AN ANALYSIS OF ARRIVA’S FINE POLICY
WHICH FACTORS INFLUENCE THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE
FINE POLICY AS EXECUTED BY THE STEWARDS OF ARRIVA?
Master Thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
February, 2011
ELISE KOSTER
Student number: 1718304
Merkelstrjitte 32
8625 HZ Oppenhuizen
Tel.: +31 (0)641898545
e-mail: e.t.koster@student.rug.nl
Supervisors University
Drs. J. van Polen & Dr. P.H. van der Meer
Supervisor field of study
D. Deelstra
Arriva Nederland, Leeuwarden
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 2
AN ANALYSIS OF ARRIVA’S FINE POLICY
WHICH FACTORS INFLUENCE THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE
FINE POLICY AS EXECUTED BY THE STEWARDS OF ARRIVA?
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to provide an answer to the main research question: “Why are
several stewards acting inconsistently and how can improvements be made, in order to achieve a decrease in violence and aggression incidents?”Based on literature, this research focuses on three variables, namely safety performance, safety behavior and safety climate, to explain the reasons for an inconsistent execution of Arriva‟s fine policy by stewards. The results of this research should lead to a better understanding of why stewards act inconsistently with regard to Arriva‟s fine policy. This research is performed with the aid of a literature review, company documentation and by conducting semi-structured interviews with stewards and their supervisors at the department of Arriva Train. Results show that the inconsistency of stewards with regard to the fine policy is caused by the fact that stewards interpreted the fine policy in their own way and thereby adopt their own working method. This causes annoyance and confusion to the stewards, as well as among the travellers. The findings suggest that the supervisors‟ communication and support are of particular importance for the stewards in enhancing safety performance in their work.
Keywords: Violence and aggression incidents, public transport, fine policy, safety
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 3
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ... 2 TABLE OF CONTENT ... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ... 4 2. THEORY ... 7 2.1 Safety ... 8 2.2 Safety performance ... 8 2.3 Safety behavior ... 9 2.4 Safety climate ... 11 3. RESEARCH METHODS ... 14 3.1 Procedure ... 14 3.1.1 Semi-structured interviews ... 14 3.2 Participants ... 15 3.3 Measurements ... 16 3.4 Data Analysis ... 17 4. RESULTS ... 174.1 Factors influencing the inconsistency of the stewards ... 17
4.1.1 Safety climate ... 18 4.1.2 Safety behavior ... 21 4.1.3 Safety performance ... 22 5. DISCUSSION ... 24 5.1 Discussion of results ... 24 5.2 Practical implications ... 26 5.3 Limitations ... 29 5.4 Future research ... 30 REFERENCES ... 32 APPENDIX 1 ... 40
Interview questions Supervisors ... 40
APPENDIX 2 ... 42
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 4
1. INTRODUCTION
Violence against workers in the public sector is a growing problem (Essenberg, 2003). Employees with a public task like bus drivers, stewards, ambulance staff and employees of social services are nowadays confronted with aggression and violence by citizens (Kemper & de Ruig, 2009).
Violence at work can be defined as incidents where employees are threatened, assaulted and abused or are subject to other offensive behaviors in circumstances related to their work. Violence represents both physical and non-physical violence. Examples are physical assault, homicide, verbal abuse, bullying/mobbing, sexual and racial harassment, threats and mental stress (Essenberg, 2003; Peek-Asa, 2001).
The public transport sector is part of the public sector in which employees are confronted with aggression and violence during their work. The term used to describe violence and aggression incidents in the public transport sector, is called social safety. Safety in general is the leading value of every public transport company, not only for its passengers but also for its employees. According to a report of the Kennisplatform Verkeer en Vervoer (2008) (hereafter KpVV), at least 69% of all bus and train personnel in The Netherlands have become victim of several forms of violence in 2008. This represents an increase of four percent in comparison to the year 2006. Moreover, the main reasons indentified as the triggers and causes of passenger violence were alcohol consumption, delays, lack of information provided to passengers during delays, inspections on a valid ticket, the lack of surveillance on trains and failure to meet passenger expectations. These are all likely to incite anger and frustration among the public and increase the risk of aggression (Boyd, 2002; Chappell & Di Martino, 2006; Essenberg, 2003).
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 5 when an organization is associated with violence and aggression in the media. The organization could lose its reputation as an honest and trustworthy institution and as a result customers may decide to choose another organization and employees could choose another job. Furthermore, aggression has a negative influence on the psychosocial labor climate of the organization (Parent-Thirion, Fernandez Macias, Hurley & Vermeylen, 2007).
This research paper performs an investigation on safety for Arriva Train. Arriva Train is part of Arriva Netherlands. It is a public transport company that operates throughout several regions within the Netherlands. This paper focuses on the stewards. The stewards, as so-called „frontliners‟, have contact with passengers quite frequently. They ensure that thousands of travellers arrive safely at their destination. The main tasks of the stewards includes providing information to passengers and the supervision of the social safety of the travelling public, the inspection of tickets as well as the prevention of vandalism and violent behavior (Essenberg, 2003). Like other public transportation companies, Arriva also has noticed the increase in aggression against their own personnel. Among stewards, interaction with members of the general public who has been drinking, has become frustrated as a result of waiting or travel without a ticket (fare-dodging), put them at a heightened risk of abuse (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006; Essenberg, 2003). Therefore, a special integral safety department has been developed in 2005, which handles this kind of issues. Every year, Arriva questions its personnel on social safety related issues. These results show that in 2008, 59% of Arriva‟s employees were in some way victim of aggression and violence incidents compared to 52% the year before (AGV-Movares, 2009). Furthermore, almost a doubling of the amount of incidents against Arriva‟s employees can be noticed, from 33% in 2005 to 59% in 2008 (a relative increase of 79%), over the past four years (AGV-Movares, 2009). Incidents may vary from infringement upon the house rules to physical violence, like hitting, spewing and threatening (AGV-Movares, 2009).
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 6 The steward him/herself can make a crucial contribution to aggravate or neutralise a strained situation with the traveller. The problem at Arriva Train is that stewards interpret differently the rules for applying fines. The general rule is that all train passengers that do not possess a valid ticket, get a fine of €35,-. Of course, on top of that, a ticket must be purchased. Not all stewards comply with this policy. It frequently happens that a steward gives a fine to a traveller according to the fine policy where another steward will not give a fine. This will result in less income for Arriva and lower safety for its personnel. The stewards who ignore the rules of the fine policy are therefore inconsistent in the execution of the fine policy. These so-called “inconsistent stewards” are more lenient than the others, which leads to differences in behavior and approach of the fine policy by stewards. Arriva wants to put a halt to this arbitrariness and demands that each steward executes the fine policy consistently. A steward who executes the fine policy consistently has almost never problems with travellers and their own safety (Essenberg, 2003). However, the stewards who are acting inconsistently regarding the fine policy provide problems for the other stewards, stated Kemper & de Ruig (2009). In addition, by giving no fine, the behavior of the passenger will be rewarded. This will increase the probability that the passenger will not buy a valid ticket the next time when the passenger will travel by train. This passenger will probably behave more aggressive the next time when the passenger gets a fine of a consistent steward, because the last time when the passenger travelled he/she got no fine from the (inconsistent) steward. The fact that some stewards are too lenient causes confusion among both the stewards and the passengers and causes aggression. In addition, just 20 percent of the stewards conduct the fine policy of writing out a fine in case of having no ticket consistently, according to the statistics of Arriva. How come? Why does not every steward fulfils this part of the fine policy consistently? Is it due to the way in which stewards behave or is it due to the fine policy or the organization? And, how can this rate of 20 percent be raised?
The main aim of this research is to help Arriva Train find a way to ensure that every steward conducts the fine policy so that the level of social safety of its personnel and indirectly also of its travellers will increase. In order to conduct this research the following research question will be central:
“Why are several stewards acting inconsistently and how can improvements be made, in order to achieve a decrease in violence and aggression incidents?”
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 7 safety climate will be outlined. Also, the relationship between these variables will be described. The way the research is conducted is explained in the method section. After that the results of the research will be presented and these will be followed by a discussion section which will, among others, consist of recommendations for Arriva Train.
2. THEORY
In public transport companies as well as in other organizations in which safety issues are important, the question arises how to manage safety. Many factors contribute to workplace safety (Ford & Tetrick, 2008). One of those factors is the elimination of work hazards (Smith, Karsh, Carayon & Conway, 2003 as cited by Ford & Tetrick, 2008). However, in certain organizations the elimination of hazards is not as easy as in other organizations (Ford & Tetrick, 2008). Public transport is such an example, especially with regard to violence and aggression incidents. The traveller who offends (which in this case are the hazards) cannot be controlled. Therefore, the importance of focusing on educating employees, acting consistently, and making them behave safely is very important.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 8
2.1 Safety
Safety implies the creation of a feeling of security and freedom from danger (Larson, 2010). “The ultimate level of safety would be a situation without any risk of violence and aggression incidents. In reality, this is impossible because a widespread set of dangers cannot be avoided completely. So, safety generally refers to the level of danger that is socially acceptable in a real-life situation, taking into account other factors such as efficiency, cost, liberty and comfort” (European Commission, 2008: 14). This means that for the public transport safety, risk arises when human beings are exposed to any part of the transport system (European Commision, 2008:14). Violence and aggression incidents are part of the safety definition in the public transport sector (KpVV, 2008). Safety related to the public transport is called social safety and it consist of objective safety, measured in the number of incidents that occurred, and subjective safety, related to feelings of being unsafe, even when there is no crime or annoyance (KpVV, 2008). Therefore, safety related issues to public transport are a complex occurrence and further investigation is needed to find out what elements are important to take into consideration here.
2.2 Safety performance
Safety performance is defined as “the extent to which an individual performs behavior that increases the safety of the individual and organization and avoids behavior that decreases safety of oneself and the organization as a whole” (Ford & Tetrick, 2008: 1473). Griffin and Neal (2000) make a distinction between safety compliance and safety participation. Safety compliance refers to the core activities that individuals need to carry out to maintain workplace safety. These include the rule-following in the performance of job responsibilities (Neal & Griffin, 2006: 946). Safety participation describes the performance that does not directly contribute to an individual‟s personal safety but that does help to develop an environment that enhances the safety of the organization (Neal & Griffin, 2006, Ford & Tetrick, 2008). These include activities such as participating in voluntary safety activities, helping coworkers with safety related issues, and attending safety meetings (Neal & Griffin, 2006).
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 9 & Griffin, 2004 as cited by Cristian, Bradley, Wallace & Burke, 2009). Therefore, safety performance behaviors and safety outcomes are distinctive from each other. Safety outcomes are tangible events or results, such as accidents, injuries or fatalities and safety performance behaviors are less tangible and more difficult to measure (Cristian et al., 2009). The concept of safety performance can be related to objective safety because it referred to the amount of incidents that occur. The concept of subjective safety relates to feelings of being unsafe. Because this research is about minimizing the amount of incidents, the focus of this research will be on objective safety instead of subjective safety.
In order to enhance safety performance, one needs to know how to perform safely. It can therefore be expected that safety knowledge would have a strong relationship with safety performance because safety knowledge is a direct determinant of performance behaviors (Cristian et al., 2009: 1104). “In short, knowing how to perform safely (handling emergency procedures) is a precondition to enacting safe behaviors” (Christian et al, 2009: 1104). Also, another item that is strongly related to safety performance is safety motivation. Safety motivation reflects “an individual‟s willingness to exert effort to enact safety behaviors and the valence associated with those behaviors” (Neal & Griffin, 2006: 947 as cited by Christian et al, 2009: 1105). So, individuals should be motivated to comply with safe working practices and to participate in safety activities (Neal & Griffin, 2006).
2.3 Safety behavior
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 10 According to Ford & Tetrick (2008) “Human behavior at some level plays a role in the vast majority of workplace injuries and incidents. This can include risky behavior and signal detection failures, as well as a lack of proactive and collective safety behaviors that focus on changing the work environment to increase safety” (:1472). Employees with a public function have an important role in the prevention and tackling of aggression and violence incidents in the public transport sector (Min. BZK, 2009). The way a customer is treated by both the organization as well as the employee can contribute to the prevention of aggression and violence incidents (Min. BZK, 2008:13). The main point of the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations is that employees should contribute actively to their own safety and those of others, what can be expected of them and that they do not exploit situations which will unnecessarily escalate (Min. BZK, 2008).
It is important to know the reasons why people behave more safely in certain situations and more unsafely in others. While trying to answer this question, Andriessen (1978) suggested that “someone will act unsafely when he does not know what a safe way is, and/or when he is not able to do it more safely and/or when he is not motivated to do it safely” (:364). With the object of to cover these arguments and to ensure a safe behavior, Campbell et al. (1996) have argued that there are a variety of factors that contribute to a safe behavior, which can generally be distinguished into knowledge, skill and motivational factors (Neal & Griffin, 2002; Ford & Tetrick, 2008). Therefore, if an individual does not possess the sufficient knowledge and skills to comply with safety procedures or participate in safety activities, then he or she will not be capable of performing these activities (Neal & Griffin, 2002). This is also considered for the motivation of an individual. If he or she does not have enough motivation to comply with safety procedures or to participate in safety activities, then the individual will probably not carry out these activities (Neal & Griffin, 2002).
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 11 enhancement of safety performance, which must be an important dimension of any company‟s policy (Ford & Tetrick, 2008).
According to Andriessen (1978) a distinction can be made between behavior in normal work situations and behavior in crisis situations. Behavior is in both cases determined by motivation, knowledge and skills. It is not unconceivable that knowledge and skill decide whether a crisis will end or not. The necessary motivation will no doubt be present. Information, instruction and training in how to act in crisis situations are therefore important. However, in normal work situations work behavior will probably be determined more by motivation because the required knowledge and skills needed, will usually be present as a result of selection and training. Here, it sounds that the worker is completely responsible for his own behavior and therefore for the results of that behavior. However, there are all kind of factors in the work situation which contribute to someone‟s motivation to a certain behavior at a particular moment (Andriessen, 1978: 364).
In addition, Andriessen (1978) identifies two types of safety behavior. These are
carefulness and actions directed toward improving safety conditions. When talking about
carefulness in violence and aggression incidents, we are referring to the extent to which employees (in this case stewards) “comply with safety rules and various organizational factors that may impact on their (safety-related) behavior” (Simard & Marchand, 1997: 172). It has been indicated that a low level of carefulness on behalf of employees generally occurs when employees do not have the knowledge and skills necessary to avoid errors and evade incidents (Tronsmoen, 2010). Actions directed toward improving safety conditions refer to “actions that enhance the safety of an organization trough their impact on the work environment” (Ford & Tetrick, 2008: 1473). However, when hazards cannot be eliminated from the work environment, human behavior can play a critical role in the avoidance of violence and aggression incidents (Ford & Tetrick, 2008).
2.4 Safety climate
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 12 and practices relating to safety” (Barling, Loughlin & Kelloway, 2002; Griffin & Neal, 2000; Zohar, 2003 as cited by Neal & Griffin, 2004: 18). Moran and Volkwein (1992) suggest that climate reflects the attitudes and behaviors of organizational members, which are directly observable (Garavan & Brien: 144) that get rewarded, supported, and expected in a particular organizational setting (Hofmann, Gerras & Morgeson, 2003). These shared perceptions are derived from several factors, including management decision making, organizational safety norms and expectations and safety practices, policies and procedures which together serve to communicate organizational commitment to safety in the workplace (Hahn & Murphy, 2008). Policies and procedures are the guidelines established to ensure safe behavior, and practices are the implementation of the policies and procedures as well as employees‟ perceptions of the importance of safety conduct at the workplace (Zohar & Luhria, 2005 as cited by Kath, Marks & Ranney, 2010). Employee perceptions about safety are important because safety climate has been related to better adherence to safe work behaviors (DeJoy et al., 1995, Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996, Varon & Matilla, 2000 as cited by Hahn & Murphy, 2008) and fewer injuries and incidents (Barling et al., 2002, Cohen, 1977, Dedobbeleer & Beland, 1991, Gillen et al., 2002, Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996, Mearns et al., 2003, Zohar, 1980, Zohar, 2000 as cited by Hahn & Murphy, 2008). Zohar (2000) argued that group safety climate influences safety motivation, as it informs employees of desired role behaviors and thereby shapes the expectancy and valence associated with safe and unsafe behavior (Neal & Griffin, 2006: 947).
Establishment and implementation of safety policies has been conceptualized as one aspect of safety climate (Griffin & Neal, 2002, Zohar, 2000 as cited by Huang, Chen, Krauss & Rogers, 2004) which reflects how organizations implement safety policies, monitor safety procedures and encourage safety practices (Huang, Chen, Krauss & Rogers, 2004).
The safety climate literature has examined the link between safety climate and safety outcomes, such as compliance with safe working practices and incidents (Neal & Griffin, 2006). A poor safety climate produces a decrease in compliance with safety procedures and this causes an increase in injuries and incidents (Neal & Griffin, 2006). Furthermore, Cristian et al (2009) proved empirically the positive relation between safety climate and safety knowledge and motivation, both of which were highly correlated to safety performance. In addition, Seo (2005) found safety climate to be the best predictor of unsafe work behavior.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 13 commitment, HRM practices, safety systems, supervisor support, communication, internal group processes, job risk and work pressure (Christian et al., 2009, Neal & Griffin, 2004). A range of studies have demonstrated that these factors predict safety-related outcomes, such as accidents and injuries (e.g., Zohar, 1980; Brown & Holmes, 1986; Dedobbeleer & Beland, 1991; De Joy, 1994; Niskanen, 1994; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996 as cited by Neal, Griffin & Hart, 2000). Cheyne, Cox, Oliver and Tomas (1998) reported communication as one important component of safety climate. In a study by Mearns et al. (2005) was found that communication played an important role in the way that safety climate predicts safety performance. When there is a culture of open and honest communication employees‟ feeling of safety will rise and safety concerns will be discussed (Parker et al., 2001). Offensive safety information has considerable consequences for organizations and has been shown to lead to poor decision making (Tynan, 2005). Moreover, person-related factors, which also influence safety behavior and safety outcomes, are important factors (Christian et al, 2009). These may include attitudes toward safety, attitudes toward the organization (e.g. commitment), and personality factors (e.g., conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, locus of control) (Neal & Griffin, 2004). In addition, Hansen argued (as cited by Neal & Griffin, 2004) “that individuals with high levels of neuroticism are more distractible than those with low levels. Even, Type A individuals may be more likely than other people to be involved in accidents” (24). Iverson and Erwin (1997) mention that individuals with extremely high levels of extraversion take more risks than other people because they are overconfident, intolerant, and aggressive (Neal & Griffin, 2004: 24).
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 14
3. RESEARCH METHODS
The purpose of this research is to explore information about stewards‟ inconsistency concerning the fine policy and which methods are appropriate to deal with this issue in order to decrease the violence and aggression incidents. This chapter therefore, will explain which research method has been used to study this research question.
3.1 Procedure
As already mentioned, the variables found in the literature have mainly low or no empirical evidence (Christian et al., 2009). To determine the opinion of stakeholders about certain issues, open and exploratory empirical studies, in the form of semi-structured interviews are useful. The use of this form of qualitative research methods connects with existing research in the field of safety (Christian et al., 2009; Cox & Cheyne, 2000; Neal & Griffin; Neal, Griffin & Hart, 2000; Ostrom et al., 1993; Mearns et al., 1997). In addition, this research is about investigating the behaviors, attitudes and experiences of the stewards and not about confirming relationships between chosen variables, which is mostly the case in quantitative research (Boeije, 2005). “The main advantage of qualitative research is that it can provide a richer and deeper understanding of a situation (Chi, 1997:6). In order to answer the research question, one need detailed and in-depth information based on individual experiences, which can be done by talking to the parties involved. Therefore, semi-structured interviews will be used here.
3.1.1 Semi-structured interviews
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 15 interview can be used perfectly for discussing sensitive topics, such as the reasons for acting inconsistently. The questions asked during the interview were all related to safety performance, safety behavior and safety climate and can be found in appendix 1 and 2. It is important to note that all results of the semi-structured interviews are kept anonymous. Since this study investigates why stewards act inconsistently, employees must feel they can tell their story in a confidential environment. As well, notes have been made during the interviews, though these are not personally recognizable. With permission of the interviewees, all interviews have been recorded on tape and transcribed after the interview. This is done as no information will be lost which enabled the participant to control whether his view and arguments were well-interpreted. In fact, this process strengthens the internal validity of the results of the semi-structured interviews (Baarda & de Goede, 2001). In order to increase reliability and generalization, employees from different functions, ages, departments and locations have been selected for the interviews. Interviews have been tested by doing two interviews to check whether there was an ambiguity or confusion in the questions.
3.2 Participants
For maximal benefits of this research, the interviews are hold among the stewards and their supervisors. The goal of the interviews was to investigate if the factors found in the literature actually played a role in the inconsistency of stewards. On account of figures a division has been made for the stewards whom are consistent and inconsistent concerning handling the fine policy. Stewards who write less than 500 fines per year are seen as inconsistent stewards, which is based on Arriva‟s company documents and fine policy. As a result, six consistent and seven inconsistent stewards have been interviewed. The supervisors have been interviewed because they give direction to the stewards and have to deal with them every day. The supervisors will be asked about the reasons for the inconsistency of some stewards concerning the fine policy.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 16 school degree to intermediate vocational education, and were positioned in a managerial function. Furthermore, the duration of the interviews was between 40 and 75 minutes. The interview with the supervisors took less time because this interview consisted of fewer questions.
Both parties, stewards and supervisors, needed to be cooperative in the research in order to capture the complete picture of the problem. In this way of doing research more in depth information on the cause of the problem could be obtained, which would also give the opportunity to come with relevant recommendations in the end.
3.3 Measurements
In order to conduct scientifically sound questionnaires, various scales have been used of known researchers (Lu & Shang, 2005, Zohar & Luhria, 2004, Havold & Nesser, 2009, Diaz & Cabrera, 2007, Cox & Cheyne, 2000, Williamson, 1997, Vredenburgh, 2002, Edmondson, 1999; Zohar,). These scales are used to formulate the interview questions, which are adapted to fit this research by making the questions qualitative. Each variable was assessed by multiple questions. All items were translated to Dutch by the present author. The methods chosen are all based on the following scales:
Safety performance. This measurement was based on the theory of Lu & Shang
(2005), focusing on the amount of incidents at an organization and whether that has changed. It contains of a five-point scale of Lu & Shang (2005) from 1 “totally disagree” to 5 “totally agree”. During the interview, these scales were transformed in questions like,
“Are the amount of violence and aggression incidents decreasing?” and “Would you have influence in reducing the violence and aggression incidents in the train?”
Safety behavior. The eight-item scale of Williamson (1997) has been used here. One
of the statements was “It would help me to work more safely if management listened to my recommendations”. In question form this would be “Do the supervisors listen to you?” if
no, “Would you perform better, when the supervisors would listen to you?”
Safety climate. Safety climate was measured using a 38-item scale based on the work
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 17 In addition to all scales mentioned above, several background variables were included in the semi-structured interview. These variables were gender, age, educational level, the duration of their function, and the amount of working hours on a weekly basis.
3.4 Data Analysis
The qualitative data analysis is based on the grounded theory of Glaser and Straus (Boeije, 2005) and started by analyzing and counting the distribution of answers question by question. “Analyzing data by the grounded theory method is an intricate process of reducing raw data into concepts that are designated to stand for categories. The categories are then developed and integrated into a theory” (Boeije, 2009: 63). In addition, the semi-structured interviews were analyzed using a list of codes based on the literature in the theoretical section. There is a code for every concept that was mentioned in the interview. So, each question was coded and placed in the categories they had a relation with. In this way it was easy to see what questions were related to a certain category and it made it easier to analyze the data and to link it to the literature (Boeije, 2006). The coded data was put in a matrix so as to compare the variables and views that influences the inconsistency of the stewards of Arriva. Based on the data given, a closer look was taken to each answer in order to see if there is a link between the answers of the interviewees and the knowledge from the literature, as mentioned in section two. Also the answers were compared in order to find out similarities and differences. Based on those findings the results section was written.
4. RESULTS
In this chapter the results of the interviews will be elaborated. This section will describe the factors which possibly influence the inconsistency of the stewards with regards to the fine policy and the violence and aggression incidents. The influence of each factor will be described separately, supported by quotes of the stewards and their supervisors.
4.1 Factors influencing the inconsistency of the stewards
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 18 between these variables. Therefore, safety climate is separated into the execution of the fine policy, and communication. Safety behavior is divided into knowledge (training), motivation and skills. In the following paragraphs, these factors will be discussed.
