January-June 2014 • Volume 5 • Number 1 • p. 38-43
R eview A rticle
Open Access
http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/aviation
: http://dx.doi.org/10.15448/2179-703X.2014.1.17131
Leadership approaches in multi-cultural
aviation environments
Abordagem de liderança em ambientes multiculturais
da indústria da aviação
Jose Felix de Brito Neto1
1
Professor do Colégio de Aeronáutica e Diretor de Design e Produção de Cursos do Departamento de Design e Desenvolvimento de Instrução
na Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide Campus, Daytona Beach, FL, Estados Unidos.
Trabalho realizado na Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, Estados Unidos.
ABSTRACT
In the last few decades, the world has witnessed a phenomenon called globalization, which has shortened
distances and transformed cultural contexts. The aviation industry has been part of this phenomenon as it has
helped create truly global and multi-cultural workforces. Multi-cultural work environments such as the aviation
industry require specific leadership approaches in order to accommodate the needs of their culturally diverse
workforce. This paper is aimed at the thorough analysis of leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation
environments. Through a literature review, this paper discusses key concepts of culture and leadership as well
as the ideas supporting the transformational leadership theory and the positive leadership theory, which have
significant and everlasting impact in workforces. It proposes different approaches to successfully and effectively
lead multi-cultural aviation workforces.
Keywords: Leadership; culture; aviation
RESUMO
Nas últimas décadas, o mundo tem testemunhado um fenômeno chamado globalização, que tem encurtado
distâncias e transformado contextos culturais. A indústria da aviação tem sido parte desse fenômeno por ter
ajudado a criar mãos de obra verdadeiramente globais e multiculturais. Ambientes de trabalho multiculturais
como o da indústria da aviação requer específicas abordagens de liderança para poder acomodar as necessidades
das suas mãos de obra multiculturais. Este artigo tem como objetivo a análise minuciosa de abordagens de
liderança em ambientes de trabalho multiculturais dentro da indústria de aviação. Através da revisão da
literatura, este artigo discute conceitos-chave a respeito de cultura e liderança como também de ideias que
apoiam a teoria da liderança transformacional e a teoria da liderança positiva. O artigo propõe diferentes
abordagens para a liderança bem-sucedida e efetiva de mãos de obra multiculturais na indústria da aviação.
Palavras-chave: Liderança; cultura; aviação
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Editor
Thaís Russomano
Corresponding Author:
Jose Felix de Brito Neto
debritoj@erau.edu
Microgravity Center PUCRS, Brazil
Received: August 26, 2013
Accepted: November 13, 2014
Executive Editor
Rafael Reimann Baptista
© 2014 EDIPUCRS
Faculdade de Educação Física e Ciências do Desporto, PUCRS, Brazil
e-ISSN: 2179-703X
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons-Attribution 4.0 International.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
R eview A rticle
Introduction
The world is not the same. It is a work in progress,
an organism in constant evolution, although some
might wonder whether the word ‘evolution’ is really
appropriate in this case. Throughout the years,
distances have been shortened, frontiers have been
reached, lands have been explored, and cultural
contexts have been affected. All these milestones
have culminated in a phenomenon called globalization,
through which people from different countries and
backgrounds attempt to coexist by sharing values,
beliefs, and preferences.
Globalization has also changed organizations and
the ways workforces are led and managed. Leadership
approaches have mutated and adapted according to new
realities in a wide array of industries. That is the case
of the aviation and aerospace industry, which is formed
by a culturally diverse workforce. Due to geographical
and demographic limitations, some international
airlines have selected and hired individuals from all
corners of the planet, forming a truly global work
environment. This global environment requires leaders
who are equipped with the adequate knowledge, skills
and attitude to effectively manage such a diverse
workforce.
A number of leadership theories have been
developed to assist leaders in their attempt to
effectively perform in multi-cultural environments.
The transformational leadership theory and the
positive leadership theory are two examples of
leadership theories supporting this evolution in human
resource management. Both theories are focused on the
fostering of highly supportive and motivational work
environments, where leaders are a constant source
of inspiration and the followers are given the chance
to actively perform in the decision making process
regardless of their cultural background.
This paper is aimed at analyzing leadership practices
in multi-cultural work environments with focus on the
aviation and aerospace industry. It proposes a review
of the aforementioned leadership theories and the
influence of their application in culturally diverse work
environments.
Leadership: Definition
A wide array of studies has been conducted to
analyze and conceptualize what has been universally
understood as leadership. Whetten and Cameron
(2011) provided a basic definition of this term by
stating that leadership is formed by the actions
individuals take under conditions of change. Whetten
Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments
and Cameron’s study about the intricacies of human
resource development attempted to draw a comparison
between leadership and management (2011). While
management was usually associated with the status
quo and steadiness, the foundation of leadership was
characterized by changes happening in the environment
and setting new directions in order to cope with these
changes.
Throughout the years, systematic definitions of
leadership came to the fore. The term leadership was
coined as “the ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute toward
the effectiveness and success of the organizations of
which they are members” (House, Hanges, Javidan,
Dorfman, Gupta, and Globe Associates as cited in
Dickson, Castaño, Magomaeva, and Den Hartog, 2012,
p. 486). Dickson et al. (2012) also considered the idea
of leadership being a process by which an individual
enlisted the aid and support of other individuals in
order to accomplish a certain task.
Definitions of the term leadership abound.
Nevertheless, the sole existence of this ability or
process is dependent on how leaders are perceived
by other individuals (Ensari and MURPHY, 2003).
Therefore, the relevance of leadership resides in the
presence of leaders and followers alike. According to
Ensari and Murphy (2003), the extent to which an
individual is perceived as a leader by his or her reports
in work environments has direct influence on the
reports’ acceptance of organizational decisions and
policies as well as their organizational commitment.
Moreover, apart from the relationship between
leader and follower, leadership is also defined by
the styles and types of behaviors adopted by leaders.
According to Wendt, Euwema, and Hetty van Emmerik
(2009), there are two main types of leadership
behaviors: directive leadership and supportive
leadership. Directive leadership is in essence a taskoriented behavior; directive leaders tend to control
discussions, dominate interaction and give directions
toward task completion in a truly micromanagement
style. This type of behavior results in followers being
given a dependent and secondary role, which gives
center stage for leaders to perform (Wendt et al., 2009).
Conversely, supportive leadership is intrinsically
centered on the satisfaction of subordinates’ needs and
preferences, harmonic working relations, and positive
feedback. All these factors culminate on a friendly and
supportive climate in work environments. Through
this leadership style, followers have active roles in the
decision-making process and adopt cohesive behavior
regarding task completion and personal communication
(Wendt et al., 2009).
Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43
39
R eview A rticle
Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments
Culture: Definition
most popular of the cultural dimensions as it has been
studied extensively in organizational research.
The fourth dimension is centered on the dichotomy
between masculinity and femininity. According to
Ergeneli et al. (2007), the masculinity dimension
presents the assumption that dominant values such
as assertiveness, heroism and achievement are
fundamentally masculine, while the feminine dimension
revolves around values such as high quality of life, long
lasting relationships, and care towards individuals.
Long-term and short-term orientations are the last
of the culture value dimensions developed by Hofstede
(Ergeneli et al., 2007). Individuals that have a longterm orientation tend to accept deferred gratification
of needs; their relationships are ordered by status, and
people (instead of law) constitute their government.
Conversely, individuals that drift toward short-term
orientation expect quick results and rewards, pursue
personal steadiness and stability, and treasure leisure
time.
These dimensions are instrumental in the general
understanding about the intricacies of cultural
contexts, which are expressed by values and beliefs
individuals have in common. These dimensions offer
a canvas on which human relations, especially within
organizations, are drawn. The analysis of leadership is,
therefore, greatly enhanced by the clear description of
these dimensions.
The conceptualization of the word culture is
a multi-faceted process that results in a myriad of
meanings. According to Dickson et al. (2012), the word
culture usually refers to groups of individuals within a
society or groups of things that differentiate one society
from another. Herskovits (as cited in Dickson et al,
2012, p. 483) described culture as “an agreement that
members of the society come to and something that
new members can learn; culture specifies individuals’
natural and societal settings such as thought patterns,
government structure and values of possessions.”
In their study about culture value dimensions,
Ergeneli, Gohar, and Temirbekova (2007, p. 707)
defined culture “as shared motives, values, beliefs,
identities and interpretations or meanings of significant
events that result from the common experiences of
the members of a society.” They went on to add that
the word culture is generally applied to societies that
constitute a social system presenting the highest
level of self-sufficiency in regards to its surrounding
environment.
A variety of studies have cited Hofstede’s culture
value dimensions (Dickson et al., 2012; Engeneli
et al., 2007; Ensari and Murphy, 2003; Wang et al.,
2012; Wendt et al., 2008). According to Engerneli
et al. (2007), Hofstede developed five culture value
dimensions within societies that have substantial face
validity and that are directly related to certain aspects
of management. The five culture value dimensions are:
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualismcollectivism, masculinity and femininity, and, lastly,
long-term and short-term orientations.
Power distance refers to the inequality (represented
by distance) of power among institutions, organizations
and individuals. This value is related to the attempts
of the more powerful to maintain or extend distance
and the attempts of the less powerful to reduce it.
Uncertainty avoidance is directly related to the level of
tolerance presented by individuals towards ambiguity
and unstructured situations. According to Ergeneli et
al. (2007), clear procedures, well-defined and wellcommunicated strategies, and effectively understood
rules are powerful tools against uncertainty avoidance.
Individualism-collectivism refers primarily to the
tendency of individuals to cluster into primary groups.
It is also linked to the degree to which individuals
are expected to take care of themselves or maintain a
certain level of integration in groups (Ergeneli et al.,
2007). Individualism and collectivism are the opposite
ends of human integration. According to Wendt et al.
(2009), the individualism-collectivism dimension is the
Leadership in Multi-cultural
Aviation Environments
Despite the financial upheavals that have shaken
the world to the core, globalization continues to reach
further and implode more barriers between systems,
extinguish borders between countries, and require
leaders to operate in truly global environments (Youssef
and Luthans, 2012). Being a truly global system, the
aviation and aerospace industry requires the input of
a culturally diverse workforce to effectively operate
within its numerous supporting subsystems.
