Trust

Walden University
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by
Domingo Velazquez
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.
Review Committee
Dr. Richard Thompson, Committee Chairperson, Psychology Faculty
Dr. Stephen Rice, Committee Member, Psychology Faculty
Dr. Richard Thomlinson, University Reviewer, Psychology Faculty
Chief Academic Officer
Eric Riedel, Ph.D.
Walden University
2012
Abstract
Employees Trust in Safety Management Systems and Attitudes and Perceptions Toward
Safety
by
Domingo Velazquez
MS, University of Puerto Rico, 1990
BS, University of Puerto Rico, 1985
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Psychology
Walden University
November 2012
Abstract
The success of safety programs in organizations is measured, in general, by the number
and severity of occupational accidents. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported 4,547 work-related fatalities and 3.1 million nonfatal injuries and illnesses in the
year 2010. Occupational accidents and illnesses are a social problem that brings human
suffering and economic problems to employees, employees families, organizations, and
communities. Safety climate research has established positive relationships between
employees safety attitudes, perceptions, and safety performance. However, studies on
trust in safety management systems were not found in the literature review. The social
exchange theory was used as a framework in this study. This theory has been used to
study interpersonal and organizational trust. This quantitative cross-sectional study
examined the relationship between employees trust in safety management systems and
the systems individual elements (independent variable) and employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety (dependent variables). Power plant employees completed a
survey. The study results suggested a significant positive correlation between the trust in
the safety management system and attitudes and perceptions of safety. The study
provides recommendations to improve safety performance in the organization by
improving employees trust in the safety management systems. The study results
represent a potential impact for positive social change by providing evidence that
improving trust in a safety management system is an additional approach for
organizations to improve safety performance.

Employees Trust in Safety Management Systems and Attitudes and Perceptions Toward
Safety
by
Domingo Velazquez
MS, University of Puerto Rico, 1990
BS, University of Puerto Rico, 1985
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Psychology
Walden University
November 2012
UMI Number: 3545450
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3545450
Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Dedication
I dedicate this study to my parents. I thank my mother, Julia M. Delgado, who
always encouraged me to reach higher. I am also thankful for the support of my father,
Domingo Velazquez, who always emphasized the value of a solid education. I know that
they are celebrating this personal milestone and looking forward to my next educational
goal.
Acknowledgments
There are no words to express my thanks to God. I also want to thank all of my
family members and friends that encouraged me to finish this dissertation and who
liberated me from other obligations during these long years of research. Without your
encouragement and help, this project would not have been possible. Thanks to Dr.
Richard Thompson, my chair, for his guidance and timely responses. Dr. Thompson,
your commitment to your students is exemplary. Thanks to Dr. Stephen Rice, my
committee member. Dr. Rice, thanks for helping me to discover other significant aspects
of my study that I had not taken into consideration. Additional thanks to Dr. Richard
Thomlinson for sharing his knowledge in research design and for his commitment to
quality.
Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study....................................................................................1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Background ....................................................................................................................2
Problem Statement .........................................................................................................5
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................5
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for the Study ..................................................6
Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................7
Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................................8
Operational Definitions ................................................................................................11
Assumptions.................................................................................................................12
Limitations ...................................................................................................................13
Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................13
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................14
Summary ......................................................................................................................15
Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................17
Introduction ..................................................................................................................17
Literature Review Strategy ..........................................................................................20
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for the Study ................................................21
Safety Performance ......................................................................................................23
i
Causes of Accidents .....................................................................................................27
Immediate Causes of Accidents ............................................................................ 27
Root Causes of Accidents ..................................................................................... 28
Safety Climate in Organizations ..................................................................................29
The Safety Climate Concept ................................................................................. 30
Safety climate and safety performance ................................................................. 30
Leadership in Safety ............................................................................................. 32
Trust and Safety Performance ......................................................................................35
The Trust Concept................................................................................................. 35
Organizational Trust ............................................................................................. 37
Trust and Safety Performance ............................................................................... 40
Employees Attitude and Perceptions Toward Safety .......................................... 45
Safety Management Systems .......................................................................................50
Accident Investigations ......................................................................................... 53
Safety Inspections ................................................................................................. 53
Safety Training...................................................................................................... 54
Summary ......................................................................................................................55
Chapter 3: Research Method..............................................................................................58
Introduction ..................................................................................................................58
Research Design...........................................................................................................59
Setting and Sample Criteria .........................................................................................59
Selection of Participating Plants ........................................................................... 60
ii
Participants Selection Criteria............................................................................... 60
Participant Selection ............................................................................................. 61
Communication with Plant Leadership ................................................................. 61
Employees Answering the Questionnaire ............................................................. 61
Power Analysis and Sample Size.................................................................................62
Correlation Test: Minimum Sample Size Required .............................................. 62
Simple and Multiple Regression Tests: Minimum Sample Size Required ........... 63
Determination of Minimum Sample Size ............................................................. 64
Instrumentation and Materials .....................................................................................64
Questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 65
Research Questions and Hypotheses ...........................................................................71
Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................................74
Correlation analysis .............................................................................................. 74
Regression analyses .............................................................................................. 75
Protection of Human Participants ................................................................................75
Summary ......................................................................................................................76
Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................78
Introduction ..................................................................................................................78
Data Collection ............................................................................................................79
Description of the Sample..................................................................................... 79
Sample Characteristics .......................................................................................... 80
Reliability Analysis ............................................................................................... 81
iii
Evaluating Assumptions ..............................................................................................82
General Information Related to Independent and Dependent Variables .....................85
Independent Variables .......................................................................................... 86
Dependent Variables ............................................................................................. 86
Relationship Between Trust in Safety Management System, and Attitudes
and Perceptions Toward Safety ................................................................ 87
Prediction of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Safety by Trust in Safety
Management System ................................................................................. 90
Determining Which Element of the Safety Management System is a Better
Predictor of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Safety ............................. 93
Summary ......................................................................................................................96
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................98
Introduction ..................................................................................................................98
Interpretation of the Findings.....................................................................................100
Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................102
Recommendations ......................................................................................................103
Implications for Positive Social Change ....................................................................104
Conclusions ................................................................................................................105
References ........................................................................................................................106
Appendix A: Consent Forms ..........................................................................................120
Appendix B: Normal Distribution of the Participants Responses to the Study
Survey ..................................................................................................................124
iv
Appendix C: Scatterplots of Predictors and Predicted Variables Results.......................130
Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................138
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Demographic Profile of Participants................................................................... 81
Table 2. Cronbachs Alpha Reliability for all Measures .................................................. 82
Table 3. Multicollinearity Analysis of Independent Variables Predicting Attitudes
Toward Safety ........................................................................................................... 84
Table 4. Multicollinearity Analysis of Independent Variables Predicting Perceptions
Toward Safety ........................................................................................................... 85
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Independent and Dependent Variables ........................ 87
Table 6. Correlations Between All Scales ........................................................................ 89
Table 7. Regression Analysis Predicting Attitudes Toward Safety (N = 170) ................. 91
Table 8. Regression Analysis Predicting Perceptions Toward Safety (N = 170) ............. 92
Table 9. Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Attitudes Toward Safety ................... 95
Table 10. Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Perceptions Toward Safety ............. 95
vi
List of Figures
Figure B1. Frequency of Employees Trust in Accident/Incident Investigations ..........124
Figure B2. Frequency of Employees Trust in Safety Inspections ..................................125
Figure B3. Frequency of Employees Trust in Safety Training......................................126
Figure B4. Frequency of Employees Trust in Safety Management Systems ................127
Figure B5. Frequency of Employees Attitudes Toward Safety .....................................128
Figure B 6. Frequency of Employees Perceptions Toward Safety ................................129
Figure C1. Employees Attitudes Toward Safety and Trust in Accident/Incidents
Investigations ...................................................................................................................130
Figure C2. Employees Attitudes Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Inspections .........131
Figure C3. Employees Attitudes Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Training ..............132
Figure C4. Employees Attitudes Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Management
Systems ............................................................................................................................133
Figure C5. Employees Perceptions Toward Safety and Trust in Accident/Incidents
Investigations ...................................................................................................................134
Figure C6. Employees Perceptions Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Inspections .....135
Figure C7. Employees Perceptions Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Training ..........136
Figure C8. Employees Perceptions Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Management
System ..............................................................................................................................137
vii
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
This quantitative cross-sectional study examined the relationship between
employees trust in safety management systems and employees attitudes and perceptions
toward safety. Academic researchers and businesses have demonstrated a consistent
interest in implementing new approaches to manage safety performance. Good safety
performance translates into healthier and safer workplaces and societies. Obtaining
safety performance goals demonstrates an employers commitment to its employees. It
also reflects an employers ability to manage costs, comply with local and federal
regulations, and maintain healthy relationships with its employees and with society.
The purpose of Chapter 1 is to introduce the study's topic and focus. This chapter
will include brief overviews of the problem under study as well as the study's method,
design, and theoretical framework. I also discuss the potential implications for positive
social change in organizations, communities, and individual workers lives. The present
chapter is arranged in the following manner: it will begin with a background, problem
statement, and a discussion of the theoretical and conceptual framework for the study. I
then discuss the nature of the study, pose the relevant research questions and hypotheses,
and the purpose of the study. The chapter will also present the operational definitions,
assumptions, limitations, and scope and delimitations, significance of the study, and will
conclude with a summary.

2
Background
Managing safety is an important part of managing an organization. Safety results
are key performance management indicators in modern organizations (Luria & Rafaeli,
2008; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Sauter & Hurrell, 1999; Wiatrowski, 2005; Zohar,
2010). While safety performance for organizations is important, accidents in the
workplace have continued to happen at unacceptable rates, causing preventable suffering
and losses to employees, employees families, communities, and organizations (Bird &
Germain, 1996; 2011; Freeman, LaFleur, Booth, Doyle, & Pugh, 2001). Not only do
safety results indicate how well safety is managed in the organization, but they also
indicate the effectiveness and sustainability of the practices that are used to manage the
organization. Different approaches have been used to improve safety performance in
American organizations. One of the most prevalent initial approaches includes assessing
and improving the technical and engineering systems in the workplace (Zhu, Di, Gui, &
Clissold, 2010). This approach, although valid, focuses only on the physical conditions
that were present in the workplace when accidents happened. Physical conditions are
only one of the causes of occupational accidents.
Accident investigation processes that are designed to find one cause of an
accident erroneously simplify the process. These processes lead an organization to solve
only one cause of the safety problem, when most likely there is more than one cause
involved. If an organization hopes to identify all causes of their occupational accidents,
the investigative process also needs to take into consideration the human aspects that
were present before and during the time the accident happened (Bird & Germain, 1996;
3
Brauer, 2006). Consequently, other approaches have been developed to identify,
evaluate, and improve the human aspects and behaviors associated with occupational
accidents, injuries, and illnesses (Spear, 2002; Vaughan, 1999; Zohar, 2010). Literature
pertaining to the safety climate within organizations includes other approaches that study
the human aspects related to occupational safety and health. The reviewed literature
relevant to the present study includes the following categories: (a) employee behavior
(Griffin & Neal, 2000; Neal & Griffin, 2006), (b) safety culture (Carroll, 1998; Conchie,
Taylor, & Donald, 2011; Griffin & Neal, 2000; Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Hofmann,
Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; Huang, Ho, Smith, & Chen, 2001), (c) employees safety
perceptions and attitudes (Adams, Hede, Holloway, & Jackson, 1999; Findley, Smith,
Gorski, & Oneil, 2007; Griffin & Neal, 2000; Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Toms,
Cheyne, & Oliver, 2011; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002), and (d) safety
management systems (Arnaldo Valds & Gmez Comendador, 2011; %DFDN8XU
Eken, 2011; Battles, 2011; Blair & Dong-Chul, 2007; Cedergren & Petersen, 2011;
Dzugan, 2010; Huang et al., 2001; Lundberg, Rollenhagen, & Hollnagel, 2010; Metzgar,
2008; Schrder-Hinrichs, Baldauf, & Ghirxi, 2011; Thompson, Hilton, & Witt, 1998;
Wang & Christer, 1997; Williams Jr, Ochsner, Marshall, Kimmel, & Martino, 2010;
Yanmaz, Caner, & Berk, 2007; Zohar, 2010). Taking in consideration all these
categories of accident causes is very important to have a comprehensive and reliable
investigation process.
Another recently recognized factor in the safety culture and climate of an
organization is organizational trust. Researchers have studied the benefits of trust and its
4
role as a predictor and mediator of high performance in organizations (Kramer &
Lewicki, 2010). Researchers have also studied organizational trust in relation to safety
(Burns, Mearns, & McGeorge, 2006; Conchie & Donald, 2009; Conchie, Donald, &
Taylor, 2006; Conchie & Donald, 2006; Conchie et al., 2011; Jeffcott, Pidgeon, Weyman,
& Walls, 2006; Kath, Magley, & Marmet, 2010; Kramer & Lewicki, 2010; Luria, 2010;
Zacharatos, Barling, & Iverson, 2005). However, the same researchers that have studied
organizational trust have also suggested that trust and occupational safety are
understudied.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the reviewed literature suggesting that
employees trust in organizations safety management systems has been studied. The
published research on organizational trust has instead been focused on the relationship
between interpersonal trust and occupational safety (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie &
Donald, 2009; Conchie et al., 2006; Conchie & Donald, 2006; Conchie et al., 2011;
Jeffcott et al., 2006; Kath et al., 2010; Kramer & Lewicki, 2010; Luria, 2010; Zacharatos
et al., 2005). This study attempted to broaden this focus in various ways.
In the present study I evaluated the relationship between employees trust in the
organizations safety management system and employees attitudes and perceptions
toward safety. Based on the results, employers could develop and implement efforts to
improve employees trust in the safety management systems and, indirectly, improve the
employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety. If the attitudes and perceptions
toward safety are improved in the organizations, the employees safety behaviors could
improve and, as a result, the safety performance in the organizations could also be
5
improved (Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway, 2002; Findley et al., 2007; Griffin & Neal,
2000; Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Kelloway, Mullen, & Francis, 2006; Milos, 2011;
Mullen & Kelloway, 2009; Toms et al., 2011).
Problem Statement
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011) reported 4,547 work-related
fatalities in the year 2010. In 2010, 3.1 million nonfatal injuries and illnesses were also
reported. The same report by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011)
revealed 1,238,490 work-related accidents in the year 2009 that disabled employees.
These disabled employees did not return to work for a period of some time, and some
were never able to come back to their jobs because of the disability. Similarly, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011) reported that 1.2 million disabling work-related
accidents occurred during year 2007. Safety performance in organizations has become a
large-scale social problem that consequently brings human suffering, economic problems,
and losses to the employees, their families, employers, and to entire communities (Bird &
Germain, 1996; Germain, Arnold, Rowan, & Joane, 1998; Sauter & Hurrell, 1999;
Wiatrowski, 2005). It is therefore imperative to address these problems and suggest
possible solutions to lessen the risk of accidents in the workplace.
Purpose of Study
Employers have implemented different approaches to minimize or lower the
number of accidents. However, even when research results have suggested that the
employees interpersonal trust can affect the safety performance within organizations,
6
there is a gap in the literature concerning the relationship between employees trust in the
safety management systems and employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
The main purpose of the present study was to quantify the relationship between
employees trust in safety management systems and the employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety. If that relationship were positive, the employers could then
work on improving the employees trust in safety management systems to positively
affect employee attitudes and perceptions of safety in the workplace. Employers could
also improve their overall safety performance as a result of their efforts to gain
employees trust in the organizations safety management systems. Influencing the
employees trust in the organizations safety management system is under the employers
control.
The results of the present study will give employers an opportunity to change the
dynamics of their safety management systems and get employees involved in finding
solutions to the organizations greatest safety challenges. Consequently, all of these
changes in the organization could help to lower the number and severity of accidents in
the workplace.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for the Study
Researchers of safety culture within organizations have widely discussed attitudes
and perceptions and identified them as predictors of behavior; employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety have been related to occupational accidents (Neal & Griffin,
2006; Sauter & Hurrell, 1999; Wiatrowski, 2005; Zohar, 2010). The relationship
between interpersonal and organizational trust and accidents has been lightly studied and
7
discussed in the safety climate literature (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie et al., 2006;
Conchie & Donald, 2006; Jeffcott et al., 2006; Kath et al., 2010). The social exchange
theory proposes that when one party acts in a way that benefits a second party, a sense of
obligation is created to respond the same way in a future occasion (Blau, 1964; Gouldner,
1960). Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) used the social exchange theory to support their
research about the relationship between leader-member exchanges and perceived
organizational support. Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) linked these factors to the
occurrence of accidents as well as to an organizations commitment to safety and
communication. During a review of the relevant literature, I found no research that
studied the relationship between employees trust in safety management systems and
employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
Nature of the Study
The present study is a cross-sectional study that measured the relationship
between employees trust in safety management systems and employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety. The data was collected by asking a selected group of
participants to respond to an online or printed questionnaire. The first part of the
instrument had demographic and qualifying questions. The second part measured
employees trust in three specific elements of the target organizations management
system using items adapted from a study evaluating interpersonal trust. The instrument
to measure these variables was initially used by Luria (2010). Other published research
has used similar scales to study interpersonal and organizational trust (Burns et al., 2006;
Conchie & Burns, 2008; Conchie & Donald, 2009; Conchie et al., 2006; Kath et al.,
8
2010; Luria, 2010). The specific elements of the safety management system to be
measured were accident investigations, safety inspections, and safety training. The third
and fourth parts of the questionnaire measured employee attitudes and perceptions toward
safety, measuring the variables with an adjusted scale used by Hofmann et al. (2003) and
Hofmann and Morgeson (1999). All the scales used in this study were previously used
by other researchers. They were adapted with the original researchers explicit
permission to measure the independent and dependent variables that were studied.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Statistical correlation and regression tests were applied to data gathered from
survey responses provided by employees of selected power plants in the United States in
order to address the following research questions:
Research Question 1: Does the employees trust in the organizations safety
management system (aggregate of trust in accident/incident investigations, safety
inspections, and safety training measures) have a significant positive relationship with the
employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety?
Null Hypothesis H 0 1: The employees trust in the organizations safety
inspections, and safety training measures), measured with modifications following the
approach in Burns et al. (2006) and Conchie and Donald (2006), does not have a
significant positive relationship with the employees attitudes and perceptions toward
safety, measured following the approach in Hofmann et al. (2003).

9
Alternative Hypothesis H a 1: The employees trust in the organizations safety
inspections and safety training measures), measured with modifications following the
approach in Burns et al. (2006) and Conchie and Donald (2006), has a positive significant
relationship with the employees attitudes toward safety, measured following the
approach in Hofmann et al. (2003).
Alternative Hypothesis H b 1: The employees trust in the organizations safety
approach in Burns et al. (2006) and Conchie and Donald (2006), has a positive significant
relationship with the employees perceptions toward safety, measured following the
approach in Hofmann et al. (2003).
inspections, and safety training measures), as an aggregate of individual elements,
combine to positively predict the employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety?
approach in Burns et al. (2006) and Conchie and Donald (2006), is not a significant
positive predictor of the employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety, measured
following the approach in Hofmann et al. (2003).