4.1.1 Safety climate
This research adopts two dimensions of safety climate: the execution of the fine policy and communication. These two dimensions are the most important within this research. The execution of the fine policy is defined as working according to the rules described in the fine policy of Arriva. Communication was previously described in the theoretical section and refers to the communication among the stewards and between the supervisors and the stewards about rules, procedures and functioning.
Fine policy. To the question: “To carry out my work I have to work according to the
fine policy”, eight out of thirteen respondents stated that they comply with the fine policy. The other five respondents are not working consistently according to the fine policy, and write fewer fines than the other (consistent) stewards. One inconsistent interviewee said: “I would
like to have the freedom to determine when a customer needs to pay a fine and when not”. An
inconsistent steward said: “I work sometimes inconsistently to keep the situation comfortable
for myself and I am able to judge by myself whether a passenger is reliable or not”. Another
inconsistent steward said: “We are no fine machines and I know that Arriva wants us to give
every offender a fine, but that is against my own feelings”. Some of the stewards feel
themselves so limited in their control and are forced into the straitjacket of issuing fines for all travellers without a valid ticket, regardless of the reasons or excuses that travellers have.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 19
what they were previously familiar to do when working for the NS, and because of that they are less consistent” stated some consistent stewards. Some of these former NS employees
acknowledge that they find it more important to be friendly to the travellers than writing fines. However, they suppose that some consistent stewards are just too strict and do not listen to the travellers at all. According to a supervisor, there are basically two types of stewards: “You
have real hunters who wish to carry out maximum fines. And you have stewards who go for the service. We would like stewards who are in between: stewards who on a friendly but consistent manner can execute the fine policy and do their work”.
Both the stewards and the supervisors recognize that there is a negative atmosphere among the group of stewards. It prevails especially among the stewards in Leeuwarden. In Groningen they have fewer problems with the negative atmosphere among the group of stewards. That is partly because over the past years a number of new stewards have joint into the team of stewards, and that has been beneficial for the atmosphere and the working method of the stewards in Groningen. In contrast, in Leeuwarden there is a strong separation between the new stewards and the stewards who already work longer at Arriva. These are mainly the stewards who worked in the past for the Dutch Railways (NS). Both groups have their own vision and method of executing the fine policy and therefore not all use the same guidelines, at the expense of the work and the relationships between the stewards.
According to three of the four supervisors, the inconsistency of some stewards regarding the fine policy has mainly to do with bad coaching. According to them, stewards receive little attention, are badly accompanied during their work and are not aware of their mistakes. “If you never hold a mirror in front of the stewards, they still do not know what they
are doing wrong”, a supervisor mentioned. Of all stewards, the numbers of fines are kept in
an overview by the direct supervisor. However, these overviews were almost never discussed with the stewards. The direct supervisor acknowledges that he has been too little engaged with the stewards and that more support is needed. Another supervisor indicates in his interview that the inconsistency of some stewards may have got to do with the fact that the stewards have not always been taken seriously, that, in fact, they are a sort of forgotten group. The interviewed stewards also acknowledge this. Unanimously they indicate that they are not always taken seriously and that they are not to be listened to and that no involvement is shown by the supervisors.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 20 better understanding and involvement. “I would like to see the supervisors walk with us, so
they can experience what is happening in the train and why we are not always able to execute the fine policy well”, stated an inconsistent steward. “We must also be taken more seriously and they should listen to us”, another inconsistent steward mentioned. A consistent
respondent responds: “Discuss the problem with the stewards to whom it applies, thus the
inconsistent stewards”. Furthermore, a supervisor indicated that personal development plans
should be introduced. In addition, the same supervisor stated: “Make things debatable
through discussion meetings, group discussions or individual meetings”.
Communication. All stewards unanimously indicate that the communication within
Arriva can be improved. Eight out of thirteen respondents stated that the fine policy would be better executed when there is a better communication among the stewards and between the supervisors and the stewards. The communication between the policy and implementation is not optimal according to the respondents. In this respect, the stewards mentioned that they have trouble with the so-called grey area of the fine policy, also called the exceptions. Think for instance of situations like first class travel, feet on the bench, stamp machine broken etc. According to the rules they have to give a fine to all the travellers who have no valid ticket or break into the rules. But not every steward agrees with that, and would like to have the freedom to decide whether they will provide a fine or not. The fact that some stewards are too lenient causes confusion among both the stewards and the passengers. “If the stewards are not
reminded of their mistakes, they can get away continuously”, a supervisor mentioned. “A few weeks ago, the fine policy was adjusted and was provided to all the stewards in their post boxes. This, unfortunately, is never discussed with us beforehand”, stated an inconsistent
respondent. In addition, recently, the performance of each steward was made visible on an information screen in the canteen. According to the supervisors this action aimed to excite the poor scoring stewards and to create a kind of competition between the stewards. A supervisor said: “We hoped that this action for some stewards, who scored low in terms of issuing fines,
would get ashamed and would start to write more fines. What is wrong with a healthy form of competition”. Both the consistent and the inconsistent stewards regret that it has never been
discussed before.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 21 five stewards that three supervisors are in reach when necessary. The door is open and these managers are also easy to talk to. Unfortunately, one supervisor is difficult to talk to according to the five interviewed respondents. Eight stewards find that there is not a reliable contact within Arriva whenever there are problems at work or in their private lives.
10 out of 13 respondents mentioned that they never receive feedback on their work. It appears from the interviews that performance interviews are not kept as a standard event every year with each steward.
11 of the 13 stewards argue that the manner of communication contributes to the way they execute their work. Currently, there is much negative communication among personnel. As said earlier, the stewards feel that they are not being taken seriously and that the supervisors do not listen to them. This causes dissatisfaction among the stewards. Four times a year, the stewards have work meetings, where several topics are discussed, from social security to the fine policy to the condition of equipment. Even at these work meetings the stewards did not feel involved. A supervisor recognizes that there are relatively few things that will be decided on lower level and that almost everything is driven top down.
All stewards agreed on the statement that by better communication between stewards and supervisors, the amount of incidents against the stewards will decrease. The supervisors indicate that the communication can be improved. “In principle the direct supervisor is
responsible for the stewards. He has to ensure that the stewards do their work properly and execute the fine policy in a consistent way. He manages the lists of fines and on that basis he has to manage, communicate and support”, stated a supervisor.
