JTUS,
Vol. 02,
No. 5 May, 2024
E-ISSN:
2984-7435, P-ISSN: 2984-7427
|
DOI: https://doi.org/10.58631/jtus.v2i5.103 |
Analysis
of the Role of Safety Leadership and the Establishment of a Safety Climate
Affecting Safety Performance in the Agribusiness Industry PT. XXX in
2024
Arinanda Utomo1*,
Zulkifli
Djunaidi2
1,2Universitas
Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]1*,
[email protected]2
|
Abstract The agricultural and plantation industry
(agribusiness) is a vital pillar in global food supply, yet it exhibits high
statistics of occupational accidents. In Indonesia, this sector contributed
to 17.4% of all occupational accidents during the period 2019-2021. This
study aims to analyze the role of safety leadership
and safety climate affecting safety performance in the palm oil plantation
sector of PT. XXX. The research aims to assist the company in gradually and
systematically improving its safety performance by identifying factors
affecting safety performance based on the analysis of relationships among
variables in safety leadership and safety climate. This research utilized a
cross-sectional study design with a quantitative approach, involving 1332
respondents selected through random stratified sampling. Findings indicate
that the majority of workers rated safety leadership
and safety climate in the workplace as very good, though areas for
improvement were identified. Univariate analysis revealed that safety
leadership was rated high, safety climate was also rated high, and safety
performance was optimal. Furthermore, bivariate analysis showed significant
relationships between Safety Coaching (P = 0.001), Safety Caring (P = 0.011),
Safety Controlling (P = 0.037), Commitment to Safety (P = 0.007), and
Perceived Risk (P = 0.035) with Safety Performance. However, Emergency
Response did not show a significant relationship (P = 0.244). Further
multivariate analysis identified Safety Coaching as the most influential
variable on safety performance. Thus, enhancing safety coaching programs is
crucial to improving occupational safety. This emphasizes the importance of
coaching activities to enhance competence, improve understanding, and
increase awareness in effective risk management, thereby creating a work
process and environment that synergizes with occupational safety and health
aspects. Keywords:
Agribusiness,
Occupational Accidents, Safety Leadership, Safety Climate, Safety
Performance, Risk Management. |
INTRODUCTION
Industrial developments have
provided convenience in human life, but challenges remain, especially in the
context of worker welfare which can be affected by the relationship between
workers, the work environment, and equipment
Statistics show an astonishing rate of accidents in the
agricultural sector, both nationally and globally. In the US, 60-70 out of
every 100,000 farmers die each year, with 33% suffering from nonfatal injuries
and 3% permanent disability
The use of heavy equipment and pesticides in Indonesian
agriculture and plantations also carries the risk of accidents, despite K3
regulations such as Government Regulation No. 7 of 1973 and Ministerial
Regulation No. 3 of 1986. However, special regulations are still needed for
agricultural tools and machinery (Ministry of Manpower, 2022). Indonesia is an
agrarian country, so the implementation of the K3 education and training
program is very important before ratifying ILO Convention No. 184 (BPJS Ketenagakerjaan,
2023).
Research shows that good leadership plays an important
role in occupational safety. Leaders who support OSH can improve the safety
climate and safety performance in the workplace
Leadership style influences worker behavior and safety
awareness. Management and project manager support is essential for proactivity
in occupational safety
Research shows that effective safety leadership can
improve safety performance through worker support, communication, and
participation
Transformational leadership has a significant impact on
the safety climate compared to transactional leadership
Based on secondary data, PT XXX
faces serious challenges related to the incidence of work accidents, which tend
to increase from 2021 to 2023. The frequency of work accidents, which
predominantly occurs in Semester 1 every year, reaches more than 50%. In
addition, there was an upward trend in Lost Time Injury (LTI) accidents during
the period. Efforts in controlling accidents, with accident control activities
have not been maximized with an achievement of 87% in Semester 1. This data
provides an overview that while the challenges of occupational accidents are
being faced, control efforts have also been made, and ongoing evaluations are
needed to ensure more effective preventive measures. Seeing these conditions,
in the Agribusiness or plantation industry, which involves various activities
in locations with access (remote areas) and involving thousands of workers,
shows the complexity that requires special attention to the role of leaders in
shaping a safety climate that is expected to improve good, effective and
sustainable safety performance. This situation indicates that the role of
leaders has a great influence on the safety climate of workers and has a direct
impact on their work safety performance. Therefore, this study aims to analyze
the role of safety leadership and the formation of a safety climate that
affects the performance of safety performance in the Agribusiness industry of
PT. XXX in 2024.
The
purpose of this study is to analyze the role of safety leadership and the
formation of a safety climate that affects the performance of safety
performance in the Agribusiness industry of PT. XXX in 2024. Specifically, this
study aims to analyze the level of safety leadership, the level of safety
climate, and the level of safety performance performance in the industry. In
addition, this study also aims to analyze the influence of safety climate on
safety performance performance, as well as the influence of safety leadership
on safety performance performance. Finally, this study will analyze the
influence of safety leadership factors and safety climate together on the
performance of safety performance in the Agribusiness industry of PT. XXX.
RESEARCH METHODS
This study uses a descriptive-analytical method with a
cross-sectional study design at PT XXX in 2024, utilizing primary data from
questionnaires and interviews as well as secondary data from company documents.
The purpose of the research is to develop models, theories, and hypotheses
related to the phenomenon being studied and determine the relationship between
variables. The object of the research is workers in the agribusiness industry
of PT. XXX in Sumatra, Kalimantan, and Sulawesi, was conducted from March to
May 2024 with a population of 33,216 people from various positions. The sample
was taken using the random sampling stratification method based on the
characteristics of the worker's position, resulting in a minimum of 395 samples
with cooperative inclusion criteria.
Primary data is collected through observations,
questionnaires, and interviews, while secondary data is obtained from company
documents related to safety systems. Literature studies are used for safety
performance parameters. Data processing was carried out manually and with
computer software, including validity and reliability tests using Cronbach's
r-calculated and α values. Data analysis includes univariate analysis to
describe one variable, bivariate analysis to understand the relationship
between two variables, and multivariate analysis to see the relationship
between several independent variables and one dependent variable, as well as
removing disruptive variables in the analysis of the relationship between
leadership and safety climate with safety performance.
Bivariate Analysis of the Relationship Between Safety Leadership and
Safety Performance
The Relationship between Safety Coaching and Safety
Performance
Table 1. Safety Coaching vs Safety Performance
|
Safety Leadership |
Safety Performance |
N Total |
OR |
P-Value |
||||
|
Less than Optimal |
Optimal |
(95%-CI) |
||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||||
|
Safety Coaching |
Tall |
511 |
46,8% |
582 |
53,2% |
1093 |
1,583(1,193 - 2,101) |
0,001 |
|
Low |
139 |
58,2% |
100 |
41,8% |
239 |
|||
The
results of this study show that of the 1093 respondents who received high
safety coaching, 582 respondents (53.2%) had optimal safety performance, while
511 respondents (46.8%) had less than optimal safety performance. Then, of the
239 respondents who had low Safety Coaching, 139 respondents (58.2%) had Less
than Optimal Safety Performance, and 100 people (41.8%) had Optimal Safety Performance.
Statistical
analysis shows that there is a significant relationship between better Safety
Coaching and more optimal Safety Performance, with an Odd Ratio (OR) value of
1.583 (95% CI: 1.193 - 2.101), and a very significant P-value, which is 0.001.
This shows that the Safety Coaching factor in Safety Leadership significantly
influences work safety performance or Safety Performance.
The Relationship
between Safety Caring and Safety Performance
Table 2.
Safety Caring vs Safety Performance
|
Safety Leadership |
Safety Performance |
N Total |
OR |
P-Value |
||||
|
Less than Optimal |
Optimal |
(95%-CI) |
||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||||
|
Safety Caring |
Tall |
478 |
46,9% |
542 |
53,1% |
1020 |
1,393(1,080 - 1,797) |
0,011 |
|
Low |
172 |
55,1% |
140 |
44,9% |
312 |
|||
This
study's results show a significant relationship between Safety Leadership and
Safety Performance in the context of Safety Caring. Of the 1020 respondents who
had high safety care, 542 respondents (53.1%) had optimal safety performance,
while 478 respondents (46.9%) had less than optimal safety performance. On the
other hand, of the 312 respondents who had low Safety Caring, 172 respondents
(55.1%) had Less than Optimal Safety Performance, and 140 respondents (44.9%)
had Optimal Safety Performance.
Statistical
analysis shows an Odds Ratio (OR) value of 1.393 (95% CI: 1.080 - 1.797) with a
p-value of 0.011. A p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that a significant
relationship between Safety Leadership and a high level of Safety Caring will
impact more optimal Safety Performance. These results indicate that
leadership's level of attention and concern for safety significantly affects
work safety performance. Therefore, leadership that shows a high level of
concern for safety tends to be associated with improved optimal safety
performance.
The Relationship
between Safety Controlling and Safety Performance
Table 3.
Safety Controlling vs Safety Performance
|
Safety Leadership |
Safety Performance |
N Total |
OR |
P-Value |
||||
|
Less than Optimal |
Optimal |
(95%-CI) |
||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||||
|
Safety Controlling |
Tall |
464 |
47,1% |
521 |
52,9% |
985 |
1,297(1,015 - 1,658) |
0,037 |
|
Low |
186 |
53,6% |
161 |
46,4% |
347 |
|||
The
results of this study reveal a significant relationship between Safety
Leadership and Safety Performance in the context of Safety Controlling. Of the
985 respondents who had high safety control, 521 respondents (52.9%) had
optimal safety performance, while 464 respondents (47.1%) had less than optimal
safety performance. On the other hand, of the 347 respondents who had a Low
level of Safety control, 186 respondents (53.6%) had Less than Optimal Safety
Performance, and 161 respondents (46.4%) had Optimal Safety Performance.
|
Safety Performance |
N Total |
OR |
P-Value |
|||||
|
Less than Optimal |
Optimal |
(95%-CI) |
||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||||
|
Commitment to Safety |
Tall |
505 |
48,0% |
548 |
52,0% |
1053 |
1,174(0,902 - 1,529) |
0,007 |
|
Low |
145 |
52,0% |
134 |
48,0% |
279 |
|||
Table 4.
Commitment to Safety vs Safety Performance
Statistical
analysis showed an Odds Ratio (OR) value of 1.297 (95% CI: 1.015 - 1.658) with
a p-value of 0.037. A p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that there is a
significant relationship between Safety Leadership which shows a higher level
of Safety Controlling and more optimal Safety Performance. This confirms that
the aspect of safety supervision or Safety control in leadership significantly
impacts work safety performance. Thus, leadership that implements good safety
supervision controls tends to correlate with improved optimal safety
performance.
Bivariate
Analysis of the Relationship Between Safety Climate and Safety Performance
The
Relationship between Commitment to Safety and Safety Performance
This
study's results show a significant relationship between Safety Climate and
Safety Performance in the context of Commitment to Safety. Of the 1053
respondents with a high Commitment to Safety, 548 respondents (52.0%) had
Optimal Safety Performance, while 505 respondents (48.0%) had Less than Optimal
Safety Performance. On the other hand, of the 279 respondents with a Low
Commitment to Safety level, 145 respondents (52.0%) had Less than Optimal
Safety Performance, and 134 respondents (48.0%) had Optimal Safety Performance.
Statistical
analysis shows an Odds Ratio (OR) value of 1.174 (95% CI: 0.902 - 1.529) with a
p-value of 0.007. A p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that there is a
significant relationship between Safety Climate which shows a higher level of
Commitment to Safety and more optimal Safety Performance. This confirms that
commitment to safety significantly impacts occupational safety performance.
Thus, leadership that shows a high commitment to safety tends to correlate with
improved optimal safety performance.
The
Relationship between Perceived Risk and Safety Performance
Table 5.
Perceived Risk vs Safety Performance
|
Safety Climate |
Safety Performance |
N Total |
OR |
P-Value |
||||
|
Less than Optimal |
Optimal |
(95%-CI) |
||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||||
|
Perceived Risk |
Tall |
501 |
49,4% |
514 |
50,6% |
1015 |
1,191(0,885 - 1,603) |
0,035 |
|
Low |
149 |
47,0% |
168 |
53,0% |
317 |
|||
This
study's results show a significant relationship between Safety Climate and
Safety Performance in the context of Perceived Risk. Of the 1015 respondents
with high Perceived Risk, 514 respondents (50.6%) had Optimal Safety
Performance, while 501 respondents (49.4%) had Less than Optimal Safety
Performance. On the other hand, of the 317 respondents who had a low Perceived
Risk, 149 respondents (47.0%) had a Less than Optimal Safety Performance, and
168 respondents (53.0%) had an Optimal Safety Performance.
Statistical
analysis shows an Odds Ratio (OR) value of 1.191 (95% CI: 0.885 - 1.603) with a
p-value of 0.035. A p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that there is a
significant relationship between Safety Climate which shows a high level of
Perceived Risk and more optimal Safety Performance. This indicates that the
perception of risk in the occupational safety climate significantly impacts
occupational safety performance. Thus, leadership that understands and manages
risk perceptions well tends to correlate with improved optimal safety
performance.
The
Relationship between Emergency Response and Safety Performance
Table 6.
Emergency Response vs Safety Performance
|
Safety Climate |
Safety Performance |
N Total |
OR |
P-Value |
||||
|
Less than Optimal |
Optimal |
(95%-CI) |
||||||
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
|||||
|
Emergency Response |
Tall |
512 |
49,7% |
519 |
50,3% |
1031 |
0,858(0,663 - 1,110) |
0,244 |
|
Low |
138 |
45,8% |
163 |
54,2% |
301 |
|||
The
results of this study evaluate the relationship between Safety Climate and
Safety Performance in the context of Emergency Response. Of the 1031
respondents with a high Emergency Response, 519 respondents (50.3%) had Optimal
Safety Performance, while 512 respondents (49.7%) had Less than Optimal Safety
Performance. On the other hand, of the 301 respondents who had a low Emergency
Response, 138 respondents (45.8%) had Less than Optimal Safety Performance, and
163 respondents (54.2%) had Optimal Safety Performance.
Statistical
analysis shows an Odds Ratio (OR) value of 0.858 (95% CI: 0.663 - 1.110) with a
p-value of 0.244. A p-value greater than 0.05 indicates that there is no
significant relationship between Emergency Response and Safety Performance at a
significance level of 5%. This indicates that the Emergency Response variable
in the occupational safety climate does not significantly impact occupational
safety performance. Other factors may influence these results, so the effect of
Emergency Response on Safety Performance is not significant in the agribusiness
industry.
Selection
of Multivariate Modeling of
Safety Leadership and Safety Climate
In
multivariate analysis, the process of selecting the most relevant or
significant variables from a set of potential variables is carried out. Data
consists of many variables, and not all of these variables, when analyzed make a meaningful and significant contribution. In
candidate selection, the variables included in the multivariate analysis are
those that have a significance value or P-value of <0.05 in the bivariate
analysis or substantially have an influence on safety performance. The
following are the variables that are researched based on the selection of
candidates from the existing variables
Table 7.
Variable Candidate Multivariate Analysis
|
It |
Variable |
P-Value |
|
1 |
Safety
Coaching |
0,001 |
|
2 |
Safety Caring |
0,011 |
|
3 |
Safety
Controlling |
0,037 |
|
4 |
Commitment to
Safety |
0,007 |
|
5 |
Perceived
Risk |
0,035 |
|
6 |
Emergency Response |
0,244 |
Based on
the above, it can be known that the variables that have a value of P<0.05 in
the bivariate analysis are Safety Coaching, Safety Caring, Safety Controlling,
Commitment to Safety, and Perceived Risk. Therefore, the above variables will
be included in the multivariate modelling analysis. Then the Emergency Response
variable is removed from the candidate.
Selection
of Variables Affects Safety Performance
After the
selection, the variables that enter or pass are processed in a full
multivariate analysis model. The condition for selecting retained or excluded
variables will be issued gradually, starting from the variable with the largest
P-value.
Table 8.
Influencing Variables Step 1
|
Variable |
P-Value |
95% C.I. |
|
Safety
Coaching |
0,049 |
1,002-2,276 |
|
Safety Caring |
0,695 |
0,739-1,574 |
|
Safety
Controlling |
0,465 |
0,782-1,714 |
|
Commitment
to Safety |
0,283 |
0,886-1,512 |
|
Perceived
Risk |
0,032 |
0,527-0,971 |
Based on
the results of the analysis above, the largest variable is Safety Caring with a
P-Value of 0.695, and then the variable is issued first. This process is
carried out until a P-value of <0.05 is obtained.
Table 9.
Influential Variables Step 2
|
Variable |
P-Value |
95% C.I. |
|
Safety
Coaching |
0,018 |
1,080-2,266 |
|
Safety Controlling |
0,339 |
0,831-1,713 |
|
Commitment
to Safety |
0,274 |
0,889-1,515 |
|
Perceived
Risk |
0,029 |
0,525-0,966 |
Based on
the results of the analysis above, the largest variable is Safety Controlling
with a P-value of 0.339; then this variable is removed, and this process is
carried out to get a P-value of <0.05
Table 10.
Influential Variables Step 3
|
Variable |
P-Value |
95% C.I. |
|
Safety
Coaching |
0,000 |
1,284-2,351 |
|
Commitment to Safety |
0,261 |
0,893-1,521 |
|
Perceived
Risk |
0,049 |
0,580-0,999 |
Based on
the results of the analysis above, the largest variable is Commitment to Safety
with a P-value of 0.261; then this variable is removed, and this process is
carried out to get a P-value of <0.05
1)
Table 11.
Influential Variables Step 4
|
Variable |
P-Value |
95% C.I. |
|
Safety
Coaching |
0,000 |
1,284-2,351 |
|
Perceived
Risk |
0,057 |
0,586-1,008 |
Based on
the results of the analysis above, the largest variable is Perceived Risk with
a P-Value of 0.057; then the variable is removed; this process is carried out
to get a P-Value of <0.05
Table 12. Influential Variables Step 5
|
Variable |
P-Value |
95% C.I. |
|
Safety
Coaching |
0,001 |
1,193-2,101 |
Thus, the
results of this analysis confirm that Safety Coaching is an important factor
that affects safety performance. Effective implementation of safety leadership
strategies in the context of safety coaching can play a key role in improving
safety standards in the workplace.
CONCLUSION
The research results indicate that the
importance of Safety Leadership in improving workplace safety performance has
been empirically proven, affirming that an integrative strategy that includes
aspects of coaching, caring, and controlling in safety leadership can have a
significant positive impact on safety performance. High-quality safety
leadership contributes to better workplace safety performance because effective
safety leaders tend to set and enforce high safety standards and motivate
workers to follow safety procedures properly.
Furthermore, the relationship between Safety
Climate and Safety Performance can be complex and varies depending on various
factors. Safety Climate can be likened to the weather at work; when the weather
is clear, workers are more likely to feel happy and productive, resulting in
good safety performance. However, with unpredictable factors on a clear day,
unforeseen elements that affect safety performance outcomes can occur, so the
research also found that the impact of safety climate on safety performance can
sometimes be insignificant. Nevertheless, a positive safety climate, where most
workers feel their work environment supports safety, plays an important role in
achieving optimal safety performance.
To achieve optimal safety performance, the
influence of safety leadership is crucial for short-term intervention. However,
for sustainability, a good safety climate needs to be established to maintain
long-term workplace safety performance. Thus, improving the quality of safety
leadership and fostering a positive safety climate can correlate with enhanced
workplace safety performance, demonstrating that both factors play a role in
achieving and maintaining high safety performance standards in the workplace.
This study also shows that the age
distribution, length of service, positions, departments, and operational areas
of the respondents are quite diverse, reflecting a broad representation of
workers from three major islands in Indonesia. The study provides a
comprehensive overview of the demographic characteristics, positions, and
departmental distribution as well as the operational areas of workers on these
islands. The balanced distribution of respondents from various regions
indicates that the study successfully encompasses views and experiences from
different operational areas. The research results show that the majority of
workers rate leadership and the safety climate at the workplace as very good,
although there are areas that need improvement in terms of safety performance.
This study identifies the relationship between
aspects of Safety Leadership and Safety Climate with Safety Performance at the
workplace. The results indicate that Safety Coaching, Safety Caring, Safety
Controlling, Commitment to Safety, and Perceived Risk have a significant
relationship with safety performance. The study conducted bivariate analysis
between Safety Coaching, Safety Caring, Safety Controlling, Commitment to
Safety, Perceived Risk, and Emergency Response with Safety Performance at the
workplace. The analysis results show several significant relationships between
these variables and Safety Performance. Specifically and in-depth, Safety
Coaching positively correlates with Safety Performance, making it the most
influential variable on safety performance.
Safety Coaching, as part of safety leadership,
was found to have a significant positive effect on safety performance. This
analysis confirms that Safety Coaching is an important factor influencing
safety performance. The implementation of effective strategies in safety
leadership, particularly in safety coaching, plays a key role in raising
workplace safety standards. Enhancing coaching activities can help workers
understand and implement better safety practices, thus reducing the risk of
workplace accidents. This research reveals the importance of serious and
systematic safety coaching programs and risk management from potential hazards
in the agribusiness industry as efforts to improve workplace safety in synergy
with production operations to enhance optimal and sustainable productivity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Awad, S., Amon, K.,
Baillie, A., Loveday, T., & Baysari, M. T. (2023). Human factors and
safety analysis methods used in the design and redesign of electronic
medication management systems: A systematic review. International Journal
of Medical Informatics, 172, 105017.
Azzahra, A., Savandha, S. D., & Syarif, A. N. (2024). Assessing Leadership Styles’ Influence on Organizational Performance: A Case Study of Service-Oriented Companies. OPSearch: American Journal of Open Research, 3(3), 928–936. https://doi.org/10.58811/opsearch.v3i3.112
Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Smith‐crowe, K. (2002). General safety performance: A test of a grounded theoretical model. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 429–457.
Chan, W. T.-K., & Li, W.-C. (2022). Investigating professional values among pilots, cabin crew, ground staff, and managers to develop aviation safety management systems. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 92, 103370.
Dang, V. T., Nguyen, H. V., Hoang, T. H., Nguyen, T. H., Tran, V. T., Nguyen, Q. H., & Nguyen, N. (2022). Gyms’ indoor environmental quality and customer emotion: the mediating roles of perceived service quality and perceived psychological safety. Leisure Studies, 41(2), 263–280.
Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2018). Leaders as role models and ‘belief managers’ in social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 154, 321–334.
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.
Him, N. F. N., Ismail, W. N. A. T., & Abdullah, T. N. Z. T. (2023). Assessment of safety management attitude practices toward the safety culture of the construction sector. Planning Malaysia, 21.
Kim, T., & Gausdal, A. H. (2017). Leading for safety: A weighted safety leadership model in shipping. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 165, 458–466.
Lee, Y.-H., Lu, T.-E., Yang, C. C., & Chang, G. (2019). A multilevel approach on empowering leadership and safety behavior in the medical industry: The mediating effects of knowledge sharing and safety climate. Safety Science, 117, 1–9.
Lembinen, L. (2023). Academic libraries’ leaders’ decision-making during the COVID-19 crisis. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 49(3), 102709.
Mangkunegara, M. A. P., & Hasibuan, M. M. S. P. (2000). 2.2 MANAJEMEN SUMBER DAYA MANUSIA.
Martínez-Córcoles, M., Gracia, F., Tomás, I., & Peiró, J. M. (2011). Leadership and employees’ perceived safety behaviours in a nuclear power plant: A structural equation model. Safety Science, 49(8–9), 1118–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.03.002
Mulyatiningsih, S., & Sasyari, U. (2021). Gaya Kepemimpinan yang Efektif dalam Meningkatkan Keselamatan Pasien. Healthcare Nursing Journal, 3(1), 59–64.
Nag, P. K., Gite, L. P., Nag, P. K., & Gite, L. P. (2020). Farm Accidents and Injuries. Human-Centered Agriculture: Ergonomics and Human Factors Applied, 175–204.
Neamat, S. D. S. (2019). A comparative study of safety leading and lagging indicators measuring project safety performance. Indicators, 1, 29.
Peker, M., Doğru, O. C., & Meşe, G. (2022). Role of supervisor behavioral integrity for safety in the relationship between top-management safety climate, safety motivation, and safety performance. Safety and Health at Work, 13(2), 192–200.
Tawfik, D. S., Adair, K. C., Palassof, S., Sexton, J. B., Levoy, E., Frankel, A., Leonard, M., Proulx, J., & Profit, J. (2023). Leadership behavior associations with domains of safety culture, engagement, and health care worker well-being. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 49(3), 156–165.
Vinodkumar, M. N., & Bhasi, M. (2010). Safety management practices and safety behaviour: Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 2082–2093.
Xu, G., Zeng, J., Wang, H., Qian, C., & Gu, X. (2022). How transformational leadership motivates employee involvement: The roles of psychological safety and traditionality. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440211069970.
|
Copyright holder: Arinanda Utomo, Zulkifli Djunaidi (2024) |
|
First publication rights: Journal
of Transnational Universal Studies (JTUS) |
|
This article is licensed
under:
|
