Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Implementing proactive safety strategies in place of reactive safety strategies at a manufacturing organization: an evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Implementing proactive safety strategies in place of reactive safety strategies at a manufacturing organization: an evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
1
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES IN PLACE OF REACTIVE
SAFETY STRATEGIES AT A MANUFACTURING ORGANIZATION:
AN EVALUATION STUDY
by
Patrick Ortega
______________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2019
Copyright 2019 Patrick Ortega
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
2
Dedication
To God, for giving me the perseverance, endurance, and gracing me with opportunity
upon opportunity — you are everything. To my parents, who always want the best for me and
sacrifice all to show their love; Mom, Dad, I love you dearly. To my brothers, and sister, I hope
I have set a good example you can look up to. To my wife, I love you very much and appreciate
all your trust, support, nurturing, patience, and belief. You’re so good to me and I love you and
thank you for being a great partner in life. Finally, I dedicate this paper to my son, Patrick R.
Ortega. You are the love of my life and I cherish you being my little miracle. Son, I hope you
are proud of me and that I serve as an example of not giving up fulfilling your goals and dreams
no matter how hard the journey. I love you son.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
3
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Cohort 7, you are a great set of colleagues. The camaraderie we shared,
problems we solved, help we offered and time we spent is invaluable to me. To my USC
instructors and dissertation committee, I thank each of you for the time you took to make
contributions to my continual growth. To the Company leaders that gave me permission to
embark on this study and gave me full access to dig deep into the organization, I give you my
gratitude, respect, and everlasting admiration for being so supportive. A special thanks goes to
my family that demonstrated so much patience through the peaks and valleys of this educational
journey. To everyone else that provided support, advice, a kind word, enquired about my
progress, or served as a cheerleader to keep me motivated and help ignite, and at times reignite,
continued effort, I offer you my gratitude.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Introduction to Problem of Practice 8
Organizational Context and Mission 8
Organizational Performance Goal 9
Organizational Performance Status 9
Importance of Addressing the Problem 10
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions 13
Overview of the Literature Review Sections 13
Literature Review 14
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework 17
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 18
Interactive Conceptual Framework 26
Qualitative Data Collection 28
Data Analysis 30
Findings 30
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge Influences 44
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 53
Limitations and Delimitations 64
Recommendations for Future Research 65
Conclusion 65
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders and Interview Sampling Rationale 67
Appendix B: Protocols 69
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness 72
Appendix D: Ethics 73
References 75
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
5
List of Tables
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 12
Table 2. Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessments 20
Table 3. Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments 23
Table 4. Organizational Influences and Assessments 25
Table 5. Definition of Safety Ambassador 32
Table 6. What is the Difference between Reactive Safety and Proactive Safety? 33
(Poor Understanding)
Table 7. What is the Difference between Reactive Safety and Proactive Safety 34
(Better Understanding)
Table 8. Can You Give Me Examples of Safety You Have Helped Implement? 35
Table 9. Attributions 37
Table 10. Do You Believe You are Capable of Implementing the Safety Ambassador 39
Program?
Table 11. How Would You Describe Your Level of Trust in Management to 41
Make Safety a Priority?
Table 12. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 44
Table 13. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 47
Table 14. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 51
Table 15. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 55
Table 16. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 56
Table 17. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 57
Table 18. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 60
Table 19. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 61
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
6
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for Copper Core 27
Figure 2. Survey results about employees’ views on Supervisors promoting safety 63
dashboard report example
Figure 3. Example of infographic posting showing level of engagement towards 64
implementing proactive safety strategies at the manufacturing plant
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
7
Abstract
Workers’ ability to implement proactive safety is influenced by factors like the level of safety
involvement of their supervisor, support by senior management to make safety a priority, and
training. Employers realize the importance of safety and how costly workplace accidents and
injuries can be with the loss of productivity, decrease in morale, and elevated risk exposure.
Thus, many organizations are implementing proactive safety strategies to reduce workplace
accidents and injuries. This paper looks at the knowledge, motivation and organizational
resources that influence the implementation of proactive safety strategies at a manufacturing
organization. The research findings suggest that having confidence in one’s ability, and
attributing success to increased effort are key motivators to accomplishing goals. In addition,
having the knowledge of how to implement proactive safety, receiving organizational support by
being given time to implement safety, and having trust in leadership helps the organization
accomplish their goal.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
8
Introduction to Problem of Practice
In 1986, an electrical engineering experiment at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
caused a steam explosion and fire killing over 30 people. Reiman and Rollenhagen (2014) state
that after Chernobyl, human and cultural factors such as learning, management competency,
motivation, and leadership responsibility gave rise to proactive safety. However, implementing
proactive safety strategies in place of reactive safety strategies is problematic because not all
employees equally perceive the value of safety, causing conflict and ambiguity towards safety
cultures (Antonsen, 2009). Antonsen (2009) further describes safety culture as one in which the
safety manager attempts to find proactive approaches to safety management. Also, not moving
to a proactive safety culture keeps organizations reacting to injuries and workplace accidents,
and post analyzation as a means to create improvements to their safety program.
Organizational Context and Mission
Copper Core (CC), a pseudonym, is considered a leader in manufacturing electrical
products. CC serves many industries like electric utility, oil, and gas, railroad, nuclear, chemical,
and military bases. The mission of CC is to provide the highest level of customer service and an
unequaled level of manufacturing capability in the industry through continuous improvement and
modernization programs. CC has five manufacturing plants but only four will serve as the focus
of this evaluation study: two in the Southeast and two on the East Coast. Three are unionized
with collective bargaining agreements for hourly employees, and the fourth is a non-union plant.
CC employs about 1300 employees overall with approximately 950 located at the manufacturing
plants. CC is in the process of implementing the Safety Ambassador Program that is based on
proactive principles. Those principles include being observant and looking for factors to
improve safety behavior, focusing on positive consequences to motivate behavior, and
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
9
eliminating hazards and unsafe acts. Safety Ambassadors are volunteer hourly employees and
volunteer Supervisors responsible for driving the grass-roots effort of moving to proactive safety
strategies.
Organizational Performance Goal
CC’s goal is to implement proactive safety strategies in place of reactive strategies at
their manufacturing plants by December 2019. Proactive strategies will replace the current
reactive safety strategies which are not meeting CC’s expectation of having manufacturing plants
with no unsafe acts, accidents and injuries. Reactive strategies look at safety measures as a result
of an accident or injury while proactive measures seek to eliminate hazards before an accident or
injury occurs. The Chief Executive Officer, Director of Safety, Plant Managers, Human
Resources, risk insurance group, and key customers had input in the creation of the
organizational goal.
It is important for CC to accomplish the performance goal of implementing the Safety
Ambassador program and proactive safety strategies for a variety of reasons. If CC is not
successful in developing a proactive safety culture, it risks increased unsafe acts, hazards,
accidents and injuries. Also, customers like Pacific Gas & Electric (PGE) may leave for another
electrical cable vendor if CC has a continued trend of unsafe acts. Failure to implement a
proactive safety system also impacts employee morale due to employees’ perception of lack of
commitment by management toward safety. Where safety perceptions are more favorable,
workers are less likely to engage in unsafe acts (Clarke, 2006).
Organizational Performance Status
CC’s focus is on replacing reactive safety strategies with proactive safety strategies for
their manufacturing plants by having Safety Ambassadors implement the Safety Ambassador
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
10
program. Safety Ambassadors (SAS) are both hourly and salaried employees that volunteered to
be part of the safety team at their respective plants. One manufacturing plant on the West Coast
that will not be part of this study has already implemented the Safety Ambassador program in
2016 and is fully functional. That plant has seen success in increased employee involvement as
they have 22 employees that serve as SAS and a reduction of accidents and injuries from nine in
2016 down to three in 2017. The other four plants have introduced the program to their
employees, recruited SAS, and are at various stages of implementation. The Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) establishes metrics for incident rates per industry. The
OSHA incident rate is calculated by multiplying the number of injury cases by 200,000, and then
dividing that number by the number of labor hours at the company. The OSHA metric for the
electrical industry is 2.7; CC’s injury rate at the manufacturing plants is over 4.0, compared to
OSHA’s 2.7 metric. Not addressing the high injury rate limits the company’s ability to provide a
safe workplace for its employees and does not meet the quality standard set by CC’s customer
partners. PGE wants CC to meet the injury metric if they are to continue doing business
together. The research shows there are significant issues with implementing a proactive safety
culture in manufacturing organizations, such as employee resistance, and lack of management
commitment (Dejoy, 1994; Geller, 2001; Hale, Borys, & Adams, 2015). CC has experienced
employee resistance, mixed communication about safety, and lack of supervisor involvement
that jeopardize the Safety Ambassador program.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Addressing the problems with implementing proactive safety strategies in manufacturing
organizations is important for a variety of reasons. CC has an injury and incident rate higher
than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard. While not all of their
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
11
strategies are reactive, CC’s current safety model is to conduct a thorough investigation post-
injury. Not implementing proactive safety strategies leads to reactive safety cultures and
ambiguity toward the value of safe work practices (Clarke, 2006). Ambiguity towards the value
of safety tends to lead towards workers bypassing safety precautions and taking unnecessary
risks. In 2017, CC had over 20 near misses at one manufacturing plant. Unsafe work
environments lead to workplace-related accidents and injuries. A report from the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, 2018a) showed there were 10,388 severe injuries in
2015 and over 5,000 deaths in 2016. The deaths occurred in four major categories — falls,
struck by an object, electrocutions, and stuck between parts. All four of the injury categories are
preventable.
On-the-job injuries pose an enormous cost to organizations and threaten the business
viability due to increased audits and fines (Leigh, 2011; Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann,
2011). Management’s attitude towards safety needs to align with a safe workplace, perceived
care and concern for employees, and willingness to fix hazards to improve the safety culture
(Cooper & Phillips, 2004). Reactive safety programs are a problem, and organizations must
improve their safety culture through proactive strategies.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
CC has a number of stakeholder groups that contribute and will benefit by achievement
of the organizational goal. Stakeholder groups include hourly employees, salaried employees,
supervisors, senior managers, corporate staff, customer partners, and the risk management
company. Hourly employees are the primary machine operators and are on the plant floor daily
during their shift. They would benefit greatly from implementation of proactive safety strategies
as they are the group that is most at risk for injury. Another stakeholder group is the supervisors
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
12
who are responsible for the hourly employees and responsible for safety, quality, and
productivity at CC. Senior managers provide tools, equipment, leadership and support, and
corporate staff is available for strategic advice, budget issues, and to assist in their subject matter
of expertise. Key customers are vital stakeholders too. Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, and
de Colle (2010) suggest that key customers have an interest and desire to care for the company
welfare, too, because of their partnership. While the combined efforts of all the stakeholder
groups are important to achieving the implementation of proactive safety strategies, it is vital to
first implement the Safety Ambassador program fully at the four manufacturing plants that are a
part of this study. The Safety Ambassador program aims to promote good safety and health
practices by eliminating unsafe acts before an accident or injury occurs. Therefore, the
stakeholders of focus for this study will be the SAS. The SAS goal is to implement the Safety
Ambassador program by July 31, 2019. SAS’s ability to implement the Safety Ambassador
program is critical to CC’s quest to implement proactive safety strategies by December 31, 2019.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
CC’s mission is to make the best quality electrical products in the industry by utilizing
continuous improvement and modernization improvement programs.
Organizational Performance Goal
CC will implement proactive safety measures at all four manufacturing plants by December
31, 2019.
Stakeholder Goal
SAS will implement the Safety Ambassador program at all four manufacturing plants by
July 31, 2019.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
13
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the level to which CC is achieving the
organizational goal of implementing proactive safety strategies in place of reactive safety
strategies at their manufacturing plants by December 2019. Drawing from the Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis model, this study focused on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
resources related to the goal. While the efforts of all stakeholders are important to the
organization and success of their manufacturing plants, the stakeholders of focus for this study
are SAS because they are directly responsible for implementing safety strategies.
