This study contributes to the emerging literature on the interplay between safety committees and employee perceptions of organizational safety culture. Creating, managing and maintaining a safety culture in organizations involves significant investment in the establishment of safety committees. The role of such committees in improving safety culture perceptions has remained underexplored in the safety management and organizational literature.
This study addresses that gap and focuses on a safety committee within the facilities management operations of a large American academic institution. The objective is to generate understandings of how a committee can influence organizational cultural change and impact employee perceptions of safety.
Using Schein’s organizational culture model as a prism, we unpack the employees’ implicit cultural beliefs. Data from over sixty employee interviews revealed that formation of the Safety Committee resulted in unintended consequences in terms of employee perceptions.
Employees attributed most safety-related actions to the committee when, in fact, the managers and supervisors had actually carried them out. This overestimation of committee activities and concomitant underestimation of managerial actions by employees was an unintended consequence of establishing a committee. Employees, in fact, collectively attributed all positive changes in the organizational culture to the committee. The committee ultimately influenced the employees’ basic assumptions, such change being, according to Schein, a prerequisite for organizational cultural change.
This study, therefore, contributes to the literature by proposing that unintended consequences can operate in three different ways to support organizational change. First, unintended consequences can promote positive outcomes; second, they can reveal a new understanding of committees, which under certain circumstances can act as a proxy for management and encourage positive perceptions of managerial commitment. Lastly, unintended consequences can provide a means to detect and ‘excavate’ hidden, implicit assumptions that drive organizational culture’s deepest layers.
- safety culture,
- unintended consequences,
- organizational culture,
- facilities management,
- Schein’s model
Cette étude contribue à la littérature émergente sur l’interaction entre les comités de sécurité et la culture de sécurité organisationnelle. La création, la gestion et la maintenance d’une culture de sécurité dans une organisation requièrent un investissement significatif de ressources, notamment pour la création d’un comité de sécurité. L’impact de celui-ci dans l’amélioration des perceptions sur la sécurité est resté jusqu’alors relativement sous-étudié dans la littérature.
Cette étude s’intéresse à cette problématique et examine le rôle d’un comité de sécurité dans le département des opérations d’une grande université américaine. Notre objet est d’ouvrir de nouvelles perspectives quant à l’influence et l’impact de ces comités sur les perceptions des collaborateurs dans un processus global de changement de culture organisationnelle.
En déployant le modèle de culture organisationnel de Schein, nous avons sondé les croyances implicites d’une soixantaine de salariés interviewés. Les données recueillies ont révélé que l’allocation de temps et de ressources dans le comité ont créé une perception positive sur l’engagement managérial vis-à-vis de la sécurité. Les employés ont, ainsi, attribué au comité la majorité des actions relatives à la sécurité, alors qu’en réalité les initiatives concernées ont été portées par les managers et superviseurs travaillant directement sur le terrain. Une telle surestimation de l’activité du comité et sous-estimation concomitante de l’activité par les managers directs est une conséquence inattendue de la création du comité de sécurité. En effet, les employés ont collectivement attribué tout changement positif au comité.
Ceci a permis à celui-ci d’exercer une influence sur les postulats fondamentaux des employés; un prérequis, selon Schein, pour réaliser un changement de culture organisationnelle. Cette étude contribue donc à la littérature en avançant la notion que les conséquences inattendues peuvent fonctionner de trois manières différentes pour soutenir le changement organisationnel. Premièrement, elles peuvent promouvoir des résultats positifs; deuxièmement, elles peuvent révéler le pouvoir légitimant d’une ‘main invisible’ managériale; et, troisièmement, elles peuvent servir d’outil pour détecter et déterrer les postulats de base de la culture organisationnelle.
- culture de sécurité,
- conséquences inattendues,
- culture organisationnelle,
- gestion des installations,
- modèle de Schein
Corps de l’article
Committees are a vital facet of organizational life. This study examines how committee work is bound up in organizational cultural priorities and more specifically what role safety committees play in the development of a workplace safety culture. The prioritization of organizational safety culture comes after three decades of engagement by scholars, regulators and industry actors (Cooper, 2016). International agencies, regulatory bodies and companies have issued guidelines, policies, assessments and interventions designed to optimize such a culture (Schobel et al., 2017). Safe operations are not a straightforward matter of compliance with regulations and codes. They also depend on a host of dependent factors, including organizational design (Hopkins, 2007).
In this paper, we examine the interplay between a safety committee and safety culture in a university facilities management department. We conduct this examination by using Edgar Schein’s organizational culture model (1985, 1990). Our findings indicate that safety committee initiatives impact organizational safety culture in some positive yet unintended ways that may reveal implicit organizational assumptions. This conclusion implies that unintended consequences can serve as a privileged window for viewing a core layer of hidden, implicit and unspoken assumptions.
The concept of culture has enjoyed a vibrant life in the organizational literature as a dynamic, transactional phenomenon (Douglas, 1970; 1978), as a “software of the mind” (Hofstede, 1991) or as a pattern of “shared basic assumptions” learned by groups to solve “problems of external adaptation and internal integration” (Schein, 1985). Table 1 displays Schein’s model and summarizes the various definitions and perspectives on organizational culture in the literature.
For Schein, organizational culture is comprised of three basic elements. First, assumptions represent culture’s unconscious drivers. Second, espoused values reflect stated goals, ideals and beliefs and serve as explicit foundations for action (Argyris and Schön, 1996). Third, artefacts recombine culture’s manifestations that can be observed, touched or experienced (Schein, 1985). The artefact layer refers to those observable yet difficult to interpret elements. Since Schein views culture as a learned set of behaviours and attitudes safeguarding against the stressors of ambiguity and change, organizational culture can be deliberately transformed, provided the right conditions are met (Schein, 1985; 1990). To date, inadequate emphasis has been placed on the cultural dynamics occurring at deeper implicit levels in the organization, with the bulk of attention focused on external cultural “symptoms” and desired behaviours (Schein, 1990; Hale, 2000). This unequal emphasis makes connecting safety culture to actual practice a challenge, thus requiring us to focus attention on the less obvious levels of culture.
