Organizational Climate

The study of motivation is the study of action (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). It is a study of why people are doing what they do. Motivation is defined as the set of psychological progresses that result in initiation, direction, intensity, and persistence of behaviour” (Fey, 2005). Mitchell (1982) defined motivation as the “degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specified manner”. Mullins (1996) gives a three-part classification of successful motivation: Economic rewards, intrinsic satisfaction, and social relationships. These needs help determine motivation and performance.

Maslow (1943) suggested that motivation involves effort, persistence, and goals. An unsatisfied need is the starting point in the motivation

Neal, Griffin & Hart (2000) first proposed that organizational climate has a significant impact on safety climate and safety performance. Organizational climate referred to leadership, roles, and communication (James & McIntyre, 1996) which can influence the interactions among employees (Griffin & Mathieu, 1997), attitudes towards organizational achievement (Griffin, 1996) and affective responses to work environment (Michela et al., 1995; Hart et al., 1996a). Organizational climate was perceived by the significance of the environment for individual values, and it exerted a strong impact on individual motivation to achieve job performance (Brown & Leigh, 1996). Besides, Morrison et al. (1997) suggested that organizational climate can have effect on knowledge and skills by increasing participation in training. Neal, Griffin and Hart (2000) found that organizational climate brought a significant impact on safety climate, and safety climate in turn was correlated to safety compliance (of safety regulations and procedures) and safety participation (of safety-related activities). Besides, safety knowledge and motivation was found to have significant partial mediation effect in the relationship between safety climate and safety performance. Later, Griffin & Neal (2000) focused the study on perception on safety (safety climate) within organization and developed a model of

A series of analyses examined the effects of top-down and bottom-up processes operating simultaneously over time. From the perspective of top-down effects, the result found an average positive safety climate within groups in year 2 predicted subsequent changes in individual safety motivation in year 4 and was correlated with subsequent changes in safety behavior. This lagged relationship between group safety climate to individual safety motivation and individual safety participation suggested that safety climate and safety motivation can have important and lasting impacts on safety behavior. This finding only found significant to safety participation than safety compliance. It described that motivation is a stronger determinant of contextual performance than task performance, because contextual behaviors are more discretionary (Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit, 1997). Besides, the results suggested a reciprocal relationship between safety motivation and safety participation over time. It explicated that behavior of participating in safety activities received positive award and encouragement, in turn, increase the motivation to perform further activities. Consequently, from the perspective of bottom-up effects, found improvements in the average level of safety behavior within