Human Safety and Risk ManagementSecond Edition

Human Safetyand

Risk ManagementSecond Edition

A. Ian GlendonGriffith University, Queensland, Australia

Sharon G. ClarkeManchester Business School, University of manchester , UK

Eugene F. MckennaUniversity of East London, UK

Published in 2006 by CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group No claim to original U.S. Government works Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-8493-3090-4 (Hardcover) International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-8493-3090-2 (Hardcover) Library of Congress Card Number 2005044889 This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use. No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC) 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Glendon, A. Ian, 1945Human safety and risk management / A. Ian Glendon, Sharon G. Clarke, and Eugene McKenna.--2nd ed. p. cm. Originally published: London ; New York : Chapman & Hall, 1995. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8493-3090-4 (alk. paper) 1. Psychology, Industrial. 2. Job Stress. 3. Quality of work life. 4. Employees--Health risk assessment. 5. Risk management. I. Clarke, Sharon, 1968- II. McKenna, Eugene F. III. Title. HF5548.8.G568 2006 158.7--dc22

2005044889

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.comTaylor & Francis Group is the Academic Division of Informa plc.

and the CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com

PrefaceMuch has happened in the 10 years or so since the rst edition of Human Safety and Risk Management was published. New journals on risk and safety have appeared for example, Health, Risk & Society; Journal of Risk Research; Policy and Practice in Health and Safety; Risk, Decision and Policy; Risk Management: An International Journal; and Transportation Research Part F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour. Longer established journals in the risk and safety eld have gone from strength to strength, including: Accident Analysis and Prevention, Journal of Safety Research, Risk Analysis, Safety Science, and Work & Stress. The large amount of recent research literature that has been generated in the risk and safety eld is reected in two completely new chapters in this second edition. Over 56% of more than the 300 works referenced in Chapter 2 have appeared since the rst edition of this book was published, while well over 70% of the 200 referenced works in the new chapter on safety culture have appeared since the publication of the rst edition. Nearly 500 references cited within the book have appeared since 2000. In addition to including the new substantive chapters in this edition (though it is inevitable that our attempts to access and include the considerable volume of potential new material fall short in many areas), we have updated our text in numerous ways and have reworked material from the earlier edition. In these endeavors, we are delighted that Dr. Sharon Clarke joined the author team, adding her expertise and knowledge to that of the authors of the rst edition. The greatly increased volume of relevant material has been accompanied by changes in the way in which some concepts associated with risk and safety have been understood and presented. Controversies that have developed since the rst edition was published include use of the term accident. While still in widespread public use, many authorities and sources increasingly eschew this term as being value laden and potentially prejudging blame through ascribing exclusive or prime personal agency at an events location by attribution of emotional content. Workplace accidents typically involve one, or occasionally more, workers being injured as a result of encountering some energy force for example, gravity, pressure, and heat often exacerbated by other factors. We consider a more objective referent to be injuries an undesired outcome that is frequently the object of prevention activity. Personal injuries can usefully be distinguished from incidents (a broader term that could involve plant or equipment damage), disasters which are large-scale and could involve multiple fatalities, and near-hits (also called near-misses). The term accident has similarly come under critical scrutiny in the road transport domain, where it is increasingly being replaced by the more accurate and less emotive term crash. Wherever possible in this edition, we adopt this terminology. Exceptions include occasions when we describe the work of others whose use of the term accident cannot readily be reassigned. This books orientation is primarily, though not exclusively, psychological. Understanding risk and safety issues inevitably involves many disciplines, as does their effective management, and we acknowledge that an approach from any single discipline will be inadequate in addressing the full gamut of relevant issues. Thus, in Chapter 2, we explore a

wide range of approaches to risk, only some of which have their origins within psychology and cognate elds. In subsequent chapters, individual differences, but also some of the many ways in which human beings are alike, are explored within a risk and safety context. Throughout the book we draw on a range of disciplines as appropriate, with the overriding aim of increasing understanding of this important eld of scientic study and professional practice. We have identied the core audience for this book by the generic term scientist practitioner, primarily, although not exclusively those who work in safety, risk, and related elds. This term is used in the United States, Australia, and elsewhere to refer to those who straddle the divide between research and practice, and whose orientation has been considered as under threat within the broader organizational psychology domain, particularly within the United Kingdom (Anderson et al., 2001). Our reference to safety and risk scientist practitioners throughout the book should be taken to imply that all those who consider themselves to be, or who aspire to become, scientists or researchers in the broadest sense, and those who have an interest in health, safety, risk, and related topics are also to an extent practitioners again in the broadest sense, including for example, the practice of teaching and writing as well as other forms of practice, such as training and consultancy. Similarly, practitioners in any eld of health, safety and risk, in whatever form, should have the option of basing their practice upon scientic ndings, even if they themselves do not consider themselves primarily to be scientists. To this extent, the term could encompass all those who work in the health, safety, and risk eld, in whatever guise. We occasionally use an alternative synonym health and safety professional. One of our hopes is that the combination of scientic evidence, practical examples, and case studies presented in this book will go some way toward bridging the practitionerresearcher divide described by Anderson et al. (2001), at least within the safety and risk domain of organizational psychology.

