. It may be thought of as an individual's perception of how safety is prioritized at work (i.e., psychological climate; cf. James & James, 1989); it may also be conceptualized in terms of shared perceptions (i.e., group climate; cf. James, James, & Ashe, 1990). Additionally, safety climate has different facets or dimensions (i.e., management safety climate, coworker safety climate). Researchers disagree on the number and nature of safety climate dimensions. In a review of the safety climate literature, Flin, Mearns, O'Connor, and Bryden (2000) found 100 different dimensions of safety climate in 18 safety climate scales; the most common themes were management/supervision, safety system, risk, work pressure, and competence. In a recent meta-analysis of person and situation- based predictors of safety behaviors and injuries, Christian et al. (2009) examine seven safety climate dimensions adapted from Neal and Griffin (2004), including management commitment, human resource management practices, safety systems, supervisor support, internal group processes, risk, and work pressure. Yet, these seven dimensions have not been tested as adequately representing the Journal of Safety Research 41 (2010) 475–479 ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 978 821 9855; fax: + 1 860 486 2760. E-mail addresses: Alyssa.McGonagle@UConn.edu (A.K. McGonagle), lkath@sciences.sdsu.edu (L.M. Kath). 0022-4375/$ – see front matter © 2010 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2010.09.002 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Safety Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr