How Safety Climate Influences the Willingness to Stay of Nursing Staff during the COVID-19 Outbreak
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- In a specific social environment (during the outbreak of COVID-19), does the safety climate of aged care institutions and the perception of social panic by the nursing staff in the institutions affect their willingness to stay?
- (2)
- Does the psychological capital of nursing staff in the aged care industry affect their willingness to stay, and what is its role in the process of the safety climate affecting the willingness to stay?
2. Background
2.1. Organizational Safety Climate and Psychological Capital
2.2. Safety Climate and Willingness to Stay
2.3. Psychological Capital and Willingness to Stay
2.4. The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital
2.5. The Direct and Moderating Effects of Social Panic
3. Methods
3.1. Measures
3.2. Sample Selection and Data Collection
3.3. Ethics
4. Results
4.1. Measurement Model
4.1.1. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
4.1.2. Reliability and Validity of the Measures
4.2. Structural Model
4.2.1. Mediation Effect
4.2.2. Moderation Effect
5. Discussion
5.1. Main Findings
5.2. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wu, Z.; Zhang, F.; Tonggui, T. Survey on the status quo of nursing staff in nursing homes. Soc. Welf. 2017, 7, 49–55. [Google Scholar]
- Cowin, L.S.; Johnson, M.; Craven, R.G.; Marsh, H.W. Causal modeling of self-concept, job satisfaction, and retention of nurses. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2008, 45, 1449–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, S.; Cheyne, A. Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 111–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zohar, D. Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1980, 65, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zohar, D.; Luria, G. A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-Level Relationships Between Organization and Group-Level Climates. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 616–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Avey, J.B.; Wernsing, T.S.; Luthans, F. Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change? Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on Relevant Attitudes and Behaviors. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2008, 44, 48–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Avolio, B.J.; Zhu, W.; Koh, W.; Bhatia, P. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moder-ating role of structural distance. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2004, 25, 951–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grusec, J.E. Social Learning Theory and Developmental Psychology: The Legacies of Robert R. Sears and Albert Bandura. Int. J. Dev. Sci. 2020, 14, 67–88. [Google Scholar]
- Jianglin, K.; Dan, W.; Jianmin, S. The influence of psychological capital on work engagement, subjective well-being and silent be-havior: A comparison of interaction effects and effects. Psychol. Behav. Res. 2015, 13, 804–810. [Google Scholar]
- Bergheim, K.; Eid, J.; Hystad, S.W.; Nielsen, M.B.; Mearns, K.; Larsson, G.; Luthans, B. The Role of Psychological Capital in Perception of Safety Climate among Air Traffic Controllers. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2013, 20, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthans, F.; Avolio, B.J.; Avey, J.B.; Norman, S.M. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 2007, 60, 541–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Laschinger, H.K.S.; Grau, A.L. The influence of personal dispositional factors and organizational resources on workplace violence, burnout, and health outcomes in new graduate nurses: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2012, 49, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.-H.; Yen, C.-D. Leadership and turnover intentions of Taiwan TV reporters: The moderating role of safety climate. Asian J. Commun. 2015, 25, 255–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, T.D. An assessment of safety climate, job satisfaction and turnover intention relationships using a national sample of workers from the USA. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2018, 24, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alharbi, A.A.; Dahinten, V.S.; Macphee, M. The relationships between nurses’ work environments and emotional exhaustion, job satisfaction, and intent to leave among nurses in Saudi Arabia. J. Adv. Nurs. 2020, 76, 3026–3038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, I.-H.; Brown, R.; Bowers, B.J.; Chang, W.-Y. Work-to-family conflict as a mediator of the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention. J. Adv. Nurs. 2015, 71, 2350–2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthans, K.W.; Jensen, S.M. The linkage between psychological capital and commitment to organizational mission: A study of nurses. JONA J. Nurs. Adm. 2005, 35, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avey, J.B.; Reichard, R.J.; Luthans, F.; Mhatre, K.H. Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2011, 22, 127–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Larson, M.; Luthans, F. Potential Added Value of Psychological Capital in Predicting Work Attitudes. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2006, 13, 75–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, M.; Raja, U.; Darr, W.; Bouckenooghe, D. Combined Effects of Perceived Politics and Psychological Capital on Job Satisfaction, Turnover Intentions, and Performance. J. Manag. 2012, 40, 1813–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Youssef, C.M.; Luthans, F. Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. J. Manag. 2007, 33, 774–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthans, F.; Avolio, B.J. The “point” of positive organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2009, 30, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Avey, J.B.; Luthans, F.; Jensen, S.M. Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2009, 48, 677–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiangang, Q. Risk panic of extreme events and its implications for administrative legal system. Chin. Law 2010, 2, 59–69. [Google Scholar]
- Law, K.; Dauber, K.; Pan, X. Computational Modeling of Nonadaptive Crowd Behaviors and Ergess Analysis: 2004–2005 CIFE Seed Project Report; CIFE Technical Report; Center for Integrated Facility Engineering: Stanford, CA, USA, 2016; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
- Ying, L. Research on the Influence of Group Panic on the Unsafe Evacuation Behavior of Subway Passengers; Xi’an University of Science and Technology: Xi’an, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, T.; Lin, W. Revision of the Chinese version of the questionnaire on the willingness to stay for nurses. J. Second Mil. Med. Univ. 2010, 31, 925–927. [Google Scholar]
- Sang, S.; Lee, J.-D.; Lee, J. E-government adoption in Cambodia: A partial least squares approach. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2010, 4, 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, N.; Zhou, Z.-M.; Su, C.-T.; Zhou, N. How Do Different Types of Community Commitment Influence Brand Commitment? The Mediation of Brand Attachment. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2013, 16, 836–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Item | Characteristic | Number | Percent |
---|---|---|---|
Sex | Male | 78 | 24.30% |
Female | 243 | 75.70% | |
Age | ≤25 years | 64 | 19.93% |
26–35 years | 74 | 23.06% | |
36–45 years | 130 | 40.5% | |
≥46 years | 53 | 16.51% | |
Education background | High school/secondary school and below | 170 | 52.96% |
College | 79 | 24.61% | |
Undergraduate and above | 67 | 20.87% | |
Master’s degree | 5 | 1.56% | |
Working years | 0–3 months | 56 | 17.45% |
3–6 months | 16 | 4.98% | |
6 months to 1 year | 58 | 18.07% | |
1–2 years | 79 | 24.61% | |
>2 years | 112 | 34.89% | |
Monthly income (USD) | ≤360.75 | 60 | 18.69% |
360.76–505.05 | 52 | 16.20% | |
505.06–649.35 | 128 | 39.88% | |
649.36–793.65 | 59 | 18.38% | |
≥793.66 | 22 | 6.85% |
Variable | Item | Mean Value | Standard Deviation | Factor Loading |
---|---|---|---|---|
Safety climate | SC1 | 5.009 | 1.582 | 0.774 |
SC2 | 4.769 | 1.384 | 0.756 | |
SC3 | 4.844 | 1.51 | 0.84 | |
SC4 | 4.984 | 1.578 | 0.862 | |
SC5 | 4.947 | 1.496 | 0.856 | |
SC6 | 4.863 | 1.551 | 0.816 | |
SC7 | 4.956 | 1.465 | 0.821 | |
SC8 | 4.966 | 1.537 | 0.82 | |
SC9 | 5.019 | 1.575 | 0.819 | |
SC10 | 5.075 | 1.557 | 0.786 | |
SC11 | 5.218 | 1.564 | 0.796 | |
SC12 | 5.112 | 1.585 | 0.789 | |
SC13 | 5.022 | 1.574 | 0.808 | |
SC14 | 5.019 | 1.537 | 0.799 | |
Transactional Psychological Capital | TPC1 | 5.047 | 1.656 | 0.833 |
TPC2 | 4.857 | 1.642 | 0.787 | |
TPC3 | 4.95 | 1.592 | 0.795 | |
TPC4 | 5.019 | 1.549 | 0.801 | |
TPC5 | 5.056 | 1.609 | 0.832 | |
TPC6 | 5.016 | 1.572 | 0.799 | |
TPC7 | 5.09 | 1.579 | 0.809 | |
