The Relationship between Safety Climate and Job Satisfaction Among Employees in a Tire Manufacturing Company

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3361384/v1

Download PDF

Article

The Relationship between Safety Climate and Job Satisfaction Among Employees in a Tire Manufacturing Company

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3361384/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

This research aimed to investigate the influence of safety climate on job satisfaction and determine the relative importance of these variables among employees employed in a tire manufacturing organization. A descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was conducted involving 280 individuals working in a tire manufacturing company. The data collection process involved the utilization of Dante's job satisfaction questionnaire and the NOSACQ Nordic Safety climate questionnaire. Data analysis was performed using the software SPSS version 29.0 and R programming language version 4.2.2. The findings revealed that individuals who had not experienced workplace accidents exhibited significantly higher levels of job satisfaction compared to those who had encountered such incidents. Moreover, the results of multiple regression analysis demonstrated a significant relationship between job satisfaction and factors including overall safety climate score, history of workplace accidents, and educational status. These findings undeniably underscore the crucial role of safety climate in influencing employees' job satisfaction levels within the tire manufacturing industry.

Biological sciences/Psychology

Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour

Job Satisfaction

Safety Climate

Accidents

Dante

Nordic

Questionnaire

Establishing a positive safety culture is a fundamental prerequisite for all types of organizations and human societies. Consequently, organizations invest significant resources in investigating and enhancing this matter, which may not always yield the intended outcomes. Therefore, the development and execution of culture-building plans must adhere to specific criteria; neglecting these criteria can lead to the depletion of organizational resources, demoralization of personnel, and a lack of motivation among leaders ¹. The significance of safety climate is linked to its predictive capacity for safe conduct. This predictive ability produces significant outcomes in safety, including risk perception, accident reduction, and injury prevention ^2–5.

The evaluation of safety climate enables an individual to comprehend how to construe, assess, or appraise the actions taken by safety managers, the significance and worth assigned to safety within the organization, the tolerable level of risk, the attitude of co-workers toward safety, and other related factors ⁶.

Although most managers recognize the significance of participating in safety and welfare initiatives for their employees, only a small number of managers are willing to jeopardize or infringe upon safety regulations. Through a meta-analysis Clarke revealed that the correlation between safety climate and safety conduct was partly attributable to job-related attitudes, including organizational commitment and job satisfaction. In addition, the relationship between safety climate and occupational accidents was partly associated with both safety behavior and overall health ⁷.

Job satisfaction is a subjective emotional sentiment experienced by an individual regarding their occupation. This affective response to a job arises from comparing the job with the most desirable jobs. Job satisfaction represents the psychological connection that employees have with their work ⁸. Characteristics of the work environment, such as information, materials, and physical surroundings, have a significant impact on employee job satisfaction ⁹.

Safety-climate models are shifting toward a narrow definition that provides limited insight into the means by which perceived safety climate is connected to overall work-related attitudes and behaviors that are crucial for organizational effectiveness. When employees perceive a positive safety climate within the organization, indicating a prioritization of safety and a commitment to safety, this can increase their sense of commitment and satisfaction with the organization, thereby promoting positive behavior, a phenomenon referred to as "positive contagion" ¹⁰. The Job Characteristics Model ¹¹ posits that enhancing the sense of usefulness, responsibility, and use of knowledge and skills can result in elevated job satisfaction and performance. Work adjustment theory ¹² predicts that when employees comprehend the necessity of a safe work environment, they will exhibit more positive attitudes. Moreover, based on the psychological contract between employees and employers, it is the employer's responsibility (commitment) to ensure sufficient safety measures, demonstrate management commitment towards employee safety, and reduce occupational hazards, which can lead to a positive attitude and safe behavior among employees ¹³. Job satisfaction, which refers to an individual ’s favorable emotional reaction towards their job, can influence their motivation to adhere to safety regulations and invest greater effort into engaging in safety initiatives. As such, job satisfaction can serve as a predictor of safety compliance and participation in safety-related activities ¹⁴.

The correlation between safety climate and job satisfaction has been minimally explored in the literature. McCaughey et al. (2013) conducted a study that demonstrated how occupational injuries and illnesses had an adverse impact on the safety perception of healthcare workers in their work environment. The authors contended that a deficient safety climate in the workplace has an unfavorable association with the well-being of healthcare workers. In essence, experiencing occupational injuries or illnesses is a crucial factor that can lead to negative perceptions of the safety climate in the work environment, which can affect job stress, job satisfaction, and the decision to seek alternative employment ¹⁵. Research on psychological and safety climate in the workplace examines experimental and environmental factors as potential origins of employee attitudes towards safety climate in the workplace ^16–19. There is a dearth of research in Iran regarding the association between safety climate and job satisfaction. Rohollahi et al. (2015) investigated the correlation between various dimensions of safety climate and safety practices in the aviation industry ²⁰. The precise evaluation of safety climate is vital as it can facilitate the identification and evaluation of potential workplace issues, enhance employee performance, and decrease the incidence of accidents.

The aim of this study was to explore the impact of safety climate on job satisfaction and to evaluate the relative significance of each of these variables among employees working in a tire manufacturing organization.

This cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study aimed to examine the correlation between job satisfaction and employee safety climate within a tire manufacturing company. The study population comprised employees of the company (N = 1035). Using the Cochran formula and a simple random sampling method, a sample of 280 individuals was selected for this study. The sample was stratified based on the number of personnel in each of the three administrative units (135), production (500), and engineering (400), with corresponding percentages of 13%, 48.3%, and 38.7%, respectively. By multiplying these percentages by the total number of personnel in each unit, the number of participants in the sample was determined to be 36, 135, and 109, respectively.

For data collection, one questionnaire was used which included three parts: (a) individual and professional characteristics; (b) job satisfaction (using Dante's job satisfaction questionnaire, which was developed in the framework of the Herzberg two-factor theory and containing 36 items on motivational factors (internal factors) and health factors (extrinsic factors) used in the Likert spectrum. (c) Nordic safety climate questionnaire, which has 50 questions and 8 dimensions: 1) Management safety priority and commitment to safety, 2) Workgroup safety priority and commitment, 3) Learning, communication and innovativeness, 4) Management safety justice, 5) Trust in management, 6) Trust in co-worker safety competence, 7) Trust in the general efficacy of safety systems, and 8) Safety empowerment. The scoring method of this questionnaire was based on a 4-degree Likert scale. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the Herzberg Job Satisfaction Questionnaire was 0.94 and Kulder Richardson coefficient for each dimension of the NOSACQ Nordic Safety climate questionnaire were 0.923, 0.926, 0.770, 0.770, 0.686, 0.831, 0.805 and 0.942 respectively. In this study, the software SPSS version 29.0 and R programming language version 4.2.2 was used for data analysis.

The researchers provided a detailed explanation of the study ’s objectives to the participants, who expressed their willingness to participate. Subsequently, the questionnaires were distributed among the staff. Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from Iran University of Medical Sciences (Grant No: IR.IUMS.REC.1397.192).

The demographic characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1. All participants in the study were male. The median age of the participants in the study was 35 years. The majority of participants had a high school diploma (N = 154, 55%) and were employed in the manufacturing sector (N = 125, 44.6%). Most participants in the study had 10 to 20 years of work experience (N = 164, 61.1%). Additionally, most participants in the study had no history of workplace incidents (N = 249, 88.9%). [Table 1 near here]

Table 1

Frequency distribution and descriptive statistics of the demographic characteristics
		Frequency	Percent	Median (Q1, Q3)
Education	Secondary Education	62	22.1
	Diploma	154	55
	Upper Diploma	64	22.9
job title	Engineering	114	40.7
	Productive	125	44.6
	Administrative	37	13.2
	Supervisor	4	1.4
history of accident	Yes	31	11.1
history of accident	No	249	88.9
Age	30>	27	9.6	35.0 (32.0, 40.0)
	45 − 30	218	77.9
	60 − 45	35	12.5
Work Experience (year)	10>	73	25.8	12.0 (9.0, 18.0)
	20 − 10	168	61.1
	> 20	39	13.1

The results of descriptive statistics showed that the range of job satisfaction scores was 177 with an interquartile range of 58, indicating a moderate level of job satisfaction for the individuals under study. The minimum score of job satisfaction was 47, and the maximum score was 245. Additionally, it was observed that the median score of work safety climate was 149 with an interquartile range of 27.5. The minimum score of work safety climate was 113, and the maximum score was 224.

According to the Mean Rank regarding job satisfaction, Responsibility was the most important dimension with a Mean Rank of 8.36. Work condition and Supervision technical followed in second and third place with Mean Rank of 7.14 and 6.74, respectively.

Regarding safety climate, Workers' trust in the efficacy of safety systems was the most important dimension with an average rank of 5.98. Workers' safety commitment and Safety communication, learning, and trust in co-worker safety competence ranked second and third with Mean Rank of 5.12 and 3.83, respectively (Table 2). [Table 2 near here]

Table 2

The scores of job satisfaction level, work safety climate, and their dimensions for the individuals under study
	Dimention	Median (Q1, Q3)
Total score of job satisfaction		177.0 (144.00, 202.00)
Total score of safety climate		149.0 (138.50, 166.00)
Job Satisfaction			Mean Rank
Dimension1 in job satisfaction	Responsibility	6.8 (5.75, 7.00)	8.36
Dimension2 in job satisfaction	Relations with peers	5.5 (4.50, 7.00)	6.36
Dimension3 in job satisfaction	Work condition	6.3 (5.00, 6.75)	7.14
Dimension4 in job satisfaction	Possibility of growth	5.8 (4.50, 6.40)	6.51
Dimension5 in job satisfaction	Company policy & administration	5.0 (3.50, 6.25)	5.22
Dimension6 in job satisfaction	Relations with superior	5.5 (4.00, 6.50)	6.09
Dimension7 in job satisfaction	Supervision technical	6.0 (4.17, 7.00)	6.74
Dimension8 in job satisfaction	salary	2.0 (1.00, 4.00)	2.24
Dimension9 in job satisfaction	Advancement	3.8 (2.80, 4.80)	3.78
Dimension10 in job satisfaction	Security	2.5 (1.00, 4.00)	2.56
Safety Climate
Dimension1 in safety climate	Management safety priority, commitment and competence	2.7 (2.56, 2.89)	2.5
Dimension2 in safety climate	Management safety empowerment	3.0 (2.57, 3.43)	3.69
Dimension3 in safety climate	Management safety justice	3.0 (2.67, 3.33)	3.78
Dimension4 in safety climate	Workers’ safety commitment	3.2 (3.00, 3.83)	5.12
Dimension5 in safety climate	Workers’ safety priority and risk non-acceptance	2.9 (2.71, 3.29)	3.13
Dimension6 in safety climate	Safety communication, learning, and trust in co-worker safety competence	3.0 (2.88, 3.38)	3.83
Dimension7 in safety climate	Workers’ trust in the efficacy of safety systems	3.7 (3.00, 4.00)	5.98