The questions that guided the study are as follows:
1. To what extent is CC manufacturing meeting its goal to implement proactive safety
strategies at all four manufacturing plants by December 31, 2019?
2. What are the SAS knowledge and motivation influences related to implementing the
Safety Ambassador program across all four manufacturing plants?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and SAS
knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Overview of the Literature Review Sections
The literature review section to follow examined the problem of practice of implementing
proactive safety strategies in place of reactive safety strategies. The first theme is around the
description of proactive and reactive safety cultures. This is followed by discussion of related
challenges to implementation of proactive safety and finishes with an examination of the role of
leadership in safety. Following the literature review section is a general description of the Clark
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
14
and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework then a section that suggests the assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on SAS’s role in achieving their stakeholder goal.
Literature Review
According to OSHA (2018b), safety cultures consist of attitudes, shared beliefs, and
practices toward safety in an organization. A strong proactive safety culture is one where
everybody feels responsible for the safety outcomes and goes beyond the minimum to find and
correct unsafe acts and hazards in the workplace. Developments in technology, adding
engineering controls, and having a participatory risk management process helps to increase the
health and safety of the worker (Poplin et al., 2015). The increase in safety activities generates a
feeling of belonging and accountability which increases quality, productivity, and job
satisfaction (Parker, Axtell, & Turner, 2001). Research conducted by Griffin and Neal (2000)
found that when workers felt supported by management, there were less unsafe acts and more
productive work. When employers are proactively engaged, workers tend to develop an
obligation to their co-worker’s safety and perform better on safety outcomes (Mullen, Kelloway,
& Teed, 2017). Proactive safety has been directly associated with the successful implementation
of a risk management system that is flexible and involves employee collaboration (Poplin et al.,
2015). Zahn (2010) states that to effectively transform cultures, safety professionals should look
forward, not backward. Zacharatos, Barling, and Iverson (2005) proposed a set of proactive
safety strategies they feel promote a safety culture. The proactive factors they proposed were
transformational leadership, extensive training, communication, measurement of appropriate
behaviors, decentralized decision making, and selective hiring. The authors also suggested that
employees that trust management, value safety, and feel involved, helped the workplace increase
safety awareness. By contrast, Earnest (1997) says that a reactive safety culture is defined as
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
15
emphasizing incident investigation resulting from a near miss or accident primarily looking at
symptoms as opposed to the root cause. He goes on to say that reactive safety cultures exist
when there is an unwillingness or lack of competence to implement proactive safety strategies.
The same author stated that organizations will wait until a serious or fatal accident occurs then
react to make required adjustments to equipment, policy, and or procedure. Carbonari, Giretti,
and Naticchia (2011) stated that management may not always communicate changes to safety
policies and the practical application is left up to the workers who often prove insufficient due to
lack of knowledge or motivation keeping a safety program in a reactive state. Also, the United
States is known for their compliance-based safety program that does not concentrate on a risk
assessment that looks to proactively eliminate hazards (Poplin et al., 2015). Not communicating
about safety and using compliance-based systems are both reactive measures. Involvement in
safety activities makes workers feel empowered and more apt to report workplace hazards and
focus on accident symptoms (Parker, Lawrie, & Hudson, 2006).
Challenges with Implementation of Proactive Safety
It is common for organizations to have difficulties implementing safety programs. Not
only can workers be resistant, but they may perceive their managers as non-supportive of safety
practices which creates ambiguity about the importance of safety. A qualitative study by Gerede
(2015) investigating the implementation of a safety management system suggests that lack of top
management support and lack of resources were major barriers. The same study also revealed
that if trust in management and management’s involvement is low, an organization will be
challenged as they create a proactive safety culture. Thompson, Hilton, and Witt (1998) also
found that management involvement and support are important factors to establishing and
maintaining a safe work environment. An organization’s safety culture is governed by the
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
16
workers’ informal understandings of behavior in the workplace (Conchie & Donald, 2009;
Fugas, Meliá, & Silva, 2011; Zoller, 2003). For example, Conchie and Donald (2009) suggested
that supervisors who are not committed to safety and do not encourage safety involvement may
have a subordinate staff that demonstrates decreased communication and decreased safety
involvement. Additionally, Dejoy (1985, 1994) discussed how the perception of management’s
intentions can impact workers’ perception of safety. If management does not participate in
safety, workers develop an informal understanding that safety is not important. In contrast,
Poplin et al. (2015) conducted a study of a fire department that was implementing a risk
management process. Management championed the safety movement and involved all levels of
employees in the creation of their risk assessment process as a means to improve the safety
culture. The safety program was implemented, and workers perceive safety to be very important
because their managers championed the effort and involved workers in the creation and
implementation processes.
The Role of Leadership in Safety
Parker et al. (2001) conducted a longitudinal study of front-line manufacturing workers
and found that proactive measures such as supportive supervision and leadership are key factors
to keep workers engaged in safety activities. The literature also revealed a link between
leadership and safety and how it plays a significant role in implementing safety strategies. Zohar
(2001) found that leaders who are active in safety activities tend to have subordinates who
engage in more safety activities and have fewer workplace accidents than those leaders that are
less involved. He also suggested that organizations that provide supervisors with safety training
demonstrated increased safety-related behaviors and safer behavior from their work groups.
Mitigating workplace accidents relies heavily on training, increasing employee awareness,
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
17
management commitment, collaboration, and feedback communication (Carbonari et al., 2011).
Supervisors that self-report as being involved in safety activities were more prevalent in safe
versus unsafe plants (Hofmann & Morgeson, 2004). There was also evidence that supervisors in
manufacturing plants that perform well in non-safety related activities such as financial budgets,
and operations also performed well in safety because they were apt to spend more time in the
plant, engage more with employees, provide greater feedback, and were more participatory
(Komaki, Zlotnick, & Jensen, 1986).
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) provide a framework to identify gaps between the actual
performance level and the stakeholder performance goal. After the gap is identified, this
framework specifically diagnoses the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
cause the performance gaps such as knowing what type of knowledge is needed for job
performance. Clark and Estes (2008) say that you need information, job aids, and training when
you are required to accomplish a performance goal. They also say that continuing or advanced
education is required to gain conceptual and metacognitive skills to deal with future challenges
and problems. Additionally, the authors propose that motivation influences are the belief that
goals can be achieved by choosing to work at the goal(s), persisting despite distractions, and
deciding how much mental effort to apply to achieve the goal(s). By working smarter and
applying novel solutions, Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that intention is replaced by action and
persistence continues in the face of distraction to accomplish goals. Assumed organizational
influences on stakeholder performance to include work processes, material resources, and
organizational culture are discussed. They also state that even workers that have the knowledge,
skills, and motivation to perform, will not close performance gaps if they do not have work
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
18
processes, resources, and management support to assist. In the next section, the Gap Analysis
Framework is used to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related
to how SAS achieved the stakeholder goal.
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Influences
Research demonstrated that workers are better engaged, able to perform their work, and
accomplish their goals when they possess the required knowledge and skills through the transfer
of training (Grossman & Salas, 2011). SAS require knowledge to implement proactive safety.
Mayer (2011) said that knowledge is acquired through observation and interpretation of the
environment and categorizes the four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive. Mayer (2011) went on to describe each knowledge type by saying declarative
knowledge refers to facts and data; conceptual knowledge speaks to theory and concepts;
procedural knowledge teaches the “how-to” steps required to accomplish a goal or task; and
metacognitive knowledge is one’s own thinking about thinking.
SAS need to know the difference between reactive safety and proactive safety
measures. According to Burke, Sarpy, Tesluk, and Smith-Crowe (2002), knowing what safety
performance means is essential for management to promote safe work practices and help reduce
unsafe acts. At CC, the SAS required declarative knowledge to know the difference between
reactive and proactive safety. Knowledge creation occurred as SAS practice, interact and think
about how to transfer their knowledge onto the CC manufacturing plant floor (Hajric, 2018).
Prior knowledge allowed the SAS to engage the department personnel in healthy dialogue about
safety and get them to start equipment upgrade and safe work practices as opposed to creating an
atmosphere of managerial inspection which could keep the safety program in a reactive mode
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
19
(Vandekerckhove, Fotaki, Kenny, Humantito, & Ozdemir Kaya, 2016). Reactive measures are
those that take place after an accident has occurred. Examples of reactive safety measures are
accident investigations, fixes that come as a result of an OSHA fine and tying discipline to
accidents. Effective safety programs include various performance indicators and combine both
proactive and reactive approaches (Hudson, 2007). A proactive safety audit removes the
compliance atmosphere of a reactive safety program (Vandekerckhove et al., 2016). Knowing
the difference between proactive and reactive is critical to CC’s goal achievement.
Safety Ambassadors and Supervisors need to know how to implement proactive
safety measures. The increased interest for CC to implement proactive strategies came from an
increase in accidents and injuries on the job. To combat the problem, CC determined to install
proactive safety strategies and the Safety Ambassador Program by July 31, 2019. To accomplish
the goal, SAS needed to know how to implement the Safety Ambassador Program. The
knowledge about proactive and reactive safety gained through training was be transferred to
procedural knowledge or the “how-to” use something or apply a method, technique or process
(Krathwohl, 2002). An illustration relevant to the problem of practice includes conducting a job
safety hazard analysis (JSHA) for a specific task, which requires knowledge of the operating
equipment. Every SAS was given a training guide for their position that outlines the training
based upon the department in which they worked. The training guide is broken down into
categories that include human resources, quality, operations, safety, manufacturing standards,
and other job-specific duties. Each task performed was broken down into safe work practices
that show SAS the sequence of job steps, safety risks associated with the task, and the safe
techniques to perform the tasks. Research by O’Toole (2002) showed that manufacturing
companies with a commitment to safety and that demonstrated good safety habits was a big
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
20
factor in shaping employees’ perceptions about safety. Table 2 provides the pertinent knowledge
influences, knowledge types, and knowledge influence assessments used to gain insight into the
implementation of proactive safety strategies at CC.
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessments
Organizational Mission
CC’s mission is to make the best quality electrical products in the industry by utilizing
continuous improvement and modernization improvement programs.
Organizational Global Goal
By December 31, 2019, CC will implement proactive safety measures at all four
manufacturing plants.
Stakeholder Goal
By July 31, 2019, SAS will implement the Safety Ambassador program at all four
manufacturing plants.
Knowledge Influence
Knowledge
Type Knowledge Influence Assessment
SAS need to know the difference
between reactive safety measures
and proactive safety measures.
Declarative Interview SAS and ask them if they
know the difference between reactive
and proactive safety measures; ask for
examples.
SAS need to know how to
implement proactive safety
measures.
Procedural Interview stakeholders and ask them for
an example of involvement in proactive
safety activities.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
21
Motivational Influences
Motivation is fundamental to the success or failure of a task (Rueda, 2011).
Organizations seek to find causes for their successes or failures and look to find the perceived
causes. Weiner (2018) says that goal attainment or failure is typically associated with ability and
effort, and Mayer (2011) says that motivation is internal and drives actions. At CC, two
motivation influences identified to achieving the stakeholder goals were attribution and self-
efficacy. The understanding SAS had about the causes of past accidents and previous hazards
influenced their ability to control the environment in future instances. This section describes
more about these two influences and how they impact employees’ ability to effect proactive
safety.
