MGMT Commitment Oct 2017

THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT IN SAFETY MANAGEMENT
Mei-Lin Tsao*
Department of Information Management
I-Shou University, Taiwan (ROC)
(*Corresponding Author) tsao8989@gmail.com
Chia-Jen Hsieh
Department of Business Administration,
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (ROC)
brad0122hsieh@gmail.com
Lisa Y. Chen
Department of Information Management
I-Shou University, Taiwan (ROC)
lisachen@isu.edu.tw
Abstract
Researchers have recognized safety-related organizational factors have greater influ-

ences on safety performance. Little attention, however, has been focused on how
these important organizational factors influence safety outcomes. This research ex-
plored the relationships among organizational factors (especially management com-
mitment and employee involvement) and safety outcomes through structural equa-
tion modeling (SEM) analysis. Data were collected from front-line employees of
Taiwanese steel plants. This research postulated that organizational factors would
affect safety outcomes through safety management system and work group proc-
esses. SEM was used to test the relationships among these factors. Results revealed
management commitment and employee involvement demonstrate different effects
on safety management system and work group processes, which in turn influence
employees’ safety awareness and behavior. These findings provide valuable implica-
tions for improving safety management programs in other high-risk industries.
KEY WORDS: Safety management; Safety culture; Safety climate; Management

commitment, Employee involvement
52
The International Journal of Organizational Innovation Vol 10 Num 2 October 2017
Introduction den et al., 2015; Oliver et al., 2002;
Seo, 2005; Siu et al., 2004; Tomas et
Since the 1980s, a paradigm al., 1999). Much of the work has fo-
shift occurred from technical analy- cused on the influences of leadership
sis period toward the organizational style on safety outcomes (Barling et
and management factors period in al., 2002; Barling & Zacharatos,
the research of accident causation 1999; Kelloway et al., 2006; McFad-
theories (Zohar, 2014). All of the den et al., 2015). Other organiza-
studies, either quantitative or qualita- tional and management factors, such
tive, indicated that organizational as organizational climate and safety
factors can be viewed as antecedents climate, that have been found to be
of accidents occurrences for large related to safety performance (Brown
complex systems (Reason, 1997; Seo et al., 2000; Huang et al. 2014; Seo,
et al., 2004; Casey et al., 2017) and 2005).
as effective indicators to assess or-
ganizational safety (Flin et al., 2000). Among these organizational
In the past thirty years, many studies factors related to safety, management
related to safety management have commitment and employee involve-
focused on factorial structure of ment have been widely viewed as the
measurement scales and its predic- important factors influencing organ-
tive validity with regard to a variety izational safety (Brown & Holmes,
of safety outcomes. (Colley et al., 1986; Dedobbeleer & Beland, 1991;
2013; Flin et al., 2000; Glendon & Flin et al., 2000; Glendon & Lither-
Litherland, 2001; Zohar, 1980). land, 2001; Wiegmann et al., 2002;
However, much of the work in this Zohar, 1980). Studies have indicated
field has focused on methodological that management commitment to
rather than theoretical or conceptual safety is a critical factor significantly
issues (Zohar, 2010; 2014). To pro- influencing organizational safety be-
vide more theoretical foundations in haviors (Cheyne et al., 1998, Wieg-
this field, safety researchers have mann et al., 2002; Zohar, 1980). In
recently begun turning their atten- an effective safety program, upper
tions on the roles of organizational management must demonstrate posi-
factors in relation to safety practices tive safety attitudes towards safety
and unsafe behavior (Brown et al., and their concern for employee well-
2000; Casey et al., 2017; Colley et being. While upper management
al., 2013; Huang et al. 2014; McFad- demonstrates their organizational
53
commitment to safety, they will ganization should incorporate em-
identify safety as a core value or ployees’ concerns and suggestions at
guiding principles of an organization different hierarchical level.
(Eiff, 1999). Barling & Zacharatos Although management commitment
(1999) pointed out that high levels of and employee involvement are well
management commitment to safety recognized to significantly influence
could enhance safety behavior of safety outcomes, exactly how these
employees. Hofmann & Morgeson two safety-related organizational fac-
(1999) reached a similar finding, in- tors are associated with safety out-
dicating that high-quality manage- comes has seldom been addressed.
ment support to safety enhances Therefore, this study attempts to elu-
safety communication and safety cidate the relationships between the
commitment of employees, ulti- two factors and safety outcomes. We
mately reducing workplace acci- adopt the perspectives of how an or-
dents. ganization functions to develop the
conceptual structural framework
In addition, persistent participa- (Hsu et al., 2008; Zohar, 2000). Ac-
tion from operations personnel is cording to the hierarchy of organiza-
also a fundamental prerequisite for a tional operation, upper management
total safety culture (Geller, 1994). sets organizational goals in response
Employee involvement provides the to the fluctuations of external envi-
viable solutions to improve safety ronment. They also make policies
problems and reveals their own and devise organizational strategies
commitment to safety (OSHA, to achieve the established goals.
2017), which can increase employ- Middle level management formulates
ees’ motivation to assume safety re- operating procedures and provides
sponsibility and reduce potentially tactical action guidelines based on
unsafe behaviors and injuries of or- upper management policies and
ganization (Geller, 2001). Organiza- strategies. Line managers at work
tions with a good safety culture group level execute policies and pro-
should involve employee suggestions cedures from upper and middle man-
to safety improvement and ensure agement, provide instructions to
that employees clearly comprehend frontline workers, and monitor the
their vital responsibilities in facilitat- work progress to ensure the operat-
ing occupational safety. An effective ing performance (Zohar & Luria,
safety management system in an or- 2005). Based on above concepts, we
54
develop a safety management model, fective in reducing accident rate.
which postulates that organizational Therefore, we hypothesize the fol-
factors affect safety awareness and lowing.
behavior through safety management
system and work group processes. Hypothesis 1a: In an organization
with higher management com-
Linkages Between Management mitment to safety will be posi-
Commitment And Safety Outcomes tively related to the supervision
of line managers. Additionally,
Zohar & Luria (2005) has indi- increased supervision of line
cated that the safety policies of upper managers will be positively re-
management may influence the tacti- lated to safety awareness and
cal action plans of frontline supervi- behavior of employees.
sors at the work group level. Once
demonstrating an organizational While demonstrating a persis-
commitment to safety, upper man- tent and positive attitude towards
agement prioritizes safety as a core safety, management becomes inti-
organizational value. Upper manag- mately involved in critical safety ac-
ers also become personally involved tivities within the organization
in daily safety-related activities criti- (Wiegmann et al., 2002). They often
cal and decision-making meetings on improve organizational safety per-
safety to provide guiding organiza- formance through holding safety re-
tional principles, which will facilitate lated activities. Safety activities refer
frontline supervisors to play a more to how an organization promulgates
active supervisory role (i.e. more safety policies and promotes safety
task instructions and progress moni- management practices. Safety train-
toring) to comply with the expecta- ing and safety campaigns are the
tions and requirements of upper most common methods among
management. Thus, increased super- safety-related activities. Safety train-
visory involvement might make em- ing can upgrade knowledge expertise
ployees more aware of safety risks in of employees towards safety opera-
the workplace and more receptive to tions. Safety campaigns can raise
comply with safety procedures and safety awareness among employees
regulations. Simard & Marchand towards risk and safety-related capa-