The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test indicated that there is a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) among educational groups in terms of overall job satisfaction scores and dimensions 2, 5, 7, and 9 of the job satisfaction questionnaire. The post-hoc Dunn test revealed that individuals with a Secondary education level had significantly higher overall job satisfaction scores compared to individuals with a Diploma education level (P < 0.05) (Table 3). [Table 3 near here]

Table 3

Comparing job satisfaction scores and their dimensions among educational groups
	Education level	Median (Q1, Q3)	P-value
Total score of job satisfaction	Secondary Education	190.00 (172.00, 203.00) b	0.011
	Diploma	170.00 (142.00, 198.00) a
	Upper Diploma	183.00 (148.00, 209.00) ab
Responsibility	Secondary Education	6.75 (6.00, 7.00)	0.096
	Diploma	6.38 (5.50, 7.00)
	Upper Diploma	6.63 (6.00, 7.00)
Relations with peers	Secondary Education	6.00 (5.00, 7.00) b	0.018
	Diploma	5.00 (3.50, 6.50) a
	Upper Diploma	6.00 (5.00, 7.00) ab
Work condition	Secondary Education	6.50 (5.75, 6.75)	0.051
	Diploma	5.75 (4.75, 6.75)
	Upper Diploma	6.25 (5.13, 6.88)
Possibility of growth	Secondary Education	6.00 (5.00, 6.40)	0.051
	Diploma	5.60 (4.00, 6.40)
	Upper Diploma	6.00 (4.80, 6.60)
Company policy & Administration	Secondary Education	5.50 (4.25, 6.50) b	0.006
	Diploma	4.75 (3.25, 5.75) a
	Upper Diploma	5.00 (4.13, 6.50) ab
Relations with superior	Secondary Education	5.88 (5.00, 6.50)	0.225
	Diploma	5.25 (4.00, 6.50)
	Upper Diploma	5.75 (3.63, 6.63)
Supervision technical	Secondary Education	6.33 (5.00, 7.00) b	0.023
	Diploma	5.67 (4.00, 6.67) a
	Upper Diploma	6.33 (3.50, 7.00) ab
salary	Secondary Education	2.33 (1.00, 3.67)	0.965
	Diploma	1.67 (1.00, 4.00)
	Upper Diploma	1.83 (1.00, 4.00)
Advancement	Secondary Education	4.40 (3.20, 5.00) b	0.042
	Diploma	3.40 (2.40, 4.60) a
	Upper Diploma	3.70 (3.00, 4.90) ab
Security	Secondary Education	3.50 (1.50, 4.00)	0.58
	Diploma	2.50 (1.00, 4.00)
	Upper Diploma	2.50 (1.00, 4.00)

The results of the Kruskal-Wallis test indicated that there is no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) among occupational groups in terms of job satisfaction scores and its dimensions (Table 4). [Table 4 near here]

Table 4

Comparing job satisfaction scores and their dimensions among occupational groups
	Occupational groups	Median (Q1, Q3)	P-value
Total score of job satisfaction	Engineering	176.00 (152.00, 203.00)	0.071
	Productive	176.00 (131.00, 202.00)
	Administrative	187.00 (164.00, 202.00)
	Supervisor	167.00 (118.00, 220.00)
Responsibility	Engineering	6.75 (5.50, 7.00)	0.135
	Productive	6.50 (5.75, 7.00)
	Administrative	7.00 (6.25, 7.00)
	Supervisor	5.88 (5.75, 6.50)
Relations with peers	Engineering	5.50 (4.00, 7.00)	0.385
	Productive	5.00 (4.50, 6.50)
	Administrative	6.00 (5.00, 7.00)
	Supervisor	5.75 (5.00, 6.75)
Work condition	Engineering	6.25 (5.00, 7.00)	0.112
	Productive	6.00 (5.00, 6.50)
	Administrative	6.50 (5.50, 7.00)
	Supervisor	4.88 (2.75, 7.00)
Possibility of growth	Engineering	5.80 (4.40, 6.40)	0.059
	Productive	5.40 (4.00, 6.40)
	Administrative	6.00 (5.60, 6.60)
	Supervisor	4.90 (2.80, 7.00)
Company policy & Administration	Engineering	5.25 (3.50, 6.75)	0.128
	Productive	4.75 (3.25, 5.75)
	Administrative	5.00 (4.50, 6.50)
	Supervisor	5.00 (3.00, 7.00)
Relations with superior	Engineering	5.25 (4.00, 6.50)	0.254
	Productive	5.25 (3.75, 6.50)
	Administrative	6.00 (5.25, 6.50)
	Supervisor	5.00 (3.00, 7.00)
Supervision technical	Engineering	6.00 (4.67, 7.00)	0.152
	Productive	5.67 (4.00, 7.00)
	Administrative	6.33 (5.33, 6.67)
	Supervisor	5.00 (3.00, 7.00)
salary	Engineering	2.33 (1.00, 4.00)	0.196
	Productive	2.00 (1.00, 3.33)
	Administrative	1.67 (1.00, 4.00)
	Supervisor	3.50 (3.00, 4.50)
Advancement	Engineering	3.80 (3.00, 5.00)	0.269
	Productive	3.40 (2.60, 4.60)
	Administrative	3.80 (3.20, 4.80)
	Supervisor	3.00 (2.60, 4.00)
Security	Engineering	3.00 (1.00, 4.50)	0.285
	Productive	2.50 (1.00, 4.00)
	Administrative	2.50 (1.00, 4.00)
	Supervisor	2.75 (1.50, 4.50)

