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
/
Creating a safety culture to decrease vehicle accidents with Sales Service Representatives
(USC Thesis Other)
Creating a safety culture to decrease vehicle accidents with Sales Service Representatives
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Copyright 2020 Jane H. Kim
Creating a Safety Culture to Decrease Vehicle Accidents with Sales Service Representatives
by
Jane H. Kim
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 2020
ii
Dedication
I dedicate this to my nephew, Ezra Cerreto. Let this dissertation be a testament that hard
work, loving support, and persistence will lead you to the right path in life.
iii
Acknowledgments
I want to acknowledge and thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Jennifer Phillips, for always
providing me the support and encouragement I have continuously needed during this journey.
Throughout the program, I felt Dr. Phillips’ care and interest for my path, my dissertation, and
my well-being. I have faced some struggles with completing this dissertation, but Dr. Phillips has
provided solutions and ideas that I have implemented in order to push through. I want to thank
my committee members, Dr. Helena Seli and Dr. Susanne Foulk, for providing feedback to view
my problem of practice through a wider lens. I feel as though my perspective on organizations
and implementing change has become more robust while working with my chair and committee
members.
To my cohort who have helped me navigate through this process and have shown
tremendous amount of support and guidance, I am grateful for all of your patience. You have all
enriched my experience and helped me gain a wider perspective on life.
My sister, Esther, and her husband, Victor have been there for me since the beginning of
applying for graduate school, getting accepted, attending classes, and submitting endless drafts
of this dissertation. They have seen me frustrated and down, but never allowed me to quit. My
sister and I have always been firm believers of continual education. We came from an unstable
and poor background, with little to no support, but as adults, we have become successful
professionally and personally. I am proud of my humble beginnings and will never forget all the
experiences I overcame to get me to this point. I have dedicated myself as a student and scholar
in school and in life.
To Tuco who has always been encouraging and patient while I poured my heart and soul
into completing this journey. Your belief in me has helped me in more ways than one.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1: Introduction of the Problem of Practice ........................................................................ 1
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................... 2
Organizational Performance Status ......................................................................... 2
Related Literature.................................................................................................... 3
Importance of Addressing the Problem .................................................................. 4
Organizational Performance Goal ........................................................................... 5
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................... 5
Stakeholder Group for the Study ............................................................................ 7
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................... 8
Methodological Framework .................................................................................... 9
Definitions............................................................................................................. 10
Organization of the Project ................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ............................................................................................. 12
Influences on the Problem of Practice .................................................................. 12
Safety Climate and Safety Culture ........................................................................ 15
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework ................................. 20
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ................... 21
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context .......................................................... 38
Summary ............................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 3: Methods ...................................................................................................................... 44
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................... 45
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................... 47
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 49
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 50
Ethics..................................................................................................................... 51
v
Chapter 4: Results and Findings ................................................................................................... 53
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................... 54
Research Question 1: What Is the SSRs’ Knowledge and Motivation Related to
Implementing Safety Policies and Culture in Job Duties? .................................... 55
Knowledge Results ............................................................................................... 55
Motivation Results ................................................................................................ 61
Research Question Two: What is the Interaction Between Organizational Culture
and Context and the SSRs’ Knowledge and Motivation to Implement Safety
Policies and Culture in Their Job Duties?............................................................. 65
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 71
Chapter 5: Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 74
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ................................................... 80
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ......................................................... 96
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................... 97
Future Research .................................................................................................... 99
Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 101
References ................................................................................................................................... 102
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 110
Appendix A: Survey Items.................................................................................. 110
Appendix B: Influences of Survey Items ............................................................ 112
Appendix C: Immediate Evaluation after Training Program .............................. 113
Appendix D: Delayed Evaluation ....................................................................... 115
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals ................. 8
Table 2. Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment ..................... 26
Table 3. Motivational Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments ............................. 32
Table 4. Assumed Organizational Influences ............................................................................ 38
Table 5. Types of Points Violations ........................................................................................... 55
Table 6. Smith System Training Scores ..................................................................................... 57
Table 7. Implementing Safety Policies While Working ............................................................ 58
Table 8. KMO Influences Identified as a Gap Among SSRs .................................................... 61
Table 9. SSRs’ Attendance of Safety Huddles .......................................................................... 63
Table 10. KMO Influences Identified as a Gap Among SSRs .................................................... 65
Table 11. Water Co. Discusses Four Safety Principles ............................................................... 67
Table 12. Responses to Types of Resources and Support ........................................................... 68
Table 13. Water Co.’s Exemplars ................................................................................................ 70
Table 14. KMO Influences Identified as a Gap Among SSRs .................................................... 71
Table 15. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ....................................... 75
Table 16. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ........................................ 76
Table 17. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations .................................... 78
Table 18. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ....................... 83
Table 19. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................. 85
Table 20. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors .......................................................... 87
Table 21. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ....................................... 91
Table 22. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ..................................................... 92
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................... 40
Figure 2. Safety Topics for Meetings ......................................................................................... 69
Figure 3. SSRs’ Progress in Application of Defensive Driving Techniques while Working ..... 95
viii
Abstract
This study utilized mixed methods to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences of Sales Service Representatives’ (SSRs) safe operation of motor vehicles while
decreasing the Accident Frequency Rate (AFR). The research questions delved into SSRs’
knowledge and motivational influences and goals in relation to the safety policies and safety
culture, along with organizational influences of Water Co. which impacted the AFR. The Clark
and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework (2008) analyzed performance gaps and goals
related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. Out of 232 SSRs, 100 SSRs
participated in the surveys. The mixed methods of survey results and document artifacts revealed
themes of SSRs’ implementation of defensive driving techniques. Gaps with SSRs’ belief of
their driving performance and implementation of safety policies were discrepant from their
driving record of receiving violation points. Specifically, the study revealed gaps of SSRs’
procedural knowledge while performing their duties. The results showed that SSRs had the
factual and conceptual knowledge of safety policies, consequences to violations, and the purpose
of safety training, however, their procedural knowledge was lacking. This study revealed that
despite Water Co.’s current safety training, there were gaps with the effectiveness of the support
and resources they provide to SSRs. In order to address these gaps and discrepancies, the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) was utilized to develop a training and evaluation program along
with recommendations for best practices to achieve the stakeholder and organizational goal of
decreasing AFRs.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction of the Problem of Practice
The number of traffic accidents and fatality records were increasing in Southern
California, year after year (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, n.d.). Thus, it was
integral for organizations that require transportation of goods and services to minimize vehicular
risks and accidents by creating an effective culture of safety. Southern California was one of the
leading states for vehicle accidents and fatality of vehicle accidents (National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, n.d.). According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(n.d.), in 2017, California had 9.11 fatalities per 100,000 residents compared to the United States
overall ratio of 11.40 to every 100,000 citizens. From 2013-2016 there was a steady increase in
the number of fatalities. According to Nelson and Smith (2017), Southern California saw a 7%
increase of vehicular accidents from 2014 to 2015. Malekadeli (2019) stated that there was a
22% increase from 2016 to 2017. Comparably, at Water Company (Water Co., pseudonym), data
from 2018 revealed that the accident frequency rate (AFR) for North America was 30.8 out of
100. The overall AFR was 40.4, which was 4% worse than 2017. Seventy nine percent of all
accidents were deemed to be preventable by the Safety Department. In the southern division, the
AFR in 2018 was 48.4, which was an increase from the AFR in 2017 at 44.3. Compared to other
regions in the company, southern California was in the top five of the highest AFR. Due to the
high number of AFR in southern California, it was necessary to improve the accident rate with
Sales Service Representatives (SSRs). Despite the need of improvement and decreased AFR, the
safety culture and policies implemented by the Safety Department at Water Co. was not as
valued and practiced by SSRs. SSRs may follow the safety policies of Water Co., but the safety
culture in the organization was not robust and often dismissed.
2
Organizational Context and Mission
Water Co. was a leading distributor of water throughout North America. Water Co.’s
Sales Service Representatives (SSRs) deliver products to businesses and residential clients. The
mission statement of Water Co. was to be the provider of all water services for its customers.
Water Co. prides itself on quality products and service. In order to build consistency and loyalty
among its customers, the Safety Department ensured that products have been delivered in
adherence to policies and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. The Safety
Department’s organizational goal was to provide the safe operation of motor vehicles that are
driven in connection with company vehicles.
In the southern division, there were six branches with 232 SSRs. SSRs ran an average of
80-100 routes per day. Of those 232 SSRs, all were males; 63% were Hispanic or Latino, 16%
were African American, 14% were White, less than 1% were Asian, American Indian or Alaska
Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and those of two or more races. Eighteen percent
ranged in ages 21-29, 30% ranged in ages 30-39, 32% ranged in ages 40-49, 15% ranged in ages
50-59, and 0.04% ranged in ages 60-67.
Organizational Performance Status
Water Co.’s performance problem was the high number of vehicle accidents with SSRs in
southern California. Water Co. strived for 100% compliance with safety policies, rules, and
regulations, free of any vehicle accidents. Water Co.’s Safety Department routinely reported
“Accident Frequency Rates” (AFR), which were expressed as the number of accidents per 100
vehicles, annualized. Towards the end of 2018, the AFR was 30.8 out of 100, which was 33%
better on a comparable basis. However, 79% of all accidents were deemed to be preventable. In
order for Water Co. and the Safety Department to fulfill its goals and mission, it was integral that
3
SSRs followed all safety policies set forth by the organization and those regulations and rules
established by the Department of Transportation (DOT). Failure to do so would result in negative
consequences such as an increased number of accidents and an increase in penalty points. These
negative consequences may lead to a demoralized work environment, drain of resources by
vehicle repair and insurance liability costs, and possible termination if the SSR accrued 12
penalty points.
Related Literature
This section will review related literature that shows how an effective safety culture can
decrease vehicle accidents. Chapter two will delve into a further comprehensive literature review
of safety culture and its connection to improving vehicle accidents. According to Newman,
Lewis, and Watson (2011), vehicle accidents were the leading causes of death and injury, but
when safety culture was implemented, there was a proven decline in accidents. Part of the
implementation process was having leadership emphasize and communicate safety culture as a
priority. When leaders focused on safety culture in all aspects of the organization, frontline
associates would begin to adopt the practices (Newman et al., 2011). Further, leaders who were
able to communicate and include associates in the safety culture were promoting a positive
relationship between safety policies and frontline associates’ job duties (Newman et al., 2011).
An effective safety culture must include consistent follow-through and support of safety
programs from supervisors (Ford & Tetrick, 2008). Many associates viewed safety training and
programs as a waste of time, but these programs were invaluable when perceived as a necessary
component of protecting and supporting the workforce (Rifath & Blair, 2018). Furthermore,
supervisors who instilled the safety policies and created a safety culture through their leadership
style had more success in motivating employees to follow procedures (Jiang & Probst, 2016).
4
Jiang and Probst (2016) stated that strong leadership brought increased participation and idea-
sharing in safety. Thus, when leaders were able to deliver safety training and messages in an
effective and applicable way, they were able to create more buy-in from associates (Rifath &
Blair, 2018). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) advised methods of
assessing and delivering effective safety training, which consisted of determining the need for
training, the goals and objectives out of the training, learning activities, evaluating the
effectiveness of the training, and improving training practices (Occupational Safety and Health
Administration [OSHA], 2005). Organizations that focused on the safety culture and safety
training paid less on workers’ compensation claims, had cost reduction, and were more
competitive in the market (Rifath & Blair, 2018).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of addressing the high number of vehicular accidents that occur within
Water Co. was important to solve for a variety of reasons. The number of vehicle accidents
(fatalities) was the highest in southern California (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, n.d.). Studies have shown that with proper leadership and training, the number of
accidents can be reduced (Newman, Lewis, & Watson, 2011). As such, the Safety Department at
Water Co. had safety policies and training in effort to decrease the number of accidents for SSRs.
However, the number of accidents for SSRs had increased 9% in southern California, with a rate
of 48.4% in 2018 compared to 44.3% in 2017 (Water Company, 2019).
Despite the trainings and safety assessments that the Safety Department provided, the
number of accidents was still increasing, which may lead to termination of SSRs if they reach a
threshold of 12 penalty points for certain accidents. Penalty points were assigned depending on
the type of violation. For instance, collisions would consist of four points while rollaway
5
vehicles consist of 12 points. Aside from potentially accruing penalty points, the increase in
accidents led to high allocation in repairs and resources for delivery trucks, which may stall the
productivity of SSRs meeting the needs of customers and driving revenue. Additionally, the
safety culture implemented by the Safety Department was not effective. Developing a stronger
culture was important, not only in decreasing accidents, but also with creating buy-in with SSRs
and supervisors. As research has shown, involving supervisors to implement a positive safety
culture was integral to compliance (Jiang & Probst, 2016).
Organizational Performance Goal
Water Co.’s goal was that by May 2021 SSRs would conduct safe operation of motor
vehicles that were driven in connection with company business. Furthermore, by the end of
2021, Southern California division would yield a 100% score for safety assessments regarding
vehicle inspection and proper, updated documentation of all drivers. The senior leaders of Water
Co. established this goal as a key aspect of improving safety culture in the organization. The
achievement of goals would be measured on a monthly basis by the Safety Department through
2021.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The stakeholder groups in Water Co. consisted of SSRs, customers, and the management
team (including Safety Department). When it comes to safety, these three stakeholder groups
were directly affected by any changes, implementations, or incidences that may have
spontaneously arise. Studying and analyzing how safety policies and procedures affect the
stakeholder groups would reveal the necessity of a strong safety culture.
The SSRs were directly affected by the achievement of the organizational goal since they
were expected to operate company vehicles in a safe manner that prevents any accidents. SSRs
6
were expected not only to deliver the products and services to consumers, but also to be the face
of the company and build loyalty amongst the customers. Due to the impact SSRs made within
the organization and the safety culture, this stakeholder group will be discussed further in the
next section.
Customers were another stakeholder group who were on the receiving end of the
organizational goal. In southern California, there were an estimated 300,000 customers ranging
from residential and commercial. They entrusted Water Co. to deliver quality products and
services on a consistent basis. Customers were also directly affected if the organization met its
performance goals. When there were vehicle accidents, SSRs were immediately pulled away
from their routes and were required to file a report along with following protocol of getting drug
tested. Due to this procedure, this prohibited SSRs from completing their routes and led to non-
servicing the customers. When customers were not serviced properly on their date(s) of delivery,
it potentially increased the negative impact of customer satisfaction. For instance, when SSRs get
into vehicle accidents, they were pulled from their routes and Water Co. have received
complaints about untimely delivery or non-service of delivery. Additionally, there has been
another incident where a customer quit their services with Water Co. due to property damage
resulting from an accident caused by an SSR.
The third stakeholder group consisted of management team, including the Safety
Department. The southern division has 11 service managers who were responsible for promoting
a positive safety culture, keeping their team accountable for reporting all accidents, and
implementing performance goals. The 11 service managers provided safety training, Smith
System training, and other means of mediation to ensure that safety policies were being
followed. The Safety Department consisted of a safety manager for the southern region, who
7
determines whether an accident was preventable or non-preventable, and also determined if
points would be added to an SSR. The safety manager also conducted assessments to check if
each location is compliant with safety policies and provided a score and feedback after the
assessments. The safety manager was expected to promote a positive safety culture and uphold
the goals of decreasing vehicle accidents.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, this study focused on
the SSRs. SSRs were the frontline associates who were the face of the company. They have the
interactions and relationships with the customers, as well as the ability to drive sales and
revenue. Also, SSRs have the expectation to achieve the organization’s mission. The stakeholder
goal was to implement safety policies and safety culture in their job duties, while decreasing the
number of vehicle accidents, increasing customer base, and driving revenue. The measurable
level of achievement is high, but it was determined to be set high in order to drive expectations
and stress the importance of safety on the road. Once SSRs achieved the organization goal of
100% compliance and 0% accidents, this would result in a safe environment and less spending
on repairs. The risk of not achieving the organizational goal of safety compliance resulted in
possible increase of workers’ compensation claims, investment of time and money reporting and
repairing accidents, as well as a demoralizing work environment. Table 1 provided an overview
of the study’s performance goals.
8
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
To be the top provider of water to all of America.
Organizational Performance Goal
Provide the safe operation of motor vehicles that are driven in connection with company
vehicles, with 100% compliance in safety assessments and 0% accidents by the end of the
year 2021.
Safety Department Management SSRs Customers
By 2021, the Safety
Department will
conduct
assessments for
southern California
to determine
progress of
achieving goals
related to safety
and compliance.
By 2021,
management and
leaders will
provide necessary
support, leadership
style, and training
to SSRs.
By 2021, SSRs will
implement safety
policies and
culture in job
duties, decreasing
the number of
vehicle accidents,
increasing
customer base, and
driving revenue.
By 2021, all 100% of
customers will
receive products
and services by
SSRs in a timely
manner that is
uninterrupted by
vehicular
accidents. .
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that interfered with providing the safe operation of
motor vehicles that were driven in operation of company vehicles. The analysis began by
generating a list of possible or assumed interfering influences that was examined systematically
to focus on actual or validated interfering influences. While a complete gap analysis would focus
on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis was
SSRs.
1. What is the SSRs’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing safety policies
and culture in their job duties?
9
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and SSRs’
knowledge and motivation to implement safety policies and culture in their job
duties?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources related to SSRs implementing safety policies
and culture in their job duties?
Methodological Framework
Creswell and Creswell (2018) discussed the process of selecting a research approach,
along with worldviews that aligned with specific methodological approaches. The worldview
that aligned with the mixed methods approach is pragmatism, where this study reviewed the
consequences of a poor safety culture, application of safety policies, and the pluralistic principles
and parties involved in Water Co. related to the knowledge, motivation, and organization goals.
This study was focused on a mixed methods approach, specifically explanatory mixed
methods where quantitative study was conducted with survey research, followed by qualitative
study that was based on document artifacts. Mixed method was best to address the purpose of
improving safety culture in order to decrease vehicle accidents. Moreover, mixed methods
addressed and answered the research questions of SSRs’ knowledge and motivation of
conducting safe operations of motor vehicles in connection with the organization by providing an
in-depth analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The mixed methods approach was a strong methodology approach to answering the research
questions of the SSR’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational goals in relation to safety
policies and safety culture. In order to have an in-depth analysis of the processes (safety policies
and implementation) and individuals (SSRs), a quantitative study of survey research was
10
conducted to look into SSRs’ knowledge and motivation of adhering to safety policies, followed
by utilizing document artifacts in order to better understand SSRs’ knowledge and motivation of
the safety culture and its processes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The sequence of survey
research followed by document artifacts, led to an explanatory mixed method to best understand
the problem of practice of the safety culture of Water Co.
Definitions
Accident Frequency Rate “AFR”: number of accidents expressed as the number of accidents per
100 vehicles, annualized.
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations: requirements set upon drivers, operating
vehicles over 26,000 pounds are subject to obtaining a commercial driver license,
undergo a fitness test, documenting accidents, and continuous inspection of vehicles.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): agency of the United States
Department of Labor to create and implement standards to ensure the safety and well-
being of employees.
