Human resource safety practices and employee injuries.

Workplace safety continues to be a high operational priority facing many organizations across all types of industries. And, as Ruth (2004) notes, injuries oftentimes result from managerial issues, rather than more notable safety issues. Thus, identifying potential steps employers can take in their managerial practices is critical to managing organizational costs, improving effectiveness of public policy and, most important, protecting employees. A recent trend in human resources (HR) research may provide some clarity to the safety research. A number of studies have established the effectiveness of HR practices (Huselid, 1995; McEvoy and Cascio, 1985), establishing an overall consensus that certain "good" HR practices lead to positive organizational outcomes (Delaney and Huselid, 1996; Becker and Gerhart, 1996). Organizational involvement has also been linked to improved safety outcomes (Oliver et al., 2002), but these have not been broken down into specific practices. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the connection between organizational-level HR practices and employee injuries.

Background/Proposed Associations

Since this study is taking an exploratory look at how HR practices will impact employee injuries at the organizational-level, the study focuses on the more easily measurable aspects of the four most basic HR practices-selection, training, employee evaluations, and compensation. These are the practices that have been studied most frequently and have consistently been tied by research to other positive organizational outcomes.

Selection. Past research has indicated organizations may improve their safety outcomes through two primary selection processes: (1) identifying and eliminating individuals unsuited to certain types of work and (2) by hiring for positions that require a very high degree of skill where the cost of accidents as well as the ratio of applicants to positions open is high. Beyond these processes, selection has not been found to be as useful as once hoped in the safety literature (Hale and Hale, 1972). However, empirical evidence continues to indicate that well-designed selection procedures improve overall organizational performance (Terpstra and Rozell, 1993). Thus, selecting applicants for safety (e.g., hiring employees with increased knowledge of safety, based on their past safety performance; asking questions specifically regarding safety in the interview) should have a positive association with organizational performance tied to safety, such as wearing safety equipment and following safety behaviors. These behaviors, in turn, should reduce the number of employee injuries incurred at the organization. Socialization may also occur in the selection process (Anderson and Ostroff, 1997) by emphasizing the organization's safety values to new employees, in turn reducing employee injuries.

Hypothesis 1a: Selecting for safety has a positive association with reduced injuries.

Since selecting specifically for safety (e.g., asking direct questions and discussing safety in the interview process) is not highly practiced in organizations, an exploratory look at how other selection practices (e.g., pre-employment testing, screening for past work experience) may be associated with safety is also undertaken. Although numerous pre-employment tests/selection criteria exist, only criteria that tied with past safety research were explored in this study.

Prior work experience has been one of the longest used screening tools in the selection process. When screening for work experience, organizations typically seek experience in the industry as well as for a specific type of work. In Hansen's (1989) causal model of accidents, he found job experience was one of only two variables that were significant parameters of accident risk. Experience provides employees with knowledge of both general industrial hazards, as well as familiarity with individual machines and components (Hale and Hale, 1972), providing an expectation that increased work experience should be associated with reduced employee injuries.

Several researchers have reported significant correlations between certain aspects of employee personality and safety behaviors (Tiffin and McCormick, 1962; Hansen, 1988). Characteristics such as extroversion (Powell et al., 1971), general social maladjustment, neuroticism, impulsivity, and aggression (Hansen, 1988) have been linked specifically to industrial accidents. Intelligence, as measured by a general aptitude battery or an IQ test, has also been linked to safety outcomes (Tiffin and McCormick, 1962). Individuals involved in increased injuries were found to underestimate risk, overestimate control, and lack understanding of how injury is caused (factors potentially related to intelligence), leading to fewer precautions, less timely action, and increased injuries (Gottfredson, 2004).

Past research has established that alcohol is negatively related to many aspects of employee safety performance, including vision, psychomotor functions, judgment, reasoning and memory (Hale and Hale, 1972). Yet, the research on drug usage and workplace safety has yielded mixed results. Spicer, Miller, and Smith (2003) found the odds of injury among workers increased when an indicator of problem substance use was identified. Whereas Kaestner and Grossman (1998) found a negative link among males, but not among females, and Macdonald (1995) found that a connection with illicit drug use and in juries only held for males and the youngest age group of workers. Normand, Salyards, and Mahoney's (1990) study, looking specifically at the usefulness of pre-employment drug-testing (rather than ability tests while under the influence), did not reveal evidence of a negative link with injuries. Although past findings are mixed, given the pattern of results with ability tests in alcohol-related research, a link between usage of both alcohol and drug-testing and decreased injuries is expected.

Additionally, pre-employment physicals may prevent employees from performing duties beyond their physical capabilities, or identify areas where employees need additional strength/ conditioning training. Spence (1998) indicates that an individual assessment of abilities is important as each patient presents a different pattern of behavioral strengths and weaknesses, requiring a tailored approach. Further, some jobs are noted as needing minimum physical standards (Sothmann et al., 2005) to ensure job performance and potentially reduce injuries.