(1994) indicated that supervisory in- bilities. Holding safety training and
volvement in safety activities is ef- campaigns will provide helps to
55
promote safety awareness and safety ees to actively participate in and
behavior of employees. We thus hy- comply with safety procedures and
pothesize the following. regulations. We thus hypothesize
the following.
Hypothesis 1b: In an organization
with higher management com- Hypothesis 1c: In an organization
mitment to safety will be posi- with higher management com-
tively related to safety activities. mitment to safety will be posi-
Additional safety activity efforts tively related to proactive safety
will be positively related to management. A proactive safety
safety awareness and behavior management system will have
of employees. positively related to safety
awareness and behavior among
Furthermore, upper manage- employees.
ment with a high level of manage-
ment commitment to safety provides Linkages between employee in-
adequate resources and methods to volvement and safety outcomes
nurture and promote proactive sys-
tem management. Here, proactive As mentioned in earlier para-
safety management refers to the graph, employee involvement can
perceived quality and effectiveness increase a sense of responsibility
of a safety management system, in- among employees and hold account-
cluding formalization of safety poli- able ownership for their safety ac-
cies, formulation of safety proce- tions, enabling them to concentrate
dures, as well as investigation of on continuously elevating proactive
safety incidents/accidents, risk as- safety management. That is, employ-
sessment and solutions. In an effec- ees can participate in decision mak-
tive safety management system, up- ing, including formulation of safety
per management highly prioritizes policies, procedures and practices, as
proactive risk management of safety well as investigation and evaluation
(Geller, 2001; Santos-Reyes & of safety incidents/accidents. Em-
Beard, 2002). A proactive safety ployees with incentives to offer their
management within an organization ideas and whose contributions are
might increase the safety risk taken seriously are more satisfied
awareness of employees in the and productive on the job (OSHA,
workplace and encourage employ- 2009). Management that adopts em-
56
ployee suggestions will increases 1994). A reporting system can func-
employees’ motivation to make a tion as an effective feedback loop
difference and go beyond in ensuring that enables management to under-
organizational safety (Wiegmann et stand safety problems in the work-
al., 2002; Geller, 1994), and in com- place. This system also acts as an
plying with safety records of organi- information sharing and organiza-
zations. Consequently, employees tional learning venue for incidents in
become proactive in safety manage- the workplace, ultimately preventing
ment, which in turn increase their future incidents proactively (IAEA,
aware of safety risks in the work- 2002; Reason, 1997). Employees
place and actively comply with who demonstrate free and uninhibi-
safety procedures and regulations. ted reporting of safety issues in-
We thus hypothesize the following. crease their safety awareness and
willingness to comply with safety
Hypothesis 2a: In an organization practices. We thus hypothesize the
with higher employee involve- following.
ment will be positively related
to proactive safety management. Hypothesis 2b: In an organization
A proactive safety management with higher employee involve-
will be positively related to ment will be positively related
safety awareness and behavior to safety reporting among em-
among employees. ployees. A sound safety report-
ing climate will be positively re-
An organization with a good lated to safety awareness and
safety climate thus encourages em- behavior among employees.
ployees to report safety problems
without fear of retribution, as well as In addition, several accidents in
provides timely and valuable feed- high-risk systems are related to
back to all employees (Wiegmann et teamwork failure (Helmreich & Mer-
al, 2002). Increased employee par- ritt, 1998). Teamwork, which com-
ticipation motivates them to con- prises communication, coordination,
stantly provide safety suggestions in and collaboration among team mem-
the workplace, thus encouraging bers, profoundly impacts safe opera-
them to actively report safety con- tion. Employee involvement in-
cerns and share their knowledge ex- creases interaction and autonomy of
pertise with colleagues (Geller, team members, leading to a sense of
57
responsibility for safety among team ness and behavior among em-
members (Parker & Turner, 2002). A ployees.
strong feeling of responsibility and
ownership for safety can encourage Based on those relationships
workplace safety, subsequently in- between organizational factors (man-
crease group communication and agement commitment and employ-
collaboration and reduce monotony ment involvement) and safety per-
(Cohen & Ledford, 1994). Through formance (safety awareness and
safety reminders and knowledge safety practices), a fully integrated
sharing among team members, em- structural model is developed. Figure
ployee awareness of workplace risks 1 graphically depicts the relation-
can be enhanced. Additionally, cohe- ships specified in the above hypothe-
sion and collaborative relations ses.
among work group members and su- Methods
pervisors are positively associated
with safety compliance (Simard & Participants
Marchand, 1995, 1997). Hofmann &
Stetzer (1996) indicated that group Survey questionnaires of this
processes such as planning and coor- study were distributed to 350 front-
dinating approaches prevent team line workers from steel plants of two
members from engaging in unsafe steel companies in Taiwan. The par-
acts, subsequently resulting in fewer ticipants were selected using a strati-
injuries and less unsafe behavior. In fied random sampling method. Thus,
sum, with higher quality teamwork the number of samples selected from
atmosphere in an organization will a department was proportional to the
be help to increase the safety aware- relative size of the department in one
ness and behavior. We thus hypothe- company. The questionnaires were
size the following. administered during working hours.
The investigators described the pro-
Hypothesis 2c: In an organization cedures of the study, and promised
with higher employee involve- confidentiality. The process was su-
ment will be positively related pervised by members of research
to teamwork climate among team. Participants were asked to fill
employees. With higher quality out the questionnaire anonymously
teamwork climate will be posi- and collected immediately by
tively related to safety aware-
58
Supervision
Commitment Activities Awareness
Safety Mgt
Behavior
Involvement Reporting
Teamwork
Note. Commitment=Management commitment; involvement=Employee involvement; Activities=Safety activities; Safety Mgt= Proactive
safety management; Reporting= Safety reporting; Awareness=Safety awareness; Behavior=Safety behavior
Figure 1. The hypothetical model of the present research

.
59
Table 1. Profile of respondents from frontline employees (N=323)
Demographic variable Respondents

Fre- (%)
quency
Gender
Male 304 94%
Female 19 6%
Age
21-30 23 7%
31-40 58 18%
41-50 123 38%
51-60 113 35%
>61 6 2%
Job categories
Plant services 36 11%
Shop floor 264 82%
Other 23 7%
Work experience
< 5 years 23 7%
6-10 39 12%
11-15 61 19%
16-20 68 21%
21-25 71 22%
>25 61 19%
investigators. The response rate was swers ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
92% (n=323). Respondent character- agree) to 5 (strongly agree), indicat-
istics are shown in Table 1 above. ing the extent to which the respon-
dent agreed with items. The reliabil-
Materials and Measures ity and validity of the Taiwanese-
version questionnaire has been dem-
The survey questionnaire items onstrated in earlier studies (Hsu,
were adopted from a safety assess- 2005; Hsu et al., 2008). To fulfill the
ment system questionnaire, as devel- objectives of this study, question-
oped by the Central Research Insti- naire items were selected in the
tute of Electric Power Industry above-mentioned factors from four
(CRIEPI) in Japan (Takano et al., categories: organizational factors,
2001). Each questionnaire item uses including management commitment
a 5-point Likert-type scale, with an- and employee involvement; safety
60
management factors, including safety 1998): chi-square (χ2), normed fit
activities, proactive safety manage- index (NFI); non-normed fit index
ment and safety reporting; work (NNFI); comparative fit index (CFI);
group process factors, including su- incremental fit index (IFI); root-
pervision and teamwork; and safety mean-squared error of approximation
outcome factors, including safety (RMSEA). Bentler (1992) recom-
awareness and behavior. Table 2 lists mended NNFI, CFI, IFI scores of .90
the definition, item number, and an or more indicate an acceptable data
example item of each factor. fit. A RMSEA value up to .05 indi-
cates a good-model fit; a value of .08
Data Analysis Procedures or lower indicates a acceptable
model fit; a value exceeding .10 in-
Questionnaire items were ana- dicates poor model fit (Joreskog &
lyzed to confirm the construct valid- Sorbom, 1993).
ity of the factor measurement model
using confirmatory factor analysis Results
(CFA), as conducted by LISREL
version 8.54. The internal consis- Measurement Model Testing
tency reliability of each factor was
examined using Cronbach’s alpha The overall measurement model
coefficient (Churchill, 1991; Nun- fit was evaluated by χ2 (557)
nally, 1978). The factor variables =1614.95, p < 0.01. Since χ2 is af-
were analyzed using descriptive sta- fected by sample size, we recom-
tistics and intercorrelations. Hypo- mend using other fit indices.
thetical structural relationships RMSEA values of 0.077 (i.e. lower
among organizational factors were than 0.08) indicate that the meas-
examined using structural equation urement model is an acceptable
modeling (SEM), also conducted by model fit. Others indices exceeding
LISREL version 8.54. or near 0.9 indicate that the meas-
urement model is acceptable (i.e. the
Measurement adequacy of CFA NFI was 0.92; the NNFI was 0.94;
and SEM was evaluated using sev- the CFI was 0.95; the IFI is 0.95). In
eral goodness-of-fit indices, as rec- sum, test results indicate that the
ommended by researchers (Bentler, construct validity of factors is ade-
1992; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Jore- quate. The Cronbach’s alpha value of
skog & Sorbom, 1993; Maruyama,
61
Table 2. The definition, item number, example item for all constructs
Constructs (# of items) Definition Example item

Management commitment Top management identifies safety as a core value and Management places a high priority on safety opera-
1
(4) demonstrates positive and supportive safety attitudes tions in company
Employment involvement Employees are involved in safety meetings and safety de- Employees were involved in safety decision meet-
2
(4) cision-making processes. ings in the workplaces
The ways how an organization implements safety policies,
3 Safety activities (4 ) Safety activities are frequently held at workplace.
and promotes safety management practices
Proactive safety manage- Perceived quality and effectiveness of proactive safety The company modifies safety procedures in response
4
ment (4 ) management system in an organization to incident occurrence
Employees are willing to report safety problems of mis- Coworkers are willing to making reports to upper
5 Safety reporting (4)
takes in the workplace management regarding safety mistakes
Supervisor’s efforts spent in instructing and monitoring Supervisors frequently go around inspecting the
6 Supervision (4)
employee safety workplace.
Communication, coordination, and collaboration among
7 Teamwork (4) Team members help each other finish their work.
team members
When in doubt about safety is in question, I proceed
8 Safety awareness (4) Employees’ risk perception to workplace
with great caution.
Employees’ risk-taking behavior and compliance to safety
9 Safety behavior (5) I comply with safety rules and procedures.
rules and procedures
62
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations for all constructs in present study (N=323)
Constructs M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Management commitment 3.96 0.59 0.85
2 Employment involvement 3.84 0.61 0.71** 0.83
3 Safety activities 4.00 0.60 0.77** 0.68** 0.87
Proactive safety manage-
4 3.85 0.64 0.61** 0.75** 0.77** 0.79
ment
5 Safety reporting 3.64 0.49 0.20** 0.45** 0.27** 0.23** 0.67
6 Supervision 3.83 0.61 0.68** 0.74** 0.63** 0.71** 0.17** 0.81
7 Teamwork 3.74 0.53 0.55** 0.45** 0.44** 0.44** 0.26** 0.48** 0.75
8 Safety awareness 3.95 0.54 0.59** 0.62** 0.60** 0.58** 0.20** 0.67** 0.45** 0.80
9 Safety behavior 4.06 0.46 0.57** 0.51** 0.59** 0.55** 0.37** 0.50** 0.41** 0.57** 0.77
Element in the diagonal are the values of Cronbach’s alpha for each construct
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.
63
Supervision 0.35*
n.s
0.81*
0.71* 0.27*
Commitment Activities Awareness
n.s 0.21*
n.s
Safety Mgt
n.s
0.73* 0.17*
0.43* 0.41* Behavior

Involvement Reporting
0.70*
0.25*
0.35*
Teamwork
Note. Commitment=Management commitment; involvement=Employee involvement; Activities=Safety activities; Safety Mgt=Proactive safety
management; Reporting= Safety reporting; Awareness=Safety awareness; Behavior=Safety behavior. *p< .05
Figure 2. The modified structural model with standardized path coefficients
64
each factor exceeds 0.6, demonstrat- ure 2 presents the standardized path
ing the adequacy of the internal con- coefficients in the modified model.
sistency reliability of the question-
naire (Churchill, 1991; Nunnally, Discussion
1978). Table 3 lists the descriptive
statistics and inter-correlations This study explores the relation-
among the factors in different levels. ships between management com-
mitment and employee involvement
Structural Model Testing and safety outcomes by performing
structural model analysis. The results
The hypotheses of structural of the structural models revealed
model depicted in Figure 1 were these two important organizational
validated by performing structural factors (management commitment
equation modeling (SEM). The over- and employee involvement) related
all fit of the structural model was significantly affect safety awareness
evaluated by χ2 (577) =1760.07, p < and behavior of employees, which
0.01. Since χ2 tends to be affected by are consistent with previous studies,
sample size, other fit indices are used indicating that management com-
in this study. The values of RMSEA mitment and employee involvement
were 0.080 (near 0.08), indicating are essential to safety performance
that the measurement model has a (Brown & Holmes, 1986; Dedobbel-
reasonable model fit. Others indices eer & Beland, 1991; Flin et al., 2000;
(the NFI was 0.91; the NNFI was Zohar, 1980). The findings of this
0.93; the CFI was 0.94; the IFI was research have several theoretical and
0.94) exceeded or approached 0.9, practical implications for safety and
indicating that the structural model is organizational studies, which will be
acceptable. In sum, test results indi- discussed as follows.
cate that the structural model is ade-
quate. According to model testing First, our results demonstrate
results, most paths in the structural that management commitment sig-
model were statistically significant nificantly affects the supervision of
except four paths from management line managers. However, increased
commitment to safety management, supervision has significant effects on
from safety management to safety employee safety awareness than em-
awareness and behavior, and from ployee safety behavior. This finding
supervision to safety behavior. Fig- can be explained by that Taiwanese
65
line managers tend to be involved in active safety management is not sig-
daily safety activities and demon- nificant. This result reveals man-
strate their safety supervisory capa- agement of Taiwanese steel industry
bility. Continuous work instructions tends to adopt an activity-based reac-
and process monitoring from a line tive approach to respond to safety
manager only increase risk aware- problems. This finding is consistent
ness and safety knowledge of em- with the research conducted by Hsu
ployees at the cognitive level, and et al. (2008). In the workplace, the
the improvement of safety behavior performance of holding safety activi-
is not significant. To promote safety ties and safety campaigns is apparent
behavior of employees, Taiwanese and attainable. Conversely, en-
upper management and line man- hancement of proactive safety man-
agement should emphasis on the im- agement practices requires additional
portance of behavioral safety. They efforts, and safety management per-
should provide visible management formance is not apparent. Therefore,
and become actively involved in im- Taiwanese management should shift
plementing safety programs. Doing their style of safety management sys-
so would help all organizational tem from reactive approach to proac-
members to understand clearly man- tive approaches (Geller, 2001; Hsu et
agement commitment to safety, per- al., 2008, 2002). Although our re-
formance required and the measures search indicates holding safety-
achieving goals. Additionally, man- related activities such as training and
agement should stress the importance campaigns are very important in
of accountability to avoid employees promoting safety awareness and be-
from over relying on line managers. havior, they should more heavily
Employees should be held account- emphasize establishing the impor-
able for safety responsibilities, and tance of proactive safety manage-
their performance should also be ment system, especially with respect
evaluated in relation to standards or to preventing and controlling poten-
goals that yield positive conse- tial hazards at workplace. Establish-
quences (OSHA, 2009). ing safe work practices and using
personal protective equipment (PPE)
Second, we find upper man- can significantly reduce employee
agement commitment to safety has exposure to potential hazards. Com-
significant effects on safety activi- panies should also computerize their
ties, and however, the effect on pro- hazard monitoring systems, which
66
can easily search hazards and acci- employees who offer their ideas and
dents investigation reports and track whose contributions should also be
their corrections. Moreover, man- taken seriously. Additionally, em-
agement must be aware of possible ployees should be regularly involved
emergency contingencies and plan in developing and modifying the site
the most effective means of control- safety rules. They should also be au-
ling or preventing hazards during thorized to conduct site inspections
emergencies (Geller, 2001; Santos- and participate in accident/incident
Reyes & Beard, 2002; OSHA, 2009). investigations. Analyzing hazards in
In addition, we also find that em- the work process and preparing safe
ployee involvement significantly af- work practices would help to elimi-
fects proactive safety management in nate or reduce workplace hazards.
Taiwanese steel plants, which is con- Taiwanese management should shift
sistent with the findings of Geller their thinking from top-down direc-
(1994), who stated employee in- tive to bottom-up involvement
volvement can improve safety man- (Geller, 2001).
agement programs from reactive to
proactive. It is a good way to in- Third, our results indicate that
crease proactive safety management employee involvement significantly
through employee involvement. Em- affects safety reporting among em-
ployee involvement can provide an ployees. An effective safety reporting
effective means of continuously system is the keystone of preventing
solving safety problems and express- accidents (Eiff, 1999, Reason, 1997).
ing their own commitment to safety, Employee involvement can also help to
subsequently causing employees to establish a good reporting culture, ul-
more heavily emphasize the impor- timately enhancing employees’ safety
tance of proactive safety manage- awareness and behavior, which are
ment (Wiegmann et al., 2002). To consistent with the previous studies
ensure their greater satisfaction and (Brown & Holmes, 1986; Dedobbeleer
productivity on the job, employees & Beland, 1991; Reason, 1997; Zohar,
should be invited to participate in 1980). To establish a sound reporting
management or specific purpose de- culture, management should incorpo-
cision-making committees. They rate the employee suggestions in
should be encouraged to provide safety-related decisions for the safety
recommendations and presentations reporting system. Employees should be
at safety meetings, especially those encouraged to freely and uninhibitedly
67
report safety issues during daily activi- crease group cohesiveness. Therefore,
ties (Wiegmann et al, 2002). Manage- management should stress the impor-
ment should also avoid blaming an in- tance of teamwork building while in-
dividual or group for mistakes of in- volving employees into safety meet-
jury-producing incidents in the work- ings or activities. To facilitate the high
place. Mistakes or injuries provide an quality of teamwork, an organizational
opportunity to accumulate facts from a incentive system should be designed
system (Geller, 2001). For a successful based on the team performance. Man-
safety program, employees must draw agement should continuously encour-
attention to safety mistakes without age open information sharing among
fear of retribution; otherwise, knowl- employees. Employees should also be
edge expertise is suppressed (Reason, invited to support team members by
1997). Additionally, management providing feedback on risks and assist-
should establish a structural feedback ing them to eliminate hazards. Addi-
system to inform employees that their tionally, management should establish
recommendations or concerns to occu- an organizational learning culture.
pational safety have been reviewed and Through sharing knowledge expertise
what improvement actions are taken within an organization, teamwork qual-
(Wiegmann et al., 2002). ity increases, which will help to pro-
mote the safety awareness and behav-
Finally, our results indicate that ior of employees.
employee involvement significantly
can help to facilitate high quality of Despite the above contributions,
teamwork among employees, ulti- this study has certain limitations.
mately enhancing employees’ safety First, this study was only one cross-
awareness and behavior. This finding sectional research, making it impos-
is consistent with the previous studies sible for us to investigate how these
(Parker & Turner, 2002). Teamwork two factors influence safety out-
issues in the workplace have been in- comes over time. This clear limits
creasingly paid more attention. To the extent to which we can make a
achieve the goals of operations in an causal inference. To further clarify
organization, employees must be able the efficacy of this study, future
to collaborate with others effectively. studies should perform a longitudinal
Employee involvement can enhance study. Second, the samples in this
communication, coordination and col- study are limited to Taiwanese front-
laboration of team members, and in- line workers in the steel industry.
68
Results of this study clearly ployee involvement and safety out-
limit the extent to which we can comes are related. Analytical results
make inferences for various high risk support our hypotheses, in which we
industries, thus necessitating further postulate that management commit-
safety studies in different high risk ment and employee involvement sig-
industries. Third, according to previ- nificantly influence the safety
ous studies (Barling & Zachararos, awareness and behavior through a
1999; Barling et al., 2002; Hofmann safety management system and work
& Morgeson, 1999; Kelloway et al., group processes. Results of this
2006), management leadership styles study have valuable implications for
significantly affect safety outcomes. upgrading safety management pro-
Future research should attempt to grams in other high-risk industries.
incorporate the role that leadership
styles play in current studies. Fourth, References
previous studies indicated that these
two safety-related organizational fac- Barling, J., & Zacharatos, A. (1999).
tors have cross-cultural characteris- High-performance safety sys-
tics. However, exactly how these two tem: management practices for
safety-related organizational factors achieving optimal safety per-
influence safety management may formance. Paper presented at
differ across different cultures, the 25th annual meeting of the
thereby necessitation further com- Academy of Management, To-
parative studies in other cultures. ronto.
Conclusion Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kello-

way, E. K. (2002). Developing
As is widely recognized, man- and testing a model of safety
agement commitment and employee specific transformational lead-
involvement significantly influence ership and occupational safety.
safety performance. However, ex- Journal of Applied Psychology,
actly how these safety-related organ- 87, 488-496.
izational factors influence safety out-
comes has seldom been addressed. Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of
By performing structural model models to covariances and
analysis, this study explores how methodology to the Bulletin.
management commitment and em-
69
Psychological Bulletin 112, safety climate in the prediction of
400–404. levels of safety activity. Work
and Stress, 12(3), 255–271.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G.
(1980). Significance tests and Churchill, G. A. (1991). Marketing
goodness-of-fit in the analysis research: Methodological
of covariance structures. Psy- Foundation (5th ed). New York:
chological Bulletin, 88, 588– The Dryden Press.
606.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr.
Brown, K. A., Willis, P. G., & Prus- (1994). The effectiveness of
sia, G. E. (2000). Predicting self-managing teams: A quasi-
safe employee behavior in the experiment. Human Relations,
steel industry: development and 47, 13-43.
test of a sociotechnical model.
Journal of Operations Man- Colley, S. K., Lincolne, J., & Neal,
agement, 18, 445– 465. A. (2013). An examination of
the relationship amongst pro-
Brown, R. L., & Holmes, H. (1986). files of perceived organiza-
The use of a factor-analytic tional values, safety climate
procedure for assessing the va- and safety outcomes. Safety
lidity of an employee safety Science, 51(1), 69-76.
climate model. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 18(6), Dedobbeleer, N., & Beland, F.
455– 470. (1991). A safety climate meas-
ure for construction sites. Jour-
Casey, T., Griffin, M. A., Flatau nal of Safety Research, 22, 97–
Harrison, H., & Neal, A. 103.
(2017). Safety climate and cul-
ture: Integrating psychological Eiff, G. (1999). Organizational
and systems perspec- safety culture. In proceedings
tives. Journal of Occupational of the 10th International Sym-
Health Psychology, 22(3), 341. posium on Aviation Psychol-
ogy (pp. 1-14). Columbus, OH:
Cheyne, A., Cox, S., Oliver, A., & Department of Aviation.
Tomas, J. M. (1998). Modeling
70
Flin, R., Mearns, K., O’Connor, P., change. Journal of Applied
& Bryden, R. (2000). Measur- Psychology, 84, 286-296.
ing safety climate: identifying
the common features. Safety Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A.
Science, 34, 177–193. (1996). A cross-level investiga-
tion of factors influencing un-
Geller, E. S. (1994). Ten principles safe behaviors and accidents.
for achieving a total safety cul- Personnel Psychology, 49, 307-
ture. Professional Safety, 39, 339.
18-24.
Hsu, S. H. (2005). Establishing
Geller, E. S. (2001). Working Safe: safety knowledge management
How to People Actively Care system for improving safety
for Health and Safety. Boca culture within high-risk techni-
Raton: CRC Press. cal industry (Report No. NSC
91-2213-E-009-103). Taiwan,
Glendon, A. I., & Litherland, D. K. ROC: National Science Coun-
(2001). Safety climate factors, cil.
group differences and safety
behavior in road construction. Hsu, S. H., Lee, C. C., Wu, M. C., &
Safety Science, 39(3), 157– Takano, K. (2008). A cross-
188. cultural study of organizational
factors on safety: Japanese vs.
Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. Taiwanese oil refinery plants.
(1998). Culture at Work in Accident Analysis and Preven-
Aviation and Medicine: Na- tion, 40, 24-34.
tional, Organizational, and Pro-
fessional Influences. Aldershot: Huang, Y. H., Lee, J., McFadden, A.
Ashgate. C., Murphy, L. A., Robertson,
M. M., & Zohar, D. (2014).
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. The Impact of Safety Climate
(1999). Safety-related behavior Beyond Safety Outcomes: Job
as social exchange: the role of Satisfaction, Employee En-
perceived organizational sup- gagement and Objective Turn-
port and leader-member ex- over Rate. In Proceedings of
the 11th International Sympo-
71
sium on Human Factors in Or- patient safety. Health care
ganisational Design and Man- management review, 40(1), 24-
agement, Copenhagen, Den- 34.
mark.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric
IAEA (2002). Self-assessment of theory (2nd ed). New York:
safety culture in nuclear instal- McGraw-Hill.
lations: highlights and good
practices (IAEA-TECDOC- Oliver, A., Cheyne, A., Tomas, J.
1321). Vienna: International M., & Cox, S. (2002). The ef-
Atomic Energy Agency. fects of organizational and in-
dividual factors on occupa-
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). tional accidents. Journal of Oc-
LISREL 8: Structural Equation cupational and Organizational
Modeling with the SIMPLIS Psychology, 75, 473–488.
Command Language. Chicago:
Scientific Software Interna- OSHA (2017). Recommended Prac-
tional, Inc. tices for Safety and Health
Programs: Worker Participa-
Kelloway, E. K., Mullen, J., & Fran- tion, online at:
cis, L. (2006). Divergent ef- http://web.archive.org/web/201
fects of transformational and 70427231947/https://www.osh
passive leadership on employee a.gov/shpguidelines/worker-
safety. Journal of Occupational participation.html.
Health Psychology, 11, 76-86.
Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2002).
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of Work design and individual
Structural Equation Modeling. work performance: research
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pub- findings and an agenda for fu-
lications. ture inquiry. In: Sonnentag, S.
(Ed.). The psychological man-
McFadden, K. L., Stock, G. N., & agement of individual perform-
Gowen III, C. R. (2015). Lead- ance: A handbook in the psy-
ership, safety climate, and con- chology of the management of
tinuous quality improvement: organizations (pp.69-93).
impact on process quality and Chichester, UK: Erlbaum.
72
Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1997).
Risks of Organizational Acci- Workgroups’ propensity to
dents. Aldershot: Ashgate. comply with safety rules: the
influence of micro-macro or-
Santos-Reyes, J., & Beard, A. ganizational factors. Ergonom-
(2002). Assessing safety man- ics, 40, 172-188.
agement systems. Journal of
Loss Prevention in the Process Siu, O. L., Philips, D. R., & Leung,
Industries, 15, 77–95. T. W. (2004). Safety climate
and safety performance among
Seo, D. C. (2005). An explicative construction workers in Hong
model of unsafe work behavior. Kong: the role of psychological
Safety Science, 43, 187-211. strains as mediators. Accident
and Analysis and Prevention,
Seo, D., Torabi, M. R., Blair, E. H., 36, 359-366.
& Ellis, N. T. (2004). A cross-
validation of safety climate Takano, K., Kojima, M., Hasegawa,
scale using confirmatory factor N., & Hirose, A. (2001). Inter-
analytic approach. Journal of relationships between organiza-
Safety Research, 35(4), 427- tional factors and major safety
445. indicators: a preliminary field
study. In: Wilpert, B., & N.
Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1994). Itoigawa (Eds.). Safety Culture
The behavior of first-line su- in Nuclear Power Operations
pervisors in accident preven- (pp. 189–205). London: Taylor
tion and effectiveness in occu- & Francis.
pational safety. Safety Science,
17, 169-185. Tomas, J. M., Melia, J. L., & Oliver,
A. (1999). A cross-validation
Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1995). of a structural equation model
A multilevel analysis of organ- of accidents: organizational and
izational factors related to the psychological variables as pre-
taking of safety initiatives by dictors of work safety. Work
work groups. Safety Science, and Stress, 13, 49–58.
21, 113-129.
73
Wiegmann, D. A., Zhang, H., von mate: cross-level relationships
Thaden, T., Sharma, G., & between organization and
Mitchell, A. (2002). A synthe- group-level climates. Journal of
sis of safety culture and safety Applied Psychology, 90, 616-
climate research (ARL- 628.
0203/FAA-02- 2 ). Savoy, IL:
University of Illinois.
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in

industrial organizations: theo-
retical and applied implica-
tions. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 65, 96–102.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level

model of safety climate: testing
the effect of group climate on
microaccidents in manufactur-
ing jobs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 587-596.
Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of

safety climate research: reflec-
tions and future directions. Ac-
cident Analysis and Prevention,
42(5), 1517-1522.
Zohar, D. (2014). Safety climate:

Conceptualization, measure-
ment, and improvement. The
Oxford handbook of organiza-
tional climate and culture, 317-
334.
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A

multilevel model of safety cli-
74
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

MGMT Commitment Oct 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MGMT Commitment Oct 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEE

INVOLVEMENT IN SAFETY MANAGEMENT

Researchers have recognized safety-related organizational factors have greater influ-

KEY WORDS: Safety management; Safety culture; Safety climate; Management

Commitment Activities Awareness

Figure 1. The hypothetical model of the present research

Demographic variable Respondents

Constructs (# of items) Definition Example item

0.43* 0.41* Behavior

Figure 2. The modified structural model with standardized path coefficients

Conclusion Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kello-

Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in

Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level

Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of

Zohar, D. (2014). Safety climate:

Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A

You might also like