Introduction
Safety in the aviation industry is of utmost importance. Mistakes arising from human error or technical problems can lead to loss of lives. Aviation is a high-risk sector that needs stringent measures to improve safety and prevent accidents.
In this regard, safety culture is important for aviation maintenance organizations, as it promotes their public image, which often translates into commercial success. Aircraft manufacturers and aircraft maintenance firms implement aviation safety regulations to minimize technical and human errors that lead to accidents.
They adopt new technologies and enhance risk awareness among the crewmembers in a bid to enhance the safety of air travel.
In practice, aviation safety relies on a number of factors, including technology, organizational culture, and regulations. Aviation crash probes reveal that combination of human and technical factors causes aviation accidents.
Some of these errors can be traced to organizational and management practices that define a firm’s corporate culture (Kingma, 2008).
In the aviation sector, the approach that an organization uses to address safety issues determines its corporate culture. However, the relationship between organizational culture and safety is an under-researched area.
This paper reviews published studies that address the problem of safety within airline transport and maintenance companies. The aim is to identify gaps in research and propose the focus areas of a future study.
Problematisation of Safety Culture
Safety culture is often a problem during the initial stages of a firm’s growth. New companies, especially those that involve mergers, have a problem creating a sustainable safety culture due to weak change management structures.
Thus, when the ‘old’ structures do not support strong quality assurance (QA) practices or improve aircraft production and maintenance issues, the development of safety culture is hindered.
Furthermore, mergers shift focus to the pursuit of commercial interests, which create tension between QA and the management, and affect safety culture within the organization (Kingma, 2008).
The tension results in the emergence of different in values and norms within an organization. While commercial interests may influence the management, the QA group emphasizes on strict adherence to safety regulations.
For instance, QA may want production or safety to be done based on industry checklists without consideration of customer demands or pressure while the management may prefer flexibility to speed up production and meet commercial interests.
The difference in focus may affect operations within the organization. In sum, the conflicting positions taken by different company departments, especially the QA and the management, affect the values and norms within the organization.
The divergent values make safety culture a problem in aviation organizations. Moreover, since the management exercises the ultimate control over the other departments, QA may be forced to change its stance on aviation.
Thus, values and norms may be eroded when commercial interests and external pressure override safety values and norms within an organization. Moreover, even though an organization may have a strong safety culture, external pressure coupled with commercial interests can affect these norms.
Literature Review
Aviation safety culture dominates many debates about air travel. Safety culture describes an organization’s position on aviation safety issues as indicated by the measures implemented to reduce technical and human errors.
McDonald, Corrigan, Daly, and Cromie (2000) define safety culture as “the shared and learned meanings, experiences, and interpretations of safety, which characterize people’s attitudes towards risk, accidents, and prevention” (p. 154).
This means that safety culture encompasses the practices that an organization implements to minimize danger to its clients and employees.
On his part, Reason (1998) defines safety culture in an organization as the corporate system that shields an organization against unsafe incidents. Thus, safety culture, in an organizational context, is a component of corporate culture.
The studies that examine organizational culture in the airline industry give various perspectives on safety. Glendon and Stanton (2000) view safety culture as a distinct, independent element in an organization’s corporate culture.
The researchers argue that culture is an entity found in firms that determines organizational outcomes. In comparison, Cooper (2000) views culture as a product of managerial decisions regarding safety. Thus, the development of safety culture in firms depends on organizational factors and managerial commitment.
In view of this, Kingma (2008) regards firms as centres of cultural development that are influenced by social and economic factors. This perspective implies that, in aviation context, organizational outcomes, such as airline accidents/incidents and safety regulations, depend on organizational culture.
In this regard, aircraft maintenance services, including technical inspection and repairs that promote safety, are determined by an organization’s culture.
Other studies examine safety culture as an evolving concept. Richter and Koch (2004) state that culture in organizations is determined by the nature of a firm’s operations, the behaviour considered satisfactory, the norms practiced by employees, and the integration and adaptation approaches within an organization.