Hypothesis 1b: Using selection practices that screen for prior work experience, personality, intelligence, alcohol, drugs, and physical ability has a positive association with reduced injuries.

Training. Training is one of the HR practices most commonly discussed in the literature as a way to improve employee safety. This study examines training on both safe work procedures and the importance of safety. Training impacts employees by improving their skills and abilities, as well as by communicating what is important. Training is an "essential component" because organizations rely on frontline employee skill and initiative to identify and resolve problems and to initiate changes in work methods (Pfeffer and Veiga, 1999: 43). These aspects are important to safety, because organizations need employees to help identify and resolve potential safety issues. Training employees on attitudes and beliefs toward safety has been shown effective (DeJoy et al., 2000; Harvey et al., 2001). Training interventions on the supervisor and employee level have been associated with reduced lost-time injuries and injury costs (Harshbarger and Rose, 1991), a decrease in minor-injury rates, an increase in protective equipment usage, and improved safety climate ratings (Zohar, 2002). Training also provides communication. As injuries occur and organizations learn what behavior should be changed, these changes need to be communicated to all employees (Dougherty, 1997).

Hypothesis 2: Safety training has a positive association with reduced injuries.

Performance Evaluations. Performance evaluations may also establish organizational values. Performance evaluation involves identifying, measuring, revising, and developing human performance in organizations (Carroll and Schneier, 1982). This study examines whether or not safety is included as a part of overall employee evaluations, as well as whether feedback is provided to employees regarding their safety performance. By including safety on employee evaluations, management communicates the importance of safety to employees. McAfee and Winn's (1989) review found consistency across research regarding the importance of feedback on safety to employees. Research has also demonstrated that factors emphasized by performance evaluation influences the safety behaviors employees follow. In PateCornell's (1990) study of oil exploration companies, organizations with a high rate of injuries emphasized speed over safety on performance evaluation. Cooper (2001) suggests what gets measured and rewarded is what gets done well. Ingalls (1999) supports this viewpoint, indicating companies should identify measures reflecting organizational initiative and promoting well-being and safe performance.

Hypothesis 3: Evaluation of safety has a positive association with reduced injuries.

Compensation. Tying rewards (e.g., bonuses, pay, incentives, company perks) to safety indicates to employees the importance an organization places on safety. However, when tying compensation to safety, organizations must make sure that increased safe behavior, not reduced injury reporting, is reinforced. Collinson (1999) found that safety bonuses encouraged employees not to report injuries. Other studies, contrary to Collinson's, found that incentives actually improved safety performance (e.g., Harshberger and Rose, 1991). Perhaps the best support for the use of incentives is McAfee and Winn's (1989) review of twenty-four different studies that used incentives and/or feedback on safety for employees. Positive results (higher usage of protective equipment or lower numbers of injuries) were found in each of these studies.

Hypothesis 4a: Individual safety rewards have a positive association with reduced injuries.

Organizations and researchers continue to debate whether to reward groups or individuals for safety. Hoffman and Stetzer (1996) found both individual-level and group-level variables were associated with unsafe behaviors. Group compensation is most often used to improve the link between compensation and teamwork (Bartol and Hagmann, 1992). Lawler (1971) indicates that group compensation is most effective when employees believe cooperation will pay off. Many groups operate interdependently and perform tasks that affect others within the organization (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996). This interdependence occurs in safety when individuals "actively care" about each other (Hoffman and Stetzer, 1998), reiterating safety values. Employees may behave more safely with group safety rewards, since their actions affect several individuals.

Hypothesis 4b: Group safety rewards have a positive association with reduced injuries.

METHOD

Survey Distribution/Sample

Sampling Procedure/Respondents. A sample was obtained from the Association of Business and Industry and Safety Councils in a Midwest state. Because the use of HR practices across organizations in general was of interest, the study was open to organizations in all industries (type of industry was controlled for in later analyses). Fifty-four organizations completed the survey with 48 providing complete, useable data. Instructions asked organizations to have their top safety officer, CEO, HR Manager, or most knowledgeable individual of the organization's safety practices to complete the survey. Of the organizations responding, over half (51.9%) had multiple respondents. Organizations were classified into eight categories identified in OSHA's yearly reports. The majority (89%) of the responding organizations were from manufacturing (61.1%; including organizations manufacturing both durable and nondurable goods), services (16.7%; including personal, business, amusement and recreation, and health services), and transportation and public utilities (11.1%; including trucking and warehousing, communications, electric, gas, and sanitary services) industries. Agriculture (production of crops and livestock), mining (metal and nonmetallic minerals), finance (depository institutions, insurance carriers, agents, and brokers), wholesale and retail trade (trade of both durable and nondurable goods), and construction (building contractors and heavy construction) each had two or less organizations responding. Responding organizations employed anywhere from 4 to 6,000 employees (analyses controlled for industry size).

