职业安全氛围
Zohar, D. · 1980
也被称为: Safety Culture (climate operationalisation)
安全氛围是工作团队成员对于安全在其工作场所实际受到重视程度所持有的一系列共享感知——这种感知并非源自书面政策,而是源自当安全与生产发生冲突时管理层的实际做法。该构念的核心洞见在于,员工解读的是被付诸实践的优先事项,而非宣称的优先事项,并会根据自己观察到的、受到奖励和容忍的行为来校准自身的行为。佐哈尔后来区分了由高层政策设定的组织层面氛围与由直属主管设定的群体层面氛围,并表明二者在同一家公司内部可能存在显著差异。
该理论认为,工作团队成员对于安全在其工作场所实际受到的重视、处理和优先排序方式——无论是来自管理层还是工作团队自身——持有共享的感知,而这些共享感知能够超越正式政策,预测安全行为和事故发生率。氛围被测量为对当前实践的感知,而非态度或自评行为。
- 来源:
- Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96-102.
参加基于此理论的经过验证的测试
阅读关於某个构念的资料能让您了解它是什麼,而经验证的测验工具则能让您了解自己在其中的位置。免费作答,幾分鐘內即可獲得结果。
证据概览
- 实证支持
- 强证据支持
- 重复验证
- 已充分重复验证
- 跨文化性
- 大致具普遍性
- 綜合分析(统合分析)
- 已收录 12 项
这些评等总结了关於该理論已发表的文獻,而非以此理論建构的任何单一测验的品质。它们是根据下方所列来源所作的編輯判斷,並會隨著证据累积而變化。
历史背景
佐哈尔(Zohar)于1980年通过对以色列产业工人的调查提出了安全氛围这一概念,表明对管理层安全承诺的感知能够区分事故记录不同的工厂。这一构念在20世纪80年代重大工业灾难发生后变得更加迫切,当时的调查一再发现事故的根源在于组织因素而非技术因素。佐哈尔和卢里亚(Luria)2005年提出的多层次模型将组织层面和群体层面的区分正式化。安全氛围如今是少数几个拥有大量证据基础、能够将调查测量与客观伤害结局联系起来的组织构念之一。
构念
管理层安全优先、承诺与能力
The workgroup's shared perception of whether management genuinely prioritizes safety when it competes with production pressure, is committed to it, and handles it competently (Kines et al., 2011). It reads the collision, not the policy: what management rewards when safety costs something. Low scores contaminate the other dimensions, because workers calibrate to what management actually prioritizes rather than to what it posts.
管理层安全赋权
The workgroup's shared perception of whether management empowers and involves workers in safety — consulting the people closest to the risk, trusting their judgment, and backing them when they exercise it (Kines et al., 2011). High empowerment goes with rules that fit the work; low empowerment goes with rules made at a distance and quietly renegotiated on the floor.
管理层安全公正
The workgroup's shared perception of whether incidents are investigated to find causes rather than culprits, and whether people are treated fairly when they report (Kines et al., 2011). This dimension governs the upward flow of bad news: where justice is perceived as low, incidents do not stop happening — they stop being reported, and the organization loses its early-warning system.
员工安全承诺
The workgroup's shared perception of its own commitment to safety — whether workers treat safety as their own responsibility, help each other work safely, and take initiative, rather than leaving safety to rules and inspectors (Kines et al., 2011). It is the dimension most shaped by group history and by what the group visibly tolerates.
员工安全优先与风险不接受度
The workgroup's shared perception of whether safety outranks getting the job done fast — whether hazards are treated as unacceptable or as a normal cost of the work, and risk-taking as competence (Kines et al., 2011). High scores describe a group that does not accept risk-taking; low scores describe normalized risk, which rarely announces itself.
安全沟通、学习与对同事安全能力的信任
The workgroup's shared perception of whether safety knowledge actually circulates — risks discussed when they appear, help exchanged, lessons drawn from what goes wrong, and co-workers' safety competence taken seriously (Kines et al., 2011). It is the mechanism dimension of the workgroup side: commitment supplies the will, communication turns it into shared practice.
员工对安全系统有效性的信任
The workgroup's shared perception that the safety systems — training, safety representatives, safety rounds, early planning of safety — actually work (Kines et al., 2011). High trust means the systems are used and participated in; low trust means they run as theatre, fully staffed and quietly ignored.
工具
- 北欧安全氛围问卷(NOSACQ-50)Kines, Lappalainen, Mikkelsen, Olsen, Pousette, Tharaldsen, Tómasson & Törner2011
基于此理论的测试
实际应用
安全氛围得分是伤害发生率的领先指标,能够预测未来的事故,而事故统计数据仅能记录过去发生的事情——这也是高危行业的监管机构和保险公司使用这些指标进行监测的原因。其在群体层面的发现具有直接的可操作性:由于是主管创造了群体氛围,针对主管的干预措施比政策修订更能快速改变氛围,针对主管安全沟通的对照研究显示出伤害发生率的降低。汇总后的调查结果也被用于识别哪些单位偏离了既定的组织优先事项。
如何测量
采用自评李克特感知条目进行测量,汇总至工作团队或组织层面;其效度取决于是否证明了组内一致性,得分则被解读为对照行业基准的领先指标。
批评与局限
目前尚无公认的维度结构:已发表的测量工具从单因素到九因素解决方案不等,这严重限制了跨研究和跨行业的可比性。安全氛围在概念上与安全文化非常接近,尽管二者所指代的内容不同,但在许多应用文献中这两个术语被交替使用。将个体感知汇总到群体层面需要证明组内一致性,而许多研究并未报告这一点。其对伤害事故的预测效度虽然真实存在,但在绝对数值上较为有限,而伤害数据本身也是不可靠的结局指标,因为报告本身就受到所测量氛围的影响。
重要文献
- Zohar, D.. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. 10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96
- Zohar, D. & Luria, G.. (2005). A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.616
- Beus, J. M., Payne, S. C., Bergman, M. E. & Arthur, W.. (2010). Safety climate and injuries: An examination of theoretical and empirical relationships. 10.1037/a0019164