Work Practices & Employee

Engagement / Perception Models

for Improving Workplace Safety

Jan K. Wachter

 Alcoa Foundation
Mr. Pat Yorio, IUP Safety
Sciences Department

Two Major Approaches to

Managing Safety
Safety management system
approaches
Planning; risk identification, analysis, control
and reduction; operational control; directives
and processes; continual improvement
OHSAS 18001, ISO 14001, ANSI/AIHA Z-10
(process based); combination of risk
management and quality approaches
OSHA VPP (performance based)

Behavior-based approaches
Employee observations and feedback; critical
behavior inventory

Problem?
Safety management systems will always be
flawed:
you cant plan and control to such a flawless degree
that is practical / economical
these systems tend to be inflexible, while work is
adaptive
flawed people develop and implement these flawed
systems

Behavior is hard to understand and change

The two approaches are an either-or
proposition for many organizations

Safety Management
Systems

Behavioral
Approaches

Anatomy of an Event (Department of Energy)

IUP Research Study

(Surveys + Interviews)
Safety manager / supervisor survey
Which safety management practices tend to
reduce accident rates?

Employee survey
What is the role of employee perception /
behavioral constructs in reducing accident rates?

Link surveys
How do safety management practices and
employee perceptions work together to reduce
accident rates?

Interviews at high performing organizations

What human performance tools work in managing
human error? Why do these work?

Framework for Controlling an Event from a Human

Performance Perspective

Latent
Latent
Organizatio
Organizatio
nal
nal
Weaknesse
Weaknesse
(policies,
ss(policies,
processes
processes
and
and
programs)
programs)

Safety
Manageme
nt System

Flawe
Flawe
dd
Contro
Contro
ls
ls

Behaviorbased
Safety
Initiatin
Initiatin
Action
ggAction
(Active
(Active
Error)
Error)

EVENT
EVENT

Error
Error
Precurs
Precurs
ors
ors

Human
Human
Performan
Performan
ceTools
Tools
ce
Worker
Worker
Engagem
Engagem
ent
ent

Employee Survey Results Regarding the

Presence of Error Precursors in the Workplace
.

Measure

At work, there are time pressures. I feel rushed.

At work, there are mental pressures. I find it difficult to
concentrate.
At work, I conduct many non-routine tasks.
At work, I conduct many new / unfamiliar tasks.
At work, I typically have a high workload.
At work, I typically multi-task doing many different things at
the same time.
At work, I receive work guidance which is at times vague or
imprecise.
At work, there are many distractions around me.
At work, there is low likelihood of management detecting a
violation of safety rules.

Mean
Respo
nse
3.44
2.94
3.31
3.01
3.51
3.72
3.06
3.19
2.71

At work, safety requirements are very inconvenient to comply 2.35

Correlations between the Presence of Reported

Error Precursors
and Near Misses, First Aid Injuries and Injuries
First Beyon
Beyond First Aid
Near
Measure

At work, there are time pressures. I feel rushed.

At work, there are mental pressures. I find it difficult
to concentrate.
At work, I conduct many non-routine tasks.
At work, I conduct many new / unfamiliar tasks.
At work, I typically have a high workload.
At work, I typically multi-task doing many different
things at the same time.
At work, I receive work guidance which is at times
vague or imprecise.
At work, there are many distractions around me.
At work, there is low likelihood of management
detecting a violation of safety rules.
At work, safety requirements are very inconvenient
to comply with.
Note: * p <.05

Aid
d First
Misse
Event Aid
s
s
Events

.19*
.16*

.10*
.08*

.08*
.06*

.12*
.10*
.11*
.03

.06*
.06*
.02
.03

.04
.05*
.04
.01

.16*

.08*

.05*

.23*
.16*

.09*
.09*

.08*
.06*

.19*

.10*

.09*

Employee Survey Results on

Performance Modes
Used by Workers in Error-Prone
Situations
Number of workers responding to this inquiry was 2,262
Question: When I am confronted with really
Percent
abnormal conditions or unusual situations, my
Response
strongest tendency is to do which of the following:
SKILL-BASED MODE: I stop work and seek guidance as
to how to proceed.

41.0%

RULE-BASED MODE: I apply rules, procedures, and

protocols and use them as guidance as to how to
proceed.
KNOWLEDGE-BASED MODE: I draw upon my own
existing knowledge and use it as guidance as to how to
proceed (e.g., thinking things through on the spot).

27.8%

22.2%

Framework for Controlling an Event from a Human

Performance Perspective

Latent
Latent
Organizatio
Organizatio
nal
nal
Weaknesse
Weaknesse
(policies,
ss(policies,
processes
processes
and
and
programs)
programs)

Safety
Manageme
nt System

Flawe
Flawe
dd
Contro
Contro
ls
ls

Behaviorbased
Safety
Initiatin
Initiatin
Action
ggAction
(Active
(Active
Error)
Error)

EVENT
EVENT

Error
Error
Precurs
Precurs
ors
ors

Human
Human
Performan
Performan
ceTools
Tools
ce
Worker
Worker
Engagem
Engagem
ent
ent

Interview Results: Top 10 human performance

improvement tools (from high performing
organizations)
Conducting Worker-Centric Pre-task and Post-task
Briefings (e.g., Toolbox Meetings)
Self-Checking / STAR
Take-A-Minute / Job-Site Review
STOP and Seek / STOP When Unsure / Pause When
Unsure
Questioning Attitude
Identifying Critical Steps
Coaching and Observation
Three-Way (Repeat Back) Communications
Concurrent Verification / Peer Checking
Procedure Use, Adherence and Review

Why Do These Human Performance

Tools Work?
Heighten workers situational awareness
activates workers personal defenses

Heighten workers sense of uneasiness

ditto

ACTIVELY ENGAGE THE WORKER

Cognitive, emotional and physical
To be aware of the flaws (error precursors) in the
safety management system?
To be aware of the flaws in themselves?