10
approach in Burns et al. (2006) and Conchie and Donald (2006), is a positive significant
predictor of the employees attitudes toward safety, measured following the approach in
Hofmann et al. (2003).
approach in Burns et al. (2006) and Conchie and Donald (2006), is a positive significant
predictor of the employees perceptions toward safety, measured following the approach
in Hofmann et al. (2003).
Research Question 3: Is the employees trust in a particular element (accident
investigations, safety inspections, or safety training) of the safety management system a
better predictor of the employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety?
Null Hypothesis H 0 3 Employees trust in a particular element (accident
investigations, safety inspections, or safety training) of the safety management system,
measured with modifications following the approach in Burns et al. (2006) and Conchie
and Donald (2006), is not a significantly better predictor of the employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety, measured following the approach in Hofmann et al. (2003).
Alternative Hypothesis H a 3: Employees trust in a particular element (accident

11
and Donald (2006), is a significantly better predictor of the employees attitudes toward
Alternative Hypothesis H b 3: Employees trust in a particular element (accident
and Donald (2006), is a significantly better predictor of the employees perceptions
toward safety, measured following the approach in Hofmann et al. (2003).
Operational Definitions
The following terms were used in the present study. The definitions presented in
this section are operational.
Accident investigation: process of discovering the immediate and root causes of
accidental losses in the workplace (Bird & Germain, 1996)
Attitudes toward safety: any subjective belief or general evaluation associated
with the occupational safety conditions, programs, systems, or activities in an
organization (APA, 2007).
Occupational safety: control of accidental loss in the workplace (Bird & Germain,
1996).
Perceptions toward safety: the process or result of becoming aware of the
occupational safety conditions, programs, systems, or activities in an organization by
means of the senses. The awareness happens by recognizing, observing, and
distinguishing the safety stimuli received (APA, 2007).

12
Safety inspection: process of evaluating physical conditions and behaviors and
determining if they are safe in the workplace (Bird & Germain, 1996).
Safety management system: the systematic approach of creating written programs
and standards that establish the accountability and frequency of the management work
that is needed to address safety performance (Germain et al., 1998).
Safety training: the process of teaching employees how to protect themselves and
others from the hazards present in the workplace (Bird & Germain, 1996).
Trust: a positive expectation of peoples behaviors or a things performance based
on previous experiences and consistency (Kramer & Lewicki, 2010).
Organizational trust: a sense in which the trustor perceives the environment as
normal and perceives that there are common interests and benefits between the trustor
and trustee (Schul, Mayo, & Burnstein, 2008).
Assumptions
For this study I assumed that the participants had a sufficient level of exposure to
the safety management system elements being studied. I also assumed that the amount of
exposure to the safety management system was enough for the employee to have trust or
distrust in the studied management system elements. The participants were expected to
have a perspective regarding how well the elements were working in the organization. I
also assumed that the participants understand the concept of trust and applied it to their
answers.
13
Limitations
The major limitation of this study is that it was the first to measure trust in a
safety management system. The instrument used to measure trust was adapted from
previous studies that measured interpersonal trust and not organizational trust. I
compared the results with data that was previously published related to interpersonal trust
and attitudes and perceptions toward safety. In previous studies, interpersonal trust was
directly measured with questions such as Do you trust your supervisor (Burns et al.,
2006; Conchie & Burns, 2008; Conchie & Donald, 2009; Conchie & Donald, 2006; Kath
et al., 2010; Luria, 2010). Therefore, this limitation should not have had any significant
interference with the results of this study.
Scope and Delimitations
The participants sampled in the present study were employed by the same
organization in the power generation industry. The sample was taken from the
employers facilities in the United States. Therefore, this group of employees had been
exposed to one safety management system. The sample was not restricted to higher
exposure to the safety management system. Indeed, the only restriction related to
longevity in the organization was that participants were employed by the employer for at
least one year. The longevity restriction ensured that participants had been sufficiently
exposed to the organizations safety management system. However, the study did not
establish the minimum number of times that the participants were exposed to the
elements of the safety management systems that were studied.

14
The number of the studied safety management system elements was limited to
three: occupational accidents/incidents investigations, safety inspections, and safety
trainings. Even as researchers have established these three elements as important in
organizations safety management systems, the reviewed literature does not present the
relative importance between these three elements and/or other elements (Bird & Germain,
1996; Brauer, 2006; Burns et al., 2006; Germain et al., 1998; Gherardi & Nicolini, 2000;
Jeffcott et al., 2006; Metzgar, 2008; Reason, 1997). Other elements of the safety
management systems that have been previously identified include critical task analysis,
task observations, emergency preparedness, rules, procedures, personal protective
equipment, occupational health, audits, leadership, communications, management of
change, and engineering controls.
Significance of the Study
The present study closed a gap in the safety climate literature and provided
employers with specific guidance on developing employee trust in their safety
management systems. If employers implement activities and programs that improve trust
in the safety management systems, they will also improve safety performance at their
workplaces. This expectation is based on the positive relationship between interpersonal
trust and safety performance suggested in the relevant literature (Burns et al., 2006;
Conchie & Donald, 2009; Conchie et al., 2006; Conchie & Donald, 2006; Conchie et al.,
2011; Jeffcott et al., 2006; Kath et al., 2010; Kramer & Lewicki, 2010; Luria, 2010;
Zacharatos et al., 2005). In Chapter 4 I discuss the obtained results and how the
identified gap in the literature has been closed.

15
Although previous studies have suggested a relationship exists between
interpersonal trust and safety performance, it is important to note that improving
interpersonal trust is dependent upon human behaviors and reactions. However,
improving trust in organizations safety management system is not directly dependent on
human behavior. Therefore, the focus of this study was not human behavior, but rather
the elements of the safety management systems. In conclusion, the activities to improve
employees trust in safety management systems should not focus on peoples behaviors,
but should instead focus on the safety management system. Any suggested
implementation should be directed to very tangible actions such as increasing employee
participation, involvement, and knowledge.
Summary
The objective of the present study was to explore and quantify the relationship
between the employees trust in the safety management system and the employees
attitudes and perceptions toward safety in the targeted organization. Discussion of this
relationship was not found in the reviewed safety climate literature. However, the trust
that employees have in their superiors and co-workers has been studied and has been
recognized as a predictor of positive safety performance in an organization. This study
provides employers new ways to improve their safety performance and their employees
attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
In the next chapter I discuss recent and older publications that have addressed the
issues of organizational trust, safety management systems, and employee attitudes and
perceptions toward safety. Chapter 2 also presents the results of studies that have
16
addressed additional topics directly connected to the purpose of this study, as well as
other related topics that interact with the variables that were measured throughout this
research.
17
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The present study was designed to examine the relationship between the
employees trust in the organizations safety management system and the employees
attitudes and perceptions toward safety in the workplace. There is a gap in the literature
on trust and safety climate (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie et al., 2006; Jeffcott et al., 2006).
The present study will focus on evaluating trust in safety management systems as a
predictor of safety attitudes and perceptions, and consequently as predictors of safety
performance.
Measuring safety performance is an important activity that allows organizations to
determine their safety success and receive recognition within their respective industries.
The immediate causes of occupational accidents have been related to physical conditions
and employee acts or behaviors in the workplace (Bird & Germain, 1996; Brauer, 2006;
Germain et al., 1998). A thorough investigation of the immediate causes would lead the
investigators to the root causes of the accidents (Luria & Rafaeli, 2008; Nembhard &
Edmondson, 2006; Sauter & Hurrell, 1999; Wiatrowski, 2005; Zohar, 2010). The root
causes of accidents have been related to job or personal factors (Bird & Germain, 1996;
Milos, 2011). Employees acts or behaviors, which are the most commonly identified
causes when workplace accidents are investigated, have been related to employee
attitudes toward safety (Bird & Germain, 1996; Wiatrowski, 2005; Zohar, 2010). Other
approaches to investigating the causes of accidents are discussed in this chapter.

18
There are behavior-based safety approaches that focus on working with the
employees attitudes. These behavior-based approaches measure and try to modify
employees behaviors as a mechanism to change the employees attitudes toward safety
(Neal & Griffin, 2006; Sauter & Hurrell, 1999). Furthermore, employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety have been associated with the safety climate in organizations
(Desai, Roberts, & Ciavarelli, 2006; Milos, 2011; Toms et al., 2011; Zohar, 2000).
Employees attitudes and perceptions are dependent variables in the present study and
they are discussed further in this chapter.
Additionally, safety climate has been studied as a predictor of safety results in
organizations. Safety performance has also been associated with safety climate in
organizations (Flin, Mearns, O'Connor, & Bryden, 2000; Kath et al., 2010; Michael,
Evans, Jansen, & Haight, 2005). Researchers of safety climate have identified different
approaches that assist organizations in developing and implementing safety programs that
could improve their safety climate and ultimately their safety performance (Adams et al.,
1999; Flin et al., 2000; Gunningham & Sinclair, 2009; Luria & Rafaeli, 2008; Michael et
al., 2005; Zohar, 2010). In general, the compendium of all the safety programs is known
as the organizations safety management system. The safety management systems
approach is focused on minimizing the immediate and/or root causes of accidents in the
workplace.
Furthermore, an effective safety management system approach includes the
creation of written programs and standards that establish managerial accountability and
set guidelines for the management work that is needed to address safety performance.
19
Safety management systems are comprehensive and systematical approaches intended to
improve the safety performance of organizations (Bird & Germain, 1996; Brauer, 2006;
Germain et al., 1998; Thompson et al., 1998; Zohar, 2010). Managing an organizations
safety performance includes developing and implementing programs that are both
preventive and reactive. Safety inspections and safety training are examples of
management system programs that are preventive. Accident investigation, on the other
hand, is a reactive program. Accident investigations are considered reactive activities
because an accident must first occur, and is then investigated in order to prevent others
from happening.
In an effort to explain why accidents happen in the workplace, researchers of
safety climate have discussed how trust between different groups in the organization can
influence the employees attitudes toward safety as a result of the human relationships at
work. Trust has been introduced in the safety literature; however, safety climate
researchers have not studied it very much (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie et al., 2006;
Jeffcott et al., 2006). The literature presents a limited amount of research on the
interpersonal trust between different levels of employees in organizations.
However, the literature presents some studies that describe the trust relations
between employees and managers. Employee trust in other employees and management
is an example of interpersonal trust that has been studied by organizational psychology
researchers (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie & Donald, 2009; Conchie & Donald, 2006). The
purpose of these studies was to determine how the employee-employee and employee-
management relationships could help develop an employees trust in safety. However,

20
and even more importantly for purposes of the present study, the literature has indicated
that the influence that trust in the organizations safety management systems has had on
the employees attitudes toward safety has been understudied (Conchie & Donald, 2006).
However, the positive relationships between organizational trust, job satisfaction, and
employee retention have been proposed and explained by various researchers (Kath et al.,
2010). These relationships are nourished by the confidence that employees gain when
their expectations are met by the organization. Trust has been identified as an important
factor to improve safety attitudes and performance (Conchie & Donald, 2006). Through
their work, these authors established that trust was associated with effective risk
communication, reduced risk perception, and effective risk management. All of these are
important goals in modern organizations.
Literature Review Strategy
The strategy to accomplish this literature review included conducting
comprehensive research on the psychology, safety, and management databases. The
databases consulted included PsycINFO, SocINDEX, PsycARTICLES, ABI/INFORM
Complete, Business Source Complete/Premier, and Management & Organizations
Studies: a SAGE full-text collection, Google Scholar, Thoreau, and ProQuest Central.
The database research was done using Boolean logic operators with keywords including
safety performance, safety climate, trust, organizational trust, safety climate and trust,
trust and safety performance, trust and safety systems, trust and automation, safety
climate and organizational trust, safety climate and leadership, safety attitudes, safety
perceptions, safe behavior, employee and safe behavior, leadership and safe behavior,
21
safety management systems, causes of accidents, accident investigations, safety training,
and safety inspections. Additional documents and books that were cited in articles that I
read, most of which have been considered seminal works on the topics of safety climate
and organizational trust, were also included in this literature review. The first two
searches were limited by publication years. The first search was limited to articles
published in the last 5 years, the second search was limited to publications within the last
10 years, and the last search was not limited by publication date. This last search was
conducted to find classic articles and articles that were highly associated with the
research topic but that were published more than 10 years ago.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for the Study
Researchers have identified physical conditions and employees acts or behaviors
in the workplace as the immediate causes of occupational accidents. Additionally, the
root causes of accidents have been identified as job or personal factors (Bird & Germain,
1996; Milos, 2011). While attitudes and perceptions have been identified as predictors of
behavior, employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety have been related to
occupation accidents (Neal & Griffin, 2006; Sauter & Hurrell, 1999; Wiatrowski, 2005;
Zohar, 2010). Furthermore, employees attitudes toward safety have been associated
with the safety climate in organizations (Milos, 2011; Toms et al., 2011; Zohar, 2000).
The social exchange theory has been used in previous research that studied employees
In particular, Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) used the social exchange theory to
support their research about the relationship between leader-member exchanges and
22
perceived organization support to accident occurrence, safety commitment, and safety
communication. The social exchange theory proposes that when one party acts in a way
that benefits a second party, a sense of obligation is created to respond the same way in a
future occasion (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). The relationship between interpersonal
trust, organizational trust, and accidents has been studied and discussed only sparingly in
the safety climate literature (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie et al., 2006; Conchie & Donald,
2006; Jeffcott et al., 2006; Kath et al., 2010). Researchers have suggested that attitudes
and positive reinforcement of these factors promote positive behaviors (Rice, Trafimow,
Keller, & Bean, 2011), and these positive safety behaviors can positively affect safety
performance in an organization. Rice et al. (2011) discussed how the theories of
confluence and cognitive dissonance both establish that behavior influences attitudes and
that attitudes influence behavior as well. As discussed above, during the process of
reviewing the literature relevant to this study, I found no research that studied the
relationship between employees trust in safety management systems and employees
For example, Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) studied the relationship between
leader-member exchange (LMX) and perceived organization support (POS) and accident
occurrence, safety commitment, and safety communication. The researchers used the
social exchange theory to support their study. Social exchanges are open lines of
communication that generate trust through the exchange of benefits. The social
exchanges also solidify relationships between the individuals (Kath et al., 2010). The
social exchange theory is important in this dissertation because it explains the link
23
between employees trust in safety management systems and employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety.
Safety Performance
Safety statistics have been used by organizations as indicators of an
organizations preventive efforts to provide a safe workplace for their employees. While
safety performance is important for American organizations, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2011) reported 4, 547 work-related fatalities in the year 2010. This is
equivalent to more than 87 work-related deaths per week in the United States (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2011). It was also reported that nearly 3.1 million non-fatal injuries and
illnesses occurred during 2010 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). The same report
indicated that these results are equivalent to 3.5 cases for every 100 full-time workers
(where full-time is defined as employees who work 40 hours per week for a period of 50
weeks per year). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011) there were
1,238,490 work-related incidents in the year 2009 that resulted in employee disabilities.
Disabled employees could not return to work for some time, while others were never able
to come back to their jobs. In the year 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that
there were 1.2 million work-related cases requiring employees to be away from work. It
is likely that the magnitude of the problem is worse in countries where occupational
health and safety laws do not exist or are not enforced.
Occupational accidents, injuries, and illnesses cause severe consequences to
workers, their families, and the employing organizations. Human suffering, disability,
and the economic burden to employees and employees families, as well as to employers,
24
are the most significant effects of occupational accident and injuries (Donham,
Rautiainen, Lange, & Schneiders, 2007; Mearns, Hope, Ford, & Tetrick, 2010). The
number of occupational deaths in 1999 was higher than the combined deaths due to breast
cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, AIDS, motor vehicle accidents, and firearm
deaths in the United States (Sauter & Hurrell, 1999). Besides the human suffering,
accidents have serious economic consequences for organizations.
These economic consequences are the direct or indirect costs associated with the
injuries that result from occupational accidents. The differences between the direct and
indirect costs were not identified in the literature I reviewed. For example, Mearns et al.
(2010) reported that employers paid $125 billion in occupational injuries costs during
1999. The authors did not explain whether this cost was directly related to the medical
treatment after an accident occurred or whether this amount included the additional
indirect costs associated with the accidents. For example, some indirect costs that could
be associated with the accidents are investigation time and the cost of employee
replacement. There are direct and indirect costs associated with occupational accidents
and illnesses (Donham et al., 2007; Freeman et al., 2001). Direct costs are mainly
associated to workers compensation insurance premiums (Mearns et al., 2010).
However, there are many other indirect costs, for example: time lost at work due to the
accident, time spent investigating the accident, money spent on other resources dedicated
to the investigation, future increased premiums based on the past accident experience,
and additional products or materials to replace the ones lost during the accident.
Furthermore, nonfinancial costs are also incurred, including serious effects on employee
25
morale and the availability of equipment and tools involved. Companies spend a
significant amount of money contributing to workers compensation insurance (for
example, the base rate with no claim experience in the United States ranges from $1 to
$1.25 for every $100 paid in payroll). Companies also spend a significant amount of
money replacing and retraining injured employees, and they lose revenue due to losses in
productivity, accident/injury investigations, and fines from the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA).
The indirect and psychosocial costs are not well quantified in the literature. Some
of the indirect costs named by Freeman et al. (2001) were mishap prevention,
rehabilitation, loss in productivity, and quality of life. Based on the number of accidents,
their effects on society, and the urgency that companies have to improve their safety
performance, occupational accidents, injuries, and illnesses are a social problem with a
significant opportunity for change and improvement. The literature review of this study
has focused on the United States; however, the safety problems discussed here are not
exclusively related to one country or one particular culture. For example, the accident
rates in China have captured international attention and the results of this study could also
be beneficial in the context of other countries.
The traditional approach of focusing on the technical and engineering aspects
related to workplace accidents was the first approach taken in China to address the
increasing accident rates. Taking advantage of previous research conducted in this area,
the focus of research on occupational safety in China has shifted to measure other factors
that have been associated with accidents in other countries. These other factors include
26
the attitudinal, organizational, cultural, and social dimensions of occupational safety
performance. Therefore, the safety culture and safety attitudes are recognized as having
a great influence on enterprise management, especially if the influence is directed to
improve occupational health and safety performance (Zhu et al., 2010, p. 28).
Various researchers have established that safety performance is affected by
compliance with the companys rules and procedures. Mearns et al. (2010) studied the
relationship between investing on an employees general health and complying with
safety rules and regulations. These authors associated investments in health with the
employees interest in achieving production goals. Furthermore, Whitener (2001)
established that the trust and commitment that employees have with the organization is
stronger when the employees perceive that they are supported and protected by the
organization.
The potential for positive social change and opportunities for improvement places
occupational safety as a high priority subject for researchers to investigate. Businesses
are also interested in implementing these new approaches to demonstrate commitment to
employees, manage cost, comply with local and federal regulations and maintain healthy
relationships with employees and society. The safety climate literature has compared
different organizations with low and high number of accidents. The differences between
these two types of organizations are the speed of correcting hazards, completeness of
accident investigations, monitoring unsafe behaviors, composition and scope of duties of
joint safety committees, and regularity of safety retraining (Tetrick & Quick, 2003, p.
135). As already mentioned, unsafe behaviors and conditions are the immediate causes
27
of accidents. Furthermore, if the immediate causes are studied, they will often lead the
investigator to the root causes of accidents. These concepts will be discussed in the next
section.
Causes of Accidents
There are two broad categories of accidents causes. The categories are
immediate causes and root causes. Immediate causes are the most tangible and visible
factors that were present before the accident/incident happened. The immediate causes
are the unsafe acts and conditions that were present right before the accident/incident.
Root causes are the basic factors that preceded the immediate causes. The root causes are
personal and job factors that are hidden and can be discovered by a thorough
investigation. In this section, I discuss these two major categories of accidents causes.
Immediate Causes of Accidents
Unsafe acts and conditions have been identified as the immediate causes of
accidents in the workplace (Bird & Germain, 1996; Brauer, 2006; Germain et al., 1998).
In a deeper analysis of the accidents, the investigators found that the unsafe acts and
conditions are only the symptoms of deeper problems related to the safety management
systems of an organization (Bird & Germain, 1996; Germain et al., 1998). For example,
when a machine does not have all the required safeguards and it is operated by an
employee who is not wearing guards, the lack of safeguards is an unsafe condition.
However, an employee operating the machine without the guards is an example of an
unsafe act. The possible root causes of these situations could be due to a lack of
knowledge, a lack of acceptable engineering controls, a lack of acceptable standard