Measures

Independent Variables. The survey asked about selection, training, performance evaluation, and compensation practices associated with safety in the organization. New measures were developed for each of the independent variables in order to directly test the hypotheses. The survey requested that respondents answer Likert items based on a 1-5 scale (not at all = 1, great extent = 5). The items developed to assess each practice were examined using confirmatory factor analysis. Due to the low sample size, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Fan et al., 1999; Hu and Bentler, 1999) were examined. Fit indices ranged from .7 to .97. Although fit indices for performance evaluation and training were low, the scales were still included as fit indices may be negatively biased in small samples (Fan et al., 1999). Cronbach's alpha was estimated to determine internal consistency of each scale. These reliability coefficients were then used to correct for measurement error in the observed correlations. The resulting disattenuated correlations were used in the regression models (Schmidt and Hunter, 1996).

Selection. The five-item scale asked respondents to what extent employees are hired based on such criteria as their knowledge of safe work procedures and past safety performance, and if safety and the organization's safety policies are discussed in the interview process. Cronbach's alpha was .86, indicating a fairly reliable scale. Additionally, six questions about general selection practices were included. Respondents were asked to indicate to what extent (on a five-point scale) each of the following selection requirements/tests are used within the organization: prior work experience, personality-testing, intelligence-testing, drug-testing, alcohol-testing, and pre-employment physicals.

Training. The eight-item scale asked respondents to what extent safety training existed within their organization. Respondents were asked questions such as to what extent employees are trained on safe work procedures, if employees receive training on why safety is important, and if safety training is kept up-to-date. Cronbach's alpha (.97) indicated a reliable scale.

Performance Evaluation. Respondents were asked to answer six items about performance evaluation, including questions such as to what extent is safety emphasized and incorporated into employee evaluations, as well as to what extent employees receive formal and/or informal feedback about safety. Cronbach's alpha (.89) indicated the scale to be reliable.

Compensation. Eight items were developed for compensation (four asking about individual and four about group compensation). The scale asked questions such as to what extent individual employees were rewarded for safe behaviors and/or did individual employees receive compensation for not getting injured, as well as were employees rewarded for safety behaviors as a group and/or did employees receive compensation as a group for not getting injured. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated individual and group compensation were two separate factors. The reliabilities of the scales were fairly high (individual compensation = .87, group compensation = .91), indicating both of the scales to be reliable.

Dependent Variables. The organizational safety measure was obtained from the past five years of OSHA 300 logs (or an accident reporting sheet) provided by the safety officers. Organizational safety outcomes were measured as the average number of injuries, weighted for seriousness (based on type of injury and medical treatment required). The weighting was completed based on findings from Vredenburgh's (1998) study. In this study, Vredenburgh had twelve individuals in the medical field rate the seriousness of injuries. These ratings were then converted into an interval scale using Thurstone's discriminate model, the law of comparative judgment. From this, z-scores reflecting the interval separating the injuries in their severity were determined. The z-scores were then summed and averaged to express the severity value for each injury type, with the lowest injury type value being added to each of the other values to eliminate negative values. The scale values were from 0.0 to 3.92. This study then took the average number of injuries, weighted for seriousness, over a five-year period. Random fluctuation in reporting injuries was controlled for by figuring the reliability (.78) of injuries reported for one year, and then determining the reliability of the average injuries across five years (.95). This was then used to correct the correlations to help account for random fluctuation of responses over time (Schmidt and Hunter, 1996). The dependent variable was figured in this manner to provide a continuous safety measure for each of the organizations, while taking into account as many factors of injury variability as possible.

Control Variables. Size of the organization was measured with a single, open-ended item, asking "Approximately how many people are in your organization?" (Minimum = 4, Maximum = 6,000, Mean = 489). Type of industry was measured with a single open-ended item, asking "Type of industry." The organizations were then classified using OSHA's categorizations: agriculture, forestry and fishing; construction; manufacturing; transportation and public utilities; wholesale and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services. These industries were then broken into high risk and low risk based on incidence rates per industry in OSHA records.

Analyses

Examining Respondents' Agreements. Because there were multiple survey respondents from organizations, the intraclass correlations (ICC) of the responses were determined (Bliese, 2000). The mean ICC was found to be .83 (Minimum = .64, Maximum = .96). Because the ICCs were fairly high, the means from each organization's responses were used for the analyses.

Hypothesis Testing. The proposed associations were tested by regressing employee injuries on the predictor and control variables (industry type, organizational size). Support for the hypothesis is found if the beta weight is negative and the confidence interval around the beta weight does not include zero (a 90% confidence interval was used due to the small sample size).

RESULTS

Findings

Correlations and Descriptives. Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations for all measures are reported in Table 1. Contrary to expectations, the correlations between the independent and dependent variables all had confidence intervals including zero.

