The Relationships Between Leadership Style, Safety Climate .

7m ago
38 Views
0 Downloads
419.39 KB
18 Pages
Last View : 2d ago
Last Download : n/a
Upload by : Pierre Damon
Share:
Transcription

ASJ: International Journal of Health, Safety and Environment (IJHSE)Vol. 7 (02) 31 March, 2021, Pp. 747 – 764www.academiascholarlyjournal.org/ijhse/index ijhse.htmISSN: 2360-9311 Academia Scholarly JournalsAlso [email protected]: Archive.org/Onuoha et al.Indexed in: International Institute of Organized Research (I2OR) databaseOpen accessThe Relationships Between Leadership Style, Safety Climate, SafetyCulture and Safety Behaviours of Workers in Oil and Gas ServicingFirms in Port Harcourt Metropolis*1Foreman Onuoha, 1Chinemerem Patricks Ekedede and 2John N. Ugbebor1Centre for Occupational Health, Safety and Environment (COHSE), University of Port-Harcourt, Choba,Rivers State, Nigeria.2Institute of Petroleum engineering studies, University of Port-Harcourt, Choba, Rivers State, Nigeria.*Corresponding Authors’ Contact Detail: E-mail Address : [email protected] December 08, 2020This study examined the relationships between leadership style, safety climate, safety culture andsafety behaviours of workers in oil and gas servicing firms in Port Harcourt metropolis. The crosssectional research design was used in this study. The target population are junior staff of the oil andgas servicing firms located in Port Harcourt. Purposive sampling technique was used to selecteighty-one (81) companies from one hundred and two (102) companies and the Taro Yamaneequation was used to generate appropriate sample size of respondents from twenty-four thousand,eight hundred and twenty (24820) junior workers. The Pearson’s Product Moment CorrelationCoefficient (PPMC) was used to generate inference off the relationships between leadership style,safety climate, safety culture and safety behaviours of workers in oil and gas servicing firms in PortHarcourt metropolis. The study discovered that there is poor leadership, safety culture and climate,which was found to be affecting the safety behaviours of the workers in the oil and gas servicingfirms in the study area. Also, the PPMC established significant relationship between leadership style,safety climate, safety culture and safety behaviours of workers in oil and gas servicing firms atp 0.05. This also implies that leadership style safety: climate safety: culture safety behaviours ofworkers. As a result of the finding the study recommended that leaders at the various oil and gasserving firms improve on the safety climate and culture by engaging the junior workers withunderstanding and entreating them by using the transformational style of leadership amongst others.Keywords: Safety-climate, Safety-culture, Safety-behaviour, Port Harcourt.INTRODUCTIONLeadership as a phenomenon of discussion hasbeen deliberated on in such a context-free way astouching organisations (Kelloway et al., 2006). Theconcept of leadership can actually be traced toantiquity. However, from a project managementviewpoint, Kelloway at al., (2006) defined leadershipas a presence and a process carried out within anorganizational role that assumes responsibility forthe needs and rights of those who decide to followthe leader in accomplishing the project results.