The results of the Whitney test indicated that there is a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) in the overall job satisfaction scores and dimensions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the job satisfaction questionnaire between individuals who have experienced workplace accidents and those who have not. The individuals who have not experienced workplace accidents had significantly higher scores compared to those who have experienced workplace accidents (Table 5). [Table 5 near here]

Table 5

) The relationship between job satisfaction and accident history in the workplace
	History of accident	Median (Q1, Q3)	P-value
Total score of job satisfaction	yes	152.00 (125.00, 195.00)	0.005
Total score of job satisfaction	no	182.00 (148.00, 202.00)	0.005
Responsibility	yes	6.25 (5.00, 6.75)	0.015
Responsibility	no	6.75 (6.00, 7.00)	0.015
Relations with peers	yes	5.00 (3.00, 6.50)	0.095
Relations with peers	no	6.00 (4.50, 7.00)	0.095
Work condition	yes	5.50 (3.00, 6.50)	0.023
Work condition	no	6.25 (5.00, 6.75)	0.023
Possibility of growth	yes	4.60 (3.40, 6.20)	0.004
Possibility of growth	no	5.80 (4.80, 6.40)	0.004
Company policy & Administration	yes	3.25 (2.00, 5.50)	0.001
Company policy & Administration	no	5.00 (3.75, 6.25)	0.001
Relations with superior	yes	3.75 (3.50, 6.50)	0.015
Relations with superior	no	5.50 (4.25, 6.50)	0.015
Supervision technical	yes	4.00 (3.00, 6.00)	< .001
Supervision technical	no	6.00 (4.67, 7.00)	< .001
salary	yes	2.00 (1.00, 4.33)	0.911
salary	no	2.00 (1.00, 4.00)	0.911
Advancement	yes	3.60 (3.00, 4.60)	0.525
Advancement	no	3.80 (2.60, 4.80)	0.525
Security	yes	2.50 (1.00, 3.50)	0.370
Security	no	2.50 (1.00, 4.00)	0.370

The results of the Spearman correlation test indicated that there is a statistically significant inverse relationship (P < 0.05) between overall job satisfaction score and age, as well as work experience of individuals (Table 6). [Table 6 near here]

Table 6

The relationship between age, work experience, and job satisfaction and its dimensions
		Age	Work Experience
Total score of job satisfaction	Correlation Coefficient	− .272^**	− .333^**
Total score of job satisfaction	P-value	< .001	< .001
Responsibility	Correlation Coefficient	-0.086	− .148^*
Responsibility	P-value	0.154	0.014
Relations with peers	Correlation Coefficient	− .186^**	− .262^**
Relations with peers	P-value	0.002	< .001
Work condition	Correlation Coefficient	− .168^**	− .224^**
Work condition	P-value	0.005	< .001
Possibility of growth	Correlation Coefficient	− .226^**	− .273^**
Possibility of growth	P-value	< .001	< .001
Company policy & Administration	Correlation Coefficient	− .236^**	− .270^**
Company policy & Administration	P-value	< .001	< .001
Relations with superior	Correlation Coefficient	− .251^**	− .288^**
Relations with superior	P-value	< .001	< .001
Supervision technical	Correlation Coefficient	− .210^**	− .225^**
Supervision technical	P-value	< .001	< .001
salary	Correlation Coefficient	− .118^*	− .152^*
salary	P-value	0.049	0.011
Advancement	Correlation Coefficient	-0.117	− .180^**
Advancement	P-value	0.051	0.003
Security	Correlation Coefficient	-0.03	-0.065
Security	P-value	0.617	0.282

The results of the Spearman correlation test indicated that there is a statistically significant positive relationship (P < 0.05) between overall job satisfaction score and safety climate score. In other words, as the safety climate score increases, job satisfaction level significantly increases (Table 7). [Table 7 near here]