The juxtaposition of both ‘culture’ and ‘safety’ reminds practitioners and researchers that accidents are not exclusively due to human error, technical malfunction or environmental factors. They are rather embedded in broader organizational and managerial attitudes, values and behaviours (Reiman and Rollenhagen, 2018). ‘Safety Culture,’ a term coined by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, has been identified as a major causal factor in such disasters (Guldenmund, 2010; Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2016).
In the 1990s and again in the early 2000s, scholarly interest was revived in safety culture and produced empirical work (Reichers and Schneider, 1990; Cox and Cox, 1991; Guldenmund, 2000; Hale, 2000; Cooper, 2000; Richter and Koch, 2004). The growth of safety culture studies across a variety of disciplines has resulted not only in a multitude of definitions and constructs (Hale, 2000; Guldenmund, 2000; Hopkins, 2006; Choudhry et al., 2007; Silbey, 2009; Myers et al., 2014) but also in competing, if not contradictory, arguments and theories. This multiplicity has led to conceptual fragmentation: safety culture means different things to different researchers and practitioners (Cooper, 2016). For twenty years, scholars such as Zhang et al., (2002), Guldenmund (2000), Hopkins (2006) and Antonsen (2009c) and Seixas et al. (2013) have sought to reconcile various understandings of safety culture. As illustrated in Table 2, the concept has continued to evolve in the literature (Choudhry et al., 2007).
This scholarly community converges on one central tenet: a strong safety culture places a high priority on safety-related beliefs, values and attitudes (Cooper, 2000; Guldenmund, 2000; Short et al., 2007). Researchers have recognized that safety management systems did not result in the expected safety gains. Written manuals often remain ignored or untouched (Reason, 2000). Safety culture has emerged to bring much-needed life to such systems (Hopkins, 2005), and a number of studies suggest that it plays an important role in anticipating workplace incidents (Clarke, 2000; Cooper, 2000; Hofmann and Stetzer, 1996; Mearns et al., 2003; Zohar, 2000). With a poor safety culture, the workplace may suffer from more frequent mistakes, more tolerance for violations and greater management failure to recognize and focus on discrepancies. The resulting long-term vulnerabilities increase the potential for an adverse incident (Reason, 1998). Based on the foregoing, we define ‘safety culture’ as an “approach improving everyday safety behaviours in the workplace and carried out by all organizational members who are united by common values and priorities on safety-related matters.”
Management research on committees has adopted a strong ‘features’ component: size, composition, procedures, structure, agenda and meeting minutes, meeting frequency and duration, scope, upper management participation and member training (Kochan et al., 1977; Coyle and Leopold, 1981; Ontario, 1986; Tuohy and Simard, 1993; Eaton and Nocerino, 2000; Hall et al., 2003). Other work has examined geographic and contextual factors (Lewchuk et al., 1996; O’Grady, 2000; Milgate et al., 2002), committee characteristics (Morse et al., 2013), effective committee implementation (Seixas et al., 2013) and factors facilitating or impeding committee success (Yassi, 2012). Regarding safety committees in particular, some studies point to their role in improving safety performance (Parker et al., 2007; Smitha et al., 2001), although empirical evidence is scarce (Bryce and Manga, 1985; Milgate et al., 2002) and therefore needed (Morse et al., 2013). Forming a safety committee is a critical juncture in an organization’s efforts to transform safety culture (Nielsen, 2014). Such efforts encompass activities aimed at identifying and emphasizing harm-reduction principles and practices (Vogus et al., 2010). A crucial remedy to safety concerns, safety committees have been formed in many safety concerns, safety committees have been formed in many workplaces through employee involvement and empowerment (Nielsen, 2014). Workplace health and safety (H&S) committees, as well as worker H&S representatives, have widely been required by law. All this fuels the research focus on employee involvement in H&S decision-making (Walters, 1996a, 1996b; Eaton and Nocerino, 2000; O’Grady, 2000; Milgate et al., 2002; Shearn, 2004). Whereas workplace politics have been described as an essential part of H&S decision-making processes (Walters, 1985), Hall et al. (2006) identified knowledge activism as the most effective aspect of H&S representation. Knowledge activists can persuade and challenge decisions by developing an arsenal of legal and scientific information aligned with expertise and competency in training, managerial reaction and communication (Walters, 1996c; Lewchuk, et al., 1996).
Assessing Safety Culture through Models
During the period between 1986 and 2000, when safety culture studies flourished, it is noteworthy that few practice-oriented models emerged. The existing ones included Guldenmund’s (2000) organizational culture adaptation model, Cooper’s (2000) reciprocal safety culture model and Reason’s (1998) interacting sub-cultures incident analysis model. All have been influential in guiding researchers, regulators and practitioners in developing organizational safety culture (Cooper, 2016). The relevance of Schein’s research on culture has resulted in its application to safety culture studies (Guldenmund, 2018). A succession of reappraisals through new empirical settings and different methodologies has accompanied its broadening (Guldenmund, 2000; Glendon and Stanton, 1998; Furnham and Gunter, 1993; Johnson and Scholes, 1999). The model was however critiqued for the unidirectional relationship between “assumptions and attitudes and between attitudes and behaviors” (Cooper, 2000) and mediating or moderating variables would be needed to develop a more complex model (Lund and Aaro, 2004). Instead of distinguishing between each layer, the scholars revisiting Schein’s model concentrated on the overall organization at large. By shifting attention to model application at the committee level, we answer the question of how safety committees influence organizational cultural change and impact employee perceptions.
The question was answered through a case study at a private American university in a facilities department that consisted of shops and departments with skilled tradespeople performing tasks similar to those of construction workers (see Table 3). A growing stream of research on facilities management (FM) has examined facilities at institutions of higher education and the physical aspects to be managed (Lateef et al., 2010; Kok et al., 2011; Ogbeifun et al., 2016). In this rarefied context of teaching, learning or research, the FM staff may feel invisible and under-appreciated. Management staff at university facilities are said to “…complain about a lack of recognition and appreciation for their hard work” (Ogbeifun et al., 2016). The FM staff guarantee the conditions of physical amenities to the benefit of all and contribute to the overall attractiveness and life quality for every stakeholder (Lateef et al., 2010). The university’s onsite teaching and research mission would be greatly compromised without a high-functioning FM staff; ever-increasing tuition fees and expenses are associated with high expectations from stakeholders (Taylor and Braddock, 2007).