28
operating procedures, or to a lack of motivation, leadership, or visible commitment of the
leadership to safety, or even to a lack of maintenance. (Bird & Germain, 1996; Brauer,
2006; Germain et al., 1998). All of these possible root causes might be manifested not
only in safety related accidents, but also in other conditions or behaviors that can affect
the quality of the product, and services to internal or external clients. Therefore,
accidents are merely the symptoms of major problems in the companies where they
occur. They demonstrate that there is a lack of control in managing the business. Also,
they demonstrate a lack of leadership on quality and safety (Germain et al., 1998).
Occupational accidents, injuries, and illnesses have been studied in research projects and
workplaces to identify their causes. Employees and management behaviors have been
associated with those causes. Therefore, safety performance has been associated with
employees behaviors.
Root Causes of Accidents
Employees that neither follow the safety rules nor wear the personal protective
equipment are part of a culture that only the company leadership can modify. These
unsafe acts are directly related to accidents as well as occupational injuries and illnesses
(Spear, 2002; Vaughan, 1999). Gaining employee participation in safety is an important
step to developing employee compliance with the rules. However, there are additional
activities that employers need to do to motivate their employees to be engaged in the
programs. Some of the activities include increasing knowledge, yielding control of
programs to employees and establishing significant employee participation (Nembhard &

29
Edmondson, 2006). Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, and Taris (2008) opened the opportunity
to study other aspects of employee engagement in work programs.
In general, the safety literature proposes different approaches to remediate or
eliminate the immediate and root causes of occupational accidents. The following
section discusses some of those approaches. One of the relevant approaches the present
study is the management of the safety climate in the organization. This approach has
different proposals that include enhancing the leadership styles of company managers and
changing employee perceptions and attitudes toward safety. A recent proposal suggests
that developing or enhancing employees trust in elements related to safety climate in the
organizations has beneficial effects. The next section will discuss the studies in the
safety climate literature that suggest that trust in management systems is another
approach that may be used to manage the causes of accidents.
Safety Climate in Organizations
As noted before, the immediate causes related to the safety problems that a
company can have may be divided in two major areas. These two areas are unsafe
physical conditions, and acts or behavior challenges (Toms et al., 2011). The first area
includes the physical conditions of the workplace and refers to the industrial process,
work area, equipment and materials that are used to do the work. The second area
includes the acts or behaviors that are related to how employees do their work and
interact with each other. However, in addition to these causes, the safety climate and
culture of the organization contributes to accidents. Safety climate research has focused
primarily on how employee perceptions of the policies, procedures and practices in an

30
organization impact safety. Safety climate studies generally seek to explain how that
perception is transferred to safe or unsafe acts and behaviors in the workplace. The
safety climate and culture of an organization has been positively correlated to trust. Even
more importantly, trust has been related to employees attitudes and perceptions toward
the safety values and safety systems in the organization (Conchie et al., 2006).
The Safety Climate Concept
The safety climate concept is derived from the organizational climate concept
which refers to the perceptions that the organizations members share in regards to the
policies, procedures, and practices of the employer. Consequently, safety climate is a
concept that refers to the perceptions that employees have in regards to the safety
policies, procedures, and practices (Findley et al., 2007; Griffin & Neal, 2000; Zohar,
2010). Additionally, the safety climate is associated and contrasted with the
organizations implicit policies, procedures and practices. Specifically, safety climate
researchers have studied employee perceptions of the organizations risks and leadership
style (Huang et al., 2001; Zohar, 2010). They also have studied the systems and
programs that a companys management implements to correct and prevent accidents.
Safety climate and safety performance
Griffin and Neal (2000) presented an interesting safety performance concept.
They associated employees safety performance not with the actual accident rates, but
rather with the employees behavior. In their research, they found that safety
performance of the employees studied was determined by knowledge, skills and
individuals motivation.
31
Safety culture measures predict the safety results in an organization. For example,
this measure may predict the accident rate, lost time case rates and other factors. (Luria &
Rafaeli, 2008; Michael et al., 2005). Clarke and Ward (2006) studied the relationship
between establishing a good safety climate in the organization and safety performance.
Safety performance was directly related to employee participation and compliance. A
strong relationship was found between the safety climate and employee participation in
the safety programs. Safety climate is also a direct predictor of employees safety
behaviors (Zacharatos et al., 2005).
The participants in the Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) study were 64 group
leaders (or supervisors) of a manufacturing plant. The study results presented a
significant relationship between safety communication and POS (r = .54) and LMX (r =
.47). These results suggested that if employees perceive a higher support from the
organization and high quality leadership from their group leaders (or supervisor), there is
a significant probability of becoming engaged in safety communications. This studys
results also demonstrated a significant positive relationship between safety commitment
and safety communication (r = .35). The study results also established a significant
negative relationship between safety communication, safety commitment and accidents
(rs = -.28 and -.26, respectively).
Recommended safety climate indicators in the literature are related to safety
management systems. For example, these include goals, objectives, leadership
participation, inspections, accident investigation and training, among other factors.
(Zohar & Luria, 2001, 2004). Researchers (Zohar & Luria, 2004) made a significant
32
distinction between formal and informal systems because formal systems with written
procedures can be studied more effectively.
Additionally, Christian, Bradley, Wallace and Burke (2009) established that
safety behaviors and outcomes are directly determined by knowledge, skills and the
motivation of employees to perform their work. The authors further explained that
antecedents like training, organizational climate and personality influence individual
performance in safety. This study reinforced the importance of improving safety training.
Safety training standards ensure that the employees are qualified to do their work and that
there are necessary programs in place to maintain the employees motivated and to ensure
that they always choose the safer behavior alternative.
Leadership in Safety
Researchers have suggested that safety climate should be associated with the true
commitment and priorities that management has in the organizations safety (Mearns et
al., 2010; Messersmith & Guthrie, 2010; Michael et al., 2005). Safety climate and
leadership style have been associated with each other. Even more, the actions that
supervisors exhibit at work often have a significant effect on employees safety behaviors
at work (Conchie & Donald, 2009). Barling, Loughlin, and Kelloway (2002), and Zohar
(2010) demonstrated that transformational and constructive leadership approaches
decrease injury rates. They also demonstrated that safety climate is a mediator of safety
performance in different organizations. The impact of transformational leadership has
been positively associated with employee safety initiatives (O'Dea & Flin, 2000), better
safety performance, and, in general, an important role in occupational safety.

33
Individuals in leadership positions in an organization are responsible for
clarifying the priorities that compete with the safety values. In making day-to-day
decisions, employees and supervisors need to know how the organization prioritizes its
safety goals. Adams et al. (1999) identified other priorities, including production goals,
that can compete with the safety priorities and goals established by the organization. The
commitment that management manifests on the safety program activities is a major factor
to success in safety performance (Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999). Some of these activities
include safety training programs, management personnel participation in safety
committees and designing the work areas with recognized safety standards.
Equally important is creating a safety culture that engages employees and furthers
the process of disseminating information in the workplace. Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter and
Taris (2008) established the importance of engaging employees in the process of safety in
the workplace. Engagement in a safety process would produce positive performance and
organizational commitment by employees (Bakker et al., 2008). Job resources such as
social support, performance feedback, skill development, autonomy and learning
opportunities have been positively related with employee engagement at work.
Even when followers (employees) in an organization choose their own behavior,
the criteria used to choose the behavior is affected by the behavior displayed by the
leaders in the organization. Improving employee participation in the injury/illness
prevention process and the leadership modeling safe behaviors is very important to
motivate employees to employ safe behaviors (Zhu et al., 2010). The previous
34
information establishes that there is a need to continue studying the influence that the
local societal culture and leaders safety behaviors have on their employees.
Behavioral safety and safety climates are managed by the motivation that
employees have for the safety issues in their organizations. Behavioral safety and safety
climate in different organizations are managed by the motivation that employees have on
the safety issues (Zohar & Luria, 2001). The motivation increases when employees
perceive that achieving positive results in the organization is possible (Zohar & Luria,
2001). Motivation also increases when the positive safety behavior is not associated with
the comfort of employees, for example, when using personal protective equipment does
not interfere with the tasks that employees are performing (and with their personal
performance) (Zohar & Luria, 2004). Employee motivation is an important component
of a safety management system and participation in safety programs is a good way to
increase employee participation.
Furthermore, employee participation in safety and health programs is directly
related to the commitment that the leaders demonstrate in the company program (Conchie
and Donald (2009)). If the organizations leadership creates the necessary atmosphere to
bring safety values to theirs worksites culture, the organizations benefit significantly
(Zohar, 2002). Kelloway et al. (2006) added that passive leadership on safety issues does
not create a positive safety attitude in the employees.
The employees safety behaviors and attitudes toward a safety program are
affected by the importance that leadership places on safety in the organization. If the
leadership demonstrates a higher level of commitment to the safety program, the

35
employees safety behaviors and attitudes are more likely to be positive (Conchie &
Donald, 2009; Reid, 2008). The employees perceptions about the level of importance
that the organizations leadership places on safety will affect the willingness that
employees have to communicate safety issues to their management personnel (Kath et al.,
2010). Therefore, the safety climate in the organization is directly related to the attention
that the leadership gives to the companys safety issues.
Consequently, the relationships that employees have with other employees and
their managers have been studied from the perspective of trust. Some of these studies
have focused on the improvements that trust brings to the safety climate of an
organization (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie & Donald, 2009; Conchie & Donald, 2006).
The next section presents the studies found in this area and the influence that trust has on
the organizations safety performance, as suggested by the studies below.
Trust and Safety Performance
The relationship between trust and safety performance has been studied from a
variety of perspectives. In this section, I provide a definition of trust, then explore trust
in organizations. Next, I discuss trust as it relates to safety performance and employee
The Trust Concept
Trust is commonly used by business organizations as a strategy to promote good
relationships internally and externally. Furthermore, Castaldo, Premazzi, and Zerbini
(2010) recognized that trust is a common denominator in most management disciplines
and that it is extremely important to promote ethical and fair economic agents and
36
behaviors in the organization. Kramer and Lewicki (2010) found that organizational
researchers have identified trust as an important piece in the organizations function and
performance. However, Kramer and Lewicki (2010) also noted that recent surveys show
a deficit of trust within many organizations. Conceptualizing trust and establishing its
foundations have been the focus of studies in organizational theory for several decades
(Kramer & Lewicki, 2010).
One of the earliest and most influential characterizations of trust was established
by Barber in 1983 (Kramer & Lewicki, 2010). Barber (1983, p. 164) defined trust as a
set of socially learned and socially confirmed expectations that people have of each other,
of the organizations and institutions in which they live, and of the natural and moral
social orders that set the fundamental understanding of their lives.
Several prominent studies explain trust as circumscribed to an attitudinal
component. Researchers have related this attitude to the trustees actions, behaviors and
the consequences of these decisions. Castaldo et al., (2010) also established that trust is
qualified by the contextual factors present in the business interaction. The factors
frequently reported include context, risks, exchange, interests and dependence. Rice,
Clayton and McCarley (in press), and Parasumarand and Riley (1997) characterized trust
as a psychological construct that can have an impact on the behavior of employees that
work with automated systems. For example, lower trust in safety systems is a predictor
of lower dependence in the safety systems or unsafe behavior related to the untrusted
safety system (Rice et al., in press).

37
Trust is fundamentally a psychological state characterized by several
components, the most important of which is some sort of positive expectation regarding
others behavior (Kramer & Lewicki, 2010, p. 247). The authors explained that most of
the research conducted during the last decades has been fragmented and incomplete. The
definition of trust is one of the major reasons for the fragmentation. The studies
conducted have had two major constructs that can be summarized by characterizing trust
as a cognitive phenomenon, or with affective and behavioral components.
Furthermore, the trust concept continues to be referred to as a positive expectation
of common benefits between the trustee and trustor in the reviewed literature. The
research found during this literature review suggest that applying trust concepts to the
organizations safety programs is composed of three dimensions: trust, distrust, and
creative mistrust (Conchie et al., 2006; Conchie & Donald, 2006; Cox, Jones, &
Collinson, 2006; Jeffcott et al., 2006). In contrast, the distrust concept is a negative
expectation. However, the creative mistrust concept, which will be further discussed
later, is defined as trust with a healthy level of skepticism between the trustee and trustor.
Organizational Trust
The literature of several researchers analyzes the content of the trust definition.
For example, Castaldo et al. (2010) concluded that the trust conceptualization in business
relations includes an expectation from the trustor, specific characteristics of the trustee
(honesty, benevolence, competencies, and other antecedents), future actions, positive
results for the trustor, and an anticipated and consistent perceived risk and vulnerability.
38
As well, researchers have studied the equipment or machine operators trust in
automated alarm systems from the dependence perspective. This dependence perspective
is based on two elements of the operators trust: reliance and compliance (Parasuraman &
Wickens, 2008). Trust in automated systems is negatively affected when the warning
systems fail (Rice, Trafimow, Keller, & Hunt, 2010). The warning system failures
include false alarms and misses. Based on the results of the studies performed by Rice et
al. (2010), the present study should demonstrate that the safety management system
failures decrease the employees trust in the system management system. The
employees safety attitudes and perceptions may also be affected negatively.
Developing a state of trust in the organizations requires a sense of safety in which
the trustor perceives the environment as normal (Schul et al., 2008). In the contrary state,
the perception of an abnormal environment constitutes the basis for distrust. Distrust is
characterized by the identification of conflicting interests (Schul et al., 2008). When
people trust, they assume that there are common interests between the parties and that
there will be a common benefit resulting from someones acts and decisions. A sense of
distrust is developed when the individual perceives vulnerability based on the others
motives, intentions or actions (Schul et al., 2008). Kramer (1999) discussed the
difference between the behavior of people that trust and people that feel distrust.
Various researchers, including Chen, Chien, Wu and Tsai (2010), explained that
many areas of businesses like economics, organizational behavior, and marketing
research have benefitted from the application of the trust concept. The concept has been
39
used to explain customers behaviors in terms of feelings related to vulnerability,
uncertainty or when risk is perceived.
In their findings, Chen et al. (2010) emphasized the relationship between
experience and trust. They explained that experience has two major roles in trust
development. The first role is to function as the foundation for future decision-making:
people will make reference to previous experiences when they are predicting the outcome
of similar situations. The second role is as a significant part of loyalty development. If
people have positive outcomes in a certain situation, they will feel more comfortable with
a similar situation next time they encounter it.
Kramer and Lewicki (2010) reported the factors that were most commonly
mentioned as factors contributing to organizational trust breakdown. The factors reported
included: disrespectful behaviors, communications issues, unmet expectations, ineffective
leadership. Additionally, others factors were reported, including the unwillingness of
management personnel or employees to acknowledge their responsibilities, performance
issues, incongruence and structural issues.
These factors affect employee safety behavior and can have a significant impact
on how employees behave. In fact, authors Conchie and Donald (2009) linked
employees safety behaviors with the trust that the employees have in the companys
leadership. Furthermore, the authors established that trust at the supervisory level has a
positive influence on employees safety behaviors. It was recognized by these authors
that employees trust in supervisors increases their willingness to participate in safety
activities and to have positive behaviors related to safety. The research studied how
40
employees safety behaviors are affected by the safety-specific transformational
leadership. They studied, in particular, how leaders actions increase the subordinates
safety citizenship behaviors. The study concluded that the safety-specific trust mediated
the effects of safety-specific transformational leadership on safety citizenship behaviors
or combined with it to enhance (moderate) its effect (Conchie & Donald, 2009, p. 144).
Trust and Safety Performance
Trust in the safety climate literature has been identified as the missing piece in the
safety puzzle (Conchie et al., 2006; Jeffcott et al., 2006). The role that trust has in
developing safety in organizations is not understood, and there is a need to study this
relationship (Conchie et al., 2006; Jeffcott et al., 2006). The effects of trust in safety
performance and its relationship with the theories of safety culture do not appear to be
researched. However, there is some evidence of the relationship between safety
performance and trust (Jeffcott et al., 2006; Zacharatos et al., 2005). Conchie et al.
(2006) recognized that the relationship between trust and safety has been recently gaining
important attention from safety academics, researchers and practitioners.
Trust and safety performance has also been studied from the automation
perspective. Automation has been created to allow operators to work safely on multiple
tasks while operating different equipment, and when working with safety-critical systems
(Parasuraman & Wickens, 2008). However, the compliance and reliance of the alarm
systems will determine the degree of trust that the operator will have in the alarm system.
As may be expected, when the compliance and reliance levels increase, the level of trust
also increases. On the contrary, when the level of the alarm systems compliance and
41
reliance decreases, the level of trust is lowered to the point that the human-automation
performance is seriously affected (Rice, 2009). Trust has been identified as one of the
major reasons why human operators do not use automated systems in the way that they
were designed (Parasuraman & Riley, 1997; Parasuraman & Wickens, 2008). In
conclusion, the literature suggests that employees do not take the prescribed actions
suggested by signals that are coming from alarms or automated systems that the
employees do not trust.
Immanuel Kant, the moral philosopher, explained that perfect duties are moral
expectations that when violated, compromise the violators moral status. In contrast,
imperfect duties can be violated in certain situations and the violators moral status is
not compromised. The following two examples are frequently used to explain these two
important terms. The duty not to steal is a perfect duty; if someone violates that moral
expectation, his or her moral status will be compromised. The moral duty to be a
charitable person, on the other hand, is an imperfect duty because in certain situations, a
person that does not contribute to a cause is not compromising his or her moral status
(Rice, Trafimow, Hunt, & Sandry, 2010). Rice, Trafimow, Hunt and Sandry (2010)
studied the effects that a violation of a perfect or imperfect duty have on trust. The study
results suggested that perfect duty violations have a negative effect to trust. Therefore,
when there is a violation of a perfect duty, trust will decrease. These results support the
hypotheses established in the present study. Providing a safe workplace for employees
can be considered a perfect duty and therefore violating this perfect duty will decrease an
employees trust in his employer.