Hypotheses. The first proposed hypothesis was tested by regressing injuries on the selection predictor variable and control variables. The standardized beta-weight for injuries is -.02, and has a confidence interval that includes zero (CI = -.28, .23), thus not supporting a link between selection for safety and reduced injuries (see Table 2).

The connections between general selection practices (prior work experience, personality-testing, intelligence-testing, drug-testing, alcohol-testing, and pre-employment physicals) and injuries were examined using additional regression analysis (Table 3). Of these practices, both prior work experience and drug-testing resulted in non-zero regression weights ([beta] = -.31; CI = -.54, -.08; [beta] = -.46; CI = -.83, -.08, respectively). These findings suggest that hiring for prior work experience and conducting pre-employment drug-testing are associated with lower numbers of workplace injuries, indicating partial support for Hypothesis 1b.

The second proposed hypothesis was tested by regressing injuries on the training predictor variable and control variables (industry type and organizational size). The results showed the association between training and injuries was low and positive ([beta] = .12) and the confidence interval included zero (CI = -.14, .38). Therefore, support for the hypothesis that training practices are positively associated with organizational safety outcomes was not found (see Table 2).

The third proposed hypothesis was tested by regressing injuries on the performance evaluation variable and control variables. The standardized beta weight for injuries is -.17, and has a confidence interval that includes zero (CI = -.42, .09), thus not supporting a connection between performance evaluation and reduced injuries (see Table 2).

Hypothesis 4a was tested by regressing injuries on the individual compensation predictor variable and control variables (see Table 2). The connection between individual compensation with injuries ([beta] = -.27) was negative and the confidence intervals around this beta-weight did not include zero (CI = -.51, -.03), thus supporting the hypothesis that individual safety rewards are associated with reduced injuries. Hypothesis 4b was then tested by regressing injuries on the group compensation predictor variable and control variables (see Table 2). The link between group compensation and injuries ([beta] = -.39) was negative and did not include zero (CI = -.63, -.15), thus indicating support for the hypothesis that group compensation practices are associated with reduced injuries. Further, the beta-weight of group compensation ([beta] = -.39) was larger than for individual compensation ([beta] = -.27), indicating that group compensation may potentially have a stronger association with injury outcomes than individual compensation.

The connection between individual and group compensation and injuries was tested further by regressing injuries on both individual and group compensation and the control variables simultaneously (see Table 4). The beta-weight for individual compensation ([beta] = -.12) was still negative, but the confidence interval around the beta-weight included zero (CI = -.38, .14). Whereas the beta-weight for group compensation ([beta] = -.33) was negative and the confidence interval around the beta-weight did not include zero (CI = -.61, -.06). Thus, when including both individual and group compensation, individual compensation's link with injuries no longer existed, indicating group compensation has the strongest association with reduced injuries.

DISCUSSION

Some of the findings in this study confirmed past findings and others provided interesting additions to the literature. Selecting for safety per se had not been studied much in the past, though some individual differences leading to injuries had been identified (Tiffin and McCormick, 1962; Arthur et at, 1991; Powell et at, 1971). Although failing to produce support for general selection of safety, this study found both prior work experience and drug-testing were associated with safety outcomes. The results for drug-testing added to the mixed findings, contrasting Normand et al.'s (1990), but supporting Spicer et al.'s (2003) findings. The work experience association supports Hansen's (1989) findings.

In contrast to several recent findings (Reber et al., 1993; Lehto and Salvendy, 1995; Harshbarger and Rose, 1991), this study did not find a connection between training and organizational safety outcomes. This lack of findings may be due to the training measure as it includes both supervisory and employee training. Although Harshbarger and Rose (1991) found that training was important at both levels, Harvey et al. (2001) found training was more important at the supervisory level. Training is also an aspect of safety more regulated by OSHA, perhaps decreasing the difference in the training practices across organizations. Performance evaluation also was not associated with safety in this study. This finding may be due to how performance evaluation was operationalized. Both formal performance evaluations and more general feedback questions were included, whereas most often studies examine the more general feedback and derive this measure from the employees (McAfee and Winn, 1989).

The examination of compensation's association with safety outcomes produced one of the key findings in this study. Consistent with past research, this study found that compensating for safety is associated with a lower number of injuries (Harshberger and Rose, 1991; McAfee and Winn, 1989; Zohar and Fussfeld, 1981). Although past research has found that a variety of compensation methods have positive effects (McAfee and Winn, 1989), individual and group safety compensation had not been compared previously.

Implications

Theoretical. This study's finding that group compensation has a stronger association with organizational safety outcomes than individual compensation suggests that researchers should perhaps revisit what creates a safe environment. Is a safer environment produced when employees work more as a group versus individually? If so, then perhaps group compensation needs to be an organization's focus. This contradicts past research that has been more supportive of individual compensation (Bartol and Locke, 2000). However, the importance of team interaction as noted by Hoffmann and Stetzer (1996) in reinforcing safety may make group pressure or shared norms more salient in safety, requiring reinforcement at the group level.