Attribution theory. According to Hewstone (1983), attribution theory is the thought that
people want to identify and understand their environment, so they look towards understanding
why things occur by making assumptions about the attributes that led to the occurrence. DeJoy
(1994) says that “attribution theory is concerned with how people process information in
determining the causality of events” (p. 4). He also goes on to say that attributions play into an
organization’s creation of safety policies. CC examined their high injury rate and arrived at
inferences to the root cause. Some attributed the high injury rate to internal factors such as
unsafe behavior, ability to work safely, and effort required to work safely, and others attributed
the problem to external factors such as poor equipment design. Research showed that
organizations with training and management commitment up front had more successful safety
programs than those with reactive strategies (Vredenburgh, 2002). The majority of SAS who
implemented the skills acquired during training were motivated to transfer their knowledge into
proactive safety implementation such as conducting safety audits or performing job safety
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
22
observations. Since attribution theory is about perceived causes of performance locus, stability,
and controllability, Weiner (1972) found that workers attributed success in the workplace to
their ability and increased mental effort and staying persistent to learn more and applying the
knowledge into the workplace.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is the self-perceptions that individuals hold about
their capabilities (Pajares & Valiante, 2006). Schunk and Pajares (2009) describe self-efficacy
as beliefs people have about their abilities. Bandura (1977) suggests that how an employee feels
about himself in relation to workplace procedures is a powerful motivator. Additionally, there is
evidence (Zimmerman, 2000) from a study on student motivation that one’s belief in one’s
capability to perform a task is associated with persistence and hard work. Students that were
self-efficacious did better on tests and were more apt to take on difficult tasks. Finally,
supervisors who felt capable were more likely to stay motivated to learn and acquire additional
skills they could transfer into the workplace such as implementing proactive safety measures
(Pajares & Valiante, 2006). Perceptions are influenced by observing managers’ behaviors
(O’Toole, 2002). CC’s commitment to safety and the demonstrated confidence of the
supervisors in their abilities, helped shape the overall perception of the safety program.
Establishing the belief that SAS were capable individuals led to more engagement and better
overall safety habits thereby reducing risky behaviors.
Table 3 shows the motivational influences: attributions and self-efficacy.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
23
Table 3
Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
CC’s mission is to make the best quality cable in the industry by utilizing continuous
improvement and modernization improvement programs.
Organizational Global Goal
By December 31, 2019, CC will implement proactive safety measures at all four
manufacturing plants.
Stakeholder Goal
By July 31, 2019, SAS will implement the Safety Ambassador program at all four
manufacturing plants.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Attributions — SAS need to believe their
increased effort to applying proactive safety
strategies leads to a better safety program.
SAS were asked to identify the level of effort
they applied when conducting safety
activities.
Self-Efficacy — SAS need to believe they are
capable of implementing proactive safety
measures.
SAS were asked to give examples of
implementing proactive safety strategies to
demonstrate their capability.
Organizational Influences
DeJoy, Gershon, and Schaffer (2004) discussed how companies are looking with great
regularity at how organizational culture and practices affect safety. Ostrom, Wilhelmsen, and
Kaplan (1993) said that safety culture is affected by an organization’s mission, vision, and
values. They went on to say that a good safety culture proactively looks for unsafe acts to
eliminate. Individual learners bring with them a framework of meanings that reflect their social
and developmental experiences (Fryberg & Markus, 2007). Understanding cultural models, and
how organizational culture interacts with knowledge and motivation, is important to the success
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
24
of achieving performance goals. Clark and Estes say that culture is a “person’s core knowledge
and motivational patterns” (2008, p. 111). If you combine core knowledge and motivational
patterns with organizational influences, you come up with organizational culture.
Training resources. The organization must provide training and the SAS must transfer
their knowledge to look at causes and solutions to organizational gaps in performance to
accomplish the organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). CC needs to provide training
resources to SAS to implement the Safety Ambassador program. Motivation increases when
employees work in a learning culture and use learned knowledge and skills to achieve goals they
perceive are aligned with the organization’s values (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004).
Culture of trust. SAS need to implement proactive safety strategies with the support of
the senior management. Attitude drives employee willingness to promote a safety culture, which
is heavily influenced by management’s commitment to safety and promotes a culture of trust
(Oliver, Cheyne, Tomás, & Cox, 2002). There is less resistance when safety is viewed as a
company value as opposed to a priority assignment (Geller, 2001). Willingness, positive
management and employee relations are integral parts of a proactive safety culture. When SAS
and Supervisors care about their fellow workers’ welfare, a culture of trust is developed which
promotes a willingness to accept the changes required to implement proactive safety strategies.
When leaders are inconsistent in their application of policy, SAS may lose trust in the
organization (Thompson et al., 1998). If loss of trust occurs, there is likely to be less employee
support to implement a proactive safety program.
Make time to conduct proactive safety activities. Zohar and Luria (2005) suggested
that safety competes with other organizational components like production, and that this stems
from conflict with organizational priorities. Implementing proactive strategies requires time and
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
25
energy and CC should dedicate the time and support the SAS in their effort by allowing them to
engage other employees about safety, audit departments, and attend safety committee meetings.
Table 4 describes the organizational influences outlined above. There is one cultural
model influence that describes the pattern of behavior that influenced organizational
performance. The cultural model discussed is to create a culture of trust. The cultural settings
are for the organization to make time for SAS to implement safety strategies and to provide
training resources to SAS.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Assessments
Organizational Mission
CC’s mission is to make the best quality cable in the industry by utilizing continuous improvement
and modernization improvement programs.
Organizational Global Goal
By December 31, 2019, CC will implement proactive safety measures at all four manufacturing
plants.
Stakeholder Goal (If Applicable)
By July 31, 2019, all Safety Ambassadors and Supervisors will implement the Safety Ambassador
program at all four manufacturing plants.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
There needs to be a culture of trust between
corporate senior management and SAS.
Interview questions to elicit feelings of trust such
as level of communication between senior
management and SAS.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
The organization needs to make time for SAS to
conduct proactive safety activities.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
The organization needs to provide training
resources to SAS to implement the Safety
Ambassador Program.
Interview questions related to organization
making time for proactive safety activities.
Review safety documents like safety audits.
Interview questions about training format, guides
and resources provided by the organization.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
26
Interactive Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework is key to the research of this study. Ravitch and Riggan
(2016) describe a conceptual framework as a system of concepts and beliefs that guide the
research. Maxwell (2013) states that the conceptual framework is broadly a compilation of
theoretical literature, empirical findings, and the researcher’s own experiences: a model of what
you plan to study with a function of helping to refine goals, develop purposeful research
questions, select relevant methods, and identify validity threats to your conclusions in addition to
helping justify your research.
While the knowledge and motivation influences to implementing proactive safety in a
manufacturing organization have been presented independently, it is important to note that they
do not function in isolation (Zohar & Luria, 2005). Instead, they are a corollary to the
organizational influences required to achieve the organization’s goals. The knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences may influence each other, and any of them or all of
them have an influence over the stakeholder group in reaching its goals because research
suggests that a member’s identity and organizational identity are closely linked (Scott & Lane,
2000). The stakeholder’s success may be impacted by the level of knowledge they possess and
how motivated they are. Also, the organizational culture and its influences on stakeholders plays
a role in achieving performance goals. Donaldson and Preston (1995) suggest that stakeholder
theory establishes a framework for the connections between stakeholder management and
achievement of performance goals. The conceptual framework (Figure 1) depicts the
relationship between knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences steering the success
of the stakeholder goal. The circle around the knowledge, motivation, and organization
influences shows they are internal within CC. The knowledge influences consist of declarative
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
27
and procedural knowledge. The motivation influences depicted are attributions and self-efficacy.
Finally, the organizational influences include both cultural setting and cultural model
components.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for Copper Core
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
28
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative interviews were used for data collection. Knowledge, motivation, and
organization (KMO) influence interviews were the primary instrument for this study, collected
by the researcher in a semi-structured format. Merriam (2009) suggests that the final product of
a qualitative interview should be richly descriptive using words and pictures for the researcher to
convey what has been learned. The interviews were semi-structured with an interview guide on
the topic of proactive safety strategies. The interviews addressed the knowledge, motivation and
organizational resources of the SAS related to proactive safety strategies. Getting good data
depended on asking well-chosen open-ended questions (Merriam, 2009).
The study looked to mine additional data from open-ended questions and conversation
with participants to better understand the KMO influences and to expand on the information
gathered in the interviews. Merriam (2009) says that finding relevant data is the first step in the
process. Being open to new insights is an important factor (Merriam, 2009). The Plant Manager
and/or designee facilitated the interview at each of the manufacturing plants. The researcher
explained the study and asked for volunteers to interview.
Interviews
There are 38 stakeholders across the four CC manufacturing plants. Out of 38 possible
interviews, 16 agreed to participate. However, since the interview schedule was onsite and CC
only allowed me one-time access, it was only possible to interview 10 participants due to
vacation, sick leave, and production schedule changes. The interview strategy utilized a semi-
structured approach. Semi-structured worked well for the organization because it allowed the
flexibility to explore emerging ideas but provided a consistent format across the four
manufacturing plants, so the researcher could compare data across the settings (Maxwell, 2013).
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
29
This approach also allowed the researcher to establish a tentative plan for the interview setting,
interview questions, and who would be interviewed, but left room for revision as required.
However, multiple sites limited the researcher’s time and travel abilities (Miles & Huberman,
1994). The researcher worked with local Human Resources to coordinate the interviews of
willing participants. A list was established, and interview times were set.
The interviews were guided with a set of open-ended questions that relate to the KMO
influences that are associated with implementing proactive safety measures. The same
questionnaire guide was used in all the interviews to maintain consistency of questions asked and
to guide the discussion. The interviews started with an opening to thank all participants, remind
them of the voluntary opt-out provision, and other such as permission to record. The researcher
used a one-time interview method due to the availability of participants. Each interview had
only one SAS and took place in a private conference room at their respective manufacturing
plant during normal working hours. Using a semi-structured interview provides the researcher
with the flexibility to draw out further understanding from the participants in their own words
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Open-ended questions are aligned with the conceptual framework,
allowing the participant to answer how they feel and what is comfortable to them, and allowing
the researcher to probe (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). The researcher remained non-
judgmental, prepared and respectful always times making sure to protect the participant
throughout the process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews were audio recorded,
protected with a password to protect the participant. Also, notes were taken to supplement the
audio recording and stored on a computer that is password protected. Data collected during the
interviews gave the researcher a good understanding of the KMO influences.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
30
Data Analysis
Data analysis was done simultaneously with interviews and note taking as suggested by
Merriam and Tisdell (2016). I wrote analytic memos after each interview and documented
thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data. I jotted notes during the interviews,
transcribed interviews, and coded the transcriptions. According to Gibbs (2007), qualitative
coding is the process of categorizing your text to come up with a set of ideas. I utilized data-
driven coding by allowing the text to speak for itself (Gibbs, 2007). The text was derived from
the transcriptions and notes I took during the research interviews. I then categorized and
grouped the text into themes. I then conducted an analysis to see which patterns and themes
emerged about the conceptual framework and research questions. I then analyzed documents
and artifacts for evidence consistent with the KMO concepts and influences about the ability or
barriers to implementing proactive safety strategies.
Findings
Maxwell (2013) says that a system of concepts, assumptions, and beliefs make up the
model of what you plan to study. The findings for this study utilized interviews of SAS and
document analysis conducted in response to the research questions. Human Resources personnel
assisted to coordinate the interviews. SAS were best suited to help provide information related
to the research questions, so convenience sampling was utilized based on the SAS that were
available and willing to participate in the interviews (Maxwell, 2013). To protect the identity of
the SAS they are generically referred to as Participant 1, Participant 2, Participant 3, Participant
4, Participant 5, Participant 6, Participant 7, Participant 8, Participant 9, and Participant 10.
While the SAS are located at various manufacturing plants, the actual location for each
participant was not disclosed to further protect their anonymity. The findings are presented with
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
31
the KMO influences identified in the interactive conceptual framework. The document review
and interviews served as the foundation for data analysis to understand the influences associated
with implementation of proactive safety strategies at CC. The findings reflect the KMO
influences and are tied to the research questions.
