一出好戏结局安全文化英文文献

2021年1月18日发(作者：想你爱你)
Effect of Individual Differences on Perceptions of Safety Culture Factors
among Flight Attendants in a Taiwanese Airline of China
LEE Kaihui
1
, STEWART Margaret
2
& 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
2275
(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.
2 Methodology
The list of questions in the current study is broadly based on a number of previous publications regarding safety assessment such
as the Safety Climate Assessment Toolkit (LSCAT) developed by the Loughborough University in 1997, ―Airline Safety Culture
Index‖ by Edkins, ―Aviation Safety Survey—Safety Climate Factors‖ proposed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, in
addition to items gathered from an extensive literature search and consultation with specialists for this study
[15]
. The survey was
distributed to 251 flight attendants, and 237 usable samples were obtained. The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first
part dealt with individual demographic questions concerning the respondents’ gender, age, tenure, job position (e.g. supervisor/purser
and flight attendants), using a categorical scale. Part two dealt with the measurement of safety culture using 30 items. Responses
were recorded on a five- point Likert scale ranging from 5 for strongly agree to 1 for strongly disagree. The Statistical Package for
Social Sciences Version 16.0 (SPSS 16.0) was utilized in this study, and various tests including descriptive statistical analysis, factor
analysis, reliability analysis, mean analysis, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Participants’ Background
Tenure is an indicator of cabin crew working experience and their service qualification in this commercial airline company.
Concerning tenure of the flight attendants, 26.6% of respondents worked with this airline less than five years. Thirty- nine percent of
flight attendants worked with this airline from five to ten years. Thirty-three percent of participants are senior flight attendants and
worked with this airline for over ten years.
Regarding job position, almost 98% of respondents in this sample were flight attendants and just over 2% were supervisors
(pursers). Sixty-one percent of all respondents reported that they had been involved in an accident, incident, or near miss, as a result
of their work as a flight attendant with this Taiwanese airline of China.
3.2 Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis
The Cronbach’s Alpha of the initial 30 items was 0.87, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.851 and
Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was significant, indicating that it was appropriate to apply the factor analytical technique to these data sets.
The underlying factors of safety culture were extracted: management commitment to safety (MC), work environment (which
included physical workload, service versus personal safety role conflict, service area layout and equipment) (WE), safety rule
compliance practices (RC), organizational priority of safety (PS), personal needs for safety (PN), perceived efficacy of accident
investigation personnel and processes (AI), the need to adhere to safety rules and procedures (SR), and education and training (ET).
Eight factors accounted for 62.1% of the variance in perceived safety culture. All of the coefficient alphas for the perceptions
listed in Table 1 were acceptable (all alpha ＞ 0.5). Performance scores of the eight testable factors were determined by
calculating the mean of the respondents’ perception to the items in each scale. This airline appears to exhibit ―middle-of the-road‖
safety culture among flight attendants, with means scores (2.564) below the neutral point (mean score = 3.000) in most areas. The
overall mean score implies that there is substantial room for improvement. An interesting finding is that the mean score of the
factor of personal needs for safety is 4.504 which indicated that most flight attendants in the sample perceived safety as the most
2276