The findings that selecting specifically for safety does not have an impact on safety, but that more general selection practices (drug-testing and prior work experience) do have an impact, also have theoretical implications. Do selection practices need a direct link to outcomes sought, or may an indirect link be as effective? If so, organizations may be able to select for multiple organizational performance outcomes using a single, general selection practice.

Managerial. Some HR safety practices were found to have an association with employee injuries, indicating improvements in safety go beyond ergonomics and engineering aspects. Oftentimes safety outcomes are potential indicators of managerial practices (Ruth, 2004) rather than indicators of an ergonomically unsafe environment. Management needs to be able to indicate to employees that safety is more important than performance (Mullen, 2004). This can be done through a multitude of practices, a few of which have been indicated in this study, although these are far from comprehensive. Hiring for prior work experience and drug-testing are indicated to be good safety practices. This provides the prospect that organizations should consider the potential of altering their selection practices to take safety into account. However, using drug-testing as a selection practice has been noted in past research to have its limitations (Macdonald, 1997, 1995; Normand et al., 1990). Thus, organizations need to take into account a cost and benefit analysis, and examine the population that they will be screening prior to implementing this practice.

Further, compensation for safety (particularly at the group level) is found to be important. Organizations should seek rewards that help encourage employee support of safety practices. The importance of these rewards is discussed by Mullen (2004) who found that often employees would receive pressure to simply "get the job done." Organizations also need to maintain caution in not deterring employees from reporting injuries (Collinson, 1999). Overall, these findings encourage organizations to expand use of HR practices to help improve overall safety.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. One of the most notable is the small sample size which increases capitalization on chance, and indicates results are likely not completely representative of the population value. Further, because of the reduced power due to the smaller sample size, impact was difficult to detect, and chances of replicating findings are reduced. The measures of the HR safety practices may also represent a weakness. Because of the lack of existing measures, new items were developed for this study. CFAs indicated some support for the scales, but fit indices indicate that training and performance evaluation should be investigated further. Also, measures were all collected from upper-management. Although this provided a more accurate measure of company policies and organizational-level practices, some information on what actually was occurring may have been lost. The dependent variable measures were also a limitation. In order to get the most consistent information across companies as possible, OSHA information was used. However, this information provides only injuries serious enough to report, resulting in the low base rate of the injury criterion, potentially reducing the estimated correlations. Transient error was also unable to be fully corrected for in the measures of the independent variable. This most likely caused the correlation and regression estimates to be conservative, reducing the probability of detecting an impact of HR safety practices. However, despite the small sample size and conservative estimates, this study still supports the impact of HR safety practices on organizational injuries.

Future Research

This study just touches on the vast aspects of Human Resource practices that may actually impact organizational safety outcomes. There are many additional questions that arise from this research, as well as other areas that need to be explored. When examining the selection process, drug-testing continues to be elusive in what is being measured and its importance to the organization. Whereas alcohol-testing can determine the amount a person is under the influence, drug-testing is simply an indicator of whether or not an individual has recently had drugs in their system (Macdonald, 1995). Drug-testing may also be an indicator of other life-style characteristics (Macdonald, 1995) that are also predictors of job injuries. Additionally, variation on location and type of work where selection practices may be more beneficial should be considered. Association between selection practices and different types of industries needs to be considered, as jobs that have high psychological and emotional demands (Swaen et al., 2004) have been found to have a higher risk of occupational injury. When examining prior work experience, cognitive reasoning behind why an injury occurred could be examined. Curry, Quinn, Atkins, and Carlson (2004) hypothesize that the experience factor is lessened because employees' view of risk on a job is reduced over time. Thus, the inexperienced worker may have an injury due to lack of knowledge and information, whereas an experienced worker may simply take additional risks. Other pre-employment tests should also be included in future research, as Wallace and Vodanovich (2003) found scales, such as the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and Blunder factor, associated with workplace accidents.

When examining rewards for safety in future research, additional individual factors should be taken into consideration. Sims (2004: 103) discusses the "human desire to be heroic," indicating not just rewards, but human nature itself, might impact the lack of injury reporting. Additionally, as organizations are beginning to pilot safety reward programs based on risk reduction (Sheehy, 2004), rather than reduced numbers of injuries, differences in the types of safety incentive programs and employees' reactions toward them should be explored. Additional control variables should also be explored. Although this study had a relatively low number of unionized companies participate, unionization and its effect on safety has continued to be debated (Reardon, 1996). Age also should be examined more as Salminen (2004) found that younger workers had a higher injury rate, but a lower fatality rate.

