| Literature DB >> 31662974 |
Suxia Liu1, Emmanuel Gyabeng1, Gilbert Joshua Atteh Sewu1, Nana Kwame Nkrumah1, Bright Dartey1.
Abstract
This study aimed at investigating the effect of occupational health and safety (OHS) on employee's turnover intention (TI) with the mediating effect of organizational commitment (OC) in the Ghanaian power industry. Methods. With stratified sampling technique, 350 participants were selected to participate in the study with standardized quantitative questionnaires to measure the variables involved in the study and SmartPLS 3-structural equation modeling technique to analyze the data. Results. The results showed that (1) occupational health and safety and turnover intention are negatively related (β = 0.245, p < 0.05); (2) there exists a positive relationship between occupational health and safety and organizational commitment (β = 0.820, p < 0.05); (3) organizational commitment and turnover intention are negatively related (β = 0.640, p < 0.05); and (4) organizational commitment significantly mediates the relationship between occupational health and safety and turnover intention (indirect effect = -0.53 and direct effect = -0.25, p < 0.05). Conclusion. Employees satisfied with the health and safety system of their organization tend to be committed to their organization and have low turnover intention, and vice versa.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31662974 PMCID: PMC6778914 DOI: 10.1155/2019/3273045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Research model.
Respondents' demographic characteristics.
| Variable | Characteristics | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | Below 21 | 3 | 0.9 |
| 21–30 | 62 | 17.7 | |
| 31–40 | 133 | 38 | |
| 41–50 | 113 | 32.3 | |
| 51–60 | 39 | 11.1 | |
|
| |||
| Gender | Male | 215 | 61.4 |
| Female | 135 | 38.6 | |
|
| |||
| Level of education | SSCE/WASSCE/technical certificate | 31 | 8.9 |
| Higher national diploma | 63 | 18 | |
| First degree | 148 | 42.3 | |
| Master's degree and above | 108 | 30.9 | |
|
| |||
| Number of years participants have worked for the company (y) | Below 1 | 9 | 2.6 |
| 1–5 yrs | 79 | 22.6 | |
| 6–10 yrs | 123 | 35.1 | |
| 11–15 yrs | 97 | 27.7 | |
| 20 yrs and above | 42 | 12 | |
|
| |||
| Job title | Laborer | 38 | 10.9 |
| Technician | 102 | 29.1 | |
| Engineer | 134 | 38.3 | |
| Others | 76 | 21.7 | |
|
| |||
| Terms of employment | Full-time | 277 | 79.1 |
| Part-time | 73 | 20.9 | |
Factor loadings, means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and average variance extracted.
| Construct | Item | Mean | SD | Factor loading | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job safety (JB) | JB1 | My job is dangerous | 3.050 | 0.969 | 0.898 |
| JB2 | I sometimes think my job is unhealthy | 2.920 | 0.922 | 0.907 | |
| JB3 | I fear for my health | 2.960 | 0.961 | 0.901 | |
| JB4 | My job poses a chance of death | 2.930 | 0.912 | 0.924 | |
|
| |||||
| Coworker safety (CS) | CS1 | My coworkers follow safety rules | 3.580 | 0.938 | 0.911 |
| CS2 | My coworkers keep work area clean | 3.680 | 0.922 | 0.922 | |
| CS3 | My coworkers look out for others safety | 3.640 | 0.953 | 0.924 | |
|
| |||||
| Supervisor safety (SS) | SS1 | My supervisor trains workers to be safe | 3.620 | 0.915 | 0.889 |
| SS2 | My supervisor enforces safety rules | 3.570 | 0.957 | 0.895 | |
| SS3 | My supervisor praises safe work behaviors | 3.510 | 0.978 | 0.89 | |
| SS4 | My supervisor rewards safe work behaviors | 3.470 | 1.006 | 0.86 | |
| SS5 | My supervisor involves workers in setting safety goals | 3.550 | 0.974 | 0.867 | |
|
| |||||
| Management safety (MS) | MS1 | Management provides enough safety training programs | 3.650 | 1.01 | 0.887 |
| MS2 | Management conducts frequent safety inspections | 3.600 | 0.993 | 0.887 | |
| MS3 | Management investigates safety problems quickly | 3.580 | 0.977 | 0.883 | |
| MS4 | Management provides all needed safety equipment | 3.520 | 0.983 | 0.882 | |
| MS5 | Management rewards safe workers | 3.450 | 0.985 | 0.873 | |
|
| |||||
| Safety programs (SP) | SP1 | The safety programs and policies in this organization are worthwhile | 3.650 | 0.924 | 0.905 |
| SP2 | The safety programs and policies in this organization are useful and effective | 3.650 | 0.901 | 0.923 | |
| SP3 | The safety programs and policies are sufficient to prevent accidents | 3.520 | 0.969 | 0.871 | |
|
| |||||
| Affective commitment (AC) | AC1 | I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization | 3.390 | 1.104 | 0.95 |
| AC2 | I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own | 3.500 | 1.088 | 0.944 | |
|
| |||||
| Continuance commitment (CC) | CC1 | Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire | 3.300 | 1.102 | 0.863 |
| CC2 | It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to | 3.320 | 1.092 | 0.928 | |
| CC3 | Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now | 3.230 | 1.108 | 0.921 | |
| CC4 | I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization | 3.380 | 1.066 | 0.911 | |
|
| |||||
| Normative commitment (NC) | NC1 | Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now | 3.270 | 1.079 | 0.897 |
| NC2 | I would feel guilty if I left my organization now | 3.170 | 1.063 | 0.869 | |
| NC3 | This organization deserves my loyalty | 3.570 | 1.068 | 0.894 | |
| NC4 | I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it | 3.490 | 1.088 | 0.933 | |
| NC5 | I owe a great deal to my organization | 3.560 | 1.082 | 0.92 | |
|
| |||||
| Turnover intention (TI) | TI1 | I have always considered leaving my job | 2.500 | 1.248 | 0.912 |
| TI2 | I am frustrated when not given the opportunity to achieve personal work-related goals | 2.850 | 0.911 | 0.573 | |
| TI3 | I often dream about getting another job that will better suit my personal interest | 2.690 | 1.222 | 0.942 | |
| TI4 | It is likely for me to accept another job at the same compensation level should it be offered to me | 2.640 | 1.144 | 0.934 | |
Correlation matrix among constructs.
| AC | CC | CS | JB | MS | NC | OHS | OC | SP | SS | TI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC |
| ||||||||||
| CC | 0.787 |
| |||||||||
| CS | 0.659 | 0.585 |
| ||||||||
| JB | 0.527 | 0.493 | 0.495 |
| |||||||
| MS | 0.755 | 0.674 | 0.754 | 0.503 |
| ||||||
| NC | 0.849 | 0.841 | 0.656 | 0.549 | 0.742 |
| |||||
| OHS | 0.809 | 0.72 | 0.853 | 0.678 | 0.833 | 0.802 |
| ||||
| OC | 0.907 | 0.905 | 0.669 | 0.555 | 0.763 | 0.903 | 0.820 |
| |||
| SP | 0.734 | 0.655 | 0.716 | 0.499 | 0.841 | 0.717 | 0.894 | 0.740 |
| ||
| SS | 0.776 | 0.676 | 0.751 | 0.541 | 0.838 | 0.764 | 0.823 | 0.779 | 0.794 |
| |
| TI | 0.801 | 0.794 | 0.627 | 0.521 | 0.742 | 0.817 | 0.783 | 0.853 | 0.703 | 0.741 |
|
Note. Square root of AVEs is given in diagonal in bold. AC = affective commitment; CC = continuance commitment; CS = coworker safety; JB = job safety; MS = management safety; NC = normative commitment; OHS = occupational health and safety; OC = organizational commitment; SP = safety policies; SS = supervisor safety; TI = turnover intention.
Figure 2Structural equation model.
Results of the mediating analysis.
| Effect | Path | Original sample (O) | Sample mean | SD | T stats |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total effects | OHS–OC | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.02 | 40.83 | 0.0001 |
| OC–TI | −0.65 | −0.65 | 0.07 | 9.66 | 0.0001 | |
|
| ||||||
| Total indirect effect | OHS–TI | −0.78 | −0.78 | 0.02 | 36.38 | 0.0001 |
| OHS–TI | −0.53 | −0.54 | 0.06 | 9.08 | 0.0001 | |
|
| ||||||
| Specific indirect effect | OHS–OC–TI | −0.53 | −0.54 | 0.06 | 9.08 | 0.0001 |
Note. OHS = occupational health and safety; OC = organizational commitment; TI = turnover intention.