They further identify various factors that define corporate culture. Artefacts such as posters, buildings, and décor tell a lot about an organization’s culture. In addition, the values and norms of a firm as spelt out in its mission, goals and strategies identify its culture.
The employees’ values and behaviours also shape an organization’s culture. The authors hold the view that cultural meanings in an organization are integrative. Using the author’s perspective (integrative view), one can analyze the safety culture in airline companies.
According to Gherardi, Nicolini, and Odella (1998), culture, especially safety culture, comprises of distinct constructs. The authors note that several internal forces, such as leadership styles, management skills and knowledge, and workforce diversity, among others, have a significant effect on organizational culture.
In view of this, culture is fragmented into distinct sub-cultures each with a different set of norms and values. Thus, organizational culture is a combination of sub-cultures within an organization.
On their part, Farrington-Darby, Pickup, and Wilson (2005) characterize safety culture as a combination of internally created sub-cultures in firms. They establish that safety culture is a constantly changing entity with far-reaching implications on organizational outcomes.
Thus, the norms and values in each department create sub-cultures, which combine to form the corporate culture within an organization.
Common Assumptions in Aviation Safety
Four assumptions emerge from the review of literature. The first assumption relates to safety culture as a social construct. It is often assumed that culture is purely a social construct, whereby human factors, including managerial actions and employee values, shape an organization’s corporate culture.
However, culture, especially safety culture, in the aviation industry, is a product of sub-cultures created within the organization. The relations among technological factors and human (management and employee) define an organization’s culture and by extension, its safety culture.
Thus, an integrative approach would ensure that all different offices in an aircraft maintenance organization collaborate in creating a sustainable safety culture.
Another common assumption is that competition within the aviation industry promotes safety culture. It is assumed that aviation companies adopt regulations that create safety culture because they want to gain a competitive edge in the market.
It is thought that production pressures and commercial interests motivate airline companies to develop a safety culture built around regulatory policies. However, safety culture, in the production context, is a product of the integration of values and norms within the organization, which translates to commercial gains.
Although the improvements in internal safety measures and QA developed out of the need to gain a competitive edge in the airline industry, culture emerged from the integration of values.
Thus, self-regulation in aviation maintenance firms involves internal safety controls and procedures. These safety controls depend on a firm’s market strategy and commercial interests.
Perspectives Emerging From the Research
Overall, three perspectives regarding safety culture emerge from this literature review. The first perspective perceives culture as a consolidated entity that identifies an airline company or organization. In contrast, the second perspective views culture as a ‘disconnected’ concept that consists of sub-cultures.
The third viewpoint holds that culture is an evolving entity with clear meaning in organizations. Because of advancements in technology and skills, organizational culture is an ever-changing concept.
It can be argued that, because of the difference in logic, these divergent viewpoints cannot co-exist within a single organization. Thus, each organization employs a different perspective in creating a sustainable safety culture in its operations.
Most safety studies involve the integrative view (Richter & Koch, 2004). Other studies portray safety culture in aviation as a fragmented entity (McDonald et al., 2000; Cooper, 2000). Only a few studies describe safety culture as an evolving entity (Besco, 2004; Gherardi, Nicolini & Odella, 1998).
Safety culture is a social construct that depend on human and technical factors. Since society is constantly changing, safety culture should be conceived as a changing system that keeps pace with advancements in technology and skills. Thus, safety culture is a product of social-technical interaction.
Safety culture can also be viewed as a multi-faceted concept that encompasses many sub-cultures. The third perspective views safety culture in terms of the cultural meaning instead of a distinct entity within an organization as held by the proponents of the integrative viewpoint.
Similarly, workplace functions in the aviation sector can be viewed in the context of meaning as opposed to distinct sub-cultures. Thus, aircraft maintenance firms can enhance safety by focusing on the cultural ‘meanings’ or ideas generated within the quality offices.
Similarly, aircraft manufacturers can create a safety culture by managing the meanings created in the production process. This requires an integration of all sub-cultures within an organization to create a uniform safety culture.
In contrast, a disparity in the values and norms applied in different departments affects the development of safety culture in organizations. For example, a company’s management may focus on promoting integration in the production department alone. This may lead to ‘fragmentation’ in the quality unit, which may compromise safety.