Safety issues in the construction industry prompted calls for improvement and a search for better approaches (Langford et al., 2000), and these calls reverberated throughout the Facilities Management Department at the university under study. In an effort to gather information on how best to transform the existing safety committee, the Facilities Management staff administered a survey in 2013 in which 310 out of 369 employees (84%) completed 50 questions on their perceptions of safety culture. The results indicated that need-driven movements of staff between shops made the ordinary safety compliance mechanisms, i.e. procedures and inspections, either difficult to respect or even irrelevant. Consequently, management focused on establishing common values and behaviours by improving the prevailing safety culture (Halligan and Zecevic, 2011). A new safety committee comprised of employees and supervisors from facilities shops and departments was formed. Members were appointed by their superiors to serve three-year terms. The committee included a senior management member, appointed as the Chair by the Associate VP, and two advisory Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) representatives. The Safety Committee was divided into three different subcommittees, each of which addressed and reported on specific safety matters. After multiple subcommittee meetings, written guidelines were promulgated and shared with facilities supervisors. Performance was measured through metrics disseminated and collected by the EHS office, hence ensuring compliance with committee guidelines.
Organizational Investment in Safety
Trends in overall safety-related expenditures demonstrate the shift in organizational priorities in four specific areas. Table 4 details the expenditures for the years 2016 through 2018 and the changes to safety-related expenses: the Safety Expo and increases in the budget for training, protective equipment or committee members’ time.
First, for the Safety Expos in 2016, 2017 and 2018, the expenditures were $15,000, $14,000 and $15,000 respectively. The increase is a sign of growing financial support from management, since the original budget of $10,000 in 2014 has been surpassed with each passing year. Second, the rules on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) usage were relatively unfamiliar to individual shops and their workers, who lacked a variety in the choices and sizes of PPE. Expenditures for PPE were increased when the new guidelines were rolled out to cover protective equipment and relevant upgrades (see Table 4). Third, evidence of greater investment in safety can be seen in employee allowances: the cost of employees’ time at committee and subcommittee meetings or other safety-related activities was three times higher than it had been with the former committee. Prior to 2014, only one hour per employee had been granted each month for committee meetings, and all safety training had been provided in-house by the EHS office, with low attendance rates. With the new committee, a budget was set aside for safety training to be given by a third-party contractor. This move ultimately led to an annual $23,000 investment in an online safety training platform, commencing in 2019.
Approach and Epistemology
We analyzed the formation and work of the Safety Committee using a phenomenological lens, observing the emergence of events, stories and objects as organizational phenomena.
Single Case Design
This approach has been used to explore various complex organizational processes, such as organizational identity (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991), corporate venturing (Burgelman, 1983) or sensemaking (Weick, 1993). Single case studies make it possible to achieve an in-depth understanding of complex organizational phenomena through privileged access to a specific phenomenon. We chose a quasi-experimental case study design (Yin, 2003) for two reasons: it is suitable for investigation of complex social processes, and it provides a context for better comprehension of invisible phenomena. Along the lines of the “idiographic single-outcome case study,” the explicit goal is not generalizability but greater understanding of the case (Eckstein, 1975). Pursuant to the qualitative tradition of focusing on “causes of effects,” as described by Goertz and Mahoney (2012), we sought out the “causes” attributable to the case’s outcomes; i.e., the “effects.”
This case study was based on 61 employee interviews, field observation notes, and archival data (an employee survey, a committee charter, official correspondence, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, budget allocation data and performance metrics: see Table 5). Semi-structured, open-ended interviews enabled us to convey not only the participants’ descriptive thoughts and experiences but also their life experiences in the workplace at the deeper layers of organizational culture (Schein, 1990). This variety of data sources made possible a granular level of detail that cannot be accomplished through multiple cases or through large-sample statistical studies. Following organizational process research examples (Van De Ven, 1992; Langley, 1999; Langley et al., 2013), we focused on “how and why things emerge, develop, grow, or terminate” (Langley et al., 2013: 1). Archival data were supplemented with memos drafted from longitudinal observations of committee, sub-committee and preparatory meetings held between the chair and the EHS representatives.
Interview Procedure, Guidelines and Transcription
Fieldwork and data collection were conducted by the lead author, who, as a safety engineer, had a deep understanding of the contextual background. A total of sixty-one individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with fifty-nine employee participants and two managers, each lasting between thirty to sixty minutes. Interviews were held with all sixteen committee members and all fifteen facilities shop supervisors seen as organizational safety role models (Fleming et al., 1996; Mattila et al., 1994). Because employee involvement in decision-making appears to be a key factor in safety research (Simard and Marchand, 1995), interviews included one to two employees from each shop, thus adding 28 additional participants. Cross-sectional insights were gained through two longer in-depth interviews with the committee chair and the EHS director.
Participants were briefed on the study’s objectives and asked for permission to record. These files were transcribed verbatim. Timestamps were applied to the most relevant passages. Supplemented with the interviewer’s memos, transcripts were reviewed line by line through research-question-related themes. The themes were captured through first-order codes for the timestamped segments. This initial coding resulted in over 1,200 first-order codes that were reduced and consolidated as described below.
Open coding for textual thematic analysis (Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1990) enabled us to develop substantial descriptive codes for the various phenomena. Interview transcripts were uploaded to Atlas.ti. We reduced the large number of first-order codes by identifying similar data segments and placing them under broader common headings. We performed code-name merging on the first-order data segments in Atlas.ti and then created second-order thematic codes under which the first-order codes were categorized. Next, we examined the coded themes and their internal relationships (in terms of co-occurrences) to detect patterns and thematic overlap. At one point, we reached data saturation (Fusch and Ness, 2015) and were applying pre-existing codes without exception. This led to 85 first-order codes.
We then sorted the codes for inclusion into either the artefact category or the espoused values category (Schein, 1984). We examined code labels with high and low frequencies to determine whether they could be combined or whether a new common category label was required. Codes were merged under a common higher conceptual code label or “code groups.” This iterative process resulted in 12 second-order codes, which were then recombined and collapsed to form 10 final second-order code groups (see Figure 1). Further analysis and reduction of the second-order codes resulted in two overarching aggregate codes (see Figure 2).
