Content uploaded by Sebastian Sieberichs
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sebastian Sieberichs on Oct 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Safety Management and Human Factors, Vol. 64, 2022, 159–169
https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002641
How Commercial Airlines Can Mitigate
Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic Induced
Job Insecurity on Their Pilots’ Flying
Performance
Sebastian Sieberichs
Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety – AIXTRA, Medical Faculty,
University Hospital, RWTH Aachen, Germany
ABSTRACT
Job insecurity (JI) can negatively impact work performance. This effect poses parti-
cular challenges for safety-critical systems such as commercial airlines, as they rely
on a high level of pilots’ flying performance. The purpose of this study was to investi-
gate how COVID-19 pandemic induced JI affects pilots’ flying performance. 2084 pilots
participated in an online survey. The results showed that JI can negatively impact
pilots’ flying performance. However, the magnitude of this relation depended on the
conscientiousness and rank of the pilots. The findings therefore underline the impor-
tance of conscientious work behavior - also and particularly in periods of increased job
insecurity - and provide airlines with a field of action to mitigate risks resulting from
decreased pilots’ flying performance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Keywords: Job insecurity, Work performance, Conscientiousness, Safety citizenship behavior
(SCB), Risk mitigation
INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 pandemic presents multiple challenges to safety-critical
systems such as commercial airlines. Sharply changing global conditions and
a market environment exacerbated by the pandemic are intensifying airlines’
struggle to balance productivity against safety. The looming airline economic
woes and the resulting threat to jobs are not hidden from pilots, fueling their
perceptions of job insecurity (JI): Potential resulting negative effects on pilots’
flying performance might present airlines with particular challenges, because
they may not guarantee job security due to the vague economic outlook for
the future. Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the effect of
JI on pilots’ flying performance and to identify alternative fields of action for
airlines to mitigate the associated risk to flight safety.
Job Insecurity and Work Performance
Job insecurity (JI) can be defined as “the perception of a potential threat to
continuity in his or her current job” (Heaney et al., 1994: 1431) in combina-
tion with an “overall concern about the future existence of the job”(Lee et al.,
© 2022. Published by AHFE Open Access. All rights reserved. 159
160 Sieberichs
2018; Rosenblatt, 1996: 587). JI refers to an existing job and is related to sub-
jective feelings of loss of control and powerlessness (Lee et al., 2018). This
perception of organizational members is often fostered by major changes in
an organization such as anticipated downsizing of an organization adapting
to changing market environments (Ito & Brotheridge, 2007; Lee et al., 2018).
Following the social exchange theory, JI threatens the exchange relationsh-
ips between organization and its members and can be seen as a stressor that
consumes emotional and mental resources; moreover, organizational mem-
bers tend to be more concerned about fair treatment in times of economic
uncertainty than in periods of economic security (Hobfoll, 2001; Homans,
1958; Lee et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2015a). The effects of JI include not only
decreased health and well-being and deteriorating attitudes toward the job,
but also affect work performance and behavior (Lee et al., 2018). However,
the evidence on the effect of JI on work performance is mixed and depends,
for example, on whether the work performance is evaluated by the emplo-
yee or by a superior (Cheng & Chan, 2008; Lee et al., 2018; Staufenbiel &
König, 2010). Interpreted as a contextual characteristic, JI negatively impacts
trust within the workplace (Dirks & de Jong, 2022; Jiang & Lavaysse, 2018).
Decreased trust was shown to be related to reduced individual performance
and decreased Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) (Colquitt et al.,
2007; Dirks & de Jong, 2022; Legood et al., 2021).
OCB is a “typology of individual behavior at work that has positive con-
sequences for organizations” (Curcuruto & Griffin, 2018: 30). In terms of
safety in organizational contexts, Safety Citizenship Behavior (SCB) inclu-
des behaviors that involve organizational members not only complying with
the minimum requirements mandated by the organizations, but also going
above and beyond and proactively striving to improve organizational safety
(Curcuruto et al., 2015; Wishart et al., 2019). Especially in safety-critical
organizations such as commercial airlines, SCB is an essential component
to ensure safety (Reader et al., 2017). The reciprocal exchange processes
assumed by social exchange theory are also often invoked to explain why
organizational members exhibit SCB; trust is an essential prerequisite in this
context, as described earlier (Reader et al., 2017; Zagenczyk et al., 2010).