AcknowledgmentsIan Glendon expresses his deep appreciation of the enduring love and continuing support from his wife Mimi. He thanks his sons Oliver and Roland for their tolerance in seeing slightly less of him than he would have liked during the production of this book. He is also grateful to his Grifth colleagues, particularly Professor Peter Creed and Dr. Glenda Andrews, for facilitating his study leave and teaching relief that were essential for completing the book. Sharon Clarke would like to thank her family, particularly husband Peter Axworthy, and children Emily Rose and Sam, for their continual support throughout the writing of this book. Eugene McKenna appreciates the support of his children and coauthors. In particular he would like to express his thanks to Tony Moore, senior editor at Taylor & Francis, who played a major role initially by his enthusiastic support and decision to publish. Our appreciation extends to our publishers and their staff at Taylor & Francis for their continued patience and support. We would also like to thank Dr. Alan Waring and Anders af Whlberg for reading and commenting on draft sections of the book, and Courtney Jackson-Carroll for background research. Very special thanks to Anthony Ho for his expertise in designing the book cover.

About the AuthorsDr. Ian Glendon is associate professor in the School of Psychology, Grifth University, Queensland, Australia. His research interests include driver behavior/driver stress, OHS/risk management, and safety climate/culture. He has supervised over 20 research higher degree students to completion and has over 100 refereed publications, including three previous coauthored books. He has consulted for over 60 clients on OHS auditing, safety culture/climate analysis, accident/incident analysis, task analysis, and human error/reliability analysis. He is a registered psychologist in Queensland, a chartered occupational psychologist (U.K.), a Chartered Fellow of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, a member of several other professional bodies and president (20062010) of the International Association of Applied Psychology Trafc and Transportation Psychology Division. Dr. Sharon Clarke is senior lecturer in organizational psychology with the Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, U.K. Her research interests are in health and safety management, and safety culture and managing human risks. She has published widely on these topics, including articles in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Safety Science, amongst others, and is a regular presenter at international conferences. Her book, coauthored with professor Cary L. Cooper, Managing the Risk of Workplace Stress: Health and Safety Hazards, was published by Routledge in 2004. She is a member of the British Psychological Society, the American Psychological Association, and the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Dr. Eugene McKenna, professor Emeritus, University of East London, is a practicing chartered psychologist, a fellow of the British Psychological Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, and is on the visiting faculty of the Graduate School of Business, University of Strathclyde. He is a member of the council of the National Conference of University Professors a body representing U.K. university professors. His academic and consultancy interests cover organizational psychology and human resource management, and he has a particular interest in training and developing managers. He has published widely and is the author of Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour (Psychology Press, 2006) and Human Resource Management A Concise Analysis (coauthored with Professor Nic Beech, Prentice Hall/Pearson Education, 2002).

GlossaryAA ABS ACAS ACSNI ACTH AET AIDS ALARA ALARP AS ATP AUD AVM AWA AWS BACT BBC BBS BRPM BS BSI BSP CASA CBA CBI CBT CEO CFIT CFQ CHD CO2 COSHH CRM CST CT Automobile Association (U.K.) Advanced braking system Advisory, Conciliation, and Arbitration Service (U.K.) Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (U.K.) Adrenocortico tropic hormone Affective events theory Acquired immune deciency syndrome As low as reasonably achievable As low as reasonably practicable Australian Standard Automatic train protection Australian dollar Air vibration monitor Australian workplace agreement Automatic warning system (for trains) Best available control technology British Broadcasting Corporation Behavior-based safety Basic risk perception model British Standard British Standards Institution Behavioral safety process Civil Airline Safety Authority (Australia) Cost benet analysis Confederation of British Industry Cognitive behavior therapy Chief executive ofcer Controlled ight into terrain Cognitive Failures Questionnaire Coronary heart disease Carbon dioxide Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (U.K. legislation) Crew resource management Climate safety tool Cultural theory

dB DSE DTA EAP EC EC-JRC EEC e.g. EPI ESP et al. EU f

Decibel Display screen equipment Dynamic task allocation Employee assistance program European Commission European Communities Joint Research Centre European Economic Community For example Eysenck Personality Inventory Extra sensory perception et alia (and others) European Union Feet Degrees Fahrenheit Football Association (England) Five-Factor Personality Inventory Failure modes and effects analysis Great Britain Gross domestic product Generic error modeling system General failure type General Health Questionnaire GlaxoSmithKline Hours High Hierarchy of abstraction modeling Health and safety Hazard and operability study Health belief model Human Factors Investigation Tool Heavy goods vehicle Human immuno deciency virus Her Majestys Stationery Ofce (U.K.) High performance workplace system Human resources Human reliability assessment Human resources management High reliability organization Health and Safety Commission (U.K.) Health and Safety Executive (U.K.) Health and safety guidance Health and Safety Laboratory (U.K.) Hierarchical task analysis Hertz

