5HVSHFWRDORVFDXGDOHV

Research on workplace H&S can be traced back to Keenan and Kerr (1951), Mintz and Blum (1949) and Schneider (1975). The study of H&S in the workplace has evolved to a situation where researchers focus on different aspects of H&S as indicated by Guldenmund (2000), as discussed above. Through this evolution, Zohar (2003) proposed that safety climate be investigated and described in terms of two factors:

 strength of safety climate (weak to strong) referring to the internal consistency with which climate perceptions are held; and

 the level of safety climate (low to high), referring to the relative position of the climate average on a given scale.

For example, high safety climate relates to supportive policies concerning H&S. Such a climate may be weak or strong, depending on the extent of agreement among employees. This will have important implications for the effect of safety climate on safety behaviour. Landy and Conte (2004) argued that organisations are characterised by internal safety climates, which can range from strong emphasis on safety to a disregard of H&S practices, i.e. weak safety climate.

An organisation's commitment to safety through strategy, systems and structures is considered to influence the safety attitudes of top management, supervisors and employees (Cooper, 2000; Gadd & Collins, 2002). These properties of safety climate are closely linked to Bandura's reciprocal model approach to safety (Bandura, 1989), which highlights the effect of context and external factors on safety perceptions and behaviour. The ACSNI (1993) definition of safety climates highlights the interaction between organisational, individual, situational and contextual factors; therefore, ensuring that safety is addressed in a holistic manner in the organisation. The strength or weakness of this interaction is determined by the workers as they engage and interact with safety demands and with the work environment.

According to Zohar (2003b), safety climate can be investigated at two hierarchical levels: organisational and subunit or group level. At the organisational level, H&S processes that take place at several levels simultaneously and processes at different levels are linked to each other. H&S policies and procedures that are established at the organisational level are, for example, implemented or executed by unit managers throughout the organisational hierarchy (Zohar, 2003b). Top managers are concerned with policy making and establishing procedures to facilitate policy implementation, while supervisors at operational levels execute the policies and procedures. This differentiation in development and implementation of safety policy creates a potential for discrepancy between formal and executed policy, including a reflexive discrepancy whereby top managers do not implement their own formal policies (Zohar, 2003b). This approach is closely linked to both Reason's (1993) pathogen model and the model proposed by Glendon et al. (2006), which identified three different levels of safety behaviour, and the comprehensive definition,

which emphasises the different roles of organisational structures, established to manage safety in organisations.

Hoffman, Jacobs and Landy (1995) identified three levels of an organisation that have an impact on employee safety behaviour:

 the individual level, which includes employees' attitudes, behaviour and knowledge.

 the micro organisational level, which includes management attitudes, presence of accountability mechanisms, self-regulation of the organisation, and the presence of joint labour–management groups such as H&S committees; and

 the macro organisational level, which includes H&S communication, channels (Landy & Conte, 2004).

Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) reported that organisations that have open and supportive relationships between leaders and employees have positive H&S behaviour established amongst workers in the organisation.

Previous studies on safety behaviour identified organisational, individual and situational factors that promote safety behaviour (Cooper, 2000; Glendon et al., 2006). Different approaches have been used by different researchers to identify factors that affect worker safety behaviour (Cooper, 2000; Guldenmund, 2000). The summary of safety climate studies reported in Table 2.4 shows that different industry investigations using cross-sectional surveys resulted in the emergence of various factor dimensions on the construct.

Cooper (2000) developed a safety climate model which identifies dominant themes that contribute to an understanding and analysis of the safety climate. This

model emphasises both individual and contextual factors that affect H&S behaviour. Similar to other studies on safety climate, Cooper (2000) established that management commitment, communication, training and supervisory leadership were among the important influences on H&S behaviour. This approach is an acknowledgement of the different factors that interact to enable the workers to conduct their tasks safely.

Other studies have examined the role that employees' perceptions play in adherence to safety behaviour (Mearns, Whitaker, & Flin, 2003; Varon & Mattila, 2000; Zohar, 2000) and how this link can result in fewer injuries (Barling, Kelloway, & Loughlin, 2002; Dedobbeleer & Beland, 1991; Mearns et al., 2003; Zohar, 2000). Organisations with a strong safety climate tend to have fewer employee injuries, especially when the workplace has well-developed and effective safety programmes (Gillen, Baltz, Gassel, Kirsch, & Vaccaro, 2002). The presence of safety programmes is reported to convey positive messages to employees regarding management's commitment to safety, encouraging employees to engage in safe work behaviours.

Machin and DeSouza (2004) investigated safety amongst taxi drivers, using a model that considered individual factors, the work environment, organisational factors and behaviour and wellbeing outcomes, similar to models by Bandura (1989), Reason (1993) and Glendon et al. (2006). See Figure 2.2 below.

Figure 2.2: Proposed Model of Factors Influencing Taxi Driver Health Outcomes and H&S Behaviour. Source: Machin and De Souza (2004)

Replication studies that investigated safety climate, using previous scales validated in different samples and industries, reported that similar constructs emerged with little confirmation of original factors (Johnson, 2007; Neal et al., 2000; Zohar & Luria, 2005). The construct of safety climate has generated definitional consensus among different researchers (Cooper, 2000; Cooper & Phillips, 2004; Gadd & Collins, 2002); however, differences persist concerning the dimensions that inform this concept depending on the researcher and the industry sector being examined (Johnson, 2007). The debate on the dimensions of safety climate has resulted in differing opinions on the uni-dimensionality or multi-dimensionality of the construct (Cooper & Phillips, 2004; Neal et al., 2000; Zohar & Luria, 2005). The debate is further complicated by the different degrees of success of replication studies that have investigated the construct. The emergence of factor structures that are different from the original studies led to the conclusion by Cooper and Phillips (2004) that the factor structure for this construct was important, but that each study's factor structure should be considered as a unique structure for the specific sample under observation. Despite the differing factor structures and dimensions, common themes

Individual differences  Risk taking  Aggression Work environment  Hazards Health outcomes  Physical symptoms  Job-related affective wellbeing Safety behaviour  Unsafe behaviours Organisational involvement  Perceptions of management commitment

have emerged that provide a shared structure of generic organisational and individual variables that inform this construct (Cooper, 2000; Gadd & Collins, 2002).

Niskanen (1994) sampled workers and their supervisors engaged in road construction using generic work-specific items. Niskanen's study produced four factors that were labelled changes in job demands, attitudes to H&S in the organisation, value of work, and H&S as part of productive work. Glendon and Litherland (2000) studied road construction and road maintenance workers to produce a six-factor structure: communication and support, adequacy of procedures, work pressure, personal protective equipment, relationships, and H&S rules. A comparison of two organisations was conducted by Coyle, Sleeman and Adams (1995) to replicate a safety climate factor structure. This study reported a seven- factor structure at the first organisation and a three-factor structure at the second organisation. Of the factors under study, only two (work environment and personal authority) were present in both.

In a study of off-shore oil workers, Mearns, Flin, Gordon and Fleming (1998) reported a nine-factor solution with factors labelled speaking up, violations, supervisors, rules and regulations, site management, work pressure, work clarity, communication, risk, and H&S measures. In other studies conducted in the manufacturing sector, Williamson, Feyer, Cairns and Biancotti (1997) and Zohar (2000) measured samples taken from manufacturing organisations. Williamson et al. (1997) used 27 items extracted from previous questionnaires to produce a five-factor solution comprising personal motivation for safe behaviour, positive H&S practice, risk justification, fatalism, and optimism.