Sales Service Representatives (SSRs): employees of Water Co. responsible for delivering water
and products to customers.
Safety policies: procedures and policies set by the Safety Department of Water Co., outlining the
points system, consequences to violations, and responsibilities of Route Drivers.
Safety culture: organizational culture that prioritizes the importance of safety, maintains and
adheres to safety policies, and has buy-in from managers and frontline associates.
Smith System: Centers around five key pillars of defensive driving technique. Key 1: aim high in
steering; Key 2: get the big picture; Key 3: keep your eyes moving; Key 4: leave yourself
an out; Key 5: make sure they see you.
11
Organization of the Project
This study is organized by five chapters. This chapter provided readers with key concepts
and terminology found in discussion about SSRs and safety compliance. The organization’s
mission, goal, along with stakeholder goals, have been outlined. Chapter Two contains a
literature review surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of vehicle accidents, safety culture,
interventions and policies will be addressed. Chapter Three discusses elements and
methodologies regarding stakeholders, data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four contains data
and results, followed by analysis of the data. Chapter Five discusses solutions based on data and
literature and ways to close gap analysis, followed by recommendation for an implementation of
solutions.
12
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
SSRs struggled with the safety culture and safety policy implemented by the Safety
Department. Specifically, when there was a vehicle accident with the trucks, the Safety
Department deemed the accident as “preventable” or “non-preventable.” If the accident was
deemed “preventable,” then points were assigned to the SSR’s record and accumulation of 12
points led to termination. This chapter first reviewed literature on safety culture and
implementation of regulations and policies to help inform the problem of practice. Then, the
chapter provided an explanation of the Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences used in this study. This section defined the types of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on performance. The chapter was completed with a
presentation of the conceptual framework guiding this study.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
The following sections discussed the influences on the problem of practice through
literature reviews. The literature reviews delved into safety culture influencing the decrease of
vehicle accidents, along with how to create an effective safety culture. Specifically, holding
leaders accountable to create and implement a positive safety culture was integral for its success
in minimizing vehicle accidents.
Safety Culture
Before the 1980s, safety procedures, safety climate, and safety culture was nearly non-
existent (Melnikova, 2016). Thus, OSHA has been formed in order for organizations to adhere to
safety standards (OSHA, 1970). When organizations, such as Water Co., expect all associates to
follow safety policies, they begin to develop a safety culture. Whether the organization was able
13
to develop a positive and effective safety culture was determinant on the commitment of senior
leaders and frontline associates.
Creating a Safety Culture
Senior leaders and frontline employees who were committed to promoting and adhering
to safety policies was integral in creating a positive and effective safety culture. According to
Olive, O’Conner, and Mannan (2006), it was necessary to obtain commitment from all
organizational levels in order to build a safety culture. Leadership directly influenced the safety
culture and participation and implementation of its policies (Jiang and Probst, 2016). Once senior
leaders committed to the safety culture, their subordinates have been influenced to as well (Olive
et al., 2006).
When leaders were committed to prioritizing safety, associates saw the substance behind
the expectations that were placed on them to perform in a safe manner. Committed organizations
that invest resources and time into safety culture were able to avoid unawareness or indifference
towards safety (Olive et al., 2006). Thus, it was integral for leaders to place less pressure on
meeting production numbers or reaching a certain amount of profit, especially if it endangered
associates, and more pressure on enforcing safety policies for associates to perform their jobs
successfully. Leaders who were directly involved in implementing a safety culture led associates
to believe that safety was a part of everyone’s responsibility and may have led them to believe
that safety was not solely professional, but also personal (Jiang and Probst, 2016; Olive et al.,
2006).
In order to build a positive safety culture, organizations needed to utilize meaningful
tools, such as a checklist. Huang, Kim, and Berry (2013) stated that it took a whole team effort to
create and build a safety culture, one that required respect across all levels, regardless of tenure.
14
When organizations were able to build a safety culture together, they were able to develop useful
tools to ensure continuity of the safety culture. It was essential for organizations to utilize a
safety checklist that was meaningful and that aligned with the current culture and work
environment in order for it to be an effective tool for employees (Huang et al., 2013). On the
other hand, if the checklists have no substance and did not relate to the associates, it could bring
a false sense of security or create division instead of teamwork (Huang et al., 2013). The
researchers customized the checklist for every location, according to their needs and
environment and in order for the customized checklist to be effective, it required buy-in from all
levels, including senior members (Huang et al., 2013).
In addition to checklists, another tool organizations can utilize were methods of safety
intervention when negative outcomes ensues (Ford and Tetrick, 2008). When employees were
violating any safety policies or exhibiting any unsafe behavior, leaders were to provide
immediate feedback, explaining how they were performing or behaving incorrectly, so that they
were made aware of the error; followed by goal-setting on how to curtail any future mishaps
(Ford and Tetrick, 2008). By utilizing the intervention methods in addition to increasing
participation and accountability of leadership, the safety culture would be more robust and
effective in organizations.
Accountability in Safety Culture
Once leaders built a culture that prioritized compliance to safety and utilize meaningful
tools to drive their focus, they were able to maintain a stable safety culture. In order to have a
robust safety culture, accountability was necessary to ensure everyone’s participation. Leaders
needed to believe and implement a safety culture on an operational and functional level by
setting processes and policies in place (Wyant, 2017). Furthermore, it was integral for the safety
15
culture to be a priority in all organizations and all associates should be proactive in addressing
various safety issues (Wyant, 2017). Similarly, Griggs (2014) discussed the safety culture, also
known as “just culture,” in the aviation industry, and how essential it was to avoid harsh
discipline on associates who made decisions that were aligned with their training and skills.
Creating a “just culture” by allowing associates to apply their knowledge and skills to all safety
aspects, ensured the process of a positive and effective safety culture. However, any negligence
or misconduct was also addressed and any associates who violated safety policies were held
accountable (Griggs, 2014). “Just culture” ensured that there was a positive safety culture, one
that encouraged issues to be addressed rather than being unreported due to fear of retaliation
(Wyant, 2017). Therefore, in order to build a positive safety culture, the perception of the culture
must be positive; people should not fear retaliation if they were to report a safety issue (Wyant,
2017). Wyant (2017) also discussed how taking a proactive approach by conducting risk
assessment and incident reporting was necessary for continual improvement.
Safety Climate and Safety Culture
Organizations tend to use the terms “safety climate” and “safety culture” interchangeably,
but there was a distinction between those that must be addressed (Petitta, Probst, Barbaranelli, &
Ghezzi, 2017). Fusing the two terms together may have led to misunderstandings and
misconceptions of how associates may view the policies versus having set policies. Furthermore,
if there were improvements that needed to be made in the processes, leaders needed to have the
distinction of whether there was an issue in the safety climate or the safety culture. Further
discussion of the distinction was addressed in the following section.
16
Differences Between Safety Climate and Safety Culture
To diminish any discrepancies and confusion, this section defined the difference between
safety climate and safety culture. Safety climate was more of a perception an employee had
about his work environment or policies set by the organization (Petitta et al., 2017). There were
four components that contributed to employees’ perceptions: how much management valued
safety (“management values”); how open the communication was with any concerns on safety
(“safety communication”); the amount and quality of training provided to employee (“safety
training”); and quality of current safety and its effectiveness (“safety systems”) (Petitta et al.,
2016). Despite safety climate being an employee’s perception of the safety policies, there was a
strong correlation of the quality of the employee’s work performance (Lin, Lin, Lou, 2016).
When employees of an organization shared the same perception of the safety climate, there was
more success to implementing safe practices (Lin et al., 2016). On the other hand, safety culture
was the norms, policies, values, and beliefs set by a group or organization, to meet the common
goal of risk management (Petitta, 2017). Furthermore, another distinction made by Petitta (2017)
was that safety culture was qualitative regarding values, norms, and beliefs versus safety climate
was based on perception, so it could be rated.
Safety Climate and Safety Culture Predictor of Safety Performance
There was a correlation to an organization’s safety climate and its safety culture to
predict the outcome of the safety performance. Griffin and Neal (2000) found that safety climate
was an indicator of knowledge and motivation of safety. Specifically, employees’ knowledge
revealed their understanding of safety policies, and their motivation was what inspired them to
learn the safety policies (Griffin & Neal, 2000). As a result, the knowledge and motivation of
employees’ safety climate affected the safety compliance (following the set standards and
17
policies) and participation (how much an employee practices and enforces safety policies)
(Griffin & Neal, 2000). The researchers found that they first had to distinguish employees’
perception of the organization and their behaviors in the organization in order to delve into
assessing the safety climate. Furthermore, they emphasized that an employee’s own perception
of the safety climate was integral to maintaining a safety environment, which then led to the
effectiveness of safety performance (Griffin & Neal, 2000).
Clarke (2006) analyzed the relationship between safety climate and employee
engagement and participation in safety. Safety climate was an indicator of the safety culture,
along with being an indicator of accidents or injuries of employees; when there was a good,
positive, and engaged safety climate, employees were less likely to partake in risky behavior that
caused accidents or injuries (Clarke, 2006). Furthermore, positive safety climate also meant
curtailing a “natural” habit or behavior of employees taking shortcuts which may have led to an
accident (Clarke, 2006). In other words, positive safety climate have led to safety knowledge,
which then led to compliance amongst employees (Clarke, 2006).
Challenges of Safety Culture
The onset of building a safety culture did not come into question until the Chernobyl
incident in 1986. Workers at the Chernobyl plant breached numerous violations, as they were
unprepared for the experiments conducted at the nuclear plant and lacked the supervision to carry
such dangerous tasks (National Library of Medicine, 1986). The Chernobyl accident led to dire
consequences of death and aftermath of contamination in the soil and ecosystem (Buntgen et al,
2019). Even after that incident, society struggled to combine technology with human behavior
(Melnikova, 2016). Melnikova (2016) delved into the importance of “human safety” and how the
social and natural environment of a person needed to fuse with the concept of safety. The
18
challenges of building and maintaining a safety culture was realizing on how to obtain the level
of “no more risk” by capitalizing and valuing human life, rather than productivity or profit
(Melnikova, 2016).
Improving Safety Culture
Once an organization was able to improve its safety culture, they were also able to
improve employee engagement. Hoenck (2019) discussed a method called “leadership rounding”
to improve employee engagement with safety. Leadership rounding involved following
consistent processes, feedback, and learning. Once an organization was able to tap into an
effective leadership rounding, they could get closer to the “Reaching for Zero” goal where there
were no safety accidents (Hoenck, 2019). Hoenck (2019) pointed out that prior to reaching that
goal, organizations needed to measure the current safety culture by having an employee
engagement survey. This would inform the organization of the state and sentiment of employees
regarding safety. Organizations needed to build trust and rapport in order to successfully improve
the safety culture (Hoenck, 2019). Furthermore, rounding allowed leaders to check-in directly
with frontline associates, observe and assess daily functions and duties, and address any
preventable actions. According to Hoenck (2019), to implement the rounding process,
organizations were to follow the five steps: “(a) knowledge, (b) persuasion, (c) decision, (d)
implementation, and (e) confirmation” (Sahin, 2006, p. 13). Once an organization honed those
steps of the rounding method, they were able to improve the safety culture.
In addition to the leadership rounding method, Reniers, Cremer, and Buytaert (2011)
emphasized the need for everyone to be involved when it came to improvement in safety culture
by utilizing the “Improvement Diamond for Excellence Achievement and Leadership in Safety
and Security (IDEAL S&S).” The Plan, Do, Act, Check was modeled after the Deming Cycle,
19
with the addition of long-term and short-term goals. Reniers et al. (2011) stated that the long-
term and short-term goals must align with improving the safety culture and the company
objectives. Specifically, long-term goals would be management objectives that were utilized to
continually improve the safety culture while short-term goals were focused on the climate
assessment on improvements (Reniers et al., 2011).
Barriers of Establishing and Evolving Safety Culture
There were barriers that existed within organizations when creating and implementing a
safety culture. Farokhzadian, Nayeri, and Borhani (2018) recognized the barriers of achieving
effective safety culture, especially in the healthcare industry. Generally, safety should be a top
priority of concern, especially when dealing with patients or human life. Throughout the years,
there has been increasing complexities and cases of patient safety and remaining in compliance
or low risk to patient safety. The majority of those cases were preventable, with the
implementation of a proper safety culture. Farokhzadian et al. (2018) identified challenges that
inhibited the progress of building or maintaining a safety culture such as lack of resources,
unsafe work conditions, ineffective leadership and communication, resistance to change and
inability to adapt, failure to provide recognition to build teamwork. Furthermore, the process of
change in an environment or organization was a barrier (Bithell, 2009). During times of change,
people were quick to blame others for mishaps, but it was integral to gather all information
(Bithell, 2009). According to Bithell (2009), during times of change, it was essential for all,
including senior leaders, to take the change and improvement of the safety culture as a priority,
despite the challenges they faced.
20
Outcomes of Poor Safety Culture
When organizations have a poor safety culture, there were ramifications that followed.
Even when organizations were certified, if leaders were not consistent with its practices, the
certifications were not effective in curtailing accidents. The Occupational Health and Safety
Assessment Series (OHSAS) 18001 stated that companies that were certified with OHSAS
should have a stable safety policy, positive safety culture, and adherence to the certification.
Unfortunately, these certified companies have not been successful at maintaining the certification
and safety culture (Ghahramani, 2017). Ghahramani (2017) stated that having a stable and
compliant safety management system and culture shows that there was a high level of
commitment from the managerial level. They found that follow-ups were rare and inconsistent
with non-certified and certified organizations. Specifically, certified companies had good safety
procedures, but there was a lack of upkeeping and maintenance of those procedures. These
shortcomings showed that even though organizations may be certified, they still lacked
consistent safety practices (Ghahramani, 2017).
The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) analyzed in detail the performance gaps between current goals
and future goals necessary to achieve success. Specifically, Clark and Estes (2008) delved into
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors when it came to gaps in performance and
goals. As the researchers conducted a gap analysis study in relation with knowledge, motivation,
and organization, they were able to reveal various perceptions held by individuals and groups.
Krathwohl (2002) identified four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive. The four types of knowledge were essential to successful performance
results. Furthermore, Rueda (2011) referred to the four types of knowledge dimensions and
21
expanded the six levels of cognitive process which were remember, understand, apply, analyze,
evaluate, and create. Rueda (2011) also defined motivation as an individual’s determination to
reach a goal and the motivational variables consisting of self-efficacy, attributions, values, goals,
goal orientation, and motivational beliefs. Organizational factors consisted of processes, work
groups, resources, and culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The components of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis were addressed in this study
regarding the Sales Service Representatives’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
of implementing safety policies and culture in their job duties, leading to 100% compliance in
assessments and 0% in accidents, by the end of 2021. The first section discussed the stakeholder
(SSR) knowledge and motivation influences in regard to stakeholder goals, followed by the next
section which discussed stakeholders (SSR) achieving their goals with the motivational
influences. Finally, the assumed influences were discussed in the organizational context and
stakeholder goal achievement. In Chapter 3, the assumed stakeholder knowledge, motivation,
and organizational factors were analyzed and thoroughly discussed with methodology.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) utilized the conceptual framework to analyze performance gaps
that intwined with the problem of practice. With the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis, the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences were analyzed regarding SSRs’ and
Water Co.’s goal of achieving zero vehicle accidents. The study focused on three knowledge
influences of SSRs’ factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge. The motivational influences
of SSRs were focused on self-efficacy and value. The organizational influences of Water Co.
were based on cultural models and cultural settings of how they provided tools, resources, and
support to SSRs on achieving the organizational goal.
22
Knowledge and Skills
Applying knowledge-based literature and influences were important to address when
examining the achievement of the stakeholder goal. In the instance of SSRs in Water Co., it was
pertinent for them to possess the requisite knowledge and skills to achieve their goals of
implementing safety policies and safety culture in their job duties, while decreasing the number
of vehicle accidents, increasing customer base, and driving revenue. The three knowledge types
that were examined consisted of factual, conceptual, and procedural knowledge.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), uncovering and improving knowledge and skills,
and applying those attributes with the organizational goals was vital to remain competitive and
successful in today’s world. Thus, the authors suggested that employees should be treated as
capital by investing in them to increase their knowledge and skills to meet the goals of the
organization. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized the importance of knowledge and skills when
uncovering gap analysis and meeting organizational goals. Employees were required to be
knowledgeable of how to perform their job duties in order to achieve set goals and to have the
skill to problem-solve when challenges arise (Clark & Estes, 2008). The literature reviewed and
analyzed on knowledge and skills was necessary for the achievement of stakeholder goals.
SSRs Need to Understand Safety Policies
The first knowledge influence relevant to SSRs and their goal was that SSRs need to
understand the safety policy, including violations of motor vehicles. This knowledge influence
was factual knowledge since SSRs required the basic elements of safety policy and they must
understand how knowledge in policies would assist them to solve issues (Krathwohl, 2002).
Krathwohl (2002) discussed the four types of knowledge, one being factual and the six levels of
cognitive processes, which were “remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create.” For
23
factual knowledge, learners were able to remember and understand what they were learning, and
once they did, they were able to achieve their goals (Rueda, 2011). Raupach, Munscher, Pukrop,
Anders, and Harendza (2010) found that implementing factual knowledge-type questions on
online modules were more effective with learners retaining information.
Additionally, with factual knowledge, the learner became more proficient in the task or
lesson and soon it became automatic for them to exhibit their knowledge into action (Rueda,
2011). It was important for learners to fully grasp and understand the task at hand or else they
would not become proficient enough to achieve their goal. For SSRs, they must understand the
safety policies and motor vehicle violations in order to remain compliant and prevent any
accidents. SSRs who were knowledgeable of the policies and violations were able to better
perform, since they were more aware of preventing accidents, and thus were able to meet their
goal of implementing safety policies into their job duties, while decreasing and potentially
preventing accidents.
Organizations were focused on providing adequate training to improve the workforce,
remain competitive, and equip associates with necessary problem-solving skills (Grossman &
Salas, 2011). Employees may have perceived safety training as a waste of time, but it was
invaluable when it was perceived as an investment in the employees (Rifath & Blair, 2018).
There were numerous benefits that follow trainings, which were productivity, increased morale,
and improved quality, which in the end, was advantageous for the organization (Grossman &
Salas, 2011; Rifath & Blair, 2018). Without proper training, the learner was not able to
successfully perform, stagnating the problem-solving process and creating troubles in the future
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that learners must be provided the
information on how to get the job done for them to recall and be self-efficient to problem-solve.
24
In other words, Rueda (2011) stated that for the learner to engage in the cognitive process, they
must remember the material and understand it, followed by analyzing the material and its
implementation (Rueda, 2011). Thus, it was integral for SSRs to be thoroughly trained and
knowledgeable of safety practices, driving regulations, defensive driving techniques, and
company policies. By properly and regularly training SSRs, they were able to apply their
knowledge and conduct safe practices while driving company vehicles.
