Employees' Perceptions of Organizational Factors Associated with Workplace Risk-Taking Propensity in the Public Sector: Evidence from Lusaka City Council, Zambia
Authors
Zambia Open University. School of Business Studies. Lusaka (Zambia)
Zambia Open University. School of Business Studies. Lusaka (Zambia)
Zambia Open University, School of Business, Lusaka, Zambia, Studies (Zambia)
Zambia Open University. School of Business Studies. Lusaka (Zambia)
Article Information
DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS.2026.100900255
Subject Category: Management
Volume/Issue: 10/9 | Page No: 3809-3873
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2026-09-06
Accepted: 2026-09-11
Published: 2026-10-07
Abstract
This study examined organizational-level factors associated with employees' workplace risk-taking propensity among formal employees of Lusaka City Council, Zambia. Specifically, the study examined employees' perceptions of cognitive risk evaluation, behavioural regulation, expectancy beliefs, and organizational climate in relation to workplace risk-taking propensity; identified organizational strategies for strengthening constructive workplace risk-taking; and developed the Organizational Employee Workplace Risk-Taking Propensity Framework (OERTPF) as an integrative framework for understanding workplace risk-taking within public-sector organizations.
Keywords
Workplace risk-taking propensity; organizational factors; cognitive risk evaluation; behavioural regulation
Downloads
References
1. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.179 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. Dewett, T. (2004). Employee creativity and the role of risk. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(4), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060410565010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. Eisenberger, R., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Incremental effects of reward on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 728–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.728 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. García-Granero, A., Llopis, Ó., Fernández-Mesa, A., & Alegre, J. (2015). Unraveling the link between managerial risk-taking and innovation: The mediating role of a risk-taking climate. Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 1094–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.10.012 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. Highhouse, S., Brooks, M. E., & Greguras, G. J. (2022). Risk propensity: A meta-analysis of its nomological network. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 133, Article 103689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103689 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: Mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(3), 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500521581 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14. Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O'Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000123856 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Government at a glance 2015. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2015-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16. Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17. Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Richard D. Irwin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18. Rainey, H. G. (2014). Understanding and managing public organizations (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20. Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 9–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/258646 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24. Wilde, G. J. S. (1982). The theory of risk homeostasis: Implications for safety and health. Risk Analysis, 2(4), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01384.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25. Wilde, G. J. S. (1994). Target risk: Dealing with the danger of death, disease and damage in everyday decisions. PDE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Metrics
Views & Downloads
Similar Articles
- The Indirect Effect of Liquidity and Activity on Company Value with Profitability as an Intervening Variable
- Effect of Financial Skills, Knowledge, and Attitude on The Financial Behaviour of Clergy
- A Decade of Review: Trends in Budget Execution and Financial Performance of Development Projects in Tanzania (2014/15-2023/24)
- The Influence of Pre-Project Planning on the Budget Absorption Rate of Public Funded Infrastructure Projects in Kenya a Comparative Case Study of Narok, Migori, and Kisii County Government Projects
- Assessment of Factors Influencing Digital Transformation in Hotels’ Facility Management in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria