1. Organizational support and safety outcomes: An un- investigated relationship? Kathryn Mearns & Tom Reader Industrial Psychology Research Centre University of Aberdeen

2. Background Relationship between health investment and LTIs (Mearns, Whitaker & Flin, 2003) Relationship between health investment and LTIs (Mearns, Whitaker & Flin, 2003) Organizational investment in health results in positive employee behaviours (Mearns & Hope, 2005) Organizational investment in health results in positive employee behaviours (Mearns & Hope, 2005) Current study investigates relationship between perceived organizational support (POS); supervisor/co- worker support for health & safety citizenship behaviour Current study investigates relationship between perceived organizational support (POS); supervisor/co- worker support for health & safety citizenship behaviour –POS reflects employees beliefs about an organizations support, commitment and care towards them (Eisenberger, Huntingdon, Hutchison & Sowa,1986), particularly if that support is discretionary –SCB reflects [safety related] discretionary behaviours that go beyond those formally prescribed by the organization and for which there are no direct rewards (Organ, 1988, 1994)

3. Context Offshore industry high-hazard/high-reliability Offshore industry high-hazard/high-reliability Strong focus on SMS and safety training Strong focus on SMS and safety training –Safety management mandatory –Occupational health management mandatory –Little variance between organisations Proactive promotion of personal health, e.g. healthy eating, exercise is discretionary Proactive promotion of personal health, e.g. healthy eating, exercise is discretionary –More variance between organisations –Meets requirement of organizational support

4. Measures Perceived Organisational Support Perceived Organisational Support –13 items from Eisenberger et al.,1986 & Ribisl & Reischl,1993), e.g. operating companys commitment to the well-being of employees Supervisor & Co-worker Support for Health Supervisor & Co-worker Support for Health –14 items from Ribisl & Reischl (1993); 6 for supervisors and 8 for workmates, describing the role that colleagues play in improving and maintaining the respondents health e.g. sympathy afforded by supervisors for health problems & degree to which workmates share health information Safety Citizenship Behaviours Safety Citizenship Behaviours –9 items describing safety behaviours e.g. monitoring safety behaviours of workmates, informing management about safety problems (Geller et al.,1996; Simard and Marchand,1995) All measured on 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 Strongly disagree to 5 Strongly agree Demographics Demographics –Operator/Contractor status, occupation, length of time on installation

5. Results 703 questionnaires returned from 18 offshore installations (overall response rate 35%). 703 questionnaires returned from 18 offshore installations (overall response rate 35%). –fixed production platforms, drilling rigs, well-service vessels and Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessels (FPSOs) –84% of respondents identified themselves as members of core crew –60% claimed they worked for contractor or sub-contractor companies –19% worked on their installation for < 1 year; 45% between 1-5 years; 22% between 6-10 years; 14% more than 10 years. –Maintenance (23%), administration/management (15%), production (13%), construction (11%) and catering (10%) accounted for most occupations

6. Results 1 Table 1 Descriptive statistics (n=692) N = 692Mean Std. Dev. Operator Support Health support from sups Health support from wks Safety Behav Operator Support 3.22.66.95.53 ***.34 ***.29 *** Health support from supervisors 3.70.64.91.37 ***.33 *** Health support from workmates 3.56.67.87.21 *** Safety behaviour 4.16.50.88 Cronbachs Alphas show in bold across the diagonal All correlations significant at the.001 level (2-tailed)

7. Results 2 ModelPredictor variablesStandard Beta t Remaining predictors F(3,688)=35.45, p<.001, R 2 =0.13 Health support from supervisor Operator support Health support from workmates.23.14.08 5.28 *** 3.34 *** 2.05 * Table 2 Stepwise linear regression predicting safety behaviour ***p<.001, *p<.05

8. Conclusions The results indicate that high levels perceived general support from the organisation and specific support from the supervisor in relation to health issues appear to have an impact on safety performance outcomes such as intervening to assist work colleagues and reporting dangers The results indicate that high levels perceived general support from the organisation and specific support from the supervisor in relation to health issues appear to have an impact on safety performance outcomes such as intervening to assist work colleagues and reporting dangers Care and concern for the well-being of workers at the organizational and supervisor level leads to a reciprocal relationship in terms of increased safety behaviour showing that appropriate social exchanges within an organisation may lead to unanticipated benefits in terms of employee performance Care and concern for the well-being of workers at the organizational and supervisor level leads to a reciprocal relationship in terms of increased safety behaviour showing that appropriate social exchanges within an organisation may lead to unanticipated benefits in terms of employee performance Actually, this is not an un-investigated relationship! Actually, this is not an un-investigated relationship! Recent studies, e.g. Craig & Wallace, 2006; Gyekye & Saminen, 2005 have also been addressing similar issues Recent studies, e.g. Craig & Wallace, 2006; Gyekye & Saminen, 2005 have also been addressing similar issues