748.Int. J. Health, Safety and Environ.According to Lu and Tsai (2010) terms like seniorleadership, executive leadership and strategicleadership, have been interchangeably used inliterature for describing leadership. Irrespective ofthese titles and delegations, leadership has a criticalrole towards enhancing safety. In putting clear theseassertions, Hofmann and Morgeson (1999)presented that people are more likely to becommitted to safety and to engage in opencommunication regarding safety when theyrecognise that their organization demonstratesupportive actions and they are able to identify highquality relationships with their leaders. Similarly,Kelloway et al., (2006) opined that trust inmanagement and perceived safety climate facilitatethe relationship between a high performance worksystem and safety performance measured in termsof personal-safety orientation. These instances arepointers to the positive impact of leadership towardsensuring safety (House, 1971; House and Mitchell,1975; Horner, 1997; Hofmann and Morgeson 1999;Hult et al., 2000; Hinze, and Wilson, 2000; HSE,2001; Kapp et al., 2003; Judge, and Piccolo, 2004;Kelloway et al., 2006; Harter et al, 2006; HSE 2008).Investigations into major accident events y factor. In this instance the King’s Crossstation fire of 1987, in which 31 people were killed,was as a result of failure of senior managementlevel downwards over many years to minimise fireoutbreak, and more importantly to foresee and toplan for an uncontrolled outbreak of fire at theunderground station with a real potential for largescale loss of life (Hope et al., 2010). In the samevein, following the repercussion of the accidentalPetroleum Platform disaster on the North Sea in1988 where 137 deaths occurred, Lord Cullen’sreport noted that the quality of safety managementby operators is fundamental to offshore safety andthat no amount of detailed regulations for safetyimprovements could make up for deficiencies in theway that safety was managed by operators(Iacovino et al., 2015). Although the Cullen reportreferred to leadership at higher levels of theorganisational pyramid, it has been demonstratedthat leadership behaviour at all organisationallevels, from senior management to front-line teamleaders is critical for safety (Hollander et al., 2008;Høivik et al., 2009; Inness et al., 2010; Hope et al.,2010; Beekhyuzen et al., 2010). Similarly, the Bakerreport into the BP Texas City 2005 refineryexplosion identified that BP did not providedeffective leadership on or establish appropriateoperational expectations regarding process safetyperformance at its U.S. refineries and the panelbelieved that the lack of effective leadership wassystemic, touching all levels of BP’s corporatemanagement having responsibility for BP’s U.S.refineries (Belasen and Frank, 2010; Lu and Tsai,2010; Luthans et al., 2010; Ben-Ari and Enosh,2011).Findings from these public enquiries and literaturenot only highlight leadership’s role in ensuring safetybut also give an indication of the relationshipbetween leadership and safety performance withinorganisations. Conversely, Morrow et al., (2010)argued that there have been very few studies inreference to the influence of top-level manager’sleadership on safety performance. They suggestedthat majority of the studies have been centred onthe influence of top-level managers, their leadershipstyle in relation to financial performance, productivityand innovation. Thus what lies ahead will be toinstigate further into leadership style in relation toother sectors especially those which are safetycritical like the offshore oil and gas industry (Lowe etal., 1996; Mahwah et al., 2002; Mearns et al., 2003;Lorenzo-Seva and Ferrando, 2006; Lockwood,2007; Luthans et al., 2007a; Luthans et al., 2007b;Luthans et al., 2008; Mullen and Kelloway, 2009;Morrow et al., 2010).The essence of Occupational Health and Safety inthe workplace is accident prevention (Andrew andVan de Walle, 2013; Antonakis and House, 2013;Amanchukwu et al., 2015; Adanri, 2016). Accidentprevention is aimed at spotting what could go wrongand preventing it from doing so, or at leastminimizing the consequences (Arezes and Miquel,2003; Andersen, 2010). In practical aspect,employers provide the premises and equipment andput in place the working practices which workersuse to produce the goods and services with whichemployers earn profit (Choi, 2009; Chen et al.,2012; Chan et al., 2013; Chiles, 2015). To thatextent they can be said to gain from conditions atthe workplace. In return, they provide an income forworkers, but also have a moral responsibility toprovide appropriate working conditions to preventaccidents (Deva, and Yazdanifard. 2013).Generally, workers in safety critical organizations(SCOs) such as the oil and gas industry operate inhazardous settings, with multiple technological,environmental, and human challenges (Dubrin,2009; Delobelle et al., 2011; Desu, 2012; Dahl and