Table 7

The relationship between job satisfaction scores and its dimensions with safety climate scores and its dimensions
		Total score of safety climate	Management safety priority, commitment and competence	Management safety empowerment	Management safety justice	Workers’ safety commitment	Workers’ safety priority and risk non-acceptance	Safety communication, learning, and trust in co-worker safety competence	Workers’ trust in the efficacy of safety systems
Total score of job satisfaction	Correlation Coefficient	.997^**	.518^**	.695^**	.701^**	.713^**	.619^**	.728^**	.503^**
Total score of job satisfaction	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
Responsibility	Correlation Coefficient	.558^**	.267^**	.574^**	.470^**	.333^**	.304^**	.386^**	.328^**
Responsibility	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
Relations with peers	Correlation Coefficient	.746^**	.246^**	.472^**	.458^**	.549^**	.475^**	.621^**	.445^**
Relations with peers	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
Work condition	Correlation Coefficient	.754^**	.359^**	.689^**	.541^**	.475^**	.444^**	.462^**	.392^**
Work condition	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
Possibility of growth	Correlation Coefficient	.787^**	.450^**	.579^**	.536^**	.568^**	.503^**	.595^**	.332^**
Possibility of growth	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
Company policy & Administration	Correlation Coefficient	.789^**	.399^**	.556^**	.529^**	.590^**	.431^**	.600^**	.351^**
Company policy & Administration	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
Relations with superior	Correlation Coefficient	.819^**	.449^**	.525^**	.602^**	.581^**	.556^**	.591^**	.352^**
Relations with superior	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
Supervision technical	Correlation Coefficient	.786^**	.432^**	.553^**	.534^**	.566^**	.547^**	.585^**	.289^**
Supervision technical	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
salary	Correlation Coefficient	.561^**	.333^**	.313^**	.392^**	.383^**	.356^**	.450^**	.349^**
salary	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
Advancement	Correlation Coefficient	.711^**	.350^**	.447^**	.518^**	.424^**	.514^**	.476^**	.403^**
Advancement	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001
Security	Correlation Coefficient	.431^**	.392^**	.378^**	.349^**	.284^**	.280^**	.297^**	.308^**
Security	P-value	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001	< .001

The results of the bivariate analysis showed that variables such as age, work experience, educational status, history of workplace accidents, and safety climate score have a statistically significant relationship with job satisfaction score. Therefore, in order to examine the effect size of these variables and model fit, a Multiple Quantile Regression model was used, and the results are shown in Table 8. [Table 8 near here]

Table 8

The impact of safety climate on job satisfaction with the moderation of other variables (four-way regression analysis)
Parameter	Coefficient	Std. Error	P-value	95% Confidence Interval
Parameter	Coefficient	Std. Error	P-value	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
(Intercept)	-86.176	7.7545	0.000	-101.443	-70.909
Total score of safety climate	1.696	0.043	< 0.001	1.611	1.781
Work Experience	-0.192	0.1501	0.202	-0.488	0.104
[history of accident = yes]	-7.496	3.1199	0.017	-13.639	-1.353
[history of accident = No]	0^c	.	.	.	.
[diploma = no]	5.344	2.3366	0.023	0.744	9.944
[diploma = yes]	0^c	.	.	.	.
[Upper Diploma = no]	5.888	2.7466	0.033	0.48	11.296
[Upper Diploma = yes]	0^c	.	.	.	.

The results of the Multiple Quantile Regression showed that the variables of overall safety climate score, history of workplace accidents, and educational status have a statistically significant relationship with overall job satisfaction score (P < 0.05). The regression model had a coefficient of determination (R Square) of 0.675, indicating that approximately 67.5% of the variance in job satisfaction score can be explained by these variables.

Specifically, for every one-unit increase in the safety climate score, while holding the effects of other variables constant, the predicted job satisfaction score increases by 1.70 units (P < 0.001). On the other hand, individuals with a history of workplace incidents have a predicted job satisfaction score that is 7.50 units lower than those without a history of incidents, when controlling for other variables (P = 0.017).

Regarding educational status, it was observed that individuals with a secondary education have a predicted job satisfaction score that is 5.34 units higher than those with a high school diploma, when other variables are held constant (P = 0.023). Furthermore, individuals with a secondary education have a predicted job satisfaction score that is 5.88 units higher than those with a university education (P = 0.023).

These findings suggest that safety climate, history of workplace incidents, and educational status are important factors influencing overall job satisfaction (Fig. 1). [Fig. 1 near here]

This study aimed to investigate the impact of safety climate on job satisfaction among employees in a tire manufacturing company. Additionally, the study examined the dimensions of Dante's job satisfaction questionnaire and the NOSACQ Nordic Safety climate questionnaire in terms of their importance and influence. Furthermore, the study examined the influence of demographic and occupational factors such as age, education level, job experience, job title, and previous workplace accidents on job satisfaction among the participants. Moreover, the extent of the impact of each dimension of the safety climate questionnaire on the dimensions of the job satisfaction questionnaire was also examined.

In contrast to the majority of studies conducted on the relationship between age and job satisfaction, which have found a positive and significant correlation, the present study yielded a significant inverse relationship among the participants. Thomas and Feldman (2008) have shown that job satisfaction decreases with age ²¹. Furthermore, an investigation conducted by Judge et al. (2001) revealed that older employees often exhibit higher degrees of job satisfaction when compared to their younger counterparts ²². Moreover, a separate study conducted by Warr and Inceoglu (2012) found that older workers frequently demonstrate a more congruous alignment between their individual characteristics and the demands of their respective job roles, thereby contributing to elevated levels of job satisfaction ²³. Therefore, the findings of the current study regarding the relationship between age and job satisfaction were not consistent with previous studies conducted on Thomas and Feldman and Judge et al. and Warr and Inceoglu.

The inverse relationship between age and job satisfaction can be attributed to several reasons. As individuals age, their expectations and goals related to their job may change. They may evaluate their job satisfaction based on their achievements and professional progress. If there is a mismatch between these expectations and the reality of their job, it can lead to a decrease in job satisfaction. Moreover, Job opportunities may vary with age. Younger individuals may seek growth and advancement opportunities in their careers, while older individuals may focus more on maintaining stability and professional establishment. If the job opportunities do not align with individuals' expectations and needs, it can diminish job satisfaction. Furthermore, as individuals age, their energy and activity levels may decrease. This can result in a sense of reduced capability and lower satisfaction with their job, as individuals may not be able to fully utilize their desired level of performance in their work. In addition, during younger ages, individuals may actively seek to establish social relationships and networks in the workplace. However, as they transition through different life stages, their networking and social activities may decline. This can lead to a decrease in job satisfaction and a sense of isolation and detachment in the workplace.

Furthermore, in this study, a significant inverse relationship between work experience and job satisfaction was observed among the sampled individuals. The existence of a negative correlation between work experience and job satisfaction can be attributed to various reasons. Over time, individuals may become fatigued by the repetitive nature and predictability of their job. This fatigue can lead to a decrease in motivation and job satisfaction. In addition, if there are limited or inadequate opportunities for professional growth in the work environment, individuals may feel that their potential is not being realized in their career. This can result in dissatisfaction and a decrease in motivation and interest in the job. Furthermore, as time goes by, the likelihood of experiencing tensions and issues in work relationships with colleagues and managers increases. Dissatisfaction with these relationships can contribute to a decrease in job satisfaction. Moreover, over time, job constraints such as repetitive roles, lack of autonomy in decision-making, or reduced job flexibility may increase. These constraints can lead to dissatisfaction and a decrease in job satisfaction.

The relationship between work experience and job satisfaction has been examined in various studies. Judge and Mueller have found a positive relationship between work experience and job satisfaction, indicating that as individuals gain more experience in their jobs, they tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction ²⁴. However, Thomas and Feldman (2008) have shown mixed results, suggesting that the relationship between work experience and job satisfaction may be influenced by other factors such as job characteristics, work environment, and opportunities for advancement ²¹. Therefore, the results regarding the impact of work experience on job satisfaction in this study were not consistent with the findings of the two mentioned studies.

Moreover, in this study, educational levels have a significant relationship with the dimensions of Relations with peers, Company policy & Administration, Supervision technical, and Advancement in the job satisfaction questionnaire. In general, individuals with a Secondary educational level exhibited higher job satisfaction compared to other sampled individuals. Indeed, there are studies that have found a significant positive relationship between educational levels and job satisfaction. A study conducted by Judge et al. (2001) revealed that individuals with higher educational qualifications generally exhibit higher levels of job satisfaction compared to those with lower levels of education ²². Furthermore, research conducted by Warr and Inceoglu (2012) found that individuals with higher levels of education typically experience a better alignment between their skills and the demands of their job ²³. Therefore, the results of this study were not consistent with the findings of the studies conducted by Judge et al. and Warr and Inceoglu on the relationship between educational levels and job satisfaction.

While higher levels of education are generally associated with higher job satisfaction, there are cases where lower levels of education can also be related to high job satisfaction. In certain occupations, extensive knowledge and skills are not necessary, and lower levels of education may be sufficient. In such cases, individuals with lower levels of education may have the best fit with their job and be satisfied with this alignment. In addition, Job satisfaction can depend on work conditions and facilities. For some individuals, factors such as a friendly work environment, opportunities for career growth, or access to suitable resources and equipment may hold greater importance than educational attainment. Therefore, individuals with lower levels of education may experience high job satisfaction if these conditions are met. Some individuals may derive satisfaction from their job and professional growth within it, without a high need for advanced education. In such cases, higher job satisfaction can result from the fulfillment of specific job-related needs and capabilities.

Moreover, in this study, occupational groups did not show significant differences in relation to overall job satisfaction scores and its dimensions. Although there is typically a correlation between job levels and job satisfaction, the strength and simplicity of this relationship are not always guaranteed. There are circumstances where the connection between job levels and job satisfaction can be constrained or feeble. Job satisfaction is influenced by psychological factors such as personal values, psychological needs, motivation, and satisfaction derived from a sense of progress. These factors can serve as primary determinants of job satisfaction, with job levels being just one of the physical and organizational factors that influence it. Factors related to the work environment and organizational culture can have a stronger impact on job satisfaction compared to job levels. For instance, an organizational culture that aligns with individual values and needs, positive interpersonal relationships, and employee support can independently enhance job satisfaction, regardless of job levels. The way jobs are designed and managed can influence job satisfaction. If an organization fails to provide adequate structure, task design, and opportunities for career advancement, job satisfaction may be affected irrespective of job levels.

The relationship between job levels and job satisfaction has been examined in several studies. Aamodt (2013) found that individuals in higher job levels are likely to have higher job satisfaction ²⁵. Additionally, Avey et al. (2011) showed that individuals in higher job levels may have greater achievements in their job, which can contribute to increased job satisfaction ²⁶. Therefore, the results of the current study regarding the relationship between job levels and job satisfaction were not in line with the findings of the aforementioned studies.