Due to geographical and demographic limitations,
some organizations within the aviation industry,
mainly airlines, have launched worldwide recruitment
strategies to fill their job positions in a wide array
of departments, mainly in service delivery. Emirates
Airline, Qatar Airways, and Singapore Airlines are
examples of organizations that employ individuals
from all corners of the world given the limited human
resources in these airlines’ home countries (United
Arab Emirates, Qatar and Singapore, respectively)
(Emirates Group Careers, 2014; Qatar Airways, 2014;
Singapore Airlines, 2014). Their headquarters are now
Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43
40
R eview A rticle
multi-cultural environments carrying many flags and
accommodating a variety of citizenships and cultural
backgrounds.
In light of these circumstances, cultural factors
within global environments have exercised direct
influence on the basic process supporting leadership
relations. Organizations within the aviation and
aerospace industry have become examples of work
environments that demand the guidance and support
of leaders who are able to effectively adapt the
management theories that have been developed in the
Western context (Wang et al., 2012) and efficiently
perform across different cultures (Ergeneli et al., 2007).
Having said that, a thorough analysis of the ideas
behind leadership now requires an understanding
on how leaders perform and how followers process
information in distinguished cultural contexts (Ensari
and Murphy, 2003). Many studies about leadership
practices have mentioned the results of the Global
Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness
(GLOBE) project (Dickson et al., 2012; Ensari and
Murphy, 2003; Ergeneli et al., 2007; Wang et al.,
2012; Wendt et at. 2009; Youssef and Luthans, 2012).
According to Wang et al. (2012, p. 571), GLOBE is “an
influential effort that explores the impact of cultural
values on leadership effectiveness in 62 countries” with
the purpose of developing an empirically based study
about cross-cultural leadership.
The studies developed by GLOBE were based
on nine different cultural dimensions: performance
orientation, future orientation, assertiveness, power
distance, human orientation, institutional collectivism,
uncertainty avoidance, and gender egalitarianism.
GLOBE and many other studies have attempted to
understand how leadership is exercised across different
cultures. According to Dickson et al. (2012), these
studies have fundamentally attempted to identify
leadership characteristics that are universally applicable
and those that pertain to specific countries.
In his cross-cultural studies, Lonner (as cited in
Dickson et al., 2012) separated universal values into
three categories: simple universals, variform universals,
and functional universals. Simple universals are those
values and types of behavior that are applicable to
all countries and cultures. An example of the simple
universal values is the human need to belong and
communicate. Variform universals are those values that
refer to human need to belong and communicate in a
different way. Lastly, functional universals are those
values that are linked to the stability of the intricacies
of relationships that are valid across all cultures.
According to the results of the GLOBE studies,
universal characteristics that exercise positive
Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments
influence on job satisfaction and effective leadership
are charisma, communication of vision, and desire
to change the status quo. Additionally, universally
effective and accepted leaders are inspirational,
visionary, motivational, dynamic, good communicators,
decisive, intelligent, and win-win problem solvers. They
are confidencebuilding, team-building, and excellenceoriented individuals (Dickson et al., 2012).
Conversely, leaders that tend to become loners,
ruthless, irritable and dictatorial are universally
rejected by followers (Dickson et al., 2012). Universally
rejected leadership characteristics tend to be negatively
evaluated by followers, which results in damaging effects
on group dynamics and increasing group resistance to
work further (Wendt et al., 2009).
In the opposite side of this cross-cultural spectrum,
there is a host of characteristics that are known for
being culturally contingent and for pertaining to specific
countries. According to Dickson et al. (2012), leaders
that are risk taking, ambitious, self-sacrificial, sincere,
sensitive, compassionate, willful, and enthusiastic tend
to be accepted in some countries, but not in others.
Nonetheless, the acceptance and effectiveness of
leadership performances is directly contingent to the
alignment and congruence of leadership behavior with
the norms of the culture in which the leaders perform.
Whether charismatic or a loner, ruthless or supportive,
leaders must accomplish cohesiveness in management
in order to reach effectiveness in their performance.
Given these circumstances, a number of leadership
theories have been instrumental in supporting and
guiding individuals in multi-cultural environments,
such as transformational leadership theory and positive
leadership theory. These theories, which Ergeneli et
al. (2007, p. 704) called “neocharismatic theories”,
are built around leader behavior and facilitate the
understanding of truly global leadership.
Transformational Leadership Theory
The transformational leadership theory, which is
fairly new within the array of leadership theories, has the
primary function of expanding the role of charismatic
leaders who exercise a high level of emotional appeal
and power over their followers. This leadership theory
acknowledges the relevance of symbolic, emotional
and distinctly motivating behaviors and attitude that
inherently exercise allure to followers’ minds and
leads to exceptional results in the work environment
(Ergeneli et al., 2007).
Unlike the transactional leadership theory,
which attempts to fulfill the needs of the followers
by emphasizing the exercise of exchange, the
Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43
41
R eview A rticle
transformational leadership theory motivates others to
accomplish more than they are expected to accomplish.
Transformational leaders adopt intellectual stimulation,
which leads followers to question their own beliefs,
values and expectations and to rethink ideas that have
never been questioned before (Ergeneli et al., 2007).
Moreover, the transformational leadership theory
applies individualized consideration, through which
leaders exercise significant individual attention to
each of their followers. By applying individualized
consideration, leaders delegate authority to their
followers while coaching them and treating them
equally (Ergeneli et al., 2007).
In work environments where the transformational
leadership theory is extensively applied, the workforce
is composed by highly knowledgeable employees who
make use of the envisioning and empowering techniques
provided by their leaders. This sharing of vision
and power leads to common technical imperatives,
industrial logic, and knowledge on global technologies,
which greatly facilitate management practices in multicultural and global work environments (Ergeneli et
al., 2007).
Studies developed by Kouzes and Posner (as cited in
Ergeneli et al., 2007) have focused on transformational
leadership cases and led to a compilation of best
practices adopted by transformational leaders.
Transformational leaders usually challenge the existing
process by developing strategies to change the status
quo; inspiring a shared vision by envisioning the future
and creating an ideal image of what the organization
may become; enabling others to act by encouraging
collaboration and assembling spirited teams; modelling
the way by establishing principles that guide individual
behavior; and encouraging good behavior by celebrating
accomplishments with rewards (Ergeneli et al., 2007).
In spite of being heralded as universally adopted,
the transformational leadership theory has undergone
substantial analysis. Some studies revealed that this
theory may not be equally and effectively applicable to
all cultures, which leads to believe that this leadership
theory lacks a truly global perspective (Youssef and
Luthans, 2012).
Positive Leadership Theory
Similarly to the transformational leadership
theory, the positive leadership theory was created to
provide guidance in times of globalization and financial
upheavals that have distressed the world in the past few
years. Effective leadership under these circumstances
has demanded comprehensive theoretical frameworks
emphasizing cultural differences that global leaders
Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments
lack. Positive leadership theory goes beyond the
transformation leadership theory as it establishes
common ground by leveraging diversity both locally
and globally (Youssef and Luthans, 2012).
In their study about leadership in global
environments, Youssef and Luthans (2012) listed the
advantages of positivity. In fact, the term has been
studied extensively as it elevates process and outcomes.
It also precludes negativity, neutrality, complacency,
resistance to change, and prolongation of the status
quo. Moreover, positivity is closely related to human
flourishing, which enables individuals to perform an
optimal range.
The positive leadership theory is closely connected
to the study of the Positive Organizational Behavior
(POB), which is focused on positively oriented
human resource strengths and psychological abilities
that can be measured and managed for performance
improvement. POB is based on four psychological
resources: (a) hope, which is a positive motivational
condition; (b) efficacy, which is the individual ability
to execute specific actions within given contexts and
criteria; (c) resilience, which is the individual ability to
recover from adversity, conflict and failure; and, lastly,
(d) optimism, which is an overall positive expectancy
(Youssef and Luthans, 2012).
The conceptualization of the positive leadership
theory includes the systematic manifestation of
leadership traits and processes that reinforces the
strengths and capabilities of leaders and followers alike.
It extinguishes cultural borders and offers a broad and
positive perspective (Youssef and Luthans, 2012).
The positive leadership theory is closely connected to
emerging leadership theories such as ethical leadership,
spiritual leadership, and authentic leadership. Ethical
leadership aims to elevate processes, behaviors and
performance outcomes. Supported across cultures,
ethical leadership focuses on integrity, altruism,
collective motivation and encouragement. Spiritual
leadership places emphasis on motivation through a
sense of membership or community between leaders
and followers. It is based on kindness, forgiveness,
empathy, honesty and humility. Authentic leadership
fosters a highly supportive organizational climate;
this climate is reached when leaders share their own
personal experiences, thoughts, beliefs and preferences.
It is centered on self-awareness, transparency and
internalized moral perspective (Youssef and Luthans,
2012).
Positive leaders tend to mitigate challengers
of any kind in work environments, especially when
it comes to physical and psychological distance and
cultural differences. They adopt a systematic and
Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43
42
R eview A rticle
integrated approach considering their own strengths
and capabilities as well as those of their followers and
of their organizations. Moreover, they facilitate the
development of a global mindset and intercultural
sensitivity among their followers.
Given the multi-cultural environments that have
been developed within the workforce of a number of
international airlines, the adoption of transformational
or positive leadership theories has become paramount.
In order to effectively guide and lead followers in the
highly competitive environment that airlines operate,
leaders must follow the principles established by these
theories. The adoption of these theories will result in
nothing but empowered, highly motivated, cohesive
and efficient multi-cultural workforces.
Final Considerations
The aviation and aerospace industry is a large system
formed by highly active, functional and integrated
subsystems. The industry is deemed as one of the few
truly global environments, given the scope and range of
operatives it encompasses. It is deeply contingent to the
financial swings the world has experienced along the
years. It is also a facilitator and a fruit of globalization,
as it transports passengers to the most remote spots in
the planet and attracts and employs individuals from
a variety of cultural backgrounds.