Some studies also establish a link between safety culture and management action. McDonald et al., (2000) argue that management factors are the leading causes of airline accidents. Management actions such as hiring and promotion of loyal employees often affect service delivery and organizational performance.
On the other hand, Besco (2004) notes that organizational policies that are not integrative lead to misplaced priorities and create ambiguity in the implementation of safety procedures. It may also result in a clash of goals and affect employees’ consciousness of an organization’s safety culture.
Gaps in Research
The studies reviewed give different perspectives about safety culture. More specifically, the studies examine safety culture from three perspectives: integration, fragmentation, and meaning created within an organization. Only a few of the studies focus on the evolving nature of safety in an organizational context.
As aforementioned, safety culture is not static; it keeps on changing based on industry needs and developments in technology. In this regard, the writer would want to examine the evolving meaning of safety and its impact on organizational culture.
The writer would particularly want to know how safety sub-cultures affect on organizational development in the aviation industry. Multiple case studies would help the writer identify the rate at which aviation organizations implement safety measures recommended by aviation regulators such as the EASA.
The writer would also want to know the how employee training on aviation safety contributes to the development of safety culture in organizations. Previous studies attribute the development of safety culture to the production and the management departments of an organization.
However, the differences in values and norms create distinct safety sub-cultures in these two departments. Thus, the writer would also to identify the effect of these sub-cultures in the organization.
In this regard, safety culture, as it relates to either the production or management departments, needs further investigation. While safety culture in the production context involves strict adherence to safety standards, safety culture at the management level is largely driven by commercial interests (Besco, 2004).
In line with this assertion, the writer will not only examine safety culture as a multi-faceted concept, but also as integrated construct. Thus, in as much as safety culture may be fragmented into distinct sub-cultures, it remains a unified entity at the organizational level.
This means that the sub-cultures in the various departments of an organization, including production and management, combine to form the organizational safety culture. Technical safety measures implemented in the production unit and regulatory compliance (management) define an organization’s safety culture.
The proposed study will fill in the gaps in research, as it will focus on safety as an evolving entity in a socio-technical system. To achieve this, the research will examine the human (employee) factors that hinder the creation of a sustainable safety culture in aircraft manufacture and maintenance organizations.
In particular, communication channels within and between the different departments will be explored. The use of memos among employees communicate safety procedures will indicate a strong safety culture.
The other human factors that the study will examine include teamwork and employee fatigue and stress, as they affect the employees’ attitudes towards safety. Organizational factors such as safety norms, communication channels, and knowledge management also determine a company’s safety culture.
Thus, the writer will use an ethnographic approach in examining how organizational and human factors create or hamper the development of safety norms and values.
The problem of safety in aviation is often associated with either technical failure or human error. In particular, the writer will consider safety culture in organizations as a product of management practices.
However, research on socio-technical aspects of culture will provide new insights into the sources of values and norms that underlie safety culture in organizations.
Because technical advancements and safety regulations have a huge impact on the aviation industry, an organization’s safety culture will largely depend on how it has implemented the safety protocols disseminated by the EASA.
This will need a convergence of the sub-cultures within the organization to establish self-regulation norms that will identify the organization.
Discussion and Conclusion
In this paper, the problematisation strategy has helped reveal assumptions underlying safety culture in aviation organisations.
Through this strategy, issues, such as quality assurance, personnel training, organizational communication, and technology adoption, which are thought to affect the safety culture in aviation organizations separately, were found to have additive effects.
In this regard, the identification of the assumptions underlying the development of safety culture made the writer to challenge the existing perspectives on organizational culture.
Therefore, because of the probematisation process, safety culture can be redefined as an aggregation of several psychological mechanisms within an organization. In other words, safety culture goes beyond the implementation of safety regulations, quality standards, and advanced technologies.
It encompasses socially constructed norms and values that appeal to a particular organizational context.
Thus, based on the interrogation of the various perspectives and assumptions about safety, in an aviation context, safety culture is a four dimensional concept that includes procedural (safety regulations/standards), informational (technologies), social (interpersonal communication), and strategic (commercial interests) aspects.