SSRs Need to Know Objectives and Purposes of Safety Training
The second knowledge influence for SSRs was they needed to know the objectives and
purpose of safety training. This knowledge influence was conceptual since according to
Krathwohl (2002), the knowledge of objectives and purpose of safety training interacted with the
organizational structure and expectations. Accordingly, conceptual knowledge was unearthing
the wide range of concepts, consisting of general ideas (Achmetli, Schukajlow, & Rakoczy,
2019). Krathwohl (2002) stated that conceptual knowledge was complex and organized in order
to know the ‘what.’ Organizations were focused on providing adequate training to improve the
workforce, remain competitive, and equip associates with necessary problem-solving skills
(Grossman & Salas, 2011). Grossman and Salas (2011) emphasized the benefits that follow
trainings, which were productivity, increased morale, and improved quality. Without proper
training, the learner was not able to successfully perform, stagnating the problem-solving process
and creating troubles in the future (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that
learners must be provided the information on how to get the job done for them to recall and be
self-efficient to problem-solve. In other words, Rueda (2011) stated that for the learner to engage
in the cognitive process, they must remember the material and understand it, followed by
analyzing the material and its implementation. Distinguishing and differentiating problems was
25
an essential part of a learner’s conceptual knowledge (Meulders, Vandael, & Vlaeyen, 2017).
Researchers found that when learners’ conceptual knowledge were emphasized, they were better
equipped to handle real-world situations (Achmetli et al., 2019). Knowing how the objectives
and purpose of safety training affected the SSRs’ performance and job status was integral to
meeting their own stakeholder goal of zero accidents. Once SSRs understood the purpose of
being properly trained, they would implement the safety policies and culture in their job duties.
SSRs Need to Demonstrate Safe Driving Practices
The third knowledge influence was SSRs needed to demonstrate safe driving practices.
This knowledge influence was procedural since according to Krathwohl (2002), demonstrating
safe driving practices was the knowledge of how to perform or do. Although procedural
knowledge has been identified as a combination of declarative and conditional knowledge, there
was a distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge; the former answering “what”
while the latter was answering “how” (Fabio and Antonietti, 2012; Aguisnis and Kraiger, 2009).
In the context of SSRs, they needed to exhibit procedural knowledge by applying both “what”
and “how” in utilizing their knowledge from training and applying it to their job duties in order
to decrease the number of vehicle accidents. Once the SSRs were equipped with necessary
information on how to perform their jobs, which in this case was demonstrating safe driving
practices, they were able to apply their knowledge and be self-sufficient in their roles. Procedural
knowledge was necessary for learners to know specific details about their positions as opposed to
learners honing general knowledge about the job (Motowidlo & Beier, 2010).
Table 2 exhibited the organizational mission as well as the organizational and stakeholder
goal. The knowledge influence of SSRs, along with knowledge type was provided, followed by
the knowledge influence assessment of respective categories.
26
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment
Organizational Mission
To be the top water service provider to all consumers.
Organizational Global Goal
Water Co. strives for 100% accident-free amongst its drivers. Water Co. believes that all
accidents are preventable, emphasizing the priority of practicing safety at all times.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2021, SSRs will implement safety policies and safety culture in their job duties, while
decreasing the number of vehicle accidents, increasing customer base, and driving revenue.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
SSRs need to understand the
safety policy, including
violations of motor
vehicles.
Factual Surveys demonstrating SSRs’
knowledge of safety and
policies while driving on
the road.
SSRs need to know
objectives and purposes of
safety training.
Conceptual Surveys were conducted to
determine SSRs’
knowledge of objectives
and purposes of safety
training.
SSRs need to demonstrate
safe driving practices.
Procedural Reports demonstrating SSRs’
ability to exhibit safe
driving practices.
Motivation
Motivation-related influences were critical when examining the process and achievement
of the SSRs’ goals. Mayer (2011) defined academic motivation as a student’s willingness to
learn and understand the material. If the learner was not willing to dissect the information,
meaningful learning may not occur (Mayer, 2011). Pintrich (2003) looked at motivation in a
27
scientific perspective and found that students who were self-regulatory were able to hone
motivation to further their learning process. Motivation was necessary in the process of SSRs
achieving their goals because without it, SSRs would not have the self-efficacy skills or hold
value in learning new information, undergoing training, and applying their knowledge to their
fields. The two motivational theories discussed were self-efficacy and value regarding SSRs’
motivation to meeting their goals.
Sales Service Representatives’ Self-Efficacy
Individuals need self-efficacy to hold themselves accountable; without it, they were
unable to meet their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Pajares (2006) stated that self-efficacy was
rooted in motivation; individuals must believe that their efforts brought results in order to
maintain their level of motivation. Self-efficacy determined one’s behavior; those who have high
levels of efficacy had the ability to self-regulate their learning and become successful meeting
their goals (Pajares, 2006). Furthermore, instructors were urged to consider their pupil’s level of
self-efficacy and perception of learning in order to gauge the likelihood of motivation and
success in the organization (Pajares, 2006). Denler, Wolters, and Benzon (2006) added that
students who were confident in their own abilities and learning (self-efficacy) were more
effective in overcoming challenges and meeting goals. Clark and Estes (2008) distinguished the
“Types of Knowledge and Skill Enhancement” and shared how training was a method of
showing how to perform a job or acquire the knowledge or skill. However, undergoing training
to obtain the skills to perform a job was one aspect of a successful employee and there was an
element of self-efficacy needed in the process of growth and accountability.
A study was conducted with flight dispatchers’ stressors and job satisfaction in relation to
self-efficacy with the flight dispatchers (Liu, Song, & Wang, 2011). The researchers found that
28
stress had a high correlation with the flight dispatchers’ self-efficacy, especially since their roles
and duties entailed high-level psychological responsibilities (Liu et al., 2011). In order to curtail
a high turnover and to mitigate low job satisfaction, the researchers found that employers must
hire individuals with high self-efficacy in order to remain in the job while having high job
satisfaction (Liu et al., 2011). The same applied for SSRs who had a high labor-intensive job;
SSRs with high self-efficacy would regulate themselves and their expectations. When SSRs
underwent training of defensive driving techniques, new policies and regulations, along with
expectations, those with high self-efficacy were able to control their learning environment and
were confident to exhibit their knowledge. SSRs who regulated their own behavior and
knowledge were able to follow protocol and confidently perform their job duties. Moreover, the
ability to perform their job duties was affected by their health. Wilson, Wolf, and Olszewski
(2018) found that truck drivers had a high rate of obesity and had a shorter life expectancy than
others, thus their ability to perform their tasks on the road were interrupted with health problems
and chronic illnesses. The researchers found that by implementing self-efficacy of maintaining a
healthier diet and losing weight led to a decrease in BMI (Wilson et al., 2018). By implementing
self-efficacy in the truck drivers’ habits, the truck drivers were able to change their behaviors and
habits and produce a positive outcome in performing their duties and meeting their goals (Wilson
et al., 2018).
A study has been conducted with drivers and their self-efficacy with driving while under
the influence. Since the drivers were impaired with alcohol, Roberts and Fillmore (2017) found
that many impaired drivers had high self-efficacy that led to the detriment of their perceived
ability to drive compared to their actual ability to drive. In this case, impaired drivers needed to
utilize lower self-efficacy to become more aware of their own behaviors (Roberts & Fillmore,
29
2017). On the other hand, those who were not impaired were expected to utilize self-efficacy to
perform their duties successfully. SSRs need to have self-efficacy to hold themselves
accountable to apply the material from the training (safety training, refresher course, or a
reminder in a huddle) into their job duties. Doing so would enable the likelihood of their success
in meeting their goals.
Bandura (2005) stated that collective efficacy was also necessary and growing due to
globalization and humans were social and do not function in isolation. Bandura’s statement holds
true to the collaborative effort of the Safety Department and SSRs. If the Safety Department and
SSRs did not show collective efficacy, of bouncing off ideas to one another, sharing tips and
pointers, updating on policies and laws, then they would not successfully meet organizational
stakeholder goals. Studies have shown that teams who possess high collective efficacy were
successful in their interactions, production, and performance with one another (Alavi &
McCormick, 2017). In this instance, the Safety Department were the leaders who needed to
possess self-efficacy in order to influence the team or SSRs to practice seamlessly in collective
efficacy. Successful leaders who were able to influence their teams with collective efficacy were
able to establish trust, positive working relationships, and increase productivity (Xiong & Fang,
2014).
SSRs Need to See the Value of a Safety Culture
Individuals who placed value behind safety culture were more likely to succeed in
meeting organizational goals. Rueda (2011) shared the motivational variables and stated that in
order to achieve the goals, individuals needed to attach how important and valuable the goal was
to their tasks. Furthermore, Clark and Estes (2008) discussed that individuals must understand
and see the value behind the goal in order to work towards the goal. A study conducted by
30
Montoro et al. (2019) showed the correlation between a driver’s perceived value and their
adaptation and utilization of autonomous vehicles. Once drivers found value in the autonomous
vehicles and safety features, they had the buy-in to use it for their advantage for transporting
goods (Montoro et al., 2019). Likewise, SSRs needed to find value in their stakeholder goal of
implementing safety policies and culture in order to decrease accidents. They were expected to
also find value behind the policies and protocols that Safety Department implemented and
expected of them to perform their duties in a safe and compliant manner.
Another study conducted by Mouter, Cranenburg, and Wee (2018) showed how
individuals’ values on perceived safety differed as citizens and as drivers. Although the
individuals valued safety, researchers found that when they were the drivers, their perception of
accident-risk was low as compared to when they were playing the role as a citizen (Mouter,
2018). Arguably, there have been discussions on how to weave those two perceptions (citizen
and driver) together to create a harmonious value of road safety, such as presenting the number
of deaths caused by accidents to curtail risky driving behavior (Mouter, 2018). Nonetheless, it
was vital for SSRs, whether they played the role as a citizen or driver, to find value of
minimizing vehicle accidents in order to meet their goals. If SSRs were unable to discover the
value behind organizational goals of preventing accidents, they would not be aligned with the
training materials presented to them, and they would not comply with the safety culture. SSRs
who found value behind the expectations and policies set by the Safety Department were able to
participate in the collective efficacy of meeting goals.
Grossman and Salas (2011) discussed perceived utility and value when associated with
training; learners who found training valuable got more out of the session than those who held no
value to what they were learning. Learners who found the connection between the value of the
31
material and how it affected their performance were able to be more successful in meeting their
goals (Grossman & Salas, 2011). For new drivers, prior to obtaining their license, they were
required to undergo training due to the high accident rate with younger and inexperienced drivers
(Mayhew & Simpson, 2002). When effective training was executed and pupils valued what they
are learning, there was more success in minimizing accident rates (Mayhew & Simpson, 2002).
The importance behind providing safety training to new drivers was to make it applicable to
possible collisions the new drivers may face. Furthermore, new drivers must have the motivation
and seek value behind the training in order to implement what they have learned (Mayhew &
Simpson, 2002). Thus, the Safety Department must design their safety training to make the
materials applicable to the SSRs’ routes and possible accidents they may face. Doing so would
enable SSRs to find value in the training provided to them, and potentially decrease the number
of accidents on the road.
Table 3 showed the motivational indicators for the improvement model, followed by
assumed motivational influences and motivational influence assessment.
32
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
To be the top water service provider to all consumers.
Organizational Global Goal
Water Co. strives for 100% accident-free amongst its drivers. Water Co. believes that all
accidents are preventable, emphasizing the priority of practicing safety at all times.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2021, SSRs will implement safety policies and safety culture in their job duties, while
decreasing the number of vehicle accidents, increasing customer base, and driving revenue.
Motivational Indicator(s)
Safety culture is still forming; there is no complete buy-in from SSRs and management. Thus, the
need for motivating and integrating safety behaviors is integral to promoting compliance.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Self-efficacy – SSRs need to believe they can
follow/perform safety policies while
performing their job duties.
Surveys asking their confidence in
performing safety policies. Questions on
whether they believe they exhibit their
beliefs and confidence in their duties.
Value – SSRs need to see the importance of
safety culture.
Surveys asking how valuable they think
safety is and the value behind a safety
culture. Questions asking if safety
culture/policies are to assist and improve
their work and for their viewpoint on how
much they place value in the
implementation of safety policies.
Organization
Organizations with strong resources, processes, and culture were able to meet goals and
close performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Thus, it was necessary to understand how the
33
organization was shaped by cultural settings and cultural models by identifying organizational
gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) stated that organizational gaps occur when
there was a misalignment of processes and goals with the organizational policies. The possibility
of closing the gap was not only to have an individual equipped with knowledge, skills, and
motivation, but also for the work policies to be aligned with the process and goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Furthermore, closing the gap and implementing change could only be successful if
culture was recognized as a key component. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that culture was a
work process since organizational culture revealed the values, norms, and identity of the work
group. Furthermore, recognizing that every organization, groups within that organization, and
individuals have their own unique culture was helpful when considering how they integrate with
change (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowing what shaped an individual’s beliefs, values, and
perspective and aligning their culture with the organization’s created values and norms would
make change more successful (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Cultural Settings and Cultural Models
Cultural settings and cultural models shape organizational influences. Identifying the
influences within the organization and recognizing how they were tied in with the cultural
settings and cultural models was needed to make improvements and changes (Clark & Estes,
2008). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) stated that culture was an integral factor to sculpting
and interacting with values, norms, and practices in a setting, such as an organization. They
defined cultural settings as two or more individuals working together to achieve a goal while
cultural models were defined as a shared idea or understanding of functions or process
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). It was vital for any organization to recognize the value and
meaning of cultural settings and cultural models if any improvements were to be made (Kezar,
34
2001). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) identified four elements that drive change when
cultural models were used in an organization: having a shared goal, knowing how success was
measured, having capable individuals help others, and having a strong and supportive leader. By
incorporating the cultural models with the cultural settings, individuals could utilize the four
elements listed to begin improving their practice and working with those who were also involved
in the project or task.
Need for a Culture of “Safety First”
Antonsen (2016) discussed the relation between organizational culture and safety culture
and how they influenced the implementation and exhibition of safety practices. Antonsen (2016)
mentioned the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion where the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) deemed that due to the “poor safety culture” in
conjunction with the Soviet’s culture, it led to is catastrophic demise. Specifically, their safety
culture and Soviet culture led them to haphazard practices that they did not even recognize as
hazardous or dangerous. Even when organizations are OSHA certified, many of them have
shortcomings due to their poor safety culture (Ghahramani, 2017). For one, the lack of
engagement from leaders and associates have led to performing tasks haphazardly or inability to
maintain their current safety protocols and risk assessments (Ghahramani, 2017). Although it
took years to build a robust culture of “safety first,” there were positive results that were yielded
from strong participation from leaders and associates (Ghahramani, 2017).
Need for Understanding Culture Amongst Front Line Associates
Knowing the culture, sentiment, values, and beliefs of an organization revealed how
strongly associates perceive safety culture. Chib and Kanetkar (2014) stated that associates who
openly accepted the safety culture in their organization tend to exhibit safer practices. Chib and
35
Kanetkar (2014) discussed the psychological (aka “safety climate,” the sentiment associates feel
of safety policies and management); behavioral (the actions and behaviors of associates in
relation to safety); and situational aspects (the organization’s process and procedures set in
place) of safety culture and its alignment with associates. Taking these aspects into
consideration, Chib and Kanetkar (2014) found that associate sentiment and understanding of
safety policies and safety culture was strongly associated with safety performance and prevention
of accidents. Interestingly, since the concept of culture was a formulation of various perceptions,
values, and ideals, there was room for safety culture to be misinterpreted and superficial
(Guldenmund, 2010). It was essential for associates to understand the concept and meaning
behind safety culture for them to exhibit safer practices. Thus, implementing a strong safety
management system was necessary for organizations to maintain their priority in safety
(Guldenmund, 2010). Furthermore, leaders were expected to understand the safety management
system since they were tasked with encouraging associates to abide by safety policies and
ensuring that associates understood what was expected of them with safety (Guldenmund, 2010).
Provide Training and Support as a Preventative Measure
Blair and Seo (2007) stated that when effective safety training that was aligned with the
organizational and safety culture, was provided to employees, positive results of performance
ensued. The researchers pointedly clarified that treating training as the cure-all answer was
fruitless. Furthermore, they stated that trainers must perceive training as an ongoing process,
rather than a one-time fix (Blair & Seo, 2007). The training program must also be aligned with
the organizational goals and culture for it to be effectively implemented (Blair & Seo, 2007).
Burke et al. (2006) compared different types of safety training, ranging from the least
engaging to the most. The least engaging consisted of less time and involvement from the trainer
36
or leader compared to the most engaging method where the trainer or leader would continually
provide hands-on training (Burke et al., 2006). Despite the most engaging method being the most
time-consuming, the researchers found that those were the most effective way in having
associates understand and value the training (Burke et al., 2006). Doing so ensured that the
learners were exhibiting understanding and allowed time for the trainers to observe and redirect
if the learner was struggling (Burke et al., 2006). When it comes to the SSRs, hands-on training
was the best method for them to understanding and value the safety policies and as a method to
curtail any vehicle accidents. SSRs were all required to undergo and pass the Smith System
training which entailed defensive driving techniques and key safety points for successful driving,
but despite the lecture-style training provided, SSRs continued to get into accidents. Thus,
further mediation and time commitment was necessary to equip SSRs with thorough safety
training.
Need Exemplifiers on How to Perform Their Duties Safely and Efficiently
When inexperienced individuals were provided the resource of a mentor or exemplifier,
they were more successful in performing their duties safety and efficiently. In the clinical
industry, they have “clinical champions” who exhibited and implemenedt safety practices and
culture in an organization (Zavalkoff, Korah, & Quach, 2015). These clinical champions ensured
timeliness and responsiveness to all things related to safety, especially since hospital-acquired
infections (HAI) led to a high death rate of 99,000 deaths in the United Sates (Zavalkoff et al.,
2015). Specifically, for this study, the researchers focused on catheter-associated urinary tract
infections (CAUTI) which had a death rate of 2.3% (Zavalkoff et al., 2015). To combat this
issue, the clinical champion brought awareness of the issue to the organization, followed by
implementing a policy that was created with the participation of staff, and finally exemplified
37
how to perform certain tasks properly to avoid any infections (Zavalkoff et al., 2015). The
presence of the clinical champion to model proper safety procedures decreased CAUTI by 17%
(Zavalkoff et al., 2015). Furthermore, by utilizing clinical champions in this case, its exemplary
influence spread into other practices in the healthcare system, improving the safety outcome
(Zavalkoff et al., 2015).
The need for exemplifiers and model, experienced drivers was necessary for SSRs to
perform their jobs safely and successfully. When researchers conducted a study to test hazardous
predictions of experienced and inexperienced drivers, they found that the experienced drivers
were not deterred by the hazards on the roads and were able to effortlessly drive through them
(Crundall, 2016). Additionally, Borowsky, Shinar, and Oron-Gilad (2010) shared that
experienced drivers were able to predict or plan ahead when driving through hazardous roads
while inexperienced drivers were mainly focused on the immediate task or road ahead without
thinking further of their next steps, in which they called it “hazard perception,” the skill of
reading the road (p.1240). Although predicting and working through hazards were not
completely effortless, Crundall found that it was more so effortless with experienced drivers,
indicating that when it came to driving safely, experience and exemplifiers were necessary for
SSRs to conduct their duties in a safe manner. Experienced and exemplified drivers had a higher
level of “hazard perception” than the novice drivers; utilizing exemplified drivers to team with
inexperienced drivers would be beneficial in decreasing vehicle accidents (Borowsky et al.,
2010).