Given these circumstances, in order to manage
and lead workforces with a wide array of cultural
backgrounds, the aviation and aerospace industry
demands leaders that are able to effectively navigate
across cultures by inspiring, motivating and bringing
the best of their employees regardless of the country
they come from.
A thorough understanding of the intricacies
surrounding the relationship between culture and
leadership facilitates the effectiveness of leadership
approaches in multi-cultural environments. Both
words, culture and leadership, aggregate many concepts
and are based on numerous principles. Their true
meanings are just as diverse as the number of countries
in the world.
Understanding how leaders and followers operate
based on their cultural backgrounds is instrumental in
the enhancement of leadership performance. Cultural
value dimensions and leadership theories are valuable
tools to reach effectiveness in leadership. In regards
to the aviation and aerospace industry, which is quite
a regimented, multi-faceted and extremely diverse
Brito Neto JF – Leadership approaches in multi-cultural aviation environments
system, the adoption of either the transformational
leadership theory or the positive leadership theory
immensely facilitate the operatives of organizations that
constitute such a competitive and fragile environment.
References
DICKSON, W. M.; CASTAÑO, N.; MAGOMAEVA, A.; DEN
HARTOG, D. N. Conceptualizing leadership across cultures.
In: Journal of World Business, v. 47, n. 4, p. 483-492, out. 2012.
Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 20 jan. 2014.
EMIRATES GROUP CAREERS. Explore our careers: Cabin
crew. Emirates Group Careers. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 05 mar. 2014.
ENGENELI, A.; GOHAR, R.; TEMIRBEKOVA, Z.
Transformational leadership: Its relationship to culture value
dimensions. In: International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
v. 31, n. 6, p. 703-724, nov. 2007. Disponivel em: .
Acesso em: 21 jan. 2014.
ENSARI, N.; MURPHY, S. E. Cross-cultural variations in
leadership perceptions and attribution of charisma to the
leader. In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
v. 92, n. 1-2, set.-nov. 2003. Disponivel em: .
Acesso em: 08 jan. 2014.
QATAR AIRWAYS. News and events. Qatar Airways.
Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 05 mar. 2014.
SINGAPORE AIRLINES. Careers: Cabin crew appointments
Singapore Airlines. Disponivel em: . Acesso em:
05 mar. 2014.
WANG, H.; WALDMAN, D. A.; ZHANG, H. Strategic
leadership across cultures: Current findings and future research
directions. In: Journal of World Business, v. 47, n. 5, p. 571-580,
out. 2012. Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 10 jan. 2014.
WENDT, H.; EUWEMA, M.; HETTY VAN EMMERIK,
I. J. Leadership and team cohesiveness across cultures. In:
The Leadership Quarterly, v. 20, n. 3, p. 358-370, june 2009.
Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 09 jan. 2014.
WHETTEN, D. A.; CAMERON, K. S. Developing management
skills. 8. ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011. 774p.
YOUSSEF, C. M.; LUTHANS, F. Positive global leadership. In:
Journal of World Business, v. 47, n. 4, p. 539-547, out. 2012.
Disponivel em: . Acesso em: 15 jan. 2014.
Corresponding Author:
Jose Felix de Brito Neto
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University – Worldwide
600 South Clyde Morris Boulevard
Daytona Beach, FL 32801
Tel.: (+1 407) 247- 3983
Aviation in Focus 2014; 5(1): 38-43
43
Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci
Measuring the effects of Safety Management System practices, morality
leadership and self-efficacy on pilots’ safety behaviors: Safety motivation
as a mediator
Ching-Fu Chen a,1, Shu-Chuan Chen a,b,⇑
a
b
Dept. of Transportation & Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1, University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan, ROC
Dept. of Air Transportation Management, Aletheia University, 70-11 Pei-Shi-Liao, Matou, Tainan 721, Taiwan, ROC
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 March 2013
Received in revised form 8 August 2013
Accepted 28 September 2013
Available online 18 October 2013
Keywords:
Pilot safety behavior
Safety motivation
Safety Management System
Morality leadership
Self-efficacy
a b s t r a c t
Pilot safety behavior is viewed as a critical determinant of airline safety performance, and thus it is crucial
to identify the factors which may enhance such behaviors. This study adopts an integrated perspective
and considers three antecedents of this behavior, including organizational, group and individual factors.
Specifically, this research simultaneously examines the effects of pilots’ perceptions of Safety Management System (SMS) practices, fleet managers’ morality leadership and pilots’ self-efficacy on flight crews’
safety behaviors through the mediation of safety motivation. Using a sample of 239 commercial pilot participants, and the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique, the results indicate that both perceptions of SMS practices and self-efficacy have direct, positive effects on pilots’ safety behaviors, while
the effect of fleet managers’ morality leadership on such behavior is fully mediated by pilots’ safety motivation. The managerial implications for both human resource management and enhanced airline safety
are also discussed.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Safety has always been a critical consideration in air transport,
and within the airline industry pilots’ safety behaviors are regarded
as important determinants of safety performance. Flight crews have
been deemed to be responsible for 55% of worldwide hull loss accidents that occurred from 1996 through 2005 (Boeing Airplane Company, 2006). In Taiwan, for instance, the Aviation Safety Council
(ASC) reported that personnel were cited as a major cause or factor
in 71.9% of accidents between 2001 and 2010, among which pilots
accounted for 46.9% of the related causes/factors (Aviation Safety
Council, 2011). Since a number of specific pilot behaviors have been
implicated as possible causes of many air accidents (Wells, 1997), it
is critical to identify the factors that may enhance the performance of
these individuals with regard to safety behaviors.
From the perspective of organizational behavior, the antecedents lead to employee behaviors can be categorized into three
groups, i.e., organizational, group and individual (Robbins, 2001).
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Air Transportation Management,
Aletheia University, 70-11 Pei-Shi-Liao, Matou, Tainan 721, Taiwan, ROC. Tel.: +886
6 5703100x7435; fax: +886 6 5703834.
E-mail addresses: cfchen99@mail.ncku.edu.tw (C.-F. Chen), geniechen2006@gmail.com (S.-C. Chen).
1
Tel.: +886 6 2757575x53230; fax: +886 6 2753882.
0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.013
However, previous research on factors affecting safety behaviors
has by and large focused separately on either organizational, group
or individual factors. For example, organizational safety climate
has been suggested as having a fundamental effect on individual
safety behaviors (Cooper and Phillips, 2004; Fogarty and Shaw,
2010). The leadership styles adopted by group leaders, on the other
hand, also have significant influences on subordinates. For instance, Barling et al. (2002) indicated that safety specific transformational leadership significantly affects occupational safety. As for
individual-related factors, personality and attitude have often been
related to the unsafe behaviors of pilots (Hunter, 2005; Musson
et al., 2004). However, despite the extensive research linking the
various antecedents of safety behaviors, few studies have examined organizational, group and individual factors simultaneously,
although it is known that people’s behaviors stem from a base of
personal knowledge and values, as well as from group norms and
the prevailing organizational culture (Bill, 2003).
Furthermore, the majority of past studies of safety related
behaviors examined general aviation pilots rather than commercial
airlines’ flight crews (e.g., O’Hare and Smitheram, 1995; Pauley
et al., 2008; Wiegmann and Taneja, 2003). To restate the key role
played by pilots in the airline industry, it is commonly acknowledged that commercial airlines pilots are directly responsible for
the safety of passengers, crew members and airplane operations
as a whole. To a high degree, pilots’ individual safety behaviors
377
C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
thus not only indicate their professional performance, but also
directly affect their airlines’ safety records. Consequently, the
present study attempts to develop an integrated model with three
factors (i.e., organization, group, individual), which may directly or
indirectly influence commercial pilots’ safety behaviors, with a
particular focus on pilots who work for Taiwanese international
airlines.
With regard to the organizational aspect, the current study used
pilots’ perceptions of their airlines’ Safety Management System
(SMS) practices as the main indicator of interest. An SMS is regarded as an explicit element of corporate managerial responsibility, which sets out a company’s safety policy and defines how it
intends to manage safety as an integral part of its overall business
(United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority, 2002). In recent years,
airlines have relied on the use of an SMS to integrate safety policies
and augment safety performance at both organizational and individual levels (Chen and Chen, 2011). Pilots’ perceptions of their airlines SMS practices can thus be used as an organizational factor to
investigate their relationship with pilots’ safety behaviors. As for
the group indicator, among the various factors that affect employee
attitudes and behaviors, a number of studies have proposed that
leadership has a powerful effect on employee work behaviors
(e.g., Yukl, 2002). Corresponding to the cultural background and
specific job characteristics of the targeted research population,
the morality leadership performed by fleet managers is used to
examine its predictive power with regard to pilots’ safety behaviors. Moral leaders are highly respected and admired by employees
with Chinese cultural backgrounds, for their demonstrations of
integrity and concern with collective interests rather than their
own personal benefits (Chen et al., 2011; Niu et al., 2009). Since
the present paper examines the flight crew members working for
five Taiwanese international airlines, which can be seen as international organizations embedded in Chinese culture, it is believed
that this study’s examination of whether morality leadership increases pilots’ safety behaviors can add to the literature by extending current understandings of this and related topics. Meanwhile,
personal attributes have also been identified as having predictive
power with regard to pilots’ safety behaviors in previous work (Ji
et al., 2011). The current paper adopts pilots’ perceptions of selfefficacy as the indicator to explore how it affects their own safety
behaviors. According to Bandura (1995, p. 2), self-efficacy is ‘‘the
belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action required to manage prospective situations’’. Research reveals that people with low self-efficacy tend to become unreliable
and unpredictable when engaging in a task (Bandura, 1997a,b).
Due to the tremendous responsibilities taken on by flight crews,
it is expected that pilots with a high sense of self-efficacy may be
better able to confront the challenges they meet at work and exert
more efforts to improve their abilities. It is thus anticipated that
the examination of the causality between pilots’ perceived selfefficacy and their safety behaviors that is carried out in this work
will improve understanding of the related causal relationships at
the individual level.