F

FA FFPI FMEA GB GDP GEMS GFT GHQ GSK h H HAM H&S HAZOP HBM HFIT HGV HIV HMSO HPWS HR HRA HRM HRO HSC HSE HSG HSL HTA Hz

IAEA ICT i.e. ILO INSAG IPO IQ IR ISO IWO JCQ KB kph KSA L LMX LoC LPC LTIFR m MAO MAUT MBE ME MIV MLQ MMR MORT MRI N NA n-Ach NASA n.d. NHS NIOSH NNC NOHSC NPV NSW NZS

International Atomic Energy Agency Information and communications technology That is International Labor Organization International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group Inputs, process, outputs (model) Intelligent quotient Industrial relations International Standards Organization Industrial, work, and organizational (psychology) Job content questionnaire Knowledge based Kilometers per hour Knowledge, skills, abilities Low Leadermember exchange Locus of control Least preferred coworker Lost time injury frequency rate Meters Monoamino oxidase Multi-attribute theory Management-by-exception Myalgic encephalomyelitis Main inlet valve Multifactor leadership questionnaire Mumps, measles, and rubella (vaccine) Management oversight and risk tree Magnetic resonance imaging Number Negative affectivity Need for achievement National Aeronautical Space Administration No date National Health Service (U.K.) National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (U.S.) National Nuclear Corporation (U.K.) National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (Australia) Net present value New South Wales (Australia) New Zealand Standard

OBMod OCB OECD OHS OHSC OHSM OHSMS OIM OPQ OSCI OSHA p PA PBR PE PhD PHEA PIF PP PPE PR PRA PRP PSB PSF PSV PTSD QC QHSE r RA RAAF RAF RB RBR RET RHT RM RMS RMT RP RR RSI SARF SB SCT sec SEM

Organizational behavior modication Organizational citizenship behavior Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Occupational health and safety Occupational health and safety committee Occupational health and safety management Occupational health and safety management system Offshore installation manager (company) Occupational Personality Questionnaire Organizational and safety climate inventory Occupational Safety and Health Administration (U.S.) Probability Positive affectivity Payment by results Personenvironment (t) Doctor of Philosophy Predictive human error analysis Performance inuencing factor Precautionary principle Personal protective equipment Public relations Probabilistic risk assessment Performance related pay Pumped Storage Business (U.K.) Performance shaping factor Public service vehicle Post traumatic stress disorder Queens Counsel Quality, health, safety, and environment Correlation coefcient Risk assessment Royal Australian Air Force Royal Air Force Rules-based Risk-based regulation Rational emotive therapy Risk homeostasis theory Risk management Risk management standard Risk motivation theory Risk perception Risk resolution Repetitive strain injury Social amplication of risk framework Skills-based Social capital theory Second (time unit) Structural equation modeling

SHE SIOP SME SMS SPAD SS SSD SSS TA TABP TAFEI TAT THERP TMI TPB TRA TRRL TSC TV UCL U.K. UKAEA UN UQ U.S. USAF USS UWIST VALS VDU vs. 16PF

Safety, health, and environment Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Small and medium-sized enterprise Safety management system Signal passed at danger Sensation seeking System state diagram Sensation seeking scale Task analysis Type A behavior pattern Task analysis for human error identication Thematic Apperception Test Technique for human error rate prediction Three Mile Island Theory of planned behavior Theory of reasoned action Transport and Road Research Laboratory (U.K.) Total safety culture Television University College London United Kingdom United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority United Nations University of Queensland United States U.S. Airforce U.S. ship University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology Values and lifestyle Visual display unit Versus Sixteen personality factors (Cattell)

ContentsChapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Establishing the eld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Emerging issues in OHS research and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Fields and topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.1 Legal and regulatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.2 Technical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.3 Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.4 Psychological. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.5 Managerial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Ten generic challenges for OHS research and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.1 Integrating knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.2 Knowledge application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.3 Program evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.4 System complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.5 Multiple synergies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.6 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.7 Displacing risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.8 Ethics and social justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.9 Triangulating methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3.10 Conceptual and theoretical advances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 2 Risk models and risk management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 First-order concepts/approaches to risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Technical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.1 Description of the technical approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.2 Risk management and the technical approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.3 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1.4 Where next for the technical approach to risk? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Economic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.1 Description of the economic approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.2 Risk management and the economic approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.3 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2.4 Further comments on the economic approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Cultural theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.1 Description of the approach from cultural theory . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.2 Risk management and cultural theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 15 15 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 22 24 24 25 25 26