Following Nielsen’s (2014) example, the safety culture concept could be classified under Schein’s three layers: Artefacts, Espoused Values and Assumptions. The artefact level of organizational safety culture was evaluated through the number and frequency of safety meetings per period. The espoused values reflected explicitly stated goals and ideals. The basic assumptions were identified by analyzing the codes under the artefacts and espoused value labels.
In appearance, the committee had uniform representation. In reality, it offered scant opportunities for full and equal contributions from all committee members.
Meetings and Inclusiveness in Safety Inputs
Data from committee meetings and minutes agreed with survey findings and Safety Expo matters (described below). Meetings also involved annual report descriptions of their accomplishments. Respondent data revealed asymmetrical and mainly top-down information flows at the meetings: the chair and close advisors initiated and guided conversations. Regular committee members felt less influential in the idea-sharing fora. Committee members expressed a need for more information sharing by departments about safety deficiencies at meetings: “I don’t come back with anything or any feedback. It’s all high-level management stuff. We should be able to share. We lost members because of this.” Another representative, referring to himself as “the eyes and ears” of his shop, noted the need for more voices from grassroots people.
Training and Safety Discussion
A majority of participants deemed safety training to be deficient in two focus areas: 1- inconsistencies in implementing safety practices; 2- lack of a forum for regular group safety discussions. Committee members noted inadequate or nonexistent training. Workers lamented being “thrown in” to the job. Regarding training for safety practices, employees developed such practices from their own experiences and common knowledge as a result of “…being aware of their surroundings.” Supervisors credited training and PPE as the main means to ensure employee safety; “I ensure their safety by ensuring that they’re wearing PPE.” Data suggested that the informal discussions on safety lacked a scripted protocol or deliberate process orientation and took place only ad hoc.
Another conspicuous artefact is the annual ‘Safety Expo,’ which was created to facilitate safety improvements and raise awareness. This event has positively influenced employee perceptions. One electrician conceded that the Expo “…fosters awareness. Puts it in your mind. That’s half the battle of safety, putting it in your mind.” The Paint Shop Supervisor concurred: “the Expos have been opening up people’s eyes.” The exposition acted as a culture-building tool to “keep people safe. The committee has been effective in improving safety culture by bringing more awareness,” noted a carpenter shop employee.
The “espoused values” level of culture focuses on those explicit, conscious areas of organizational life that govern members’ discourses and attitudes. Participants acknowledged the importance of safety in their jobs and the improvements since the committee’s formation. “Safety awareness has changed drastically. Before we didn’t pay attention and now it is really, really good,” stated one participant. Regarding the committee’s role and purpose, participants agreed on the need to promote safety through better internal communication.
The push for PPE had raised awareness, particularly of job-specific guidelines. A carpenter shop employee noted that “[p]eople are more aware of the type of PPE they need, the supervisor is stricter. He lets us know.” A painter concurred: “We are pushed to use PPE now.” The Plumbing Supervisor made the same point: “We’ve spent much more on PPE and safety equipment in the past couple of years. It’s a different culture now.” An electrician added that PPE, like test gloves and ear plugs, had not been used three years prior, but now were. Employees from the central plant, mail services and plumbing shop attributed greater PPE usage to heightened awareness. Although supervisors did not recall the specific PPE guidelines, their expectations for their employees and for PPE usage had shifted. For example, the PPE audit form, initially required for compliance, was seen by employees as a sort of safety mechanism. Whereas they had viewed it more at the beginning just “as a means of satisfying” management, it then began “slowly moving to reinforce their own benefit,” according to the Carpenter Shop Supervisor.
Training and Incident Investigation Priorities
Interviews revealed a perception of little or no improvement in the training and incident investigation guidelines. The majority were uncertain as to how to report an incident. A paint shop employee questioned why near-misses were never investigated: “A cart almost ran into our cart. We reported to [the] supervisor but heard nothing after that.” This perception of unclear incident-reporting mechanisms was echoed by a custodial employee: “We complete [the] report and send it to HR; if we don’t find the boss, we go to HR. If no one answers, then [we go to] security.”
Among the various shops, additional inconsistencies became apparent for new employee training. Relying on notification from their EHS representatives, the majority of supervisors ignored the compulsory training. Supervisors from the lock shop, mail services and plumbing shop observed dependency on EHS representatives to determine requirements. Survey metrics confirmed low participation in both incident investigation and training.
Committee-Driven Safety Climate
The data showed a shared perception of an overall improvement in safety since committee formation. All interviewed employees indicated significant improvements in safety awareness and performance during 2015-2017. For a carpenter shop employee, people seemed to “see safety differently.” They were more conscious of their rights and “what is available to them…They yell ‘safety’ when I am around.” An HVAC representative confirmed this impression: “The committee is benefiting everyone because everyone associate[s] safety with the committee,” while some representatives felt increasingly perceived as internal safety advocates. As one noted: “[p]eople now, and not before, come to me with safety questions.” A central plant representative mentioned that, “I have been acting as the safety officer in my area. For example, we discuss hazardous waste storage and PPE (arc flash PPE). These conversations happen because I am the rep. All of this is because of the committee.”
The data on safety climate revealed that employees and supervisors possessed distinct perceptions of the committee’s work.
Employee Perceptions of Safety Climate
Irrespective of the committee’s actions, employees uncritically praised it for the positive changes made. A plumbing shop employee mentioned that the committee enabled him to obtain repairs to a ladder. A central plant employee also applauded the committee for improved ladder safety: “Things have changed in the past couple of years. For example, people ignored ladder safety, but they’re better now.” Plumbing shop employees and electricians were thankful that “the committee took care” of a longstanding blind-spot issue through installation of a blind-spot mirror. More general and abstract appreciations were also given. A ground shop worker said that the committee had given employees “more opportunities to voice their concerns.” A final example is this plumbing shop employee’s observation that “the committee has helped a lot with issues. Earlier issues weren’t taken care of but now they are. For example, wood-built structures on roofs were dangerous to walk on. Aluminum bridges and ladders that are much safer have been installed.”
Supervisor Perceptions of Safety Climate
Supervisors also commended the committee for improvements to overall safety culture and a perception of enhanced safety. The Transportation Supervisor credited the committee with fewer incidents of employees ‘phoning while driving’ around campus, whereas the Paint Shop Supervisor credited it with such accomplishments as setting up “respirator fit testing and training.” The Electric Shop Supervisor mused that, “I can’t put my finger on what the committee has done to improve safety, but it’s just pushing safety forward. The committee has grown without knowing; just like your child growing without you noticing the growth until they have bloomed.”