Knowledge Influences
As the stakeholders of focus for this study, the SAS have a goal to implement the Safety
Ambassador program at the manufacturing plants by July 31, 2019. To accomplish their goal,
SAS must possess the declarative knowledge required to know the difference between reactive
safety measures and proactive safety measures. In addition to declarative knowledge, the SAS
also require procedural knowledge or the “how-to” of performing a skill to help them implement
proactive safety measures (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Knowledge of what a safety ambassador is and the difference between reactive
safety and proactive safety. The starting point for the Safety Ambassador program is to know
what a Safety Ambassador is. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that declarative knowledge is
required before you can effectively apply a skill on the job. It is important for the SAS to know
what a Safety Ambassador is and the difference between reactive and proactive safety. Nine of
the 10 participants gave a definition for Safety Ambassador during their interview. Table 5 lists
their definition.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
32
Table 5
Definition of Safety Ambassador
Participant Response
1 “Person with hyper-awareness-safe working environment and takes the
initiative to promote a safe work environment. Someone that informs
themselves through meetings and is aware of issues to provide co-workers rich
information.”
2 “It’s a title; tries to look out for safety promote dialogue before it becomes an
issue.”
3 “Liaison with employees & safety board as well as a person concerned with
safety issues.”
4 “Someone that makes sure the facilities are safer. Someone that is trained more
intently.”
5 “Member of the Safety Ambassador team; promote safety; mode of
communication; find and resolve unsafe safety conditions.”
6 “Try to make people comfortable with issues — to be friendly — we do not
have a Safety Ambassador on the 3rd shift.”
7 “Somebody on the floor to listen to problems maybe more — I don’t know.”
8 “Someone who is active at the practice and on the constant lookout and willing
to go around and talk to people about safety.”
9 “Mentor for a safe work environment and safe acts and safe practices such as
using a safe blade — cut resistant blade. Knowledge of personal protective
equipment such as gloves use training modules and conduct job safety
observations.”
10 “Somebody that has their safety first in mind with an eye for detecting unsafe
conditions; promoting job safety and is always on the lookout.”
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
33
While the majority of SAS had a definition for Safety Ambassador, the answers varied. I
took the responses to mean a lack of knowledge of what their role as an SAS is. Also, it was an
indication of a gap in the training process to not have a standard role clearly defined.
The findings for the knowledge of reactive safety versus proactive safety were mixed and
presented a significant knowledge gap. Participants 5, 6, and 7 were not able to clearly articulate
the difference between reactive and proactive safety, as noted in Table 6. For these three
participants, their poor understanding stemmed from a lack of knowledge about proactive safety.
They were not able to discern that their safety training was about being proactive and eliminating
hazards. Participant 6 in particular articulated that they did not have proactive safety at the plant,
instead this participant felt that safety was just another “thing that management throws” at the
problem. Participant 6 felt that management prioritizes productivity and spends time monitoring
the product but not safety.
Others had a better understanding of the difference between reactive safety and proactive
safety, as outlined in Table 7.
Table 6
What is the Difference between Reactive Safety and Proactive Safety? (Poor Understanding)
Participant Response
5 “Safety walkthrough.”
6 “We don’t have proactive.”
7 “I haven’t been to many of the meetings.”
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
34
Table 7
What is the Difference between Reactive Safety and Proactive Safety (Better Understanding)
Participant Response
1 “Reactive measures are like a machine failed so we inspect and fix, while
proactive is detecting the potential for danger and eliminating the hazard before
the machine fails.”
3 “I noticed a pothole — reported it to maintenance and had it fixed before
someone stepped into it and got injured.”
9 “Being proactive is noticing unsafe acts and stopping to correct behavior such
as how to properly handle a steel reel.”
As shown in Table 7, Participants 1, 3, and 9 were able to clearly articulate the meaning
behind being a proactive SAS and gave examples. Participant 1 was very thoughtful and stated
he gained his understanding from the training and being involved in safety activities almost
daily. All three gave a specific example about reporting a hazard that demonstrates their
knowledge of proactive safety.
Knowledge of how to implement proactive safety measures. Knowing how to
implement proactive safety measures is critical to the SAS accomplishing their goal of
implementing the safety ambassador program by July 31, 2019 at the manufacturing plants.
However, the findings support a knowledge gap in proactive safety implementation. The
participants were asked, “Can you give me some examples of implementing proactive safety
strategies?” Part of their responses are gathered in Table 8.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
35
Table 8
Can You Give Me Examples of Safety You Have Helped Implement?
Participant Response
1 “Yes, place guard equipment on some of the manufacturing lines to prevent
injury. Also, we have put up signs to be aware of pinch-points, trip hazards,
and yellow lines on the floor for walking.”
2 “Make sure people are wearing protective equipment like safety goggles but
specific equipment no. I have not been trained yet on that.”
3 “Just what I have learned by past experience and I pass it along. I’ll make
observations and try to predict outcomes and maybe give some feedback.”
4 “Employee was using a piece of equipment and I noticed he was doing it
wrong, so I spoke with him, gave him a suggestion but you have to be careful
with how you say things otherwise they call you a ‘kiss-ass’ or something.”
5 “The only thing I can think of is the monthly safety meeting. Other than that
no.”
6 “We don’t have proactive — just meetings. I have not personally done
anything.”
7 “I have not been to many meetings. I have not been on any teams that
implement safety.”
8 “Yes, yes, I utilize the safety solutions forms and enter work orders for things
that need to get fixed.”
9 “CC implement a safety solution report to help find things before someone gets
hurt. Also, the hazard analysis where you inspect a whole line or department to
offer improvements. I will say this: frontline supervisors need more training on
safe work practices a refresher of sorts, so they can be impactful and involved.”
10 “Audits and safety walks in departments to find hazards and suggest
improvements. However only a handful of people participate. Some don’t
want the extra work, some have not been trained.”
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
36
The data suggested that SAS did not know how to implement proactive safety.
Participants, 2, 3, 4 and 5 gave reactive examples of how they address a safety concern but not
how to implement a proactive strategy. Participant 2 talked about telling employees to wear
protective goggles when he saw they weren’t, which is a proactive action, but he was unaware of
what do beyond that and mentioned he had not been trained. Participant 3 said he would talk to
employees about his “past experiences” and pass along some tips but was cautious not to seem
like he was being their supervisor, so he was hesitant to make recommendations. Others, like 1,
8, 9, and 10, had knowledge of the concept of proactive safety and gave examples, but could not
add depth of knowledge or provide specific examples of having participated with regularity or
details to the level of participation in any activity. Participant 9 stated: “I encourage employees
to look for hazards and report them on a safety solution report form.” Participant 10 stated:
“Audits — safety walks — job safety observations and providing positive feedback are proactive
safety measures.” Participant 1 said that guarding equipment, putting up signs, eliminating
pinch-points, and adding additional safety lights on fork trucks are all examples of proactive
safety measures. Participants 6 and 7 stated the company did not concentrate on proactive safety
and demonstrated a real lack of safety implementation knowledge. The findings show that CC
has implemented some strategies but has not trained all SAS on how to assist. The lack of
knowledge is a negative influence on the completion of CC goals.
Motivation Influences
Motivation is also an influence for SAS towards achieving the implementation of the
Safety Ambassador program. Rueda (2011) suggests that motivation is required to achieve a
workplace goal. Weiner (1972) suggests that motivation arising from insufficient effort is
different than that of lack of ability.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
37
SAS need to attribute increased effort as instrumental to implementing proactive
safety measures in the workplace. The study findings suggest that SAS attribute success or
failure to factors like “management” and “ability to act” instead of increased effort. Table 9
shows what each Participant attributed to success of implementing proactive safety.
Table 9
Attributions
Participant Response
1 “I’m successful when co-workers validate my effort. I show care and take
action by not being afraid to address issues.”
2 “Be full on into safety and truly believe in it. Try hard not to fall into peer
pressure.”
3 “Waiting around so to speak to help someone. When your help is needed
demonstrate care and concern.”
4 “Others being aware about safety and what’s going on. Not engaging too much
with those that are not receptive.”
5 “My internal passion and communication. Being an engaged employee.”
6 “Motivation from management. They need to communicate with us. If I feel a
lack of support, then my motivation is low.”
7 “Management support. The heady guy is too busy, so it trickles down and
demotivates me.”
8 “A safety reporting system. You don’t have to try very hard just report it.”
9 “Leadership providing solutions and not identifying violators just solutions.
Being humble and selfless to help others.”
10 “My communication skills, gaining confidence in certain scenarios and being
receptive to new culture.”
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
38
Participant 1 also shared the following: “When operators and manager validate the
program and show they care, then there will be action. Otherwise people are afraid to address
issues or have a sense of responsibility.” Participant 9 added: “Ultimately, you want
ambassadors who are gonna bring these problems or identified hazards to the table with a
solution for the safety program to work.” Both Participant 1 and Participant 9 attributed the
success of the safety program to factors outside of their control; neither was motivated to take
responsibility for increased effort. Participants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 suggested that peer pressure is
heavy among hourly employees. SAS have a difficult time speaking with employees that are
peers especially if they are more senior. If co-workers are resistant SAS tend to fall back and not
engage in proactive safety. Participant 6 waits for management to tell him to conduct safety and
that serves as a veil to speak with co-workers.
SAS need to believe they are capable of implementing proactive safety measures.
The results were mixed but overall presented a significant gap. Some participants did not feel
confident enough to implement proactive safety strategies, while others felt comfortable with
implementation but preferred not to be the lead on any project because they felt management did
not have a clear plan and they were not confident in their ability to act. Table 10 shows data
from the participants about self-efficacy.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
39
Table 10
Do You Believe You Are Capable of Implementing the Safety Ambassador Program?
Participant Response
1 “Yes, but I need to know how to approach my fellow co-worker since he is part
of the Union and there is peer pressure for us not to act like management.”
2 “I believe so, I had lots of safety training in my prior employment but here you
have to have the ability to not give in to peer pressure. If a guy thinks you are
going to turn him in for a safety violation, it could be an issue. Treat everyone
equally.”
3 “I feel more confident in group-based projects. I rely on past experiences and
also listening to others at meetings.”
4 “We’ve been trained but we have not practiced. Whatever they tell us at the
meetings I can relay to my guys.”
5 “No, skills could be better — I have not had a lot of training. I can do projects
in groups and identify a hazard but not sure what to do after that.”
6 “My skills need to get better. I need a lot of training. I don’t feel comfortable
taking on the responsibility of implementing a strategy or program.”
7 “I feel capable of communicating what we hear in the meetings. I need more
training to implement proactive strategies.”
8 “For the most part I think yes. I guess it depends. I can bring up issues and
communicate forward but it’s not up to me — it’s up to senior management on
what gets implemented.”
9 “I feel confident and capable, but employees sometimes do not take it seriously
and that’s when I struggle to verbalize or demonstrate.”
10 “Yes but I can learn more. Safety has become part of my fabric when talking to
employees; it’s common for me now. But to implement strategies, I am not
sure any SAS feels comfortable too many variables such as inconsistent
training, varying confidence levels and comfort with speaking to peers.”
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
40
Table 10 shows that participants felt more comfortable communicating with employees
about what they learned at the safety meetings. Participants 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all made
direct comments about communication such as verbalizing, relaying, communicating information
they receive at safety meetings. I felt that if given information the SAS feel capable of
communicating and they interpret that as implementation of the Safety Ambassador program.
However, their belief in their own ability dwindled when asked to provide examples of how they
have helped implement the Safety Ambassador program. For example, Participant 7 said “I need
more training” and Participant 10 said there were “too many variables” to feel confident about
implementation. Participant 3 relies on past experience as opposed to an implementation plan
and Participants 5 and 6 said their skills could be better. Overall, there is a lack of confidence
from the SAS regarding implementation of the Safety Ambassador program. This lack of
confidence if not addressed could cause delays in the implementation plan and inconsistencies
with efforts to standardize across the manufacturing plants.
Organizational Influences
There needs to be a culture of trust between senior management and SAS. The level
of trust between SAS and supervisors and managers influences the way employees view the
organization supporting safety. Data collection demonstrated mixed levels of mistrust of
management. A lack of trust will delay the implementation of the safety ambassador program.
Table 11 shows the responses to the level of trust in management to make safety a priority.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
41
Table 11
How Would You Describe Your Level of Trust in Management to Make Safety a Priority?
Participant Response
1 “I feel that management believes it — full trust.”
2 “On a scale of 1–10 probably a 6–7; medium trust based on what I’ve seen. If a
job is pressing and they feel pressure or indirect pressure, then we are applied
pressure and safety is sometimes overlooked.”
3 “Rather high, I make sure things are brought up and taken care of. There is no
reason I see not to have trust.”
4 “Management is dedicated to the safety of the plant. They understand how
injuries affect revenue and quality. However, sometimes there is not a whole
heck of a lot of time to do the work. We need a dedicated safety guy in the
plant and there is not enough ongoing training.”
5 “I think they give safety equal weight as important as production. I don’t think
they put us in immediate danger. But some individuals get more attention from
supervisors than others. Depends on the person.”
6 “It’s not against management only but everyone needs to do a better job to
make safety a priority. They said I would be involved in safety projects but that
hasn’t happened; not anymore.”
7 “Demotivating. There are other priorities involved. We just need one main
person to do safety, you know a ‘safety guy.’”
8 “I’m just one person; they need more recognition for reporting hazards. They
appreciate us we trust them.”
9 “It varies. My trust is all over the board. I experience slow reaction or non-
communication such as the evacuation plan project. We still have not had a
drill. When solutions are identified, yet nothing comes to fruition, that destroys
trust.”
10 “There might still be resistance and hesitancy to adopt program from longer
term managers and long-term employees. Some have not bought in at all
levels. You can’t trust supervisors that don’t buy in. Get all foremen to attend
safety meetings.”
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
42
Based on Table 11, SAS has a difficult time believing that management makes safety a
priority and therefore mistrusts management. Participants 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all made
comments about their mistrust of management stemming from resistance and lack of recognition.
Participant 7 felt demotivated because management does not prioritize safety and Participant 10
talked about how long-term employees do not trust management. Instead they trust their instinct
to meet production, so the managers do not interact very often. The feel is that if management
interacts, it’s to get them to produce more, introduce new systems but not about their health and
welfare. Participants 1, 3, and 4 felt better about trusting management. Participant 3 talked
about having the trust to bring up issues and having them get addressed. This SAS is not an
hourly employee but instead works on a technical team. The three favorable responses came
from SAS that are not on a production line. They have more autonomy to walk around the plant
and are not immediately concerned or measured by real time production.
The organization needs to make time for SAS to conduct proactive safety activities.
Time away from production to work on safety activities influences the SAS ability to implement
proactive safety strategies. Participants explained how taking time away from production work
to perform safety activities is not a priority with supervisors. Participant 9 said the following:
Maybe on lunch, there are some days when yes, I can and most days I cannot.
Supervisors stress production and it’s hard for me as an operator to get off the line and
onto the floor to conduct safety audits.
Participant 4 explained: “There is not a whole heck of time for us to do our work and then still do
other things like safety.” Participant 6 seemed particularly concerned about this topic and stated
that CC has not done any safety activities in the plant or the last “5–6 months.” He went on to
say that the plant was too busy with production, expansion of the building, and installation of
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
43
new equipment. Participant 7 said that as a forklift driver, the demands are too high and there is
not enough time to get off the truck and conduct an “activity.” Participant 2 added: “I don’t have
time, not specifically for safety, but if I come across a situation and I tend to it as a Safety
Ambassador, it will be bucking heads with the supervisor because I was off the production line.”
Participants 9, 4, 6, 7 and 2, did not feel they could conduct safety activities during work because
of the work pressures. Therefore, their belief that the organization supports safety is low because
a solution has not been established to allow for more time to conduct safety activities. In their
minds this proves that CC values productivity more than safety. Participants 3, 8, and 10 felt that
management supported safety and allowed enough time to demonstrate their commitment.
Participant 3 said there is enough time to conduct activities and that management provides ample
opportunity and invitation to attend safety meetings to all employees, report hazards, and bring
up issues to all levels. Participant 8 is a non-production employee and has the ability to attend
more meetings, walk all areas of the plant and has access to senior management but went on to
say the amount of money CC puts into safety guards and programs is obvious. Participant 10
said that as a SAS there is plenty of opportunity to contribute and have a “voice” when it comes
to safety. There is a gap in the communication between those that attend safety meetings and
those that do not. Not everyone can attend so the organization should figure out a way to
communicate those that are not SAS. Participant 5 was diplomatic and cautious with words.
Participant 5 could not define proactive safety, did not have examples, and said: “there are plenty
of SAS out there” — alluding to his non-participation. Participant 5 also said that it depended on
the level of position as some SAS are salaried and they have better opportunity to plant time for
safety; hourly employees are beholden to the production demands at the time.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
44
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
The knowledge influences in Table 12 represent the complete list of assumed knowledge
influences that were validated through data collection and analysis. Assumptions were based on
the influences that had a high frequency to achieve the stakeholder goals that were mentioned
during informal interviews. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that declarative knowledge is a
precursor to application of skills on the job, such as conducting a departmental safety audit to
find and eliminate workplace hazards. Influences in Table 12 were most frequently mentioned
and therefore have a high priority for achieving the stakeholder goal. Also included in Table 12
are the recommendations related to the influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 12
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Mentioned as
a Gap:
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(Y HP, N)
Priority:
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Safety Ambassadors
and Supervisors need
to be able to identify
proactive safety
measures. (D)
HP Y Information learned
meaningfully and connected
with prior knowledge is
stored more quickly and
remembered more accurately
because it is elaborated with
prior learning (McCrudden &
Schraw, 2007).
Safety Ambassadors and
Supervisors need to be
provided the definition
of proactive safety and
examples of proactive
safety measures to be
implemented in the
plant.
Safety Ambassadors
and Supervisors need
to implement
proactive safety
measures. (P)
HP Y To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills, practice
integrating them, and know
when to apply what they
have learned (McCrudden &
Schraw, 2007).
Provide training required
to implement proactive
strategies and provide a
job aid that gives step by
step instructions for each
safety activity.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
45
Increasing the stakeholders’ knowledge about proactive safety measure concepts.
The research data and informal interviews demonstrate that SAS lack declarative knowledge
about proactive safety measures. Information processing system theory gives an essential
recommendation to address this gap. According to McCrudden and Schraw (2007) significant
learning that is coupled with prior learning is recalled more accurately and adding audio and
visual to the learning assists working memory (Mayer, 2011). Providing information helps
employees succeed on their own (Clark & Estes, 2008). SAS have received prior instruction and
training on reactive strategies such as investigating accidents and injuries. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Safety Ambassadors and Supervisors be provided information about the
definition of proactive safety measures and given examples of proactive safety measures to be
implemented in the workplace.
A study of research literature conducted by Sias (2005) examined the level of
performance and job satisfaction of employees that were adequately informed. Sias was looking
at employee information experiences. The author found that better informed employees made
more effective decisions, were more committed to the organization, and had better relations with
supervisors. In addition, informed employees helped evolve job knowledge and its
dissemination to other employees (Sharda, Frankwick, & Turetken, 1999). The SAS should
benefit from being informed and better equipped to implement proactive safety strategies.
Increasing the stakeholders’ skills to implement proactive safety measures. The data
indicated that CC Safety Ambassadors and Supervisors lack the knowledge and skills to
implement proactive safety strategies. A solution established firmly in information processing
system theory has been suggested to close the procedural knowledge gap. McCrudden and
Schraw (2007) found that to develop skill proficiency, employees must learn constituent skills,
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
46
put them into practice and know when to apply knowledge. In addition, the authors suggest that
continued practice promotes automaticity and takes less capacity in working memory.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), training is the acquisition of “how-to” knowledge. The
recommendation is to train SAS on how to implement proactive safety strategies supplemented
by a job aid that contains self-help information to be used when conducting proactive safety
activities.
A study conducted by Burke et al. (2006) analyzed 95 quasi-experimental studies and
found that engaging training methods produced workers with increased knowledge attainment
and a reduction in workplace accidents was achieved. More specifically, training that included
modeling, practice, and interactive dialogue was found to be more engaging than lesser engaging
interventions such as pamphlets, or online programmed instruction. Furthermore, a Zambian
based study conducted by Harvey et al. (2008) analyzed three groups of community health
workers, 38 in total, to determine the effect of instruction alone, providing a job aid, or training
along with a job aid, and which was more effective in learning how to prepare and interpret rapid
diagnostic tests. The authors found that well-designed instruction in the form of a job aid along
with training produced the best results.
Motivation Recommendations
Table 13 represents the complete list of the most frequently mentioned motivation
influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during informal interviews and supported by the
literature review and the review of motivation theory. Rueda (2011) says that motivation is
fundamental to the success or failure of a task, and Mayer (2011) found that motivation is
internal and drives actions. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest three indicators of motivation in task
performance: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is when intention to
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
47
pursue a goal is replaced by action. Persistence is choosing to continue working on a goal
despite distraction by other work goals. Mental effort is the application of the adequate amount
of effort to choose and persist at a task. During the interview process, it was ascertained that
SAS volunteered for the program. As all SAS chose to be part of the safety team, the assumed
motivation influences appear to suggest that persistence and mental effort may be a shortfall for
SAS in the implementation of the Safety Ambassador program. Table 13 shows the
recommendations based on the theoretical principles.
Table 13
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence
Mentioned as a
Gap:
Yes, High
Probability, No
(Y, HP, N)
Priority:
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
SAS do not feel
confident enough
to persist at
implementing the
Safety Ambassador
Program.
(Persistence / Self
Efficacy)
HP Y Provide instructional
support (scaffolding)
early on, build in
multiple opportunities
for practice and
gradually remove
supports (Pajares &
Valiante, 2006).
Provide the SAS
training utilizing a
variety of instructional
techniques such as
modeling and
shadowing and
opportunities to
practice implementing
safety activities along
with feedback on their
progress.
SAS attribute
difficulty focusing
on safety activities
to competing work
goals. (Mental
Effort /
Attributions)
HP Y Provide clear goals and
feedback, because
without them people
are not committed to
work and are not
inclined to target
business goals with
their best efforts
(Locke & Latham,
1990).
Assign specific, short-
term and challenging
but achievable safety
goals, and give the
SAS ownership of the
goals.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
48
Increase self-efficacy of SAS. SAS do not feel confident enough to persist in
implementing the Safety Ambassador Program. The SAS lack of confidence to persist suggests
a solution established in self-efficacy theory would be recommended to subdue this gap. Pajares
and Valiante (2006) found that providing scaffold support along with opportunities to practice,
then gradually removing the support, increases self-efficacy. This suggests that providing
training for the SAS that includes a variety of instructional techniques, along with opportunities
to practice and providing feedback, would increase their self-efficacy. The recommendation is
for CC to provide training for the SAS utilizing instructional techniques, such as modeling or
shadowing SAS when they conduct a job safety observation, and opportunities to practice
implementing safety activities, such as a departmental safety audit and providing feedback on
their progress.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that individuals are more likely to accomplish their goals
when they have positive beliefs about their abilities. Bandura (1995) posits that self-efficacy is
comprised of one’s capacity to organize and execute goals. Lusk, Ronis, and Kerr (1995) studied
manufacturing blue collar workers to identify predictors of hearing protection use, which is an
example of a proactive safety strategy. A six-item Likert scale was used to measure the self-
efficacy of workers’ use of hearing protection correctly. Over 70% of the workers surveyed felt
confident in using hearing protection to help reduce workplace injuries. The authors go on to say
the results of the study provide a basis for designing a safety program. From both a theoretical
and empirical perspective, raising the SAS’s self-efficacy would increase the performance of
implementing the Safety Ambassador Program.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
49
Increase opportunities for SAS to exercise choice and control of goals. The SAS
attribute difficulty accomplishing safety activities to competing work goals as opposed to effort.
The SAS’s belief about competing work goals as an external negative influence suggests a
solution derived from attribution theory to resolve the performance gap. Locke and Latham
(1990) found that clear goals and feedback allow workers to target business goals with their best
efforts. Giving SAS opportunities to apply effort towards safety activities by providing the SAS
with clear direction and support on all work goals would positively affect their motivation and
allow them to master implementation of proactive safety strategies. The recommendation is to
assign specific, short-term and challenging but achievable safety goals and give the SAS
ownership of the goals.
Law, Chan, and Pun (2006) conducted an empirical study via qualitative interviews of
safety personnel in the electronic manufacturing industry about prioritizing criteria for safety
management element implementation. The authors found that employee safety and health was
the most important element of their safety management system, whereas other manufacturing
industries considered customer requirements and insurance company requirements more
important. The authors go on to suggest that a safe worker exercises more control of their
behavior than an unsafe worker. They also found that safety functions should be integrated into
workers’ activities for the organization to meet their safety goals. The empirical evidence
suggests that providing the SAS with specific safety goals and opportunities to exercise some
choice and control would help them concentrate on safety activities. Therefore, it is
recommended that CC assign specific, short-term, and challenging but achievable safety goals
such as conducting two job safety observations per month and give the SAS ownership of the
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
50
goals. Doing so will help the SAS feel their effort is leading towards the success of
implementing proactive safety strategies.
Organizational Recommendations
Table 14 represents the complete list of organizational influences based on the most
frequently mentioned during informal interviews and supported by the literature review of
organization and culture theory. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organizational cultures can
steer goal creation and the work environment to achieve those goals. Spencer (1994) proposes
that organizations use a systematic approach to management that incorporates changes in
practices, strategic priorities, and individual beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Mayer and Gavin
(2005) submit that employees who have trust in management accept management’s influence and
focus on making contributions to the organization. Therefore, an organizational culture that
demonstrates trust in management and dedicates time to their employees is necessary for the
achievement of the stakeholder goal. Indicated in Table 14 are the organizational influences that
have high priority towards achieving the stakeholder goal. Table 14 also shows the
recommendations for the influences based on theoretical principles.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
51
Table 14
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Mentioned as
a Gap:
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(Y, HP, N)
Priority:
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
There needs to be a
culture of trust
between senior
management,
Safety
Ambassadors, and
Supervisors.
HP Y Organizational
effectiveness increases
when leaders are
trustworthy and, in turn,
trust their team. The
most visible
demonstration of trust by
a leader is accountable
autonomy (Rath &
Conchie, 2008).
Provide opportunities
for stakeholders to
contribute to the
change model design
via project meetings
as a tool to drive the
value of trust between
management and
stakeholders.
The organization
needs to make time
for Safety
Ambassadors and
Supervisors to
conduct proactive
safety activities.
HP Y Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has
resources that are aligned
with organizational goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Provide the Safety
Ambassadors and
Supervisors one hour
per week to
accomplish the
SMART goal of
conducting a safety
audit of an assigned
department.
Developing a culture of trust between senior management and stakeholders.
Evidence indicated the organization does not have a complete culture of trust between senior
management, Safety Ambassadors, and Supervisors. Recommendations embedded in socio-
cultural theory have been used to enhance organizational culture environments. Organizational
effectiveness increases when leaders are trustworthy and, in turn, trust their team. The four
primary characteristics followers describe in the “best” leader are: trust, compassion, stability,
and hope (Rath & Conchie, 2008). Allowing the team to determine how to reach a goal
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
52
demonstrates your confidence in their ability to succeed. Therefore, the recommendation is for
CC to provide opportunities for stakeholders to contribute to the change model design. For
example, utilize project meetings as a collaboration tool to drive learning and the value of trust
between management and stakeholders.
Burns, Mearns, and McGeorge (2006) studied the role trust plays in developing a
workplace safety culture. Specifically, they looked to assess the level of trust of employees at an
industrial plant by using a Likert scale questionnaire with questions explicitly asking the level of
trust they had in management and co-workers. They found that workers had explicit trust among
themselves but only implicit trust with management based on safety activities, motivation,
learning, and communication. Implicit trust with management leaves room for doubt so full trust
cannot be given. In addition, Clark and Estes (2008) propose that effective change begins by
addressing motivation influencers; it ensures the group knows why it needs to change. From a
theoretical perspective it would appear that addressing organizational barriers and increased
employee involvement would help increase the level of trust between SAS and senior
management.
Make time for stakeholders to conduct proactive safety activities. Evidence indicated
that CC does not provide enough time away from production for SAS to conduct proactive safety
activities. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that effective change efforts ensure that everyone has
resources that are aligned with organizational goals. Providing SAS time away from production
for safety activities would make for a successful change effort. The recommendation is to
provide the SAS one hour per week to accomplish the SMART goal of conducting a safety audit
of an assigned department — for example, one departmental safety audit conducted by a Safety
Ambassador or Supervisor per month.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
53
Donald and Canter (1994) studied 10 chemical manufacturing companies using a survey
with questions concerning human factors associated with safety risks in the chemical industry.
The authors found that a safety climate that includes a management commitment to safety was
one that made safety activities a priority equal to productivity and quality of product.
Accountability is increased when individual roles and expectations are aligned with
organizational goals and mission. In addition, effective organizations ensure that organizational
messages, rewards, policies, and procedures are supportive of organizational goals and values
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Based on the theoretical research, an effective change effort requires that
CC provide resources that are aligned with organizational goals such as creating specific,
measurable, attainable goals that allow SAS time to engage in safety activities.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) informed this
implementation and evaluation plan. This model suggests that evaluation plans start with the
results or goals of the organization and work backwards through behavior, learning, and reaction.
By starting with results, “leading indicators” that bridge recommended solutions to the
organization’s goals are both easier to identify and more closely aligned with organizational
goals (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in
this manner forces connections between the immediate solutions and the larger goal and shows
whether critical behaviors are on track to create positive impact to the desired outcomes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
54
Organizational Purpose Need and Expectations
CC’s mission is to make the best quality electrical products in the industry by utilizing
continuous improvement and modernization improvement programs. A rise in industrial
accidents and injuries necessitated the need to implement proactive safety strategies in place of
reactive safety strategies. Therefore, CC will implement proactive safety measures at their
manufacturing plants by December 31, 2019. The main stakeholders for CC are the Supervisors
and the Safety Ambassadors. Their goal is to implement the Safety Ambassador program at their
respective plants by July 31, 2019.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 15 identifies results and leading indicators in the form of external and internal
outcomes, metrics, and methods for CC. If the internal outcomes are met because of training and
organizational support resources, then the external outcomes such as a passing score on the
customer balance scorecard should be achieved.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
55
Table 15
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
CC receives a passing
score on their vendor
scorecard.
Safety rating under the 2.7
metric.
Vendor scorecard.
Internal Outcomes
Increase in employee
trust in management.
72-hour turnaround time to
address a “safety” related work
order entered by employees
into the maintenance system.
Document the solution on a
safety solution report form
with date work order entered,
resolved, and then post on the
safety communication board
and cover at the safety
meeting.
Decrease in unsafe acts. Management response to 100%
reporting of all unsafe acts
reported from the
manufacturing plant.
Create Safety Solutions Report
Form tracker and
communicate the lifecycle of
all unsafe acts reported.
Decrease in lost-time
work injuries.
Zero lost time work injuries. Lost-time injuries documented
in OSHA 300 Log.
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), critical behaviors
demonstrate the level at which participants apply learning from training to on-the-job activities.
The stakeholders of focus are the Supervisors and hourly employees that are Safety
Ambassadors. The first critical behavior is that SAS must conduct a job safety observation by
using the correct job safety analysis tool for the corresponding task. The second critical behavior
is that they must thoroughly identify hazards and unsafe acts during the job safety observation.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
56
The third critical behavior is that Supervisors and Safety Ambassadors must clearly articulate
findings to management via the job safety observation form, so the unsafe act or hazard is
corrected. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appear
in Table 16.
Table 16
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. SAS conduct a job safety
observation by using the
correct hazard analysis tool
for the corresponding task.
The number of job safety
observations conducted
by a Safety Ambassador.
Human Resources will audit
the job safety observations
for completeness and
accuracy and log the number
of job safety observations
performed on a tracker.
Monthly.
2. SAS thoroughly identify
hazards and unsafe acts
during the job safety
observation.
The number of hazards
and unsafe acts identified.
Supervisors and Safety
Ambassadors meet with
employee to be observed and
document findings on the job
safety observation form.
Immediate;
during the job
safety
observation.
3. SAS clearly articulate
findings to management via
the job safety observation
form.
The number of hazards
and unsafe acts reported
to management for
resolution.
Management will discuss job
safety observations during
the Safety Ambassador
meeting.
Monthly.
Required drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe required drivers as the
systems and processes that reinforce and reward performance of the critical behaviors on the job.
Supervisors and Safety Ambassadors require the support from management and the organization
to reinforce the learning acquired through training and to allow them time to conduct proactive
safety activities. Incentives and rewards should be established for achievement of the
performance goals to enhance organizational support of the Safety Ambassadors. Finally,
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
57
providing clear goals, instructional support, and feedback will reinforce proactive safety and
motivate the SAS to accomplish their goal. Table 17 shows the recommended drivers to support
critical behaviors of SAS.
Table 17
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported:
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Management coaches the SAS on how to conduct a job safety
observation.
1, 2, 3
Job aid including checklist for identifying hazards. 1, 2, 3
Management makes safety solution report forms accessible
throughout the plant for employees to anonymously report hazards
and unsafe acts.
1, 2, 3
Management will post Safety Ambassador meeting minutes on
bulletin boards throughout the plant for all employees to read.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Safety Ambassador meetings. 1, 2, 3
Coaching and mentoring from management and Human Resources. 1, 2, 3
Share success stories and metric accomplishment at the Safety
Ambassador meetings.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Performance incentive when 100% of Safety Ambassadors complete
and timely submit job safety observations with suggested corrective
actions.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Public acknowledgement in the quarterly newsletter of employees
that submitted a safety solution report form.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Human Resources tracks and communicates progress on all safety
solution report forms submitted by employees.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
58
Organizational support. It is critical that the organization supports the critical
behaviors required for the SAS and organization to accomplish their goals. CC will hold plant-
wide communication meetings on a quarterly basis, encourage employees to report hazards via
the safety solution report form, and hold open invitation for all employees to attend the monthly
Safety Ambassador meeting as a foundation to build trust between SAS and management. In
addition, CC will make time for SAS to conduct proactive safety activities to demonstrate
commitment to a proactive safety culture.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solutions for this study,
SAS will be able to:
1. Understand how to proactively identify hazards and unsafe acts (declarative
knowledge).
2. Implement proactive safety measures (procedural knowledge).
3. Apply the procedures to conduct job safety observations (procedural knowledge).
4. Illustrate safety goals to fellow co-workers (declarative knowledge).
5. Address topics with co-workers discussed during the Q&A session of the plant-wide
safety meetings (declarative knowledge).
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a
training program, job aids, coaching, and mentoring that explores proactive safety concepts in
depth. The learners, SAS, will study a broad range of concepts and techniques to identify
hazards in the workplace so they can implement proactive safety measures on the job. The
program is blended consisting of instructor-led training sessions that consist of four eight-hour
training sessions, and on-the-job learning assignments. The SAS will receive training utilizing
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
59
modeling during the training sessions, and shadowing with feedback by the Human Resources
manager while SAS conduct job safety hazard analysis assignments. These activities provide
SAS opportunities to practice implementing proactive safety activities along with feedback about
their progress. The gaining of knowledge by learners will help them develop confidence (self-
efficacy) and attribute success to the learning from the training sessions.
Components of learning. According to Hong, Pi, and Yang (2018), declarative
knowledge (know what) is simpler, requires less cognitive skill, and comes before procedural
knowledge (know how), which requires a higher cognitive load. It is important to evaluate both
sets of knowledge being taught to SAS to determine the learner’s level of knowing what
proactive safety is and how to implement proactive safety strategies. It is also critical that SAS
value the training as a precursor to applying their newfound skills in the workplace. SAS must
feel confident enough to persist at applying their skills, and feel they are working on safety goals
without other competing work goals. Table 18 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these
components of learning.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
60
Table 18
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge — “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using group exercises. During the training session.
Knowledge check utilizing a topic quiz. After the training session.
Procedural Skills — “I can do it right now.”
Hypothetical scenarios with multiple choice answers. During the training session.
Live practice demonstration. During the on-the-job learning
assignment — monthly.
Attitude — “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Participant engagement; questions; and statements. During the training session.
Survey items using Likert scale. After the training session.
Confidence — “I think I can do it on the job.”
Ask the learner about their confidence level of
performing the on-the-job learning assignment.
Before starting the live learning
assignment.
Survey items using Likert scale. After the training session.
Commitment — “I will do it on the job.”
Discussion. During the training session.
Formulating an individual training plan. During introduction section
before actual training begins.
Survey item using Likert scale. After the training session.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
61
Level 1: Reaction
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 1 measures the degree of
participant reaction to training and evaluates the quality of the program and instructor. Table 19
identifies the methods and tools to measure reactions to the program related to engagement,
relevance, and customer satisfaction, and the timing for each.
Table 19
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Instructor observer Ongoing during the training session
Relevance
Instructor knowledge pulse check of
participants
Midway during each training session module
Interview Post training during an on-the-job assignment
Customer Satisfaction
Survey Post program
Interview Post program
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. While the level of engagement
of program participants will be evaluated during the training session, CC will evaluate further by
utilizing a summative evaluation method in the form of a post-training survey upon completion
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
62
of the training sessions. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) say that post-training surveys can be
time consuming and take too many resources, so they recommend that evaluation items be
limited and prioritized. Therefore, CC will focus the SAS’s feedback on engagement, relevance
of training, and customer satisfaction. The survey will be given to the SAS after completion of
the training session but before they exit the classroom by the Human Resources Manager (HRM)
to capture thoughts about the training session and program implementation. The HRM will hand
out the survey, briefly explain the content and reason for survey, collect the surveys, tabulate the
results, and prepare a report of findings.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. While the survey
immediately following the training session will capture initial participant reaction, CC will
interview SAS one month following initial program implementation to further evaluate if the
SAS have learned how to implement proactive safety strategies. CC will also evaluate the
behaviors SAS demonstrate while they apply what they learned, such as identifying workplace
hazards and unsafe acts, and measuring results of internal and external outcomes.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) say that “systematic data analysis and response will
increase not only the success of the current program, but also provide the tools to maximize
outcomes of all future mission-critical initiatives” (p. 126). CC will utilize real-time analysis.
For example, during training of the SAS, the trainer will take note of the level of active
participation and make needed adjustments to maximize learning. Also, CC will gather data
about Supervisor engagement in safety activities via employee surveys and report survey results
internally using a dashboard circulated via PowerPoint slides. Figure 2 depicts an example of a
slide containing information about the level of supervisory actions that promote safety. In
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
63
addition, CC will post safety measure infographics on communication boards inside the
manufacturing plant. For example, Figure 3 is an infographic posting on the level of engagement
by various groups towards implementing proactive safety strategies at the manufacturing plant.
Figure 2. Survey results about employees’ views on Supervisors promoting safety dashboard
report example
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
64
Figure 3. Example of infographic posting showing level of engagement towards implementing
proactive safety strategies at the manufacturing plant
Limitations and Delimitations
This evaluation study had several limitations. First, this study was originally going to
contain interviews and document analysis, but the organization limited me to interviews only.
Second, the study was limited by the number of research participants that volunteered to be
interviewed. Of the 38 SAS available to interview, only 10 participated. The study was also
limited by the accuracy and truthfulness of the data presented by the participants. In addition,
the interviews were limited by the scope of the questions asked by the researcher; even though
the researcher asked open-ended questions and attempted to clarify any ambiguous answers. I
was also concerned about SAS talking to each other before their respective interviews and by
their prior knowledge that I, a company Human Resources leader, would be the researcher.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
65
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings section presented the results from the data collected through the interviews
of SAS participants that volunteered to be part of this research study to assess the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influence gaps associated with the implementation of the Safety
Ambassador program by the SAS by July 31, 2019. The assertion that building a culture of trust
between management and the workforce is a catalyst to implementing proactive safety strategies
deserves further research by the organization in the form of meta-analysis. Siddaway, Wood,
and Hedges (2019) describe meta-analysis as a comprehensive search of related research for a
particular topic linking theory to evidence and evidence to theory. This meta-analytic approach
is recommended for CC to find additional strategies and concepts that will help them keep the
workforce and SAS engaged in proactive safety implementation.
Conclusion
Accidents and injuries have had a great impact in the workplace. Organizations now seek
to make safety a priority and customers and stakeholders hold those organizations accountable
for their safety records. As a result, many employers have created safety programs that seek to
reduce the number of injuries in the workplace. CC went beyond and chose to implement
proactive safety strategies across their manufacturing plants and tasked the SAS to implement
the Safety Ambassador program by July 31, 2019. To do so, the SAS need to know the
difference between reactive and proactive safety and know how to implement proactive safety
strategies in the workplace. In addition, the SAS need to feel they are capable and attribute
success to their effort. Also, CC needs to provide SAS the time to get off the production line to
conduct safety activities and the SAS needs to trust that management truly makes safety a
priority and supports their effort. The SAS will feel supported if they are provided with ongoing
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
66
training, management is visible and leading by example, engage in team-based projects,
communicates effectively, follows-up on initiatives, and keeps all employees including
management accountable and engaged.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
67
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders and Interview Sampling Rationale
Participating Stakeholders
CC has various stakeholder groups. The population includes non-union and unionized
hourly employees, supervision, administrative staff, and senior staff. The stakeholders of focus
for this study are the SAS, of which there are a total of 38. SAS were chosen as the sample
group because they are the ones entrusted to implement safety strategies at the manufacturing
plants and can be accessed for interviews.
The type of sampling chosen for this study is non-probability because the sample group is
small, and the goal is to collect data to help answer what occurs within the environment and link
the occurrences to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Merriam (2009) says
that non-probability sampling is the choice for most qualitative research because it eliminates the
generalization of results as is the case in probability sampling. The sampling was purposeful and
typical because the stakeholder group was deliberately selected to provide information related to
the research questions and stakeholder goal. The stakeholder group works directly on the
manufacturing plant floor and has direct knowledge and information about the setting, events,
and processes. Also, promoting a proactive safety environment is a job expectation and
important to the organization. Patton (2002) says that picking information-rich cases allows the
researcher to learn a great deal about issues important to the purpose of the study. The data
collection method was qualitative in design specifically using purposeful interviews to provide
further context to help answer the research questions (Creswell, 2014). This method was chosen
because it is a way to triangulate data sources and help neutralize weaknesses (Creswell, 2014).
The interview sample group is a subset of the stakeholder group that is made available by CC.
The criteria for the interview sample group are detailed below.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
68
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Be an SAS, and, if the SAS is a supervisor, have at least one direct report.
Being a supervisor with at least one direct report will provide context around how safety is
promoted to subordinates to foster performing duties safely. This criterion helped provide
information about how the organization trains employees and whether the supervisors feel
capable of managing safety.
Criterion 2. Completed safety training before the interview. If a Supervisor has
completed safety training before the interview, they will be equipped to offer direct information
about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences affecting the safety culture.
Since the stakeholder goal is to implement frontline leadership skills, having the required
knowledge is critical (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Criterion 3. Participated in a safety committee or attended safety committee meetings.
This criterion is critical in selecting a sample group to validate their involvement with the safety
program. The inquiry into safety helps to provide information regarding motivation to
implement proactive safety strategies and their opinions on what the organization did to
influence safety solutions.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The natural setting interview is essential to gather relevant data to answer the research
questions (Creswell, 2014). I was the researcher and principal instrument in collecting data
regarding specific events and examples that make the interview purposeful (Maxwell, 2013). I
relied on tools developed by other researchers and purposefully selected individuals that
participate in safety committees or attend safety meetings because it demonstrates their added
motivation and interest in safety (Creswell, 2014).
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
69
Appendix B: Protocols
This study utilized a qualitative method design for data collection and analysis. Maxwell
(2013) describes qualitative research as both flexible and inductive and goes on to say the
process is not linear or tending to extrapolate numeric trends such as a quantitative exercise.
Instead, qualitative research tends to vary in a reflexive style based on the organics of the data
and lends to rich data from participant involvement (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, qualitative
research can be designed to interview, observe, and analyze artifacts but can vary based on the
actual events that occur (Maxwell, 2013). This study utilized semi-structured interviews to
explore the knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources related to the implementation of
proactive safety strategies at four manufacturing plants. Interviews assisted with determining
whether the SAS possess the knowledge of understanding the difference between reactive and
proactive safety strategies and have the skills and motivation to implement proactive strategies
such as the Safety Ambassador program. Questions answered include whether the organization
has a culture model of trust and willingness to change and can set the stage to allow stakeholders
to prioritize and manage time to achieve the goal.
Interviews
The strategy for the interviews was to utilize a semi-structured approach. Semi-
structured works well for the organization because it allows the flexibility to explore emerging
ideas but provides a consistent format across the four manufacturing plants, so the researcher can
compare data across the settings (Maxwell, 2013). This approach allowed the researcher to
establish a tentative plan for interview setting, interview questions and interviewees, but left
room for revision as required. However, multiple sites limit the researcher’s time and travel
abilities (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
70
The interview protocol called for a guide with pre-set questions asked of all participants.
The researcher addressed questions regarding the knowledge, motivation of participants related
to implementing proactive safety strategies, and organizational context through semi-structured
interviews and questions. The interviews started with an opening to thank all participants, to
remind them of the voluntary opt-out provision, and other particulars such as permission to
record. The interviews used a face to face but only one-time interview method due to the
availability of participants. They took place at the individual’s manufacturing plant in a private
conference room during the normal working hours of the participant to allow for minimal
disruption to the manufacturing plant. It was important to conduct the interviews to ascertain the
context around knowledge and motivation of the participants.
Interview Guide
“Thank you for taking the time today to take part in this research on implementing
proactive safety strategies and eliminating hazards and unsafe acts in the workplace. I appreciate
receiving your signed consent form that included the standards for this study. Please remember
you can opt out of this interview at any time without consequence or anyone’s knowledge that
you opted out. Before we start, would you mind if I record this session? The recording will help
me capture information accurately. I will house audio recordings on a password protected site,
and I will always adhere to maintaining confidentiality and protecting your anonymity. I will not
use your name or any other means that would identify you during the data collection or final
dissertation. Do you have any questions I can help with before we begin? I will now be asking
you several questions during this session focused on the implementation of proactive safety
strategies.” The questions were asked in a round robin way to maximize time and ensure all
KMO categories were covered.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
71
Knowledge Influences
1. What is a Safety Ambassador?
2. What is the difference between reactive safety and proactive safety?
3. Can you give me some examples of implementing proactive safety strategies at your
manufacturing plant?
Motivation Influences
1. To what do you attribute success or failure as a Safety Ambassador? Please explain.
2. Do you feel you have the skills needed to implement the Safety Ambassador
program?
3. Describe the value of proactive safety in the workplace.
4. Does the safety program motivate you to report hazards in the workplace?
Organizational Influences
1. Tell me about your training to become a Safety Ambassador?
2. How would you describe your level of trust in management to make safety a priority?
3. How much time do you have to conduct safety activities?
4. Describe a resource needed to support proactive safety.
“Thank you again for your time and participation. Your responses have provided rich
information for this study. Do you have any questions? Here is my contact information. Please
don’t hesitate to contact me if you do.”
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
72
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
The research design incorporated the principles to establish the trustworthiness and
credibility of the data. The interviews and follow-up questions helped clarify and triangulate
information. Asking the same research questions of all participants and a review of related
documents helped validate the process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Interviews provided rich data
concerning the stakeholders’ ability. Preparation, prolonged engagement with the interviewees,
and consistent note taking helped ensure trustworthiness. Also, protecting the participant’s
confidence and ensuring the process is comfortable and professional established additional
credibility with the researcher.
The analysis of the data included the researcher’s biases as an employee of CC. The
researcher is a human resources manager within the organization, and his positionality presented
a bias. The same bias exists with the research participants as most of them know me or know of
me. The researcher maintained an electronic memo of these thoughts and potential biases.
Noting the positionality and potential influence on the findings lent to the credibility of the study
(Maxwell, 2013). In all cases, I ensure that interviews supported answering the research
questions as a means of validating credibility and trustworthiness.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
73
Appendix D: Ethics
As a researcher, I attempted to capture the context and understanding of the interviews to
answer the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To accomplish this, I was responsible
for making ethical choices concerning respect for involving human participants in the research.
First, the participants were at all times allowed to make their own decisions both in the level of
participation or non-participation and in the answers to the questions. My primary concern was
to protect the participants throughout the process as they made their choice regarding
involvement and inquiry. Second, participants were not placed in harm’s way either directly or
indirectly. The interviews were open-ended, safe, and participants reminded that the benefit of
their effort is for the improvement of the workplace (Patton, 2002). Third, I treated everyone
justly. I concentrated on informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality of the data
and the participants, obtained permission to record, and stored and secured the data.
Informed Consent and Voluntary Participation
I gave informed consent forms to all participants at the beginning of the study and
stressed voluntary participation. The forms ensured voluntary and safe participation, withdrawal
from the study at any time, confidentiality, and assurances that I stored and protected the data I
collected (Glesne, 2011). Given that I am a visible human resources leader in the organization, I
had built-in familiarity with the research participants but was concerned that my positionality
may influence a participant to say what he or she thinks CC wants to hear. Therefore, I assured
complete anonymity, offered the participants a third-party interviewer or to opt out. No
participants opted out or required a third-party researcher. To ensure the safety of the
participants, I submitted the study proposal to the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) and followed its rules and ethical guidelines to protect individuals in the
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
74
study (Krueger & Casey, 2009). The interviews took place on-site at the participant’s place of
work in an anonymous format further securing their confidence in me as a researcher and the
process of gathering data. I informed the participants there were no incentives and I sent them a
thank you note. I explained that incentives were omitted to not bias the research and to remove
any inference of unethical behavior due to my position in the organization.
Confidentiality, Permission to Record, and Storage of Data
I informed participants about the option of withdrawal at any time and gave them my
word about protecting their confidentiality. I received permission from all participants to record
the interviews and informed them they are welcome to request a copy of the transcript. Also, I
gave them assurance that I stored, and protected the information they shared on a password
protected personal computer. Although I am a member of the human resources department for
CC, I approached the interviews as a student researcher and did not bias myself in any way and
protected all information by being conscientious with its existence and storage. I was solely
interested in the depth of their thoughts, feelings, and intentions towards their approach to help
answer the research questions and not as a human resources employee. No harm or retribution
came as a result of their participation, answers or my findings.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
75
References
Antonsen, S. (2009). Safety culture and the issue of power. Safety Science, 47(2), 183–191.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvador, R. O., & Islam, G.
(2006). Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. American
Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 315–324.
Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Tesluk, P., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2002). General safety performance:
A test of a grounded theoretical model. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 429–457.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00116.x
Burns, C., Mearns, K., & McGeorge, P. (2006). Explicit and implicit trust within safety culture.
Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1139–1150.
Carbonari, A., Giretti, A., & Naticchia, B. (2011). A proactive system for real-time safety
management in construction sites. Automation in Construction, 20(6), 686–698.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2011.04.019
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Clarke, S. (2006). Safety climate in an automobile manufacturing plant. Personnel Review,
35(4), 413–430. doi:10.1108/00483480610670580
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
76
Conchie, S. M., & Donald, I. J. (2009). The moderating role of safety-specific trust in the
relation between safety-specific leadership and safety citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 14(2), 137–147.
Cooper, M. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety
behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research, 35(5), 497–512.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeJoy, D. M. (1985). Attributional processes and hazard control management in industry.
Journal of Safety Research, 16(1985), 61–71.
DeJoy, D. M. (1994). Managing safety in the workplace: An attribution theory analysis and
model. Journal of Safety Research, 25, 3–17.
DeJoy, D. M., Gershon, R. R. M., & Schaffer, B. S. (2004). Safety climate: Assessing
management and organizational influences on safety. Professional Safety, 49(7), 50–57.
Donald, I., & Canter, D. (1994). Employee attitudes and safety in the chemical industry. Journal
of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 7(3), 203–208.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992
Earnest, R. E. (1997). Characteristics of proactive & reactive safety systems. Professional Safety,
42(11), 27–29.
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture
and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3), 279–301.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
77
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder
theory: The state of the art. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fryberg, S. A., & Markus, H. R. (2007). Cultural models of education in American Indian, Asian
American and European American contexts. Social Psychology of Education, 10(2), 213–
246.
Fugas, C. S., Meliá, J. L., & Silva, S. A. (2011). The “is” and the “ought”: How do perceived
social norms influence safety behaviors at work? Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 16(1), 67–79.
Geller, E. S. (2001). Behavior-based safety in industry: Realizing the large-scale potential of
psychology to promote human welfare. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 10(2), 87–
105.
Gerede, E. (2015). A qualitative study on the exploration of challenges to the implementation of
the Safety Management System in aircraft maintenance organizations in Turkey. Journal
of Air Transport Management, 47, 230–240. doi:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.06.006
Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Griffin, M., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety
climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 5(3), 347–358. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
78
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Hajric, E. (2018). Knowledge creation. Retrieved from http://www.knowledge-management-
tools.net/knowledge-creation.html
Hale, A., Borys, D., & Adams, M. (2015). Safety regulation: The lessons of workplace safety
rule management for managing the regulatory burden. Safety Science, 71, 112–122.
Harvey, S. A., Jennings, L., Chinyama, M., Masaninga, F., Mulholland, K., & Bell, D. R. (2008).
Improving community health worker use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Zambia:
Package instructions, job aid and job aid-plus-training. Malaria Journal, 7, 160.
doi:10.1186/1475-2875-7-160
Hewstone, M. (Ed.). (1983). Attribution theory: Social and functional extensions. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2004). The role of leadership in safety. In J. Barling & M.
R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 159–180). Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Hong, J., Pi, Z., & Yang, J. (2018). Learning declarative and procedural knowledge via video
lectures: Cognitive load and learning effectiveness. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 55(1), 74–81.
Hudson, P. (2007). Implementing a safety culture in a major multi-national. Safety Science,
45(6), 697–722.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
79
Komaki, J. L., Zlotnick, S., & Jensen, M. (1986). Development of an operant-based taxonomy
and observational index of supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
260–269.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Law, W., Chan, A., & Pun, K. (2006). Prioritising the safety management elements. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 106(6), 778–792. doi:10.1108/02635570610671470
Leigh, J. (2011). Economic burden of occupational injury and illness in the United States.
Milbank Quarterly, 89(4), 728–772.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lusk, S. L., Ronis, D. L., & Kerr, M. J. (1995). Predictors of hearing protection use among
workers: Implications for training programs. Human Factors, 37(3), 635–640.
doi:10.1518/001872095779049390
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the
shop while the employees watch the boss? The Academy of Management Journal, 48(5),
874–888.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
80
McCrudden, M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–139.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mullen, J., Kelloway, E., & Teed, M. (2017). Employer safety obligations, transformational
leadership and their interactive effects on employee safety performance. Safety Science,
91, 405–412. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.007
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic
investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and
safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 71–94.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2018a). Commonly used statistics. Washington,
D.C.: Author. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html
Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (2018b). Culture of safety. Washington, D.C.:
Author. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/laboratories/safetyculture.html
Oliver, A., Cheyne, A., Tomás, J. M., & Cox, S. (2002). The effects of organizational and
individual factors on occupational accidents. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 473–488.
Ostrom, L., Wilhelmsen, C., & Kaplan, B. (1993). Assessing safety culture. Nuclear Safety,
34(2), 163–172.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
81
O’Toole, M. (2002). The relationship between employees’ perceptions of safety and
organizational culture. Journal of Safety Research, 33(2), 231–243.
Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs and motivation in writing development.
In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.
158–170). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Parker, D., Lawrie, M., & Hudson, P. (2006). A framework for understanding the development
of organizational safety culture. Safety Science, 44(6), 551–562.
Parker, S. K., Axtell, C. M., & Turner, N. (2001). Designing a safer workplace: Importance of
job autonomy, communication quality, and supportive supervisors. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 211–228. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.6.3.211
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
Poplin, G. S., Pollack, K. M., Griffin, S., Day-Nash, V., Peate, W. F., Nied, E., . . . Burgess, J.
(2015). Establishing a proactive safety and health risk management system in the fire
service. BMC Public Health, 15, 407. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1675-8
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why
people follow. New York, NY: Gallup.
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reiman, T., & Rollenhagen, C. (2014). Does the concept of safety culture help or hinder systems
thinking in safety? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 68, 5–15.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
82
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Educational psychology handbook series: Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–53).
New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 43–62. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.2791602
Sharda, R., Frankwick, G. L., & Turetken, O. (1999). Group knowledge networks: A framework
and an implementation. Information Systems Frontiers, 1, 221–239.
Sias, P. M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee information experiences.
Communication Studies, 56(4), 375–395. doi:10.1080/10510970500319450
Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best
practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-
syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770.
Spencer, B. A. (1994). Models of organization and Total Quality Management: A comparison
and critical evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 19(3), 446–471.
Thompson, R. C., Hilton, T. F., & Witt, L. A. (1998). Where the safety rubber meets the shop
floor: A confirmatory model of management influence on workplace safety. Journal of
Safety Research, 29(1), 15–24.
Vandekerckhove, W., Fotaki, M., Kenny, K., Humantito, I., & Ozdemir Kaya, D. D. (2016).
Effective speak-up arrangements for whistleblowers: A multi-case study on the role of
responsiveness, trust and culture. London, UK: Association of Chartered Certified
Accountants.
Vredenburgh, A. (2002). Organizational safety. Journal of Safety Research, 33(2), 259–276.
IMPLEMENTING PROACTIVE SAFETY STRATEGIES
83
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process.
Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203–215.
Weiner, B. (2018). The legacy of an attribution approach to motivation and emotion: A no-crisis
zone. Motivation Science, 4(1), 4-14. doi:10.1037/mot0000082
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and
occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 77–93.
Zahn, J. (2010). Proactive safety management. Professional Safety, 55(9), 50.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.
Zohar, D. (2001, August). Safety climate and leadership factors as predictors of injury records
in work-groups. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships
between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4),
616–628.
Zoller, H. M. (2003). Health on the line: Identity and disciplinary control in employee
occupational health and safety discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
31(2), 118–139.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Adaptability characteristics: an evaluation study of a regional mortgage lender
PDF
A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study
PDF
The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study
PDF
Implementing organizational change in a medical school
PDF
First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study
PDF
Human error risk reduction in aviation: an evaluation study
PDF
Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study
PDF
Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study
PDF
An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers
PDF
Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study
PDF
Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study
PDF
Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study
PDF
Increasing organizational capacity at a small college to deploy revenue diversification strategies: an evaluation study
PDF
The role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution: an evaluation study
PDF
Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study
PDF
Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study
PDF
Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study
PDF
Retention rates and burnout among medical assistants: an evaluation study
PDF
Managers’ learning transfer from the leadership challenge training to work setting: an evaluation study
PDF
Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ortega, Patrick H.
(author)
Core Title
Implementing proactive safety strategies in place of reactive safety strategies at a manufacturing organization: an evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
09/16/2019
Defense Date
09/16/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
manufacturing,OAI-PMH Harvest,proactive safety,reactive safety,safety ambassador
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Bewley, William (
committee member
), Yates, Kenneth (
committee member
)
Creator Email
patrickortega25@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-217385
Unique identifier
UC11675443
Identifier
etd-OrtegaPatr-7814.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-217385 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-OrtegaPatr-7814.pdf
Dmrecord
217385
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ortega, Patrick H.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
proactive safety
reactive safety
safety ambassador