Table 4 showed the organizational mission, organizational global goal, stakeholder goal,
along with assumed organizational influences, organizational influence assessment, research-
based recommendation or solution principle, and proposed solution.
38
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
To be the top water service provider to all consumers.
Organizational Global Goal
Water Co. strives for 100% accident-free amongst its drivers. Water Co. believes that all accidents are
preventable, emphasizing the priority of practicing safety at all times.
Stakeholder Goal
By 2021, SSRs will implement safety policies and safety culture in their job duties, while decreasing the
number of vehicle accidents, increasing customer base, and driving revenue.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment
Cultural Models
The organization needs a culture of “safety
first” in order to encourage positive safety
practices daily.
Survey SSRs’ sentiment and viewpoint on “safety
first” and the safety culture.
The organization needs to be an open-minded
and understanding culture that embraces
changes to safety policies.
Survey questions asking how open-minded they
are to new policies, current policies, and their
understanding/interpretation of policies.
Cultural Settings
The organization needs provide training and
support as a preventative measure, rather
than reactive measures in response to
accidents.
Survey on whether training is effective as a
reaction to an accident.
The organization needs to have exemplifiers on
how to perform their duties safely and
efficiently.
Survey on how Service managers perform as
exemplifiers for SSRs to perform their duties
safely and efficiently.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
Maxwell (2013) defined a conceptual framework as an accumulation of beliefs,
expectations, and theories that provided sustenance for the research. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
39
defined a conceptual framework as the structure or frame of the study, which included various
theories to support the study. The purpose of the conceptual framework was to provide a
guideline or map on what the research entailed and why certain outcomes were occurring
(Maxwell, 2013).
This study utilized the KMO theory presented by Clark and Estes (2008). In order to
identify and resolve performance gaps and have a framework to successfully achieve goals,
Clark and Estes (2008) discussed the knowledge, motivation, and organization. When
organizations began to delve into the knowledge and skills of individuals, along with
understanding how motivation weaves into those aspects, combined with the culture and setting
of an organization, they were then able to analyze the gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore,
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that employees, resources, and motivation interacted with the
organizational culture. This study presented various influencers that were independent of each
other, however, they were not exclusive or isolated from one another. Based on the research
questions above, the KMO influences interacted with each other. The interaction of influences
was demonstrated by Figure 1.
40
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Organization – Water Co.
Cultural Model 1 – There needs to be a culture of “safety first” amongst
front line associates in order to exhibit safety practices daily.
Cultural Model 2 – There needs to be an open-minded and understanding
culture/sentiment amongst front line associates of the safety policies.
Cultural Setting 1 – Service managers need time to provide training and
support to Sales Service Representatives (SSR) as a preventative measure,
rather than reactive measure for possible accidents
Cultural Setting 2 – SSRs need exemplifiers on how to perform their
duties safely and efficiently
SSR
Knowledge: factual - SSRs need to
understand the safety policy, including
violations of motor vehicles. Conceptual –
SSRs need to know objectives and purposes of
safety training. Procedural – SSRs need to
demonstrate safe driving practices.
Motivation: self-efficacy – SSRs must have
confidence to follow through on safety
policies while performing their job duties.
Value – SSRs need to see the importance of
safety culture.
Goal for Stakeholder - SSR
SSRs will implement safety policies and safety
culture in their job duties, while decreasing the
number of vehicle accidents, increasing customer
base, and driving revenue.
41
As demonstrated in the blue circle, Water Co.’s organizational influence that has been
focused in this study was the need for the culture of “safety first” amongst front line associates in
order to exhibit safety practices daily (Ghahramani, 2017). Another cultural model influence
depicted in the blue circle, was that the organization needed to have an open-minded culture that
embraces changes to safety policies. The culture setting influence in the blue circle showed that
the organization also needed to provide safety training and employee support as a preventative
measure, rather than reactive measure in response to accidents. Finally, the final culture setting
influence in the blue circle showed that SSRs needed exemplifiers on how to perform their duties
safely and efficiently. Since SSRs were directly involved with the organization, their knowledge
and motivation were depicted in the orange circle, which was within the blue circle.
Inside the orange circle, the first knowledge influence necessary for a “safety first”
culture was that SSRs needed to understand the safety policy, including violations of motor
vehicles. The second procedural knowledge influence was that SSRs needed to demonstrate safe
driving practices. Rifath and Blair (2018) discussed how employees should be treated as human
capital, thus investing in training was vital to the whole organization’s success. Clark and Estes
(2008) also stated that human capital was important and should be portrayed as such by investing
in training. By implementing engaging and relatable training material on safety, organizations
could create buy-in and participation from employees (Rifath & Blair, 2018). In the case for
SSRs, when they were treated as valuable human capital, and Water Co. provided adequate and
relatable safety training to increase their knowledge and skills, SSRs would be able to absorb the
training and gain motivation to meet their goals. This was how the knowledge piece interacted
with motivation; without the knowledge, SSRs would have a motivational gap.
42
Along with the knowledge influences, the motivational influences were also inside the
same orange circle. The first motivational influence was self-efficacy where SSRs must have
confidence to follow through on safety policies while performing their job duties. The second
motivational influence was value where SSRs need to see the importance of safety culture.
Employees were more likely to engage in safety practices and trainings when they have the
motivation. Ford and Tetrick (2008) emphasized the need for self-efficacy (individuals gauging
their own performance and how to get themselves to meet goals) and safety motivation
(individual’s initiating safety behaviors when situations arise) in order to have employees aligned
with the safety culture. When SSRs have self-efficacy where they gauge their own knowledge,
skills, and motivation, they were able to find value in the safety culture and implement their
practices into the organization. Thus, showing how knowledge along with motivation was
necessary to build an engaging safety culture.
Finally, the arrow from the blue and orange circle indicated that with Water Co.’s
organizational model and setting, and with the SSRs directly involved in the process with their
knowledge and motivation, it led to the SSRs’ goal to implement safety policies and safety
culture into their job duties with 100% compliance, while decreasing number of vehicle
accidents to 0%, increasing customer base, and driving revenue by 2021. To reach the goal, it
was vital to recognize the interactions of the KMO (Clark & Estes, 2008). Specifically, if SSRs
did not have the factual and procedural knowledge of safety policies and protocols, then they
were not motivated to see the value of a safety culture or to have self-efficacy to implement
strategies to resolve issues (Rueda, 2011). To achieve the “safety first” culture at Water Co., they
must understand how that concept interacts with SSRs’ knowledge and skills of safety practices
43
and policies, followed by how they were motivated to implement those practices into their job
duties.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to understand how SSRs implement safety policies and
safety culture in their job duties, while decreasing the number of vehicle accidents, increasing
customer base, and driving revenue. The organizational goal was to provide safe operation of
motor vehicles that were driven in connection with company vehicles, with 100% compliance in
safety assessments and zero vehicle accidents. This literature review discussed how the gap
analysis identified and analyzed the current performance level to the goal performance level in
the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). The gap analysis regarding knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) was utilized to delve into the conceptual framework in this study. The
knowledge and motivational influences of the SSRs were reviewed in relation to the existing
literature. Specifically, the knowledge influences consisted of factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge of the SSRs’ to implement safe driving to align with the organizational goal
(Krathwohl, 2002; Grossman and Salas, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Motivational influences of self-
efficacy and value were discussed to determine the confidence and perception of the importance
of safety culture and safety policies (Pajares, 2006; Bandura, 2005; Grossman & Salas, 2011).
The organizational influences of the cultural model and settings emphasized the need for a
“safety first” culture, open-minded understanding of the safety culture, the need for training and
support, and the need for exemplifiers on how SSRs were expected to perform their duties safely
and efficiently. The next Chapter will explain the methodological approach and validation of the
KMO influences.
44
Chapter 3: Methods
This study dived into Water Co.’s organizational goal of decreasing AFR with SSRs and
the strategies to effectively implement changes to decrease vehicle accidents. This chapter
discussed the research design and methods for data collection and analysis. The research
questions for the study were:
1. What is the SSRs’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing safety policies
and culture in job duties?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the SSRs’
knowledge and motivation to implement safety policies and culture in their job
duties?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources related to SSRs implementing safety policies
and culture in their job duties?
The methodological approach was quantitative by utilizing surveys to gather data and
qualitative with document analysis to support the findings. The quantitative data was on surveys
with census sampling, which was gathered at the beginning of the data collection process, then
evaluated with document analysis. The surveys were cross-sectional where data was gathered at
once in order to provide an explanation of trends of the population (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Following the quantitative analysis, the qualitative data utilized in this study was document
analysis. The surveys provide information to support the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. The surveys combined with document analysis addressed the research
questions of the knowledge and motivation of SSRs in relation to conducting safe operation of
motor vehicles; the interaction between organizational culture and SSRs’ knowledge and
45
motivation to conduct safe operation of motor vehicles; and address recommendations for
organizational practice in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources
related to conducting safe operation of motor vehicles. Once data has been collected and
analyzed with surveys, document analysis has been utilized to review the safety materials,
training, and other materials focused on safety in relation with the SSRs. Originally, conducting
interviews was part of the mixed methods of gathering and analyzing data. Unfortunately, for
this study, conducting interviews was restricted due to the researcher’s separation of employment
from the company.
The following sections outline the participating stakeholders (SSRs), along with an
explanation and criteria of survey sampling, data collection, and data analysis, followed by the
validity, ethics, and any dilemmas or limitations that may occur during this process.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus is the Sales Service Representatives (SSRs) in the
southern division of California. The 232 SSRs in the southern division were the frontline
associates who were the face of the company. The SSRs were chosen as the focus stakeholder
group since they have the interactions and relationships with the customers, they have the ability
to drive sales and revenue, and they were expected to achieve the organization’s goal of 100%
compliance in safety policies and 0% vehicle accidents. The SSRs’ goal was to implement safety
policies and safety culture in their job duties, while decreasing the number of vehicle accidents,
increasing customer base, and driving revenue.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated that mixed methods consist of quantitative and
qualitative research. For this study, explanatory sequential mixed methods of gathering
46
quantitative data followed by qualitative data, has been utilized. Thus, the census sampling was
implemented by recruiting all SSRs in Southern California in order to obtain total population
participation and to obtain the quantitative data. The census was generated at the beginning of
the data collection process. The census sampling was then evaluated and supported with
qualitative data on document analysis. Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated that with explanatory
sequential mixed method, there are three forms of interpretation: first was to state the
quantitative results followed by the qualitative data, then the third interpretation was to utilize
the qualitative data to explain the quantitative findings.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The agreement of participants was voluntary and encouraged by having managers ask for
SSRs’ participation. Emphasizing that participation was voluntary was vital to gaining the trust
of the participants (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The surveys were administered by providing hard
copies out of convenience for SSRs. Due to COVID-19, the managers printed the surveys prior
to conducting the meetings, and laid them down on each SSRs’ desk to avoid direct contact,
which maintained the compliance of no human contact. Emailing the surveys to SSRs was
initially considered, but many SSRs found it inconvenient to have to login to their emails versus
having a hard copy and answering them after their morning huddles. Providing hard copies of the
surveys was the most efficient method to receive a good amount of responses. In order to make
meaning of the quantitative data, qualitative data was necessary (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The following section discussed how qualitative data of document analysis brought
understanding and meaning of the quantitative data.
47
Explanation for Choices
Since all 232 SSRs were included in the census sampling, to make meaning and bring
understanding of the quantitative data, qualitative data was also needed. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) explained basic qualitative research as understanding people’s experiences, how they
build their own perspectives, and how they make meaning of their experiences. One of the
dimensions of qualitative study was document analysis where the researcher finds documents
that were relevant to the study to discover any recurring patterns or findings and interpreted them
related to the participant’s experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The goal behind utilizing
document analysis was to make meaning and sense of the data received from the surveys. By
extrapolating the data of seniority, number of accidents, and number of accidents after training,
utilizing document analysis supported how knowledge and motivation were intertwined into
SSRs’ performance of safety.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
For the mixed methods of the study, the document analysis was conducted in order to
look at safety materials, training, and other methods focused on safety related to SSRs. By
utilizing these data collection methods, the research questions of the SSRs’ knowledge and
motivation in conducting safe operation of motor vehicles; the interaction between the
organizational culture and context and the SSRs’ knowledge and motivation to decrease AFR;
along with the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources with decreasing the number of vehicle accidents, were
all addressed.
48
Surveys
Surveys consisted of 12 questions (available in Appendix A) and hardcopies were placed
on SSRs’ desks prior to their arrival of the morning huddles to remain in compliance with no
human contact due to COVID-19. Hardcopies were the best method of obtaining high
participation rates due to SSRs’ busy schedules. The survey items were included in Appendix A.
In order to ensure validity and reliability with surveys as a quantitative component, member-
checking by a peer was utilized with the survey items (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).
Furthermore, the responsibility fell on the researcher to ensure that they were following the
“Ethical Issues Checklist” identified by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), which was a guideline for
researchers to utilize to ensure they were in compliance with how they were obtaining
information. The checklist consisted of the researcher explaining the purpose and methods of the
study, explaining the benefits participants may receive, any promises made, running through
possible risks, ensuring confidentiality, gaining the participants’ consent, allowing participants to
have access to data and a say in whether they object to a certain data, ensuring that the researcher
was mentally stable, seeking credible ethical advice, knowing the boundaries when it came to
data collection, deducing and determining any ethical or methodological choices, and weighing
what was ethical versus what was legal (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Having the researcher run
through the checklist ensured trustworthiness and credibility during the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Documents and Artifacts
The collection of documents and artifacts were conducted for this study. Specifically, any
documentation on safety materials, safety training, and other related safety reports have been
utilized to connect it to the conceptual framework. The process of obtaining the artifacts was a
49
mixture of readily available material (safety policy of Water Co. was publicly distributed to all
associates) and requesting the safety department to release relevant reports. For instance, one of
the artifacts was a report that showed SSRs’ points of violation(s) and details of the violation.
Bowen (2009) stated that the process of document analysis was to interpret and make
sense and understanding. The addition of document analysis in this study further supported the
findings derived from the surveys and reports. The influences measured through the document
analysis were on the SSRs’ understanding and demonstration of safety policies (knowledge),
along with SSRs’ ability to perform their duties safety while seeing the value of the safety
culture (motivation). Furthermore, the organizational influences were measured in the document
analysis to review the cultural model of prioritizing safety into the culture while providing the
support and training to SSRs as a preventative measure.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was the process of gathering and coding the surveys in order to reach
findings (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). During the process of data analysis and interpretation, the
researcher must focus and narrow the study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). When the survey results
were submitted, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted. Document analysis further
supported the findings from the surveys to note any patterns or trends (Bowen, 2009). Bowen
(2009) also discussed the purpose of triangulation and utilizing document analysis to support
quantitative data in order to make the findings and results more robust. Hence, mixed methods
research of quantitative and qualitative research was utilized in this study and analyzing
documents was a necessary process to complement the findings (Bowen, 2009).
50
Validity and Reliability
According to Creswell and Creswell (2018), qualitative validity was defined as the
researcher checking for precision of its findings while qualitative reliability was defined as the
researcher’s consistent approach to other researchers. Creswell and Creswell (2018) delved into
the eight points of ensuring validity in a study: triangulating data by reviewing various sources
and developing themes; member checking by gathering all the sources and bringing them back to
the participants to check for accuracy; utilizing a wide-range of describing the various findings;
researcher noting any biases present in the findings; researcher informing of any contradictions
or discrepancies of the themes or findings; peer debriefing where another researcher can review
findings; or utilizing an auditor to examine the study.
Specifically, for the explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach that was utilized for
this study, Creswell and Creswell (2018) explained that the researcher gathers quantitative data
and analyzes it to then move onto the next phase of qualitative research, which was document
analysis for this study. The data collection with this approach was first conducting the
quantitative sample followed by document analysis to support the findings. For the data analysis
portion, both methods of quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed individually, then
quantitative results were utilized as a supporting method for the qualitative design. Finally, for
the interpretation phase, quantitative results were explained followed by qualitative, and the third
phase of this was utilizing qualitative data to support the quantitative results (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Regarding validity with the explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach,
Creswell and Creswell (2018) advised that there may be validity issues with the accuracy of
information, especially during the third phase of interpretation. For instance, the researcher may
forget to consider following up on the quantitative findings by utilizing qualitative data.
51
Furthermore, they also warned that researchers may overlook defining some important terms and
the researcher may build different samples during the various stages of the study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
For this study, when utilizing the quantitative components, such as the survey, validity
and reliability was crucial since they were not psychometrically tested. In order to increase the
content validity, utilizing peers to review the survey items and provide feedback was necessary.
As Creswell and Creswell (2018) stated, member-checking is crucial in the process of validity by
having a peer review the material. For this study, member-checking was utilized with the survey
items. To ensure a sufficient response rate with the surveys, explaining the purpose of the study
and encouraging front line managers to encourage participation increased the number of returned
surveys. Reminders of the surveys were sent through daily huddles, where managers met with
SSRs to discuss expectations, goals, and any important notes. Any bias inherent in non-responses
was addressed by addressing the possibility of that in the study and results, itself.
Ethics
My responsibilities with respect to involving human participants in my research was to
ensure participant confidentiality by keeping their anonymity. I have reminded them that their
participation was voluntary, and they could remove themselves at any time. When working with
human participants, it was integral to obtain informed consent and communicate that they may
withdraw at any time, without any negative consequences. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated
that informed consent must be presented prior to obtaining data. Furthermore, Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) identified informed consent as one of the 12 items to the “Ethical Issues
Checklist.” Another item on the checklist is confidentiality where participants want anonymity in
the study. Glesne (2011) delved into confidentiality where it is not just about giving the
52
participants fictitious names, but also considering their demographics and context. Specifically,
their location or certain characteristics may be easily identifiable, so the researcher must be
cautious (Glesne, 2011). Participants also have the control of what kind of data is collected and
even what part of the data could be released (Glesne, 2011). Researchers must use the discretion
of what type of data is relevant and the best method of obtaining necessary data (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Researchers must obtain permission to record any sessions and ensure that data
collected is stored properly. Thus, for my research, I have ensured that I followed the 12 items on
the “Ethical Issues Checklist,” provided by Merriam and Tisdell (2016).
I was the former Human Resources Manager for the Los Angeles Division. The
stakeholders of my research, Sales Service Representations (SSR), did not report directly to me.