Having a history of workplace accidents can also have a negative impact on the level of job satisfaction for various reasons. In this study, individuals who had a history of workplace accidents also exhibited lower levels of job satisfaction. Furthermore, in this study, the scores of job satisfaction dimensions, including Responsibility, Work condition, Possibility of growth, Company policy & Administration, Relations with superior, and Supervision technical, obtained from the job satisfaction questionnaire, were lower for individuals with a history of workplace accidents compared to those who did not have such a history. Unfortunate incidents in the workplace can have a psychological impact on employees. These incidents can induce stress, anxiety, and concern, directly affecting job satisfaction. Feelings of insecurity and fear of recurring similar incidents can also diminish job satisfaction. In addition, unfavorable incidents can lead to a change in employees' perceptions and feelings towards the organization. These changes may result in the loss of trust and positive connection with the organization, consequently reducing job satisfaction. Furthermore, workplace incidents may impact working conditions. For example, if an unfortunate incident leads to changes in job organization, increased workload, or a decrease in adequate resources and equipment, these factors can affect job satisfaction. Moreover, workplace incidents can directly or indirectly affect employees' mental and physical health. This can potentially decrease job satisfaction, as employee well-being is a crucial aspect of job satisfaction. Clarke (2010) has shown that there is a relationship between work-related accidents or incidents and job satisfaction. Employees who have experienced work-related accidents or incidents tend to have lower levels of job satisfaction compared to those who have not ²⁷. Probst and Brubaker (2001) found that individuals who have experienced workplace accidents or incidents tend to have lower job satisfaction ²⁸. Therefore, the results of the current study regarding the relationship between work-related incidents and job satisfaction were consistent with the mentioned studies.

A considerable percentage of studies conducted on the relationship between safety climate and job satisfaction indicate a direct correlation between these two variables. The present study also demonstrated a significant and evident impact of safety climate on job satisfaction among the participating individuals, considering the factors employed in the questionnaires used in this study. The findings of this study revealed a positive correlation between safety climate and job satisfaction (Spearman Correlation Coefficient = 0.997, P-value = < 0.001). Furthermore, the study indicated that all dimensions of the job satisfaction questionnaire had a significant positive relationship with safety climate, among which "Relations with superior" exhibited the highest significant positive effect with safety climate (Spearman Correlation Coefficient = 0.819, P-value = < 0.001).

On the other hand, based on the results of multiple regression analysis, in this study, factors such as overall safety climate score, history of workplace accidents, and educational status had a statistically significant relationship with job satisfaction (P < 0.05).

Research consistently demonstrates a positive correlation between safety climate and job satisfaction, indicating that employees who perceive a favorable safety climate within their organization tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction. a meta-analysis conducted by Clarke (2010) revealed that individual perceptions of safety climate are directly linked to employee job satisfaction ²⁷. In a study conducted by Dutra and Guirardello (2021), a moderate correlation was observed between safety climate and job satisfaction among nursing professionals. The study found that a higher perception of safety climate was associated with a higher level of job satisfaction ²⁹. These findings align with previous research that has consistently reported a positive association between safety climate and job satisfaction, as indicated by studies conducted by Alves et al. (2017) ³⁰, Liu et al. (2018) ³¹, Aiken, Sloane, et al. (2011) ³², and Dutra et al. (2018) ³³. Therefore, the results of this study were consistent with the findings of the aforementioned studies.

In summary, the findings unequivocally establish the pivotal role of the safety climate in exerting influence on the job satisfaction of employees within the tire manufacturing industry. This correlation can be ascribed to a multitude of factors. Notably, the provision of a secure and protected work environment has the potential to engender a profound sense of contentment with regard to the overall job settings. Employees, duly aware of the diligent safeguarding of their physical and mental well-being, experience a commensurate reduction in concerns and stress levels, thereby culminating in heightened job satisfaction and augmented mental well-being. The cognizance that their safety is accorded the utmost priority effectively serves to foster a pervasive sense of solace and gratification among the workforce.

Moreover, the influence of a safety climate on motivation and performance cannot be overlooked. When employees perceive that their well-being is esteemed and safeguarded, it has the potential to amplify their trust and admiration for their organization. Consequently, this heightened trust and appreciation can serve as a catalyst for bolstering their motivation, commitment, and devotion to their professional endeavors. Employees who harbor a sense of security and support are more likely to exhibit a proclivity towards pursuing excellence in their performance, thereby culminating in an elevated sense of job satisfaction.

Furthermore, the establishment of a safety climate can play a crucial role in fostering and fortifying positive work relationships. A secure work environment has the potential to cultivate trust and promote collaborative efforts among employees. As individuals experience a sense of security and recognition, they may exhibit a greater inclination towards engaging in constructive and meaningful interactions with their peers and superiors. This, in turn, facilitates the facilitation of effective communication, teamwork, and cooperation, ultimately culminating in elevated levels of job satisfaction.

In the present study, there were limitations that could have had a significant impact on the feasibility of conducting a cross-sectional investigation on job satisfaction and safety climate among the studied individuals. Firstly, there existed a time constraint for data collection and conducting necessary interviews. Given the nature of the cross-sectional study, there was limited time available for these activities, which could have imposed constraints on data aggregation. Secondly, there might have been limitations in terms of financial and human resources. Conducting a comprehensive and thorough study among the studied individuals necessitates substantial resources, including financial and human resources, which may not have been readily available. Thirdly, there could have been constraints in accessing data and information. Certain information might have been confidential or not easily accessible. Therefore, in this study, these aforementioned limitations had to be carefully considered and sensitively examined to appropriately assess their impact on conducting a cross-sectional investigation on job satisfaction and safety climate among the studied individuals.