Perceived Management Commitment
One code included within espoused values is supervisor perceptions of upper management’s commitment to safety. For example, the management staff required that employees and supervisors post a safety statement across various locales. Supervisors saw the safety statement as the committee’s “outlining core values” (Carpenter Shop Supervisor). To them, the “committee is like the Statement because it gives people the idea that safety matters” (Electric Shop Supervisor). Custodial supervisors were also positive: “It’s coming from the boss! This tells me that upper management cares about safety, not only about accidents,” noted one. “It’s really good that upper management is thinking about this. They think because we are custodial staff, no one cares,” said another. This perception was further evident when employees conflated resource allocation by management with actual involvement by management. Such a perception was triggered by the VP’s inclusion of the Safety Committee’s events and activities in quarterly meetings, as recalled by the Carpenter Shop Supervisor. In addition, the management’s general push for PPE inspection-form compliance helped create a perception of a caring committee. One supervisor remembered that one of the ‘big bosses’ asked “our guy why he wasn’t wearing his gloves. They care about us.” Further evidence of the ‘over-crediting’ effect transpired in employee impressions of organizational support. Most perceived their supervisors as concerned for their well-being and valuing their opinions. Phrases such as “I have never been told ‘no’ on safety” was echoed by many mid- to lower-level employees.
The results of the artefacts and espoused values indicate changes in surface manifestations: training, involvement and inclusion in committee meetings, safety equipment usage and general attitudes. Although ‘over-crediting’ is an unexpected and unintended consequence of the committee’s initiatives, it helped uncover the hidden assumptions at the core of organizational culture.
The above themes reveal that committee activities fostered the emergence of new safety-related artefacts and contributed to the espoused or ‘conscious’ values layer of organizational culture. This outcome indicates a positive change to perceptions of managerial commitment, which in turn affected the hidden assumptions underlying an organizational cultural change (Schein, 1990). We found that organizational safety culture artefacts, e.g., training, discussions and the Expo, were established, disseminated and shared by committee members. Other artefacts, such as issue resolution procedures, committee communications and safety training, were to be improved (see Table 6, Safety Culture Assessment and Development Indicators). At the espoused values level, the committee appeared effective at improving safety culture through its work to push forward increased awareness.
Excavating Basic Assumptions
We uncovered assumptions about safety by scrutinizing our ‘surprise’ finding: the unanticipated ‘over-crediting’ of all committee-related activities. Employees from different departments attributed a multiplicity of improvements to the committee: awareness of ladder hazards, blind-spot installations, employee driving and phone usage, respirator testing, and greater employee inclusion in safety matters. Although the committee in reality did nothing to directly address those concerns, its mere existence generated an implicit association between awareness-raising and implementation of actual safety initiatives.
Unintended Consequences … and Giving Credit where Credit Is Not Due
The ‘mental shortcut’ implicitly associating all safety improvements with the committee (Greenwald, Banaji and Mahzarin, 2017) is a form of positive bias. Supervisors and actual change agents in the field shared similar evaluations. Most of them attributed positive safety gains to the committee’s influence. That assessment was an unintended consequence of committee initiatives: one of those “unforeseen or unpredicted results of an action” (Harris and Ogbonna, 2002) or “unanticipated outcomes of attempts to create change in complex social systems” (Merton, 1936). The organizational literature has highlighted the possibility of unintended consequences (Mandelbaum, 1999; Giddens, 1984; Globerman, 2000; Lal, 1998), leading to a consensus that change initiatives are likely to produce unanticipated negative consequences (Ogbonna and Harris, 1998; Anthony, 1990; Martin, 1992; Harris and Ogbonna, 2002). Lastly, unintended consequences reveal those deeper cultural assumptions in Schein’s model that would otherwise remain hidden.
Contributions, Limitations and Future Directions
This study contributes to relevant scholarship in three ways. First, it juxtaposes unintended consequences with positive outcomes. In this case, even when group attribution errors (Allison and Messick, 1985) were detected and certain safety actions were incorrectly ascribed to the committee, the organization ‘won.’ Second, this study demonstrates how formation of a committee can provide management with a proxy and encourage positive perceptions of managerial commitment. The committee can impact the deeper beliefs of employees about its work. The committee’s internal core value is organizationally leveraged without any direct actions. Lastly, unintended consequences enable the detection and ‘excavation’ of hidden assumptions. Whereas Schein’s artefacts and espoused values are more identifiable through a case study approach, this paper has shown that uncovering the assumptions requires special detective work. By focusing on the unintended consequences in employee actions, researchers can draw a clearer picture of the assumptions driving organizational culture’s deepest layers.
Such ‘overcrediting’ of the committee meant overlooking the actual work done by organizational members. This disregard naturally could prove irritating for those deserving the credit. Yet employees deeply ‘believed’ in their management’s positive intentions and general concern for their safety. Managers and supervisors were assumed to be equally capable of shaping the immediate environment and making it safer because they were deemed powerful enough. This conflation of committee and managerial actions is linked to the concept of reputational spillover and the effects of reputation in terms of performance appraisal (Fong and Lee, 2012), corporate crises and country reputation (Ingenhoff et al., 2018) or grant provision and reputation (Willems et al., 2019). Such spillover of employee perceptions provides the organization with the benefits of unintended consequences. Retroactively examining their origins enabled us to conceptualize the process through which this effect can serve as a heuristic for uncovering organizational cultural assumptions (see Figure 3).
This paper also contributes to the practice and work of professionals in organizations. First, with the rise of safety committees (Morse et al., 2013) and the significant amount of resources dedicated to them, practitioners need to develop a means of ensuring management commitment to safety and encouraging employee participation. Second, by identifying, foreseeing or imagining unintended consequences, organizations can identify obstacles and untested hypotheses about ‘how things should be.’ In other words, practitioners should seek ways to embrace and leverage the value of unanticipated and unintended organizational outcomes.
Other unseen or overlooked factors might have contributed to cultural changes within the Facilities Management Department and its staff. Our exploratory phenomenological case study may thus not be generalizable. Its empirical setting, being in the United States and at an institution of higher education, may limit our findings to countries with equally high safety standards. Furthermore, our interview questions may have influenced, biased or bounded employee responses by focusing on safety concerns.
By conducting case studies in different organizational settings using Schein’s model to further understanding of these results, it will be possible to shed light on context-specific issues in organizational culture research. The emergence of further work on unintended consequences could provide an epistemological window into organizational assumptions. Further research work is needed in general on the influence of committees on organizational norms, values and assumptions. The impact of committee-related initiatives on employee perceptions (e.g., over-crediting, under-crediting, conflation of management staff with the committee, etc.), specifically regarding unintended consequences of these initiatives, should also be further researched. Lastly, additional studies could illuminate the interplay between the committee and management staff in cultural change scenarios.
This study reveals how safety committees influence organizational cultural change and impact employee perceptions. With Schein’s cultural layers providing a heuristic for assessing organizational culture, we identified a novel means of uncovering organizational assumptions at the deepest layer. We argue that this is a crucial, and yet elusive, stage in driving organizational change forward. We thus infer that basic organizational cultural assumptions can be inductively identified. Most studies on organizational change examine assumptions deductively, as generalized premises focusing on how attitudes are shaped. Explicit factors may often be “decoys” masking the actual assumptions, if symptoms and causes are conflated. Unintended consequences can help us identify the deeper assumptions driving organizational decision-making by providing a heuristic for organizational sense making and for grasping the organizational unconscious. Implicit, unspoken assumptions often inhibit or slow down adoption of initiatives for change or even maintain individuals in unproductive attitudinal ‘ruts.’ To reveal organizational assumptions and to understand them better, one can examine them through the lens of unexpected, unintended or surprise outcomes.
The definitional inconclusiveness has led scholars such as Hopkins (2006) to highlight organizational cultural influences on safety as one component of the broader organizational cultural context. Since safety culture is a commonly used notion in safety management, it is pertinent to focus on the special nature of culture (Reiman and Rollenhagen, 2018). The concept of organizational culture faces the same definitional issues and divisions (Giorgi et al., 2015). If ‘organizational safety’ is adopted in the place of ‘safety culture,’ it risks reducing the significance of occupational safety by placing it at the same level as operational matters (e.g., product quality, customer services, etc.) where operational failure is nowhere near as tragic (Cooper, 2016).
Cooper’s 2000 study on Safety Culture provided our understanding of the subject with conceptual clarity by including the language and wording of official governance organizations, such as the UK Health and Safety Commission (HSC, 1993). Noting that most scholars have adopted “normative belief”-oriented definitions of safety culture that focus on “the way people think and/or behave in relation to safety” (p. 114), Cooper further distinguishes between two main approaches. Interpretivist approaches focus on the emergent, socially-construed properties of social groups (with safety culture as a product that emerges from a social group in the workplace). Functionalist approaches view safety culture as a pre-determined function that managers and practitioners identify, implement and favour when fostering its emergence (Cooper, 2000: 114). The approach of this case study is a combination of the two. Safety culture holds a pre-determined ‘purpose’ or function as directed by the Facilities Management staff and is simultaneously something emerging as a behaviour and attitude from the dynamic interplay of managers, workers and the Safety Committee.
- Anthony, Peter (1990) “The Paradox of the Management of Culture or ‘He Who Leads is Lost’.” Personnel Review, 19 (4), 3-8.
- Allison, Scott and David Messick (1985) “The Group Attribution Error.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21 (6), 563-579.
- Antonsen, Stian (2009c) “Safety Culture and the Issue of Power.” Safety Science, 47 (2), 183-191.
- Argyris, Chris and Donald Schön (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
- Bryce, George K. and Pran Manga (1985) “The Effectiveness of Health and Safety Committees.” Relations industrielles/Industrial Relations, 40 (2), 257-283.
- Burgelman, Robert (1983) “A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (2), 223-244.
- Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (2016) Investigation Report, Volume 3: Drilling Rig Explosion and Fire at the Macondo Well. Retrieved from www.csb.gov/macondo-blowout-and-explosion/, (June 20th, 2016).
- Choudhry, Rafiq, Dongping Fang and Sherif Mohamed (2007) “The Nature of Safety Culture: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art.” Safety Science, 45 (10), 993-1012.
- Clarke, Sharon (2000) “Safety Culture: Under-Specified and Overrated?” International Journal of Management Reviews, 2 (1), 65-90.
- Cooper, Dominic (2000) “Towards a Model of Safety Culture.” Safety Science, 36 (2), 111-136.
- Cooper, Dominic (2016) Navigating the Safety Culture Construct: A Review of the Evidence. Franklin, IN, USA: BSMS.
- Cox, Sue and Tom Cox (1991) “The Structure of Employee Attitudes to Safety—A European Example.” Work and Stress, 5, 93-106.
- Coyle, L. and Leopold, J. (1981) “How Effective Are Health and Safety Committees?” Occupational Safety and Health, November, 20-22.
- Douglas, Mary (1970) Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Barrie and Rockliff.
- Douglas, Mary (1978) Cultural Bias. London: Royal Anthropology Institute.
- Dutton, Jane and Janet Dukerich (1991) “Keeping an Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identity in Organizational Adaptation.” The Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 517-554.
- Eaton, Adrienne and Thomas Nocerino (2000) “The Effectiveness of Health and Safety Committees: Results of a Survey of Public-Sector Workplaces.” Industrial Relations, 39 (2), 265-290.
- Eckstein, Harry (1975) “Case Study and Theory in Political Science.” In Roger Gomm, Martyn Hammersley and Peter. Foster (eds) Case Study Method. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
- Fleming, Mark, Rhona Flin, Kathryn Mearns and Rachael Gordon (1996) The Offshore Supervisor’s Role in Safety Management: Law Enforcer or Risk Manager. Paper presented at the SPE Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Conference, New Orleans, 9-12 June.
- Fong, Cher-Min and Chun-Ling Lee (2012) “Reputation Spillover Effects and Post-Acquisition Performance: A Customer Perspective.” Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions. London: Emerald, p. 139-154.
- Fusch, Patricia and Lawrence Ness (2015) “Are We There Yet? Data Saturation in Qualitative Research.” The Qualitative Report, 20 (9), 1408-1416.
