DOI: 10.5937/jaes0-37669
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY 4.0
Volume 20 article 1024 pages: 1196-1202
As industrial systems represent a complex socio-technical system, it is necessary to analyse the impact of manager-operator-machine interaction on industrial safety, as categories of contextual factors. However, modern scientific literature indicates insufficient research on this topic. This paper has an aim to empirically analyse behavioural style and transport and mining machines operators’ attitudes in the safety climate context. Participants in this study were 28 crane’s and 65 mining machinery’s (excavators, bucket wheel excavators, bulldozers, loaders, graders, backhoe loaders, trenchers, dump trucks and scrapers) operators working in Serbian industrial companies. In the first step there is conducted descriptive statistics and followed by Kolmogorov’s and U* Mann-Whitney test to examine differences. Obtained results have shown that there were not statistically significant differences both between attitudes of operators on those two kinds of machines, namely, there are no statistically significant differences in terms of absenteeism due to poor working conditions, atmosphere of cooperation and togetherness among operators and the ways in which managers motivate and reward them. Between numbers of injuries at work happened by both machines’ types used there are no statistical differences, too. Also, further factor analysis has shown that examined operators’ and machines’ characteristics divide into two factors – one is focused to anthropometric characteristics presented by height and weight while another is focused on age of operator and machine and operator’s experience. It is recommended, in future research to enlarge sample, repeat statistical testing and analyse wider set of variables on examined matters in aim to discover pattern of anthropometric factors influence on behavioural factors.
The paper is supported by grants from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, grants from project E!13300, RESMOD Safera and contract 451-03-68/2022-14/200105 (subproject TR 35017). The authors also thank participants for their cooperation.
1. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. Journal of applied psychology 65(1), 96-102.
2. Choudhry, R. M., Fang, D., & Mohamed, S. (2007). The nature of safety culture: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Safety science, 45(10), 993-1012.
3. Wiegmann, D. A., Rich, A., & Zhang, H. (2001). Automated diagnostic aids: The effects of aid reliability on users' trust and reliance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2(4), 352-367.
4. Dedobbeleer, N., & Béland, F. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction sites. Journal of safety research, 22(2), 97-103.
5. Cox, S., & Cox, T. (1991). The structure of employee attitudes to safety: A European example. Work & stress, 5(2), 93-106.
6. Mearns, K. J., & Flin, R. (1999). Assessing the state of organizational safety—culture or climate?. Current psychology, 18(1), 5-17.
7. Lin, S. H., Tang, W. J., Miao, J. Y., Wang, Z. M., & Wang, P. X. (2008). Safety climate measurement at workplace in China: A validity and reliability assessment. Safety Science, 46(7), 1037-1046.
8. Xuesheng, D., & Xintao, Z. (2011). An empirical investigation of the influence of safety climate on safety citizenship behavior in coal mine. Procedia engineering, 26, 2173-2180
9. Xu, Y., Li, Y., Wang, G., Yuan, X., Ding, W., & Shen, Z. (2014). Attentional bias toward safety predicts safety behaviors. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 71, 144-153.
10. Tholén, S. L., Pousette, A., & Törner, M. (2013). Causal relations between psychosocial conditions, safety climate and safety behaviour–A multi-level investigation. Safety science, 55, 62-69.
11. Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions. Accident analysis & prevention, 42(5), 1517-1522.
12. Alruqi, W. M., Hallowell, M. R., & Techera, U. (2018). Safety climate dimensions and their relationship to construction safety performance: A meta-analytic review. Safety science, 109, 165-173.
13. Lyu, S., Hon, C. K., Chan, A. P., Wong, F. K., & Javed, A. A. (2018). Relationships among safety climate, safety behavior, and safety outcomes for ethnic minority construction workers. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(3), 484.
14. Pandit, B., Albert, A., Patil, Y., & Al-Bayati, A. J. (2019). Impact of safety climate on hazard recognition and safety risk perception. Safety science, 113, 44-53.
15. Kim, N. K., Rahim, N. F. A., Iranmanesh, M., & Foroughi, B. (2019). The role of the safety climate in the successful implementation of safety management systems. Safety science, 118, 48-56.
16. Zadow, A., Dollard, M. F., Parker, L., & Storey, K. (2019). Psychosocial safety climate: a review of the evidence. Psychosocial Safety Climate, 31-75.
17. Kalteh, H. O., Mortazavi, S. B., Mohammadi, E., & Salesi, M. (2021). The relationship between safety culture and safety climate and safety performance: a systematic review. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics, 27(1), 206-216.
18. Oah, S., Na, R., & Moon, K. (2018). The influence of safety climate, safety leadership, workload, and accident experiences on risk perception: A study of Korean manufacturing workers. Safety and health at work, 9(4), 427-433.
19. Lee, J., Huang, Y. H., Cheung, J. H., Chen, Z., & Shaw, W. S. (2019). A systematic review of the safety climate intervention literature: Past trends and future directions. Journal of occupational health psychology, 24(1), 66.
20. Chen, H., Li, H., & Goh, Y. M. (2021). A review of construction safety climate: definitions, factors, relationship with safety behavior and research agenda. Safety science, 142, 105391.
21. Glendon A. I. & Stanton N.A (2000). Perspectives on safety culture. Safety Science, Vol. 34 pp 193-214
22. Zohar, D. (2003). Safety climate: Conceptual and measurement issues. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 123–142). American Psychological Association.
23. Cooper, M.D. and Phillips, R.A. (2004) Exploratory Analysis of the Safety Climate and Safety Behavior Relationship. Journal of Safety Research, 35, 497-512.
24. Kalteh, H. O., Mortazavi, S. B., Mohammadi, E., & Salesi, M. (2021). The relationship between safety culture and safety climate and safety performance: a systematic review. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics, 27(1), 206-216.
25. Casey, T. W., Hu, X., Reid, C., Tran, P. A., & Guldenmund, F. W. (2022). Rolling up our sleeves and pulling up our socks: A critical review of safety culture definitions and measures, and innovative ways to move the field forward. Handbook of Research Methods for Organisational Culture.)
26. Abubakar, A. M., Karadal, H., Bayighomog, S. W., & Merdan, E. (2018). Workplace injuries, safety climate and behaviors: application of an artificial neural network. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics
27. He, C., McCabe, B., Jia, G., & Sun, J. (2020). Effects of safety climate and safety behavior on safety outcomes between supervisors and construction workers. Journal of construction engineering and management, 146(1), 04019092.).
28. Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an intervention in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 24(3), 260-279.
29. Spasojević-Brkić, V., Veljković, Z., Essdai, A. A., & Brkić, A. (2019). Differences in anthropometric measurements between Libyan and Serbian passenger car drivers and crane operators. Journal of Applied Engineering Science, vol. 17, no. 1, 1-7, DOI: 10.5937/jaes17-19969
30. Spasojević-Brkić, V. K., Veljković, Z., & Brkić, A. (2015). Crane Cabins’s Safety and Ergonomics Characteristics Evaluation Based on Data Collected in Sweden Port. Journal of Applied Engineering Science, vol. 13, no. 4, 299-306, DOI: 10.5937/jaes13-9564