Test of a safety culture model from a management perspective.
| Autor | Job, Andre |
1 Introduction
The concept of safety culture has received much attention from researchers and organizations (Choudhry, Fang, & Mohamed, 2007). The concept can be perceived as a component of organizational culture that affects not only safety, but also workers' health (Ostrom, Wilhelmsen, & Daplan, 1993). Although it seems to be an easily understood concept and there is a considerable amount of studies in this area, some authors (e.g. Cooper, 2000; Hopkins, 2006) have reported the lack of a consensual definition, which consequently leads to the existence of several conceptualizations (Choudhry et al., 2007; Fernandez-Muniz, Montes-Peon, & Vazquez-Ordaz, 2007). For example, Guldenmund's (2000) review identified 18 different definitions, six for safety culture and 12 for safety climate.
According to Cooper (2000), it is essential to define this concept, as this will not only help to understand how safety culture should be analyzed in an organization, but will also help to define a measure that allows us to comprehend the degree to which an organization has a "good" safety culture (or not). It is also important to note that there is not only divergence among researchers concerning the definition of the concept, but also concerning its use, and there is an evident discussion in the scientific literature regarding the difference between "safety culture" and "safety climate" (Wiegmann, Zhang, Thaden, Sharma, & Mitchell, 2002).
Some studies (e.g. Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2007; Halligan & Zecevic, 2011; Stanton, Salmon, Jenkins, & Walker, 2009) have conceived the concept of "safety culture" as a multidimensional construct, although there is a lack of consensus regarding all the dimensions and structures that constitute it. In this context, Guldenmund (2000) stated that it is very important for models to be developed since, as simple as these may be, they should be the starting point for any successful scientific advancement. Efforts to develop the theory have been scarce (Seo, Torabi, Blair, & Ellis, 2004), and the present study aims to verify whether the theoretical model proposed by
Fernandez-Muniz et al. (2007) can be replicated (i.e. whether empirical support is obtained) in the Portuguese context considering the perspective of managers. This model, as will be seen below, is based on the concept of safety culture, and is therefore the focus of this paper.
2 Literature review
2.1 The concept of safety culture
The concept of safety culture was first referenced in the literature after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, when the investigating entity (International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group - INSAG) considered in its report "INSAG-1" (published in 1986 and revised in 1992) the lack of a "safety culture" as one of the factors that contributed to the occurrence of the accident (International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group [INSAG], 1992). Some years later, the same association provided a definition for the concept it would use in the post-disaster context, stating that safety culture is "that assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals which establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance" (INSAG, 1991).
Later, Ostrom et al. (1993) defined the concept as the intra-organizational beliefs and attitudes manifested through actions, policies, and procedures that affect safety performance. In turn, Locke and Latham (1990), as quoted in Cooper (2000, p. 115), postulate that this is "that observable degree of effort with which all organizational members direct their attention and actions towards improving safety on a daily basis." Richter and Koch (2004) describe it as the set of experiences, interpretations, and meanings regarding work and safety that are shared and learned by workers, which aim to guide their actions towards the prevention of risks and accidents. In turn, Reiman and Rollenhagen (2014, p. 7) state that "safety culture is more associated with safety-related values, assumptions, and norms," while Reicher and Schneider (1990) associate safety culture with terms such as "deep," "stable," "qualitative," and "trace," which is consistent with the studies of Cox and Flin (1998) and Schneider and Gunnarson (1991).
Given the fact that the present study is based on the model presented by Fernandez-Muniz et al. (2007), it is crucial for the concept and definition they considered in their research to be adopted, therefore, for the purpose of this study, the term safety culture will be used, which is defined as:
A set of values, perceptions, attitudes and patterns of behavior with regard to safety shared by members of the organization; as well as a set of policies, practices and procedures relating to the reduction of employees' exposure to occupational risks, implemented at every level of the organization, and reflecting a high level of concern and commitment to the prevention of accidents and illnesses (Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2007, p. 628).
2.2 Conceptual models regarding safety culture
Of the existing models regarding the subject of safety culture, Cooper's (2001) stands out as perhaps the most recognized in the area. This model adapts Bandura's reciprocal determinism model to safety, conceiving the concept as a combination of dynamic relationships between workers' attitudes, their safety behavior, and the presence of the organization's safety management system (SMS). However, Porkka (2016) stated that such a model proves to be insufficient with regards to SMS, which corroborates the idea of Fernandez-Muniz et al. (2007), who argued that the existing literature (e.g. Donald & Young, 1996; Watcher & Yorio, 2014) has focused more on the analysis of workers' perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors, placing less emphasis on the situational characteristics of the SMS, although authors such as Hale, Heming, Carthey, and Kirwan (1997) have alluded to their huge importance.
Based on an extensive literature review, Fernandez-Muniz et al. (2007) proposed a conceptual model, in which they not only identified three key indicators of this concept (managers' commitment to safety, employees' involvement, and the policies and procedures that form the SMS), but also, according to Frazier, Ludwig, Whitaker, and Roberts (2013), expanded scientific knowledge in relation to SMS, suggesting the dimensions that constitute it. The first factor (managers' commitment:) can be operationalized as:
The extent to which the firm's managers are committed to their workers' safety. This commitment can be manifested in positive attitudes toward the activities relating to safety management and in the behaviors visible to the workers (Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2007, p. 631).
According to the same authors, a considerable number of studies show that managers' commitment to safety is a determining condition of workers' attitudes and behaviors regarding risk. For example, if a manager engages in safety-enhancing activities, revealing concern about safety-related issues, he/she more easily influences workers' behaviors in a positive way, who will, for example, display greater respect for safety regulations.
The second factor concerns employees' involvement in improving working conditions and their degree of compliance to safety procedures (Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2007). The authors of the model justify the inclusion of both factors --managers' commitment and employees' involvement--stating that these have been identified and replicated in several studies (e.g. Cox & Cheyne, 2000; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996).
Lastly, the third factor (SMS) is defined as "the set of integrated mechanisms in the organization, comprising policies, strategies, and procedures" (Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2007, p. 630). Petersen (2000) stated that this factor will have a direct effect on reducing the organization's accident rates. Consequently, if the goal is to understand which dimensions have an impact on safety performance, it is crucial to take this variable into account. In the model presented by Fernandez-Muniz et al. (2007), the SMS integrates six key dimensions, two of which are subdivided into two others. Specifically, the model considers the following dimensions: i) Safety policy, regarding whether there is a written statement that reflects the organization's commitment to safety as well as its integration with the other policies of the organization; ii) Incentives, concerning whether the organization encourages workers to participate in activities related to their safety; iii) Training, regarding whether training plans in the organization are meant to develop workers' safety skills; iv) Communication, related to informing workers about the possible risks of their work environment while providing solutions to combat them; v) Planning, which is divided into two constructs: preventive planning (the existence of procedures for risk assessment and safety measures to prevent risks) and emergency planning (whether or not there are emergency plans in case an accident occurs); and vi) Control, which is also subdivided into two constructs: internal controls (the existence of practices or mechanisms that allow us to understand if the objectives have been achieved as well as the degree of commitment to the work norms and procedures) and benchmarking techniques (the comparisons that the organization makes with competing organizations regarding safety actions).
Finally, another dimension present in the model of Fernandez-Muniz et al. (2007) was described as safety performance, which intends to measure the direct consequences of the safety culture on safety. In order to evaluate safety performance, the authors considered the following predictor variables: absenteeism or lost time, employees' motivation, material damage, and the number of personal injuries. In this context, as stated by Glendon and Litherland (2001), it is important to note that there is no adequate and valid...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