Acknowledgements

In memory and honor of our great colleague and co-author, Fatemeh Shabani Arbousara, who selflessly contributed to this article. The authors appreciate the support of Iran University of Medical Sciences in granting the present study. Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge the management and employees who collaborated on data collection.

Declaration of interests

The authors declare that they have no declaration of interest.

FirooziChahak, A., BarkhordareiFirozabadei, A. & MirzaeiAlavijeh, M. Assessment of Safety Climate in one of the Mine in Yazd Province. Tolooebehdasht 13, 164–172 (2014).
Smith, G. S., Huang, Y.-H., Ho, M. & Chen, P. Y. The relationship between safety climate and injury rates across industries: The need to adjust for injury hazards. Accident Analysis & Prevention 38, 556–562 (2006).
Larsson, S. Constructing safety: influence of safety climate and psychological climate on safety behaviour in construction industry. (2005).
Cooper, M. D. & Phillips, R. A. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship. Journal of safety research 35, 497–512 (2004).
Silva, S., Lima, M. L. & Baptista, C. OSCI: an organisational and safety climate inventory. Safety science 42, 205–220 (2004).
Zohar, D. Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. Journal of applied psychology 65, 96 (1980).
Clarke, S. An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology 83, 553–578 (2010).
Kardam, B. L. & Rangnekar, S. Job satisfaction: Investigating the role of experience & education. Researchers World 3, 16 (2012).
Meeusen, V. C., Van Dam, K., Brown-Mahoney, C., Van Zundert, A. & Knape, H. Work climate related to job satisfaction among Dutch nurse anesthetists. AANA journal 79, 63–70 (2011).
Morrow, P. C. & Crum, M. R. The effects of perceived and objective safety risk on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior 53, 300–313 (1998).
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. Work redesign. (1980).
Dawis, R. V. & Lofquist, L. H. A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual-differences model and its applications. (University of Minnesota Press, 1984).
Coyle-Shapiro, J. & Kessler, I. Consequences of the psychological contract for the employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of management studies 37, 903–930 (2000).
Probst, T. M. & Brubaker, T. L. The effects of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes: cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of occupational health psychology 6, 139 (2001).
McCaughey, D., DelliFraine, J. L., McGhan, G. & Bruning, N. S. The negative effects of workplace injury and illness on workplace safety climate perceptions and health care worker outcomes. Safety science 51, 138–147 (2013).
Danna, K. & Griffin, R. W. Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of management 25, 357–384 (1999).
Neal, A. & Griffin, M. A. Safety climate and safety at work. The psychology of workplace safety, 15–34 (2004).
Smith-Crowe, K., Burke, M. J. & Landis, R. S. Organizational climate as a moderator of safety knowledge–safety performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24, 861–876 (2003).
Taylor, S. E., Repetti, R. L. & Seeman, T. Health psychology: what is an unhealthy environment and how does it get under the skin? Annual review of psychology 48, 411–447 (1997).
rohollahi, A. Investigation of relationship between different dimensions of safety climate with safety performance among aeronautical industries. Iran Occupational Health Journal 12, 96–107 (2015).
Ng, T. W. & Feldman, D. C. J. J. o. a. p. The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. 93, 392 (2008).
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K. J. P. b. The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. 127, 376 (2001).
Warr, P. & Inceoglu, I. J. J. o. o. h. p. Job engagement, job satisfaction, and contrasting associations with person–job fit. 17, 129 (2012).
Judge, T. A. & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. J. A. r. o. p. Job attitudes. 63, 341–367 (2012).
Aamodt, M. G. Applying psychology to work. (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013).
Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F. & Mhatre, K. H. J. H. r. d. q. Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. 22, 127–152 (2011).
Clarke, S. An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta-analysis. 83, 553–578, doi:https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X452122 (2010).
Probst, T. M. & Brubaker, T. L. J. J. o. o. h. p. The effects of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes: cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. 6, 139 (2001).
Dutra, C. K. d. R. & Guirardello, E. d. B. J. J. o. A. N. Nurse work environment and its impact on reasons for missed care, safety climate, and job satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. 77, 2398–2406 (2021).
Alves, D. & Guirardello, E. Safety climate, emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction among Brazilian paediatric professional nurses. International nursing review 63, 328–335 (2016).
Liu, X. et al. Hospital nursing organizational factors, nursing care left undone, and nurse burnout as predictors of patient safety: A structural equation modeling analysis. 86, 82–89 (2018).
Aiken, L. H. et al. Importance of work environments on hospital outcomes in nine countries. 23, 357–364 (2011).
Dutra, H. S., Cimiotti, J. P. & de Brito Guirardello, E. J. A. N. R. Nurse work environment and job-related outcomes in Brazilian hospitals. 41, 68–72 (2018).

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

The Relationship between Safety Climate and Job Satisfaction Among Employees in a Tire Manufacturing Company

Archived Versions:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Archived Versions:

Version 1