42
Furthermore, safety researchers have linked trust with the causes of occupational
accidents. In fact, trust has been identified as a root cause of accidents that have had
catastrophic consequences, for example, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 in
Ukraine (Conchie et al., 2006). Trust has also been identified as a predictor of safe
behaviors in organizations. However, most researchers agree that in the safety culture,
trust is a concept with dimensions that interact with values and attitudes (Jeffcott et al.,
2006). Jeffcott et al. (2006, p. 1107) also consider trust as a set of attitudes and
expectancies about other people and the organizational system within which they are
embedded. This study considered how trust in the safety management system influences
the employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
Additionally, researchers have discussed some of the elements of safety
management systems and their relationship with trust. The effectiveness of the
organizations safety culture needs to be supported by an incident reporting and
investigation system that engender trust (Conchie et al., 2006). Trust is very important to
developing good communication systems. For example, trust is key in safety training
activities (Conchie et al., 2006). Conchie et al. (2006) also recognized that there is a lack
of systematic research on topics related to trust, safety management systems and safety
engineering systems. Conchie et al. (2006) also established that there is a lack of
empirical attention focusing on trust and safety systems. Furthermore, they attribute the
lack of attention to a poor understanding of these relationships.
The accident investigation practices in modern organizations are established
methods of discovering the real or root causes of accidents. This important role is
43
threatened when the accident investigations are focused on finding peoples culpability
(Bird & Germain, 1996; Brauer, 2006; Germain et al., 1998). Evidently, trust is an
enabler of incident reporting. Also, trust enables effective accident investigations by
helping to find the real causes of accidents and promote implementation of remedial and
preventive measures (Conchie et al., 2006).
On the contrary, the nature of safety is always related to double-checking ones
work, working through checklists and implementing comprehensive systems to ensure
that appropriate conditions and practices are maintained. Developing a high level of trust
that makes employees think that there is no need to double check or review what other
people have already done may be counterproductive. Some authors have employed the
term creative mistrust to refer to trust with a healthy level of skepticism (Hale, 2000;
Pidgeon, Walls, Weyman, & Horlick-Jones, 2003). In conclusion, the literature
recognizes that even when trust is a safety enabler, employees should not blindly trust
safety systems. For example, even when employees trust the organizations accident
investigation program, the organization and the employees should audit the accident
investigation program to verify that the system is working correctly.
Authors Jeffcott et al. (2006) completed an exploratory qualitative research that
included over 50 focus groups. They interviewed more than 500 staff employees from a
sample of four train-operating companies. They found that: 1) a regulatory focus on
safety standards had subverted the approach based on risk; 2) there was an apparent fear
by senior management of being prosecuted because of safety management short-comings;
and 3) trust is an important factor of safety performance.

44
Authors Burns et al. (2006) investigated the role that the trust concept has in the
safety culture. Fifty-three employees (50%) that work on a gas plant in the United
Kingdom participated in this study. The researchers measured the explicit and implicit
trust that these employees had with their workmates, supervisors and management
personnel. The study results supported the trust models that proposed the argument that
trust and distrust are opposite and separate constructs. The questionnaire used in this
study measured explicit trust in workmates, supervisors and management as well as other
aspects of organizational safety. The other aspects of organizational safety were not
reported. Results reflected that participants expressed explicit trust to their workmates,
supervisors and management. However, using priming task to measure implicit trust, the
employees only expressed trust to their workmates (Burns et al., 2006). Conchie and
Donald (2006) studied 203 employees that worked on an offshore gas installation that
operated on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. The study had the objectives of
testing the role of trust in safety and of exploring the relationship between safety
performance and distrust. A questionnaire was used to measure the employees trusting
and distrusting attitudes toward different management groups in the organization. Trust
and distrust were measured explicitly (e.g., I distrust management in my work area)
and implicitly by measuring other characteristics related to trust. Safety performance was
also measured in this study. The results suggested that management has an important
role in influencing offshore safety attitudes for the industry. However, trust at the
installation level was influenced more by the supervisors and workmates. Trust in
workmates was identified as a predictor of employee involvement in safety near-misses.

45
Even more importantly, the study revealed that distrust is the strongest predictor of safety
behavior. Poor safety and distrust were presented as having a positive relationship.
Additionally, negative safety attitudes and accident rates were also positively linked
(Conchie & Donald, 2006; Lee & Harrison, 2000). In short, the cited studies
strengthened the idea that explicit measures of trust can be used to measure trust in
people and in management systems.
The production, environment, quality and safety goals in an organization should
never compete in an organization in a way that sacrifices one goal for the benefit of
obtaining the others goals. The trust literature has suggested that trust is specific. For
example, if a manager emphasizes quality, he or she is likely to be trusted by his/her
employees on quality issues or situations. The same is true for managers who emphasize
safety (Conchie & Donald, 2009). An important antecedent to safety-specific trust is the
commitment to safety that management personnel should maintain in a moderator role
(Conchie & Burns, 2008; Hofmann et al., 2003). In conclusion, management must
maintain a balance in their demonstrations of commitment to important safety-related
efforts in their organizations. Examples of these efforts are safety, environment, quality
and operations.
Employees Attitude and Perceptions Toward Safety
The attitudes of employees and management personnel toward safety have been
related to the behavior and culture of the organizations in which they work (Kelloway et
al., 2006; Rice, Trafimow, Hunt, & Keller, 2010). The safety climate literature has
studies and articles dedicated to establishing links between safety attitudes and safety
46
performance in different organizations (Glendon, 2008; Toms et al., 2011). Toms et al.
(2011) in particular studied the presence of workplace hazards and the employees
approach to working safely in these areas. Toms et al. (2011) found a direct correlation
between an employees attitude, the approach that the employee selected to work in a
hazard area, and the safety results. Attitudes and subjective norms are related to each
other (Rice, Trafimow, Keller et al., 2010). The present study evaluates the relationship
between trust in safety management systems and attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
This study found that there is a significant relationship between these independent and
dependent variables.
Safety behavior. The behaviors demonstrated in the workplace by employees
have been associated with individuals attitudes (Milos, 2011; Rice, Trafimow, Hunt, &
Keller, 2010; Rice et al., 2010; Toms et al., 2011; Wiatrowski, 2005; Zohar, 2000,
2010). In addition, safety behavior has been identified as a predictor and mediator of
safety performance (Neal & Griffin, 2006; Toms et al., 2011). As a proactive measure,
it is recommended to evaluate the employees behaviors that are related to lost time
accidents and with minor accidents or incidents (Toms et al., 2011; Zohar, 2010). This
recommendation was intended to have remedial actions implemented when minor
accidents happen and to prevent major accidents from occurring, since the causes of these
two different accidents are the same (although the circumstances decide the severity of
the results) (Bird & Germain, 1996; Brauer, 2006; Germain et al., 1998). Because unsafe
behaviors have been linked with poor safety attitudes and perceptions in the workplace,
some organizations have propagated the use of self-reported surveys where they can
47
measure the safety climate in the organization and predict the potential for unsafe acts or
behaviors (Findley et al., 2007).
Rice et al. (2010) suggested that designers should increase the reliability of the
alarms to increase the operators trust in the automated systems. The same principle
should be used to improve the reliability of the safety management system, expecting that
trust in the safety management system is also likely to increase when the reliability of the
system increases.
Safety and perceptions. The safety climate literature suggests that safety
perceptions are predictors of safety results in the workplace. The theories of individual
performance have been combined with organizational climate theories to investigate the
safety perceptions (Griffin & Neal, 2000). These researchers suggested that an
individuals safety performance is influenced by the perceptions that employees have
about their safety knowledge and the motivation that they have to execute their job
safely.
The relevant factors associated with the perceptions that employees have toward
safety include manager values, safety communication, safety practices, personnel
training, safety equipment, safety knowledge, compliance motivation, participation
motivation, safety compliance and safety participation (Griffin & Neal, 2000, p. 355).
These factors were directly associated with two of the major constructs of safety
performance, namely safety climate and safety knowledge. The safety climate at a group
level has the capacity to predict safe behaviors at the individual level (Kath et al., 2010).
48
Safety knowledge has been identified as a mediator between safety climate and safety
performance (Griffin & Neal, 2000).
Additionally, perceptions of safety climate could be associated or influenced by
many factors. For example, employees recent accident experiences could be one of the
factors previously studied by safety climate researchers. Desai, Roberts and Ciavarelli
(2006) suggested that perceptions of safety climate are associated with minor and
intermediately severe accidents. The researches established that safety climate
perceptions could not be classified as causes of accidents, but that they play an enabling
role in the safety climate when the accident happened in the organization.
The perception differences related to safety climate in different groups in the
organization have been studied by different researchers (Findley et al., 2007; Glendon &
Litherland, 2001; Zohar, 2000), and these studies have found significant differences.
Findley et al. (2007) studied a group of 1,587 employees in the nuclear decommissioning
and demolition (D & D) industry. The participants were in 10 different locations in the
United States and included senior managers, mid-level managers, supervisors, foremen,
technical staff, support staff, administrative personnel, and craft labor. The researchers
used the Health and Safety Climate Survey Tool (CST) published by the Health and
Safety Executive (1997). Significant differences in mean safety climate scores were
found among job positions. The study noted that the order of job positions based on the
lowest to highest mean safety climate score was as follows: foreman, workforce/craft,
technical support, supervisor, administrative staff, senior manager, and manager.
(Findley et al., 2007, p. 882). Employees from different levels in the organization may
49
have different perceptions of the safety climate. Lower levels of employees in the
organizations need to be involved in safety activities to promote better perceptions of the
safety programs among these groups.
Safety and attitudes. Researchers have identified employees attitudes toward
safety in the climate safety literature as predictors of safety results in the organizations.
The attitudes that management and employees had toward implementing safety programs
were studied at Toowoomba Foundry (Adams et al., 1999). The study included 213
people at the location. The researchers used a qualitative methodology that included
interviews of the participants. The study concluded that even when the safety efforts in
the organization were very appropriate, the culture, lack of effective communication and
the perceptions that people in the organization had about the management commitment to
the existing programs were acting against all the safety performance efforts engaged in
by the organization.
The attitudinal and normative pathways have been identified as directly related to
human behavior. Attitudes have been defined as evaluations of the behaviors using the
beliefs that people have about the consequences that the behaviors will have. However,
subjective norms are opinions that people would have about what other people that are
important to them think about what they should do (Rice, Trafimow, Keller et al., 2010;
Rice, Trafimow, Rahmania et al., 2010).
Communication about safety programs in organizations is crucial to obtaining
desired results (Adams et al., 1999). The study identified the importance of using the
organizations safety committee as a vehicle for the necessary communications.

50
However, the authors emphasized the importance of having a well-trained safety
committee to perform this work.
Safety Management Systems
Employees behaviors are influenced by management commitment and the safety
management systems (Fernandez, Montes, & Vazquez, 2007; Toms et al., 2011). Safety
management systems have been studied as moderators and predictors of safety
performance improvements (Findley et al., 2007). The evaluation of safety management
systems presents an opportunity to evaluate how solid and effective are the safety
programs that are implemented in the organizations. Safety management systems have
been identified as a vehicle that the organizations management has available as a way to
demonstrate their commitment to the employees safety. They do so by creating goals,
influencing the decision-making process and by developing procedures and policies that
establish the importance and dedication needed to be successful in occupational safety
(Thompson et al., 1998).
The relationship between high-performing work systems and safety performance
is mediated by trust in management and perceived safety climate (Zacharatos et al.,
2005). The safety performance study conducted by Zacharatos et al. (2005) was
measured in terms of elements of the safety management system and in accident rates.
Therefore, the researchers suggested a link between trust in the management system and
the safety climate. The researchers also suggested a link between trust in safety
management systems and safety performance.

51
When concerns for occupational safety originated, safety challenges in
organizations were looked at as engineering problems; however, lately researchers have
focused on the organizational factors that can influence safety in the organization
(Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999). The authors listed a group of factors that have been
studied by different researchers. These factors include : safety climate, group processes,
communication, organizational structure, decision making, organizational leadership and
the degree to which management values employees (Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999, p.
286). Zacharatos et al. (2005) studied 138 organizations to determine the relationship
that occupational safety had with high-performance work practices (where employees are
encouraged to identify with the organizations goals and make all the possible efforts to
achieve them). The study reported three important findings. First, the study reported that
the following ten activities constitute a high-performance work system: employment
security, selective hiring, training, teams, status distinctions, information sharing,
contingent compensation, transformational leadership, job quality and measurement
(Zacharatos et al., 2005, p. 82). Second, the study found that a high-performance work
system is positively related to employee safety performance and occupation safety.
Third, the study also found that high-performance management practices are a substantial
predictor of safety performance in the workplace. Furthermore, the study concluded that
several practices of the high-performance work system resulted in trust in management
personnel and positive perceptions related to the safety climate. Kath et al. (2010)
suggest that research is needed to understand the mediating role that safety management
52
systems have in developing trust. These studies established the need to research the
relationship between trust, safety management systems and safety results.
Furthermore, trust in safety systems has been studied and the researchers
suggested a positive relationship between trust in the safety systems and employee
behaviors. Keller and Rice (2010) studied how an operators trust in an automated safety
system can be affected by the employees distrust in one of the elements of the system.
The authors found that operators trust in a particular component of a system would affect
the operators trust in the whole system. In the case of automation, the distrust in the
automated system predicts the operators disuse of the safety system (Keller & Rice,
2010; Parasuraman & Riley, 1997; Rice & Geels, 2010). A practical implication of this
study is that the distrust or trust that employees have in a particular element of a safety
management system could affect the attitudes and perceptions that the employees have
about the safety management system in its entirety. Various authors, including
Parasuraman and Wickens (2008), have defined the levels and stages of automation in
four major areas that summarize the whole process of collecting and processing
information. These areas include (a) information acquisition, (b) information analysis,
(c) decision making, and (d) action. These four stages are very similar to the Plan-Do-
Check-Act process, which is used for continual improvement in the majority of safety
management systems and is published by Edwards Deming (Anonymous, 2005).
Accident investigations, safety inspections and safety training are discussed below as
elements of a safety management system. These elements can be used in the information
collection and processing process in safety management systems.

53
Accident Investigations
Trust is motivated by openness in communication, the accuracy of the information
that is presented and the explanations given when a decision is reached. The accident
investigation process in an organization is related to these three important constructs of
trust.
An information system that is sustained by the employees participation is
extremely important for organizations that want to have an effective safety climate
(Metzgar, 2008). This information system needs to be fed by the accident investigation
process, which is highly affected by the reporting systems that are in place in the
organization (Reason, 1997). This reporting culture is achieved in organizations that do
not respond with punitive measures and blame the employees. Therefore, trust in the
organization and more specifically in the safety management systems is important to
create a positive reporting culture and participation in the investigative process to feed
the important information system (Burns et al., 2006). This study measured the trust that
employees have in the accident investigation system and the relationship between this
trust and the employees attitudes and perceptions toward the safety of the organization.
Safety Inspections
Safety inspections are proactive activities that focus on discovering hazards and
conditions that can cause an accident before the accidents or near-misses actually occur
(Bird & Germain, 1996; Brauer, 2006; Germain et al., 1998). It has been suggested that
it is imperative for organizations that want to have an effective safety culture to develop
an engineering reporting system that employees can trust (Reason, 1997). Safety
54
inspections are an excellent method of recognizing and improving the understanding of
existing and potential hazards in the organization (Burns et al., 2006).
Safety Training
A learning culture in an organization is also a very important component to create
an effective safety culture (Reason, 1997). An active learning culture will imply that the
organization has the willingness and competence to make the right conclusions from the
safety information that is produced about the safety information system. Conchie et al.
(2006) mentioned that trust has been described as an enabler of open and frequent safety
communication. This is an important recognition because safety training is used in many
organizations as a mechanism to communicate important safety information. Rice and
Geels (2010) suggested that the information and feedback that are provided to employees
affects the trust that they develop in automated systems. This suggestion has the practical
implication on how the information and feedback that is provided to employees in
training could affect the trust that employees have in the whole safety management
system.
When leaders in an organization express their safety perceptions, values and
importance, they are expressing how concerned they are about the employees well-being
(Kath et al., 2010). Open communication has been identified as a factor that can facilitate
the development of organizational trust (Jeffcott et al., 2006). This open communication
is related in this study to safety training when the organization shares safety data with its
employees. It is also taken in consideration when employees are included in making
decisions during the accident investigations process and are provided with opportunities
55
to collaborate on projects such as the safety inspection. Safety is learned in the workplace
by conversations and communications that establish the values and expectations of the
employer for its employees (Gherardi & Nicolini, 2000). Safety training should assist the
organization in explaining the safety rules, the constraints and culture that encompass the
safety culture.
Summary
This literature review has presented, discussed and contrasted published research
projects that have established the need to continue evaluating different approaches to
improve safety performance. Occupational accidents are a social problem that cause
people suffering in many ways, from their impact on the employees health and daily life,
to the effect on employees families and economic situation (Donham et al., 2007;
Freeman et al., 2001; Mearns et al., 2010). The main cause of accidents has been linked
with employees acts and behaviors (Bird & Germain, 1996; Wiatrowski, 2005; Zohar,
2010). Neal and Griffin (2006) and Zohar (2000) have suggested an association between
employees acts and behaviors and their attitudes and perceptions of safety. Safety
climate is defined in the safety literature as the perception that people in the organization
have about the organizations safety management systems (Zohar, 2010). The literature
has presented studies that relate safety climate and accidents in organizations (Clarke &
Ward, 2006; Griffin & Neal, 2000; Luria & Rafaeli, 2008).
In contrast, Conchie and Donald (2006), Burns et al. (2006), Conchie et al.
(2006), and Jeffcott et al. (2006) have established that the relationship between trust and
safety have not been studied enough. Additionally, this literature review identified a gap
56
in the literature that could explain the correlation between trust in management systems
and employees perceptions and attitudes toward safety (Jeffcott et al., 2006; Zacharatos
et al., 2005). Furthermore, the studies presented have demonstrated that if trust in the
safety management systems has a positive correlation to the employees safety
perceptions and attitudes toward safety, the organizations can work on improving the
levels of employee trust in safety management systems. Additionally, as a result, the
safety climate in the organization will be positively affected.
This study evaluated the correlation that trust in the organizations safety
management system has on employees safetys perceptions and attitudes. The three
elements included in this research are accident investigations, safety inspections and
safety training. If the results of this study suggest that trust in safety management
systems predicts positive employee perceptions and attitudes toward safety, the
organizations management could implement safety programs with the objective of
gaining employees trust. Therefore, management does not need to depend on other
peoples behaviors (for example, supervisors behaviors) to influence the safety culture of
the organization. Consequently, the major objective of this study was to find the
correlation between trust in three components of the studied safety management systems
(safety inspections, training and accident investigations), and employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety. If the hypotheses established in this study are proven using
the quantitative methodology proposed, the results of this study would suggest that
organizations can improve their safety performance by restoring or gaining their
employees trust in safety management systems.

57
The intent of the present study is to evaluate how the employees attitudes toward
safety are affected when they feel vulnerability, uncertainty or risks about the
organizations safety management systems. The following research questions were
developed based on the gap found in the trust and safety climate literature, and the
opportunity that trust in management systems influences the employees perceptions and
attitudes toward safety. Therefore, the research questions and hypotheses suggest that
employees perceptions and attitudes about safety can be positively influenced by
managing an employees trust in the organizations management system.
The following chapter presents the methodology that will be used to collect the
data and answer the research questions in this study. The next chapter will present
information about the instrument that will be used to collect the data. Also, all the
information addressing how the data will be managed is presented in the next chapter.
58
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, there is a gap in the literature regarding how
trust in safety management systems is related to the employees attitudes and perceptions
toward safety (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie et al., 2006; Jeffcott et al., 2006; Zacharatos et
al., 2005). The present study closes this gap by evaluating the relationship between
employees trust in the safety management systems as an aggregate of the following
elements and the elements individually: accident and incident investigations, safety
inspections and safety training (independent variables), and the impact of these programs
on employees attitudes and perceptions toward occupational safety in their organizations
(dependent variables).
In this chapter I discuss the methodological process that I followed to collect the
data needed for the study. I have divided the chapter into five major sections. The first
section provides a general explanation of how the study was planned. The second section
focuses on the questionnaire that was used to conduct the study. The third section lists
the research questions and the null and alternative hypotheses for this study that I
developed with the intent of closing the gap found in the safety climate literature. In the
fourth section, I discuss the statistical tests that I applied to the collected data to accept or
reject the hypotheses proposed in the study. The fifth section, a summary, provides a
condensed discussion about the major topics related to the research method discussed in
this chapter.
59
Research Design
This quantitative cross-sectional study examined the relationship between
employees trust in the general and individual elements of safety management systems
(independent variable) and employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety
(dependent variables). I collected the data using a questionnaire that was completed by
the participants. With this method the work environment did not need to be manipulated
and it did not require any disruption of the employees task or the organizations
processes. Further, to evaluate the relationships among the measured variables, I did not
require previous information about the participants perceptions of trust and attitudes and
perceptions toward safety (Field, 2009; Gravetter & Wallnau, 2007). These conditions of
cross-sectional surveys made the study economically affordable and attractive to me as
well as to the target organization.
The questionnaire tool allowed a larger group of employees to participate and was
very convenient to distribute. The self-administered questionnaire provided the
flexibility for participants to answer electronically in Survey Monkey or in a printed
version. This instrument gave employees the opportunity to answer the questions without
interrupting their tasks. This tool was also more economically feasible and involved less
interruption to production to the workplace, the workers time, and tasks in the
organization (Creswell, 2009).
Setting and Sample Criteria
In this section, I present specific information related to selection of participating
plants, participants selection criteria, and participants selection. This section also
60
includes information about the communication that I had with plant leadership before the
samples were collected and how employees answered the questionnaire.
Selection of Participating Plants
Employees from a group of power plants in the United States answered the
questionnaire. The power generating plants belonged to an organization with 43 plants in
the United States. All the plants report to the same functional group in the organizational
structure. These plants were selected because of their high interest in occupational
safety, and all plants had implemented the elements of the safety management systems
that were measured. The high number of employees was also convenient to get the
sample size requested. I had access to the list of plants in the region. The list had the
operational status of the plants during the time that the data was collected. I selected
plants that were expected to be running normally during the estimated data collection
time. The number of plants included in the present study was decided based on the
sample size analysis that is presented in the next section and on the availability of
employees in the plants. Availability of employees was slightly affected by off-time and
voluntary participation.
Participants Selection Criteria
To be included in the study, participants had to meet several criteria. First,
participants must have been employed in the targeted plants for at least one year at the
time that they answered the questionnaire. The reason for this participation criterion was
to ensure that the participants had been exposed to the elements of the safety management
system that were evaluated in this study. Second, the participants must have completed
61
the company's required safety training and/or orientation. The reason for this second
participation criterion was to find participants that had been exposed to the organizations
safety training program. However, the participants were not required to have any
specialized safety training, but they were required to have previously participated in the
organizations basic safety training or orientation offered to new employees.
Participant Selection
For this study, I used a convenience sampling method to recruit the participants.
Every employee that met the criteria in the studied plants was considered as a potential
participant.
The sample included employees from the selected power plants that worked in the
operations, maintenance, and administration departments. The sample also included
unionized and nonunionized employees. I excluded supervisory and managerial
personnel from participating in the study.
Communication with Plant Leadership
I had a telephone conversation with the plant managers of the selected plants. I
also followed up the telephone conversation with an e-mail to the plant managers. The
telephone conversation and e-mail to the plant managers explained the purpose of the
study, the involvement needed from the participants, and the expected dates that I would
visit the plants to collect the information.
Employees Answering the Questionnaire
I visited the plants and participated in all the safety meetings that were taking
place during the course of my visit. During the safety meeting, I briefed the employees
62
on the purpose of the study and how they could participate. I emphasized that their
participation was voluntary and anonymous. I explained that I was doing this study as
part of the requirements of my dissertation. I stressed that I was not doing the survey as
part of my role in the organization. At the end of my presentation, I provided potential
participants with a written invitation letter, a consent form, and a copy of the
questionnaire. I also explained to employees that they should deposit their answered
questionnaires in a locked box in front of the plant safety office. Additionally, I told the
employees that if they desired to answer the questionnaires online, they could do so at the
provided Web site address. All questionnaires that were deposited in the locked box
were entered into Survey Monkey and processed by me.
Power Analysis and Sample Size
No studies in the reviewed literature provided effect size estimates for the specific
combination of variables used in this study. However, to calculate the desired sample
size for the study, I used statistical results that were found in relevant studies and used
different sample size calculators as well as the methods described below. Since the study
had three different statistical tests, the minimum sample size for each statistical test was
calculated. The higher minimum sample size was selected. Below are the explanations
of how each minimum sample size was determined and the conclusion of the power
analysis and determination of sample size.
Correlation Test: Minimum Sample Size Required
For the correlation statistical test, the criteria to calculate the sample size was the
necessary sample size tables for correlation (Cohen, 1988) and Cohens d reported on
63
related trust studies (Rice, Trafimow, Keller et al., 2010). Rice, Trafimow, and Keller et
al. (2010) studied attitudes related to trust in safety systems and used statistical analysis
previously published that reported a d = .43 (two-tailed test). Then, using d = .43 and (1-
= .80 in the Necessary Sample Size table (Cohen, 1988), the minimum sample size
was 46 participants to detect this effect size.
Simple and Multiple Regression Tests: Minimum Sample Size Required
Conchie and Donald (2006) reported small effect sizes in logistic regression
where trust predicted about 7% to 9% of the variance in accidents. Other studies
examining relationships with accidents and other safety outcomes reported moderate
effect sizes. For example, Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) found that accidents were
negatively related to leadership, safety communication, and safety commitment. These
relationships suggest that managerial efforts, such as an effective safety management
system, can be related to accidents. While not explicitly addressing trust, Hofmann and
Morgeson (1999) suggested that objective measures of accidents have small to moderate
relationships with organizational efforts around safety. Hofmann et al. (2003) found a
moderate relationship between safety climate, which has been shown to include a trust
component, and safety behaviors (r = .48).
I performed an a priori power analysis with a given desired statistical power (1-
UHTXLUHGVLJQLILFDQFHOHYHORIDOSKDDQGWKHWR-be-detected population effect size of
(p), using G*Power version 3.1.3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009; Faul,
Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). The input parameters used in G*Power for the
simple regression and multiple regressions with twRWDLOVDUH = .05 and (1- = .80.
64
For the simple regression, a medium effect size of p = .30 was used (Burkholder,
2010; Faul et al., 2009; Faul et al., 2007). The minimum sample size obtained in the
calculation was 82 participants. For the multiple regression power analysis, three
predictors were selected with a partial R2 = 0.23 (Hofmann et al., 2003) to calculate the
effect size f2 = 1.0. The minimum sample size obtained in the calculation was 29
participants.
Determination of Minimum Sample Size
In conclusion, the minimum sample size for the correlation analysis was 46
participants, for the simple regression analysis the minimum sample size was 82, and for
the multiple regression analysis the minimum sample size was 29 participants. To satisfy
the minimum on each statistical analysis, the minimum number of participants in this
study was 82. Furthermore, since Lipsey and Wilson (1993, p. 1186) recommended 126
as a minimum sample size with an effect size of .32 for studies that evaluate the effects
that organizational development programs have on attitudes, I proposed to use a
minimum of 126 participants in this study. The final determination of 126 participants is
considered to be a conservative approach because the previously discussed analyses
rendered a much lower minimum of 82 participants.
Instrumentation and Materials
A survey was used to measure the employees trust in the safety management
system, and more specifically, how the organization handled accident investigations,
safety inspections, and safety training. As already mentioned, the relationship between
65
trust and occupational safety has been studied before with similar methodologies and
survey instruments as the ones for the present study.
I used a combination and adaptation of interpersonal trust and employees
attitudes and perceptions toward safety scales that have been used in previously published
studies. The following subsection explains in detail the scales that were used to measure
the variables, how the original scales were used, and the adaptation that was made to
these original scales.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire that was used to measure the independent and dependent
variables was divided into four parts. Part 1 of the questionnaire asked about
participants qualifiers and demographic information. Part 2 measured employees trust
in the safety management system in the target plants. Part 3 measured employees
attitudes toward safety. Finally, Part 4 measured the employees perceptions toward
safety in the target plants.
Examples of questions in the questionnaire. To measure trust in the safety
management system, I adapted items from questionnaires used by Burns et al. (2006) and
Conchie and Donald (2006). Examples of the trust items in the questionnaire were: I
trust the accident/incident investigations in my plant, I trust the safety inspections in
my plant, and I trust the safety training that is provided in my plant.
To measure attitudes and perceptions toward safety, I adapted items from a
questionnaire used by Hofmann et al. (2003). Examples of the items in the questionnaire
that measure attitudes and perceptions toward safety items included the following: I
66
believe that making safety-related recommendations about work activities is part of my
job, I believe that expressing my opinions on safety matters even if others disagree is
part of my job, Volunteering for safety committees is part of my job, and Helping
teach safety procedures to new crew members is part of my job.
Demographics and screening items. Four items were asked in Part 1 of the
survey. Questions 1 and 2 were qualifying questions to participate in the study. The
minimum longevity needed to participate in the survey was one year of employment. It
was also mandatory that the employee had participated in safety training and/or
orientation in the plant. The first two questions asked about the time that participants had
been employed by the plant and the employees participation in safety training and/or
orientations. Participants answers were excluded from the sample if they answered that
they had been working in the organization for less than a year and/or had not participated
in any safety training and/or orientations. In Part 1, there were two final questions related
to demographics. The questions asked the participants to identify their gender and the
type of work they did (department for which they worked). The answers to the last two
questions were not qualifying questions but were included to describe the sample
obtained.
Formula to calculate the variable values. Participants answers on Parts 2, 3,
and 4 were scored based on the response option that the participants selected. Responses
of Strongly disagree received a value of 1. Responses of Disagree received a value
of 2. Responses of Neutral received a value of 3. Responses of Agree received a
value of 4. Responses of Strongly agree received a value of 5.

67
The items used to evaluate each variable were labeled on a questionnaire to which
only I had access. Each variable and labels are explained in the following sections.
However, the following explanation for the calculation of the variable values applies to
all the variables and labels.
An average of the response values per variable was calculated to establish each
variable value. In other words, the value of each variable is the average of the response
values used to measure the variable. The value of each variable was interpreted using the
following: averages that were less than 3.5 were interpreted as a disagreement with the
variable and averages that were 3.5 and higher were interpreted as an agreement with the
variable. For example, in Part 2, the Questions 1 through 3 measured trust in
accident/incident investigations. If the calculated average of this variable was less than
3.5, the participant did not trust the accident/incident investigations in the plant.
However, if the calculated average was 3.5 or higher, the participant trusted the
accident/incident investigations in the plant. The same criteria was used to interpret the
value of the other two independent variables labeled as trust in safety inspections and
trust in safety training.
Parts 3 and 4 measured employees attitudes toward safety and employees
perceptions toward safety, respectively. The same calculations and interpretations
applied to Parts 3 and 4 of the questionnaire. For example, if the calculated average on
Part 3 was less than 3.5, the participant had negative attitudes toward safety. In contrast,
if the calculated average was 3.5 or higher, the participant had positive attitudes toward
safety. The same calculation and interpretations apply to Part 4, but in relation to
68
perceptions toward safety. An additional example will be discussed in the following
section, including the average calculation.
Trust in safety management systems measures. A total of nine items were used
to measure trust in safety management systems elements, which are presented in three
subsections. The subsections are labeled as trust in accident/incident investigations, trust
in safety inspections, and trust in safety training. These subsections are a partial list of the
elements in the safety management systems presented in the safety climate literature
(Bird & Germain, 1996; Brauer, 2006; Burns et al., 2006; Kath et al., 2010; Metzgar,
2008; Reason, 1997).
Trust in safety management systems was measured in part two of the
questionnaire. The scales that were used in the present study were an adaptation of
safety-specific trust scales cited by other researchers (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie &
Burns, 2008; Conchie & Donald, 2009; Conchie & Donald, 2006; Kath et al., 2010;
Luria, 2010). These researchers used general trust measures or scales supported by the
argument that trust can be directly measured with questions like I trust the people I work
with to carry out their jobs safely. or Generally, I trust my supervisor. (Conchie &
Donald, 2009). Additionally, trust has been measured by researchers using an established
trust scale adapted to safety by adding the term safety to the measured item (Burns et
al., 2006; Conchie & Burns, 2008; Conchie & Donald, 2009; Conchie & Donald, 2006;
Kath et al., 2010; Luria, 2010). The previous studies evaluated the trustworthiness of
employees (interpersonal trust) in regards to their trust of other individuals in the
organization. For example, the studies evaluated employee trust in their supervisors and
69
co-workers. However, the previous studies did not address trust in safety management
systems. Therefore, the scales used to measure interpersonal trust have been adapted to
measure trust in safety management systems, using the same argument that the previously
cited researchers have used: that trust can be directly assessed by asking participants
whether they trust the management system and the results obtained from the safety
management systems.
The previous trust researchers reported the reliability of the original questions that
were modified for this study. Luria (2010) used a similar questionnaire and reported
alpha-reliability coefficient of .87 in the original trust scale. The original scale was
modified by Luria (2010) to accommodate the research questions. Previously this scale
was used to measure organizational trust in military and civilian studies published by
Yagil (1990), McAllister (1995), and Mayer (1999). A similar organizational trust scale
was used by Zohar and Luria (2004) with a reported alpha-reliability coefficient of .84
(Luria, 2010). As demonstrated in the cited studies, the modification of the scales
produced a minimal and depreciable change in reliability. The modification to the trust
scales in the present study was performed in order to change the trust questions from
interpersonal trust to trust in safety management systems elements.
Trust in the plant safety management system measure. In addition to the three
trust measures, an additional measure of trust in the plant safety management system, as a
whole, was computed. This was done by averaging the participants answers to questions
one through nine in part two (all items on the three subscales). The same calculation
formula explained in this section was used to calculate trust in the plants safety
70
management system but also using all the values from questions one through nine. The
same approach explained before, used to interpret the results for trust in accident
investigations, was used and applied to the results of the management system as a whole.
Employee attitudes toward safety measures. Part three has nine items to
measure the employees attitudes toward safety. All items in part three were used in the
study published by Hofmann et al.(2003). These items were reported with internal
consistency reliability in ranges of .94 and .98 (Hofmann et al., 2003), and .85 to .96
(Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999). The questions that were used in the present study were
selected from a group of questions used by Hofmann et al. (2003) without making any
modifications to the original questions. The present study used a modified label titled
employees attitudes toward safety, while the previous study labeled the questions as
safety and role definitions: voice (Hofmann et al., 2003). As explained in Chapter 4,
the modification on labeling did not affect the reliability of the items because the attitudes
items were not modified. They were simply identified as attitudes toward certain safety
citizenship characteristics that were evaluated in the previous study (Hofmann et al.,
2003).
Employee perceptions toward safety measures. Part four has seven items to
measure the employees perceptions toward safety. All of these items were used in the
study published by Hofmann et al.(2003). These questions were reported with internal
consistency reliability in ranges of .94 and .98 (Hofmann et al., 2003), and .85 to .96
(Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999). The items were selected from a group of questions used
by Hofmann et al. (2003) without making any modifications to the original questions.
71
The present study used a modified label entitled employees perceptions toward safety,
while the previous study labeled the questions as safety and role definitions: helping
(Hofmann et al., 2003). As explained in Chapter 4, the modification of labels did not
affect the reliability of the items because the perceptions items were not modified. They
were simply identified as perceptions toward certain safety citizenship characteristics that
were studied in the previous study (Hofmann et al., 2003).
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The following hypotheses and research questions were developed based on the
gap found in the trust and safety climate literature, and the opportunity that trust in
management systems could have to influence employees attitudes and perceptions
toward safety.
inspections and safety training measures) have a significant positive relationship with the
approach in Burns et al. (2006), and Conchie and Donald (2006), does not have a

72
approach in Burns et al. (2006), and Conchie and Donald (2006), has a positive
significant relationship with the employees attitudes toward safety, measured following
the approach in Hofmann et al. (2003)
approach in Burns et al. (2006), and Conchie and Donald (2006), has a positive
significant relationship with the employees perceptions toward safety, measured
inspections and safety training measures), as an aggregate of individual elements,
approach in Burns et al. (2006), and Conchie and Donald (2006), is not a significant
positive predictor of the employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety, measured

73
approach in Burns et al. (2006), and Conchie and Donald (2006), is a positive significant
predictor of the employees attitudes toward safety, measured following the approach in
Hofmann et al. (2003).
approach in Burns et al. (2006), and Conchie and Donald (2006), is a positive significant
predictor of the employees perceptions toward safety, measured following the approach
in Hofmann et al. (2003).
investigations, safety inspections, or safety training) of the safety management system, a
Null Hypothesis H 0 3: Employees trust in a particular element (accident
measured with modifications following the approach in Burns et al. (2006), and Conchie
and Donald (2006), is not a significantly better predictor of the employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety, measured following the approach in Hofmann et al. (2003).
Alternative Hypothesis H a 3: Employees trust in a particular element (accident

74
and Donald (2006), is a significantly better predictor of the employees attitudes toward
Alternative Hypothesis H b 3: Employees trust in a particular element (accident
and Donald (2006), is a significantly better predictor of the employees perceptions
toward safety, measured following the approach in Hofmann et al. (2003).
Statistical Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS), version 19.0 was used to
manage all the statistical analyses. Initially, univariate analyses were performed on the
collected data to know the description of the studied population. The univariate analyses
included frequency distribution, central tendency measures and measures of dispersion.
Additionally, bivariate analyses were performed using correlation, simple
regression and multiple regressions to describe the relationship between the independent
and dependent variables.
Correlation analysis
Pearson Correlation analysis was used to determine if there was a significant
linear relationship between variables. The correlation analysis evaluated research
question one. Hypotheses H 0 1, H a 1, and H b 1 were either accepted or rejected based on
the results from the correlation analysis.

75
Regression analyses
Simple and multiple regression analyses were performed to determine if there was
any significant prediction of the dependent variable from the predictor or independent
variables. The following paragraphs will explain how the statistical tests were used to
reject or accept the hypotheses.
Simple regression. Simple regression analysis was used to evaluate research
question two. Hypotheses H 0 2, H a 2, and H b 2 were either rejected or accepted based on
the results obtained in the simple regression.
Multiple regression. Multiple regression analysis of the predictors and the
dependable variables were used to evaluate research question three. Hypotheses H 0 3,
H a 3, and H b 3 were either rejected or accepted based on the results obtained from the
multiple regression analysis.
Protection of Human Participants
Walden University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this research
before any data was collected. The approval number for this study is 07-24-12-0041020.
Before the participants started answering the survey, I explained their rights and how
their participation will be maintained, volunteer, anonymous and confidential. The
printed and electronic versions of the survey had a consent form that explained how their
answers will be preserved and maintained anonymous and confidential. Appendix A
exhibits copies of the consent forms. Even when the participants provided some
demographic information, I was unable to identify the answers of the individual
participants and treated the individual questionnaire with strict measures of

76
confidentiality. For example, the electronic version did not record the participants IP
address, and the printed questionnaires were collected anonymously in a locked box
opened only by me. Access to the individual electronic files has been and remains
password-protected. I will be the only person with access to and knowledge of the
password.
Summary
The intent of this study was to examine the relationships between the employees
trust in the safety management systems and their attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
The study focused on trust in accident/incident investigations, safety inspections, and
safety training as elements of the safety management system. The hypotheses compare
the employees trust in safety management systems (independent variables) and the
employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety (dependent variables) in the
environment of a power plant. The correlation, simple regression and multiple regression
analyses examined how the employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety change
when employees have or do not have trust in the organizations safety management
system. This study provides practical solutions to employers to improve safety
performance by improving employees trust in the organizations safety management
system.
The next chapter presents the results obtained in this study and the acceptance of
the formulated alternative hypotheses, followed by an explanation of each. The
following chapters provide information to employers on how to influence employees
perceptions and attitudes toward safety and consequently the safety performance of their
77
organizations. The acceptance of any of the alternatives hypotheses can motivate
employers to develop and manage employees trust in the organizations management
system.
78
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The primary purpose of this non-experimental study was to examine the
relationship between employees trust in safety management systems and employees
attitudes and perceptions toward safety. Since employee attitudes and perceptions have
been associated with safety performance, the results of this study could motivate
employers to positively influence the attitudes and perceptions that employees have
toward safety (Desai et al., 2006; Milos, 2011; Neal & Griffin, 2006; Sauter & Hurrell,
1999; Toms et al., 2011; Zohar, 2000). If trust in safety management systems is
positively related to employee attitudes and perceptions, employers can then allocate
resources to develop organizational trust, which can have a positive effect on their
organizations safety performance. I obtained the results presented in this chapter by
asking the following research questions:
inspections and safety training measures) have a significant positive relationship with the
inspections and safety training measures), as an aggregate of individual elements,
79
investigations, safety inspections, or safety training) of the safety management system, a
In this chapter, I discuss the collection of data, present the results, and provide a
summary of the findings as they relate to the established hypotheses.
Data Collection
I collected this data during a one-week period. I obtained the data from
employees working in three power plants located in the northeastern United States. All
employees that were present when I visited the plant were invited to participate in this
study. I briefed the employees by department groups during their daily safety meetings.
During the briefing, I explained the purpose of the study and how the employees could
participate. I also explained that their participation would be anonymous and voluntary.
After I answered all relevant questions about their participation, I distributed the
invitation letter, consent form, and questionnaire to the present employees. The
employees were authorized by the plant management to use any additional time during
their working day to answer and return the questionnaires. The completed questionnaires
were deposited in the locked box during the same day that I visited the plant.
Description of the Sample
I invited a total of 202 employees to participate. One hundred and ninety six
(196) questionnaires were returned. Twelve of the returned questionnaires were
incomplete. I subsequently withdrew these incomplete surveys from the sample.
Additionally, I withdrew 14 questionnaires from the sample because the participants were
80
employed for less than one year, had not participated in safety training, or were in
supervisory positions. In total, I analyzed 170 questionnaires during this study. The
response rate in this study was 84%. This response rate is acceptable when it is
compared to similar studies that received response rates between 50% and 93% (Burns et
al., 2006; Conchie & Donald, 2006; Hofmann et al., 2003). The total of 170 participants
was higher than the calculated minimum sample size of 126 presented in Chapter 3.
Sample Characteristics
Table 1 presents the demographic information of the 170 participants. The
majority of participants (91.2%) were male, whereas only 8.8% were female. All had
been employed with their current employer for a minimum of one year and had
participated in safety trainings and orientations. Sixty percent of participants reported an
organizational tenure of more than 10 years. The rest of the participants (39.4%) had
been employed by the target organization for less than 10 years. The participants
belonged to the following departments in the plants: maintenance (56.5%),
operations/production (32.4%) and administration (11.2%). None of the participants
were supervisors. The sample size was representative of the employees that worked in
the targeted plants. The sample represented approximately 47% of the workforce of these
three power plants.

81
Table 1
Demographic Profile of Participants
Characteristic N %
Gender Male 155 91.2

Female 15 8.8
Employment 1-5 years 33 19.4

Tenure 5-10 years 34 20.0
>10 years 103 60.6
Department Operations/Production 55 32.4

Maintenance 96 56.5
Administrative 19 11.2
Note. (N = 170)
Reliability Analysis
Table 2 presents the results of the internal consistency reliability analysis using
Cronbachs Alpha. This analysis evaluated the consistency of the items in each of the
subscales used to measure the independent and dependent variables. Acceptable values
of the Cronbach Alpha coefficients should be above .70 (Cohen, 1988; Pallant, 2007).
All the computed Cronbachs Alpha coefficients were over .70. In fact, all of the
coefficients were between .87 and .96. These results showed that the subscales used to
evaluate the variables were internally consistent.
The adapted scales I used in this study had a comparable range of Cronbachs
Alpha coefficients as the original scales used in related studies. Luria (2010) used a
similar questionnaire and reported an Alpha-reliability coefficient of .87 on the original
scale. A similar organizational trust scale was used by Zohar and Luria (2004) with a
82
reported Alpha-reliability coefficient of .84 (Luria, 2010). The modification of the scales
did not produce an appreciable change in reliability.
Table 2
Cronbachs Alpha Reliability for all Measures
Number of 5HOLDELOLW\
Items
Trust in 3 .91
Accident/Incident
Investigations
Trust in Safety 3 .87

Inspections

Training

Management
Systems
Attitudes Toward 9 .96

Safety
Perceptions 7 .91
Toward Safety
Note. (N = 170)
Evaluating Assumptions
I explored the statistical assumptions that should be considered when interpreting
a correlation coefficient and other specific assumptions that the literature recommends for
the correlational analysis (Cohen, 1988; Pallant, 2007). The basic factors of the
correlation and regression analyses that were reviewed included verifying that the
83
scatterplots of the data points did not represent a curvilinear relationship and that there
were no outliers.
Other specific assumptions that I took into consideration included assuming that
the data were continuous, that each analysis was performed with related pairs of
variables, and that the items measured in the survey were independent. Appendices B
and C present graphs of normal distribution and scatterplots of the participants answers
to the survey questions. The review of the figures presented in Appendices B and C
confirmed that the assumptions of normal distribution, linearity, and homoscedasticity,
suggested by Pallant (2007), were correct and in compliance with the right assumptions.
The correlation analysis, explained later in this chapter, presented correlation
values between more than one of the independent variables that were considered too high.
I tested correlations with values higher than .7 for multicollinearity effects. I also tested
them to determine if the multicollinearity assumptions of the regression analysis had been
violated. Table 3 presents the multicollinearity analysis results when the predictors were
correlated to attitudes toward safety. Table 4 presents the multicollinearity analysis
results when the independent variables were correlated to the perceptions toward safety.
Pallant (2007) suggested that tolerance values of less than .10 indicate that the multiple
correlations with other variables are high. Therefore, tolerance values of less than .10
indicate the possibility of multicollinearity. Additionally, Pallant (2007) suggested that
values of Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) above 10 indicate multicollinearity. All of the
predictors presented in Tables 3 and 4 had tolerance values higher than .10 and VIF
84
values lower than 10. These results demonstrate that the assumptions regarding
multicollinearity were not violated.
Table 3
Multicollinearity Analysis of Independent Variables Predicting Attitudes Toward Safety
Predictors R2 Tolerance VIF

(1- R2) 1/Tolerance
Trust in .29 .71 1.41
Accident/Incident
Investigations
Trust in Safety .21 .79 1.27

Inspections

Training

Management Systems
85
Table 4
Multicollinearity Analysis of Independent Variables Predicting Perceptions Toward
Safety
Predictors R2 Tolerance VIF

(1- R2) 1/Tolerance
Trust in .28 .72 1.39
Accident/Incident
Investigations

Inspections

Training

Management Systems
General Information Related to Independent and Dependent Variables
Table 5 presents a summary of descriptive statistics of the independent and
dependent variables. I applied the formulas proposed in Chapter 3, used to compute the
participants responses, in order to calculate the value of each variable. For the purpose
of classifying the participants responses to the scale, I classified the variables that had
values equal to more than 3.5 as positive responses to the variable. This means, for
example, that a value of 3.53 for the independent variable of trust in accident/incident
investigation meant that the participant trusted the accident and incident investigations in
the organization. If the value of this independent variable was less than 3.5, the
86
interpretation was negative, meaning that the participant did not trust the accident and
incident investigations in the organization.
Independent Variables
As shown in Table 5, 57% of the participants trusted the accident and incident
investigations in the target organization, resulting in a mean value of 3.53 (SD = .87).
The table also shows that 61% of the participants trusted the safety inspections, resulting
a mean value of 3.55 (SD = .83). Also, 67% of the participants reported having trust in
safety training, resulting in a mean value of 3.70 (SD = .76). Finally, 61% of participants
reported having trust in their companys safety management systems (aggregate of
items), resulting in a mean value of 3.59 (SD = .75).
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables (the attitudes and perceptions toward safety) had a higher
mean value and a higher percentage of positive answers compared to the independent
variables. This suggests that employees were reporting positive attitudes and perceptions
toward safety. In particular, 87% of the participants reported positive attitudes toward
safety, resulting in a mean value of 4.20 (SD = .76). More than two-thirds (68%) of
participants also reported positive perceptions toward safety, with the second highest
mean value of 3.75 (SD = .78).
Previous trust studies used similar scales to measure trust. I used the final
average per variable to classify the responses; the results indicated that participants either
trusted (positive responses) or distrusted (negative responses) their employers safety
management systems. Burns et al. (2006) used a similar scale and calculated the trust
87
values with the same formula that I used in this study. The mean trust value that Burns et
al. (2006) reported was 4.42 (SD = .26). The trust values reported for the present study
were comparable with the range of values obtained in similar studies.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Independent and Dependent Variables
% of Positive M SD Skewness
Responses to
Variables
Trust in 57 3.53 .87 -.58
Accident/Incident
Investigations
Trust in Safety 61 3.55 .83 -.65

Inspections

Training

Management
Systems
Attitudes Toward 87 4.20 .76 -1.26

Safety
Perceptions 68 3.75 .78 -.782

Toward Safety
Note. (N = 170)
Relationship Between Trust in Safety Management System, and Attitudes and
Perceptions Toward Safety
To evaluate the first research question, I computed a Pearson Correlation
Coefficient between trust in the organizations safety management system and the
88
employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety. I have summarized the results of this
computation in Table 6.
Table 6 shows that there is a positive correlation between trust in safety
management systems and attitudes toward safety (r = .57, *p < .001). The Pearson
Correlation results in Table 6 also show a positive relationship between trust in the
organizations safety management system and the employees perceptions toward safety
in the workplace (r = .57, *p < .001).
Based on the correlation analysis results presented above, I was able to reject the
null hypothesis H 0 1 and to accept alternatives hypotheses H a 1 and H b 1. Cohen (1988)
suggested that a value of r = .10 to .29 represents a small correlation, that r = .30 to .49
represents a medium correlation, and that r = .50 to 1.0 represents a large correlation.
Therefore, the correlation of r = .57, *p < .001 and r = .57, *p < .001 represent a large
correlation between the variables studied under the research question one.
The literature review I conducted in this study did not lead me to research
showing correlation results between trust in management systems and employees
perceptions and attitudes toward safety (Jeffcott et al., 2006; Zacharatos et al., 2005).
However, in similar studies where the correlation between trust in the organizational
leadership and safety culture attitudes was studied, other researchers suggested
comparable range of values. For example, Burns et al. (2006) reported range values
ranging from r = .44, *p = .001 to r = .67, *p < .01. Attitude and perception studies have
also reported comparable ranges on the correlation values. For example, they have
reported a range from r = .24, *p <.01 to r = .75, *p < .01 (Conchie et al., 2011).
89
Hofmann et al. (2003) also reported comparable range of correlation values, which
spanned from r = .29, *p < .01 to r = .55, *p < .01. The results of the correlation analysis
performed in this study, as compared with other previously published results, are very
sound and comparable to those found in other studies.
Table 6
Correlations Between All Scales
Trust in Trust in Trust in Trust in Attitudes

Accident/ Safety Safety Safety Toward
Incident Inspections Training Management Safety
Investigations Systems
Trust in .778* -
Safety
Inspections
Trust in .757* .715* -

Safety
Training
Trust in .931* .912* .895* -

Safety
Management
Systems
Attitudes .538* .454* .570* .569* -

Toward
Safety
Perceptions .531* .438* .588* .566* .791*

Toward
Safety
Note. p < .001

90
Prediction of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Safety by Trust in Safety
Management System
I evaluated the second research question with two regression analyses. I
performed these regression analyses independently to evaluate if trust in the
organizations safety management system predicts the employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety in the workplace. Tables 7 and Table 8 present the results
related to the regression analyses predicting attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
Table 7 presents the results obtained from the regression analysis of the model
predicting attitudes toward safety. All results obtained from the tested models were
significant. For the first model, the regression analysis demonstrated that trust in
accident and incident investigations, as measured by the modified scale used in this
study, was a significant predictor of employees attitudes toward safety F(1, 168) = 68.6,
*p < .001, r = .538. For the second model, the regression analysis demonstrated that trust
in safety inspections, as measured by the used scale, was a significant predictor of
employees attitudes toward safety F(1, 168) = 43.7, *p <. 001, r = .454. For the third
model, the regression analysis demonstrated that trust in safety training, as measured by
the used scale, was a significant predictor of employees attitudes toward safety F(1, 168)
= 80.9, *p < .001, r = .570. For the fourth model, the regression analysis demonstrated
that trust in safety management systems, as measured by the same scale used in the first
three models, was a significant predictor of employees attitudes toward safety, as
indicated by the following equation: F(1, 168) = 80.4, *p < .001, r = .569. Based on the
91
presented data and data analysis, I was able to reject the null hypothesis H 0 2. However, I
was able to accept the alternatives hypothesis H a 2.
Table 7
Regression Analysis Predicting Attitudes Toward Safety (N = 170)
Predictors R2 Adj R2 B SE t Sig
Trust in .290 .286 .471 .057 .538 8.28 <.001

Accident/Incident
Investigations
Trust in Safety .206 .202 .419 .063 .454 6.61 <.001

Inspections
Trust in Safety .325 .321 .574 .064 .570 9.00 <.001

Training
Trust in Safety .324 .320 .580 .065 .569 8.97 <.001

Management
Systems
Table 8 presents the results I obtained regarding the regression analysis for the
model predicting perceptions toward safety. All of the results that I obtained from the
tested models were significant. For the first model, the regression analysis demonstrated
that trust in accident and incident investigations, as measured by the used scale, was a
significant predictor of employees perceptions toward safety F(1 ,168) = 66.0, *p < .001,
r = .531. For the second model, the regression analysis demonstrated that trust in safety
inspections, as measured by the used scale, was a significant predictor of employees
perceptions toward safety F(1, 168) = 39.9, *p < .001, r = .438. For the third model, the
regression analysis demonstrated that trust in safety training, as measured by the used
92
scale, was a significant predictor of employees perceptions toward safety F(1, 168) =
88.7, *p <.001, r = .588. For the fourth model, the regression analysis also demonstrated
that trust in safety management systems, as measured by the used scale, was a significant
predictor of employees perceptions toward safety F(1, 168) = 79.3, *p < .001, r = .566.
The results obtained in the regression analysis that was performed during the present
study compare with similar studies previously conducted (Luria, 2010). Based on the
presented data and data analysis, I rejected the null hypothesis H 0 2. However, I accepted
the alternatives hypothesis H b 2.
Table 8.
Regression Analysis Predicting Perceptions Toward Safety (N = 170)
Trust in .282 .278 .474 .058 .531 8.12 <.001

Accident/Incident
Investigations
Trust in Safety .192 .187 .412 .065 .438 6.32 <.001

Inspections
Trust in Safety .346 .342 .605 .064 .588 9.42 <.001

Training
Trust in Safety .321 .317 .589 .066 .566 8.91 <.001

Management
Systems
93
Determining Which Element of the Safety Management System is a Better Predictor
of Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Safety
I proposed the following research question and hypotheses earlier in this study. I
performed a multiple regression analysis predicting attitudes and perceptions toward
safety using the data collected to evaluate research question number 3. Table 9 and Table
10 present the multiple regression analysis results that I computed using the collected
data.
Table 9 presents the results obtained from the multiple regression analysis that
compared the independent variables (trust in accident/incident investigations, trust in
safety inspections, and trust in safety training) as predictors of attitudes toward safety.
The overall tested model was found significant F(3, 166) = 30.1, *p < .001, r = .593.
Additionally, Table 10 presents the results obtained from the multiple regression analysis
that compared the independent variables (trust in accident/incident investigations, trust in
safety inspections, and trust in safety training) as predictors of perceptions toward safety.
The overall tested model was found significant F(3, 166) = 31.9, *p < .001, r = .604.
I compared the contribution that each independent variable (trust in
accident/incident investigations, trust in safety inspections and trust in safety training) has
on predicting attitudes toward safety (alternative hypothesis Ha3 a ). However, when I
considered all three variables simultaneously in the multiple regression model, only two
SUHGLFWRUVZHUHVWDWLVWLFDOO\VLJQLILFDQW7UXVWLQ$FFLGHQW,QFLGHQW,QYHVWLJDWLRQV =
.269, *p = .01DQG7UXVWLQ6DIHW\7UDLQLQJ = .391, *p < .001). Trust in Safety
,QVSHFWLRQV = -.035, *p = .740) was not significant.

94
Additionally, I compared the contribution that each independent variable (trust in
accident/incident investigations, trust in safety inspections and trust in safety training) has
in predicting perceptions toward safety (alternative hypothesis Ha3 b ). In this case, I
simultaneously considered all three variables in the multiple regression model, and all of
the predictors were statistically significant, as reflected in the following results: Trust in
AccidenW,QFLGHQW,QYHVWLJDWLRQV = .247, *p = 7UXVWLQ6DIHW\,QVSHFWLRQV = -
.082, *p = DQG7UXVWLQ6DIHW\7UDLQLQJ = .460, *p < .001).
I compared the values of Beta to identify the variables that were better predictors
of safety attitudes,LGHQWLILHG7UXVWLQ6DIHW\7UDLQLQJ = .391, *p < .001) as the
number one predictor of attitudes toward safety. I also identified Trust in
$FFLGHQW,QFLGHQW,QYHVWLJDWLRQV = .269, *p = .017) as the second predictor.
In contrast, I compared the values of Beta to identify the variables that were better
predictors of perceptions WRZDUGVDIHW\,LGHQWLILHG7UXVWLQ6DIHW\7UDLQLQJ = .460,
*p < .001) as the number one predictor of perceptions toward safety. I also identified
Trust in Accident/InFLGHQW,QYHVWLJDWLRQV = .247, *p =.027) as the second predictor.
)LQDOO\,LGHQWLILHG7UXVWLQ6DIHW\,QVSHFWLRQV = -.082, *p = .426) as the third
predictor to perceptions toward safety.
Other studies addressing organizational trust, attitudes and perceptions toward
safety have used comparable methodology. The results presented in the present study
compare favorably with those obtained on the same kind of research (Burns et al., 2006;
Conchie & Donald, 2009; Hofmann et al., 2003; Luria, 2010). Based on the information
95
presented and the data analysis, I was able to reject the null hypothesis H 0 3. I was also
able to accept the alternative hypotheses H a 3 and H b 3.
Table 9
Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Attitudes Toward Safety
Trust in .352 .340 .235 .098 .269 2.407 .017

Accident/Incident
Investigations
Trust in Safety .352 .340 -.032 .096 -.035 -.333 .740

Inspections
Trust in Safety .352 .340 .394 .101 .391 3.894 <.001

Training
Note. (N = 170)
Table 10
Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Perceptions Toward Safety
Trust in .365 .354 .221 .099 .247 2.232 .027

Accident/Incident
Investigations
Trust in Safety .365 .354 -.078 .097 -.082 -.798 .426

Inspections
Trust in Safety .365 .354 .473 .102 .460 4.62 <.001

Training
Note. (N = 170)
96
Summary
The results of this study have suggested that employees trust in their
organizations safety management system has a significant positive relationship with the
employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety. The results of the Pearsons
Correlation Analysis suggested a strong positive correlation between trust in safety
management systems and attitudes toward safety. The results of this study also suggested
a strong positive relationship between trust in the organizations safety management
system and the employees perceptions toward safety. I evaluated the consistency of the
items in each of the subscales used to measure the independent and dependent variables.
These results confirm that the subscales used to evaluate the variables are reliable
instruments.
The employees trust in their organizations safety management system combines
to positively predict the employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety. The
regression analysis suggested that trust in safety management systems, as measured by
the scale discussed above, was a significant predictor of employees attitudes toward
safety. Additionally, the regression analysis suggested that trust in safety management
systems, also as measured by the used scale, was a significant predictor of employees
perceptions toward safety.
The results obtained during this study suggest that trust in accident/incident
investigations and trust in safety training are better predictors of employees attitudes
toward safety than trust in safety inspections. As discussed, the study results suggest that
Trust in Accident/Incident Investigations and Trust in Safety Training were significant.

97
The study results suggest that Trust in Safety Inspections was not significant. Also, the
study results suggest that the overall tested model was significant.
The results I obtained from the multiple regression analysis suggested that Trust
in Accident/Incident Investigations, Trust in Safety Inspections, and Trust in Safety
Training were predictors of employees perceptions toward safety in the workplace. The
study results suggested Trust in Safety Training as the number one predictor of
perceptions toward safety. The study results also suggested trust in accident/incident
investigations as the second predictor. Finally, the study results suggest Trust in Safety
Inspections as the third predictor to perceptions toward safety.
The next chapter includes a summary of the presented results and will also discuss
the conclusions that can be gathered from this study. I will present the results and
conclusions in a framework that includes the interpretation of the findings, limitations of
the study and recommendations.

98
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Introduction
This is nonexperimental study examined the relationship between employees
trust in safety management systems and employees attitudes and perceptions toward
safety in the workplace. While reviewing the relevant literature, I identified a gap in the
research regarding the relationship between the independent and dependent variables in
this study, which I discussed in Chapter 2. This study was meant to help close the
identified gap in the safety climate and safety culture literature.
This cross-sectional study quantified the relationship between the independent
variable, trust in safety management systems, and the dependent variables, attitudes and
perceptions toward safety. I collected the data by asking a group of power plant
employees to voluntarily complete a survey containing measures of the studied variables.
Trust in accident investigations, trust in safety inspections, and trust in safety training
were the specific elements of the safety management systems that I measured. The study
measured the independent and dependent variables with a modified scale following the
approaches in Burns et al. (2006), Conchie and Donald (2006), and Hofmann et al.
(2003). In Chapter 3 I provided information about how the variables were measured, the
instrument used to measure them, and how I collected and analyzed the data.
In addition to the results presented and discussed in Chapter 4, in this study I
presented a new approach to improve safety performance in organizations. This
approach was for employers to improve employee attitudes and perceptions toward safety
by managing trust in safety management system.

99
In short, I used the analysis of the data to answer the research questions that I
presented in previous chapters. In response to the Research Question 1, the data
suggested that employees trust in the organizations safety management system had a
safety. These results mean that as employees trust in the safety management system
increases, the employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety also increase. For
Research Question 2, the results suggested that employees trust in the organizations
safety management system positively predicted those employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety. These results suggest that employers can improve their
employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety by effectively implementing activities
that increase the employees trust in safety management systems. Additionally, the
results of this study suggested that trust in accident/incident investigations and trust in
safety training were better predictors of employees attitudes toward safety than trust in
safety inspections, which was found to be not significant. However, the study results
suggested that trust in all of the safety management system elements in an organization
was significant in predicting employees perceptions toward safety. With regard to
Research Question 3, these results mean that the order of importance of the elements of
safety management systems in terms of predicting positive attitudes and perceptions
toward safety is as follows: first, trust in safety training, second, trust in accident/incident
investigations and finally, trust in safety inspections.

100
In this final chapter, I interpret the findings of the study, discuss its limitations,
make recommendations, and offer my conclusions and the studys implications for
positive social change.
Interpretation of the Findings
Based on the evidence obtained in this study, all of the alternative hypotheses
were accepted. First, the employees trust in their organizations safety management
system had a significant positive relationship with the employees attitudes and
perceptions toward safety. Second, the employees trust in the organizations safety
management system positively predicted the employees attitudes and perceptions toward
safety. Third, from the three safety management system elements that I studied, I found
that trust in accident/incident investigation was the best predictor of employees attitudes
and perceptions toward safety. The results of this study also suggested that trust in safety
training was the second best predictor of the employees attitudes and perceptions toward
safety. These results confirmed the findings of similar studies that are briefly discussed
below.
The safety climate and safety culture literature presented trust as an understudied
topic that could provide important information to employers that are interested in
improving safety performance. Conchie et al. (2006) and Jeffcott et al. (2006) compared
safety research with a puzzle that misses one its pieces; they identified trust as the
missing piece of this puzzle. These authors explicitly established in their research and
articles that the relationship between trust and safety performance is not yet fully
understood. This study is a contribution to close the previously identified gap.

101
In particular, this gap refers to the relationship between trust in the safety
management system and employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
Employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety have been related to accidents in the
workplace (Neal & Griffin, 2006; Sauter & Hurrell, 1999; Wiatrowski, 2005; Zohar,
2010). Therefore, this study suggested that trust in safety management systems could
predict employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety. Additionally, the results of
this study, in conjunction with the previous studies, suggested that trust in an
organizations safety management system predicts that organizations safety
performance.
The results obtained in this study are comparable with other research that has
examined the relationship between trust in automation and employee behavior. In
particular, those studies suggested that the compliance and reliance on the alarm in an
automated system would determine the degree of trust that the operator had in the alarm
system. As expected, when the compliance and reliance levels increased, the level of
trust also increased (Parasuraman & Riley, 1997; Parasuraman & Wickens, 2008; Rice,
2009). Rice et al. (2011) discussed how the theories of confluence and cognitive
dissonance both establish that behavior influences attitudes and that attitudes influence
behavior as well. Researchers have suggested that employees behaviors, which are
predictors of safety performance in the workplace, were related to those employees trust
in safety systems.
Finally, the results presented in this study also correspond to the results found in
research that examined the relationship between interpersonal trust and safety
102
performance. Studies that examined the relationship between interpersonal trust and
accidents suggested a positive relationship between interpersonal trust and safety
performance (Burns et al., 2006; Conchie et al., 2006; Conchie & Donald, 2006; Jeffcott
et al., 2006; Kath et al., 2010; Luria, 2010). While interpersonal trust is achievable and
should be an objective in an organization, the improvement in interpersonal trust does
depend on the relationships that people in a group establish with one another. It is very
difficult, although not impossible, for the leadership of an organization to manage these
relationships. However, and perhaps most importantly, trust in safety management
system does not depend on the relationships between people; rather, it depends on what
the employees expect from their employers safety management system. The
organization leadership can manage the employees expectations about the safety
management system and the expected performance of the system. Undoubtedly,
managing employee trust in the safety management system is the duty of an
organizations leadership.
Limitations of the Study
This study achieved the purpose for which it was designed. However, the
research design and, consequently, the results had some limitations. The major limitation
was that the research focused on employees from just one company. The results were
representative of what the participants from the target company believed. The
participants safety culture and experiences in the target company shaped these
employees answers. Therefore, a study with open participation from more than one
company could provide additional information to supplement my results. This is a cross-

103
sectional study that only presents the participants opinion during the limited period of
time that the study was performed. In this case, the period of time was one week.
Another study could repeatedly survey employees at multiple points in time. This
adapted methodology may help to generalize the conclusions of this study to a larger
population.
Additionally, the scale I used was limited to measuring the studied variables.
However, this study did not investigate why participants held certain viewpoints. The
study did not evaluate the relationship between interpersonal trust (for example, trust
between employees and supervisors) and organizational trust (for example, trust in safety
management systems). Furthermore, this study did not measure employees knowledge
of the elements of their organizations safety management systems. In addition, this
study measured only a limited number of elements (3) of the safety management system.
The participants responses were then limited to only the elements that I measured in this
study.
Recommendations
First, the primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between
employees trust in safety management systems and attitudes and perceptions toward
safety. The results of the study suggest a positive and strong relationship between the
independent variable (trust in safety management systems) and dependent variables
(attitudes and perceptions toward safety). Based on this relationship, employers should
look systematically and formally for opportunities to gain their employees trust in their
safety management systems.

104
Second, employers can gain employees trust in their organizations safety
management system by offering formal training to employees. This training can address
the elements of the organizations safety management system and would be even more
beneficial if employees were allowed to meaningfully contribute to the development of
the elements that comprise the system. Employers should conduct internal audits of their
safety management system to verify that employees trust the existing safety management
systems.
Third, other researchers could study trust in comprehensive safety management
systems like the ones that are based on OSHA Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) and
International Standard Organization (ISO) 18001. These studies could provide some
comparison between the levels of trust in these different programs. The suggested studies
could also provide information about specific factors associated with the named safety
management systems and their relationship to trust. I also recommend that other studies
investigate whether the management system is itself a predictor of trust or whether the
actual implementation characteristics of the system are the predictors of trust.
Fourth, other researchers could study the factors that could influence the
employees trust in safety management systems. Some of these factors might include
knowledge about the safety management systems, implementation characteristics, level
of participation, and interpersonal trust in the organization.
Implications for Positive Social Change
These results represent a potential impact for positive social change at the
organizational level. If employers implement safety management systems that employees

105
trust, employees will have better attitudes and perceptions toward safety. As noted in
Chapter 2, attitudes and perceptions toward safety are predictors of safety performance in
organizations. Therefore, more trust in safety management systems could prevent more
accidents in the workplace. Employees from organizations that have implemented trusted
safety management systems should presumably have fewer accidents. Those employees
will likely have less personal suffering related to occupation-related accidents. Finally,
the societies and communities to which these employees belong will have healthier
people living in the communities.
Conclusions
Employers are responsible for their employees safety. This responsibility is not
only to the employees, but also to employees families, communities, and the
organizations for which they work. Besides the engineering controls that are needed to
maintain a safe workplace, employers should look for opportunities to manage their
employees behaviors. Furthermore, employers are constantly looking for practical ways
to improve the safety climate of their organization. This study provides an innovative
and practical way to improve employees attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
Research literature has strongly suggested that attitudes and perceptions toward safety are
some of the best predictors of accidents in the workplace. In conclusion, this study
presents evidence clearly showing that employers can improve their safety performance
by improving and maintaining their employees trust in the organization safety
management system.
106
References
Adams, R., Hede, C., Holloway, K., & Jackson, L. (1999). Moving safety forward at
Toowoomba Foundry: Attitudes & commitment. Journal of Management
Practice, 1(1), 1-12.
Anonymous. (2005). PDCA (Plan, Do, Check and Act). A to Z of Management Concepts
& Models, 245-246.
APA. (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC: American Pyschological
Association.
Arnaldo Valds, R. M., & Gmez Comendador, F. (2011). Learning from accidents:
Updates of the European regulation on the investigation and prevention of
accidents and incidents in civil aviation. Transport Policy, 18(6), 786-799. doi:
10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.03.009
%DFDN%8XU6 Eken, G. (2011). Importance of work health and safety training in
preventing work injuries: An application in Turkish retail sector. European
Journal of Social Science, 24(3), 376-385.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement:
An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3),
187-200.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University
Press.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model
linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety.

107
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488-496. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.488
Battles, R. A. (2011). Safety, accidents, and investigations: Be prepared for the
unexpected. Employee Relations Law Journal, 37(3), 3-10.
Bird, F. E., & Germain, G. L. (1996). Practical loss control leadership (Rev. ed.).
Loganville, Ga.: Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.).
Blair, E., & Dong-Chul, S. (2007). Safety training: Making the connection to high
performance. Professional Safety, 52(10), 42-48.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brauer, R. L. (2006). Safety and health for engineers (2nd ed.). Hoboken, N.J.: John
Wiley.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Injuries, illnesses and fatalities Retrieved 11/19/11,
2011, from http://www.bls.gov/iif/
Burkholder, G. (2010). Sample size analysis for quantitative studies. Retrieved from
my.waldenu.edu
Burns, C., Mearns, K., & McGeorge, P. (2006). Explicit and implicit trust within safety
culture. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1139-1150. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00821.x
Carroll, J. S. (1998). Safety culture as an ongoing process: Culture surveys as
opportunities for enquiry and change. Work & Stress, 12(3), 272-284. doi:
10.1080/02678379808256866
Castaldo, S., Premazzi, K., & Zerbini, F. (2010). The meaning(s) of trust. A content
analysis on the diverse conceptualizations of trust in scholarly research on
business relationships (Vol. 96, pp. 657-668): Springer Science & Business Media
108
B.V.
Cedergren, A., & Petersen, K. (2011). Prerequisites for learning from accident
investigations A cross-country comparison of national accident investigation
boards. Safety Science, 49(8-9), 1238-1245. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.005
Chen, Y., Chien, S., Wu, J., & Tsai, P. (2010). Impact of signals and experience on trust
and trusting behavior. Cyberpsychology Behavior Social Networking, 13(5), 539-
546.
Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety:
A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(5), 1103-1127. doi: 10.1037/a0016172
Clarke, S., & Ward, K. (2006). The Role of Leader Influence Tactics and Safety Climate
in Engaging Employees' Safety Participation. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1175-1185.
doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00824.x
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conchie, S., & Burns, C. (2008). Trust and risk communication in high-risk
organizations: A test of principles from social risk research. Risk Analysis, 28,
141-149.
Conchie, S., & Donald, I. (2009). The moderating role of safety-specific trust on the
relation between safety-specific leadership and safety citizenship behaviors.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(2), 137-147. doi:
10.1037/a0014247
109
Conchie, S., Donald, I., & Taylor, P. (2006). Trust: Missing piece(s) in the safety puzzle.
Risk Analysis, 26(5).
Conchie, S., & Donald, I. J. (2006). The role of distrust in offshore safety performance.
Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1151-1159. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00822.x
Conchie, S., Taylor, P. J., & Donald, I. J. (2011). Promoting safety voice with safety-
specific transformational leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of
trust. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0025101
Cox, S., Jones, B., & Collinson, D. (2006). Trust relations in high-reliability
organizations. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1123-1138. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-
6924.2006.00820.x
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Desai, V., Roberts, K., & Ciavarelli, A. (2006). The relationship between safety climate
and recent accidents: Behavioral learning and cognitive attributions. Human
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(4), 639-
650. doi: 10.1518/001872006779166361
Donham, K. J., Rautiainen, R. H., Lange, J. L., & Schneiders, S. (2007). Injury and
illness costs in the certified safe farm study. The Journal Of Rural Health:
Official Journal Of The American Rural Health Association And The National
Rural Health Care Association, 23(4), 348-355.
Dzugan, J. (2010). The Development and Efficacy of Safety Training for Commercial
Fishermen. Journal of Agromedicine, 15(4), 351-356. doi:

110
10.1080/1059924x.2010.509226
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.
Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Fernandez, B., Montes, J. M., & Vazquez, C. M. (2007). Safety culture: Analysis of the
causal relationships between its key dimensions. Journal of Safety Research,
38(627-641).
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics Using SPSS (Third ed.). Washington, DC: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Findley, M., Smith, S., Gorski, J., & Oneil, M. (2007). Safety climate differences among
job positions in a nuclear decommissioning and demolition industry: Employees
self-reported safety attitudes and perceptions. Safety Science, 45(8), 875-889. doi:
10.1016/j.ssci.2006.08.027
Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring safety climate:
Identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 177-192. doi:
10.1016/s0925-7535(00)00012-6
Freeman, K., LaFleur, B. J., Booth, J., Doyle, E. J., & Pugh, W. M. (2001). Why federal
agencies should estimate their long-term occupational injury and illness costs.
Journal of Safety Research, 32(3), 277-287. doi: 10.1016/s0022-4375(01)00051-2

111
Germain, G. L., Arnold, R. M., Rowan, R., & Joane, J. R. (1998). Safety, health,
environment and quality management (1998 ed.). Orlando, Fl: FirstPublish, Inc.
Gherardi, S., & Nicolini, D. (2000). The organizational learning of safety in communities
of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(7), 7 -18. doi:
10.1177/105649260091002
Glendon, A., & Litherland, D. (2001). Safety climate factors, group differences and
safety behavior in road construction. Safety Science, 39, 157-188.
Glendon, I. (2008). Safety culture: Snapshot of a developing concept. The Journal of
Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealnad, 24, 179-189.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25,
165-167.
Gravetter, F., & Wallnau, L. (2007). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (Seventh ed.).
Belmont, Ca: Thomson Wadsworth.
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. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347
Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2009). Organizational trust and the limits of
management-based regulation. 43, 865-900. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
5893.2009.00391.x
Hale, A. (2000). Cultures confusions. Safety Science, 34, 1-14.
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1999). Safety-related behavior as a social exchange:
The role of perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange.

