Food Protection Trends - October 2008 - 709

FIGURE 3. Hypothesized organizational model of employees’ motivations for following safe food handling practices ers was compared. Collapsing of themes was done based on overlap and theming terminology similarities. An example of collapsing of themes was with the theme area of rewards and punishment; some researchers had this as two separate themes, whereas others had collapsed it into a rewards/punishment category. An example of theming terminology similarities is as follows: researchers used the terms facilities, resources, and equipment to capture the same data verbiage. Categorization of responses was consistent among researchers. The analysis process and research examples are provided in Fig. 1. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION A total of 169 students participated in the study. The majority of participants were female (66%), Hotel, Restaurant, Institution Management students (71%), upperclassmen (66%), and between 18 and 25 years of age (95%). Additional demographic information is presented in Table 1. Participants reported on foodservice work experience (83% had experience), training topics (76%–87% reported having had training on handwashing, cross contamination, or temperature danger zone), and training location (almost 50% at work and 65% in school class as multiple locations identified). Utilizing the expectancy model as the theoretical underpinning, motivators to following safe food handling practices were examined: specifically, proper hygiene, temperature taking, and cleaning and sanitizing. Analysis of responses from the first part of the questionnaire was not utilized, because motivational scales were not as reliable as desired. Based on students’ responses to openended questions, themed areas of motivation were identified: establish policy and standards, expect accountability, serve as a role model, provide training, control rewards and punishment, and provide resources. Table 2 contains themed areas along with examples of students’ responses in each theme area. The mean number of coded segmented responses in each theme area ranged from 14.5 for “establishes policy” and standards to 133 for “control rewards and punishment.” Further exploration led to the development of a preliminary model (Fig. 2) in which all themed areas identified linked back to the importance of the supervisor’s role in motivating employees to follow safe practices. The supervisor establishes policies and standards in the workplace and holds employees accountable to follow policies and standards. Supervisors serve as role models for utilizing safe food handling practices and thus motivate employees by leading by example. Supervisors’ actions of providing rewards and punishment as well as training are viewed as motivators. As reported by Salazar, Ashraf, Tcheng, and Antun (27), employees must be motivated for learning to occur; thus, training would be expected to be more effective with motivated employees. The provision by supervisors of facilities and equipment, including adequate handwashing facilities and clean uniforms, also is seen as a motivator by employees. While Salazar, Ashraf, Tcheng, and Antun (27) found that foodservice workers who reported lower supervision scores had higher food safety post-test scores, these authors noted that the measurement of supervision was based on feeling (affect) rather than on the supervisor’s ability to manage (do the job). Walczak and Reuter (38) integrated into their study the importance of supervisory decision making as a means to prevent corporate violence by serving unsafe food. Further development led to a preliminary model that placed the supervisor role within the organization context. Although the importance of the supervisor is noted, consideration of the context—the organization—cannot be ignored. Figure 3 incorporates the role of the supervisor into the context of the organization with identified properties important to establishing a culture of food safety. As noted by Walczak (37), organizational behavior cannot be ignored when it comes to food safety. Similarly, organizations not supportive of proper food safety procedures (e.g., handwashing) are recognized as barriers (26). Significant work using focus group methods provide some results consistent with findings in this study. Green and Selman’s work (15) addressing factors impacting ability to prepare safe food showed commonalities with the current study in the following areas: equipment and resources, management emphasis on food safety, negative consequences (termed “punishment” in the reported model), food safety education and training, and procedures. Pragle, Harding, and Mack (26) focused on handwashing and identified facilities, reminders, education/ training, and accountability upheld by managers as facilitators to proper handwashing. OCTOBER 2008 | FOOD PROTECTION TRENDS 709

Food Protection Trends - October 2008

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - October 2008