In addition, pilots’ safety motivation is used as the mediating
variable between the selected factors and pilots’ safety behaviors
to further extend the understanding of the related psychological
paths. Probst and Brubaker (2001) proposed that safety motivation
has a lagged effect on safety behaviors, while Griffin and Neal
(2000) argued that safety performance is determined by how motivated individuals are to perform the related behavior. In the current paper, the direct effect that safety motivation has on pilots’
safety behaviors, and its mediating effect between the other indicators and these behaviors are analyzed concurrently. The conceptual model shown in Fig. 1 illustrates the mechanisms underlying
the interrelationships among these variables, which are discussed
in detail in the following sections.
Perceived SMS
Practices
Safety
Compliance
Morality
Leadership
Safety
Motivation
Safety
Participation
Safety Behavior
Selfefficacy
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
2. Conceptual background and hypotheses
2.1. Safety motivation and safety behavior
Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of
motivation, most psychologists describe it as any internal condition that appears by inference to initiate, activate, or maintain
goal-directed behavior (Lefton and Brannon, 2002). Safety motivation thus refers to an individual’s willingness to exert efforts to
perform safety behaviors and the valence associated with those
behaviors (Neal and Griffin, 2006). It can also be perceived as attitudes and perceptions relating to the influences motivating safe or
unsafe behaviors (Williamson et al., 1997). As it is documented
that motivation will influence behavior in a positive way (Miller,
1988), individuals who are motivated to engage in safety behaviors
should be more likely to carry out these behaviors.
Since they are expected to work as flight managers, pilots not only
have to practices, monitor and facilitate safety duties on board
(Molesworth et al., 2006), but take the initiative to participate in
safety related activities and advocate safety concepts both in the
air on the ground. A comprehensive definition of safety behaviors
as being composed of employee compliance with behavioral safety
routines and proactively contributing to safety related work is thus
used with regard to pilots’ safety behaviors in the current study. This
is consistent with the theoretical approach led by Griffin and Neal
(2000), which differentiated safety behaviors into two types: safety
compliance and safety participation. Safety compliance indicates the
fundamental behaviors practiced by the employees to ensure personal and workplace safety, which involves ‘‘adhering to safety procedures and carrying out work in a safe manner’’ (Clarke and Cooper,
2004, p. 90). In contrast, safety participation refers to the behaviors
which help develop a safety-supportive environment instead of
guaranteeing personal safety. Helping co-workers, promoting safety
programs and volunteering for safety activities are all considered as
safety participation behaviors. Given the causality between motivation and behaviors, it is presumed that the stronger the safety motivation that pilots have, the more willing they are to practice safety
behaviors. Furthermore, this study also hypothesizes that safety
motivation mediates the causal relations between the targeted predictors and the two types of pilots’ safety behaviors. The hypothetical mediation effects will be illustrated in the subsequent sections.
The first hypothesis is presented as follows:
H1. Pilots’ safety motivation is positively associated with their
safety compliance and safety participation.
2.2. Perceived SMS practices
Pilots’ perceptions of their airlines SMS practices are used as
the organizational factor in this work. SMS is developed on the
378
C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
basis of existing safety theories and models, and it acts as a coordinated, comprehensive set of processes designed to direct all
accessible resources to manage safety in an optimal manner
(Transport Canada, 2008). An SMS program consists of proactive
data collection, information analysis, hazard identification, risk
management, auditing, training, reactive incident and accident
investigation and analysis (Chen and Chen, 2012). The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) describes SMS as a quality management approach to controlling risk, and which also provides the
organizational framework to support safety culture (FAA, 2006).
SMS highlights the integration of the entire organization serving
as one team, following principles that are laid down at the top
to proactively manage safety. The primary objective of an SMS
program for the airline industry is to establish an effective aviation safety culture, which can detect and correct safety related
problems prior to an accident occurring (Lewis, 2008). One of
the keys to achieving successful implementation of an SMS is to
ensure that every employee participates in the system and fulfills
their designated roles, as Galotti et al. (2006) noted that such a
‘‘system’’ represents the concept of an integrated set of processes
which manage safety across intra-departmental boundaries.
When promoting SMS, some of the critical issues are how airline
policy-makers identify the key components of the system, how
managers weigh the importance of its various dimensions and
steps, and how employees are taught to evaluate the effects of
these safety practices. Pilots’ evaluations of their airlines SMS
practices may thus be interpreted as their perceptions of how
greatly the airlines value safety, and the effects of adopting such
a proactive safety model at an organizational level.
The current study investigates the effects of airlines actual SMS
practice on pilots’ safety behaviors for two reasons. The first is that
SMS have been mandatory in the airline industry by the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 1 January 2009, but to date
there is still limited research examining SMS related issues. The second reason is that the practice of an SMS is a continuous action, and a
better understanding of employees’ viewpoints regarding the particular system their airline adopts may help companies to improve their
practices. Previous studies verify the relationship between the implementation of an SMS and the attitudes of employees towards safety
behaviors in aviation (e.g., Remawi et al., 2011). Accordingly, this
study predicts that the better pilots perceive the SMS practices within
their airlines, the stronger motivation they have to perform the related safety behaviors. Since it is assumed that safety motivation
mediates the relationship between the selected antecedents and pilots’ safety behaviors, the direct and indirect effects of SMS practices
on these are both hypothesized, as follows.
H2. Pilots’ perceptions of their airline SMS practices are positively
associated with their safety motivation.
H3. Pilots’ perceptions of their airline SMS practices are positively
associated with their safety compliance and safety participation.
H4. Pilots’ safety motivation mediates the relationship between
their perceptions of their airlines’ SMS practices and safety behaviors (both compliance and participation).
2.3. Morality leadership
Clarke and Ward (2006) indicated that leadership style has a
particularly significant impact on employees with regard to their
safety participation, and the causal link between leadership and
employee safety behaviors has been supported by a number of related studies (e.g., Hofmann and Morgeson, 1999; Yang et al.,
2009; Zohar, 2002; Zohar and Luria, 2003), among which transformational leadership is the most commonly identified predictive
variable (Barling et al., 2002; Kelloway et al., 2006; Yang et al.,
2009; Zohar, 2002). Although these earlier studies provide a solid
framework to link transformational leadership style and employee safety behaviors, this study uses morality leadership as the
group indicator to investigate its effects on pilots’ safety
behaviors.
In the airline industry, a company’s safety record is seen as its
most important performance indicator by customers (Liou and
Chuang, 2010). An airline’s safety record requires that its employees behave in a moral fashion, and thus it is expected that an airline’s various crews (e.g., cockpit and maintenance crews) should
have very high level of morality in their work performance in order
to enhance safety. It is thus important that leaders in this context
to set a good moral example for their subordinates.
Morality leadership refers to a leader who displays superior
personal virtues through acting unselfishly (e.g., never promoting
their private interests under the guise of serving the public, and
not abusing authority for personal gain), thus gaining their subordinates’ respect and identification (Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008).
It can also be depicted that a leader with a high level of morality
and integrity that is expressed by acting unselfishly, and thus individuals who have the characteristic of morality leadership tend to
serve as role models for employees and exert a significant influence on them (Chen et al., 2011). As moral leaders consistently
demonstrate ethical behavior in both professional and private
spheres, this has shown to have positive effects with regard to
increasing the level of trust that subordinates’ have in them (Treviño et al., 2003). Conchie et al. (2006) referred to trust as the
‘‘missing piece of the safety puzzle’’, and this implies that the more
followers trust their leaders, the more motive they are with regard
to improving safety performance. Since pilots have an overwhelming obligation to ensure flight safety, it is thus of interest to explore
the predictive power of morality leadership on pilots’ safety motivation and their actual safety behaviors.
Pilots are qualified for particular cockpits (Clarke et al., 1996), and
based on their specific licenses and aircraft type rating endorsement,
commercial airlines pilots are grouped into designated fleets to carry
out their flight duties. Fleet managers are selected from well-experienced captains, and they work to maintain a fleet’s operational standards and procedures, as well as to ensure pilot training standards
and work related discipline. The leadership enacted by fleet managers
is believed to have a significant influence on pilots’ behaviors, as there
is considerable evidence to support the causal link between leadership and the performance of subordinates (Barling et al., 2002; Jong
and Hartog, 2007). Therefore, examining whether fleet managers’
morality leadership style enhances pilots’ motivation to perform
safety behaviors may provide crucial insights into the underlying factors linking leadership and employee behaviors.
Accordingly, it is believed that a higher level of morality leadership will likely motivate subordinates to put more effort into their
work and go above and beyond the call of duty for their leaders
(Colquitt et al., 2007). Consistent with the suggestion of prior research that morality leadership is positively related to employees’
organizational behavior (Cheng et al., 2002), we hypothesize that
airline fleet manager’s morality leadership may motivate pilots to
carry out safety behaviors with greater diligence, stated as hypotheses 5 and 6. The mediating effect of safety motivation in this causality path will also be tested and addressed in hypothesis 7.
H5. Fleet manager’s morality leadership is positively associated
with their safety motivation.
H6. Fleet manager’s morality leadership is positively associated
with their safety compliance and safety participation.
C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
379
H7. Pilots’ safety motivation mediates the relationship between
morality leadership and their safety behaviors (both compliance
and participation).
H10. Pilots’ safety motivation mediates the relationship between
perceived self-efficacy and their safety behaviors (both compliance
and participation).
2.4. Self-efficacy
3. Method
This study adopts self-efficacy as the individual-aspect predictor to examine how it affects pilots’ safety behaviors. Perceived
self-efficacy reflects people’s beliefs in their capabilities to carry
out certain tasks, and individuals with high self-efficacy often
take a wider overview of a task in order to adopt the best method of action (Bandura, 1997a,b). Garland et al. (1988) proposed
that an operator’s self-efficacy will enhance their motivation to
persist and exert more effort to accomplish a task, and it is
widely recognized that perceived self-efficacy can determine
how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave (Bandura, 1997a,b).