Conclusion

This study begins the important integration of the human resource and safety literatures, as well as providing findings that HR practices are associated with employee injuries. This provides organizations with some potential steps they can take to improve employee safety. However, this study only begins to touch on issues that may make a significant difference in organizational safety, calling for future studies to continue defining what and how HR practices may be associated with reducing employee injuries.

References

Anderson, N. and C. Ostroff. 1997. "Selection as Socialization." Chapter in International Handbook of Selection and Assessment. Eds. N. Anderson and P. Herriot. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 413-440.

Arthur, W.J., G. V. Barrett and R. A. Alexander. 1991. "Prediction of Vehicular Accident Involvement: A Meta-analysis." Human Performance 4: 89-105.

Bartol, K. M. and L. L. Hagmann. 1992. "Team-based Pay Plans: A Key to Effective Teamwork." Compensation and Benefits Review 24: 9.

--and E. A. Locke. 2000. "Incentives and Motivation." Chapter in Compensation in Organizations: Progress and Prospects. Eds. S. Rynes and B. Gerhart. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press. pp. 104-147.

Becker, B. and B. Gerhart. 1996. "The Impact of Human Resource Management on Organizational Performance: Progress and Prospects." Academy of Management Journal 39: 779-801.

Bliese, P. D. 2000. "Within-group Agreement, Non-independence, and Reliability: Implications for Data Aggregation and Analysis." Chapter in Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. Eds. K.J. Klein and S. W. Kozlowski. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. pp. 349-381.

Carroll, S.J. and C. E. Schneier. 1982. Performance Appraisal and Review Systems: The Identification, Measurement, and Development of Performance in Organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Collinson, D. L. 1999. "Surviving the Rigs: Safety and Surveillance in North Sea Oil Installations." Organization Studies 20: 579-600.

Cooper, D. 2001. "Treating Safety as a Value." Professional Safety 46: 17-21.

Curry, D. G., R. D. Quinn, D. R. Atkins and T. C. G. Carlson. 2004. "Injuries and the Experienced Worker." Professional Safety 49: 30-34.

DeJoy, D. M., C. A. Searcy, L. R. Murphy and R. R. M. Gershon. 2000. "Behavior-Diagnostic Analysis of Compliance with Universal Precautions among Nurses." Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5: 127-141.

Delaney, J. T. and M. A. Huselid. 1996. "The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance." Academy of Management Journal 39: 949-969.

Dougherty, T. M. 1997. "Reinforcing Safety Values in People." Professional Safety 42: 20-26.

Fan, X., B. Thompson and L. Wang. 1999. "Effects of Sample Size, Estimation Methods, and Model Specification on Structural Equation Modeling Fit Indexes." Structural Equation Modeling 6: 56-83.

Gottfredson, L. S. 2004. "Intelligence: Is it the Epidemiologists' Elusive 'Fundamental Cause' of Social Class Inequalities in Health?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 (1): 174-199.

Guzzo, R. A. and M. W. Dickson. 1996. "Teams in Organizations: Recent Research on Performance and Effectiveness." Annual Review of Psychology 47: 307-338.

Hale, A. R. and M. Hale. 1972. A Review of the Industrial Accident Literature. London: HMSO.

Hansen, C. P. 1989. "A Causal Model of the Relationship among Accidents, Biodata, Personality, and Cognitive Factors." Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 81-90.

--. 1988. "Personality Characteristics of the Accident Involved Employee." Journal of Business and Psychology 2: 346-365.

Harshbarger, D. and T. Rose. 1991. "New Possibilities in Safety Performance and the Control of Workers Compensation Costs." Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 1: 133-143.

Harvey, J., H. D. Bolam, D. Gregory and G. Erdos. 2001. "The Effectiveness of Training to Change Safety Culture and Attitudes within a Highly Regulated Environment." Personnel Review 30: 615-646.

Hoffman, D. A. and A. Stetzer. 1998. "The Role of Safety Climate and Communication in Accident Interpretation: Implication from Negative Events." Academy of Management Journal 41: 644-657.

--and--. 1996. "A Cross-level Investigation of Factors Influencing Unsafe Behaviors and Accidents." Personnel Psychology 49: 307-339.

Hu, L. and P. M. Bentler. 1999. "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives." Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1-55.

Huselid, M. A. 1995. "The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance." Academy of Management Journal 38: 635-672.

Ingalls, T. S. 1999. "Using Scorecards to Measure Safety Performance." Professional Safety 44: 23-28.

Kaestner, R. and M. Grossman. 1998. "The Effect of Drug Use on Workplace Accidents." Labour Economics 5 (3): 267-294.

Lawler, E. E., III. 1971. Pay and Organizational Effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Lehto, M. and G. Salvendy. 1995. "Warnings: A Supplement Not a Substitute for Other Approaches to Safety." Ergonomics 38: 2155-2163.