Onuoha et al.Olsen, 2013; Deva and Yazdanifard, 2013; Doh andQuigley 2014). These work settings carry a highpotential for stress, accidents, injuries, and variousadverse health outcomes (Díaz-Cabrera et al.,2007; Du et al., 2013). Given these hazards and therisks associated with them, SCOs have devotedconsiderable resources toward improving safety andpreventing accidents. The concept of safety culture(Guldenmund, 2000) has been used to describe thebroad range of human, organizational, andmanagement factors that appear to influence safebehaviour in the workplace. Safety climate is seenas the more specific and readily measurableaspects of safety culture, such as the impact ofmanagement policies on safety practices in theworkplace (Cox and Flin, 1998; Zohar and TenneGazit, 2008; Mullen, and Kelloway, 2009; Morrow etal., 2010; Muller and Turner, 2010; Moriano et al.,2014). More recently, there are many studies linkingsafety climate to important performance and safetyoutcomes in the workplace (Neal et al., 2000;Mearns et al., 2003; Zohar and Tenne-Gazit, 2008),however, little is researched about the effects ofpoor leadership style on safety dispositions at workplace. Although, Zohar (2010) argued andestablished that one of the major challenges insafety research is to ascertain the factor (s) andprocess (es) that influence safety conditions at workplace. Although, Eid et al., (2012), suggest that of allthe factors that could create poor safety conditionsat work place, poor leadership is more pervasive.This is because it is subtle in its effects (Nahrganget al., 2011; Nanjundeswaraswamy and Swamy,2014). Safety leadership is defined as “the processof defining the desired state, setting up the team tosucceed, and engaging in the discretionary effortsthat drive the safety value” (Cooper, 2010; Andrewand Van de Walle, 2013; Antonakis, and House,2013; Adanri, 2016; Amanchukwu et al., 2015). It iswidely recognized to be critical (HSE, 2001),especially when the prevailing safety culture is weak(Martínez-Córcoles et al., 2011). A company’ssafety culture is driven by the executive leadershipteam that creates, cultivates and sustains acompany’s journey to excellence (HSE, 2008).These executives set the vision and strategicdirection, provide resources, and constantlyemphasize and reinforce the importance of safety topeople and the business. Thus, ineffective safetyleadership hinders the ability of many companies toachieve success (Cooper and Finley, 2013).Essentially, giving meaning to the terms; Leadership749style, safety climate, safety culture and safetybehaviour is key to unravelling the dangers that mayabound, when its applications in companies are notadequate or in place. Leadership style refers to aperson’s attitude cum behaviours when dealing withsubordinates or the led. Again, safety climate is acollection of workers perception of how much safetyis valued, instilled and applied in a place of work.Furthermore, safety culture is a compendium ofindividual and collective, values, attitudes, believes,competencies, and behavioural patterns towardssafety in any organization; and safety behavioursrelates to copying good safety attitudes, with whichto minimise risk in a work environment (Lu andTsai, 2010; Luthans et al., 2010; Ben-Ari andEnosh, 2011). Thus, failure to apply in full swinggood leadership styles, safety climate, and safetyculture would result in bad safety behaviour andconsequently leads to risks or accidents.Preliminary investigation by the researchersindicates that the leadership of oil and gas firmsapply the transactional leadership style formanagement purposes. This is thought to be thecause of friction in the relationships between theworkers and managers. Researches have shownthat leadership style, safety climate, safety cultureimpacts on safety behaviours of workers in oil andgas servicing firms. It is therefore possible for poorleadership to cause safety problems in theseindustries. Sadly, to the best of the knowledge of theresearchers, this has gained scant recognition inliterature at least in Nigeria. This study thereforeexamined the impacts of leadership style, safetyclimate, safety culture on safety behaviours ofworkers in oil and gas servicing firms in PortHarcourt metropolis.MATERIALS AND METHODSStudy areaThe area this study was carried out is Port Harcourt,Rivers State, in Nigeria. The abundance of oilservicing firms in this area justified its selection forthe study. Port Harcourt is located between latitudes4 51’ 30’’N and 4 57’ 30’’N and longitudes 6 50’00’’E and 7 00’ 00’’E (Figure 1). The city is thecapital of Rivers State and was created in the year1967. The area is surrounded by the Atlantic Oceanto the south, Bayelsa and Delta states west andDelta States, to the north by Imo, Abia and Anambra

750.Int. J. Health, Safety and Environ.Figure 1. Port-Harcourt MetropolisSource: Modified after federal ministry of lands housing and urban development (2010).States and east by Akwa Ibom State. The climate ofthe area is the tropical type as designed byKoppens. Therefore, the mean annual temperatureranges between 270C and 290C, while annualrainfall ranges between 2750 mm to 3115 mm (Weliand Ozabor, 2018). The Nigerian oil and gasindustry have been vibrant since the discovery ofcrude oil in Oloibiri in 1956. As a result, there ishuge boom of the oil and gas activities in the area,which the oil servicing firms attend to.The cross-sectional research design was used inthis study. The population targeted are the juniorstaff of the oil and gas servicing firms located in PortHarcourt only (see Table 1 for breakdown). Thepurposive sampling technique as suggested byAmanchukwu et al., (2015) was utilised to select 81companies from 102 companies using followingindex: companies that have proper work structureand companies that have operated up to 25 years inthe area. The Taro Yamane equation was used togenerate appropriate sample size of respondentsfrom 24820 workers for the study (equation 1) and asample of 394 was derived. The proportionalequation was thereafter used to designate the 394respondents appropriately amongst the selectedcompanies (see Table 1). The researchers collecteddata for this study by administering copies ofquestionnaire on respondents randomly. Theresearch instrument was validated using the testretest method (Bara et al., 2017; Barbaranelli et al.,2015). Albeit, the administration of the questionnairewas done using some trained field assistants.n N/{1 N(e2)} .equ. 1where n the sample sizeN the total population sizee sampling error (in this case 0.05)1 constantThe data obtained through the questionnaire surveywere presented in tables. However, for the purposeof data analyses, the Pearson’s Product MomentCorrelation Coefficient (PPMC) was utilised. ThePPMC is given by equation 2 below:

Onuoha et al.751Table 1. Selected oil and gas servicing companies, number of staff and respondents’ size in thestudy area.S/NOil and Gas servicingfirms LtdDiving and Under waterServicesDive Mechanix LimitedDrafinsub Nigeria Ltdnumber offield staff46RSPCS/N14228421453434430954556Humber marine worksLimitedPisces offshore LtdMelsmore marine Nig Ltd23247Nil4464778Tethys plantgeriaTilone subsea Ltd67214511248499Under water inspectionmastersVettal mega services LtdWatergateTechnicalservices LtdOceantech Nig LtdEngineering servicesBonnedoEngineeringand general Services LtdCTRLSystemTechnologies Nig LtdCypher Crescent LtdDegrilsintegratedservices Nig LtdPhonexEngeneeringservicesGreen steps Nigeria LtdLinktechnicalandscientific LtdMorgreen Nig LtdMosab marine andEngineeringservicesGroupNest oil LTDPhonix Energy Nig LTDPoint 23242526𝑟 TetransllerLTDEngineering 𝑋𝑌 (𝑁𝑋̅𝑌̅ ) ( 𝑋 2 𝑁𝑋̅ 2 )( 𝑌 2 𝑁𝑋̅ 2 )Oil and Gas servicing firmsLtdScopex Nig Ltdnumber of ey Gateway LtdTotalqualityintegratedservices LtdWeco systems internationalLtdSowsco well servicingACME Energy integratedservicesAOS OrwellAtlantic fluids and integratedservices LtdDerotech int Ltd34764Nil5152Drilling petro Dynamic LtdEmral Nig Ltd311345551212413212Nil21535455Hamilton tech LtdHysol Energy LtdJimco Resources Nig Ltd1182451224Nil3425562454218234445758Power and energy oil toolsLtdSegofs Energy services LtdWeafir services company Ltd2545641235459Well fluid Ltd2464233124Nil6061Well data oil field Nig LtdNNPC Nig116173622823256Nil46263C K S EnvironmentPolmaz Kemnonlli Nig LtdPhelps international LtdRivers state ManagementagencySpecialty Drilling fluid Ltd23Nil equation2Where : N is the number of observationrxy – the correlation coefficient of the linearrelationshipbetween safety climate andleadership style.RSPCNilxi – is safety efficiencyx̅ – the mean of the values of the x- variable(safety Efficiency)yi – is leadership style ȳ – the mean of thevalues of the y- variable (leadership style) -- summation sign

752.Int. J. Health, Safety and Environ.Table 1. Continue.27Triumph power oil andGas systems Ltd.Weltek Limited453768The initiates Plc245469237127427071451772268943156223140West African VenturesAlchins Energy ServicesLtdSunatech InternationalLtdShellPetroleumDevelopment CompanyBelema oilGeodeticoffshoreservicesDominos oil and gasForte oilLewis oil and gasMasters Energy oil andgasNew Cross Explorationand production LtdNexpro GroupEnvirogreensupport LtdSofan ResourcesBrilview Energy41Omega maritime elfaco Lmted231473CB geophysical solufuild Ltd23842547475Epanoe Nig LtdFEM Associates Nig il10245480Geodetic offshore servicesGeomarine systems LtdGeo ville consulting LtdSuper geomatics services NigLtdRead well Geophysics.342523Nil81Thompsonandinvestment Ltd12123455TotalTechnicalGrace24820394Source: Field Work 2019Note: RSPC implies respondents’ size per selected oil and gas servicing companyTable 2. Leaders react quickly to solve the problem whentold about safety hazards.OptionsStrongly AgreedAgreeDisagreeStrongly disagreeTotalFrequency8910213266389RESULTSIn Table 2 the opinion of the respondents astouching how swiftly leaders react to solve problemsrelated to safety hazards is shown. In the table, 23%of the respondents account for those who stronglyagreed that, leaders react quickly to solve theproblem when told about safety hazards; whilethose that suggested that they agreed that leadersreact quickly to solve the problem when told aboutPercentage (%)23263417100safety hazards, accounted for 26% of the totalrespondents in the study area.Furthermore, 34 % of the total respondentssuggested that they disagreed that leaders reactquickly to solve the problem when told about safetyhazards, while the respondents that suggested that,they strongly disagreed that, leaders reacted quicklyto solve the problem when told about safety hazardsaccounted for 17% of the total respondents in thestudy area.

Onuoha et al.753Table 3. Leaders insist on thorough and regular safetyaudits and inspections.OptionsStrongly AgreedAgreeDisagreeStrongly disagreeTotalFrequency6411115955389Percentage (%)16294114100Table 4. Leaders try to continually improve safetylevels in each department.OptionsStrongly AgreedAgreeDisagreeStrongly disagreeTotalFrequency513522974389Table 3 presented the information on how leadersinsist on thorough and regular safety audits andinspections in the oil and gas servicing firms. In thetable, 16% of the respondent suggested that,leaders insist on thorough and regular safety auditsand inspections, while 29% of the respondentssuggested that they agreed that, leaders insist onthorough and regular safety audits and inspections.On the other hand, the respondents that disagreedwith the opinion that leaders insist on thorough andregular safe

leadership, executive leadership and strategic leadership, have been interchangeably used in literature for describing leadership. Irrespective of these titles and delegations, leadership has a critical role towards enhancing safety. In putting clear these assertions, refiner