While the job of a pilot position remains a highly competitive
one, with a good image and benefits, it is also comes with tremendous burdens, both psychological and physical, due to the heavy
responsibilities associated with the position (Nicholas et al.,
2001). Working on a shifting schedule in a confined space, posing
and answering numerous navigation and situation assessment
questions at different phases in the flight timeline, and needing
to be aware of any unexpected conditions and making the best
decisions with limited time and resources, all serve to increase
the work-load and stress that pilots have (Loukopoulos et al.,
2003). Furthermore, with the expectation of being not only flight
operators but mangers, pilots are required to monitor and facilitate the aircrew’s safety duties on board and expected to take
the initiative to participate in safety related activities and advocate safety concepts, even when not to officially working. As people with high levels of self-efficacy have greater beliefs in their
own capabilities to achieve certain goals, pilots with higher perceived self-efficacy are likely to better resist pressure and devote
more efforts to improving their work-related and management
performance.
Individual self-efficacy has been applied as the observed predictor in the number of studies that investigate pilots’ work-related behaviors (e.g., Parasuraman et al., 1993; Prinzel, 2002).
Prior research demonstrates that self-efficacy has effects on the
level of motivation, learning and performance (e.g., Schunk and
Pajares, 2001). Graham and Weiner (1995), for example, stated
that self-efficacy is a consistent predictor of behavior and behavioral change. However, self-efficacy is a double-edged sword (e.g.,
Prinzel et al., 1999), which may lead to the concern that pilots
with high self-efficacy may be more likely to take dangerous
short-cuts because of overconfidence. In practice, however, Taiwanese airline companies have increasingly adopted flight analysis equipment (such as Aircraft Condition Monitoring Systems,
ACMS, and Aircraft Communications Addressing & Reporting Systems, ACARS) to track aircraft operations, engine conditions and
flight performance (Chen and Chen, 2011). Flight operations in
the cockpit are thus under regular monitoring to prevent any improper behaviors.
As self-efficacy has been confirmed to be an important determinant of how people think and act, this paper examines whether pilots’ perceived self-efficacy may lead to increased levels of safety
motivation and better safety behaviors.
The related hypotheses are thus proposed as follows:
3.1. Participants and procedures
H8. Pilots’ perceived self-efficacy is positively associated with their
safety motivation.
H9. Pilots’ perceived self-efficacy is positively associated with their
safety compliance and safety participation.
The study population is the pilots who work for five major Taiwanese international airlines. Due to flight crews’ changing work
schedules, the paper-based survey was initially distributed
through each airline’s internal contact. Questionnaires with sealable stamped addressed envelopes were either deposited in pilot’s
individual mailbox or distributed on board an aircraft. Data were
collected during the five-month period from early August to the
end of December, 2011. A total of 420 surveys were distributed
in two time frames. At the first attempt, 300 surveys were mailed
out and 163 usable samples returned within three months. To increase the sample size, 120 surveys were sent to two airlines with
lower response rates in the first attempt. Ninety-two samples were
returned, among which 76 ones were effective. A total of 239
usable samples were collected, representing an acceptable response rate of 57%.
The samples are mostly male (95%), and their age was mostly
from 30 to 39 (48.9%). Respondents’ years of tenure in their current
company mainly fell into the range of 1–10 years (60.2%). 59% of
the samples are ranked as first officers, 32.2% of the samples have
a position as captain. 23.4% of the respondents have total flight
hours between 10, 000 and 15,000 h, with 17.6% between 3,000
and 5,000 h. The training background is indicated as 23.8% of having self-paid Commercial Pilot License (CPL) training, 33% company-paid CPL training, 23% air-force training and 20.2% are
foreign pilots.
3.2. Measures
The scales used to obtain the measures of the variables are described below. All scales were measured using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). To assess
the reliability of scales, which refers to a variable or a set of indicators of a latent construct being internally consistent in their measurements (Hair et al., 2006), Cronbach’s a coefficient is applied.
Cronbach’s a ranges from 0 to 1, with 0.7 being considered a satisfactory level in basic research (Iacobucci and Churchill, 2010).
3.2.1. Perceived SMS practices
Perceived SMS practices are measured by 23 items of the SMS
evaluation scale developed by Chen and Chen (2012). Note that
Chen and Chen’ SMS scale is designed to identify the important aspects and items for airlines to develop an effective SMS. Rather
than judging how important each item represents like the original
scale does, pilots were asked to evaluate the practice of company’s
SMS by the level of agreement with a number of statements in this
study. Sample items include: ‘‘The company’s internal reporting
channel is highly accessible,’’ ‘‘The top management participates
in SMS related activities,’’ ‘‘Employees periodically take training
programs related to emergency preparedness and response plans,’’
‘‘Managers order clear commands for SMS operations,’’ and ‘‘The
company holds SMS promotion activities regularly.’’ The reported
reliability of the coefficient alpha is 0.95.
3.2.2. Morality leadership
The subscale of Paternalistic Leadership Measure developed by
Cheng et al. (2000) is used, with five items assessing the manager’s
morality leadership. This scale has demonstrated consistent and
380
C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
good psychometric properties in several studies (e.g., Chen et al.,
2011). Example items are: ‘‘My supervisor is a good role model
to follow,’’ and ‘‘My supervisor treats his/her staff very fairly’’.
The reliability coefficient in this study is 0.95.
3.2.3. Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is measured by the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale
developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) to assess pilots’
self-beliefs with regard to coping with a variety of challenges.
The full scale with ten items is used, and sample items are ‘‘I can
solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort,’’ and ‘‘It is easy
for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.’’ The reported
coefficient alpha is 0.86.
3.2.4. Safety motivation
Safety motivation is assessed with three items from Neal and
Griffin (2006), measuring the degree to which pilots regard safety
as an important part of their career. Example items include: ‘‘I
feel that it is important to maintain safety at all times,’’ and ‘‘I
believe that it is important to reduce the risk of accidents and
incidents in the workplace.’’ The coefficient a for this scale is
0.90.
3.2.5. Safety behavior
Safety behavior consisting of two components (i.e., safety
compliance and safety participation) is adopted from Neal and
Griffin (2006). Safety compliance evaluates the core tasks that pilots have to accomplish to maintain flight safety. To precisely
evaluate flight crew’s safety compliance behavior, one item was
reworded to ‘‘I pay full attention to the pre-flight briefing to collect sufficient data for every flight.’’ Safety participation assesses
the extent to which pilots help develop an environment that supports safety. Some slight adjustments were made to the items to
better match the work characteristics of flight crew and the main
focus of the present study. An example item is ‘‘I promote the
safety program within the organization.’’ The coefficient alpha
values for safety compliance and safety participation are 0.91
and 0.84, respectively.
3.3. Data analysis
The data analysis is conducted in two stages. First, the exploratory factor analysis using principal component extraction with
VARIMAX rotation technique is performed to examine the construct dimensionalities of the SMS evaluation scale. Eigenvalues
indicate a special set of scalars connected to a linear system of
equations, representing the amount of variance explained by a factor, and these are used to determine the initial number of factors
(Hoffman and Kunze, 1971). Second, a two-step approach to Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is carried out to evaluate the measurement and structural models by using the LISREL 8 computer
program (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2001). All three types of goodness-of-fit indices recommended by Hair et al. (2006), namely
absolute fit, incremental fit, and parsimony fit indices, are applied
to assess overall model fit and the degree of model fit per estimated coefficient. The details include the ratio of the chi-square
value to degrees of freedom (v2/df), of which the cutoff value suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988) is 5. The goodness-of-fit index
(GFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), adjust
goodness of fit index (AGFI), the comparative fit index (CFI),
normed fit index (NFI), and root mean residual (RMR) were also
examined. In general, a model with these fit indices with values
of .90 or higher, a value of RMR lower than 0.05, and an RMSEA value lower than .08 are acceptable (Kline, 1998).
4. Results
As suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1997), non-response
bias was first tested by conducting an independent sample t test
to analyze whether there were any significant differences between
the two sample groups (163 collected in the first timeframe as
group one and 76 in the second collection as group two). The results indicated that no significant differences existed between
two groups in any of the constructs, verifying the representativeness of the collected samples.
The detailed information regarding means and standard deviations (S.D.) of the observable items is presented in Table 1. Pilots
perceive moderately high level of airlines SMS practices, fleet managers’ morality leadership and individual self-efficacy, since the
mean scores of the above constructs are between 4.50 and 5.60.
In average, pilots hold strong safety motivation and are willing to
conduct safety compliance behavior.
4.1. Dimensionality of the SMS practices
The results from the exploratory factor analysis identify two
factors consisting of 17 SMS items. In this study, a factor is retained
only if it had an eigenvalue greater than 1.0. Items are kept if they
have factor loadings greater than 0.5 in a single factor only. Six
items have thus been removed from the scale. Factor loadings represent the correlation between the original variables and the factors. The volume of the factor loading plays a key role with
regard to understanding the nature of a particular factor (Hair
et al., 2006). The two factors explain 71.86% of total variance for
the SMS evaluation scale (see Table 2). According to the VARIMAX-rotated factor pattern, the first factor concerns ‘‘policy’’ (seven items, a = 0.95) while the second relates to ‘‘practice’’ (ten
items, a = 0.95). The mean scores by averaging the associated items
for each factor are calculated and used in subsequent analyses.