TPC8 | 5.137 | 1.583 | 0.801 | |
TPC9 | 5.053 | 1.571 | 0.801 | |
TPC10 | 4.991 | 1.586 | 0.766 | |
TPC11 | 4.956 | 1.507 | 0.818 | |
TPC12 | 4.972 | 1.609 | 0.818 | |
TPC13 | 5.04 | 1.553 | 0.809 | |
Interpersonal Psychological Capital | IPC1 | 4.991 | 1.588 | 0.79 |
IPC2 | 5.072 | 1.503 | 0.806 | |
IPC3 | 5.037 | 1.592 | 0.802 | |
IPC4 | 5.012 | 1.573 | 0.802 | |
IPC5 | 4.96 | 1.579 | 0.792 | |
IPC6 | 4.804 | 1.575 | 0.761 | |
IPC7 | 4.953 | 1.608 | 0.763 | |
IPC8 | 5.053 | 1.573 | 0.771 | |
IPC9 | 5.034 | 1.694 | 0.827 | |
IPC10 | 5.006 | 1.614 | 0.813 | |
IPC11 | 4.988 | 1.575 | 0.788 | |
IPC12 | 4.91 | 1.641 | 0.777 | |
IPC13 | 4.963 | 1.55 | 0.776 | |
IPC14 | 4.95 | 1.599 | 0.805 | |
IPC15 | 4.872 | 1.574 | 0.797 | |
IPC16 | 4.854 | 1.652 | 0.829 | |
IPC17 | 4.931 | 1.608 | 0.786 | |
Social Panic | SP1 | 4.754 | 1.832 | 0.738 |
SP2 | 4.745 | 1.844 | 0.78 | |
SP3 | 4.701 | 1.874 | 0.751 | |
SP4 | 4.66 | 1.793 | 0.737 | |
SP5 | 4.984 | 1.58 | 0.834 | |
SP6 | 5.028 | 1.585 | 0.812 | |
Willingness to Stay | WTS1 | 4.738 | 1.502 | 0.842 |
WTS2 | 4.763 | 1.489 | 0.908 | |
WTS3 | 4.879 | 1.406 | 0.909 |
Item | Alpha | CR | AVE | TPC | IPC | SC | WTS | SP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TPC | 0.955 | 0.96 | 0.649 | 0.805 | ||||
IPC | 0.963 | 0.967 | 0.63 | 0.671 | 0.793 | |||
SC | 0.96 | 0.964 | 0.657 | 0.311 | 0.421 | 0.811 | ||
WTS | 0.864 | 0.917 | 0.787 | 0.361 | 0.333 | 0.529 | 0.887 | |
SP | 0.885 | 0.901 | 0.603 | 0.243 | 0.24 | 0.498 | 0.454 | 0.776 |
Variable | Willingness to Stay | Willingness to Stay | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Standardized Coefficient | T Value | Standardized Coefficient | T Value | |
Sex | –0.016 | –0.287 | –0.013 | –0.235 |
Age | –0.068 | –1.525 | –0.069 | –1.41 |
Education background | 0.034 | 0.510 | 0.047 | 0.911 |
Working years | –0.089 | –1.756 | –0.086 | –1.628 |
Transactional psychological capital | 0.341 ** | 6.507 | 0.314 | 5.923 |
Social panic | 0.109 * | 2.080 | 0.092 | 1.750 |
Transactional psychological capital and social panic | −0.144 | −2.707 | ||
R2 | 0.132 | 0. 149 | ||
F value | 25.346 | 19.677 |
Variable | Willingness to Stay | Willingness to Stay | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Standardized Coefficient | T Value | Standardized Coefficient | T Value | |
Sex | –0.02 | –0.367 | –0.016 | –0.238 |
Age | –0.089 | –1.735 | –0.086 | –1.688 |
Education background | 0.035 | 0.742 | 0.068 | 1.281 |
Working years | –0.091 | –1.865 | –0.09 | –1.812 |
Interpersonal psychological capital | 0.315 ** | 5.963 | 0.285 ** | 5.439 |
Social panic | 0.123 * | 2.328 | 0.107 * | 2.048 |
Interpersonal psychological capital and social panic | - | - | −0.189 | −3.597 |
R2 | 0.115 | 0.147 | ||
F value | 21.875 | 19.442 |
Hypothesized Path | Standardized Path Coefficient | T Value | p Value | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1: Safety climate → Psychological capital | 0.311 **/0.421 ** | 4.921/7.013 | 0 | Supported |
H2: Safety climate → Willingness to stay | 0.354 * | 5.354 | 0 | Supported |
H3: Psychological capital → Willingness to stay | 0.197 **/−0.004 | 2.533/0.054 | 0.011/0.957 | Supported |
H4: The mediating role of psychological capital | - | - | - | Supported |
H5: Social panic → Willingness to stay | 0.231 ** | 4.501 | 0 | Supported |
H6: Psychological capital → Willingness to stay | - | - | - | Supported |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, Y.; Liang, C.; Zhao, S.; Ma, Y.; Xie, Y. How Safety Climate Influences the Willingness to Stay of Nursing Staff during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Healthcare 2021, 9, 451. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9040451
Wang Y, Liang C, Zhao S, Ma Y, Xie Y. How Safety Climate Influences the Willingness to Stay of Nursing Staff during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Healthcare. 2021; 9(4):451. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9040451
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Ying, Changyong Liang, Shuping Zhao, Yiming Ma, and Yuguang Xie. 2021. "How Safety Climate Influences the Willingness to Stay of Nursing Staff during the COVID-19 Outbreak" Healthcare 9, no. 4: 451. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9040451
APA StyleWang, Y., Liang, C., Zhao, S., Ma, Y., & Xie, Y. (2021). How Safety Climate Influences the Willingness to Stay of Nursing Staff during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Healthcare, 9(4), 451. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9040451