In a study of patient safety climate, Armstrong, Lachinger and Wong (2009) replicated factor structures consistent with safety climate dimensions, and found

consistent factor patterns. Brown and Holmes (1986) attempted to replicate safety climate factors developed by Zohar (1980), using a sample of manufacturing workers, but failed to reproduce the previous eight-factor solution, producing instead a three-factor solution: management concern, management activity, and risk perception. Brown and Holmes’s (1986) study proposed that national cultural differences may have been responsible for the differences in factor structure since the research was based on a North American sample while Zohar's research used an Israeli sample. Dedobbeleer and Beland (1991) replicated Brown and Holmes’s (1986) survey, in an attempt to negate the effect of national cultural differences by using another North American sample. This study replicated the three-three factor structure of Brown and Holmes’s (1986) study, but also recommended a two-factor model, with management commitment and worker involvement as the two factors, and suggested that different statistical procedures may provide support for a third factor. In another study, Zohar (2002) reported a two-factor structure, with management action and worker expectation as the two factors.

Studies conducted in the transport contexts resulted in a variety of safety climate factors that appear to have minimal overlap. Diaz, Cabrera and Isla (1997), in a study of airport ground staff, used 69 safety climate and attitude items that resulted in five safety climate factors of H&S policy, productivity and H&S, group attitudes, prevention strategies and H&S level. In another study, McDonald, Corrigan, Daly and Cromie (2000) investigated safety climate across four aircraft maintenance organisations using 36 items of the 69-item scale developed by Diaz et al. (1997), that were described as either H&S attitude or safety climate items. Qualitative and quantitative data collection methods were used to analyse salient features of safety management systems, and reported similar findings among the four organisations

where safety attitudes and compliance with task procedures were consistent. McDonald et al. (2000) found differences between occupational groups in the organisations, which implied that the workers in the different organisations had differing ideas of what each organisation's safety culture was.

In a sample of rail workers, Clarke (1999) sampled railroad drivers, supervisors and senior management using 25 items derived from accident reports and interviews with senior management. The results showed that five factors emerged, which were labelled unsafe conditions, managerial decisions, working conditions, local management, and line functions. The findings from previous studies in the transport sector have since led to a measurement tool for transport that has shared scales that can be adapted for the industry sector.

In a study that investigated the role of supervisors in creating safe workplaces, Zohar (2000) used 23 items specific to supervisory leadership generated from themes gathered at interviews. The study found two factors, viz. supervisory expectation and supervisory action, that can be used to assess the relevant priority of H&S safety perceptions in an organisation. The two factors offer an opportunity to examine both aspects of what the operational leader expects of workers, and to assess how the supervisor acts when work demands put pressure on workers to neglect safe work behaviour to get the job done. Lee and Harrison (2000), recommended the use of H&S performance indicator measures for assessing worker H&S behaviour, suggesting that consistent factor structures and dimensions can be obtained using these measures.

The above discussion shows that the studies cited have examined safety climate using dimensions that combine organisational, situational and individual factors. According to Fuller (1999), the inclusion of organisational, situational and

human factors in the work environment can improve efficiency and productivity and reduce workplace risks to H&S. Process factors such as workplace hazards and technology, environmental factors such as work and shift patterns, and employees' previous experience, training and communication have been identified as contributors to a safety environment, and thus were included in this study. The reviewed studies were conducted in different industry sectors and they presented different safety climate variables tailored to the risks and hazards of the particular sector. Common factors observed in the reviewed studies included top management commitment, supervisory leadership, and training and communication. The common trend for these studies was to combine the commonly used factors with minimal industry-specific scales utilised.

For this study, safety climate was operationalised as shared perceptions of employees in regard to fundamental properties of (a) policies and procedures of the formal structures that govern and determine H&S performance (leadership and H&S management systems); (b) and practices and individual factors that influence worker H&S behaviour (H&S motivation, incident reporting.

The emphasis of safety climate is on workers' perceptions of the policies, processes and procedures that determine how workers are expected to conduct their work tasks in line with established organisational safety requirements (Zohar, 1980). It further takes into consideration the definition by Mohamed (2004), which describes safety climate as a "bottom-up approach which includes workers' constructive involvement, proactive reporting, individual attitude, group behaviour, and working relationship with supervisors". The choice of this definition was informed by the current study's objective of investigating organisational, situational and individual dimensions of safety behaviour in the construction sector.