safety climate and the lone worker: review of research · safety climate and the lone worker:...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Safety Climate and the Lone Worker: Review of Research
Marvin J. Dainoff, PhD, CPE [email protected]
15th Annual PRP Symposium University of Cincinnati
2
• Center for Injury Epidemiology • Center for Physical Ergonomics • Center for Behavioral Sciences • Center for Disability Research
Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety generating knowledge to help people live safer and more secure lives
Conduc'ng non-‐proprietary research – findings are published in the peer-‐reviewed scien'fic literature
3
Safety Climate Team
Center Director: Marvin Dainoff, Ph.D. Principal Investigators: Emily Huang, Ph.D., Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety Dov Zohar, Ph.D., Israel Institute of Technology Co-investigator: Michelle Robertson, Ph.D., CPE
Project Coordinator: Susan Jeffries Harvard/LMRIS Postdoctoral Fellow: Garry Gray, Ph.D., Lauren Murphy, Ph.D., Jin Lee, Ph.D. Research Assistants: Angela Garabet, Jenn Rineer, Peg Rothwell, Anna McFadden, Janelle Cheung Liberty Mutual Consultants: • Dave Melton - Industry Director, Transportation • Dave Money - Technical Director, Transportation
4
LMRIS Project Team
5
Standard Interventions Employed to Reduce Risk
Four broad categories: – Engineering (e.g., redesigning a tool or installing
machine guards) – Administrative (e.g., changing job procedures or
rotating workers through a particular job) – Personal Protective Equipment (e.g., protective
glasses or hearing protection) – Education and Training
Until recently, most intervention efforts have relied on traditional approaches.
6
Beyond the Traditional Approaches
Risk Managers and Safety Directors are now exploring organizational and psychosocial factors in the workplace to complement other approaches in an attempt to make further improvements.
Safety Climate inves/ga/ons are a major part of this effort.
7
Definition – Safety Culture
Shared beliefs and values that interact with an organization’s structures and control systems to produce behavior norms (the way of doing things in the organization)
(Reason, 1998; Thompson et al, 1996; Utall, 1983)
8
Organizational Culture vs. Climate
Culture is regarded as an emergent property of group interactions, whereas
Climate refers more to people’s perception of/reactions to those interactions.
Safety Climate is a measurable aspect of Safety Culture
9
Definition – Safety Climate (Zohar, 1980)
Employees’ shared perceptions of their company’s safety policies, procedures, and practices
Focus on: – Relative priorities
(e.g. safety vs. productivity or efficiency) – Alignment between espousals and enactments
(e.g. leader’s words vs. actions) – Internal consistency among policies, procedures
and practices (e.g. discrepancy between supervisor vs. top management)
10
Safety Climate Research Grows…Why?
Huang, Y.H., Chen, P.Y. & Grosch, J.W. (2010). Safety climate: New developments in the conceptualization and industry-focused studies. Editorial Note for Special Issue on Safety Climate. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
11
Meta-Analysis by Christian et al. (2009) Combined Results of 202 Studies
Leading indicator
Lagging indicator
Safety Climate is a leading indicator of future injury
12
Purpose of this Research Program
• Extend safety climate to the lone/remote worker situation
• Develop industry specific safety climate scales for – Long haul truckers – Electric utility workers
• Develop lone work generic safety climate scale
13
Methodological Overview
– Literature review
– Comments from subject matter experts
– In-depth interviews with employees and managers
– Field observations
– Generate initial items
– Cognitive interviews
– Pilot tests
Scale Development
Initial Administration
Administration to Remaining
Sample
Outcome Measures
14
Methodological Overview
– Confirmatory Factor Analysis (full sample)
– Exploratory Factor Analysis
– Coefficient Alpha Reliability
Scale Development
Initial Administration
Administration to Remaining
Sample
Outcome Measures
15
Methodological Overview
– Subjective Behavior Ratings (concurrent)
– Subjective Injury Data (concurrent)
– Objective Injury Data (predictive – trucking only)
Scale Development
Initial Administration
Administration to Remaining
Sample
Outcome Measures
16
Multilevel Focus of SC Questions
Company (Top Management) Level
Group (Immediate Supervisor) Level
Employees
Supervisors
17
Lone Worker Safety Climate Research Program
• Long Haul Truckers – Company Level Safety Climate Scale – Group Level Safety Climate Scale
• Electric U'lity Workers – Company Level Safety Climate Scale – Group Level Safety Climate Scale
• Generic Lone Workers – Company Level Safety Climate Scale – Group Level Safety Climate Scale
[Generic scales modified for lone workers from Zohar and Luria (2005) and included in survey administration]
18
SC in the Trucking Industry
Company A B C D E F G H
# Respondents 558 248 2,030 461 290 4,003 235 270
Response Rate 55% 73% 34% 37% 58% 51% 40% N/A
• 8 Large trucking firms in the US • 9,095 respondents (8095 employees, 1,000 supervisors) • Final SC survey includes 40 items (20 Group-‐level, 20 Company-‐level Safety Climate)
Data collected: • Subjec've: SC and self-‐reported behaviors • Objec've: Accident/injury data (6 months post survey)
19
Trucking Safety Climate Scale
• Company-level safety climate (upper management) 20 items Three dimensions (Proactive Practices, Driver Safety Priority, and Supervisory Care Promotion) “My company allows drivers to change their schedules when they are getting too tired.”
• Group-level safety climate (immediate supervisors) 20 items Three dimensions (Safety Promotion, Delivery Limits, and Cell Phone Disapproval) “My dispatcher stops talking to me on the phone if he/she hears I’m driving.”
20
Injury Rate versus Safety Climate Score for Participating Carriers
R² = 0.5905
21
Outcome Measures-Trucking
• Pooled safety climate scores
Safety Climate (company-level and
group-level)
Safety Behavior
Lost Days
Hard Braking
-
+
-
22
Scientific Publication
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior (Huang, Zohar, et al., 2013) Development and Validation of Safety Climate Scales for Lone Workers using Truck Drivers as Exemplar
23
SC in the Utility Industry
Company A B
# Respondents 1,560 869
Response Rate 46% 74%
• Two large electric u'lity firms • 2,421 respondents • 48 item survey (19 Group-‐level, 29 Company-‐level)
Data collected: • Subjec've: SC, self-‐reported behaviors, self-‐reported accident/injuries
24
Utility/Electric Safety Climate Scale
• Company-level safety climate: 29 items
Six dimensions (Safety Pro-activity, General Training, Trucks and Equipment, Field Orientation, Financial Investment, and Schedule flexibility) “My company invests in the best safety equipment available (e.g., power tools, meter pullers, lighting)”
• Group-level safety climate: 19 items
Three dimensions (Supervisory Care, Participation Encouragement, and Safety Straight Talk)
“My supervisor takes the time to check on me, especially when I’m stressed or tired.”
25
Outcome Measures-Utility
• Pooled safety climate scores
Safety Climate (company-level and
group-level)
Safety Behavior
Lost Days
Recordable Incidents
-
+
-
26
Scientific Publication
A manuscript was published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention (Huang, Zohar, et al., 2013) Development and Validation of Safety Climate Scales for Mobile Remote Workers using Utility/Electrical Workers as Exemplar
27
Generic Items for Lone Workers adopted from Zohar and Luria (2005)
• Company-level safety climate: 6 items
• Group-level safety climate: 6 items
Company-level safety climate
Top management at this company – 1. Reacts quickly to solve the problem when told about safety conce
rns 2. Is strict about working safely when delivery falls behind schedule
3. Uses any available information to improve existing safety rules
4. Invests a lot in safety training for workers
5. Listens carefully to our ideas about improving safety
6. Tries to continually improve safety levels in each department Group-level safety climate
My direct supervisor – 1. Discusses with us how to improve safety
2. Compliments employees who pay special attention to safety
3. Is strict about working safely even when we are tired or stressed
4. Frequently talks about safety issues throughout the work week
5. Refuses to ignore safety rules when work falls behind schedule
6. Uses explanations (not just compliance) to get us to act safely
28
Benefit of Industry-Specific Scale
0
5
10
15
20
25
Generic Trucking
Variance (%)
Scale Type
Company Group
29
Scientific Publication
A manuscript was published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention (Lee, Huang, et al., 2014). External Validity of a Generic Safety Climate Scale for Lone Workers across Different Industries and Companies. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 63, 138-145.
30
Key Findings
• Generic scales and industry-specific scales are reliable and valid instruments for measuring SC in lone workers (trucking and utility workers).
• Both generic and industry-specific scales predicted driving safety behavior (self-reported) and road injury outcomes (accident data).
• The industry-specific safety climate scale demonstrated stronger predictive value than the generic scale (data only available for trucking).
• Both industry-specific scales as well as the generic scales show measurement equivalence in that scale items and measurement constructs have consistent meaning across different companies.
