A cross-cultural study of organizational factors on safety :

1. A cross-cultural study of organizational factors on safety: Japanese vs. Taiwanese oil refinery plants Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 24–34 Shang Hwa Hsua, Chun-Chia Lee, Muh-Cherng Wu, Kenichi Takano Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Chiao Tung University, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) Speaker: Jenny 2008/11/19

2. Agenda • Purpose • Introduction • Organizational factors on safety • Modeling organizational factors’ influence on individual safety performance • Methods • Results • Conclusion

3. Purpose • Taiwan VS Japan • Identify characteristics of organizational factors on safety • Influences

4. Introduction • Chernobyl & Bhopal disaster • Globalization: manufacturing facilities are moved to emerging countries. • Reason for choosing the examples • Oil refinery plants • Much Capital, high-risk, large-scale • Safety management migration • developed → emerging countries

5. Organization factors on safety

6. Modeling organizational factors’ influence on individual safety performance • Mechanisms between organizational factors and individual safety performance. (Brown et al., 2000; Seo 2005) • This research • hierarchical causal model • relationships among 4-level organizational factors.

7. organizational factors affect safety performance • Mediator: safety management and work group

8. Modeling organizational factors’ influence on individual safety performance • Hypothesis 1a. • Higher management commitment to safety increases safety self-efficacy through more safety activity emphasis. • Hypothesis 1b. • Higher management commitment to safety enhances safety awareness and behavior through more supervisory activity efforts.

9. Modeling organizational factors’ influence on individual safety performance • Hypothesis 2a. • Higher empowerment improves safety awareness & safety behavior through increased reporting of workplace safety problems. • Hypothesis 2b. • Higher empowerment improves safety awareness & safety behavior through increased higher quality teamwork.

10. Modeling organizational factors’ influence on individual safety performance • Hypothesis 3a. • Harmonious interpersonal relationship enhances safety-efficacy through more safety activity emphasis. • Hypothesis 3b. • Harmonious interpersonal relationship enhances safety awareness and safety behavior through higher quality teamwork.

11. Modeling organizational factors’ influence on individual safety performance • Hypothesis 4a. • Higher attitude level to continuous improvement enhances safety behavior through safety management. • Hypothesis 4b. • Higher attitude level to continuous improvement enhances safety awareness and safety behavior through higher quality teamwork.

12. Modeling organizational factors’ influence on individual safety performance • Hypothesis 5a. • Blameless reward system increases safety awareness and behavior through reporting. • Hypothesis 5b. • Blameless reward system increases safety behavior through safety management.

13. Method • Participants • Oil refinery plants: frontline workers • Survey Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry 5-point Likert scale

14. Material and measures • Questionnaire • Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) • EFA factors: 20 → 13 • Confirmatory factor analysis • factors’ reliability : α > 0.6 • Questions: 53 = 4*12 + 5

17. Method • goodness-of-fit indices • Chi-square (χ2) • Normed fit index (NFI); non-normed fit index (NNFI); comparative fit index (CFI); incremental fit index (IFI) >0.9 • root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA) >0.08 • Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993; Bentlerand Bonett, 1980; Maruyama, 1998

18. Data analysis procedures • Raw scores → standardized normal distribution • Independent-sample t-tests • SEM (structural equation modeling) • LISREL VIII • Examine hypothetical causal relationships between organizational factors at different levels and safety performance

19. Results • Most organizational factors receive high ratings ( >3 points) • Except reward system

20. Results

21. Results

22. Taiwan • Fig. 2. The modified structural model of Taiwan with standardized path coefficients. (all paths are significant); *p < 0.05.

23. Japan • Fig. 3. The modified structural model of Japan with standardized path coefficients. (all paths are significant); *p < 0.05.

24. Conclusion

25. Conclusion • Taiwan • activities: reactive approach to safety issues • Interpersonal relationship: people-oriented • Supervision has negative influence on safety awareness • Japan • Empowerment: fair safety leadership • Continuous improvement & safety management system: proactive approach • Low score on reward system: blame culture

26. Conclusions • Different organizational characteristics of Taiwan and Japan • Different influence mechanisms on safety performance • influence of organizational factors • Taiwan: cognitive level • Japan: behavioral level