Relationship between error management climate and workers' safety performance in construction enterprises

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.05.1754

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to clarify the internal influencing mechanism of error management climate on workers' safety performance in construction enterprises, workers' safety perception and self-efficacy were introduced as mediators and a SEM of relationship between the four was established on the basis of literature research and open interviews. 222 front-line construction workers from Guangzhou and Foshan were investigated by utilizing error management climate scale, safety perception scale, safety self-efficacy scale and safety performance scale. Finally, the hypothesis model was verified through model test and mediator effect test by using SPSS and AMOS. The results show that the direct relationship between error management climate and safety performance is not significant, but safety perception and safety self-efficacy indicate significant mediating effect independently as well as plays a significant chain intermediary role between the former two. Building a good error management climate and improving workers' safety perception and self-efficacy can effectively improve their safety performance.

Key words: construction enterprise, error management climate, safety performance, safety perception, safety self-efficacy, chain mediation, structural equation model (SEM)

CHEN Yanlin, HUANG Wenwei, LI Hongyang. Relationship between error management climate and workers' safety performance in construction enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(5): 28-34.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

References 30

[1]	中华人民共和国住房与城乡建设部. 住房和城乡建设部办公厅关于2019年房屋市政工程生产安全事故和建筑施工安全专项治理行动情况的通报[EB/OL]. (2020-06-19). http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/202006/t20200624_246031.html.
[2]	中华人民共和国住房与城乡建设部. 住房和城乡建设部办公厅关于2018年房屋市政工程生产安全事故和建筑施工安全专项治理行动情况的通报[EB/OL]. (2019-03-22). http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201903/t20190326_239913.html.
[3]	中华人民共和国住房与城乡建设部. 住房和城乡建设部办公厅关于2017年房屋市政工程生产安全事故和建筑施工安全专项治理行动情况的通报[EB/OL]. (2018-03-08). http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201803/t20180322_235474.html.
[4]	HEINRICH H W. Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931: 55-56.
[5]	夏妮妮, 李德智, 叶贵, 等. 建设项目员工安全行为前因研究进展与展望[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(6):44-55. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.006
	XIA Nini, LI Dezhi, YE Gui, et al. A literature review on antecedents of employees' safety behavior in construction projects[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6):44-55. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.006
[6]	MOHAMMAD T N, PETER D, MARCUS J, et al. Role of psychological contract to influence safety behavior at construction sites[C]. International Conference on Applied Human Factors & Ergonomics. Springer, Cham, 2018:545-555.
[7]	ALRUQI W M, HALLOWELL M R, ULISES T. Safety climate dimensions and their relationship to construction safety performance: a meta-analytic review[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 109:165-173. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.05.019
[8]	BIAN Xiaohua, SUN Yueyi, ZUO Zhihong, et al. Transactional leadership and employee safety behavior: impact of safety climate and psychological empowerment[J]. Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal, 2019, 47(6):1-9.
[9]	WANG Zhongmin, JIANG Zhou, BLACKMAN A. Linking emotional intelligence to safety performance: the roles of situational awareness and safety training[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 2021, 78:210-220. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2021.06.005 pmid: 34399917
[10]	CASEY T W, KRAUSS A D. The role of effective error management practices in increasing miners' safety performance[J]. Safety Science, 2013, 60:131-141. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.001
[11]	CIGULAROV K P, CHEN P Y, ROSECRANCE J. The effects of error management climate and safety communication on safety: a multi-level study[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2010, 42(5):1498-1506. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.01.003
[12]	GRIFFIN M A, NEAL A. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation[J]. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2000, 5(3): 347-358. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347
[13]	LU Ying, TAKSA L, JIA Hongguo. Influence of management practices on safety performance: the case of mining sector in China[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 132(3): DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104947. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104947
[14]	CHRISTIAN M S, BRADLEY J C, WALLACE J C, et al. Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2009, 94(5): 1103-1127. doi: 10.1037/a0016172
[15]	HE Changquan, MCCABE B, JIA Guangshe. Effect of leader-member exchange on construction worker safety behavior: safety climate and psychological capital as the mediators[J]. Safety Science, 2021, 142(1): DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105401. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105401
[16]	DYCK C V, FRESE M, BAER M, et al. Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: a two-study replication[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005, 90(6):1228-1240. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1228
[17]	PANDIT B, ALBERT A, PATIL Y, et al. Impact of safety climate on hazard recognition and safety risk perception[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 113:44-53. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.020
[18]	MAYO F R, WALLING C. Co-polymerization[J]. Chemical Reviews, 1950, 46(2): 191-287. pmid: 24537829
[19]	BANDURA A. Social learning theory of aggression[J]. Journal of Communication, 1978, 28(3):263-276.
[20]	BANDURA A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change[J]. Advances in Behavior Research & Therapy, 1977, 1(4):139-161.
[21]	NYKÄNEN M, SAMLMELA-ARO K, TOLVANEN A, et al. Safety self-efficacy and internal locus of control as mediators of safety motivation-randomized controlled trial (RCT) study[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 117:330-338. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.037
[22]	GIST M E, MITCHELL E R. Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1992, 17(2):183-211. doi: 10.5465/amr.1992.4279530
[23]	LINDLSEY D H, THOMAS B J B. Efficacy-performing spirals: a multilevel perspective[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1995, 20(3):645-678.
[24]	李乃文, 赵钰. 矿工自我效能感与安全绩效的关系研究:基于自主型安全动机和工作投入的链式中介作用[J]. 科技促进发展, 2020, 16(6):689-695.
	LI Naiwen, ZHAO Yu. The relationship between miners' self-efficacy and safety performance:autonomous safety motivation and chain mediation of job input[J]. Science & Technology For Development, 2020, 16(6): 645-678.
[25]	DEDOBBELEER N, BELAND F. Safety climate measure for construction sites[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 1991, 22(2): 91-97.
[26]	吴建金, 耿修林, 傅贵. 基于中介效应法的安全氛围对员工安全行为的影响研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2013, 9(3):80-86.
	WU Jianjin, GENG Xiulin, FU Gui. Study on the impact of safety atmosphere to employee safety behavior based on the intermediary effect method[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2013, 9(3):80-86.
[27]	张静晓, 李慧, 周天华, 等. 我国建筑安全认知水平“身份”测度[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(4):156-163.
	ZHANG Jingxiao, LI Hui, ZHOU Tianhua, et al. Research on measurement of Chinese construction safety cognitive level's identity authentication[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(4): 156-163.
[28]	阮国祥. 建筑企业差错管理氛围对员工安全行为影响研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(1):140-145. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.01.025
	RUAN Guoxiang. Research on effects of error management climate on employees' safety behavior in construction firms[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(1): 140-145. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.01.025
[29]	ZHANG Jianxin, SCHWARZER R. Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: a Chinese adaptation of the general self-efficacy scale[J]. Psychologia, 1995, 38(3):174-181.
[30]	袁玥. 建筑企业安全文化对安全绩效作用机理的实证研究[D]. 成都: 西南交通大学, 2012.
	YUAN Yue. Mechanism of function of safety culture on safety performance in construction: an empirical study[D]. Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong University, 2012.

项目	类别	频次	占比/%
性别	男	204	91.89
性别	女	18	8.11
年龄/岁	25及以下	18	8.11
	26~35	53	23.87
	36~45	80	36.04
	46及以上	71	31.98
学历	初中及以下	140	63.06
	高中(中专)	24	10.81
	大专	48	21.62
	本科及以上	10	4.50
工龄/a	2及以下	19	8.56
	3~5	67	30.18
	6~10	80	36.04
	10及以上	56	25.23

模型	卡方自由度比 CMIN/df	Tucker-Lewis 指数TLI	比较拟合系数 CFI	近似误差均方根 RMSEA	标准残差均方根 SRMR
基准模型	1.508	0.907	0.912	0.048	0.050 9
模型	卡方自由度比 CMIN/df	Tucker-Lewis 指数TLI	比较拟合系数 CFI	近似误差均方根 RMSEA	标准残差均方根 SRMR
三因子模型	1.634	0.883	0.890	0.054	0.056 8
二因子模型	1.659	0.879	0.886	0.055	0.058 6
单因子模型	1.692	0.873	0.880	0.056	0.058 9

路径	非标准化系数	标准化系数	标准误差	T值	P
路径Ⅰ	0.769	0.788	0.092	8.351	^***
路径Ⅱ	0.537	0.488	0.129	4.161	^***
路径Ⅲ	0.567	0.484	0.102	5.538	^***
路径Ⅳ	0.432	0.416	0.081	5.332	^***
路径Ⅴ	0.133	0.116	0.098	1.362	0.173

路径	效应值	系数乘积		95%偏置校正置信区间
路径	效应值	标准误差	Z值	上限	下限
路径1	0.115	0.108	1.065	0.019	0.369
路径2	0.436	0.218	2.000	0.11	0.898
路径3	0.232	0.131	1.771	0.034	0.576