The Safety Culture, Social and Organizational Traditions - Literature review Example

HR GROUP REPORT Student’s name Course & code Professor’s name University City Date In a discussion by Dyreborg et al 2014, in high risk industries, human related accidents pose a considerable economic hazard that can lead to the companies incurring excessive operational costs besides tremendous damages in terms of loss of human lives. Besides the accidents being a result of unsuitable unsafe behavior by individuals, the industries have to set up contingency models which addresses the organizational and individual safety performance (Ek et al 2014). The term safety culture has been viewed in different dimensions by various scholars. To begin with, the safety culture differs slightly in every country since there are differences in the measures that are used to promote the safety environments at workplaces. The safety culture, having emerged after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, was introduced by ASCSN (Advisory Committee for Safety in Nuclear Installations) (Hecker & Goldenhar 2014). This was further noted by the accident investigation board of Columbia which demonstrated that the tragic Colombia and Challenger accidents had been due to poor safety culture (Zohar 2014). Since then, there has been a range of definitions that are discussed herein, though not exhaustive. However, Hecker & Goldenhar 2014 posits that the term safety culture can further be associated with the systematic occupational health and management that was set to determine the safety measures in companies and regulations that have been put in place by management to ensure safety of workers at their workplaces. Though this is narrowed down to the culmination of regulations within Australian and Norwegian workplace safety, it as much represents most of the definitions that are ascribed to by most scholars (Karanikas et al 2016). In a literature review by Hecker & Goldenhar 2014, safety climate and safety climate in the field of aviation is defined as constructs that evolve from the climate and culture in an organization. That is to say, an organizational culture determines the safety culture that the specific organization will be perceived to have (Laschinger et al 2014). For instance, this review by Hecker & Goldenhar 2014 presents the definition for the terminology as the assumptions, principles and basic values demonstrated by a certain organization I a workplace. Moreover, they further define these terms as culture referring to personality trait that is consistent while climate refers to the mood state which is variable in different organizations (Zadow & Dollard 2015). The term is further defined by Brown and Holmes as a being a collection of the beliefs and perceptions held individuals in an organization about the safety environment (Lee & Dalal 2016). This definition is further cemented by the definition by Coper and Phillips who argue that the conceptualization of the term relates to the shared attitudes, perceptions and beliefs that are demonstrated through actions and policies in the organization that relate to workplace safety procedures and performance (Schneider et al 2016). In a presentation of a report by Zadow & Dollard 2015, on psychosocial safety of workers in Australia, the safety culture can be utilized in numerous ways in shaping the behavior of the workers. As discussed in the report, psychosocial safety climate theory determines the way in which managers assess the risk factors associated with the workplaces and use this information to shape the job environment making the demands and resources available predictable (Zadow & Dollard 2015). As a matter of fact, this theory creates an environment in which the workers engage in self reporting responses that influence the characteristics of other members in the organization (Zadow & Dollard 2015). Furthermore, Zohar 2014 establishes that individual perceptions and participation in stress control by the workers allow the workers to develop better understanding of the policies and practices at workplaces. This, through developing a consistent climate in which individuals in a given unit, team or group create a common agreement on the perception of the safety precautions in the organization (Schneider et al 2016). This is further determined by the psychological engagement of the teams on the work conditions within the organization (Zohar & Polachek 2014). For example, the workers at Sopranos being allowed the freedom to make decisions on the production levels will create an understanding of better ways of mass production without breaching the safety protocols to generate faster production. Similarly, it has also been noted by Dyreborg et al 2015, that the social and organizational traditions have impact on the overall safety behavior of the workers. According to Dyreborg et al 2015, it has been argued that the changing of the mindset of the workers through appealing to their psychological perceptions has an impact on the overall outward behavior of the workers. For instance, the discussion by Schneider et al 2016 shows that the environment within the workplaces which allows for free flow of information from the top and bottom within the organization allowing the workers to have their ideas heard and adopted boosts the self-esteem of the workers. Besides, this presents an alternative way of determining how the workers behave towards the safety measures at the workplaces (Reason 2016). Therefore, consistency in the communication channels creates a positive perception and attitude of the workers thus developing a safety culture in which all the workers are in compliance with. Generally, Dyreborg et al 2015 presents the most recent and updated causal model that demonstrates how the safety culture is inculcated into the attitudes and perceptions of the workers. For instance, the behavior demonstrated by the workers is derived from the top management which can be viewed as the cause and the accidents, products and services to be considered as the consequences of the climate (Reason 2016; Schneider et al 2016). This is summarized in the model by Glennon that demonstrates the cause and consequences of the safety climate (Niu et al 2016). Figure 1.0 Glennon’s organizational culture model Source: Niu et al 2016 Basing on the model, it can be seen that every aspect of the organizational culture which forms the safety culture contributes to the wellbeing of the other (Niu et al 2016). For example, the organizational characteristics like the structure and strategies which determine the safety culture that is perceived in totality impact the individual perception of these characteristics (Lee & Dalal 2016). As such, Niu et al 2016 infer that developing sound safety culture through organizational strategies will derive positive perception of the safety culture by the workers who will in turn show improved behavior in form of individual outcomes. Moreover, the model shows that organizational culture which culminates to safety climate impact on the perception of the workers (Karanikas et al 2016). That is to say, the workers perceive the safety culture as either good or poor and thus it is the mandate of the organization to change how these workers perceive the safety climate. Changing the perception of the workers on the safety climate of the organization through frequency and types of communications on safety consequently alters the outcome of the individual’s behavior to draw them towards personal responsibility (Hecker & Goldenhar 2014). Further, Deninson presents an organizational culture model that presents the view of the safety climate in the organization (Hong & Baek 2016). This model, through the four dimensions of consistency, adaptability, participation and mission, addresses the possible channels for appealing to the individual and organizational behavior outcomes. According to Donmez 2014, people develop positive attitudes towards the safety culture when they view the culture as consistent which is in a way a demonstration of stability within the organization. For example, Sopranos putting in place safety measures that are stable and permanent will allow their workers to perceive the measures as necessary and stop working their way around them but rather develop a positive understanding of the measures and adhere to them (Lee & Dalal 2016). Similarly, Laschinger et al 2014 posits that participation and interaction within the organization allows the workers to be actively involved in formulating the safety measures which as a result lead to their appreciation of the safety climate and culture thus changing their safety behavior positively. Furthermore, this is backed up by Loeppke et al 2015 who demonstrates that the adaptability of the safety culture in a manner that the measures are non-discriminative and do not hinder the flow of work at the industries influences the workers’ perception of the safety culture thus changing their safety behavior positively. This can be seen in the way Sopranos involve their workers in decision making segments in regard to safety measures which will allow their workers to formulate safety protocols that creative conducive working conditions (Karanikas et al 2016). Since safety culture involves norms, behaviors and rules, the mission of the organization that focusses on promoting the safety culture integration will positively influence the attitudes and perception of the safety culture by the workers (Donmez 2014). As a matter of fact, Sopranos clearly outlining the roles and practices of the workers will positively influence the competencies of the workers which creates commitment in the worker’s behavior as discussed by Hong & Baek 2016. References Donmez, M 2014, ‘The Effect of Safety Perception of the Police in The City of Diyarbakir On Job Satisfaction’, European Scientific Journal, vol. 10 no. 5. Dyreborg, J, Lipscomb, HJ, Olsen, O, Törner, M, Nielsen, K, Lund, J, Kines, P, Guldenmund, FW, Rasmussen, K, Bengtsen, E & Gensby, U 2015, ‘Safety Interventions for the Prevention of Accidents in the Work Place: A Systematic Review’. Ek, Å, Runefors, M & Borell, J 2014, ‘Relationships between safety culture aspects–A work process to enable interpretation’, Marine Policy, vol. 44, pp.179-186. Hecker, S & Goldenhar, L 2014, ‘Understanding safety culture and safety climate in construction: Existing evidence and a path forward’, Silver Spring, MD: CPWR—The Center for Construction Research and Training. Hong, IG & Baek, JB 2016, ‘Towards an Effective Assessment of Safety Culture’, Journal of the Korean Society of Safety, vol. 31 no.1, pp.118-125. Karanikas, N, Soltani, P, de Boer, RJ & Roelen, AL 2016, ‘Safety Culture Development: The Gap Between Industry Guidelines and Literature, and the Differences Amongst Industry Sectors’, In Advances in Safety Management and Human Factors, Springer International Publishing, pp. 53-63. Laschinger, HKS, Wong, CA, Cummings, GG & Grau, AL 2014, ‘Resonant leadership and workplace empowerment: The value of positive organizational cultures in reducing workplace incivility’, Nursing economics, vol. 32 no. 1, p.5. Lee, S & Dalal, RS 2016, ‘Climate as situational strength: Safety climate strength as a cross-level moderator of the relationship between conscientiousness and safety behavior’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 25 no. 1, pp.120-132. Loeppke, RR, Hohn, T, Baase, C, Bunn, WB, Burton, WN, Eisenberg, BS, Ennis, T, Fabius, R, Hawkins, RJ, Hudson, TW & Hymel, PA 2015, ‘Integrating health and safety in the workplace: how closely aligning health and safety strategies can yield measurable benefits’, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 57 no.5, pp.585-597. Niu, M, Leicht, RM & Rowlinson, S 2016, ‘The Relationship among Safety Culture Model Constructs in Construction’. Reason, J 2016, ‘Managing the risks of organizational accidents’, Routledge. Schneider, B, González-Romá, V, Ostroff, C & West, MA 2016, ‘Organizational climate and culture: reflections on the history of the constructs in Journal of Applied Psychology’, Journal of Applied Psychology. Zadow, A & Dollard, MF 2015, ‘Psychosocial Safety Climate’, The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Occupational Safety and Workplace Health, pp.414-436. Zohar, D & Polachek, T 2014, ‘Discourse-based intervention for modifying supervisory communication as leverage for safety climate and performance improvement: A randomized field study’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 99 no. 1, p.113. Zohar, D 2014, ‘Safety climate: Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement, ‘The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture, pp.317-334. Read More