112
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 286-296. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.286
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the
relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship:
Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 170-178.
Huang, Y. H., Ho, M., Smith, G. S., & Chen, P. Y. (2001). Safety climate and self-
reported injury: assessing the mediating role of employee safety control. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 38, 425-433.
Jeffcott, S., Pidgeon, N., Weyman, A., & Walls, J. (2006). Risk, trust, and safety culture
in U.K. train operating companies. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1105-1121. doi:
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00819.x
Kath, L. M., Magley, V. J., & Marmet, M. (2010). The role of organizational trust in
safety climate's influence on organizational outcomes. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 42(5), 1488-1497. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.11.010
Keller, D., & Rice, S. (2010). System-wide versus component-specific trust using
multiple aids. Journal of General Psychology, 137(1), 114-128.
Kelloway, E. K., Mullen, J., & Francis, L. (2006). Divergent effects of transformational
and passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11(1), 76-86. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.76
Kramer, R., & Lewicki, R. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust. The Academy of
Management Annals, 4(1), 245-277.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives,
enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569.

113
Lee, T., & Harrison, K. (2000). Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations. Safety
Science, 34(1-3), 61-97. doi: 10.1016/s0925-7535(00)00007-2
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational and
behavioral treatment. American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181-1209.
Lundberg, J., Rollenhagen, C., & Hollnagel, E. (2010). What you find is not always what
you fixHow other aspects than causes of accidents decide recommendations for
remedial actions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 2132-2139. doi:
10.1016/j.aap.2010.07.003
Luria, G. (2010). The social aspects of safety management: Trust and safety climate.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(4), 1288-1295. doi:
10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.006
Luria, G., & Rafaeli, A. (2008). Testing safety commitment in organizations through
interpretations of safety artifacts. Journal of Safety Research, 39(5), 519-528. doi:
10.1016/j.jsr.2008.08.004
Mayer, R. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for
management: a quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 123-136.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.
Mearns, K., Hope, L., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2010). Investment in workforce
health: Exploring the implications for workforce safety climate and commitment.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(5), 1445-1454. doi:
10.1016/j.aap.2009.08.009
114
Messersmith, J. G., & Guthrie, J. P. (2010). High performance work systems in emergent
organizations: Implications for firm performance. Human Resource Management,
49(2), 241-264.
Metzgar, C. (2008). Managing the Risks of organizational Accidents. Professional
Safety, 53(7), 43-43.
Michael, J. H., Evans, D. D., Jansen, K. J., & Haight, J. M. (2005). Management
commitment to safety as organizational support: Relationships with non-safety
outcomes in wood manufacturing employees. Journal of Safety Research, 36(2),
171-179. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.03.002
Milos, F. (2011). An integrated approach to the analysis of incident causes. Safety
Science, 49(6), 886-905. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.02.005
Mullen, J. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Safety leadership: A longitudinal study of the
effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82(2), 253-272.
Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety
climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and
group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 946-953.
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: the effects of leader
inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement
efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941-966.
O'Dea, A., & Flin, R. (2000). Safety leadership in the offshore oil and gas industry. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada.

115
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual (Third ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse,
abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230-253.
Parasuraman, R., & Wickens, C. (2008). Humans: Still vital after all these years of
automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, 50(3), 511-520. doi: 10.1518/001872008x312198
Pidgeon, N., Walls, J., Weyman, A., & Horlick-Jones, T. (2003). Perceptions of and trust
in the health and safety executive as a risk regulator.
Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Reid, J. (2008). Building a safety culture. Journal of Perioperative Practice, 18(4), 134-
134.
Rice, S. (2009). Examining single- and multiple-process theories of trust in automation.
Journal of General Psychology, 136(3), 303-319.
Rice, S., Clayton, K., & McCarley, J. (in press). The effects of automation bias on
operator compliance and reliance. Human Factors Issues in Combat Identification.
Rice, S., & Geels, K. (2010). Using system-wide trust theory to make predictions about
dependence on four diagnostic aids. Journal of General Psychology, 137(4), 362-
375. doi: 10.1080/00221309.2010.499397
Rice, S., Trafimow, D., Hunt, G., & Keller, D. (2010). We don't dislike the alarm: We
dislike complying with the alarm. International Journal of Technology,
Knowledge & Society, 6(1), 93-105.
Rice, S., Trafimow, D., Hunt, G., & Sandry, J. (2010). Generalizing Kant's distinction
116
between perfect and imperfect duties to trust in different situations. The Journal
Of General Psychology, 137(1), 20-36.
Rice, S., Trafimow, D., Keller, D., & Bean, N. (2011). Confluence theory: uniting two
houses divided. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1-19. doi:
10.1080/1463922X.2010.525760
Rice, S., Trafimow, D., Keller, D., & Hunt, G. (2010). Should I stay or should I run?:
Attitudes and subjective norms about disaster alarms. International Journal of
Technology, Knowledge & Society, 6(1), 81-91.
Rice, S., Trafimow, D., Rahmania, A., Keller, D., Hunt, G., Taruc, K., Ridha, M. (2010).
Sound the alarm--death approaches (Suarakan Genderang--Maut Menyerang):
The tsunami early warning system in Indonesia. International Journal of
Technology, Knowledge & Society, 6(4), 13-26.
Sauter, S. L., & Hurrell, J. J., Jr. (1999). Occupational health psychology: origins,
context, and direction. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(2),
117-122. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.30.2.117
Schrder-Hinrichs, J. U., Baldauf, M., & Ghirxi, K. T. (2011). Accident investigation
reporting deficiencies related to organizational factors in machinery space fires
and explosions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 1187-1196. doi:
10.1016/j.aap.2010.12.033
Schul, Y., Mayo, R., & Burnstein, E. (2008). The value of distrust. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1293-1302. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.003
117
Spear, J. E. (2002). A problem-solving process. Professional Safety, 47(4), 25.
Tetrick, L. E., & Quick, J. C. (2003). Prevention at work: Public health in occupational
settings. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health
psychology (pp. 3-17). Washington, DC US: American Psychological
Association.
Thompson, R., Hilton, T., & Witt, L. (1998). Where the safety rubber meets the shop
floor: A confirmatory model of management influence on workplace safety.
Journal of Safety Research, 29(1), 15-24.
Toms, J. M., Cheyne, A., & Oliver, A. (2011). The relationship between safety attitudes
and occupational accidents: The role of safety climate. European Psychologist,
16(3), 209-219. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000036
Vaughan, D. (1999). The dark side of organizations: Mistake, misconduct, and disaster.
Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 271-305. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.271
Wang, W., & Christer, A. H. (1997). A modelling procedure to optimize component
safety inspection over a finite time horizon. Quality & Reliability Engineering
International, 13(4), 217-224.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair
treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-
member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590-598. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.590
Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do "high commitment" human resource practices affect
employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling.

118
Journal of Management, 27(5), 515-535.
Wiatrowski, W. J. (2005). Occupational safety and health statistics: new data for a new
century. Monthly Labor Review, 128(10), 3-10.
Williams Jr, Q., Ochsner, M., Marshall, E., Kimmel, L., & Martino, C. (2010). The
impact of a peer-led participatory health and safety training program for Latino
day laborers in construction. Journal of Safety Research, 41(3), 253-261. doi:
10.1016/j.jsr.2010.02.009
Yagil, D. (1990). A study of cohesion and other factors of major influence on soldiers
and unit effectiveness. London, England: European Research Office of the U.S.
Army.
Yanmaz, A. M., Caner, A., & Berk, A. (2007). Renovation of a Safety-Inspection
Methodology for River Bridges. Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 21(5), 382-389.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R. D. (2005). High-Performance Work Systems
and Occupational Safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 77-93. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.77
Zhu, C. J., Di, F., Gui, F., & Clissold, G. (2010). Occupational safety in China: Safety
climate and its influence on safety-related behavior. China Information, 24(1), 27-
59.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group
climate on micro-accidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(4), 587-596.
119
Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate and assigned
priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23, 75-92.
Zohar, D. (2010). Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future
directions. Accident Analysis Prevention, 42(5), 1517-1522. doi:
10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.019
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2001). Climate strength: Identifying boundary conditions for
organizational climate. Paper presented at the 16th annual conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego.
Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2004). Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory
safety practices: scripts as proxy of behavior patterns. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 322-333.

120
Appendix A: Consent Forms
Note: This consent form was given to participants that answered the survey in a paper
copy
CONSENT FORM
You are invited to take part in a research study of evaluating employees trust in safety
management systems, and attitudes and perceptions toward safety. The researcher is
inviting employees that have been working for at least one year in your company to be in
the study. This form is part of a process called informed consent to allow you to
understand this study before deciding whether to take part.
This study is being conducted by a researcher named Domingo Velazquez, who is a

doctoral student at Walden University. You may already know the researcher as the
Director of Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene, but this study is separate from
that role.
Background Information:
The purpose of this study is to find the relationship between employees trust in safety
management systems, and attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
Procedures:
If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to:
x Answer a questionnaire with 30 questions.
x The estimated time to answer this questionnaire is 30 minutes.
x You will be asked to participate on this survey only one time.
Here are some sample questions that you will answer by indicating if you strongly agree,
disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree:
x I trust the accident/incident investigations in my plant.
x I trust the safety training that is provided in my plant.
x I believe that protecting fellow crew members from safety hazards is part of my
job.
Voluntary Nature of the Study:

This study is voluntary. Everyone will respect your decision of whether or not you
choose to be in the study. No one at job or company will treat you differently if you
decide not to be in the study. If you decide to join the study now, you can still change
your mind later. You may stop at any time.
Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:

Being in this type of study involves some risk of the minor discomforts that can be
encountered in daily life, such as fatigue, stress or becoming upset. Being in this study
would not pose risk to your safety or wellbeing.
The study results will benefit the community to understand the relationship between trust
in safety management systems, and attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
121
Payment:
You will not receive any thank you gifts, payments, or reimbursements for participating
on this survey.
Privacy:
Any information you provide will be kept anonymous. The researcher will not use your
personal information for any purposes outside of this research project. Also, the
researcher will not include your name or anything else that could identify you in the study
reports. Data will be kept secure by a password. Data will be kept for a period of at
least 5 years, as required by the university.
Contacts and Questions:

You may ask any questions you have now. Or if you have questions later, you may
contact the researcher at 404-388-3133. If you want to talk privately about your rights as
a participant, you can call Dr. Leilani Endicott. She is the Walden University
representative who can discuss this with you. Her phone number is 1-800-925-3368,
extension 1210. Walden Universitys approval number for this study is IRB will enter
approval number here and it expires on IRB will enter expiration date.
Please keep this consent form for your records.
Statement of Consent:
I have read the above information and I feel I understand the study well enough to make
a decision about my involvement. By returning a completed survey, I understand that I
am agreeing to the terms described above.
122
Note: This consent form was given to participants that answered the survey on-
line.
CONSENT FORM
You are invited to take part in a research study of evaluating employees trust in safety
management systems, and attitudes and perceptions toward safety. The researcher is
inviting employees that have been working for at least one year in your company to be in
the study. This form is part of a process called informed consent to allow you to
understand this study before deciding whether to take part.
This study is being conducted by a researcher named Domingo Velazquez, who is a

doctoral student at Walden University. You may already know the researcher as the
Director of Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene, but this study is separate from
that role.
Background Information:
The purpose of this study is to find the relationship between employees trust in safety
management systems, and attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
Procedures:
If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to:
x Answer a questionnaire with 30 questions.
x The estimated time to answer this questionnaire is 30 minutes.
x You will be asked to participate on this survey only one time.
Here are some sample questions that you will answer by indicating if you strongly agree,
disagree, neutral, agree, or strongly agree:
x I trust the accident/incident investigations in my plant.
x I trust the safety training that is provided in my plant.
x I believe that protecting fellow crew members from safety hazards is part of my
job.
Voluntary Nature of the Study:

This study is voluntary. Everyone will respect your decision of whether or not you
choose to be in the study. No one at job or company will treat you differently if you
decide not to be in the study. If you decide to join the study now, you can still change
your mind later. You may stop at any time.
Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:

Being in this type of study involves some risk of the minor discomforts that can be
encountered in daily life, such as fatigue, stress or becoming upset. Being in this study
would not pose risk to your safety or wellbeing.
The study results will benefit the community to understand the relationship between trust
in safety management systems, and attitudes and perceptions toward safety.
123
Payment:
You will not receive any thank you gifts, payments, or reimbursements for participating
on this survey.
Privacy:
Any information you provide will be kept anonymous. The researcher will not use your
personal information for any purposes outside of this research project. Also, the
researcher will not include your name or anything else that could identify you in the study
reports. Data will be kept secure by a password. Data will be kept for a period of at
least 5 years, as required by the university.
Contacts and Questions:

You may ask any questions you have now. Or if you have questions later, you may
contact the researcher at 404-388-3133. If you want to talk privately about your rights as
a participant, you can call Dr. Leilani Endicott. She is the Walden University
representative who can discuss this with you. Her phone number is 1-800-925-3368,
extension 1210. Walden Universitys approval number for this study is IRB will enter
approval number here and it expires on IRB will enter expiration date.
Please print and keep this consent form for your records.
Statement of Consent:
I have read the above information and I feel I understand the study well enough to make
a decision about my involvement. By clicking the phrase I accept, I understand that I
am agreeing to the terms described above.
124
Appendix B: Normal Distribution of the Participants Responses to the Study Survey
Frequency
Employees Trust in Accident/Incident Investigations
Figure B1. Frequency of Employees Trust in Accident/Incident Investigations

125
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
Employees Trust in Safety Inspections
Figure B2. Frequency of Employees Trust in Safety Inspections

126
Frequency
Employees Trust in Safety Training
Figure B3. Frequency of Employees Trust in Safety Training

127
Frequency
Employees Trust in Safety Management Systems
Figure B4. Frequency of Employees Trust in Safety Management Systems

128
Frequency
Employees Attitudes Toward Safety
Figure B5. Frequency of Employees Attitudes Toward Safety

129
Frequency
Employees Perceptions Toward Safety
Figure B 6. Frequency of Employees Perceptions Toward Safety

130
Trust in Accident/Incidents Investigations Appendix C: Scatterplots of Predictors and Predicted Variables Results
Figure C1. Employees Attitudes Toward Safety and Trust in Accident/Incidents

Investigations
131
Trust in Safety Inspections
Figure C2. Employees Attitudes Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Inspections
132
Trust in Safety Training
Figure C3. Employees Attitudes Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Training
133
Trust in Safety Management Systems
Figure C4. Employees Attitudes Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Management
Systems
134
Trust in Accident/Incidents Investigations
Figure C5. Employees Perceptions Toward Safety and Trust in Accident/Incidents

Investigations
135
Trust in Safety Inspections
Figure C6. Employees Perceptions Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Inspections
136
Trust in Safety Training
Figure C7. Employees Perceptions Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Training
137
Trust in Safety Management System
Figure C8. Employees Perceptions Toward Safety and Trust in Safety Management
System
138
Curriculum Vitae
DOMINGO VELAZQUEZ
PROFESSIONAL PROFILE
A Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) professional experienced in developing

and implementing HSE Management Systems that systematically identify, evaluate and
control HSE risks.
EDUCATION
PhD Candidate, Organizational

Walden University
Anticipated Completion November 2012
MS in Environmental Science
Concentration in Occupational Safety and Health
University of Puerto Rico
BS in Natural Science
University of Puerto Rico
WORK EXPERIENCE
Corporate Director of Occupational Health and Industrial Hygiene

Regional Manager of Safety Application and Compliance
Corporate Environment, Safety & Health Specialist
Manager of Safety and Health Consulting
Senior Safety and Health Specialist
Industrial Hygienist
CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Safety Professional (CSP)
Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH)

Trust

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Trust

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Walden University

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

Chief Academic Officer

Eric Riedel, Ph.D.

MS, University of Puerto Rico, 1990

BS, University of Puerto Rico, 1985

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

The success of safety programs in organizations is measured, in general, by the number

suffering and economic problems to employees, employees families, organizations, and

communities. Safety climate research has established positive relationships between

employees safety attitudes, perceptions, and safety performance. However, studies on

study interpersonal and organizational trust. This quantitative cross-sectional study

perceptions toward safety (dependent variables). Power plant employees completed a

provides recommendations to improve safety performance in the organization by

improving trust in a safety management system is an additional approach for

organizations to improve safety performance.

MS, University of Puerto Rico, 1990

BS, University of Puerto Rico, 1985

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

I dedicate this study to my parents. I thank my mother, Julia M. Delgado, who

your commitment to your students is exemplary. Thanks to Dr. Stephen Rice, my

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study....................................................................................1

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................5

Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................5

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for the Study ..................................................6

Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................7

Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................................8

Operational Definitions ................................................................................................11

Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................13

Significance of the Study .............................................................................................14

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................17

Literature Review Strategy ..........................................................................................20

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework for the Study ................................................21

Safety Performance ......................................................................................................23

Immediate Causes of Accidents ............................................................................ 27

Root Causes of Accidents ..................................................................................... 28

Safety Climate in Organizations ..................................................................................29

The Safety Climate Concept ................................................................................. 30

Safety climate and safety performance ................................................................. 30

Leadership in Safety ............................................................................................. 32

Trust and Safety Performance ......................................................................................35

The Trust Concept................................................................................................. 35

Organizational Trust ............................................................................................. 37

Trust and Safety Performance ............................................................................... 40

Employees Attitude and Perceptions Toward Safety .......................................... 45

Safety Management Systems .......................................................................................50

Accident Investigations ......................................................................................... 53

Safety Inspections ................................................................................................. 53

Chapter 3: Research Method..............................................................................................58

Setting and Sample Criteria .........................................................................................59

Selection of Participating Plants ........................................................................... 60

Participant Selection ............................................................................................. 61

Communication with Plant Leadership ................................................................. 61

Employees Answering the Questionnaire ............................................................. 61

Power Analysis and Sample Size.................................................................................62

Correlation Test: Minimum Sample Size Required .............................................. 62

management systems (Arnaldo Valds & Gmez Comendador, 2011; %DFDN8XU