Pilots generally show an increased level of professional performance aspira-
tion and conscientiousness (Hidalgo-Muñoz et al., 2021; Sieberichs & Kluge,
2021). A study with aviation safety experts showed that motivation regu-
latory styles of identified regulation (My work is valuable because I can
contribute to flight safety) (Moran et al., 2012; Tremblay et al., 2009) and
intrinsic motivation (I enjoy my work) (Gagné et al., 2010) both can influ-
ence pilots’ work behavior (Gerhart & Fang, 2015; Sieberichs & Kluge,
2021). In this context, motivational aspects might be explained by increased
activity-goal pairing when pilots associate their task with enjoyment (Fish-
bach & Woolley, 2022; Sieberichs & Kluge, 2021). Conscientiousness is one
dimension of OCB and involves organizational members engaging beyond
the minimum necessary within the scope of their job requirements (Organ,
1988; Wishart et al., 2019). Moreover, conscientiousness can be considered
a strong predictor of safety-related work performance (Postlethwaite et al.,
2009; Schmitt, 2014).
How Commercial Airlines Can Mitigate Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic 161
Figure 1: Research agenda.
Hypotheses
Considering the aspects described in the introduction in the context of work
motivational processes, JI can be considered a contextual motivational ante-
cedent whereas flying performance can be defined a behavioral outcome;
conscientiousness can be understood as an endogenous motivational process
that influences the magnitude of this relationship (van den Broeck et al.,
2019). As described earlier, the body of research provides evidence that JI
can negatively affect work performance.
Therefore, it is suspected that this effect is also found in pilots with respect
to their flying performance:
H1: COVID-19 pandemic induced JI is negatively related to pilots’ flying
performance.
As described earlier, conscientiousness is related to safety-related work per-
formance; therefore, it is presumed that conscientiousness also affects the
aforementioned relationship between JI and flying performance:
H2: The magnitude of the negative relation between COVID-19 pandemic
induced JI and pilots’ flying performance depends on the level of pilots’
conscientiousness.
Based on the author’s professional experience and following discussions with
colleagues about the effects of COVID-19 on cockpit work behavior, this
study will exploratively investigate whether the relationship formulated in
Hypothesis 2 differs between captains and first officers:
H3: The magnitude of the negative relation between COVID-19 pandemic
induced JI and pilots’ flying performance depends on the level of pilots’
conscientiousness and differs between captains and first officers.
The research agenda is summarized schematically in Figure 1.
This study picks up on a recommendation by Lee et al. (2015) that fur-
ther research should investigate the effect of JI on organizational members’
experience and behavior.
METHODS
A non-experimental, correlative research design was chosen to test the hypo-
theses. Data originate from an airline-internal online survey about effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic on the experience and behavior of pilots. The items
162 Sieberichs
Figure 2: Age distribution of the participants.
used in this research paper represent only a portion of the items used in the
questionnaire. Participants were pilots of a major Western commercial airline
operating short- and long-haul flights. The sample consisted of n=2084
participants. 1093 (52.4%) participants indicated their rank with first offi-
cer, 958 (46.0%) with captain, and 33 did not specify. 990 (47.5%) indicated
to fly short-haul, 1062 (51.0%) indicated to fly long-haul, and 32 did not
specify. The age of the participants is shown in Figure 2.
In the survey questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate their level
of individual agreement with various statements; a verbal, bipolar rating scale
with neutral middle category was used. The scale was presented from left to
right and consisted of five intervals from 1 =“I strongly disagree” to 5 =“I
strongly agree”.
The items were constructed inductively by subject matter experts of the
airline’s safety department based on their professional experiences and feed-
backs from pilots on their experience and behavior with respect to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The questions were formulated as personalized sta-
tements paying special attention on a simple sentence structure and linguistic
comprehensibility while avoiding universal expressions and multiple state-
ments in one item. The questionnaire was formulated in the native language
of the participants and was translated into English by the author and another
person for the presentation in this paper; a translation software with artificial
intelligence was used. A pretest was conducted with several pilots and some
items were adjusted consequently.
Flying performance was measured with four items. An example item was
“I have the impression that I currently make more errors in the cockpit than
usual”. The internal consistency of the scale in this study was in a good range
(Cronbach’s α=.82) (Blanz, 2015).
Job insecurity was measured with four items. An example item was “I am
worried to lose my job”. The internal consistency of the scale in this study
was in an acceptable range (Cronbach’s α=.79) (Blanz, 2015).