4.1.2 Safety behavior
As mentioned in the theoretical chapter, safety behavior consists of safety knowledge, skills and motivation. Looking at safety knowledge, 10 out of 13 respondents mentioned that increasing safety knowledge through training would have a positive influence on the behavior of the steward.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 22 stewards found that the training has been improved in the last couple of years, but a remark of five stewards is that often scenes are played that do not reflect reality. In addition, eight stewards feel uncomfortable during a role play and do not dare to be themselves. Furthermore, many scenes are very predictable and not up to date. Eight out of thirteen respondents think when there is more attention for training they will perform better. One inconsistent respondent says: “Training is very important, because then we gain a better insight into our own
behavior in order to see how we act in certain situations and what improvements need to be made”. An inconsistent steward says: “Try to figure out why one steward experiences more aggression than another”. Another inconsistent respondent stated: “Make it a subject of discussion so you can find out the cause. Even make use of video images”.
Teaching stewards how to handle unpleasant passengers, will increase their confidence and will create a better understanding of how to deal with aggressive and violent situations. Seven stewards mentioned that it is important “to know what to do when an aggressive situation occurs”.
The interviews with stewards and supervisors show that not every steward dares the confrontation with a troublesome traveller, and often only write a fine for travellers which they have little difficulty and little resistance with. So stated a supervisor: “Because the
society has hardened, we as a company have to respond in alert and therefore change our policy to provide good training”. Therefore Arriva tries to offer a good and informative safety
training, so stewards will be better prepared when meeting a troublesome traveller. 4.1.3 Safety performance
The majority of the questioned stewards indicate that violence and aggression against them has increased the previous years. According to them reasons for this has among others to do with the hardening of the society, the shift of norms and values from decent behavior in the past to asocial behavior by travellers nowadays, and an increase in alcohol and drug problems. Besides that, they are an easy victim because they execute their work on their own. A consistent steward mentioned: “People do not respect you anymore and ignore all the rules
and start testing you”. Being verbally abused is part of their job and they don‟t even hear it
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 23
risky railway line I will not walk on my own through the train after 20.00 hour, I will go home safely”.
The results of the interviews show that the majority of the incidents where stewards confronted with are related to abuse, harassment and humiliating. “It remains that they are a
vulnerable group. They are often alone on the train, and even when it went good the whole day, there is still that tension in the air that it can go wrong” emphasizes a supervisor. In
addition “The train has an open entry regime. That means that anyone, despite the obligation
of having a valid ticket can travel by train and the fact that there will be one of the three trains checked is a reason for some passengers to take the risk and try to travel without a valid ticket” another supervisor mentioned. Fare dodgers and disputes about the ticket are
one of the main sources of aggression against stewards. Nine out of ten cases, the absence of a
valid ticket is the immediate cause for discussion with the stewards stated a consistent
steward. Ten stewards feel hindered by the growing violence in their work. Six stewards concede therefore no longer to subscribe a fine for having no valid ticket.
“Within the railway sector there is a kind of macho culture”, a supervisor stated. In
the canteen one does not speak about the aggression which a steward has to deal with. “This
feeling prevails among the stewards, but considering the controlled railway section we can see which railway section by some stewards will be skipped” a supervisor mentioned.
Arriva has a clear agreement with the police, and also within the organization there are clear agreements about assistance, counseling and aftercare. Unfortunately, eight out of thirteen stewards believe that Arriva fails to improve public safety in and around the train. About the cooperation with the police, they are mostly satisfied. The majority of the stewards stated when stewards feel safer in the execution of the job, the safety performance would increase. “Besides, reducing the immediate causes for aggression it is important that the
travel rules must be known by the passengers and that the stewards must all use the same method”, eight stewards mentioned.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 24
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Discussion of resultsThe purpose of this research is to provide an answer to the main research question: “Why are
several stewards acting inconsistently and how can improvements be made, in order to achieve a decrease in violence and aggression incidents?” By doing so, this research hopes
to offer the supervisors of Arriva some insight into ways in which they are able to influence the stewards, in order to produce more effective safety outcomes. Results of this research should lead to a better understanding of why stewards act inconsistently with regards to the fine policy.
The results of the semi-structured interviews made clear that the inconsistency is caused by the fact that the stewards interpret the fine policy in their own way and thereby adopt their own working method. As a result the stewards do not perform their work in an uniform way. This causes annoyance and confusion among stewards and travellers.
The outcomes of the results show that the majority of the inconsistent stewards have a past at the Dutch Railways (NS) and have difficulties with the working method Arriva requires. Many of these inconsistent stewards feel that they have to struggle with the straitjacket in which they are enclosed and that they are obliged to comply with a rigid fine policy. They prefer to retain their freedom and flexibility in determining fines to travellers. Arriva does not accept this fine policy and wants each passenger without a valid ticket to get a fine.
The stewards without a Dutch Railways (NS) background are generally satisfied with Arriva‟s fine policy and feel hindered by the stewards who are working inconsistently. Likewise, the inconsistent stewards are annoyed by the other stewards who are, in their opinion, working too consistent in the execution of the fine policy. This has lead to a gap between the old (mainly former NS employees) and the new stewards and has a negative influence on the atmosphere between these two groups.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 25 If other travellers see that the rules of the fine policy can be exceeded without any punishment, it also affects their belief in these rules. Due to the low risk of punishment and seeing others transgress the rules, more people are tempted to infringe the policy (Kemper & de Ruig, 2009). A weak execution of the fine policy is difficult to correct. In case of a stringent fine policy, it is of great significance to communicate what is accepted and what is not, and why. At the same time it is important to bring a force to the standard by monitoring, mentoring, supporting and consultation by supervisors (Kemper & de Ruig, 2009). In situations where the contact with the customer is superficial and impersonal, extensive communication with the traveller is not always possible. However, there is much to gain if stewards adopt a positive and open attitude. Many courses will include the stewards‟ awareness of the consequences of their own behavior. Especially a dominant macho look on one side and rigorous implementation of the rules on the other side often evoke violence and aggression incidents (Kemper & de Ruig, 2009). The challenge for Arriva is to provide a good balance between enforcement and an open character and good service.
Furthermore, the results show that more attention should be paid to communication between the supervisors and the stewards. By increasing and improving the communication, a better understanding of each other‟s job can be achieved. Also, stewards might be informed about what the supervisors are doing to solve the problem. Currently, there is much negative communication. As said earlier, the stewards feel that they are not taken seriously and that the supervisors do not listen to them. That causes dissatisfaction among the stewards. Therefore, some stewards are no longer motivated and work more careless when doing their job. They do not execute the fine policy strictly and thus create space for themselves to avoid aggression and turn against the fine policy and the company.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 26 shown that feedback consistently improves performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 2001 as cited by Huang et al, 2005). So, the stewards receive too little attention and feedback from their supervisors and as a result of which they are not aware of their mistakes.
Results show that the stewards are affected by the increased violence and aggression incidents caused by travellers. Violence and aggression incidents increase the feeling of insecurity among the stewards and the way they walk in the train. All stewards feel that they play a major role in reducing incidents of aggression.
Although it can be assumed that travellers know which behavior will be tolerated in the train, information about this is insufficiently shown to the traveller. These rules of conduct concern issues like whether it is allowed to smoke, to put shoes on chairs, about the volume of the walkman, mobile phone and unjust travel with first class. Even with respect to the basis requirement that the traveller must have a valid ticket, there is insufficient clarity about the enforcement and sanctions for the travellers. Because there is no uniform policy for dealing with aggression and violence, every steward uses his/her own method to deal with unpleasant passengers. At Arriva there are few guidelines on paper about dealing with violence and aggression incidents. One risk is that differences of insight between stewards may arise about what behavior is acceptable and what is not. Implicit policy may also lead to travellers who explore the boundaries of the stewards (Kemper & de Ruig, 2009). Furthermore, stewards themselves play a huge role in the increase of aggression and violence incidents. In other words, travellers are all different and one therefore needs to approach all these travellers in a different manner.
5.2 Practical implications
The results of the semi-structured interviews and the theoretical implications prove that Arriva needs to give priority to the leadership style and the communication strategy in order to decrease the inconsistency of the execution of the fine policy by stewards. Since the former NS employees are those stewards who are often inconsistent, Arriva should mainly focus on this group.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 27 2001). Moreover, the support and consideration of supervisors is important for development of employees (Griffin, Paterson & West, 2001).
For Arriva this implies that the supervisors should encourage and support their employees within their work. The supervisors should create an atmosphere of trust so that it becomes more likely that both the inconsistent and the consistent stewards will execute the fine policy in an uniform way. The supervisors should demonstrate more commitment towards the stewards and listen to their problems. This can be achieved by being more often on the workplace, accompany stewards on the train during their work, and by meeting the stewards during breaks. Showing more involvement increases the supervisors‟ awareness about what takes place at the workplace and which issues are important for the stewards. The stewards often have good ideas about what can be improved regarding Arriva‟s fine policy. However, they will only come up with these ideas when they feel they are trusted and heard by the supervisors.
Performance interviews take into account the past performance of the employees and focuses on the improvement of the future performance of the employees. Systematic performance interviews can be important for Arriva since it helps the supervisors to rate the performance of each steward and evaluate their contribution towards the execution of the fine policy. These practices should be kept once every year. Performance interviews may motivate the inconsistent stewards to behave better and has to ensure that inconsistent stewards execute the fine policy better and will listen to their supervisors.
“Employees tend to be satisfied with their company when they felt they were important to their organization”(Lind & Tyler, 1988 as cited in Huang et al, 2004: 484). Groups who are well coordinated and use the same working method, and in which there are few misunderstandings, work more safely. Such a group atmosphere promotes the development of a positive norm so that members are supported in their working safely by their approval of their colleagues (Andriessen, 1978: 374). Thus, for the supervisors of Arriva it is important to motivate and reinforce the stewards to continue to use the same working method, and providing them with feedback based on periodic observation and monitoring of their actual behavior during work.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 28 policy in order to embed it in the minds of the stewards, so that they can carry it out vigorously and in an uniform way. For instance, during work meetings it can be emphasized that all stewards should execute the fine policy in a stringent and uniform way. Besides, problems can be discussed on a regular basis during these meetings about dealing with the fine policy. Secondly, there is a need for clear communication about the fine policy towards the traveller, for example in the form of visible house rules in the train.
No structural feedback takes place at Arriva between supervisor and stewards. There are few evaluations conducted or planned. However, feedback moments are of great importance in the communication process, as then it can be checked whether the message has arrived and whether some elements of the message still need improvements (Waardenburg, 2003). For Arriva, feedback is necessary to determine what problems the stewards deal with, whether the fine policy meets the problems encountered, what additional measures are desirable (Kemper & de Ruig, 2009) and to support stewards to behave better. To bring this into practice, periodic job consultations should be kept between the supervisor and the stewards. During these consultations, feedback and evaluation are the central topics to discuss. This will stimulate the stewards to think about their own development and work effort. Besides, the supervisors can give instructions to the stewards based on the feedback. It should be noted that these periodic job consultations are not the same as the yearly performance interviews.
A prerequisite for successful execution of a policy is priority. For successful change it is required that both management and personnel have attention for the change. Next, comprehensibility is important (Kemper & de Ruig, 2009). The more clearly the management makes the rules and the consequences of misapplicating them, the better the execution by the personnel. The less developed a policy is, the more room there is for misunderstandings and the more sensitive the policy is for individual interpretation. Furthermore, continuity in restoring a calved policy is important (Kemper & de Ruig, 2009). This means that in the beginning a strict standard of control by stewards is essential to combat negative behavior by travellers and to restore faith in the standard of the fine policy. Therefore continuity in the control is of great importance. When structural retributive and corrective action is taken by stewards it will create clarity to the travellers about the fine policy Arriva has.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 29 (e.g., Barling et al, 2002 as cited by Neal & Griffin, 2004). “Leaders play a role in setting group directions, enacting organizational policies and procedures and providing support and structure within groups. In this way, leaders not only develop and support safety systems but also play a central role in creating a positive (safety) climate (Neal & Griffin, 2004:30)”.
To encourage a respectful and trustful relationship between the supervisors and the stewards, a few options are available to implement. Firstly, structured and frequently small group meetings between supervisors and stewards can be employed. During these group meetings, the supervisors can discuss important issues observed from the individual conservations with the stewards. Stewards can express their feelings on the subject, and experiences from both the supervisors and stewards can be interchanged. Furthermore, brainstorming can be applied to try to solve problems, and specific problems can be put on the agenda for the management to look at. The second option is to keep up personal development plans. These plans should keep the strong and weak points of every steward up to date, so that supervisors are able to act and respond when needed. Finally, short feedback moments between supervisors and stewards during work will add to the foundation to create a good workforce.