31
Additional Findings
32
Leaders Create Culture
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and Work Ownership both promote safety climate
Testing the role of contextual attributes of lone work known from the management science literature
33
Employee vs. Supervisors’ Perceptions (Trucking Data Illustrated: parallel finding for Utilities)
• For both company- and group-level safety climate, employee and supervisor perceptions of safety climate were significantly different – supervisors consistently reported higher levels of safety
climate
• Only employee perceptions of safety climate significantly predicted safety behavior (directly) and injury outcomes (indirectly) – supervisor perceptions had no predictive value
Emp_SC
Sup_SC
driving safety days out
.33**
.03 -1.24**
.03
34
Additional Published Scientific Papers
• Zohar, D., Huang, Y.H., Robertson, M.M. & Lee, J. (2014). A Mediation Model Linking Supervisory Leadership and Work Ownership with Safety Climate as Predictors of Truck Driver Safety Performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 62, 17-25.
• Huang, Y., Zohar, D., Robertson, M. M., Lee, J., Rineer, J., Murphy, L., Garabet, A. & Dainoff, M.J. (2014). Supervisor vs. Employee Safety Climate Perceptions: Association with Safety Behavior and Outcomes for Lone Workers. Transportation Research Part: Traffic Psychology and Behavior.
35
Interaction Between Group and Company Safety Climate
• Employees’ CSC and GSC perceptions are highly correlated (r = .78), but notable gaps between the two
• Both scores were equally predictive of safety behavior
• The two interacted with one another to predict safety behavior such that if either the CSC or GSC scores were low, the other’s contribution to safety behavior was complimentary.
• These findings suggested that CSC and GSC function in a compensatory manner and promote safe driving behavior even when either CSC or GSC scores are low
Safety Behavior
Company SC
36
Safety Climate Affects Work Quality
• Company-level and Group-level safety climate perceptions directly influence job satisfaction, employee engagement, and objective turnover rate (one year after survey).
Safety Climate (company-level and
group-level)
Job satisfaction
Employee engagement
Objective turn-over rate
+
+
-
37
Conference Presentations/Proceedings
• Huang, Y.H., Lee, J., Rineer, J., McFadden, A., & Robertson, M.M. (APA). The Interaction between Organization- and Group-level Safety Climate Perceptions: Association with Safety Behavior for Lone Workers.
• Huang, Y.H., Zohar, D, et al. (ODAM), The Impact of Safety Climate beyond Safety Outcomes: Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and Objective Turnover Rate.
38
Conclusion: Towards Evidence-Based Interventions
• Safety climate is a valid thermometer across diverse settings and applications.
• Current work being extended by a second wave of data collection -> longitudinal study
• While predictive of outcomes, and able to discriminate good from bad organizations, SC is not diagnostic
• Intervention requires systematic evaluation to identify system weak points: currently ongoing
39
The Future
• Exploring the intersection between safety climate, systems safety and management science
• Developing interventions based on SC screening followed by comprehensive analysis guided by sociotechnical systems theory
40
Generating knowledge to help people live safer, more secure lives
www.libertymutualgroup.com/researchinstitute www.libertymutualgroup.com/researchinstitute
41
Safety Climate as Shared Perceptions
• Original Conception: basis for shared perceptions --- workers within the same work group interact with each other and supervisor
• Statistical homogeneity criteria for determining if perceptions are shared – Utility: shared perceptions – Trucking: not shared perceptions
• Implications: – Psychological Safety Climate is operative for trucking, but
is still predictive of safety outcomes – Work group level Safety Climate predictive of safety
outcomes for utilities. Potential focus of interventions
42
Multilevel Focus of SC Questions
Company (Top Management) Level
Group (Immediate Supervisor) Level
Supervisors
EE
EE E E
E
Employees
43
Shared Safety Climate Perception Homogeneity tests
• Utility/electric workers’ safety climate perceptions were shared within the same supervisor group!
Criteria: rwgj > .70 (James et al., 1993) ICC(1) > .10 (Murphy & Myors, 1998) ICC(2) > .70 (LeBreton & Senter, 2008)
Pilot company (1560
participants, 115 work-units, average 12.4 employees)
2nd company (861 participants, 68 work-units,
average 9.1 employees)
rwgj ICC(1) ICC(2) rwgj ICC(1) ICC(2) Total CSC
.95 .21 .73 .96 .25 .75
Total GSC
.93 .19 .70 .93 .27 .77
44
Safety Climate and Employee Engagement as Predictors of Safety Behavior and Road Injury
Engagement
TSC Driving Safety Road Injury -.04** .29** -.38**
TSC × Egmt
.20**
-.09** -.11**
.15**
Safety climate and employee engagement predicted safety behavior, which mediated their effect on subsequently measured road injury outcomes. There is a moderation effect of engagement on the strength of relationship between climate perceptions and safety behavior.