4.2. Measurement model
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to analyze
the validity and reliability of the six constructs. CFA is a statistical
technique used to validate the factor structure of a set of observed
variables, and can enable researchers to test how well the measured variables represent the designated constructs. The main
advantage of conducting CFA is that it makes it possible to analytically test a conceptually grounded theory explaining how different
measured items represent important psychological, sociological, or
business constructs. According to Hair et al. (2006), the convergent
validity of CFA results has to be supported by item reliability, construct reliability and average variance extracted. These three indicators are employed to verify that the estimated constructs are
valid, consist and applicable to survey the traits which they are intended to measure (Hair et al., 2006). The resulting data must be
statistically significant, which is shown by t values being greater
than 1.96 or smaller than 1.96 (Segars, 1997). The t value is a
measure of the statistical significance of an independent variable
in explaining the dependent variable. As presented in Table 3, all
t values appear to be significant, with p-values being smaller than
the threshold of 0.01 (i.e., p < 0.01). Since the p-value indicates
the probability of measurement consistency between the observed
sample and a test statistic, assuming that the null hypothesis is
true (Goodman, 1999), the statistical result of p < 0.01 means that
the probability of the hypothesis actually being true is greater than
99%. The construct reliability estimates (CR) range from 0.84 to
0.95, exceeding the critical value of 0.60 suggested by Fornell
and Larcker (1981). The average variances extracted (AVE) of all
constructs range between 0.64 and 0.80, also above the value of
381
C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
Table 1
Descriptive statistics results.
Constructs
Items
Mean
S.D.
SMS practices
Continuously improves the SMS practice
Precise standard of the SMS practice
Internal reporting channel is highly accessible
Top management participates
Following the principles of fairness and justice
Clearly stated its determination to execute SMS
Declares commitment in formal documents
Employees are acquainted with plans
Employees periodically take training programs
Company periodically runs drills to practice plans
Establishes emergency preparedness and response plans
Managers order clear commands
The contents of the SMS manual are readily understood
Intranet system can precisely handle the information
Intranet system used as the platform to share information
Documents are preserved and continuously updated
Establishes simple and unified standard
Employees upgrade abilities through training programs
Employees learn concepts through training
Company continuously provides training programs
Employees know way to execute SMS through training
Company provides diverse training programs
The company holds SMS promotion activities regularly
5.18
4.92
5.20
4.87
4.98
5.60
5.22
5.09
5.51
5.15
5.18
4.77
4.72
4.84
4.84
4.88
4.97
5.04
4.88
5.08
4.90
4.56
4.91
1.34
1.35
1.26
1.37
1.49
1.50
1.31
1.32
1.21
1.23
1.30
1.35
1.31
1.30
1.35
1.28
1.31
1.23
1.26
1.18
1.23
1.41
1.29
Morality leadership
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
Supervisor
4.95
5.10
4.99
4.94
5.32
1.46
1.46
1.45
1.55
1.45
Self-efficacy
I can solve difficult problems if try hard enough
I can find the means and ways to get what I want
It is easy to stick to my aims and accomplish goals
I am confident to deal efficiently with unexpected events
I know how to handle unforeseen situations
I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort
I can remain calm when facing difficulties
I can find solutions when confronted with a problem
If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution
I can usually handle whatever comes my way
5.50
4.52
4.67
5.43
5.26
5.61
5.69
5.63
5.67
5.30
1.06
1.29
1.32
1.06
1.04
0.92
0.82
0.84
0.87
1.10
Safety motivation
It’s worthwhile to maintain or improve personal safety
It’s important to maintain safety at all times
It’s important to reduce risk in workplace
6.14
6.25
6.34
0.84
0.82
0.79
Safety compliance
Pay full attention to the pre-flight briefing
Follow correct safety procedures for carrying out job
Ensure the highest level of safety when carry out job
6.17
6.30
6.24
0.78
0.75
0.79
Safety participation
I promote the safety program within the organization
I put in extra effort to improve the flight safety
I put in extra effort to improve the flight safety
5.36
5.76
5.29
1.33
1.10
1.27
is an upright and honest person
treats staff very fairly
does not obtain illicit personal gains
is a good role model to follow
always practices what he/she preaches
0.50 suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). These results show
that the measurement items all meet the requirements for both
reliability and validity.
Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s a values and the inter-factor
correlations among the latent constructs are displayed in Table 4.
Correlation measures the association between two variables. The
current study employs the Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient to indicate the correlation among the six focal factors,
since its mathematical and statistical properties have been studied
in much detail, and the tables and algorithms for testing the statistical significance are also readily available (Raju and Brand, 2003).
All of the inter-factor correlations are significant and range between 0.21 and 0.74. All scales demonstrate good reliability, indicated by presenting the Cronbach’s a values above 0.80, thus
satisfying the criterion of 0.70 (Nnunally, 1978).
Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the construct
correlations with the square root of the average variance extracted
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results shown in Table 5 indicate
that the square root of the average variance extracted for each
construct is greater than the levels of the correlations involving
the construct, and thus discriminant validity is confirmed.
4.3. Structural model
Fig. 2 shows the estimated model with standardized path coefficients. The fit indices of the structural model are summarized as
follows: v2 = 250.08 (p = 0.00), df = 105, v2/df = 2.38, GFI = 0.90,
AGFI = 0.85, RFI = 0.94, NFI = 0.96, and NNFI = 0.97. The alternative
indices are CFI = 0.97, RMR = 0.04, and RMSEA = 0.07. A comparing
of these results with the corresponding critical values suggests that
the conceptual model fits the empirical data reasonably well (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
The effect of safety motivation on safety behaviors is significantly positive (b = 0.70, t = 10.50), indicating that the stronger pilots’ safety motivation is, the more likely they will carry out safety
behaviors. H1 is thus confirmed. Regarding the direct effect of three
exogenous predictors on pilots’ safety motivation, all paths show a
significantly direct influence, thus indicating H2, H5 and H8 are
382
C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
Table 2
Principle component analysis of perceived SMS practice.
Factor
loadings
Factor 1: Policy (PO) (Mean = 4.99, S.D. = 1.37, a = 0.95)
PO1: Company develops the precise standard to monitor and evaluate the SMS
performance
PO2: Company continuously improves the SMS performance
PO3: Company’s internal reporting channel is highly accessible
PO4: Top management participates in the SMS related activities
PO5: Management handles safety issues following just culture
PO6: Top management declares a determination to execute SMS, even when the company
finance is in a down cycle
PO7: Top management declares commitment in formal documents.
Factor2: Practice (PR) (Mean = 5.02, S.D. = 1.14, a = 0.95)
PR1: Employees are trained to execute the plan periodically
PR2: Company simulates the plan periodically
PR3: Company establishes the plan with clear procedures and individual responsibility
PR4: The contents of the SMS manual are readily understood
PR5:Employees upgrade their self-management abilities through training
PR6:Employees learn comprehensive concepts of SMS through trainings
PR7: Company provides continuous training
PR8: Employees know how to execute SMS through training
PR9: Company provides diverse training programs
PR10: Company holds regular SMS promotion activities
Eigen
value
Variance
explained (%)
Cumulated variance
explained (%)
15.29
66.48
66.48
1.24
5.38
71.86
.745
.809
.684
.784
.781
.822
.764
.649
.763
.744
.677
.726
.775
.775
.788
.783
.764
Table 3
Convergent validity.
Constructs
Indicators
Item reliability
CR
AVE
Standardized factor loadings
Standard errors
t-Value
SMS Practices
POL
PRA
0.87
0.92
0.24
0.15
15.32**
16.64**
0.89
0.80
Morality
Leadership
ML1
ML2
ML3
ML4
ML5
0.92
0.95
0.83
0.87
0.88
0.16
0.09
0.30
0.24
0.23
17.84**
19.17**
15.25**
16.33**
16.65**
0.95
0.80
Self-efficacy
SE
1
0.00
21.17**
Safety motivation
–
–
MO1
MO2
MO3
0.78
0.92
0.91
0.40
0.16
0.18
13.53**
17.53**
17.23**
0.90
0.76
Safety Compliance
SC1
SC2
SC3
0.87
0.89
0.89
0.25
0.20
0.20
16.02**
16.84**
16.82**
0.92
0.78
Safety Participation
SP1
SP2
SP3
0.77
0.86
0.77
0.41
0.27
0.40
12.77**
14.85**
12.92**
0.84
0.64
SE, indicating the construct of self-efficacy.
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
AVE ¼ ð k2 Þ=½ k2 þ ðhÞ; CR ¼ ð kÞ2 =½ð kÞ2 þ ðhÞ, where
= summation of the indicators of the latent variables, k = indicator loadings, h = indicator error variances.
**
p < 0.01.
supported. The statistical data also reveals the direct effect which
the perceptions of SMS practices and self-efficacy have on pilots’
safety behaviors (e.g., b = 0.39, t = 4.19; b = 0.21, t = 3.12), supporting H3 and H9. Turning to the mediating effects of safety motivation, the insignificant coefficient found between morality
leadership and safety behaviors (b = 0.01, t = 0.17) identified the
complete mediating effect that safety motivation has on the causal
link between morality leadership and safety behaviors. In addition,
safety motivation partially mediates the relationships among pilots’ perceptions of their airlines SMS practices, individual self-efficacy and their safety behaviors. Therefore, hypothesis 6 is rejected
while H4, H7 and H10 are confirmed. The three selected predictors,
which represent organizational, group and individual aspects, are
all proved to significantly influence pilots’ safety behaviors, via
the full or partial mediating effect generated by safety motivation.
Table 6 presents the effects (i.e., direct, indirect, and total) of the
three determinants on pilots’ safety compliance and safety participation. A direct effect identifies relationship linking two constructs with a single arrow between dependent and independent
variables. An indirect effect refers to sequence or relationships
with at least one intervening construct involved. In other words,
a sequence of two or more directs effects can be represented visually by multiple arrows between constructs (Hair et al., 2006).
While morality leadership has only an indirect effect, the other
two antecedents have both direct and indirect ones.
5. Discussion
This study considers three factors (i.e., organizational, group,
and individual) to observe their predictive powers with regard to
383
C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
Table 4
Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s a values and inter-factor correlations among latent constructs.
Constructs
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
SMS practices
Morality leadership
Self-efficacy
Safety motivation
Safety compliance
Safety participation
4.99
4.65
5.33
6.24
6.24
5.47
1.07
1.35
0.77
0.75
0.72
1.08
(.95)
0.54**
0.43**
0.33**
0.41**
0.51**
(.95)
0.21**
0.22**
0.27**
0.32**
(.86)
0.36**
0.50**
0.39**
(.90)
0.74**
0.40**
(.91)
0.53**
(.84)
Figures shown in the parentheses indicate the Cronbach’s a values of constructs.
p < 0.001.
