In order to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a list of recommended preventative health behaviors for Americans to enact, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and limiting nonessential trips from home. Drawing upon scarcity theory, the purpose of this study was to examine whether the economic stressors of perceived job insecurity and perceived financial insecurity are related to employee self-reports of enacting such behaviors. Moreover, we tested propositions regarding the impact of two state-level contextual variables that may moderate those relationships: the generosity of unemployment insurance benefits and extensiveness of statewide COVID-19-related restrictions. Using a multilevel data set of N = 745 currently employed U.S. workers nested within 43 states, we found that both job insecurity and financial insecurity were negatively related to the enactment of the CDC-recommended guidelines. However, the state-level variables acted as cross-level moderators, such that the negative relationship between job insecurity and compliance with the CDC guidelines was attenuated within states that have a more robust unemployment system. However, working in a state with more extensive COVID-19 restrictions seemed to primarily benefit more financially secure workers. When statewide policies were more restrictive, employees reporting more financial security were more likely to enact the CDC-recommended guidelines compared to their financially insecure counterparts. We discuss these findings in light of the continuing need to develop policies to address the public health crisis while also protecting employees facing economic stressors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Workers and their families bear much of the economic burden of COVID‐19. Even though they have declined somewhat, unemployment rates are considerably higher than before the start of the pandemic. Many workers also face uncertainty about their future employment prospects and increasing financial strain. At the same time, the workplace is a common source of transmission of COVID‐19 and many jobs previously seen as relatively safe are now viewed as potentially hazardous. Thus, many workers face dual threats of economic stress and COVID‐19 exposure. This paper develops a model of workers’ responses to these dual threats, including risk perception and resource depletion as mediating factors that influence the relationship of economic stress and occupational risk factors with COVID‐19 compliance‐related attitudes, safe behavior at work, and physical and mental health outcomes. The paper also describes contextual moderators of these relationships at the individual, unit, and regional level. Directions for future research are discussed.

Motivating employees to speak up about safety issues in organizations is a daunting task for both scholars and practitioners. Previous research has shown that safety leadership is one of the most studied predictors because of its wide-reaching effects on safety behaviors. This contribution aims to test whether Parker et al.’s proactive motivational states (‘can do,’ ‘reason to,’ and ‘energized to’ motivations) mediate the relationship between transformational, transactional, and passive safety leadership and an expanded set of safety voice behaviors, a form of upwards safety communication. We tested our model using data gathered from a sample (N = 238) of US workers. Our results showed that (1) all three motivational states mediate the relationship between transformative leadership and promotive safety voice; (2) only ‘reason to’ and ‘energized to’ mediate the relationship between transactional leadership and preventive and prohibitive safety voices; and (3) only ‘can do’ motivations mediate the relationship between passive leadership and hostile safety voices. Implications for research and practice are also discussed: these results may be leveraged to improve practitioners’ ability to motivate employees to speak up, a notoriously difficult task, by considering the employees’ motivational drivers. We found that, in the safety realm, the relationship between a leader’s behavior and their followers’ safety behavior is partially mediated by employees’ belief that they are able to broaden their workplace role, their feeling of ownership, and their engagement.

Job insecurity is a widespread workplace stressor that has been extensively investigated using quantitative approaches. With the use of a critical organisational psychology framework, we conducted a meta‐synthesis of 20 qualitative studies to investigate the experience of job insecurity among vulnerable employee groups (i.e., women and immigrants). The qualitative meta‐synthesis results suggest that there are meaningful differences. Specifically, whereas women were more concerned with and exposed to deteriorating working conditions, men experienced job insecurity as a threat to their identity. Among immigrants, the experience of job insecurity is viewed as largely intersecting with the legal system, impacting their ability to remain in their country and making them feel powerless. Thematic evidence also emerged regarding individual actions that participants use to attain security in contrast to corporate strategies that enhance job insecurity. We contribute to the critical organisational psychology literature by discussing how these results test common academic theories and neoliberal assumptions pervasive within the job insecurity literature: We highlight how organisations manufacture job insecurity, question the existence of harmonious social exchanges, discuss the use of job insecurity as a form of worker control, consider the role of the legal context in aiding worker exploitation and argue for an intersectional view of job insecurity.

In this study, we test whether different types of safety leadership styles predict different employees’ change-oriented discretionary communications about safety (i.e., safety voice) after controlling for proactive personality disposition to improve organizational sustainability. Building upon a multidimensional model of safety voice, which attempts to conceptualize different ways in which employees make suggestions about safety procedures, we developed four realistic scenarios in which we manipulated the supervisor’s safety leadership style, including: (1) transformational safety leadership, (2) transactional safety leadership, (3) passive safety leadership, and (4) control group (i.e., no leadership at all). We randomly assigned 103 participants to two of four scenarios and measured four facets of safety voice and proactive personality dispositions. The findings showed that after controlling for the respondents’ proactive personality, transformative safety leadership predicted promotive safety voice, transactional safety leadership predicted preventive safety voice, and passive safety leadership predicted hostile safety voice. These findings have a number of implications for our understanding of safety leadership and employees’ safety communications.