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.2.3.3 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3.4 Further comments on cultural theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Psychometric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4.1 Describing the psychometric paradigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4.2 Risk management and the psychometric approach . . . . . . . . 2.2.4.3 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4.4 Further comments on the psychometric approach . . . . . . . . . Expanded/developed approaches to risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Social constructionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1.1 Describing the social constructionist approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1.2 Risk management and the social constructionist approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1.3 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Social amplication of risk framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2.1 Describing the social amplication of risk framework (SARF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2.2 Risk management and the social amplication framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2.3 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2.4 Criticisms of SARF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Individual differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.1 Individual differences and risk-taking behaviors . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.2 Risk management and individual differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3.3 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Basic risk perception model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4.1 Describing the basic risk perception model (BRPM) . . . . . . . 2.3.4.2 Criticisms of the BRPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4.3 Risk management and the BRPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4.4 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Meta-approaches to risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Political . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.1 What constitutes a political approach to risk? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.2 Risk management and the political approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.3 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1.4 Further political risk model development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Socio-emotional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.1 Describing the socio-emotional approach to risk . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.2 Risk management and the socio-emotional approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2.3 Illustrative implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3.1 Adapting to risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3.2 Adaptation and risk management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3.3 Illustrative interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 Evolutionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4.1 Describing the evolutionary approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4.2 Risk management and the evolutionary approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4.3 Illustrative applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4.4 Links with other models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Further discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 29 29 29 32 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 40 40 40 40 42 42 42 43 43 43 46 47 48 49 49 51 52 52 52 55 56 57 57 61 62 62 64

Chapter 3 3.1 3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7 3.8

From sensation and perception through motivation and behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sensation and the human senses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Hearing and vibration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceptual organization and interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attention and vigilance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Sustained attention and vigilance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Selective attention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3 Effectiveness of warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Causal attribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Attributional effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.1 Self-serving bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.2 Severity bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.3 False consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.4 Situation bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.5 Correlational bias. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.6 Negative weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.7 Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.8 Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.9 Representativeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.10 Small numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.11 Anchoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.12 Overcondence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1.13 Hindsight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Behavioral approach to motivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Behavior modication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.2 Principles of learning: implications for safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.3 Goal setting and performance feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Motivating for safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67 67 68 70 72 74 75 77 78 79 79 81 83 88 89 89 91 91 91 92 92 92 93 93 93 93 94 96 96 100 100 105 107 109 109 110 110 113 114 117 117 118 120 124 128 131 131 131

Chapter 4 Human error and human factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Human error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Errors as a learning tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Categorizing human error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Slips and lapses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Mistakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.1 Rule-based mistakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.2 Knowledge-based mistakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.3 Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Error occurrence and detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Error reduction strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Human factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Ergonomic principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Human and machine performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.6

4.7

4.8 Chapter 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Interface design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.1 Fitting tasks to human operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6.2 Ergonomic applications to reduce human error potential . . . . . . . . . . . . Techniques for reducing human error/increasing human reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.1 Task analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.2 Task analysis for error identication (TAFEI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.3 Predictive human error analysis (PHEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.4 Reasons generic approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.5 Quantied human reliability assessment (HRA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.6 Inuence diagrams and model of accident causation using hierarchical inuence network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.7 Human factors investigation tool (HFIT) for accident analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7.8 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personality and risk liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Models of personality and the big ve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accident proneness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Big-ve personality characteristics and injury liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 Extraversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1.1 Sensation seeking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1.2 Other facets of extraversion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1.3 Reversal theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 Neuroticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Conscientiousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Agreeableness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.5 Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Risk propensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Individual differences in error liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personality at work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7.1 Using personality tests in selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

136 136 138 144 144 145 146 149 149 151 152 152 153 155 155 156 161 169 170 171 172 173 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 179 182 185 185 186 187 187 188 188 189 190 191 191 192 193 193 193

5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

Chapter 6 Attitudes, values, and risk behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Understanding attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 The nature of attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Denition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Attitude components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.1 Affective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.2 Cognitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.3 Behavioral intention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Attitude dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Attitude measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4.1 Likert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4.2 Semantic differential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4.3 Visual analogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Attitudes toward safety and risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

Attitudes and behavior: some theoretical perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Attitudes inuence behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 Behavior inuences attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3 Attitudes and behavior are mutually reinforcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.4 Attitudes and behavior are likely to be mutually consistent, but independent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . More complex approaches to attitudebehavior links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.1 The theory of planned behavior (TPB). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.2 The health belief model (HBM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.3 Protection motivation theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6.4 Overview of complex models describing attitudebehavior links. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitude change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.1 Attitude functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.2 Attitude levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.2.1 Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.2.2 Identication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.2.3 Internalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.2.4 The importance of attitude strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.3 Attitude change interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.3.1 Audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.3.2 Persuader . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.3.3 Personality factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.3.4 Presentation of issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.3.5 Persistence of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.4 Other factors in attitudebehavior change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.4.1 Information provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.4.2 Fear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7.4.3 Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Safety climate and safety attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8.1 The concept of safety climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8.1.1 Safety climate and perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8.2 Safety climate and safe behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195 195 195 196 197 198 198 202 203 204 207 207 207 207 208 208 208 209 209 209 210 210 210 210 210 211 212 216 219 220 222 224 227 227 229 233 235 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 243 245

Chapter 7 The role of stress in safety and risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Theoretical models of stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Workplace stressors and injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 Intrinsic job characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1.1 Workload and work pace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1.2 Work schedules and shiftwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Organizational roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Work relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4 Job insecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Individual differences and job stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 Type A behavior pattern (TABP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Negative affectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.4 Locus of control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.5 Self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.5