Since I am no longer an employee or Human Resources Manager of Water Co., there was no
issue of bias or conflict of interest. Nonetheless, I have ensured that my purpose of the research
has been clearly stated. I have also assured participants that their involvement was purely
voluntary. I communicated to them that if they chose not to participate, there would not be any
negative consequences. I explained to them that this study did not affect their employment, and
that it was purely in an investigative manner. Researchers must maintain the validity of the study
and a major portion of doing so relies on the researcher’s ethics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By
acknowledging and maintaining my ethics, I have ensured my participants that my role was an
investigator, and not as a former employer.
53
Chapter 4: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study is to discuss how the safety policies and practices of Water Co.
are meeting the goals of decreasing AFR with SSRs. The analysis of the study delves into the
knowledge and motivation of SSRs and the organizational influences of Water Co. The research
questions that guided the study are:
1. What is the SSRs’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing safety policies and
culture in job duties?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and the SSRs’
knowledge and motivation to implement safety policies and culture in their job duties?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources related to SSRs implementing safety policies
and culture in their job duties?
The stakeholder group for the study involved 232 SSRs. The data collection of the study
was mixed methods consisting of quantitative data with surveys and qualitative data with
document analysis. The scope of qualitative analysis was limited in scope. The survey had 12
items that asked SSRs of the safety training, their understanding of safety policies, safety
huddles, implementation of defensive driving, and resources the organization provided for SSRs
while they perform their duties. Three survey questions utilized the Likert scale, ranging from
“always” to “never.” Six survey questions asked were dichotomous with “yes” or “no”
responses. Two survey questions were open-ended, and one survey question provided a scale of
scores SSRs received from their safety training. One hundred SRRs completed the hardcopy
survey during their safety huddles at Water Co. The SSRs were informed that the surveys were
54
anonymous and voluntary. The results of the surveys were analyzed as quantitative data
collection while documents and artifacts supported the results.
Participating Stakeholders
There were 232 SSRs in the southern California division. The surveys were distributed to
the SSRs for the quantitative analysis of the study. The managers communicated to SSRs during
huddles about the survey and that their participation is voluntary. The surveys were initially
going to be distributed via email. However, SSRs provided feedback that they prefer hard copies
due to their time constraints of not being in front of the computer. Thus, the surveys were
distributed as hard copies by emailing them to the managers to print out for them. The managers
placed the surveys on SSRs’ desks prior to the huddles to avoid direct human contact. Out of the
232 SSRs in the southern California division, 100 SSRs completed surveys. Document analysis
was utilized after the surveys were completed in order to review safety materials and training to
further answer the research question in regard to safety culture. Table 5 shows violations and the
points attributed to each violation.
55
Table 5
Types of Points Violations
Points Type of Violations
2 Hitting a curb (low speed)
Hitting an object (low speed)
Parking ticket
Driving off lane/road
4 Any collision of vehicles (rear-end, front-end, etc.)
Lange change that leads to collision
Hitting bridge without proper clearance
Careless driving
Not wearing seat belt
Using cell phones
8 Overturning of vehicle
12 DUI/DWI or driver uses or possession of drugs
Hitting person/involuntary manslaughter
Reckless driving
Speed racing
Hit and run
Rollaway vehicle
Research Question 1: What Is the SSRs’ Knowledge and Motivation Related to
Implementing Safety Policies and Culture in Job Duties?
One of the research questions for this study was SSRs’ knowledge and motivation related
to implementing safety policies and culture in job duties. The knowledge influences for this
study were factual, conceptual, and procedural. The following section discusses the three
knowledge influences related to the survey results and document artifact findings.
Knowledge Results
This section will discuss the results regarding SSRs’ knowledge influences of safety
based on survey results and document and artifact analysis. The first knowledge influence was
56
factual where SSRs needed to understand the safety policy and any safety violations. The second
knowledge influence was conceptual where SSRs needed to know the objectives and purposes of
safety training. The third knowledge influence was procedural where SSRs needed to
demonstrate safe driving practices. Document and artifact analysis were not employed to
evaluate the knowledge influences. The results below will explore SSRs’ knowledge of safety
policies at Water Co.
Result 1: SSRs are Knowledgeable of Defensive Driving Techniques (Smith System)
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that in order to identify and close gaps, organizations must
look into the knowledge of individuals as one of the first steps. Grossman and Salas (2011)
stated that organizations invest in providing training to improve the work environment and its
productivity. Thus, it is necessary for SSRs to receive Smith System training in order to gain
knowledge of defensive driving and implement it into their job duties.
There were three survey questions involving SSRs’ knowledge of defensive driving
techniques with Smith System training. The question on whether SSRs passed the Smith System
Training, along with their scores, was directly related to their factual knowledge of defensive
driving tactics. A total of 90.4% of SSRs passed, 9.5% did not pass, and 0.5% chose not to
answer the survey question. This means the majority of SSRs passed the Smith System Training
and demonstrates that the majority of SSRs are knowledgeable of factual components of safe
driving practices. Additionally, the findings with document artifact of the Smith System training
confirms that the training was designed so that participants could take multiple attempts until
they pass. At Water Co., even when an SSR did not pass initially, they were able to retake the
test until they eventually passed the Smith System training. Table 6 reviews the Smith System
scores and number of SSRs with respective scores. The scores 70 – 100 are considered passing,
57
while a score of 69 or below is considered failing. “N/A” indicates “not available” for
participants who chose not to answer.
Table 6
Smith System Training Scores
Scores SSRs
81-100 47
70-80 35
0-69 7
N/A 11
Note. N/A indicates “not available,” those who chose not to answer the question.
Result 2: SSRs Believe They Implement Safety Policies While Working but Their Points
Assigned Suggests a Gap
Rueda (2011) found that learners become more proficient in a task when it is automated
for them to implement their knowledge into an action. In the case for SSRs, this suggests their
knowledge of defensive driving techniques with the Smith System should be automatic for them
to implement into their daily duties. Unfortunately, the points assigned to them indicate that they
were not successfully implementing their knowledge with their daily duties. In one of the
monthly safety reports that captures the number of points assigned to SSRs in September 2019,
called “Points Report,” 82 out of 210 SSRs (39% of SSRs) received four or more points. SSRs
who received two points were not reflected in the report. There is behavioral data of SSRs
believing they implement safety policies while working, despite the results of the “Points
Report.” Table 7 shows the breakdown of SSRs’ behavioral data of how often SSRs indicated
they implement safety policies while working.
58
Table 7
Implementing Safety Policies While Working
Rating SSRs Implementing Safety Policies While Working
Always 53
Often 32
Sometimes 12
N/A 3
Note. N/A indicates “not available,” those who chose not to answer the question.
The results of the SSRs’ answers to this question related to implementing safety policies
suggested the majority of SSRs (87.6% of SSRs) believed that they were implementing safety
policies while working. Although participants responded that they implement safety policies,
their responses are based on perception, which does not necessarily support that they were
proficient in their task to the point of it being automatic. Identifying whether SSRs have four
points of safety violations assigned to them by the Safety Department was another aspect of
SSRs implementing safety policies in their work. Forty-eight percent of respondents shared that
they have four points assigned, while 51% answered they do not. Additionally, 39% of SSRs
received four or more points in one month alone (September 2019) according to the “Points
Report.” Although SSRs believe they exercise their knowledge of safety policies while working,
almost half of them have four points assigned to them from the Safety Department. Receiving
four points indicated that they were not following defensive driving techniques, and they were
violating certain safety policies. Thus, even though SSRs believe that they always or often
implement safety policies while working, the responses that almost half of them have four points
showed that they were not effectively implementing safe driving practices.
59
Result 3: SSRs Believe They Understand the Safety Policies, Consequences to Violations, and
Purposes of Safety Training
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that proper training is vital for learners to be successful in
their role by becoming self-efficient to problem-solving. When learners can understand the
purposes of safety training, they can resolve any issues that come their way (Achmetli et al.,
2019). The survey question that asked whether SSRs understand the safety policies,
consequences to violations, and purposes of safety training did not yield responses that are
reliable. Four SSRs chose not to answer the question while 96 SSRs answered they understand.
There were no SSRs who stated that they did not understand safety policies, consequences to
violation, and purposes of safety training. Unfortunately, despite asking this question, the results
alone did not substantiate any results of SSRs’ knowledge. Rather, it is SSRs’ belief and
perception that they understand the safety policies, consequences to violations, and purposes of
safety training.
Another survey question to exhibit their knowledge of safety policies and trainings were
their scores with Smith System. As mentioned previously, a review of the Smith System
performance report indicated 82 SSRs passed the knowledge test, exhibiting their knowledge of
defensive driving. Despite SSRs answering that they have an understanding of safety and SSRs
passing the Smith System, SSRs’ points violations indicated that there is a gap when it comes to
implementing their knowledge while working. Despite having these survey results of SSRs’
knowledge of safety policies, consequences to violations, and purposes of safety training, there
were limitations due to not conducting interviews. The findings from the interviews would have
provided a more in-depth analysis to explore the conceptual knowledge of SSRs. Unfortunately,
the ability to conduct interviews was not an option for the researcher.
60
Knowledge Results Conclusion
The three knowledge results and findings show that SSRs think they have knowledge of
safety policies, violations, and trainings; their test scores support this from a declarative
knowledge perspective. Unfortunately, SSRs have not shown the ability to implement the
knowledge they gained from training into their daily duties due to the safety violation points.
When a study was conducted of Indonesian learners and their reading skills, Mbato (2019) found
that the students had adequate declarative knowledge however, they lacked procedural
knowledge with their reading skills along with a lack of critical thinking. Mbato (2019) found
that learners may be lacking in procedural knowledge and critical thinking due to the traditional
methods of their teachers. Mbato’s findings of Indonesian learners’ lack of procedural
knowledge and critical thinking sheds insight into SSRs’ gap of procedural knowledge and
implementation of safety policies while working. The surveys show that majority of SSRs
believe and perceive they implement safety policies while working, but the points they received
from the Safety Department shows otherwise. Although their intentions and perceptions are that
they implement safety policies into their daily duties, the points they received show that the
majority are not implementing defensive driving techniques. SSRs have an understanding and
knowledge of safety policies along with defensive driving techniques as demonstrated by fact
that 90.4% passed the Smith System. However, there is a gap of SSRs consistently implementing
defensive driving with their daily duties. Table 8 shows the knowledge influences as validated
and whether there is a gap.
61
Table 8
KMO Influences Identified as a Gap Among SSRs
Influence Gap Identified
Procedural Knowledge SSRs need to demonstrate safe driving
practices.
Motivation Results
This section will discuss the results regarding SSRs’ motivational influences of achieving
their stakeholder goal. Without motivation, the knowledge SSRs have of safety policies would
not be implemented and utilized. Thus, they would not be able to meet their goal of decreasing
motor vehicle accidents while driving. The first motivational influence of SSRs was self-
efficacy, where SSRs hold themselves and their knowledge of safety practices accountable. The
second motivational influence of SSRs was placing value in the safety culture. Although self-
efficacy and value was the initial motivational influences of SSRs, the survey answers have not
produced enough data to validate whether they are based on self-efficacy or value. There was
evidence of motivated behaviors where SSRs perceived themselves to consistently implement
safety policies while working, but there is a disconnect on points assigned. The gap suggests that
there is a perceptional error among SSRs. Findings of document and artifact analysis were not
employed to evaluate the motivation influences. The results below explore SSRs’ motivation of
safety culture and policies at Water Co. by analyzing the surveys and documented artifacts.
Result 4: SSRs’ Motivated Behaviors in Implementing Safety Practices into their Work Needs
Improvement
There were two survey questions that were intended to evaluate SSRs’ self-efficacy
regarding safety policies and culture. Unfortunately, the questions and answers did not
62
effectively explore SSRs’ self-efficacy. Rather, the results showed SSRs’ behavior. For instance,
the question that asked how often SSRs implement safety policies while working resulted in 85
SSRs answering “always” or “often.” This result shows that SSRs have confidence of their
learning and ability to perform safe driving practices. Despite SSRs’ belief and perception that
they implement safe driving practices while working, the other survey question that relates to
their ability to independently and successfully problem-solve while working shows that there
needs improvement. The other survey question asked whether SSRs have four or more points
assigned to them. Forty-eight percent of respondents shared that they have four points assigned
while 51% answered they do not. The results of this question were almost split evenly. Although
there were 51% of SSRs who did not receive points, 48% of SSRs who have points assigned was
an indication that their motivational behavior of perception is not aligned to their performance.
Also, the finding of analysis of the artifact to support the survey results called “Points
Report” revealed numerous SSRs violating safety policy and accumulating points in their
records. Eighty-two SSRs accumulated 388 points for violating safety policies while working in
the month of September 2019. The behavioral data of the perception that SSRs have of their
implementation of safety practices into their work was that they perform successfully and
independently. However, the points assigned to them disclose that there was a gap between their
perception and their actual ability to perform successfully and independently by avoiding motor
vehicle accidents through safe driving practices.
Result 5: Inconclusive of SSRs Finding Value in the Safety Culture
When it comes to motivation, it is important for people to see the value behind their goals
and tasks to achieve them (Rueda, 2011). That way, individuals can understand their goals and
work towards meeting their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). It was integral for SSRs to understand
63
the value of safety culture for them to meet their goals of implementing their knowledge of
safety policies and driving techniques while working to decrease the number of vehicle
accidents. Unfortunately, the survey questions did not draw answers to support whether SSRs
value safety culture. Specifically, the question of how often SSRs attend safety meetings was
initially designed to provide insight into the value of SSRs’ involvement in attending and
participating in the meetings. However, the question of SSRs’ attendance in safety huddles alone
does not indicate value since their attendance is required unless SSRs call out for the day. Table
9 shows the number of SSRs and frequency of their safety huddle attendance.
Table 9
SSRs’ Attendance of Safety Huddles
Rating SSRs’ Attendance of Safety Huddles
Always 53
Often 32
Sometimes 9
N/A 6
The majority, which consisted of 85 SSRs, attended safety meetings regularly, but this is
due to the requirement of attending the meetings. Unfortunately, the results did not show whether
SSRs found value in the safety culture due to their attendance in safety huddles. SSRs attended
safety huddles as a mandatory part of their job responsibilities. Due to the limitation of not
conducting interviews, there was no way to confirm through survey and documented analysis the
value SSRs hold for safety huddles simply from their attendance.
64
Motivational Results Conclusion
The motivational results revealed that there was no supporting evidence or data of SSRs’
value or self-efficacy regarding safety policies and safety culture. For one, SSRs attending safety
huddles was not due to SSRs valuing the meetings but rather due to their attendance as a
mandatory part of their job responsibilities. Despite the lack of data on self-efficacy and value,
there was a clear indication SSRs’ behaviors. The behavioral data of SSRs’ perception and
persistence of implementing safety policies while working showed that there is a gap and error
due to the points they received on their records. There was a gap between SSRs’ perception and
actual performance since 48% of SSRs had four points assigned. Further, there was a gap and
insufficient data of SSRs valuing the importance of safety culture.
Clark et al. (2006) described motivational theory as containing three “indices” of
learners: exhibiting new learned behaviors, continuing in their efforts to meet their goals, and
endowing their efforts to meet goals (p.29). The three indices are necessary for high-ability
learners to implement their knowledge into their tasks, regardless of whether they are routine
(Clark et al., 2006). Clark et al. (2006) found that learners with high or low abilities who are
faced with complex duties in familiar environments begin to lose their self-efficacy of
completing duties. In other words, learners who perceive the tasks to be familiar and easy, tend
to lose their self-efficacy and effort into completing the tasks. The survey results alone did not
provide evidence as to whether SSRs have the self-efficacy or value of implementing safety
policies into their work duties. The survey results showed that behavioral data and the
disconnection of SSRs’ belief of implementation versus SSRs actual implementation is one that
must be addressed within the organization.
65
Table 10
KMO Influences Identified as a Gap Among SSRs
Influence Gap Identified
Self-Efficacy
Value
SSRs must have confidence to follow through on safety
policies while performing their job duties.
SSRs need to see the importance of safety culture
Research Question Two: What is the Interaction Between Organizational Culture and
Context and the SSRs’ Knowledge and Motivation to Implement Safety Policies and
Culture in Their Job Duties?
Another research question for this study was the interaction between organizational
culture and context and the SSRs’ knowledge and motivation to implement safety policies and
culture in their job duties. The organizational influences were organizational settings which were
providing safety training as a preventative measure and providing SSRs exemplifiers on
performing their duties successfully. The cultural models were embracing the safety culture to
encourage safety practices along with an open-minded culture that embraces change to safety
policies. The following section discusses the organizational influences related to the survey
results and document artifact findings.
This section will discuss the organizational influence results and findings regarding
Water Co.’s influences on achieving the organizational goal. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that
organizations with substantial resources, processes, and cultures can meet their goals.
Furthermore, to make improvements within an organization, it is necessary to define and
determine the organizational settings and models in which employees formulize with their
values, norms, and practices (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Two of the
organizational influences were cultural models: the organization needed to embrace a culture of
safety first to encourage positive safety practices daily, and the organization needed to have an
66
open-minded culture that embraces changes to safety policies. The other two organizational
influences were cultural settings: the organization needed to provide safety training and
employee support as a preventative measure, rather than reactive in response to accidents, and
SSRs need exemplifiers on how to perform their duties safely and efficiently. Due to the
limitation of not conducting interviews, document artifacts and analysis were utilized to support
the survey results regarding organizational influences. The results and findings below will delve
further into Water Co.’s cultural models and settings.
Result 6: SSRs Believe that the Organization has a Culture of “Safety First” Where they
Encourage Safety Practices
At Water Co., the practice for all branches was to conduct safety huddles every morning
before SSRs run their routes. The purpose behind daily safety huddles was to show and remind
SSRs that the organization valued the safety culture and wanted SSRs to know that “safety first”
was the utmost priority. The survey question that asked how often Water Co. discussed the four
safety principles in huddles yielded positive results. Table 11 shows the percentage of
respondents indicating Water Co. discussing the four safety principles. Although the survey
results showed that the majority of the respondents (80) answered that safety principles were
discussed always/often, there was a limitation due to lack of interviews. The survey results,
alone, did not fully demonstrate that SSRs believe Water Co. to have a culture of “safety first.”
The limitation of establishing the model is present was also true when considering the document
and artifact analysis. Water Co.’s website contained a message to customers regarding the safety
of SSRs as they make deliveries to customers and how any perceived risk will lead to an SSR
stopping unsafe work. The document analysis revealed that the message of the safety principles
and Water Co.’s priority of SSRs’ safety was present. The message noted that SSRs continue to
67
perform their work safely, but if at any moment an SSR felt their work was unsafe, they were to
practice the safety principles and put a stop to any hazardous behavior. Unfortunately, the survey
result and the document artifact alone did not substantiate SSRs’ specific belief that Water Co.
has a culture of “safety first.”
Table 11
Water Co. Discusses Four Safety Principles
Safety Principle
Always/
Often
Sometimes/
Rarely No response
Water Co. discusses four safety principles 84% 15.7% 0.3%
Result 7: The Organization Does Not Provide Sufficient Safety Training and Support for
SSRs to Perform their Jobs Safely
Water Co. strived to provide the training, resources, and support for SSRs to perform
their jobs successfully and safely. Analysis of the Water Co.’s Motor Vehicle Safety Policy
indicated that SSRs were to receive intervention aimed to decrease vehicle accidents when they
received points due to a violation. According to the policy, the purpose of providing this training
was for SSRs to improve their safety performance. However, with the results of the survey, there
was a need for improvement with Water Co.’s method of providing the right resources and
support for SSRs.
Forty SSRs stated they did not receive the intervention training after receiving points,
which is greater than 50% of the sample. When SSRs were asked whether they underwent the
Smith System training after receiving four points assigned to their records, 47% answered that
they had received that training while 55% have responded that they had not received the training.
Water Co. required SSRs who received points in their records to successfully complete the Smith
68
System training according to document analysis, however, results from the survey show that this
practice was not consistently followed. Moreover, when the survey asked how Water Co.
provided SSRs the resources to perform their jobs safely, the responses varied with “manager
checks in,” “safety vests, dolly,” “training,” and also some responses stating “no.” Table 12
outlines the responses of SSRs and Water Co.’s resources and training provided.
Table 12
Responses to Types of Resources and Support
Resources and Support Number of Responses
Training 11
Tools 3
Managers 5
No/None 2
The answers were sparse and short, which means that there was not enough data to reveal
whether Water Co. provided enough resources and support. Based on the sparse results, some
SSRs felt as though there were no resources given by Water Co., while some felt as though tools
were the resources. The scarcity of the responses to this question could be due to a variety of
reasons: time constraint and SSRs wanting to quickly complete the survey, having too much to
write, or not wanting to provide their answers. Regardless, it was apparent that Water Co. needed
to make changes and improvements in providing the necessary resources and support for SSRs to
operate motor vehicles safely, with zero accidents.
69
Result 8: Water Co. Provides Exemplars on how SSRs Can Perform their Jobs Safely
Water Co. provided safety training for SSRs to navigate their routes safely with no
vehicle accidents. During one of the safety meetings held at Water Co., the Safety Department
shared their expectation of leaders that discussed the safety principles and defensive driving
techniques in all the safety huddles. Figure 2 shows the safety topics that the Safety Department
releases for managers to discuss in the safety meetings.
Figure 2
Safety Topics for Meetings
In the Safety Department meeting, senior leaders expressed their expectation of all
branches to follow and implement the exemplars, however, their current methods may be
lacking. One of the survey questions asked, “In what ways does Water Co. provide examples and
models on how to perform your job safely with no vehicle accidents?” Thirty-eight SSRs
provided sparse responses on how they received models to perform their job safely without
70
accidents through training, other SSRs, and safety huddles. Table 13 shows the responses to
Water Co.’s exemplars.
Table 13
Water Co.’s Exemplars
Exemplar Number of Responses
Training 22
Safety Huddles 5
Other SSRs 11
SSRs were able to recognize and detect Water Co.’s efforts of providing exemplars on
performing their jobs safely; however, the results on SSRs’ having four or more points assigned
to their records indicate there was a need for improvement. If Water Co. were successfully
providing exemplars for SSRs to perform their jobs safely and successfully, then the number of
SSRs with points would be minimal. The fact that approximately half of SSRs with four or more
points assigned indicated that the need for better exemplars was necessary.
Organizational Results Conclusion
Water Co. has been successful at implementing a culture of “safety first” by holding daily
huddles where they touched on the safety principles. Achieving a positive safety culture was
integral to improving and changing the organization and its practices. Change and improvement
was necessary for Water Co. due to the other results where there was an identified gap in training
and support for SSRs to perform their jobs safely. The lack of responses to the open-ended
survey questions (22 out of 100 SSRs answered the question “How has Water Co. provided you
the resources for you to perform your job safely?” and only 38 out of 100 SSRs answered “In
71
what ways does Water Co. provide examples and models on how to perform your job safely with
no vehicle accidents?”) may be due to external factors beyond the researcher’s control, however,
there still needed to be more of a transparency on Water Co.’s efforts to bringing SSRs more
resources and support. Water Co. needed to evaluate other methods where SSRs felt they were
supported and were provided the resources for success. Although Water Co. provided exemplars
through training and huddles on how SSRs can perform their work safely, Water Co. needed
more effective exemplars since half of SSRs have four or more points assigned to their records.
Table 14
KMO Influences Identified as a Gap Among SSRs
Influence Gap Identified
Cultural Setting
Cultural Setting
The organization needs to provide safety training
and employee support as a preventative measure,
rather than reactive measure in response to
accidents.
SSRs need exemplifiers on how to perform their
duties safely and efficiently.
Conclusion
This study delved into the safety policies and practices of Water Co. and whether SSRs
were meeting their goals of decreasing AFR by analyzing survey results and document artifact
findings. One hundred SSRs completed a survey that contained 12 questions pertaining to their
knowledge and motivational influences of safety policies, implementation of defensive driving,
along with organizational influences of Water Co. Analyzing the results of this study has shown
that there was a disconnection between SSRs’ perception of their knowledge and motivation
compared to their actual performance. The survey results showed that SSRs’ motivational
72
behavior of perception on implementing defensive driving was high. However, the results of
48% of SSRs having points in their records indicated otherwise. The discrepancy of SSRs’
perception compared to their points records showed that there may be a gap in SSRs’ motivation
to routine tasks (Clark et al., 2006). SSRs perceived their familiar routes and routine tasks to be
simple and easy, thus they failed to exert the three indexes of motivational behavior (Clark et al.,
2006). As a result, they failed to implement the defensive driving techniques that was designed
to decrease AFR.
The survey results of SSRs’ knowledge and understanding of safety policies,
consequences to safety violations, and the purpose behind safety training did not yield valid data.
There was a discrepancy of implementing their knowledge into their daily duties due to the
points on their records. SSRs have the factual and conceptual knowledge, but there was a gap
with their procedural knowledge. Mbato (2019) discussed a similar gap with Indonesian learners
and their struggles of exhibiting critical thinking and procedural knowledge. Mbato (2019) found
that the learners’ procedural knowledge was inhibited by the teacher’s “prescribed curriculum”
where they rarely deviated from their traditional methods. The restriction behind these teaching
methods inhibited learners from creatively implementing their knowledge and demonstrating
their skills. The restriction can be true to SSRs and the safety training they receive from Water
Co. There was a gap with SSR’s procedural knowledge and implementation of safety policies
while performing their duties due to the points in their records. Thus, even though SSRs knew
the safety policies, they did not successfully implement their knowledge of safety policies into
their daily duties by decreasing AFR.
This study relied heavily on survey results and document analysis. Although there were
certain responses and results from the surveys that shed insight into the knowledge, motivational,
73
and organizational influences of SSRs at Water Co., there was a restriction of providing a robust
finding with interviews. Thus, the organizational results of Water Co.’s culture of “safety first”
and the effectiveness of Water Co’s safety training could only be supported by surveys and
document artifacts. Nonetheless, there was a need for Water Co. to provide further resources and
support for SSRs to be successful with their job performance. Water Co. has maintained their
safety trainings for SSRs to decrease AFR, but the training efforts were not sufficient to
preventing SSRs from receiving more points in their records. Creating a training program to
address the gaps is a necessary process for Water Co. to begin exploring and adopting. Chapter
Five delves into providing recommendations to address the gap analysis of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that interfere with providing safe operation of motor
vehicles.
74
Chapter 5: Recommendations
The previous chapter discussed gaps and results of SSRs implementing their knowledge
and motivation of safety policies into their duties in order to decrease AFR. This chapter
discusses the recommendations to address the gap with knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. The recommendations will be implemented as a program by utilizing
the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016). There are four levels of evaluation, consisting of level
one reaction, level two learning, level three behavior, and level four results. The New World
Kirkpatrick Model (2016) modified the implementation of the levels by starting with level four
and working backwards to level one. The Program discussed in this chapter follows the New
World Kirkpatrick Model by delving into the levels of outcomes of training, behaviors of the
participants with the training program, the learning process of participants with the training, and
the participants reaction to the trainings.
Knowledge Recommendations
This section discusses the knowledge influences of SSRs, any knowledge gaps, and
whether they are validated as a gap, the prioritization of the influences, framework to guide the
discussion for the knowledge influences, and recommendations for the knowledge influences
based on theoretical principles. Table 15 contains a summary of the knowledge influences and its
components.
75
Table 15
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge
Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
SSRs need to
demonstrate safe
driving practices
(Procedural).
To develop mastery, individuals
must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and
know when to apply what they
have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). (SC)
During training, SSRs will model
behavior on adopting knowledge
and understanding of safety
policy, violations, objectives of
training and how to apply safe
driving practices.
SSRs Need to Model Behavior of Knowledge to Apply Safe Driving Practices
The procedural knowledge influence is SSRs need to demonstrate safe driving practices.
The knowledge influence is validated as a gap and is identified as a priority. The theory that is
utilized to recommend a solution to the knowledge gap is social cognitive theory. Table 16 refers
to the principle to the knowledge gap as well as the recommendation. The recommended solution
is to provide training to SSRs of safety policy and violations of motor vehicles by providing an
explanation of policies and violations, followed by asking SSRs to demonstrate behaviors of
learning and understanding safety policies.
Sahin (2006) noted steps to having an individual successfully demonstrate their
knowledge through their practices. The individual must first obtain the knowledge, believe in the
goals, make the decision to obtain the goals, and apply them to demonstrate mastery of those
goals (Hoenck, 2019). This suggests that SSRs who undergo training can exhibit behavior where
they understand the safety policy, violations, objectives of training, and then apply them into safe
driving practices. The recommendation is to provide training that SSRs can apply safe driving
practices into their routine.
76
Motivation Recommendations
This section will discuss the motivational influences and provide recommendations to
sustain value and self-efficacy among the SSRs. Although the data collected through the study
was not sufficient to validate either influence as a gap or to identify as an asset, a sustain
recommendation is made for both. This section will discuss the prioritization of the influences,
the framework to guide the discussion for motivational influences, and the recommendations for
the motivational influences based on the theoretical principles. Table 16 contains a summary of
each motivational influence and its components.
Table 16
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
SSRs need to believe
they can
follow/perform safety
policies while
performing their job
duties (self-efficacy).
Provide immediate
feedback for simple
tasks and delayed
feedback for complex
tasks (Borgogni et al.,
2011).
Acknowledge and showcase SSRs’
safety-based work performance to
exhibit their capability of applying
their knowledge of safety to their job
duties
SSRs need to see the
importance of safety
culture (value).
Model values,
enthusiasm and
interest in the task
(Eccles, 2006).
Model how the value of safety culture
resonates with SSR job duties and
responsibilities in valuing the
decision to maintain focus on driving
(avoiding distracted driving) by
utilizing SSRs who excel at safety
practices or an SSR who have
experienced an accident and
overcome it.
Increase self-efficacy of SSRs
The motivational influence of SSRs’ is the need to believe they can follow and perform
safety policies while performing their job duties. SSRs’ self-efficacy was not established based
on the survey results. Nonetheless, there are recommendations to improve self-efficacy of SSRs.
77
The theory that is utilized to recommend a solution regarding the motivational gap is grounded in
self-efficacy. Borgogni et al. (2011) stated that immediate feedback is necessary for simple tasks
while delayed feedback is necessary for complex duties. Table 16 refers to the principle of the
motivational gap as well as the recommendation. The recommended solution is to acknowledge
and showcase SSRs’ safety-based work performance to exhibit their capability of applying their
knowledge of safety to their job duties.
Rueda (2011) identified motivation, such as self-efficacy, as an individual’s way to
successfully meet their goals. Denler et al. (2006) stated that learners who are confident in their
self-efficacy are more effective in meeting goals. This suggests that SSRs who have high self-
efficacy can utilize their motivation to meet goals. Thus, the recommendation is for the
organization and leaders to instill confidence in SSRs of their ability to apply their knowledge of
safety to performing their job duties safely and successfully.
Organization Recommendations
This section will discuss the organizational influences of Water Co. as well as
organizational gaps and whether they are validated as a gap. The organizational influences that
were validated as a gap and are ordered in respective priority are: the organization needs to
provide training and support as a preventative measure, rather than reactive measures in response
to accidents; and RSRs need exemplifiers on how to perform their duties safely and efficiently.
These were determined in order of priority depending on the necessity for establishing a
foundation of providing training as a preventive measure, followed by having exemplifiers for
SSRs. Further, this section will discuss the prioritization of the influences, the framework to
guide the discussion for organizational influences, and the recommendations for the
78
organizational influences based on the leadership and Clark and Estes (2008) principles. Table
17 contains a summary of the organizational influences and its components.
Table 17
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization needs
to provide training
and support as a
preventative
measure, rather than
reactive measures in
response to accidents
(cultural setting).
Leadership #10
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders insure
that employees have the
resources needed to achieve the
organization’s goals.
Ensuring staff’s resource needs
are being met is correlated with
increased student learning
outcomes (Waters et al. 2003).
Managers will establish the
need and budget to provide
training and support as a
preventative measure by
regularly monitoring the
use of resources.
The organization needs
to have exemplifiers
on how to perform
their duties safely
and efficiently
(cultural setting).
Leadership #5
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders behave
with integrity. The most
powerful teaching tool a leader
has is leading by example,
which is occurring all the time,
whether intended or not,
conscious or not.
The more a leader acts in a way
that followers feel is appropriate
ethical leader behavior, the
more a leader will be trusted
(Van den Akker, Heres,
Lasthulzen & Six, 2009).
Managers will commit to
what they say they’re
going to do by:
Ownership if errors
occur; demonstrate
behaviors and actions to
what they expect from
SSRs; hold SSRs
accountable including
themselves; remain
consistent and fair, free
from bias.
Cultural Settings of Utilizing Training and Support as Preventative Measure
The organization’s cultural setting is the need to provide training and support as a
preventative measure, rather than reactive measures in response to accidents. This organizational
79
influence of cultural settings is a gap and a priority. The theory utilized to recommend a solution
to close the organizational gap is the principle of leadership that organizational effectiveness
increases when resources are provided to meet and achieve the organizational goal. Waters et al.
(2003) stated that meeting the needs of employees will lead to increased learning outcomes.
Table 17 refers to the organizational influences and recommended solution. The recommended
solution is for managers to establish the need for training and support as a preventative measure
by regularly monitoring the use of resources.
Olive et al. (2006) stated that committed organizations invest resources into the safety
program. Ford and Tetrick (2008) stated that one of the resources organizations can utilize are
safety interventions when negative outcomes occur. When employees exhibit unsafe behavior or
violate safety policies, leaders are prompted to provide immediate feedback explaining the
behavior and how it can be prevented or corrected. Making employees aware of the error and
setting goals can prevent any future mishaps (Ford and Tetrick, 2008). This suggests that leaders
who proactively train and support SSRs by addressing any safety concerns or violations is a
proactive approach rather than reactive approach. The recommendation is for managers to
establish the need to provide training and support by regularly monitoring the use of resources
and showcasing the preventative outcomes they reached.
Cultural Settings of Leading by Example
The organization’s second cultural setting is the need to have exemplifiers on how to
perform SSRs’ duties safely and efficiently. This cultural setting is validated as a gap and is a
priority. The theory utilized to recommend a solution to close the organizational gap is the
principle of leadership that organizational effectiveness increases when leaders behave with
integrity with the mindset of leading by example. Van den Akker et al. (2009) shared that the
80
more a leader acts in an appropriate and ethical manner, the more the leader will be trusted by its
followers.
Hermalin (1998) stated that leaders whose actions reflect the goals and intentions of the
organization are able to gain followers if their actions are observed by the followers. Choi and
Mai-Dalton (1999) stated that self-sacrificial leaders are able to gain followers to also be self-
sacrificial once they are able to demonstrate such behaviors and actions. This suggests that
leaders who exemplify how to perform a task are able to do so if followers are able to observe
the action and understand the intentions and motive behind their behaviors. The recommendation
is for managers to commit to what they expect and want from SSRs, such as performing their
duties safely and efficiently, by being exemplifiers or role models. This means that managers are
to take ownership of their mistakes whenever it is made, demonstrate the behaviors and actions
of what they expect from SSRs, holding SSRs accountable along with holding themselves
accountable, and remaining consistent and fair, free from bias.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) delved into the
four levels of training evaluation. They clarified the aspects of the four levels to help modernize
with organizations and clarify any misunderstanding of applying the concepts to training
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Furthermore, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) focused on
level three behavior and level four results by presenting the levels in reverse order to emphasize
the importance of the outcome. While designing and integrating implementation and an
evaluation plan for SSRs and the safety culture of Water Co., the New World Kirkpatrick Model
of the reverse order will be utilized (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level four, results, will
be utilized for the organization as a whole rather than specific departments to avoid
81
misapplication of the training evaluation. Specifically, level four will involve combining Water
Co.’s mission along with resources they can provide SSRs to meet goals. This study will then
delve into level three behavior, in order to assess how much SSRs are implementing their
knowledge of safety practices while on the job. This will be done by analyzing the critical
behaviors of SSRs in order to define which behaviors are important to achieve stakeholder goals.
Level three will entail required drivers, such as job aids, coaching, and work review to reinforce
SSRs’ behaviors on the job.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
Water Co.’s mission is to be the top water service provider to all consumers. Water Co.’s
goal is to be 100% accident-free amongst the drivers (SSRs) due to their belief that all accidents
are preventable. The SSRs’ goal is for SSRs to implement safety policies and safety culture in
their job duties, while decreasing the number of vehicle accidents. The purpose of the SSRs’ goal
is to align with the organizational goal of emphasizing safety by decreasing the AFR. The
expectations of the desired outcomes of the recommendations is for SSRs to have the resources
and support available to them from Water Co. in order to be successful in their jobs by
implementing their knowledge of safety practices and defensive driving techniques. Another
expectation is for Water Co. to change any of their safety policies and safety culture in order to
provide resources and support for SSRs to meet their goals.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stated that level four of the training evaluation is
centered around the results and outcomes of the organization implementing training and support
for its associates. Organizations are able to sync their goals with associates by delving into the
leading indicators as measurements of whether the associates are on track to achieving the
82
outcome (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The short-term observations and measurements that
indicate the stakeholder is achieving desired outcomes is their attendance and participation in
safety huddles. SSRs attend safety huddles every morning before running their routes. During
these safety huddles, SSRs participate in short discussions or questions of the day on safety-
related topics. Their attendance and participation shows that not only do they have the
motivation to learn and implement their safety knowledge, but also that they are achieving the
desired results of decreasing AFR. Table 18 shows the outcome, metrics, and methods used
regarding SSRs achieving desired outcomes.
83
Table 18
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External Outcomes
SSRs deliver products on
time to customers.
Completion of the number
of routes assigned to
SSRs.
Complaints from customers
regarding not receiving
products on their delivery
day.
Report of daily routes
assigned vs. routes
completed.
Customer complaints
database that shows
whether a customer called
in.
Water Co. ensures safety
compliance of zero
accidents in order for
SSRs to deliver products
without any accidents.
Safety reports and
DriveCam clips that show
there are no accidents.