**
Table 5
Discriminant validity.
Constructs
SMS
ML
SE
MO
SC
SP
SMS
ML
SE
MO
SC
SP
0.89
0.54**
0.43**
0.33**
0.41**
0.51**
0.89
0.20**
0.22**
0.27**
0.32**
0.36**
0.50**
0.39**
0.87
0.75**
0.40**
0.88
0.53**
0.80
SMS, Safety Management System; ML, Morality Leadership; SE, Self-efficacy; MO,
Safety Motivation; SC, Safety Compliance; SP, Safety Participation. Square root of
average variance extracted (AVE) is shown on the diagonal of the matrix.
**
Denotes p < 0.01.
0.39**
Perceived SMS
Practice
0.13*
0.24 *
Safety
Compliance
0.01
0.70 **
Morality
Leadership
Safety
Motivation
0.25 *
0.28**
0.04
0.25 *
Selfefficacy
Safety
Participation
0.14 *
0.21*
Fig. 2. Estimated model. Note: Path estimates are standardized coefficients.
p < .05. p < .01.
pilots’ safety behaviors. The results demonstrated that these
behaviors are influenced by organizational, group and individual
aspects factors simultaneously. The mediating role of safety motivation is confirmed based on the empirical data.
Pilots’ positive perceptions of their airlines’ SMS practices have
significant and positive effects on their safety motivation, compliance and participation. This result implies that if airlines devote
more efforts to executing an SMS program, pilots are more likely
to acknowledge the advantages which an SMS may have with regard to enhancing the entire organization’s safety perceptions
and operations, and thus work even harder to meet their job
requirements, and have more initiatives with regard to participating in the related programs to promote safety. In fact, the organizational indicator (i.e., perceived SMS practices) has more
predictive power with regard to pilots’ safety participation than
the group and individual predictors examined in the current study,
as it has the largest total effect. It may be assumed that the determination of airlines executives to improve safety needs to be
embodied in the company’s operations, as this can then convey
to all staff the importance that top managers place on this issue
(Hsu et al., 2010). Since it is essential to develop proactive safety
measures to identify safety issues in the airline industry, especially
regarding to monitoring human-related safety factors (Chang and
Yeh, 2004), an SMS should be adopted due to its significant effects
on pilots’ safety behaviors.
As for the group-aspect indicator, the results did not show that
morality leadership has a significant direct effect on pilots’ safety
behaviors, although the causal relationship was positive. This finding thus does not reconfirm the strong causality between leadership and employees’ safety behaviors, which previous research
observed (e.g., Clarke and Ward, 2006; Yang et al., 2009). However,
the conceptual model used in this work also proposed that safety
motivation mediates the relationships among the selected predictors and pilots’ safety behaviors. The statistical data verifies that
safety motivation completely mediates the hypothesized links
from morality leadership to pilots’ safety compliance and safety
participation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the present
study represents the first attempt to investigate how managers’
morality leadership may influence pilots’ safety behaviors. The results provide empirical evidence which indicates that fleet managers’ morality leadership will enhance pilots’ safety motivation,
which has significant predictive power with regard to their safety
behaviors.
A number of reasons may explain these findings. Pilots are
widely-recognized as highly professional crew members, and their
behavior follows their training. With a high level of morality leadership carried out by the fleet manager, pilots may be motivated to
Table 6
Direct, indirect, and total effects of safety compliance and safety participation.
Path
Direct effect
Indirect effect
Total effect
SMS practices ? safety compliance
SMS practices ? safety participation
Morality leadership ? safety compliance
Morality leadership ? safety participation
Self-efficacy ? safety compliance
Self-efficacy ? safety participation
0.13
0.39
–
–
0.21
0.14
0.17
0.07
0.18
0.07
0.18
0.07
0.30
0.46
0.18
0.07
0.39
0.21
Note: The total effect of one construct on another is the sum of the direct effect and indirect relationships between them.
The indirect effect is computed by multiplying the direct effects by each other. e.g. The indirect effect of morality leadership ? safety participation is computed as
0.25 0.28 = 0.07.
384
C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
exert greater efforts in their work, although this may not directly
translate into actions. In addition, pilots work with other cockpit
crew members in their regular duty hours, sharing information
and learning from each other rather than following a single manager. The typical relationship between managers and subordinates
may thus not entirely apply to a fleet manager and their pilots.
Therefore the influence of leadership on pilots’ behaviors may need
to be interpreted from different perspectives.
In terms of the effects which self-efficacy has on pilots’ safety
motivation and behaviors, all the path coefficients in this work
were significant, as hypothesized. Pilots with higher self-efficacy
were more motivated to perform safety behaviors, and similar results were found in prior research, which showed that self-efficacy positively influences organizational behaviors (e.g., Prinzel,
2002). As indicated by Bandura (1997a,b), a high level of self-efficacy is linked to superior performance, and thus it is essential for
airlines to recognize the positive effects which self-efficacy may
generate. Although self-efficacy is often seen as part of an individual’s inherent character, it can be fostered by appropriate
training (Gist et al., 1989). Offering training programs constructed with the aid of psychology experts is thus one way to
increase pilots’ self-efficacy. Earlier research revealed that when
people accomplish a goal, their self-efficacy increases, which
may lead to the setting of new, more challenging goals (Bandura
and Cervone, 1983), and management techniques should be applied to exploit this. For example, breaking goals into manageable
steps and establishing a reward system to encourage progressive
improvements in performance are expected to have a positive effect on the perceived self-efficacy of pilots.
by analyzing the quantitative data collected from self-administrated questionnaires filled out by pilots, and thus the common
method bias may exist. Third, applying single antecedents to
examine the organizational, group and individual predictors is
used as the primary approach to building the integrated model,
and the moderate values of the path coefficients obtained in this
work suggest a limitation to the proposed model. In addition, the
insignificant relationship found between morality leadership and
pilots’ safety behaviors still requires further examination to obtain
a more complete understanding of this phenomenon.
These limitations also present some directions for future studies. Future research may apply the proposed conceptual model to
examine the hypothesized relationships in other airline professional crews (e.g., maintenance crew) to expand its application.
Furthermore, future research could work to develop a more comprehensive model with multiple factors representing various other
predictive indicators. In addition, future empirical research of pilots’ safety behaviors may try to apply a longitudinal research design to observe how the predictive powers of the various
antecedents change over time. Last but not least, a cross-level
investigation may provide more thorough insights into how organizational, group and individual predictors may have an interacting influence on pilots’ safety behaviors.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the National Science Council, Taiwan, for financial support (NSC 101-2410-H-156-003), and to the
two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this
paper.
6. Conclusion
References
The current study examines the causal relationship between pilots’ safety motivation, safety behaviors and pilots’ perceptions of
individual, group and organizational indicators. While pilots’ perceptions of their airlines SMS practices serve as the organizationaspect predictor, morality leadership and pilots’ perceived self-efficacy are used as the group and individual aspects antecedents,
respectively. The results show that perceptions of airlines SMS
practices play an essential role in motivating pilots to perform
safety behaviors. In addition, the higher the perceived self-efficacy
of pilots’ is, the stronger the safety motivation they have, and these
perceptions directly lead to improved safety behaviors. Safety
motivation is found to fully mediate the relationship between fleet
managers’ morality leadership and pilots’ safety behaviors. The
partial mediating effects that safety motivation has on the causal
links among pilots’ perceptions of their airlines’ SMS practices,
self-efficacy and pilots’ safety behaviors have also been confirmed.
The conceptual model proposed in the current paper is regarded
the primary attempt to explore the causality that exists among
organizational, group and individual indicators and commercial
airlines pilots’ safety behaviors simultaneously. The direct effects
which safety motivation has on pilots’ safety compliance and
safety participation have also not been reported in previous research. The findings of this work, that morality leadership only
has an indirect effect on pilots’ safety behaviors, and that this relationship is completely mediated by pilots’ safety motivation, has a
number of academic and practical implications, as noted above.
Despite the strengths of this work, several limitations should be
considered. First, although the collected samples’ representativeness has been confirmed by the results of the non- response bias
test, a larger sample size with higher response rate would be preferable. Second, due to the limited access with regard to obtaining
cross-level data and objective evaluation results of pilots’ safety
behavior performance, the research results are mainly obtained
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1997. Estimating non-response bias in mail survey.
Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3), 396–402.
Aviation Safety Council (ASC), Taiwan, 2011. Taiwan flight safety 200-2009. .
Self-efficacy In Changing Societies. Cambridge University Press, NY.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 76–94.
Bandura, A., 1997a. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, NY.
Bandura, A., 1997b. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review 84 (2), 191–215.
Bandura, A., Cervone, D., 1983. Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms
governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 45, 1017–1028.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., Kelloway, E.K., 2002. Development and test of a model
linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety.
Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3), 488–496.
Bill, D.T., 2003. Contributing Influences on an Individual’s Attitude Towards
a New Technology in the Workplace. Liquid Knowledge Group Ltd., .
Boeing Airplane Company, 2006. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane
Accident 1996–2005. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, WA.
Chang, Y.H., Yeh, C.H., 2004. A new airline safety index. Transportation Research B
38, 369–383.
Chen, C.F., Chen, S.C., 2011. Perception gaps in the execution of safety management
system – a case study of the airline industry. In: Presented at the EASTS
Conference, Jeju.
Chen, C.F., Chen, S.C., 2012. Scale development of Safety Management System
evaluation for the airline industry. Accident Analysis and Prevention 47, 177–
181.
Chen, X.P., Eberly, M.B., Chiang, T.J., Farh, J.L., Cheng, B.S., 2011. Affective trust in
Chinese leaders: linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance.
Journal of Management, 10.1177/0149206311410604.
Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F., Farh, J.L., 2000. A triad model of paternalistic leadership: its
constructs and measurement. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese
Societies 14, 3–64.