7.6

7.7

Mechanisms linking stress with injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1 Direct effects of job stress on injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1.1 Effects of acute stressors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1.2 Effects of chronic stressors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 Indirect effects of job stress on injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2.1 Work-related attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2.2 General health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 The role of moderating factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3.1 Social support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3.2 Coping strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stress interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1 Individual-level stress interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1.1 Employee assistance programs (EAPs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1.2 Stress management programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1.3 Health promotion programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 Organizational level stress interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2.1 Work redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2.2 Participation and autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2.3 Social support groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3 Effectiveness of stress interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245 245 247 247 249 250 250 251 251 253 254 255 258 259 260 261 261 262 264 265 267

Chapter 8 Managing teams for safe performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Functions and benets of groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 Formation and types of groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Types of teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Team effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 Team design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1.1 Group norms and expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1.2 Cohesiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1.3 Group safety climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1.4 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1.5 Group discussion and decision making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1.6 Team leadership and self-managing teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1.7 Virtual teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Safety committee effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Barriers to team effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.1 Social comparison and social control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.2 Intergroup relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.3 Decision-making biases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Managing effective work teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.1 Managing teams as individuals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.2 Balancing authority and democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.3 Teams and organizational structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.4 Teams and organizational support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.5 Teams and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

269 269 271 272 273 274 278 280 284 286 287 289 290 292 294 295 295 296 298 301 301 302 302 303 303 303

Chapter 9 Leading and supervising for safe performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Leadership theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 Trait theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.2 Leadership style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3 Contingency theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3.1 Worker maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3.2 Least preferred coworker (LPC). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3.3 Normative model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.3.4 Pathgoal theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.4 Relational leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.4.1 Leadermember exchange (LMX) theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.5 Trust and leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 New leadership theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.1 Charismatic leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2 Transformational leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2.1 Individualized consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2.2 Intellectual stimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2.3 Inspirational motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2.4 Idealized inuence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2.5 Contingent reward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.2.6 Management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.3 Safety climate and leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.4 Substitutes for leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3.5 Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Leadership failures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Leadership ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 10 Managing human risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 A risk management approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1 Risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2 Safety management systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2.1 Measuring performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.2.2 Safety auditing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.3 Human resource management (HRM). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 HR practices associated with occupational health and safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.1 Employment security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.2 Selective hiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.3 Communication and information sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.4 Reward systems for safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.5 Safety training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.5.1 The learning process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.5.2 Types of safety training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.5.3 Transfer of training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3.5.4 Refresher training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Managing safety risks: an integrated approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.1 Types of safety intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.2 Individual and group level safety interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

307 307 309 309 309 312 312 312 312 313 313 313 314 316 316 316 318 319 320 320 320 321 322 324 325 325 327 329 331 331 332 332 333 334 337 339 342 346 348 349 350 351 351 353 355 355 356 356 357

10.4.3 Organizational level safety interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.3.1 Autonomy and safety outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.3.2 Self-managing work teams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.3.3 Worker participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.3.4 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.3.5 Management development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 11 Safety culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Dening safety culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.1 Safety culture as attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.2 Safety culture as behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Theoretical models of safety culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.1 Organizational culture approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.2 Total safety culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.3 Safety culture: an informed culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.4 Reciprocal safety culture model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.5 An approach from subcultures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.6 Work climate model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.7 A social capital theory of safety culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.8 The role of safety climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.9 The role of occupational stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.10 High-reliability organizations and safety culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Approaches to developing and measuring safety culture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.1 Interpretive approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.2 Functionalist approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.3 Measuring safety culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.3.1 Safety systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.3.2 Safety attitudes and perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.3.3 Safety behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.3.4 Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.3.5 Safety culture and injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Changing toward a positive safety culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.1 Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.2 Drivers of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.2.1 Direct cultural change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.2.2 Indirect cultural change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.2.3 Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 Safety culture and risk management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.1 Antecedents of safety culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.2 Safety culture as a form of risk control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.3 A risk management approach to safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.3.1 Management commitment to safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.3.2 Worker involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6.3.3 Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

359 359 359 359 359 360 360 363 363 364 364 367 369 369 370 372 373 374 377 378 379 379 381 382 382 383 384 384 385 386 387 387 389 389 391 391 392 395 397 399 400 401 401 402 404 405

Chapter 12 Risk management conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 Staged approaches to managing safety risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Beyond a standards approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 Integrating individual and organizational adaptive features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.4 Beyond prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

407 407 410 413 414

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487

chapter one

IntroductionIn contrast to earlier epochs, it seems that contemporary issues are increasingly dened in terms of risk a framework that is explored in greater detail in Chapter 2. That risk is in danger of becoming a catchall concept for much of human behavior is illustrated by a spoof claim in a satirical website that an international consortium of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers is nearing the completion of the ambitious, decade-long project of cataloguing everything that can go wrong (The Onion, 2005), with the added claim that once the list is completed it will be coded and categorized and that it could have widespread applications. Closer to reality, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2003) has argued for a risk management approach to a wide range of risks that involves interdisciplinary cooperation a theme revisited in later chapters. Hovden (2004) considered that the philosophical basis for a science of risk could be traced back to Jean Jaques Rousseaus attribution of the large death toll (>100,000) in the 1755 Lisbon earthquake to human decision making that resulted in building 20,000 six to seven storey houses in a known seismic location. In a Norwegian case study, Hovden (2004) observed that Perrow (1984) and Turner and Pidgeon (1997) began a new era in risk research. One response to Perrow was the notion of high reliability organizations (HROs) (LaPorte & Consolini, 1991). Hopkins (2000) and Weick (1989) considered vulnerability and resilience of organizations, while Hale et al. (2002) dealt with consequences for risk legislation and regulation.

1.1 Establishing the eldOur prime concern in this book, as with the rst edition, is to explore the role that psychology can usefully play in occupational health and safety (OHS) and risk management. Psychology and psychologists have been criticized for the shortcomings of their alleged role in OHS. For example, Frick et al. (2000) stated that, The entrance of organizational and industrial psychologists to the new eld of systematic OHSM [occupational health and safety management] has also lent a more scientic nimbus to the authoritarian strategy of modifying worker behaviour rather than risk exposure at the workplace (p. 5). In similar vein, Walters and Frick (2000) stated, With the growing market of OHSM systems . . . industrial and organisational psychologists now try to reintroduce behaviour as the main risk factor to control such systems (p. 54). Such criticism is misdirected. First, it is highly selective and therefore inaccurate, in respect of much of psychologists current work in OHS, which spans a considerable range of human activities, including those relating to cognitive, social, organizational, environmental, and educational domains in addition 1

2

Human safety and risk management

to behavioral as well as the human factors eld. Second, to criticize psychologists for studying behavior or in this case safe behavior, is akin to criticizing physicians for studying health and illness its what psychologists do! To berate a discipline for its subject material seems perverse. As part of their general critique of technical approaches to OHS, including the medical model, and ergonomics for its individual approach, managerial orientation and apparent unwillingness to consider the broader picture, Bohle and Quinlan (2000) are similarly critical of psychologists contribution to OHS as being overly focused on individual factors in accident causation, having a management orientation and developing victim-blaming models. Sociologists on the other hand blame the system, perceive injury as inherent in the nature of work, and address conicts of interest as a fundamental aspect of OHS. Compartmentalizing the contributions of various disciplinary areas risks labeling each too rigidly and ignores the potential for a more eclectic approach for example, from individuals with higher OHS qualications or by those able to transcend arbitrary disciplinary boundaries. The essence of such criticism seems to be twofold. First, through their research and consulting activities in OHS, psychologists, serve management and not workers. Second, that psychologists focus upon safe person/behavior rather than safe place strategies. To the extent that psychologists are subject to the same constraints that attach to those who must work to survive, the rst criticism may be valid. Psychologists are workers too highly skilled ones, to the extent that they sell their labor to an employer, and like all workers are obliged to undertake the work for which they are remunerated. However, academic psychologists also have a disciplinary base from which they are expected to exercise a degree of balance in their work. For some years psychologists in all developed countries have been obliged to adhere to strict professional ethical codes, reinforced by sanctions, among whose strictures are that in their professional dealings they should serve all constituents within the context of the conicts and power imbalances that are acknowledged to exist between parties including that which exists between themselves and their clients or research participants (Lowman, 1998). Impugning the integrity of a profession that is genuinely seeking to acknowledge and to address power imbalances in workplaces and elsewhere is, at the very least, unhelpful. There is a need to study human behavior as part of the complex OHS picture. Surely no one would suggest that it is neither useful nor helpful to educate and train people to be safe? The issue is more to do with the overall balance of safe person/safe place strategies, and clearly both are needed. The quote from Frick et al. (2000) implied that organizational psychologists are concerned exclusively with modifying worker behavior, rather than seeking to inuence management behavior, and thereby reduce risk exposure. As a crude measure of the relative importance of this topic within the eld of organizational psychology as applied to OHS, in the rst edition of this book, the topic of behavior modication perhaps the embodiment of a safe person approach, took up less than two pages out of the 341 pages of text. The topic is not ignored, but this gives some idea of our view of its place in the overall contribution of psychology to OHS. In this current edition, we have increased this coverage, both to reect more recent work in the eld and to outline more of the strengths and shortcomings of this approach. Most researchers and consultants recognize the need for a pragmatic approach on many occasions seeking to determine what works. Unless we can talk the language of management there is virtually no hope of inuencing the way organizations manage OHS, however apposite the underlying theory. Theorists from other disciplines, including economics (Bernstein, 1996) and anthropology (Douglas, 1992) have also denigrated or downplayed psychological contributions in the domain of risk. However, residing in an Ivory Tower is not an option for inuencing OHS. It is totally acceptable to criticize psychologists and other technicians, but tools are needed to address issues ideas and critique alone are insufcient to promulgate change.

Chapter one:

Introduction

3

There is a third, more implied and subtle criticism within the quoted passage that psychologists are concerned with the minutiae of OHS the coalface, rather than with a more strategic overview. This criticism has been leveled at psychology in another domain that of psychometric testing, for example in the selection process and by psychologists themselves (Anderson & Prutton, 1993). Again this criticism is valid to the extent that, by the nature of their subject matter, psychologists tend to focus upon human behavior and the forces that drive it. This is one aspect of a much broader criticism of organizational psychologists work, namely that they focus on micro rather than macro aspects of organizational functioning, again forwarded by psychologists themselves (Tharenou, 2001). Rousseau and House (1994) have argued for organizational psychologists to take a meso approach, which seeks to explain behavior at more than one level, recognizing, for example, that individuals are embedded within work groups that inter-relate and link with larger organizational structures. However, in state-of-the-art reviews, such as those of Tharenou, OHS and risk issues may not even rate a mention, indicating that this is still very much a minority eld of interest for organizational psychologists. However, over the past 15 years or so, in their research and related activities, increasing numbers of organizational psychologists have taken stock of the broader picture to seek insights relevant to OHS and related risk issues, and Sue Cox, Tom Cox, Rhona Flin, Andrew Hale, Jan Hovden, Nick Pidgeon, James Reason, and Dov Zohar, and their respective colleagues are among numerous examples of this relatively recent trend (Reason, 1997; Hale & Hovden, 1998). While there may be some historical currency in the sociological critique, in the contemporary era psychologists are increasingly likely to point to management as the prime source of OHS and workplace risk problems and to draw upon the work of other disciplines, including sociology, as well as working with researchers from other disciplines and practitioners from other professions. Other psychologists focus upon the work environment and its effects upon human behavior, for example, so-called sick building syndrome. Others consider how environments, including workplaces, should be designed so as to minimize risk from re or other disasters and to maximize peoples opportunity to escape should the worst happen. From these examples, it is clear that psychologists have a key role to play as leading researchers in many aspects of OHS, including being part of a multidisciplinary approach to OHS. A logical position that ows from a critique from the vantage point of industrial sociology is that if management holds the balance of power in the industrial domain, then it is primarily management who has to be convinced of the necessity and desirability for change. Psychologists have an important role to play in explaining not just the fact that people make errors, but also why those errors occur and what could be done to reduce either the errors or the likelihood of their causing harm. To this end, human factors principles (explored in Chapter 4) and some of the research now being undertaken in cognitive psychology can be very valuable, particularly when human cognitions and behavior are critical to the safety of vulnerable systems. As an illustration, Groegers (2005) study of inadequate human factors inherent in the long-standing design of railway signals can help us to understand the nature of this type of problem. Professor Groeger was an expert witness in the Southall and Ladbroke Grove rail disaster public inquiries in the United Kingdom, and his expertise has also served two criminal cases involving railway workers. The sensing environment for a train driver approaching signals is complex particularly for visual and auditory senses. In three major U.K. rail disasters involving signals passed at danger (SPADs) Watford (in 1996) (HSE, 1998), Southall (in 1997) (Uff, 2000), and Ladbroke Grove (in 1999) (Cullen, 2001a, 2001b) the importance of human factors was recognized in at least two of these; for a comprehensive analysis of the last of these, see Lawton and Ward (2005) as well as the ofcial inquiry (Cullen, 2001a, 2001b). The signal sequence, which is predictive of the possible states of the following signal, is (1) green,

4

Human safety and risk management

(2) double yellow, (3) single yellow, and (4) red. Using feature integration theory and guided search theory, Groeger (2005) determined the importance of complexity in a stimulus array, which is also affected by distractor load. The most important nding from this study was that the yellow signal, arguably the most critical for safety, takes the longest of the four to detect. This is because a driver has to determine two bits of information: both signal color and number of lights displayed. Groeger et al. (2005) conrmed by experiment that this conjunctive search, requiring two bits of information to nd, takes longer than the other three. A train driver has a limited time window to perceive the signal ahead, which could involve selecting the correct signal from a complex visual environment, with detection time being lengthened by adding further distractors, such as adjacent signals or masking by vegetation, track bends, or gantries (Lawton & Ward, 2005). The track system allows a 7-sec time period for perceiving and checking a signal, which should be continuously visible for the last 4 sec before it is reached. The signal is preceded by an AWS (automatic warning system) loop 180 m before the signal, which triggers a bell warning for a green signal and the (same) klaxon warning for the other three signals, the auditory warning being perceived in conjunction with the visual signal. However, while the auditory warning enhances detection slightly, particularly where it is unique, it does not discriminate between the different levels of caution. Given that critical features of human cognition involved in perceiving the signal and its associated warning are hard wired, practical implications of this work for signal siting, standards, and practice should be addressed through design and human factors applications. This example shows that psychologists are far from being imprisoned by the notion of human error; in fact psychologists have rarely promulgated this term as a cause of crashes or injuries. Their stance has been more to seek to unpack this term and discover what internal (cognitive) and external (environmental) factors inuence it (Reason, 1990; Edkins & Pollock, 1997; Lawton & Ward, 2005) and, recognizing the difculty of changing human cognitions that have evolved over many millennia, recommending appropriate work environment changes. Psychologists have also pointed out that positioning human operators at safety critical junctures within systems can improve the reliability of those systems. Another example can be taken from the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Waterfall Rail Accident, probably the largest public inquiry in Australian history, to which 113 days of evidence was presented and which resulted in three substantial volumes totaling 1400 pages (McInerney, 2004, 2005) as well as a 100-page inquiry report from the New South Wales government (NSW Ministry of Transport, 2003). The rst author was an expert panel member for the Waterfall Commission of Inquiry. Psychologists increasingly study broader organizational phenomena and concepts such as safety climate and safety culture. An important contribution that they can make is to apply methodological rigor, qualitative as well as quantitative, to workplace safety issues. As part of the Waterfall Inquiry, a safety climate survey was conducted among a large sample of the workforce, including some managerial and supervisory staff, which with the help of strong trade union support achieved a 99%+ response rate almost unprecedented in social science research, even in Scandinavian countries! The results of the survey, published in McInerney (2005), helped to show not only that safety was poorly regarded within the main organization involved, but also that there were statistically signicant differences in perceptions between management and workers and between different groups of workers a theme that is revisited in the discussion of safety subcultures in Chapter 12. Such research not only illustrates the divergence of views, in this case on safety issues, between management and workforce that are the stock in trade of the industrial sociologist, but can go further by indicating more precisely the magnitude and complexity of this divergence. Furthermore, while nothing

Chapter one:

Introduction

5

might be done about the overall balance of power between the parties, ndings from such surveys, particularly once (as in this case) they are in the public domain, might at the very least encourage management to implement remedial action, not only to improve safety, but also as part of a risk management approach to continue to monitor progress. Current indications are that the organization involved in this Inquiry is doing exactly that. In a case study of teacher stress, Larsson (2000) described some of the organizational and contextual issues that form part of the etiology of teacher stress. Larsson argued for a return to workplace development of OHSM, arguing that the large and impersonal public or private corporation can no longer be regarded as the responsible employer demanded or assumed by legislation or the voluntary regulatory process. If such workplace level regulation is to become a reality, then detailed information will be required to support such local systems. The methodological and conceptual rigor that psychologists can provide could be an essential component in analyzing and understanding local workplace OHS issues, such as stress. For example, in a large-scale longitudinal study of teacher stress, Dr. Graham Bradley identied around 20 intervention strategies for reducing strain and enhancing activity participation in school teachers (Bradley, 2004). These were based on painstaking research using sophisticated theoretical modeling and complex statistical analyses and are summarized in Table 1.1. These examples serve to illustrate that organizational psychologists research into OHS and wider issues ranges from the cognitive (e.g., describing relevant ways in which mind functions can affect critical safety issues) to the macro-organizational (e.g., describing how different groups within an organization dene and perceive safety-related issues). Such research can have useful things to say about how physical and organizational aspects of an environment are structured to maximize well-being and to minimize harmful aspects of stress. Its emphasis on a scientic approach and the breadth of its methodology, qualitative as well as quantitative, longitudinal as well as cross-sectional, eld study as well as experimental, gives it an advantage over many other disciplinary approaches. Many organizational psychologists with a contribution to make to OHS and risk management issues are also heavily involved as practitioners or consultants, for example, in organizational change programs or through advising on specic workplace interventions. An important issue, and one that is particularly well dened by industrial sociologists, is that of the changing world of work, including, but not restricted to, greater fragmentation of work and isolation of workers from each other, limited social contact between workers, reduced trade union representation and involvement, less worker participation in workplaces, greater managerial control of work processes, and fewer resources for inspectorates to visit workplaces (for an excellent review see Quinlan & Mayhew, 2000). These and other trends impact considerably upon individuals and are liable to lead, inter alia, to greater stress for workers. Bohle and Quinlan (2000) were critical of psychologists approach to work-related stress in so far as few interventions have been made at organizational level. While this may be a fair criticism, it could become more important for psychologists to be involved in seeking solutions at an individual level also because, as a result of changing patterns of work, that is where many of the problems are located. If you cannot ght the trends then you have to adapt. More research is needed into such matters as understanding human resilience and how to enhance it, which is within the domain of psychology (Deveson, 2003). Organizational psychologists have acknowledged that stress reduction interventions are required at both individual and organizational level, a point made by Clarke and Cooper (2004) among others, and revisited in Chapter 7. We do not decry industrial sociologists right to criticize they are particularly good at it! Nor would we challenge their general analyses of OHS, which from a sociological perspective is also valid. It is, in parts, an ugly world, with many injustices and power imbalances, as a perusal of any issue of The Human Rights Defender (Amnesty International)

6

Human safety and risk management

Table 1.1 Illustrative Interventions Suggested by Bradleys (2004) Research Findings on Job Factor Outcome Relationships Consistently signicant predictors identied in the researcha Demands (+) Total and time/load control () Supervisor support () Total and student demands (+) Total and student control () Colleague support () Supervisor support () Demands, especially qualitative demands (+) Time/load con