Conscientiousness was measured with two items. An example item was
“Since March 2020, I have observed a diminished demand on my professio-
nalism as a pilot”. In this study the Spearman-Brown-Coefficient measuring
How Commercial Airlines Can Mitigate Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic 163
the reliability of this two-item scale was in an acceptable range (ρy1y2 =.74)
(Eisinga et al., 2013).
The pilots were invited by email to participate. Further emails were sent as
reminders, and the study was promoted several times on the airline intranet
and via the safety app on pilots’ mobile devices. The data collection period
ranged from mid-December 2020 to the end of February 2021. Answering
the entire questionnaire took about 20 minutes. The participants received
no incentives for participation. Research ethics were observed according to
the airline’s internal criteria and requirements for conducting surveys. For
example, the participants were informed about the voluntary and anony-
mous participation and confidential processing of the data before processing
the questionnaire. No calculation of the required sample was performed in
advance.
The IBM SPSS-Software (version 28) was used for analyses. Overall, more
than 5% of data were missing; the MCAR test according to Little was signi-
ficant (χ2 [340] =658.40, p< .001) indicating data not missing completely
at random (MCAR). Datasets with missing data were therefore excluded
from the analysis. Linear relations of variables involved were assumed after
a visual inspection of the scatterplot with LOWESS smoothing. The col-
linearity statistics were inconspicuous with the largest Variance Inflation
Factor (VIF) =1.21. A visual inspection of the standardized estimated values
and the standardized residuals yielded indications of heteroskedasticity and
the PP-plots of observed and expected cumulative probabilities yielded indi-
cations of violated residuals’ normal distribution requirements. Therefore,
heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors and bootstrapping were used.
For the evaluation of outliers, leverage values with hm > .0029 and exter-
nally studentized residuals ti> |3| were evaluated. As no misunderstandings,
input errors, or boycotts could be detected, all complete datasets were inclu-
ded for analysis. For the evaluation of influential data points, changes in
regression coefficients (DfBETAS > .044) and in predicted ˆ
y-values (DfFITS
> .088) and Cooks Distances with D> .0019 were evaluated. Because no
subpopulations or unique participants were expected, the hypothesis was
tested using all complete datasets (Cohen, 2003; Field, 2013; Graham, 2009;
Li et al., 2016).
To test hypothesis one, a linear regression model was calculated. To test
hypotheses two and three, moderated multiple regression models involving
two-way interactions between JI, conscientiousness and rank were calcula-
ted with ordinary least squares (OLS) regression using the PROCESS 4.0
macro (Hayes, 2017). Bootstrapping with 5000 iterations together with
heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors (HC3) was used to calculate
confidence intervals; moreover, the Johnson-Neyman technique was used
(Hayes & Cai, 2007; Hayes & Matthes, 2009).
RESULTS
The descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables are presented in
Table 1. Values between .10 ≤r≤.30 correspond to a weak effect, between
.30 ≤r≤.50 to a moderate effect, and r> .50 to a strong effect (Cohen, 2013).
164 Sieberichs
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables.
Variable n M SD 1 2
1 Flying performancea1423 2.65 0.88 —
2 Job insecurityb2059 3.51 1.01 -.42** —
3 Conscientiousnessa1763 1.59 0.80 -.40** .31**
**p < .01.
Note.M=mean, SD =standard deviation; Likert-scale from 1 =“I strongly disagree” to 5 =“I strongly
agree”. 1 =high (a) / low (b) expression of the measured construct, 5 =low (a) / high (b) expression of
the measured construct.
Hypothesis one assumed that COVID-19 pandemic induced JI is negatively
related to pilots’ flying performance. The hypothesis was accepted because JI
had an influence on flying performance (R2=18.0; F(1,1406) =308.86, p<
.001). It was shown that JI was a significant predictor for flying performance
(β=–0.360; t(1406) =–17.57; p< .001).
Hypothesis two assumed that the magnitude of the negative relation betw-
een JI and flying performance depends on conscientiousness. The hypothesis
was accepted: JI (t(3, 1391) =–13.03, p< .001, b=–.27), conscientiousness
(t(3, 1391) =–12.32, p< .001, b=–.35), and the interaction between JI and
conscientiousness (t(3, 1391) =2.80, p< .01, b=.07) significantly predicted
flying performance (F(3, 1391) =175.32, p< .001, R2=.26). The change in
R2by the interaction term amounted to 0.40% (F(1, 1391) =7.83, p< .01,
1R2=.004). As a result of the Johnson-Neyman technique, the conditional
effect of JI on flying performance was significant for 97.28% of all mean
centered values of conscientiousness ≤2.05 (t(1391) =–1.96, p=.05, 95%
CI [–0.24, 0.00], b=0.62).
Hypothesis three assumed that the magnitude of the negative relation
between JI due to the pandemic and flying performance depends on conscien-
tiousness and differs between captains and first officers. The hypothesis was
accepted: JI (t(5, 1371) =–2.10, p< .05, b=–.14), conscientiousness (t(5,
1371) =–11.98, p< .001, b=–.35), the interaction between JI and conscien-
tiousness (t(5, 1371) =2.55, p< .05, b=.07), rank (t(5, 1371) =–3.35, p<
.001, b=–.14), and the interaction between JI and rank (t(5, 1371) =–
2.39, p< .05, b=–.10) significantly predicted f lying performance (F(5,
1371) =111.11, p< .001, R2=.26). The change in R2by the interaction term
amounted to 0.70% (F(2, 1371) =6.42, p< .01, 1R2=.007). No statisti-
cal significance transition points within the observed range of the moderator
were found using the Johnson-Neyman technique. Figure 3 shows the condi-
tional effect of JI on flying performance depending on conscientiousness and
rank, shown for mean and ±1SD values.
DISCUSSION
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of COVID-19 pande-
mic induced JI on pilots’ flying performance and to identify fields of action
for airlines to mitigate the associated risk to flight safety. The results indica-
ted that JI may have a negative impact on pilots’ subjectively perceived flying
How Commercial Airlines Can Mitigate Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic 165
Figure 3: Conditional effect of JI on flying performance depending on conscientious-
ness and rank.
performance. However, this effect depended on the level of pilots’ conscien-
tiousness and the rank of the pilots: Higher levels of conscientiousness were
related to higher levels of flying performance; for captains, the magnitude
of the negative relationship between JI and flying performance was grea-
ter than for first officers. Considering the effect shown in Figure 3 for first
officers, for example, it became evident that first officers with low levels of
JI and low levels of conscientiousness showed a comparable flying perfor-
mance to pilots with high levels of JI but high levels of conscientiousness -
conscientiousness thus appears to mitigate the negative effect of JI on flying
performance. The results of this study confirmed the findings of various meta-
analyses (Cheng & Chan, 2008; Sverke et al., 2002) regarding negative effects
of JI on work performance - however, it should be underlined again that there
are mixed findings in the state of research. The results confirmed research
regarding the effect of conscientiousness on safety-related work behaviors
(Postlethwaite et al., 2009) and extended the body of research regarding
the moderating influence of conscientiousness on the relationship between
JI and work performance. Moreover, it can be assumed that captains are
generally older than first officers; age-related differences in conscientiousness
and their effects on job-related characteristics were also shown in a study of
Topino et al. (2021).
Limitations
Readers should keep in mind that the assessment of flying performance invo-
lved only self-assessment; Staufenbiel and König (2010) have already found
166 Sieberichs
that the type of assessment of work performance (self- or by others) affects the
relationship between JI and work performance. Furthermore, the assumption
of a linear relationship between the variables neglects curvilinear relationsh-
ips between JI and conscientiousness as a facet of OCB, as shown in previous
research (cf. Lam et al., 2015). Moreover, the reliability of two scales was
only in an acceptable range.
About 1.5% of the responding pilots did not indicate their rank without
giving reasons; the responses of these pilots could therefore not be included
in the testing of the hypotheses. Considering that the questionnaire was com-
pleted by pilots of only one commercial airline, the results should not be
generalized to other airlines without further review. Moreover, the findings
should not be generalized to pilots in other cultures without further verifi-
cation, as cultural differences regarding JI should be assumed (cf. Lee et al.,
2018).
The approach suggested in this research places much responsibility on the
individual pilot to mitigate effects of JI and neglects contextual factors that
could be more actively improved by the organization itself.
Implications for Research
Further research should preferably collect flying performance data using
objective measurement methods such as flight data analysis. The exploratory
findings regarding the differences between captains and first officers could
not be explained by the data obtained in this study and need to be investigated
by further research. Moreover, commercial pilots are often highly specialized
in their job as a pilot, so JI should be considered more as career insecurity (cf.
Lee et al., 2018); further research should address this aspect. In the course of
future research, the influence of organizational justice on the effects presen-
ted in this research should be considered (cf. Wang et al., 2015b). Research
could also verify the results of this study in other safety-critical systems, such
as clinical acute care settings or Non-Western cultures.
Implications for Airlines
The findings of this study should alert airlines that pilots’ perceived job inse-
curity (JI) can impact their flying performance; thus, in dealing with their
pilots, they should basically avoid increasing JI unnecessarily. The findings
regarding the impact of conscientiousness on the effect of JI on flying perfor-
mance provide airlines with a concrete field of action for mitigation: They
should encourage their pilots to act conscientiously - irrespective of any
potential JI. This might be achieved through training measures, safety-related
bulletins, or other company-internal communication measures.
Ensuring safety in high-risk systems requires a shared responsibility of
the organization and its members: If both take this responsibility seriously,
the chances remain favorable that not more accidents will occur during the
COVID-19 pandemic than before.
How Commercial Airlines Can Mitigate Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic 167
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to acknowledge the participating pilots for their par-
ticipation in the study and the colleagues from safety department for their
great effort in preparing the survey.
REFERENCES
Blanz M (2015) Research Methods and Statistics For Social Work: Fundamentals
And Applications. 1st Ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Cheng GH-L and Chan DK-S (2008) Who Suffers More from Job Insecu-
rity? A Meta-Analytic Review. Applied Psychology 57(2): 272–303. DOI:
10.1111/j.1464–0597.2007.00312.x.
Cohen J (2003) Applied Multiple Regression, Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen J (2013) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Colquitt JA, Scott BA and LePine JA (2007) Trust, trustworthiness, and
trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk
taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4): 909–927.
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.
Curcuruto M and Griffin MA (2018) Prosocial and proactive “safety citizenship
behaviour” (SCB): The mediating role of affective commitment and psychological
ownership. Safety Science 104(104): 29–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.010.
Curcuruto M, Conchie SM, Mariani MG, et al. (2015) The role of prosocial and
proactive safety behaviors in predicting safety performance. Safety Science 80:
317–323. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.032.
Dirks KT and de Jong B (2022) Trust Within the Workplace: A Review of Two
Waves of Research and a Glimpse of the Third. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior 9(1): 247–276. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-
orgpsych-012420-083025.
Eisinga R, Grotenhuis MT and Pelzer B (2013) The reliability of a two-item scale:
Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health
58(4): 637–642. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3.
Field A (2013) Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: And Sex and Drugs
and Rock “n” Roll. 4. ed. Los Angeles, CA, USA: Sage.
Fishbach A and Woolley K (2022) The Structure of Intrinsic Motivation. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 9(1):
339–363. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091122.
Gagné M, Forest J, Gilbert M-H, et al. (2010) The Motivation at Work Scale: Vali-
dation Evidence in Two Languages. Educational and Psychological Measurement
70(4): 628–646. DOI: 10.1177/0013164409355698.
Gerhart B and Fang M (2015) Pay, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation,
Performance, and Creativity in the Workplace: Revisiting Long-Held Beliefs.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2(1):
489–521. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111418.
Graham JW (2009) Missing Data Analysis: Making It Work in the Real
World. Annual Review of Psychology 60(1): 549–576. DOI: 10.1146/annu-
rev.psych.58.110405.085530.
Hayes AF (2017) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Pro-
cess Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Second edition. Methodology in the
social sciences. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Publications.
168 Sieberichs
Hayes AF and Cai L (2007) Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error
estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation.
Behavior Research Methods 39(4): 709–722. DOI: 10.3758/BF03192961.
Hayes AF and Matthes J (2009) Computational procedures for probing interactions
in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research
Methods 41(3): 924–936. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.3.924.
Heaney CA, Israel BA and House JS (1994) Chronic job insecurity among automobile
workers: Effects on job satisfaction and health. Social Science & Medicine 38(10):
1431–1437. DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90281-X.
Hidalgo-Muñoz AR, Mouratille D, El-Yagoubi R, et al. (2021) Conscientiousness in
Pilots Correlates with Electrodermal Stability: Study on Simulated Flights under
Social Stress. Safety 7(2): 49. DOI: 10.3390/safety7020049.
Hobfoll SE (2001) The Influence of Culture, Community, and the Nested-Self in the
Stress Process: Advancing Conservation of Resources Theory. Applied Psychology
50(3): 337–421. DOI: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062.
Homans GC (1958) Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology
63(6): 597–606. DOI: 10.1086/222355.
Ito JK and Brotheridge CM (2007) Exploring the predictors and consequences of
job insecurity’s components. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(1): 40–64.
DOI: 10.1108/02683940710721938.
Jiang L and Lavaysse LM (2018) Cognitive and Affective Job Insecurity: A Meta-
Analysis and a Primary Study. Journal of Management 44(6): 2307–2342. DOI:
10.1177/0149206318773853.
Lam CF, Liang J, Ashford SJ, et al. (2015) Job insecurity and organizational citi-
zenship behavior: Exploring curvilinear and moderated relationships. Journal of
Applied Psychology 100(2): 499–510. DOI: 10.1037/a0038659.
Lee C, Huang G-H and Ashford SJ (2018) Job Insecurity and the Changing Work-
place: Recent Developments and the Future Trends in Job Insecurity Research.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 5(1):
335–359. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104651.
Legood A, van der Werff L, Lee A, et al. (2021) A meta-analysis of the role of trust in
the leadership- performance relationship. European Journal of Work and Organi-
zational Psychology 30(1): 1–22. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1819241.
Li W-C, Braithwaite G, Greaves M, et al. (2016) The evaluation of military pilot’s
attention distributions on the flight deck. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace (ed. GA Boy), New
York, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 1–6. ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2950112.2964588.
Moran CM, Diefendorff JM, Kim T-Y, et al. (2012) A profile approach to self-
determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior 81(3):
354–363. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.002.
Organ DW (1988) Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syn-
drome.
Postlethwaite B, Robbins S, Rickerson J, et al. (2009) The moderation
of conscientiousness by cognitive ability when predicting workplace safety
behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 47(7): 711–716. DOI:
10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.008.
Reader TW, Mearns K, Lopes C, et al. (2017) Organizational support for the work-
force and employee safety citizenship behaviors: A social exchange relationship.
Human Relations 70(3): 362–385. DOI: 10.1177/0018726716655863.
Rosenblatt R (1996) A test of a multidimensional model of job insecurity: the case
of Israeli teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17: 587–605.
How Commercial Airlines Can Mitigate Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic 169
Schmitt N (2014) Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Effective Perfor-
mance at Work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior 1(1): 45–65. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091255.
Sieberichs S and Kluge A (2021) Why Commercial Pilots Voluntarily Report Self-
Inflicted Incidents. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors 11(2):
98–111. DOI: 10.1027/2192-0923/a000216.
Staufenbiel T and König CJ (2010) A model for the effects of job insecurity on
performance, turnover intention, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 83(1): 101–117. DOI: 10.1348/096317908X401912.
Sverke M, Hellgren J and Näswall K (2002) No security: A meta-analysis and review
of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
7(3): 242–264. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.242.
Topino E, di Fabio A, Palazzeschi L,et al. (2021) Personality traits, workers’ age, and
job satisfaction: The moderated effect of conscientiousness. PLOS ONE 16(7):
e0252275. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252275.
Tremblay MA, Blanchard CM, Taylor S, et al. (2009) Work Extrinsic and Intrin-
sic Motivation Scale: Its value for organizational psychology research. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement
41(4): 213–226. DOI: 10.1037/a0015167.
van den Broeck A, Carpini JA and Diefendorff JM (2019) Work Motivation. In:
Ryan RM, van den Broeck A, Carpini JA, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of
Human Motivation. Oxford University Press, pp. 506–524. DOI: 10.1093/oxfor-
dhb/9780190666453.013.27.
Wang H, Lu C and Siu O (2015a) Job insecurity and job performance: The mode-
rating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology 100(4): 1249–1258. DOI: 10.1037/a0038330.
Wang H, Lu C and Siu O (2015b) Job insecurity and job performance: The mode-
rating role of organizational justice and the mediating role of work engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology 100(4): 1249–1258. DOI: 10.1037/a0038330.
Wishart D, Rowland B and Somoray K (2019) Safety Citizenship Behavior: A Com-
plementary Paradigm to Improving Safety Culture Within the Organizational
Driving Setting. In: Ward NJ, Watson B, and Fleming-Vogl K (eds) Traffic Safety
Culture. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 145–171. DOI: 10.1108/978-1-78714-
617-420191011.
Zagenczyk TJ, Scott KD, Gibney R, et al. (2010) Social influence and
perceived organizational support: A social networks analysis. Orga-
nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 111(2): 127–138.
DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.004.