Cheng, B.S., Shieh, P.Y., Chou, L.F., 2002. The principal’s leadership, leader-member
exchange quality, and the teacher’s extra-role behavior: the effects of
transformational and paternalistic leadership. Indigenous Psychological
Research in Chinese Societies 17, 105–161.
Clarke, S.G., Cooper, C.L., 2004. Managing the Risk of Workplace Stress: Health and
Safety Hazards. Routledge, London/New York.
C.-F. Chen, S.-C. Chen / Safety Science 62 (2014) 376–385
Clarke, S., Ward, K., 2006. The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in
engaging employees’ safety participation. Risk Analysis 26 (5), 1175–1185.
Clarke, L.W., Hane, C.A., Johnson, E.L., Nemhauser, G.L., 1996. Maintenance and crew
considerations in fleet assignment. Transportation Science 30 (3), 249–260.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A., 2007. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust
propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking
and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 909–927.
Conchie, S.M., Donald, I.J., Taylor, P.J., 2006. Trust: missing piece(s) in the safety
puzzle. Risk Analysis 26 (5), 1097–1104.
Cooper, M.D., Phillips, R.A., 2004. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and
safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research 35, 497–512.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2006. Introduction to Safety Management
Systems for Air Operators. No.: AC 120-92.
Fogarty, G.J., Shaw, A., 2010. Safety climate and the theory of planned behavior:
towards the prediction of unsafe behavior. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42
(5), 1455–1459.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable
variable and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research 18 (3), 382–388.
Galotti, K.M., Ciner, E., Altenbaumer, H.A., Geerts, H.J., Rupps, A., Woulfe, J.M., 2006.
Making a ‘‘major’’ life-frame decision: individual differences in performance
and affective reactions. Personality and Individual Differences 41, 629–639.
Garland, H., Weinberg, R., Bruya, L., Jackson, A., 1988. Self efficacy and endurance
performance: a longitudinal field test of cognitive mediation theory. Applied
Psychology: An International Review 37, 381–394.
Gist, M.E., Schwoerer, C., Rosen, B., 1989. Effects of alternative training methods on
self-efficacy and performance in computer training. Journal of Applied
Psychology 74, 884–891.
Goodman, S.N., 1999. Toward evidence-based medical statistics: the P value fallacy.
Annals of Internal Medicine 130, 995–1004.
Graham, S., Weiner, B., 1995. Theories and principles of motivation. In: Berliner,
D.C., Calfe, R.C. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. Simon & Schuster
Macmillan, NY.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., 2000. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking
safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology 5 (3), 347–358.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2006. Multivariate
Data Analysis, sixth ed. Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Hoffman, K., Kunze, R., 1971. Characteristic Values in Linear Algebra, second ed.
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
Hofmann, D.A., Morgeson, F.P., 1999. Safety-related behavior as social exchange: the
role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal
of Applied Psychology 84 (2), 286–296.
Hsu, Y.L., Li, W.C., Chen, K.W., 2010. Structuring critical success factors of airline
safety management system using a hybrid model. Transportation Research Part
E 46, 222–235.
Hunter, D.R., 2005. Measurement of hazardous attitudes among pilots. The
International Journal of Aviation Psychology 15 (1), 23–43.
Iacobucci, D., Churchill, G.A., 2010. Marketing Research: Methodological
Foundation, 10th ed. The Dryden Press, New York.
Ji, M., You, X., Lan, J., Yang, S., 2011. The impact of risk tolerance, risk perception and
hazardous attitude on safety operation among airline pilots in China. Safety
Science 49, 1412–1420.
Jong, J.P.J., Hartog, D.N.D., 2007. How leaders influence employees’ innovative
behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management 10 (1), 41–64.
Joreskog, K., Sorbom, D., 2001. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. Scientific Software
International Inc., Chicago.
Kelloway, E.K., Mullen, J., Francis, L., 2006. Divergent effects of transformational and
passive leadership on employee safety. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology 11 (1), 76–86.
Kline, R.B., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford
Press, New York.
Lefton, L., Brannon, L., 2002. Psychology. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Lewis, C., 2008. A brief overview of Safety Management Systems (SMS). Flight Safety
Information Journal.
Liou, J.H., Chuang, M.L., 2010. Evaluating corporate image and reputation using
fuzzy MCDM approach in airline market. Quality & Quantity 44 (6), 1079–
1091.
Loukopoulos, D., Dismukes, R.K., Barshi, I., 2003. Concurrent task demands in the
cockpit: challenges and vulnerabilities in routine flight operations. In: 12th
International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 1–6.
Miller, K.A., 1988. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Contemporary Sociology 17 (2), 253–253.
Molesworth, B., Wiggins, M., O’Hare, D., 2006. Improving pilots’ risk assessment
skills in low-flying operations: the role of feedback and experience. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 38, 954–960.
385
Musson, D.M., Sandal, G.M., Helmreich, R.L., 2004. Personality characteristics and
trait clusters in final stage astronautselection. Aviation Space and
Environmental Medicine 75 (4), 342–349.
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., 2006. A study of the lagged relationships among safety
climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and
group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (4), 946–953.
Nicholas, J.S., Butler, G.C., Lackland, D.T., Tessier, G.S., Mohr, L.C., Hoel, D.G., 2001.
Health among commercial airline pilots. Aviation, Space, & Environmental
Medicine 72, 821–826.
Niu, C.P., Wang, A.C., Cheng, B.S., 2009. Effectiveness of a moral and benevolent
leader: probing the interactions of the dimensions of paternalistic leadership.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology 12 (1), 32–39.
Nnunally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, NY.
O’Hare, D., Smitheram, T., 1995. ‘‘Pressing on’’ into deteriorating conditions: an
application of behavioral decision theory to pilot decision making. International
Journal of Aviation Psychology 5, 351–370.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., Singh, I.L., 1993. Performance consequences of
automation-induced ‘‘complacency’’. International Journal of Aviation
Psychology 3 (1), 1–23.
Pauley, K., O’Hare, D., Wiggins, M., 2008. Risk tolerance and pilot involvement in
hazardous events and flight into adverse weather. Journal of Safety Research 39
(4), 403–411.
Pellegrini, E.K., Scandura, T.A., 2008. Paternalistic leadership: a review and agenda
for future research. Journal of Management 34 (3), 566–593.
Prinzel, L.J., 2002. The relationship of self-efficacy and complacency in pilotautomation, interaction. NASA/TM-2002-211925.
Prinzel, L.J., Pope, A.T., Freeman, F.G., 1999. The double-edged sword of self-efficacy:
implications in automation-induced complacency. In: Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting. Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society, San Diego, CA, p. 434.
Probst, T.M., Brubaker, T.L., 2001. The effect of job insecurity on employee safety
outcomes: cross sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology 6, 139–159.
Raju, N.S., Brand, P.A., 2003. Determining the significance of correlations corrected
for unreliability and range restriction. Applied Psychological Measurement 27,
52–71.
Remawi, H., Bates, P., Dix, I., 2011. The relationship between the implementation of
a safety management system and the attitudes of employees towards unsafe
acts in aviation. Safety Science 49, 625–632.
Robbins, S.P., 2001. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and
Applications, ninth ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Schunk, D.H., Pajares, F., 2001. The development of academic self-efficacy. In:
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation.
American Press, San Diego.
Schwarzer, R., Jerusalem, M., 1995. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman, J.,
Wright, S., Johnston, M. (Eds.), Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s
Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs. NFER-NELSON, Windsor, UK, pp. 35–37.
Segars, A., 1997. Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: a paradigm and
illustration within the context of information systems research. OmegaInternational Journal of Management Science 25 (1), 107–121.
Transport Canada, 2008. Guidance on Safety Management Systems development.
No.: AC 107-001.
Treviño, L.K., Brown, M.E., Hartman, L.P., 2003. A qualitative investigation of
perceived executive ethical leadership: perceptions from inside and outside the
executive suite. Human Relations 56, 5–37.
United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (UKCAA), 2002. Safety Management
Systems for commercial air transport operations. No.: CAP 712.
Wells, A.T., 1997. Commercial Aviation Safety. McGraw-Hill, NY.
Wiegmann, D.A., Taneja, N., 2003. Analysis of injuries among pilots involved in
fatal general aviation airplane accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35,
571–577.
Williamson, A.M., Feyer, A.M., Cairns, D., Biancotti, D., 1997. The development of a
measure of safety climate: the role of safety perceptions and attitudes. Safety
Science 25 (1), 15–27.
Yang, C.C., Wang, Y.S., Chang, S.T., Guo, S.E., Huang, M.F., 2009. A study on the leadership
behavior, safety culture, and safety performance of the healthcare industry. World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 53, 1148–1155.
Yukl, G., 2002. Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Zohar, D., 2002. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a
leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (1),
156–163.
Zohar, D., Luria, G., 2003. The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve
safety behavior: a cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety Research 34,
567–577.
Indian J Pediatr (June 2011) 78(6):703–708
DOI 10.1007/s12098-010-0311-y
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Culture, Communication and Safety:
Lessons from the Airline Industry
Lori G. d’Agincourt-Canning & Niranjan Kissoon &
Mona Singal & Alexander F. Pitfield
Received: 24 September 2010 / Accepted: 23 November 2010 / Published online: 17 December 2010
# Dr. K C Chaudhuri Foundation 2010
Abstract
Background Communication is a critical component of
effective teamwork and both are essential elements in
providing high quality of care to patients. Yet, communication is not an innate skill but a process influenced by
internal (personal/cultural values) as well as external
(professional roles and hierarchies) factors.
Objective To provide illustrative cases, themes and tools
for improving communication.
Methods Literature review and consensus opinion based on
extensive experience.
Results Professional autonomy should be de-emphasized.
Tools such as SBAR and simulation are important in
communication and teamwork.
Conclusion Tools designed to improve communication and
safety in the aviation industry may have applicability to the
pediatric intensive care unit.
Keywords Teamwork . Communication . Cultural values .
Medical errors . Safety . Team training
Introduction
In his book “Outliers,” Gladwell [1] presents some
interesting data on “the ethnic theory of plane crashes.”
He states: “the kind of errors tha...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment