5. Conclusions
The mechanism for the influence of the safety climate seems to proceed via the
individual’s perception of the shared climate. This finding has two practical implications.
Firstly, if the individual worker notices few cues concerning the nature of the climate the
influence of the climate on behaviour will be low. This implies that in efforts to improve
safety it is important to provide a multitude of climate cues in terms of safety practice and
procedures. This is not least important in the socialisation process of new members of the
organisation. Secondly, we can expect that a weak climate, i.e. where the climate perceptions
are less shared by the group members, will have less influence on safety behaviour than a
strong climate. Schneider and Subirats (Schneider & Subirats, 2002) found that the climate
strength had a moderating effect on climate related outcome. Therefore, in groups where the
safety climate is perceived as high its impact on safety may be reinforced by a high degree of
social interaction and increased group cohesion.
Part of the variation in ratings of psychosocial conditions and safety climate, and in
behaviour at a certain time, were accounted for by the ratings two measurements previous.
This may indicate a stabilizing mechanism regarding organisational climate and behaviour.
Even if a change in safety climate influences safety behaviour, memory and habits of previous
behaviour and climate may influence people to reassume previous behaviour, for better or
worse. This indicates the importance of persistence in efforts to improve safety climate in
order to attain a stable improvement in safety behaviour. This stabilizing mechanism may,
however, also provide system robustness and resilience. Despite momentary conflicts and loss
in trust that may negatively influence members’ evaluation of psychosocial conditions as well
as safety climate and, in turn, safety behaviour, the system may revert to an earlier state based
on previously prevailing, more positive perceptions of policy and practice.
The results also indicate the importance of considering safety outcomes not solely from a
contingent reward perspective but also from a more social relational perspective on the role
and character of safety climate and its relation to safety performance.
5. Conclusions
The mechanism for the influence of the safety climate seems to proceed via the
individual’s perception of the shared climate. This finding has two practical implications.
Firstly, if the individual worker notices few cues concerning the nature of the climate the
influence of the climate on behaviour will be low. This implies that in efforts to improve
safety it is important to provide a multitude of climate cues in terms of safety practice and
procedures. This is not least important in the socialisation process of new members of the
organisation. Secondly, we can expect that a weak climate, i.e. where the climate perceptions
are less shared by the group members, will have less influence on safety behaviour than a
strong climate. Schneider and Subirats (Schneider & Subirats, 2002) found that the climate
strength had a moderating effect on climate related outcome. Therefore, in groups where the
safety climate is perceived as high its impact on safety may be reinforced by a high degree of
social interaction and increased group cohesion.
Part of the variation in ratings of psychosocial conditions and safety climate, and in
behaviour at a certain time, were accounted for by the ratings two measurements previous.
This may indicate a stabilizing mechanism regarding organisational climate and behaviour.
Even if a change in safety climate influences safety behaviour, memory and habits of previous
behaviour and climate may influence people to reassume previous behaviour, for better or
worse. This indicates the importance of persistence in efforts to improve safety climate in
order to attain a stable improvement in safety behaviour. This stabilizing mechanism may,
however, also provide system robustness and resilience. Despite momentary conflicts and loss
in trust that may negatively influence members’ evaluation of psychosocial conditions as well
as safety climate and, in turn, safety behaviour, the system may revert to an earlier state based
on previously prevailing, more positive perceptions of policy and practice.
The results also indicate the importance of considering safety outcomes not solely from a
contingent reward perspective but also from a more social relational perspective on the role
and character of safety climate and its relation to safety performance.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..