A cross-cultural study of
organizational factors on safety:
Japanese vs. Taiwanese oil refinery plants
Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 24–34
Shang Hwa Hsua, Chun-Chia Lee, Muh-Cherng Wu, Kenichi Takano
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Chiao Tung University,
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)
Speaker: Jenny
2008/11/19
Agenda
•Purpose
•Introduction
•Organizational factors on safety
•Modeling organizational factors’
influence on individual safety
performance
•Methods
•Results
•Conclusion
Purpose
• Taiwan VS Japan
• Identify characteristics of
organizational factors on safety
• Influences
Introduction
• Chernobyl & Bhopal disaster
• Globalization: manufacturing facilities are
moved to emerging countries.
• Reason for choosing the examples
– Oil refinery plants
• Much Capital, high-risk, large-scale
– Safety management migration
• developed → emerging countries
Organization factors on safety
Level
Organization
Safety
management
Work group
Individual safety
performance
elements
1.
2.
3.
4.
Management commitment
Employee empowerment
Attitude toward continuous improvement
interpersonal relationship
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
Safety activities
Safety management system
Reporting system
Reward system
Supervision
Teamwork
1. Safety self efficacy
2. Safety awareness
3. Safety behavior
Modeling organizational factors’ influence
on individual safety performance
•
Mechanisms between organizational
factors and individual safety
performance. (Brown et al., 2000; Seo 2005)
•
This research
– hierarchical causal model
– relationships among 4-level
organizational factors.
• organizational factors affect safety performance
• Mediator: safety management and work group
Modeling organizational factors’ influence
on individual safety performance
•
Hypothesis 1a.
– Higher management commitment to
safety increases safety self-efficacy
through more safety activity emphasis.
•
Hypothesis 1b.
– Higher management commitment to
safety enhances safety awareness and
behavior through more supervisory
activity efforts.
Modeling organizational factors’ influence
on individual safety performance
•
Hypothesis 2a.
– Higher empowerment improves safety
awareness & safety behavior through
increased reporting of workplace safety
problems.
•
Hypothesis 2b.
– Higher empowerment improves safety
awareness & safety behavior through
increased higher quality teamwork.
Modeling organizational factors’ influence
on individual safety performance
•
Hypothesis 3a.
– Harmonious interpersonal relationship
enhances safety-efficacy through more
safety activity emphasis.
•
Hypothesis 3b.
– Harmonious interpersonal relationship
enhances safety awareness and safety
behavior through higher quality
teamwork.
Modeling organizational factors’ influence
on individual safety performance
•
Hypothesis 4a.
– Higher attitude level to continuous
improvement enhances safety behavior
through safety management.
•
Hypothesis 4b.
– Higher attitude level to continuous
improvement enhances safety
awareness and safety behavior through
higher quality teamwork.
Modeling organizational factors’ influence
on individual safety performance
•
Hypothesis 5a.
– Blameless reward system increases
safety awareness and behavior through
reporting.
•
Hypothesis 5b.
– Blameless reward system increases
safety behavior through safety
management.
Method
• Participants
– Oil refinery plants: frontline workers
plants Surveys
Response
Male
subjects
age
Taiwan
4
400
74%
97%
41~60
Japan
6
300
86%
96%
31~50
• Survey
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
5-point Likert scale
Material and measures
• Questionnaire
– Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
– EFA factors: 20 → 13
– Confirmatory factor analysis
– factors’ reliability : α > 0.6
– Questions: 53 = 4*12 + 5
Questionnaire Items
1 Management commitment
Top management show positive and
supportive safety attitudes
2 Employee empowerment
Maintain safety accountability by participation
in meetings and decision-making process
3 Continuous improvement
motivation and action in improvement
4 Interpersonal relationship
the importance of organizational interpersonal
relationship
5 Safety activities
way to communicate and promote policies
6 Safety management system Policy formalization and practice formulation
Questionnaire Items
7
Reporting system
Willingness to report work safety issues
8
Reward system
Top management reinforces safe behavior and
corrects unsafe behavior
9
Supervision
Supervisor efforts in instructing and monitoring
10 Teamwork
communication, coordination, and collaboration
among team members
11 Safety self-efficacy
belief in their own safety practice ability
12 Safety awareness
Risk perception in the workplace
13 Safety behavior
Risk-taking and obey rules and procedures
Method
• goodness-of-fit indices
– Chi-square (χ2)
– Normed fit index (NFI); non-normed fit
index (NNFI); comparative fit index
(CFI); incremental fit index (IFI) >0.9
– root-mean-squared error of
approximation (RMSEA) >0.08
• Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993; Bentlerand Bonett, 1980;
Maruyama, 1998
Data analysis procedures
• Raw scores → standardized normal
distribution
• Independent-sample t-tests
• SEM (structural equation modeling)
• LISREL VIII
• Examine hypothetical causal
relationships between
organizational factors at different
levels and safety performance
Results
• Most organizational factors receive high ratings
( >3 points)
• Except reward system
Results
Results
Taiwan
• Fig. 2. The modified structural model of Taiwan with
standardized path coefficients. (all paths are significant);
*p < 0.05.
Japan
• Fig. 3. The modified structural model of Japan with
standardized path coefficients. (all paths are significant);
*p < 0.05.
Conclusion
Taiwan
1. management commitment
2. harmonious interpersonal
relationship, safety
activities
3. devotion of supervision
4. self-efficacy
5. safety performance
Japan
1. employee empowerment
2. attitude towards continuous
improvement
3. systematic safety
management
4. efficient reporting system
5. Teamwork
6. safety performance
Conclusion
• Taiwan
– activities: reactive approach to safety issues
– Interpersonal relationship: people-oriented
– Supervision has negative influence on safety
awareness
• Japan
– Empowerment: fair safety leadership
– Continuous improvement & safety management
system: proactive approach
• Low score on reward system: blame culture
Conclusions
• Different organizational
characteristics of Taiwan and
Japan
• Different influence mechanisms on
safety performance
• influence of organizational factors
– Taiwan: cognitive level
– Japan: behavioral level