The critical review of literature enabled the writer to identify the opposing views regarding safety culture in organisations.
In particular, the characterizations of the different sub-culture within an organisation allowed the writer to discover how workplace relations and shifts, such as managerial action, employee values, and leadership styles, create sub-cultures within an organisation.
In addition, through the critical review of literature the writer was able to describe the major perspectives on organizational culture. The three major perspectives (integration, fragmentation, and meaning) have been described in literature.
The literature review made two major contributions to the understanding of the safety culture problem. First, it provided mainstream theoretical frameworks used to study organisational culture and the interpersonal factors that influence procedures and outcomes.
Second, through the critical literature review, gaps in research were identified, especially with regard to aviation safety culture. In sum, the literature review enabled the writer to identify and evaluate common assumptions and perspectives, develop a new perspective, and redefine safety culture in an aviation context.
In this module, the writer has learnt new approaches of developing research projects. In particular, the writer now understands how to identify gaps in research through a critical review of literature. Gap spotting in the field of organizational culture helps refine or complete past studies.
Since organizations are constantly evolving, a systematic review of previous studies helps identify assumptions in research that need further investigation.
At the organizational level, the module also has helped the writer to understand how to problematise a workplace issue in order to adopt a different perspective or corroborate the existing ones.
At a personal level, the module also has helped the writer to hone his critical interrogation skills in assessing various dimensions of organizational culture. He can now challenge assumptions in organisational culture and point out weaknesses in the literature.
The ideas and practices presented under this module have helped the writer to hone his problem-solving skills. A critical evaluation of the operations in an organization can reveal the causes of a workplace-based problem.
Moreover, a critical review of the literature and a systematic problematisation technique can generally help to deconstruct the organizational factors, limitations, or contradictions underlying a workplace problem.
Problematisation opens up a discussion about the theoretical underpinnings of a common organisational problem. This strategy will help the writer investigate masked managerial problems that hamper strategy implementation.
For instance, operational problems are often associated with improper managerial practices. However, a critical examination of a company’s operations will reveal that other factors, including external factors, contribute to the said operational problems.
In this regard, alternative assumptions and perspectives that would help resolve the operational problems.
In conclusion, the writer intends to adopt a multi-perspective approach in solving the problems associated with safety culture in aviation organisations. A critique of the existing literature/systems and problematisation will help the writer in deconstructing disputes that arise in organisational settings.
Moreover, these strategies will help uncover the wider organizational structures that lead to disputes. The development of a sustainable safety culture in aviation organizations is of utmost importance.
The writer intends to use these two techniques to evaluate how sub-cultures affect the development of safety culture in aviation institutions.
These sub-cultures play a crucial role in shaping organisational life and thus, a critique of the traditional approaches used to develop a sustainable safety culture at organizational level can help understand the choices available to organisations.
Thus, in his final CAL report, the writer intends to explore the specific sub-cultures that define safety in organisations.
References
Besco, R. (2004). Human performance breakdowns are rarely accidents: they are usually very poor choices with disastrous results. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 115(4), 155–161.
Cooper, M. (2000). Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science, 36(3), 111–136.
Farrington-Darby, T., Pickup, L. & Wilson, J. (2005). Safety culture in railway maintenance. Safety Science, 43(2), 671-677
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. & Odella, F. (1998). What do you mean by safety? Conflicting perspectives on accident causation and safety management in a construction firm. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 6(5), 202–213.
Glendon, A. & Stanton, A. (2000). Perspectives on safety culture. Safety Science, 34(1), 193–214.
Kingma, S. (2008). The risk paradigm, organizations and crisis management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(2), 164–170.
McDonald, N., Corrigan, S., Daly, C. & Cromie, S. (2000). Safety management systems and safety culture in aircraft maintenance organizations. Safety Science, 34(1), 151–176.
Reason, J. (1998). Achieving a safe culture: theory and practice. Work and Stress, 12(2), 293–306.
Richter, A. & Koch, C. (2004). Integration, differentiation and ambiguity in safety cultures. Safety Science, 42(1), 703–722.