Macdonald, S. 1997. "Work-place Alcohol and Other Drug Testing: A Review of the Scientific Evidence." Drug and Alcohol Review 16: 251-259.

--. 1995. "The Role of Drugs in Workplace Injuries: Is Drug Testing Appropriate?" Journal of Drug Issues 25: 703-722.

McAfee, R. B. and A. R. Winn. 1989. "The Use of Incentives/Feedback to Enhance Workplace Safety: A Critique of the Literature." Journal of Safety Research 20: 7-19.

McEvoy, G. M. and W. F. Cascio. 1985. "Strategies for Reducing Employee Turnover: A Meta-analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 70: 342-353.

Mullen, J. 2004. "Investigating Factors that Influence Individual Safety Behavior at Work." Journal of Safety Research 35: 275-285.

Normand, J., S. D. Salyards and J. J. Mahoney. 1990. "An Evaluation of Pre-employment Drug Testing." Journal of Applied Psychology 75: 629-639.

Oliver, A., A. Cheyne, J. Tomas and S. Cox. 2002. "The Effects of Organizational and Individual Factors on Occupational Accidents." Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75: 473-488.

Pate-Cornell, M. E. 1990. "Organizational Aspects of Engineering System Safety: The Case of Offshore Platforms." Science 250: 1210-1217.

Pfeffer, J. and Veiga. J. F. 1999. "Putting People First for Organizational Success." Academy of Management Executive 13: 43.

Powell, P. I., M. Hale, J. Martin and M. Simon. 1971. 2,000 Accidents. London: National Institute of Industrial Psychology.

Reardon, J. 1996. "The Effect of the United Mine Workers of America on the Probability of Severe Injury in Underground Coal Mines." Journal of Labor Research 17: 238-252.

Reber, R. A., J. A. Wallin and D. L. Duhon. 1993. "Preventing Occupational Injuries Through Performance Management." Public Personnel Management 22: 301-311.

Ruth, J. M. 2004. "Not Everything is a Safety Problem." Occupational Health and Safety 73:14-15.

Salminen, S. 2004. "Have Young Workers More Injuries Than Older Ones? An International Literature Review." Journal of Safety Research 35: 513-521.

Schmidt, F. L. and J. E. Hunter. 1996. "Measurement Error in Psychological Research: Lessons from 26 Research Scenarios." Psychological Methods 1: 199-223.

Sheehy, E.J. 2004. "Effective Safety Incentives." Professional Safety 49: 40-48.

Sims, B. Jr. 2004. "Do Incentives Programs Lead to Injury Hiding?" Occupational Health and Safety 73: 102-104.

Sothmann, M. S., D. L. Gebhardt, T. A. Baker, G. M. Katell and V. A. Sheppard. 2004. "Performance Requirements of Physically Strenuous Occupations: Validating Minimum Standards for Muscular Strength and Endurance." Ergonomics 47: 864-875.

Spence, S. H. 1998. "Cognitive-behavior Therapy in the Management of Upper Extremity Cumulative Trauma Disorder." Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 8: 27-45.

Spicer, R. S., T. R. Miller and G. S. Smith. 2003. "Worker Substance Use, Workplace Problems and the Risk of Occupational Injury: A Matched Case-control Study." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64: 570-578.

Swaen, G. M. H., L. P. G. M. van Amelsvoort, U. Bultmann, J. J. M. Slangen and I.J. Kant. 2004. "Psychosocial Work Characteristics as Risk Factors for Being Injured in an Occupational Accident." Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 46: 521-527.

Terpstra, D. E. and E. J. Rozell. 1993. "The Relationship of Staffing Practices to Organizational Level Measures of Performance." Personnel Psychology 46: 27-48.

Tiffin, J. and E.J. McCormick. 1962. Industrial Psychology. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Vredenburgh, A. G. 1998. "Safety Management: Which Organizational Factors Predict Hospital Employee Injury Rates?" Dissertation Abstracts International 59 (11). San Diego, CA.

Wallace, J. C. and S. T. Vodanovich. 2003. "Can Accidents and Industrial Mishaps be Predicted? Further Investigation into the Relationship between Cognitive Failure and Reports of Accidents." Journal of Business and Psychology 17: 503-514.

Zohar, D. 2002. "Modifying Supervisory Practices to Improve Subunit Safety: A Leadership-based Intervention Model." Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 156-163.

--and N. Fussfeld. 1981. "Modifying Earplug Wearing Behavior by Behavior Modification Techniques." Journal of Safety Research 3: 41-52.