- Furnham, Adrian and Barrie Gunter (1993) Corporate Assessment: Auditing a Company’s Personality. Routledge, London.
- Giddens, Anthony (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Globerman, Steven (2000) “Trade Liberalisation and the Migration of Skilled Professionals and Managers: The North American Experience.” The World Economy, 23 (7), 901-922.
- Glendon, Ian and Neville Stanton (1998) Safety Culture: Top Down and Bottom Up Approaches. Paper presented at the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Safety Culture Symposium, 9-14 August, San Francisco, CA, USA.
- Giorgi, Simona, Christi Lockwood and Mary Ann Glynn (2015) “The Many Faces of Culture: Making Sense of 30 years of Research on Culture in Organization Studies.” The Academy of Management Annals, 9 (1), 1-54.
- Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney (2012) A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Guldenmund, Frank (2000) “The Nature of Safety Culture: A Review of Theory and Research.” Safety Science, 34, 215-257.
- Guldenmund, Frank (2010) Understanding and Exploring Safety Culture. Oisterwijk: BOXPress.
- Guldenmund, Frank (2018) “Understanding Safety Culture through Models and Metaphors.” In Claude Gilbert, Benoit Journé, Hervé Laroche and Corinne Bieder, Safety Cultures, Safety Models: Taking Stock and Moving Torward. Switzerland: Springer Open.
- Greenwald, Anthony and Mahzarin Banaji (2017) “The Implicit Revolution: Reconceiving the Relation between Conscious and Unconscious.” American Psychologist, 72 (9), 861-871.
- Hale, Andrew (2000) “Cultures Confusions.” Safety Science, 34 (1-3), 1-14.
- Hall, Alan, Anne Forrest and Alan Sears (2003) Restructuring and Occupational Health and Safety in the Auto Parts Sector. Paper Presented at Auto 21 Conference on the Auto Industry, Hamilton, Ontario, April 24, 2003.
- Hall Alan, Anne Forrest, Alan Sears and Niki Carlan (2006) “Knowledge Activism and the Workplace Politics of Occupational Health.” Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 61 (3), 408-436.
- Halligan, Michelle and Aleksandra Zecevic (2011) “Safety Culture in Healthcare: A Review of Concepts, Dimensions, Measures and Progress.” BMJ Quality and Safety, 338-343.
- Harris, Lloyd and Emmanuel Ogbonna (2002) “The Unintended Consequences of Culture Interventions: A Study of Unexpected Outcomes.” British Journal of Management, 13, 31-49.
- Hofmann, David and Adam Stetzer (1996) “A Crosslevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Unsafe Behaviors and Accidents.” Personnel Psychology, 49 (2), 307-339.
- Hofstede, Geert (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.
- Hopkins, Andrew (2005) Safety Culture and Risk: The Organizational Causes of Disasters. Sydney: CCH Australia Ltd.
- Hopkins, Andrew (2006) “Studying Organizational Cultures and their Effects on Safety.” Safety Science, 44, 875-889.
- Hopkins, Andrew (2007) “Beyond Compliance Monitoring: New Strategies for Safety Regulators.” Law and Policy, 29 (2), 210-225.
- HSC for Health and Safety Commission (1993) Third Report: Organizing for Safety. ACSNI Study Group on Human Factors, HMSO, London.
- Ingenhoff, Diana, Alexander Buhmann, Candace White, Tianduo Zhang and Spiro Kiousis (2018) “Reputational Spillover: Corporate Crises’ Effects on Country Reputation”, Journal of Communication Management, 22 (1), 96-112.
- INSAG-1 (1986) International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group’s Summary Report on the Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
- Johnson, Gerry and Kevan Scholes (1999) Exploring Corporate Strategy, 5th Edition. Europe: Prentice-Hall.
- Kochan, Thomas, Lee Dyker and David Lipsky (1977) The Effectiveness of Union-Management Safety and Health Committees. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Inst. for Employment Research.
- Kok, Herman, Mark Mobach and Onno Omta (2011) “The Added Value of Facility Management in the Educational Environment.” Journal of Facilities Management, 9 (4), 249-265.
- Lal, Deepak (ed.) (1998) Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Factor Endowments, Culture and Politics on Long-run Economic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Langford, David, Steve Rowlinson and Edwin Sawacha (2000) “Safety Behaviour and Safety Management: Its Influence on the Attitudes of Workers in the UK Construction Industry.” Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 7 (2), 133-140.
- Langley, Ann (1999) “Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data.” Academy of Management Review, 24 (4), 691-710.
- Langley, Ann, Clive Smallman, Haridimo Tsoukas and Andrew Van De Ven (2013) “Process Studies of Change in Organization and Management: Unveiling Temporality, Activity and Flow.” Academy of Management Journal, 56 (1), 1-13.
- Lateef, Olanrewaju, Faris Khmidi and Arazi Idrus (2010) “Building Maintenance Management in a Malaysian University Campus: A Case Study”, Australian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 10 (1/2), 76-89.
- Lewchuk, Wayne, Leslie Robb and Vivienne Walters (1996) “The Effectiveness of Bill 70 and Joint Health and Safety Committees in Reducing Injuries in the Workplace: The Case of Ontario.” Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, 22 (3), 225.
- Lund, Johan and Leif Aarø (2004) “Accident Prevention. Presentation of a Model Placing Emphasis on Human, Structural and Cultural Factors.” Safety Science, 42 (4), 271-324.
- Mandelbaum, Michael (1999) “A Perfect Failure.” Foreign Affairs, 78 (5), 2-8.
- Martin, Joanne (1992) Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. London: Oxford University Press.
- Mattila, Markku, Marita Hyttinen and Eeva Rantanen (1994) “Effective Supervisory Behaviour and Safety at the Building Site.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 13 (2), 85-93.
- Mearns, Kathryn, Sean Whitaker and Rhona Flin (2003) “Safety Climate, Safety Management Practice and Safety Performance in Off Shore Environments.” Safety Science, 41 (8), 641-680.
- Merton, Robert (1936) “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.” American Sociological Review, 1, 894-904.
- Milgate, Nadine, Ev Innes and Kate O’Loughlin (2002) “Examining the Effectiveness of Health and Safety Committees and Representatives: A Review.” Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 19 (3), 281-290.
- Morse, Tim, Anne Bracker, Nicholas Warren, Jeanette Goyzueta and Matthew Cook (2013) “Characteristics of Effective Health and Safety Committees: Survey Results.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 56 (2), 163-179.
- Myers, Douglas, James Nyce and Sidney Dekker (2014) “Setting Culture Apart: Distinguishing Culture from Behavior and Social Structure in Safety and Injury Research.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 68, 25-29.
- Nielsen, Kent (2014) “Improving Safety Culture through the Health and Safety Organization: A Case Study.” Journal of Safety Research, 48, 7-17.
- Ogbonna, Emmanuel and Lloyd Harris (1998) “Managing Organizational Culture: Compliance or Genuine Change?” British Journal of Management, 9, 273-288.
- Ogbeifun, Edoghogho, Charles Mbohwa and Jan-Harm Pretorius (2016) “Facilities Management Unit: Improving Self-Image before its Customers.” Facilities, 34 (13), 956-975.
- O’Grady, John (2000) “Joint Health and Safety Committees: Finding a Balance.” In: T. J. Sullivan, Injury and the New World of Work. Vancouver: UBC Press, p. 162-197.
- Ontario Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Safety (1986) Eighth Annual Report, Vol. 2: An Evaluation of Joint Health and Safety Committees. Toronto: Ontario, Ministry of Labour.
- Parker, David, Lisa Brosseau, Yogindra Samant, Wei Pan, Min Xi and Dave Haugan (2007) “A Comparison of the Perceptions and Beliefs of Workers and Owners with Regard to Workplace Safety in Small Metal Fabrication Businesses.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 50 (12), 999-1009.
- Reason, James (1998) “Achieving a Safe Culture: Theory and Practice.” Work and Stress, 12 (3), 293-306.
- Reason, James (2000) “Beyond the Limitations of Safety Systems,” Australian Safety News (April).
- Reichers, Arnon and Benjamin Schneider (1990) “Climate and Culture: An Evolution of Constructs.” In Benjamin Schneider (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Reiman, Teemu and Carl Rollenhagen (2018) “Safety Culture”. In Niklas Möller et al., Handbook of Safety Principles. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Richter, Anne and Christian Koch (2004) “Integration, Differentiation and Ambiguity in Safety Cultures.” Safety Science, 42, 703-722.
- Seixas, Noah, Allison Crollard, Rick Neitzel, Bert Stover and Carlos Dominguez (2013) “Intervening at the Bottom: Can a Health and Safety Committee Intervention Influence Management Commitment?” Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 11 (1), 61-78.
- Shearn, Peter (2004) Workforce Participation in the Management of Occupational Health and Safety. Human Factors Group, Health and Safety Laboratory, Report Number HSL/2005/09.
- Schein, Edgar (1984) “Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture.” Sloan Management Review, 25, 3-16.
- Schein, Edgar (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Schein, Edgar (1990) “Organizational Culture.” American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.
- Schobel, Markus, Anne Klostermann, Ruth Lassalle, Johannes Beck and Dietrich Manzey (2017) “Digging Deeper: Insights from a Multi-Method Assessment of Safety Culture in Nuclear Power Plants based on Schein’s Culture Model.” Safety Science, 95, 38-49.
- Short, Jeffery, Linda Boyle, Sandra Shackelford, Bob Inderbitzen and Gene Bergoffen (2007) Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program: Synthesis of Safety Practice – Synthesis 14: The Role of Safety Culture in Preventing Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes. Transportation Research Board, Washington.
- Silbey, Susan (2009) “Taming Prometheus: Talk about Safety and Culture.” Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 341-369.
- Simard, Marcel and Alain Marchand (1995) “A Multilevel Analysis of Organizational Factors Related to the Taking of Safety Initiatives by Work Groups.” Safety Science, 21 (2), 113-129.
- Smitha, Matt, Katharine Kirk, Kent Oestenstad, Kathleen Brown and Seung-Dong Lee (2001) “Effect of State Workplace Safety Laws on Occupational Injury Rates.” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 43, 1001-1010.
- Strauss, Anselm (1987) Qualitative Analysis. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
- Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. London: Sage Publ.
- Taylor, Paul and Richard Braddock (2007) “International University Ranking System and the Idea of University Excellence.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29 (3), 245-260.
- Tuohy, Carolyn and Marcel Simard (1993) The Impact of Joint Health and Safety Committees in Ontario and Quebec. Toronto: Report to the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Law.
- Vogus, Timothy, Kathleen Sutcliffe and Karl Weick (2010) “Doing no Harm: Enabling, Enacting and Elaborating a Culture of Safety in Health Care.” Academy of ManagementPerspectives, 24, 60-77.
- Van De Ven, Andrew (1992) “Suggestions for Studying Strategy Process: A Research Note.” Strategic Management Journal, 13 (S1), 169-188.
- Walters, David (1996a) “Trade Unions and the Effectiveness of Worker Representation in Health and Safety in Britain.” International Journal of Health Services, 26 (4), 625-641.
- Walters, David (1996b) “The Effectiveness of Employees Representation in Health and Safety at the Workplace Level in Europe.” New Solutions, 7 (1), 53-60.
- Walters, David (1996c) “Trade Unions and the Training of Health and Safety Representatives: Challenges of the 1990s.” Personnel Review, 26 (5), 357-376.
- Walters, Vivienne (1985) “The Politics of Occupational Health and Safety: Interviews with Workers’ Health and Safety Representatives and Company Doctors.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 22 (1), 57-79.
- Weick, Karl (1993) “The Collapse of Sense Making in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster.” AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 38 (4), 628-652.
- Willems, Jurgen, Caroline Waldner and Dominik Vogel (2019) “Reputation Spillover Effects from Grant Providing Institutions.” Non Profit Management and Leadership, 1-22.
- Yassi, Annalee (2012) “The Effectiveness of Joint Health and Safety Committees: A Systematic Review.” In: Worksafe BC, February, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
- Yin, Robert (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Zhang, Hui, Douglas Wiegmann, Terry von Thaden, Gunjan Sharma and Alyssa Mitchell (2002) “Safety Culture: A Concept in Chaos?” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46 (15), 1401-1408.
- Zohar, Dov (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.