5.3 Limitations
The present study is a qualitative study, which has several advantages. I could take a good look in the organization, and therefore I got a good picture of Arriva and it was possible to discover many details about the culture, the structure, and the employees within Arriva. However, this research also has limitations and some remarks have to be made about the way the research has been conducted.
The choice of the research method can be, to some extent, seen as a limitation as well. Firstly, instead of using semi-structured interviews, questionnaires are another way to carry out a research like this. Questionnaires have the advantage that responses can be quantified and easily summarized. Moreover, it takes less time than conducting and analyzing interviews. Secondly, some stewards, mainly the former NS employees, may have seen the interviews as an opportunity to complain about Arriva as a whole, instead of focusing on the reasons for their inconsistent behavior according to the fine policy.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 30 research, using interviews was preferred instead of questionnaires, because it was necessary that the interviewees should give honest answers in a familiar environment. Besides, semi-structured interviews allow space to elaborate on certain topics.
Also questionnaires often obtain response biases, such as the tendency to answer questions in a socially acceptable manner. This makes it difficult to describe valid conclusions (Cummings & Worley, 2005). This research tried to find out the causes of inconsistent behavior with respect to Arriva‟s fine policy. Consequently, it was required to develop a healthy relationship with the stewards, in order that they would trust me and provide me with clear and honest answers. Such a result can be better achieved by applying interviews.
Another limitation of this research is the fact that the data is composed within a short period of time, so that the results are dependent on the conditions of that period. This may be solved by repeating these interviews on a regular basis. However, most interviewees indicated that the problems are present for a longer period of time. Besides, most of them already work for a longer time at Arriva and know how the working conditions were and are nowadays.
5.4 Future research
This research suggests that factors like communication and leadership are likely to have relationships with safety climate, safety behavior and safety performance. A research priority for the future is to develop a better understanding of these factors and their relationships with each other so that ways can be identified to improve safety climate (Neal & Griffin, 2004). For that reason, it could be interesting to analyze the way in which supervisors communicate. This may provide insight into the usefulness of diverse leadership styles, and shows which (combination of) leadership styles related to communication has the most possibility to improve safety performance.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 31 Furthermore it may be helpful to do some research on behavior change. Since the results show that mainly the former NS employees have difficulties to meet Arriva‟s stringent fine policy, it could be interesting to investigate the change in behavior that is asked from the former NS employees in order to execute the fine policy consistently. For instance, it can be evaluated what the behavioral effects are of various measures, like signing a commitment or external incentives (e.g. rewards and punishment), and see whether this improves the execution of the fine policy.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 32
REFERENCES
AGV-Movares, 2009. Monitor sociale veiligheid personeel Arriva 2008. Utrecht.
Andriessen J.H.T.H. 1978. Safe Behavior and Safety Motivation. Journal of Occupational
Accidents, 1: 363-376.
Baarda, D.B., & de Goede, M.P.M. 2001. Basisboek Methoden en Technieken: Handleiding
voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van onderzoek. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Boeije, H.R. 2005. Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek. Amsterdam: Boom onderwijs.
Boer, de R. 2002. Aanvalsplan Sociale Veiligheid Openbaar Vervoer. Kenniscentrum Sociale
Veiligheid en Mobiliteit (KSVM). Den Haag. 3-49.
Bossche, S.N.J. van den, Koppes, L., Granzier, J., Vroom, de E., Smulders, P. 2008.
Nationale enquete arbeidsomstandigheden (NEA) 2007: methodologie en globale resultaten. Hoofddorp.
Boyd, C. 2002. Customer Violence and Employee Health and Safety. Work, Employment
and Society, 16 (1): 151-169.
Burke, M.J., Sarpy, S.A., Tesluk, P.E., Smith- Crowe, K. 2002. General Safety Performance: A test of a Grounded Theoretical Model. Personnel Psychology, 55: 429 – 457.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. 2007. Business Research Methods 2nd edition. Oxford. New York.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 33 Cavazza, N. & Serpe, A. 2009. Effects of safety climate on safety norm violations: Exploring
the mediating role of attitudinal ambivalence toward personal protective equipment.
Journal of Safety Research, 40: 277-283.
Chappell, D., Di Martino, V. 2006. Violence at work. Geneve: International Labour Office.
Cheyne, A., Cox, s., Oliver, A., Tomas, J.M. (1998). Modelling safety climate in the prediction of levels of safety activity. Work and Stress, 12: 255-271.
Chhokar, J.S. 1987. Safety at the workplace: A behavioral approach. Internal Labour
Review, 126 (2).
Chi, M.T.H. 1997. Quantifying Qualitative Analysis of Verbal data: A Practical Guide. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences. 6(3): 271-315
Christian M.S., Bradley J.C., Wallace J.C., Burke M.J. 2009. Workplace Safety: A Meta Analysis of the Roles of Person and Situation Factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (5): 1103-1127.
Coyle, I.R., Sleeman S.D.& Adams N. 1995. Safety Climate. Journal of Safety Research, 26 (4): 247-254.
Cox, S.J., & Cheyne, A.J.T. 2000. Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Safety
Science, 34: 111-129.
Cuivenor J., Else D. 1997. Finding Occupational Injury Solutions: The Impact of Training in Creative Thinking. Safety Science, 25 (1-3): 187-205.
Master Thesis February 2011 – E. Koster 34 Diaz-Cabrera, D., Hernandez-Fernaud, E., Isla-Diaz, R. 2007. An evaluation of a new
instrument to measure organisational safety culture values and practices. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 39: 1202-1211.
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2): 350-383.
Essenberg, B. 2003. Violence and stress at work in the transport sector. International Labour
Office. Geneva.
European Conference Of Ministers of Transport (ECMT). 2002. Vandalism, terrorism and
security in urban public transport. Paris.
European Commision. 2008. Safety and security in mobility: Thematic research summary.
Transport research knowledge centre.
Flin R., Mearns, K.,O'Connor P., Bryden R. 2000. Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34: 177-192.
Ford M.T., Tetrick L.E. 2008. Safety motivation and human resource management in North America. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19 (8):1472-1485.
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.
Griffin, M.A., Patterson, M.G., West, M.A. 2001. Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 22: 537-550.
