Enter your email address
Submit
Write your message
Volume 6, Issue 2 (Journal of Ergonomics 2018)
Iran J Ergon 2018, 6(2): 16-23 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghasemi F, Mirzaei M, Mahdinia M, Darvishi E, Shahidi R. The Role of Personal Commitment to Safety in Shaping Safety Performance of Front-Line Employees: a Case Study in Small Manufacturing Industries. Iran J Ergon 2018; 6 (2) :16-23
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-519-en.html
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-519-en.html
1- Occupational Health and Safety Research Center, Department of Ergonomics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Occupational Health and Safety Research Center, Department of Health Safety and Environment (HSE), School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- Students Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran ,mohsen.mahdinia@yahoo.com
4- Occupational Health and Safety Research Center, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Occupational Health and Safety Research Center, Department of Health Safety and Environment (HSE), School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- Students Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran ,
4- Occupational Health and Safety Research Center, Department of Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
Abstract: (12488 Views)
Introduction: Many organizational, social, and personal factors can affect safety performance of employees. Personal commitment to safety is another factor in this regard to which has been paid less attention in previous studies. The main objective of the present study is to investigate the role of this factor in shaping safety performance of employees.
Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 302 workers from several small manufacturing industries in several provinces located in the center of Iran. Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire. In order to determine the role of personal commitment to safety, several hypotheses were defined. According to them, personal commitment to safety can mediate the effect of organizational factors on safety performance. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed for examining the hypotheses.
Results: The model demonstrated that personal commitment to safety has significant direct effect on safety performance. Management commitment to safety is the main factor affecting personal commitment to safety (P<0.01, path coefficient= 0.257). Supportive environment was another important factor in this regard (P<0.01, path coefficient= 0.175). In contrast, safety training had no significant effect on personal commitment to safety (P=0.328), demonstrating its poor designing.
Conclusion: Personal commitment to safety can be promoted by improving organization and social factors, such as management commitment to safety and supportive environment, which in turn would result in improvement of safety performance.
Materials & Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 302 workers from several small manufacturing industries in several provinces located in the center of Iran. Data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire. In order to determine the role of personal commitment to safety, several hypotheses were defined. According to them, personal commitment to safety can mediate the effect of organizational factors on safety performance. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed for examining the hypotheses.
Results: The model demonstrated that personal commitment to safety has significant direct effect on safety performance. Management commitment to safety is the main factor affecting personal commitment to safety (P<0.01, path coefficient= 0.257). Supportive environment was another important factor in this regard (P<0.01, path coefficient= 0.175). In contrast, safety training had no significant effect on personal commitment to safety (P=0.328), demonstrating its poor designing.
Conclusion: Personal commitment to safety can be promoted by improving organization and social factors, such as management commitment to safety and supportive environment, which in turn would result in improvement of safety performance.
Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2018/06/20 | Accepted: 2018/09/14 | ePublished: 2018/09/14
Received: 2018/06/20 | Accepted: 2018/09/14 | ePublished: 2018/09/14
References
1. Ghasemi F, Mohammadfam I, Soltanian AR, Mahmoudi S, Zarei E. Surprising incentive: An instrument for promoting safety performance of construction employees. Saf Health Work. 2015;6(3):227–32. [DOI:10.1016/j.shaw.2015.02.006] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Hopkins A. Making Safety Work-Getting management commitment to occupational health and safety. Allen & Unwin; 1995.
3. Silva s, Luisa Lima M, Baptista C. OSCI : an organisational and safety climate inventory. Saf Sci. 2004;42(3):205–20. [DOI:10.1016/S0925-7535(03)00043-2]
4. Cooke DL, Rohleder TR. Learning from incidents: from normal accidents to high reliability. Syst Dynam Rev. 2006;22(3):213-39. [DOI:10.1002/sdr.338.]
5. Xian-gong L, Xue-feng S, Xian-fei M. Fatal gas accident prevention in coal mine : a perspective from management feedback complexity. PROEPS [Internet]. 2009;1(1):1673–7. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2009.09.257 [DOI:10.1016/j.proeps.2009.09.257]
6. Seo D-C, Torabi MR, Blair EH, Ellis NT. A cross-validation of safety climate scale using confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Safety Res. 2004;35(4):427–45. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2004.04.006] [PMID]
7. Nouri Parkestani H, Alimohammadi I, Arghami S, Ghohari S, Farshad A. Assessment of reliability and validity of a new safety culture questionnaire. Iran Occup Heal. 2010;7(1):18–25.
8. Mohammadfam I, Ghasemi F, Kalatpour O, Moghimbeigi A. Constructing a Bayesian network model for improving safety behavior of employees at workplaces. Appl Ergon. 2017;58. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.05.006]
9. Mahdinia M, Arsang Jang S, Sadeghi A, Malakuoti J, Karimi A. Development and validation of a questionnaire for safety behavior assessment. Iran Occup Heal. 2016;13(2):92–102.
10. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner’s Guide to Strutural Equation Modeling. Routledge. 2016. 352 p.
11. Lehmann DR. An Alternative Procedure for Assessing Convergent and Discriminant Validity. Appl Psychol Meas. 1988;12(4):411–23. [DOI:10.1177/014662168801200409]
12. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural Equation Modelling : Guidelines for Determining Model Fit Structural equation modelling : guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Methods. 2008;6(1):53–60.
13. Campbell JP, Gasser MB, Oswald FL. The substantive nature of performance variability. In: Individual differences and behavior in organizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1996.
14. Griffin MA, Neal A. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000;5(3):347–58. [DOI:10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347]
15. Ghasemi F, Kalatpour O, Moghimbeigi A, Mohammadfam I. Selecting strategies to reduce high-risk unsafe work behaviors using the safety behavior sampling technique and bayesian network analysis. J Res Health Sci. 2017;17(1).
16. Arezes PM, Miguel AS. Risk perception and safety behaviour: A study in an occupational environment. Saf Sci. 2008;46(6):900–7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.11.008]
17. Ghasemi F, Kalatpour O, Moghimbeigi A, Mohhamadfam I. A path analysis model for explaining unsafe behavior in workplaces: the effect of perceived work pressure. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018;24(2):303–10. [DOI:10.1080/10803548.2017.1313494] [PMID]
18. Blair S. SPE 164994 Leading From Within : Awakening Personal Commitment to Safety. In: European HSE Conference and Exhibition Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2013. p. 16–8. [DOI:10.2118/164994-MS]
19. Zwetsloot GIJM, Aaltonen M, Wybo JL, Saari J, Kines P, Beeck R Op De. The case for research into the zero accident vision. Saf Sci [Internet]. 2013;58:41–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.026 [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.026]
20. Shin M, Lee H-S, Park M, Moon M, Han S. A system dynamics approach for modeling construction workers' safety attitudes and behaviors. Accid Anal Prev [Internet]. 2014;68(0):95–105. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513003734 [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2013.09.019] [PMID]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