Daily safety reports and
reports of DriveCam clips
where managers keep
SSRs accountable for safe
driving.
Internal Outcomes
Improve SSRs’ safety
practices while they are
driving.
Completion of checklist
developed by Safety
Department to ensure pre
and post check of
vehicles and driving
practices.
Informal check-ins of
completion of checklist.
Also, managers will
conduct safety checks of
SSRs’ vehicles and driving
practices.
Prevent SSRs from
increasing any points
(due to violation) from
the Safety Department.
Number of AFR or any
safety reports of SSRs’
driving.
Monthly report of AFR and
safety reports.
SSRs believe they have the
resources and support
they need of Water Co.
Complaints or feedback
from SSRs about the
resources and support
from the company.
Daily safety huddles where
SSRs share feedback.
84
Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
After reviewing level four, level three is examined to determine the associates’ behavior
and application of what they learned in training into their daily routines (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). When delving into level three behaviors, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
stated that critical behaviors are actions that are performed all throughout the job and affects the
successfulness of the results. The key behaviors SSRs will have to demonstrate the achievement
of outcomes are on-the-job implementations of their safety knowledge. For one, SSRs will
request any need for additional resources or support needed to perform their jobs safely. SSRs
will show initiative of the safety principles by participating in the discussions during safety
huddles. Also, SSRs will meet with managers to review how they followed or violated safety
policies while working. Refer to Table 19 to see the critical behaviors, metrics, methods, and
timing of SSRs.
85
Table 19
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metrics
Methods
Timing
SSRs will request any
additional resources
or support needed to
perform their jobs
safely.
SSRs’ list of the
resources or support
they need from
managers or from the
company.
Safety Department will
analyze the
comparison of the
resources and support
they currently receive
from managers and
the Company to
SSRs’ list.
Every quarter.
SSRs will show
initiative of the safety
principles by
participating in the
discussion during
safety huddles.
Number of SSRs in
safety huddles.
Discussion topics and
SSRs who
contributed to sharing
knowledge and/or
their own
practices/tips.
Managers will track
attendance of SSRs
and their level of
participation during
safety discussions.
Every week.
SSRs will implement
interventions immediately
when safety policies are
violated.
Viewing DriveCam
clips and reports on
their driving practices.
Points assigned to
SSRs for any
violations (from
DriveCam clips)
and any positive
safety practices.
Every week.
Required Drivers
The required drivers are the systems and processes implemented that fortifies, tracks, and
provides recognition of the critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The required
drivers for SSRs that support critical behaviors are reinforcing their knowledge and
implementation of safety policies and violations, encouraging success and safe driving practices,
rewarding SSRs who have continued to be successful with safe driving techniques, and
monitoring their performance in continual practice of safe driving.
86
SSRs are knowledgeable of the safety policies and also know to implement their
knowledge into their duties. The motivational influences that are necessary to drive the
achievement of stakeholder outcomes are self-efficacy and value. SSRs must have confidence in
their ability to perform safety policies while performing job duties. Also, SSRs need to value the
importance of safety culture to be successful in their roles. The organizational influences that are
necessary to achieve stakeholder outcomes are providing the resources and support to SSRs as a
preventative measure rather than reactive measure to vehicle accidents. Also, Water Co. must
place importance in setting exemplifiers on how SSRs can perform their duties safely and
efficiently. Refer to Table 20 for further information on required drivers to support SSRs’ critical
behaviors.
87
Table 20
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
Safety Department will provide SSRs continuous on-the-
job training on how to effectively and efficiently
follow safety policies while working.
Ongoing 1, 3
Managers will provide SSRs refreshers and reminders of
safety principles and policies during daily safety
huddles.
Ongoing 2, 3
Managers will meet with SSRs to discuss any issues of
safety violations or difficulties of following safety
policies while working.
Weekly 1, 2
Encouraging
Managers will facilitate a meeting where SSRs discuss
their success in following safety policies. They will
share tips on how to avoid any safety violations
Monthly 1, 2
Managers will mentor SSRs to refine their safety
practices and encourage them to continue
implementing their knowledge into their duties.
Weekly 1, 3
Rewarding
Senior leaders will acknowledge SSRs in “town hall
meetings” for following safety policies and decreasing
AFR.
Quarterly 2
During meetings, managers will recognize SSRs who
followed safety policies.
Ongoing 2
Monitoring
Managers will touch base with SSRs to ensure they are
following safety policies daily.
Ongoing 1, 3
Managers will provide SSRs KPI of score cards and will
review it with them.
Monthly 3
88
Organizational Support
Water Co. will support SSRs’ critical behaviors outlined in above sections by providing
training, resources, and support to SSRs as a preventative measure rather than a reactive
measure. SSRs will compile a list of such resources and support they need from managers and
the company to perform their jobs safely and successfully. SSRs will also receive continuous on-
the-job training on defensive driving techniques (Smith System) as well as constant feedback
from managers as a method of immediate intervention if DriveCam shows any unsafe practices.
Additionally, Water Co. will provide SSRs exemplifiers on how to perform their duties safely
and efficiently by having managers mentor and observe any safe or unsafe driving practices.
Managers will also be the model and exemplifier for SSRs by participating in ride-alongs and
meeting with them to provide feedback on their driving practices. Furthermore, managers will
keep SSRs accountable to following the feedback and redirection if given.
Level 2: Learning
Level two learning is when associates have actively participated and have confidence in
training and have obtained the knowledge and skills needed for their tasks or jobs (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). During level two learning, participants obtain knowledge, perspective, and
confidence based on their engagement in training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Learning Goals
The learning goals for SSRs have been created to ensure SSRs know and are able to
implement their knowledge to perform the critical behaviors listed above. The learning goals for
SSRs are:
1. Describe the contents of the safety policies and defensive driving techniques (F).
2. Explain the importance of safety training (C).
89
3. Explain the objectives of safety training (C).
4. Apply steps to demonstrate safe driving practices (P).
5. Describe the motor vehicle violations that are attributed with points assigned from the
Safety Department (F).
6. Generate a plan to follow and implement safety policies while performing job duties (M).
7. Value the importance of safety culture (V).
8. Be confident that they can follow safe driving practices while working (Self-Efficacy).
Program
Currently, there is a training already in place at Water Co., which is the Smith System.
The Smith System training is an in-person program where participants learn about defensive
driving techniques. To create an even more robust and effective training where SSRs are able to
successfully implement their knowledge of safety practices into their daily operations this
implementation program proposes to augment the Smith System training with mobile learning
(m-learning), there would still be the in-person Smith System training, along with mobile
learning (m-learning).
The process of implementing a meaningful training program entails planning, executing,
and demonstrating the program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The program outcome is for
SSRs to implement their knowledge of safety practices into their daily duties. Additionally, SSRs
will utilize defensive driving techniques and decrease the accident frequency rate while on the
job. The return on expectations is the alignment of SSRs’ and Water Co.’s goals and
expectations (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Specifically, SSRs’ goals of implementing
safety policies and culture in their job duties while decreasing the number of vehicle accidents
coincides with the organization’s goal of safe operation of motor vehicles, with zero accidents.
90
Since SSRs are constantly on the road, there is a need for a hybrid training program
according to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s training approach (2016). M-learning will ensure that
there is efficiency with the training since SSRs are constantly driving all the while effectively
providing them the resources through this method. Furthermore, SSRs have their company
phones to key in orders, change their route logistics, and to complete any other function of their
job duties. SSRs are constantly on-the-go, so providing short yet effective training clips or
reminders would assist them. As stated, the Smith System training will continue to be
administered as an in-person training. However, adding m-learning as a supportive tool to
continually train, remind, and encourage SSRs to implement safe driving practices will be
beneficial. As Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) mentioned, m-learning is a continual program
that is spaced out and easily digestible.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirpatrick (2016) shared the three reasons behind evaluating training
programs, which are to improve the program and its process, to ensure there is a transfer of
knowledge to meet goals, and to show the value behind training. Even with m-learning, there is
an effective way to evaluate the progress of the training. In every level of the training evaluation,
m-learning, its content, and its effectiveness can be assessed (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 21 delves into the methods used to evaluate the learning goals.
91
Table 21
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge test using multiple choice (Smith System) After Smith System
training
Discussions and share out with everyone (m-learning) After m-learning
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Scenario demonstrations to discuss the solutions to the
procedural knowledge (m-learning)
After m-learning
Simulation of SSRs and different safety driving scenarios
(m-learning)
During m-learning
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Teach back where SSRs learn from the safety training and
teach to other SSRs to confirm their understanding (Smith
System & m-learning)
After Smith System and m-
learning
Discussions where SSRs share the value and meaning behind
training in the forum for m-learning (m-learning)
During and after m-
learning
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
SSRs have discussions of any issues or concerns. During and after Smith
System and m-learning
Managers mentor and guide SSRs, conduct check-ins During and After Smith
System and m-learning
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Self-reports of SSRs’ own progress. After Smith System and m-
learning
Action Planning - SSRs create action steps on what they
learned and how to implement their learning into their jobs
During and after Smith
System and m-learning
92
Level 1: Reaction
Level one of the training evaluation looks into the satisfaction of participants when they
underwent the training process (Kirkpatrick & Kirpatrick, 2016). This level determines whether
associates felt the training was relevant and meaningful with their jobs (Kirkpatrick &
Kirpatrick, 2016). For SSRs, level one gauges their reaction towards the training, resources, and
support they receive from Water Co. by looking into their level of engagement, the relevance of
the training programs, and the level of SSRs’ satisfaction with the m-training. Table 22 shows
these components of the training and resources SSRs receive from Water Co.
Table 22
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Module completion of m-learning Beginning of
training
Module of m-learning will ask SSR to make a connection with the
lesson and their simulation/location.
During
Participation and completion of scenarios and simulations During
Relevance
Module will have SSR reflect on learning goals and the material they
learned
After
Anonymous surveys After
Customer Satisfaction
SSR will provide feedback in surveys After
Group interview After
Evaluation Tools
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stated that evaluating a program with multiple levels
increases the data and resources of the trainers, the program, and its participants. Thus, they
93
advised the utilization of a Blended Evaluation Form that includes all aspects of level one and
level two (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). By combining the two levels, the blended
evaluation places less emphasis on level one, all the while, it allows multiple perspectives and
data to be gathered and works in sync with the various levels of the training program
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). A Blended Evaluation will also be utilized when conducting
the delayed evaluation where the focus is on how learners implemented what they learned and
the resources or support they have received after training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) identified that by utilizing a Blended Evaluation that
combines level one and two saves on resources, provides more data, and also places less
emphasis on level one. The Blended Evaluation that will be utilized immediately following the
program implementation will be more learner-based rather than the focus being on the trainer.
By making the evaluation learner-centered, the feedback will be personalized with their own
experience rather than critical of the trainer or the program itself allowing this process to be more
positive and truthful with the feedback (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Appendix C contains
an evaluation for SSRs to complete immediately following the training program, which contains
questions related to level one and level two with an appropriate rating scale. Additionally, there
are a few open-ended questions for SSRs to answer as well to gain further perspective and
feedback on the program.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), the evaluation process should start at
level four and three, proceed to level one and two, and then work back to level three and four to
see if goals have been met. With that in mind, level four evaluates in all forms if the training
94
program is effective and whether goals have been met; level three can be evaluated through
reports to analyze the utilization and effectiveness of the m-learning; level two can be evaluated
through simulations and “contextual performance;” level one can be evaluated through m-
learning by sending surveys or asking for feedback on participants’ experiences (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.130).
After SSRs have completed their training program and completed the evaluation
immediately after completion, there will be a delayed evaluation for SSRs to also complete.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) noted that delayed evaluations focus on how those who have
completed training are applying what they have learned and accomplished. The delayed
evaluation will contain questions related to levels one, two, three, and four. Appendix D contains
a delayed evaluation instrument that contains questions for all the levels.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Analyzing and reporting data is crucial throughout the process of implementing the
training program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatric, 2016). This process is also beneficial for adding
value to the program itself and its outcomes for continual improvement (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Just as the program focuses on level three and four more so than level one
and two, the data analysis will mirror the same focus. While the training program is being
conducted, the trainers of the m-learning module will conduct data analysis for level one and two
by taking note of the participation in the modules (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). After the
training program, data analysis is more critical to observe and analyze on-the-job behaviors and
results. Thus, the need for creating and implementing a “post-training plan” is necessary to
ensure the behaviors and results from the training are being implemented well after the program
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 188). To obtain a wider and accurate picture of the success
95
of the training, a graph can be utilized to depict the effectiveness of the training program
regarding SSRs’ application of defensive driving techniques while working. Figure 3 is an
example that will be utilized for the analysis method of the training program.
Figure 3
SSRs’ Progress in Application of Defensive Driving Techniques while Working
Pre-training: Applying Defensive Driving Post-training: Applying Defensive Driving
Techniques While Working Techniques While Working
Immediate Evaluation Delayed Evaluation
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was utilized to plan, implement, and evaluate the
recommendations for Water Co. to optimize achievement of the stakeholder and organizational
goal of decreasing accident frequency rates. By utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick Model, the
trainers, organization, and SSRs are able to evaluate the effectiveness of every level of the
training program. The ability to assess the expectations, results, and performance throughout
every level is integral for continual improvement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Furthermore, if there is any part in the training program that does not meet expectations or is not
effective with its outcomes, the ability to identify and address the shortcoming allows the
program to correct itself before affecting the outcomes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Constant evaluation and data analysis of the training program throughout every level allows for a
successful result in the training program at Water Co. The New World Kirkpatrick Model allows
Water Co. to identify any shortcomings and curtail any impediments and allows SSRs to reap the
96
benefits from the effectiveness of the program by decreasing accident frequency rates while
working.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
For this study, the Clark and Estes (2008) framework was utilized to analyze the
performance gaps and stakeholder goals in relation to knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. The strengths behind the Clark and Estes (2008) framework consisted of taking a
deep dive of gap analysis of SSRs’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors of
implementing safety policies and culture into their duties to produce 0% accidents. Specifically,
with knowledge, Clark and Estes (2008) stated that investment in employees is a necessary
process to increase their skills in order to meet their goals. By taking Clark and Estes’ (2008)
framework on knowledge, this study uncovered the gaps SSRs faced with their procedural
knowledge where SSRs need to demonstrate safe driving practices. Clark and Estes (2008)
accentuated that learners must be provided information on how to complete their tasks
successfully in order to be self-efficient and self-reliant. Furthermore, the Clark and Estes (2008)
framework provides the strategy on how organizations can provide the resources for employees
to be successful. Utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) to delve further into those
strategies was integral in developing a Program of recommended solutions and evaluations for
SSRs and Water Co.
Clark and Estes (2008) discussed motivational influences such as self-efficacy and how
individuals must hold themselves accountable in order to meet their goals. Furthermore, Clark
and Estes (2008) added that although training provides the necessary knowledge and skills, self-
efficacy is another necessary factor that contributes to individuals meeting their goals. Although
Clark and Estes (2008) discussed the importance of self-efficacy and learners’ becoming more
97
confident in order to meet their goals, the weakness behind this approach was that this study did
not yield substantiated data of SSRs’ self-efficacy. The study failed to show that SSRs have self-
efficacy where they felt confident in implementing defensive driving techniques to their daily
duties. The study did uncover, however, that SSRs had a motivational behavior of perception
regarding implementation of safety policies while working.
Clark and Estes (2008) shared that organizations with strong resources, processes, and
cultures are able to close performance gaps and meet goals. The organizational gaps at Water Co.
were identified where they need to provide safety training and employee support as a
preventative measure, rather than reactive measure in response to accidents. Also, another gap is
that SSRs need exemplifiers on how to perform their duties safely and efficiently. The weakness
behind the Clark and Estes (2008) framework is that focusing on one stakeholder (SSRs) may
not resolve organizational issues in a timely manner; the time it takes to resolve the
organizational gaps is complex and time consuming. Further, the inability to yield a full finding
of stakeholder participation posed as an issue throughout the study. Specifically, the limitation of
not conducting interviews stifled the process of providing a robust finding with the
organizational gaps. The survey results along with document artifacts were utilized to provide
support with the gaps, but there was a need for interviews. Limitations on conducting interviews
along with other limitations and delimitations will be discussed in the next section.
Limitations and Delimitations
Although Water Co. holds safety as a priority, the demands and pressures of SSRs’ duties
may portray a conflicting message. The study utilized a mixed-methods approach to review the
consequences of a poor safety culture, application of safety policies, and the pluralistic principles
and parties involved in Water Co., related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
98
goals. The mixed-methods approach addressed and answered the research questions of SSRs’
knowledge and motivation of conducting safe operations of motor vehicles in connection with
the organization by providing an in-depth analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Although there are many strengths to the mixed-methods
approach, there are limitations that must be addressed.
For one, this study was originally designed as a mixed-method study consisting of
surveys, interviews, and document and artifact analysis. However, once the study had already
commenced, conducting interviews as a qualitative data source was not completed due to Water
Co. restricting access of speaking directly with SSRs. Thorough data collection with interviews
would have provided a more robust finding and result, but the access to conduct interviews was
not allowed. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that qualitative data such as interviews is more
purposeful where the researcher is able to spend time in the field where the participants are while
quantitative data is more random with its samples. Thus, to have had interviews conducted after
gathering surveys, the study would have had a robust collection of data.
Another limitation when collecting data form surveys is the lack of responses when
asking open-ended questions. Although the researcher made assurances to participants that they
would remain anonymous and there would be no retaliation for their answers, there may have be
participants who were reluctant and may not have provided responses. Added to that, some
participants might not have chosen to answer the questions due to time constraints of wanting to
return to work. Even the researcher’s delimitation to curtail a participants’ reluctancy of truthful
answers may not effectively draw out authentic answers. Regardless of such efforts, there are
further limitations within the process of document analysis.
99
Bowen (2009) pointed out a few limitations regarding document analysis, such as a
limitation of access and information provided. Specifically, when researchers obtain documents,
they may not be sufficient to answer all of the research questions for a certain study (Bowen,
2009). Also, certain documents may be blocked, and researchers are unable to gain access to the
document (Bowen, 2009). Water Co. limited the access of their reports due to the researcher’s
employment status of leaving the company. During the researcher’s employment, Water Co. has
readily provided reports for the document analysis process. After the researcher’s employment
ended with Water Co., the access to their reports was severed.
Future Research
Originally when starting the study of SSRs’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences related to their goal of decreasing AFR, the aim was to conduct a mixed methods
study of quantitative data (surveys) and qualitative data (interviews and document artifacts).
Chapter Four discussed the results and findings of the knowledge and motivation of SSRs along
with organizational influences of Water Co. in achieving the goal of 0% vehicle accidents. There
were various challenges in providing a robust finding due to a heavy reliance on survey results
and lack of interview findings.
Although there were survey results where themes and gaps were discussed, there was
insufficient data in some cases despite having document artifacts. Even with document artifacts,
Water Co. withdrew some of the reports that were readily available when initially conducting
this study. Due to the limited access of document artifacts, those findings were limited in scope
of supporting the survey results. For instance, one may surmise from the survey results of the
majority of SSRs attending safety huddles, that they find value in the safety culture.
Unfortunately, the survey results alone does not attest to the full findings that they may only
100
attend the safety huddles due to it being required. Solely basing the sentiment that SSRs value
the safety huddles on their attendance does not truly speak to whether they do find value in the
meetings. Interviews where the researcher asks open-ended questions to gauge SSRs’ sentiments
and values in safety huddles would have provided stronger results. For future research, a study
might explore deeper into the self-efficacy and value of SSRs by conducting interviews in
addition to survey.
There were also conflicting results due to the limitation of not conducting interviews. For
instance, when it came to SSRs’ factual and conceptual knowledge, the survey results showed
that they possess the confidence of their skills. However, the procedural knowledge of
implementing their knowledge and skills into their duties, posed as a conflict. A majority of
SSRs were passing the Smith System test, but almost half had points on their records. If an
interview was to be conducted, the researcher would have had the ability to delve deeper and
gain findings that may have provided a resolution to the conflicting results. The restraint of no
longer being employed by Water Co. and the restrain of time did not allow for a thorough
interview to be conducted. In future research, the recommendation would be to lift the limitations
Water Co. posed on the researcher and conduct these interviews. Another recommendation to
resolving insufficient and conflicting results would have been to distribute a second survey. If
Water Co. remained adamant of not allowing interviews, another solution would be to provide
another survey that would have asked more specific questions based on the first survey. Based on
the first survey, SSRs rarely answered open-ended questions in detail or at all. Thus, the second
survey would contain more specific questions with a Likert scale, rather than open-ended
questions. For future research, another recommendation would be that if time permits, the
researcher should present the value and benefits to having interviews or second surveys to be
101
conducted with SSRs to gain a more accurate finding and recommendations on improving their
practices.
Conclusion
This study delved into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of SSRs
and Water Co. The purpose behind doing so was to address the problem of practice of decreasing
SSRs’ AFR to 0%. Safety is the upmost importance that an organization cannot stress enough to
their employees. The literature review showed that organizations that invest in their employees
yield positive results. By building a safety culture where all stakeholders believe in “safety first,”
Water Co.’s productivity and morale increases. In the instance of Water Co., SSRs who know
and believe that Water Co. is investing in them by providing more resources, tools, and support
have the ability to perform more efficiently and safely. SSRs who believe that safety is first, also
believes that Water Co. values their livelihood. The Clark and Estes (2008) framework revealed
the gaps that SSRs and Water Co. possessed and also showed that once the gaps were addressed,
there is a possibility of improvement. The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) solidified the
gap by addressing it through the four levels of evaluation and providing a program to achieve the
goals of SSRs and Water Co. Water Co. may have had a training program to address the issue of
the rise in vehicle accidents, but after evaluating their program and proposing the implementation
of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016), it was revealed that they needed a more robust
program to further support the SSRs. Utilizing the recommendations and training program in
Chapter Five will ensure that there is an ongoing program to address any gaps and issues with
SSRs and vehicle accidents, thereby achieving the goal of 0% accidents.
102
References
Achmetli, K., Schukajlow, S., & Rakoczy, K. (2019). Multiple solutions for real-world problems,
experience of competence and students’ procedural and conceptual knowledge.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 1605-1625.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
Alavi, S.B., & McCormick, J. (2017). Why do I think my team is capable? A study of some
antecedents of team members’ personal collective efficacy beliefs. Educational
Psychology, 38(9), 1147-1162.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great Minds in Management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University.
Bithell, A. (2009).Opening time: Alwyn Bithell shares the learning and challenges involved in
dealing with safety culture at Airbus UK (1) and the company's subsequent efforts to
change at a time when other business pressures are significant. The Safety and Health
Practitioner, 27(3).
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Borowsky, A., Shinar, D., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2010). Age, skill, and hazard perception in driving.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(4), 1240 – 1249.
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal
9(2), 27-40.
Blair, E. & Seo, D-C. (2007). Safety training. Professional Safety, 52(10), 42-48.
103
Buntgen, U., Jaggi, M., Egli, S., Heule, M., Peter, M., Zagyva, I., Krusic, P.J., Zimermann, S.,
Bagi, I. (2019). No radioactive contamination from the Chernobyl disaster in Hungarian
white truffles. Environmental Pollution, 252, 1643 – 1647.
Chen, C-F. & Chen, S-C. (2014). Measuring the effects of safety management system practices,
morality leadership, and self-efficacy on pilots’ safety behaviors: Safety motivation as a
mediator. Safety Science, 62, 376-385.
Clarke, S. (2006). The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: a meta-
analytic review. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(4), 315-327.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clark, R.E., Howard, K., & Early, S. (2006). Motivational Challenges Experienced in Highly
Complex Learning Environments. Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Theory and
Research, 27-41.
Creswell, J.W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Crundall, D. (2016). Hazard prediction discriminates between novice and experienced drivers.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 86, 47-58.
Dembo, M., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level schools.
The Elementary School Journal, 100, 473–490.
Fabio, R.A. & Antonietti, A. (2012). Effects of hypermedia instruction on declarative,
conditional and procedural knowledge in ADHD students. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 33(6), 2028-2039.
Farokhzadian, J., Nayeri, N.D., and Borhani, F. (2018). The long way ahead to achieve an
104
effective patient safety culture: challenges perceived by nurses. BMC Health Services Research,
18, 1-13.
Ford, M.T. & Tetrick, L.E., (2008). Safety motivation and human resource management in North
America. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(8), 1472-1485.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45-56.
Ghahramani, A. (2017). Diagnosis of poor safety culture as a major shortcoming in OHSAS
18001-certified companies. Industrial Health, 55(2), 138(11).
http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/apps/doc/A489758231/AONE?u=usocal_ma
in&sid=AONE&xid=37f08f49
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Griffin, M. A., & 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.
Griggs, C. (2014). Just culture and accountability for flight safety events in Australia and New
Zealand. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 79(3), 441-462.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15, 103–120.
Guldenmund, F.W. (2010). (Mis)understanding safety culture and its relationship to safety
management. Risk Analysis, 30(10), 1466-1480.
105
Hoenck, N. (2019). Impact of leader rounding on improving employee engagement and culture
of safety. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Huang, L., Kim, R., Berry, W. (2013). Creating a culture of safety by using checklists. Aorn
Journal, 97(3), 365-368.
Jiang, L. & Probst, T.M., (2016). Transformational and passive leadership as cross-level
moderators of the relationships between safety knowledge, safety motivation, and safety
participation. Journal of Safety Research, 57, 27-32.
Ji, M., Li, Y., Zhou, C., Han, H., Liu, B., & He, L. (2017). The impact of perfectionism on
situational judgment among Chinese civil flying cadets: The roles of safety motivation
and self-efficacy. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 126-133.
Johnson, R.B., & Christensen, L.B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (5
th
ed.). SAGE.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice,
41, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4
th
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Lin, Y-S., Lin Y-C., & Lou, M-F. (2016). Concept analysis of safety climate in healthcare
providers. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26, 1737 – 1747.
Liu, H., Song, G., Wang, D. (2011). The influence of self-efficacy on flight dispatchers’ stressor-
strain relationships. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(6), 839-850.
106
Malekadeli, N. (2019). California Car Accident Statistics.
https://www.mesrianilaw.com/blog/california-car-accident-statistics.html.
Mayhew, D.R. & Simpson, H.M. (2002). Injury Prevention, 8, 3-8.
Mbato, C.L. (2019). Indonesian EFL Learners’ Critical Thinking in Reading: Bridging the Gap
between Declarative, Procedural and Conditional Knowledge. Humaniora, 31(1), 92-101.
McEwan, E.K., & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making sense of research. Sage Publications.
Melnikova, Julija (2016). The challenges of safety culture: no more risk! Renewable Energy and
Sustainable Development, 2(2), 64-67.
Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meulders, A., Vandael, K, & Vlaeyen, J.W.S. (2017). Generalization of pain-related fear based
on conceptual knowledge. Behavior Therapy, 48(3), 295-310.
Montoro, L., Useche, S.A., Alonso, F., Lijarico, I., Boso-Segui, P., Marti-Belda, A. (2019).
Perceived safety and attributed value as predictors of the intention to use autonomous
vehicles: A national study with Spanish drivers. Safety Science, 120, 865-876.
Motowidlo, S.J. & Beier M.E., (2010). Differentiating specific job knowledge from implicit trait
policies in procedural knowledge measured by a situational judgment test. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(2), 321-333.
Mouter, N., Cranenburgh, S.V., Wee, B.V. (2018). The consumer-citizen duality: Ten reasons
why citizens prefer safety and drivers desire speed. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 121,
53-63.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (n.d.). Traffic safety facts California 2013-
2017. https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/SASStoredProcess/guest
107
National Library of Medicine (1986). London, England: National Library of Medicine.
Nelson, L. and Smith, D. (2017). The number of pedestrians, cyclist and drivers killed in L.A.
traffic rose sharply in 2016. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-
me-ln-2016-traffic-deaths-20170403-story.html
Newman, S., Lewis, I., & Watson, B. (2011). Occupational driver safety: Conceptualizing a
leadership-based intervention to improve safe driving performance. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 45, 29-38.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2015). Occupational safety and health
standards: Training Requirements in OSHA Standards (Standard No. 2254-09R).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1970). Occupational safety and health
standards: Occupational health and environmental control (Standard No. 1910.95).
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDAR`DS&p
_id=9735.
Olive, C., O’Conner, T.M., & Mannan, M.S. (2006). Relationship of safety culture and process
safety. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 130(1-2), 133-140.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-
theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Petitta, L., Probst, T.M., Barbaranelli, C., & Ghezzi, V. (2017). Disentangling the roles of safety
climate and safety culture: multi-level effects on the relationship between supervisor
enforcement and safety compliance. Accident Analysis & Prevention99(A), 77-89.
108
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Raupach, T., Munscher, C., Pukrop, T., Anders, S., & Harendza, S. (2010). Significant increase
in knowledge with web-assisted problem-based learning as part of an undergraduate
cardio-respiratory curriculum. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 349-356.
Reniers, G., Cremer, K., & Buytaert, J. (2011). Continuously and simultaneously optimizing an
organization’s safety and security culture and climate: The improvement diamond for
excellence achievement and leadership in safety & security (IDEAL S&S) model.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(11), 1239-1249.
Rifath, A. & Blair, E. (2018). Safety training revisited: effective design & delivery. Des Plaines,
63(6), 57-60.
Roberts, W. & Fillmore, M.T. (2017). Curbing the DUI offender’s self-efficacy to drink and
drive: A laboratory study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 172, 73-79.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory and educational
technology-related studies based on Rogers theory. The Turkish Online Journal of
Education Technology, 5(2), 14-23.
Shraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. http://www.education.com/
Salmons, J. (2015). Qualitative online interviews (2
nd
ed.) Sage.
109
Water Company. (2019). 2018 P6 Safety Metrics.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 1: Introduction. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wilson, J.L., Wolf, D.M., & Olszewski, K.A. (2018). Reducing commercial truck driver BMI
through motivational interviewing and self-efficacy. Workplace Health & Safety.
https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1177/2165079918754585.
Wyant, T. (2017). Safety culture: establishing processes to support trust and accountability for
risk reduction. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 21(4), 499+. https://link-gale-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/apps/doc/A501656629/HRCA?u=usocal_main&sid=HRCA&xid=
88a3602c
Xiong, H-B., Fang, P. (2014). Authentic leadership, collective efficacy, and group performance:
An empirical study in China. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(6), 921-932.
Zavalkoff, S., Korah, N., and Quach, C. (2015). Presence of a physician safety champion is
associated with a reduction of urinary catheter utilization in the pediatric intensive care
unit. PLoS One, 10(12), 1-9.
110
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Items
Introductory language that will be used for the survey is as follows: Thank you for taking
the time to answer the survey about the company’s safety policies, trainings, and support that
affects your role as an SSR. Please be aware that this survey is voluntary, and you can withdraw
at any time without any repercussions. Your answers will remain anonymous and the data
collected will be confidential. Please do not feel pressured to answer all of them; you can choose
not to answer.
1. Have you been in your current route for at least one year?
a. Yes
b. No
2. Did you pass the Smith System Training?
a. Yes
b. No
3. Please indicate your score for the Smith System Training.
a. 0-69
b. 70-80
c. 81-100
4. Do you have four or more points assigned to you by the Safety Department?
a. Yes
b. No
5. After receiving four points, have you received Smith System Training again?
a. Yes
b. No
6. How often do you implement safety policies while working?
a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never
7. Do you have an average of 100 routes per day?
a. Yes
b. No
8. How often does Water Co. discuss the four safety principles in huddles?
a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never
111
9. How has Water Co. Provided you the resources for you to perform your job safely?
10. How often do you attend the safety huddles?
a. Always b. Often c. Sometimes d. Rarely e. Never
11. Do you understand the safety policies, consequences to violations, and the purposes of
safety training?
a. Yes
b. No
12. In what ways does Water Co. provide examples and models on how to perform your job
safely with no vehicle accidents?
112
Appendix B: Influences of Survey Items
Survey Item
KMO
Influences
1. Have you been on your current route for at least one year?
NA
2. Did you pass the Smith System Training?
K-1; K-2
3. Please indicate your score for the Smith System Training.
K-1; K-2
4. Do you have four or more points assigned to you by the Safety
Department?
K-3
M-4
O-3
5. After receiving four points, have you received Smith System Training
again?
K-3
M-4
O-3
6. How often do you implement safety policies while working? K-3
M-4
7. Do you have an average of 100 routes per day? NA
8. How often does Water Co. discuss the four safety principles in
meetings/huddles?
O-1
9. How has Water Co. provided you the resources for you to perform your
job safely?
O-3; O-4
10. How often do you attend the safety meetings? M-2
11. Do you understand the safety policies, consequences to violations, and
the purposes of safety training?
NA
12. In what ways does Water Co. provide examples and models on how to
perform your job safely with no vehicle accidents?
O-4
113
Appendix C: Immediate Evaluation after Training Program
Instructions: In order to receive feedback on the effectiveness of the program, please
complete the Blended Evaluation below. The evaluation is voluntary with the majority of
questions in a rating scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” and a few open-
ended questions. You can choose to answer all or some of the questions.
Feedback Item
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
I took responsibility for my participation
in this program
The information presented in this program
is applicable to my work
The technology was easy to navigate
I know where I can find additional help or
resources after I return to my work
I have a clear understanding of defensive
driving techniques
I have a clear understanding of safety
policies
I am confident in my ability to discuss and
teach other SSRs about defensive driving
techniques
I am confident in my ability to discuss and
teach other SSRs about safety policies
I will inform other SSRs when I see them
behaving or operating in an unsafe manner
I am clear of the expectations I need to
uphold to perform my job safely and
successfully as a result of taking this
program
Overall, I am happy with the program
114
Instructions: the following are open-ended questions. Please provide as much detail as possible,
as it will provide us feedback on how to continually improve the training program.
What is the first thing you plan to implement from what you have learned today?
What additional resources or support would you need to help you be more successful in your
role?
Please provide any suggestions or ideas on how the program can be improved.
115
Appendix D: Delayed Evaluation
Instructions: After completing the training and evaluation immediately after the training,
please provide your feedback for this Delayed Evaluation. Your feedback is voluntary and will
help gather further data on continual improvement in the training program. There is a rating scale
for the majority of the questions, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” along
with one open-ended question.
Feedback Item
Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
After the course, I took time to plan steps
I would take to improve my
implementation of defensive driving
techniques to my daily duties
I have successfully applied my knowledge
of Smith System and safety policies to my
daily duties
After the course, I knew where I can
receive further help and support to answer
or address any questions
Thinking back to the course, I believe that
it was a good use of my time
After the course, I believe it is my priority
to apply what I have learned to conduct
my job successfully and safely
I am continually held accountable by my
manager and Safety Department to ensure
that my application of what I have learned
and know of defensive driving is still
being implemented on a daily basis
Instructions: the following is an open-ended question. Please provide as much detail as possible,
as it will provide us feedback on how to continually improve the training program.
116
What are some challenges you face when applying what you learned to your work? Please write
possible solutions to overcome these challenges.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study utilized mixed methods to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of Sales Service Representatives’ (SSRs) safe operation of motor vehicles while decreasing the Accident Frequency Rate (AFR). The research questions delved into SSRs’ knowledge and motivational influences and goals in relation to the safety policies and safety culture, along with organizational influences of Water Co. which impacted the AFR. The Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework (2008) analyzed performance gaps and goals related to knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. Out of 232 SSRs, 100 SSRs participated in the surveys. The mixed methods of survey results and document artifacts revealed themes of SSRs’ implementation of defensive driving techniques. Gaps with SSRs’ belief of their driving performance and implementation of safety policies were discrepant from their driving record of receiving violation points. Specifically, the study revealed gaps of SSRs’ procedural knowledge while performing their duties. The results showed that SSRs had the factual and conceptual knowledge of safety policies, consequences to violations, and the purpose of safety training, however, their procedural knowledge was lacking. This study revealed that despite Water Co.’s current safety training, there were gaps with the effectiveness of the support and resources they provide to SSRs. In order to address these gaps and discrepancies, the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) was utilized to develop a training and evaluation program along with recommendations for best practices to achieve the stakeholder and organizational goal of decreasing AFRs.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China
PDF
The implementation of data driven decision making to improve low-performing schools: an evaluation study of superintendents in the western United States
PDF
Factors contributing to student attrition at a healthcare university: a gap analysis
PDF
Lack of Latinx senior executive service members in a federal government agency
PDF
Winning the organizational leadership game through engagement: a gap analysis
PDF
Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West
PDF
The Army’s process to evaluate costs versus benefits: a case study on the change of command ceremonies
PDF
(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges
PDF
High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study
PDF
Increasing workplace training transfer
PDF
Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study
PDF
Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study
PDF
Pacific Coast University Police Department sworn officer staffing shortages: a gap analysis
PDF
The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study
PDF
Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis
PDF
Educational resiliency factors contributing to college success for adolescent mothers
PDF
Developing and retaining employees: exploring talent management initiatives for enlisted women
PDF
The impact of advanced technologies on the workplace and the workforce: an evaluation study
PDF
The rich auntie effect: increasing socioeconomic advancement for opportunity youth of color
PDF
Your soft skills are showing: organizational efforts to develop soft skills
Asset Metadata
Creator
Kim, Jane Hyuna
(author)
Core Title
Creating a safety culture to decrease vehicle accidents with Sales Service Representatives
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
12/12/2020
Defense Date
12/09/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
accident frequency rate,OAI-PMH Harvest,Safety,safety culture,vehicle accidents
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Phillips, Jennifer (
committee chair
), Foulk, Susanne (
committee member
), Seli, Helena (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jjanekim@gmail.com,kimjh@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-403178
Unique identifier
UC11668214
Identifier
etd-KimJaneHyu-9200.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-403178 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-KimJaneHyu-9200.pdf
Dmrecord
403178
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Kim, Jane Hyuna
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
accident frequency rate
safety culture
vehicle accidents