Safety culture in an aircraft maintenance organisation: A view from the inside

Atak, Ahmet; Kingma, Sytze

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.08.007

Cited by 68 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Through the worker's descriptions it was made evident that an important incentive for employees to risk their safety, by, for example, taking a short cut by not using the appropriate tools, was to get the production running again as soon as possible if a stoppage occurs. This illustrates the cultural expression that there is a constant and ongoing trade-off between productivity, on the one hand, and safety, on the other, which has been found in similar ways in earlier studies (Antonsen, 2009a;Atak and Kingma, 2011;Brown et al, 2000;Nazaruk, 2011;Walker, 2008). One example is a study at an oil platform (Antonsen, 2009a), which showed that wishing to meet production targets was a dominant cultural value.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Safety culture and reasons for risk-taking at a large steel-manufacturing company: Investigating the worker perspective

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWorkers in the steel-manufacturing industry face many safety risks due to the nature of the job. How well safety procedures and regulations are followed within an organization is considered to be influenced by the reigning culture of the organization. The aim of this study was to investigate and describe safety culture and risk-taking at a large steel-manufacturing company in Sweden by exploring workers' experiences and perceptions of safety and risks. Ten focus group interviews were conducted with a total of 66 workers. In the interviews, the situation of safety at work was discussed in a semi-structured manner. The material was analyzed inductively using qualitative content analysis. The analysis resulted in a thorough description of safety culture and risk-taking at the company, based on the following five main categories: 1. Acceptance of risks, one simply has to accept the safety risks of the work environment, 2. Individual responsibility for safety, the responsibility for safe procedures rests to the largest extent on the individual, 3. Trade-off between productivity and safety, these are conflicting entities, wanting to produce as well as wanting to work safely, 4. Importance of communication, it is needed for safety actions to be effective, and 5. State-of-the-day and external conditions, an interplay between these factors affect risk-taking. In sociotechnical systems theory it is acknowledged that there are interactions between social and technical factors in organizations. The findings of this study are interpreted to be in line with a sociotechnical understanding of safety culture and risk-taking.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Safety culture and reasons for risk-taking at a large steel-manufacturing company: Investigating the worker perspective

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with Furedi's approach we will, on the organizational level of schools, not conceive of 'safety culture' as an objectively given condition, but rather as a socially constructed and relative organizational property dependent upon organizational values, meanings and safety practices (Atak and Kingma 2011;916 J. Binkhorst and S.F. Kingma Gherardi, Nicolini, and Odella 1998, 143;Richter and Koch 2004).…”

Section: School Safetymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The shift in perception from schools as 'safe havens' to places that are under constant threat and need protection from the wider society, also make schools a kind of anti-case or contrast case for so called 'high-reliability-organisations' (HRO) (Atak and Kingma 2011;Weick and Sutcliffe 2001). While HROs are often conceived as risk-producing organizations, schools should rather be conceived as 'low-reliabilityorganisations' (LRO), as comparatively open organizations with a low risk awareness and low safety standards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety vs. reputation: risk controversies in emerging policy networks regarding school safety in the Netherlands

Binkhorst¹,

Kingma²

2012

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In agreement with Antonsen (2009), a triangulation of quantitative and qualitative is recommended for assessing the safety climate of an organization. Recently, qualitative assessments of safety climate have begun to be reported in the literature (e.g., Atak & Kingma, 2011;Haukelid, 2008;Richter & Koch, 2004). Other researchers also agree that a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques provides a comprehensive evaluation of the safety climate of an organization (e.g., Antonsen, 2009;Gibbons et al, 2006).…”

Section: Implications Of the Findings For Future Safety Climate Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and addressing the limitations of safety climate surveys

O’Connor

Buttrey

O’Dea

et al. 2011

Journal of Safety Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are a variety of qualitative and quantitative tools for measuring safety climate.However, questionnaires are by far the most commonly used methodology. This paper reports the descriptive analysis of a large sample of safety climate survey data (n=110,014) collected over ten years from U.S. Naval aircrew using the Command Safety Assessment Survey (CSAS). The analysis demonstrated that there was substantial non-random response bias associated with the data (the reverse worded items had a unique pattern of responses, there was a increasing tendency over time to only provide a modal response, the responses to the same item towards the beginning and end of the questionnaire did not correlate as highly as might be expected, and the faster the questionnaire was completed the higher the frequency of modal responses). It is suggested that the non-random responses bias was due to the negative effect on participant motivation of a number of factors (questionnaire design, lack of a belief in the importance of the response, participant fatigue, and questionnaire administration). Researchers must consider the factors that increase the likelihood of nonrandom measurement error in safety climate survey data and cease to rely on data that are solely collected using a long and complex questionnaire.

show abstract

Safety culture in an aircraft maintenance organisation: A view from the inside

Cited by 68 publications

References 23 publications

Safety culture and reasons for risk-taking at a large steel-manufacturing company: Investigating the worker perspective

Safety culture and reasons for risk-taking at a large steel-manufacturing company: Investigating the worker perspective

Safety vs. reputation: risk controversies in emerging policy networks regarding school safety in the Netherlands

Identifying and addressing the limitations of safety climate surveys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About