安全文化英文文献

Effect of Individual Differences on Perceptions of Safety Culture Factors among Flight Attendants in a Taiwanese Airline of China LEE Kaihui1, STEWART Margaret2 & KAO Lihua 3 (1 China Airlines, Taiwan, China;2 Business TAFE School, RMIT University, Australia; 3 College of Business, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan, China) Abstract: The aim of the study was to identify significant factors of safety culture and compare differences in perception about these factors among different groups in a commercial airline in Taiwan of Chhina.  A survey, adapted from Loughborough University Safety Climate Assessment Toolkit (LSCAT) comprising general information and 30 safety culture statements, was distributed to 251 flight attendants.  Eight factors were identified as significant: management commitment to safety, work environment, safety rule/regulation compliance, priority of safety, personal needs for safety, accident investigation, safety rules and procedures, and education and training.  Results showed that there were significant differences among different sub-groups on five of the eight factors: management commitment to safety, work environment, rule/regulation compliance, priority of safety, and education and training. Keywords: flight attendant; cabin crew; safety culture; safety climate; safety; safety management 1 Introduction According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), a higher occurrence of occupational injury and illness has been associated with flight attendants when compared to all other commercial air transport workers[1].  Many researchers have theorized that safety culture factors may predict safety-related outcomes and see it as a leading indicator of safety-related outcomes[2].  With this as the starting point, this study examines safety culture factors and the differences between different groups: supervisor (i.e. purser or lead flight attendant) and flight attendant to determine differences in perception about safety culture. 1.1 Safety Culture Research on organizational culture gained much attention in the 1970s and 1980s and the term “safety culture” first came to prominence after the 1987 OECD Nuclear Agency report into the 1986 Chernobyl disaster[3].  A good safety culture can be reflected in human behavior, perceptions and attitudes[4].  It is made up factors such as levels of senior management support, hazard identification, senior management’s willingness to accept criticism, safety communication, realistic and workable safety rules, good education and training[5].  Sumwalt, Vice Chairman of the US National Transportation Safety Board, defined safety culture simply as “doing the right thing, even when no one is watching” [6].  Numerous definitions and dimensions abound in the academic safety literature, but one of the most commonly used definitions of safety culture is from the UK Health and Safety Executive[3]: “The safety culture of an organisation is the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies and patterns of behaviour that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organisation’s health and safety management.” A review of safety culture literature across a number of high reliability settings such as aviation, nuclear engineering, offshore oil production, petrochemical sector, construction, mining and manufacturing, shows that safety culture has been characterized as multi-dimensional[7-9].  Although several questionnaires to identify the most typically assessed dimensions have been developed by various researchers, there has been little agreement and no entirely consistent list of determinants that should be incorporated into safety culture[8,9].  However, even when the same questionnaire is used, as in research by Zohar (1980) and other researchers, different safety climate factor structures have been emerged[10]. 1.2 Individual Differences Individual differences can influence a worker’s safety behavior[11].  For example, Brown and Holmes (1986) explored differences in safety climate perceptions of employees with and without injuries[10].  They found employees with an injury perceived management to be less concerned and to take less action[10].  In 1992, Waring identified differences among different groups due to varied daily work demands and experiences which can shape safety attitudes[10].  Rundmo (1993) undertook a survey to identify differences among different work groups[12].  Guest, Peccei, and Thomas (1994) concluded that UK rail workers with high accident rates believed that they were more safety conscious than other workers[10].  Mason and Simpson (1995) and Budworth (1997) found differences between senior and junior employee within the same organization[10].  Cox and Cheyne (2000) have also identified significant differences in safety climate factor scores between sub-groups within different organizations[12]. As to which individual differences are predictive, Flin and Mearns (1994) identified that individual characteristics (including experience, knowledge, attitudes to safety, etc.), job characteristics (work tasks, environment, job stress, etc.), and platform characteristics (safety culture, social support and safety management systems) could contribute to accidents and near misses[12].  Management may play a key role in influencing safety within an organization[8,13].  Other factors that can affect safety include an organization’s procedures, selection, training, and work schedules[14]. 1.3 The Present Study This study chose different groups (such as female and male, supervisor and workers, senior and junior staff, and employees who had sustained injuries and those who had not) for analysis and briefly describes the effect of each individual demographic difference towards safety culture.  As well, the present study is concerned with the development of a suitable measurement to determine whether differences among different flight attendants groups within a Taiwanese airline of China exist and to clarify benefits of conducting such comparisons.