Kristy J'Lyn Lauver

Assistant Professor of Management

University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between HR Safety Practices, Control Variables, and Injury Outcomes Variable Mean N SD 1 1. Selection .70 54 .86 (.86) 2. Training .99 54 .03 .38 * 3. Performance Evaluation .97 54 .03 .54 * 4. Individual Compensation 1.72 52 .80 .28 * 5. Group Compensation 1.86 52 1.01 .35 * 6. Industry (high/low risk) .80 54 .41 .26 * 7. Organizational Size 530.43 53 1044.00 .31 * 8. Injuries (per 100 employees) 26.86 48 24.08 .06 Variable 2 3 4 5 1. Selection .42 * .62 * .32 * .40 * 2. Training (.97) .85 * .24 * .21 3. Performance Evaluation .79 * (.89) .35 * .31 * 4. Individual Compensation .22 .31* (.87) .60 * 5. Group Compensation .19 .28* .53 * (.91) 6. Industry (high/low risk) .35 * .30* .25 * .38 * 7. Organizational Size .11 .16 .06 -.01 8. Injuries (per 100 employees) .22 -.04 -.16 -.20 Variable 6 7 8 1. Selection .28 * .33 * .06 2. Training .35 * .11 .23 3. Performance Evaluation .32 * .17 -.05 4. Individual Compensation .27 * .06 -.17 5. Group Compensation .39 * -.01 -.22 6. Industry (high/low risk) (--) -.18 -.32 7. Organizational Size -.18 (--) -.05 8. Injuries (per 100 employees) -.31 * -.05 -.95 * Indicates correlations with 90% confidence intervals which do not include zero. Upper diagonal correlations are corrected for measurement error. Diagonal cells are Cronbachs alpha. Table 2 Regression of Injuries on HR Practices

Injuries (per 100 employees) Variable [beta] R2 R

(Shrunken R2) (Shrunken R) Step 1: Control Industry Type .34 .11 .33

(.07) (.26) Organizational Size .05 Step 2: Selection Selection -.02 .11 .33

(.04) (.21) Step 1: Control Industry Type .28 .11 .33

(.07) (.26) Organizational Size .02 Step 2: Training Training .12 .12 .34

(.06) (.24) Step 1: Control Industry Type .40 .11 .33

(.07) (.26) Organizational Size .09 Step 2: Performance Evaluation Performance -.17 .13 .36

Evaluation (.07) (.26) Step 1: Control Industry Type .43 .12 .34

(.07) (.27) Organizational Size .07 Step 2: Individual Compensation Individual -.27 .18 .42

Compensation (.12) (.35) Step 1: Control Industry Type .50 .12 .34

(.01) (.11) Organizational Size .05 Step 2: Group Compensation Group Compensation -.39 .24 .49

(.19) (.43)

Injuries (per 100 employees) Variable [DELTA] R2 90% CI Step 1: Control L H Industry Type .11 .08 .61 Organizational Size -.21 .31 Step 2: Selection Selection .00 -.28 .23 Step 1: Control L H Industry Type .11 .02 .55 Organizational Size -.24 .27 Step 2: Training Training .01 -.14 .38 Step 1: Control L H Industry Type .11 .14 .66 Organizational Size -.17 .34 Step 2: Performance Evaluation Performance .02 -.42 .09

Evaluation Step 1: Control L H Industry Type .12 .17 .68 Organizational Size -.17 .31 Step 2: Individual Compensation Individual .07 -.51 -.03

Compensation Step 1: Control L H Industry Type .12 .25 .75 Organizational Size -.18 .29 Step 2: Group Compensation Group Compensation .13 -.63 -.15 Table 3 Regression of injuries on General Selection Practices

Injuries (per 100 employees) Variable [beta] [R.sup.2] R

(Shrunken [R.sup.2]) (Shrunken R) Step 1 Industry Type .34 .11 .34

-.07 -.27 Organizational Size .16 Step 2 Prior Work -.31 .37 .61

Experience -.24 -.49 Personality-testing .21 Intelligence-testing -.07 Drug-testing -.46 Alcohol-testing .12 Pre-employment .13

Physical

Injuries (per 100 employees) Variable DELTA] [R.sup.2] 90% CI Step 1 L H Industry Type .11 .13 .67 Organizational Size -.08 .39 Step 2 Prior Work .26 -.54 -.08

Experience Personality-testing -.04 .45 Intelligence-testing -.31 .17 Drug-testing -.83 -.08 Alcohol-testing -.20 .43 Pre-employment -.15 .40

Physical Table 4 Regression of Injuries on Both Individual and Group Compensation Practices

Injuries (per 100 employees) Variable [beta] [R.sup.2] R

(Shrunken [R.sup.2]) (Shrunken R) Step 1 Industry Type .51 .12 .34

-.07 -.27 Organizational .06

Size Step 2 Individual -.12 .18 .42

Compensation -.12 -.35 Step 3 Group -.33 .25 .50

Compensation -.18 -.42

Injuries (per 100 employees) Variable [DELTA] [R.sup.2] 90% CI Step 1 L H Industry Type .12 .26 .77 Organizational -.17 .30

Size Step 2 Individual .07 -.38 .14

Compensation Step 3 Group .07 -.61 -.06

Compensation