Safety Manager / Supervisor Survey

Qualitative Questions
What is the most important human performance tool
being used (by your organization) for human error
prevention or human performance improvement?
Qualitative question in survey.

What is the degree of worker engagement associated

with these human error prevention / human
performance improvement tools?
Transformed data from qualitative answers provided above.

What is the most important tool being used (by your

organization) to engage workers in the safety function?
Qualitative question in survey.

What is the degree of worker engagement associated

with these worker engagement tools?
Transformed data from qualitative answers provided above.

Description of Engagement Levels for Survey Responses

Engagement
Level
1
VERY
PASSIVE;
VERY LOW
LEVEL
2
PASSIVE;
LOW LEVEL

3
NEUTRAL

4
ACTIVE;
HIGH LEVEL

Description

Survey response is manager-centric and/or the

response does not mention the worker at all.
It is improbable that the response would engage
the worker cognitively, emotionally and/or
physically.
Survey response is manager-centric and/or the
response does not mention the worker at all.
It is unlikely that the response would engage the
worker cognitively, emotionally and/or physically.

The survey response is neutral.

It does not specifically mention the worker and/or it
is unclear or uncertain if the response could
engage the worker cognitively, emotionally and/or
physically.

Survey response mentions (or strongly alludes to)

the worker
The response probably engages the worker
cognitively, emotionally and/or physically.

VERY ACTIVE;

Survey response is clearly worker-centric.

Percent of Responses in Human Performance

Improvement Tool Categories

Average score
= 2.7

Percent of Human Performance Improvement Tool

Responses by Worker Engagement Level

Percent of Responses in Worker Engagement Tool

Categories

Average score
= 3.2

Percent of Worker Engagement Tool Responses by

Worker Engagement Level

1 Set of Conclusions
st

High-performing organizations often cite

that using tools that engage their workers
is critical to their human performance
success pre-task and post-task briefings
Current practice: Tools being used across
organizations to prevent human error are
not necessarily those tools being used by
high-performing organizations.
The general worker engagement level of these
human error prevention approaches is
medium/low and can be considered to be
somewhat passive.

1 Set of Conclusions
st

Current practice: Majority of tools that are

being used by these organizations to
actually engage workers in safety are not
generally the same ones that are being used
to increase human performance.
These engagement tools are also not
exceptionally engaging to workers.
In order for organizations to enhance human
performance and reduce human error, safety
managers and their organizations need to
become better educated and focused on
adopting those human performance tools
being used by high-performing organizations
today that engage workers.

Research Study 1:
An investigation of safety management
system practices (and worker engagement)
on
safety performance outcomes
(TRC and DART rates; numbers of
accidents)

Pre- and Post

-Task Safety
Reviews
Hiring Practices
for Safety

TRC
and
DART
Rates

Cooperation
Facilitation
Safety Training
Accident
Investigation
Detection and
Monitoring
Safe Task
Assignment
Employee
Involvement in
Specific SafetyRelated Processes

Engagement
(mediation)

Safety Management Practices

Communication and
Information Sharing
Activities

Establishment
Sector

Safe Work
Procedures

Establishme
nt Size

Research Model for Study Number

1

Research Questions
Question 1. Is there a significant relationship
between the safety management system (or its
individual ten safety management practices)
with TRC and DART rates? Do sector or
organization size matter in the
significance/strength of these relationships?
Question 2. Is there a significant relationship
between the level of safety worker engagement
(emotional engagement; cognitive
engagement) with TRC and DART rates?

Research Questions
Question 3. Can safety management practices
and/or worker engagement levels be used to
individually predict safety performance outcomes as
measured by TRC and DART rates?
Question 4. Can safety management practices be
used to predict worker engagement levels?
Question 5. Does worker engagement (emotional
engagement, cognitive engagement, and
composite) act as a mediator between the safety
management system and safety performance
outcomes as measured by TRC and DART rates and
number of accidents?

Correlations for Safety Management Practices and Engagement Levels

with Safety Outcomes (Safety Manager Survey)
TRC
Rate

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

TRC Rate
DART Rate
Emotional Engagement
Cognitive Engagement
Engagement Composite
6. System of Safety Management
Practices (Total)
7. Safe Work Procedures
8. Employee Involvement
9. Safe Task Assignment
10. Pre- /Post-Task Safety Reviews
11. Detection and Monitoring
12. Accident Investigation
13. Communication and Information
Sharing
14. Safety Training
15. Cooperation Facilitation
16. Hiring for Safety

DART Rate

.74
-.34
-.27
-.32

-.33
-.21
-.30

-.29

-.27

-.22
-.30
-.15
-.27
-.16
-.13

-.21
-.29
-.13
-.30
-.13
-.16

-.23

-.19

-.27
-.22
-.13

-.22
-.16
-.12

Note: All correlations are significant at the p <.05 level. Correlations greater than or equal to .
17 or less than or equal to -.17 are significant at the p <.001 level.

Safety Management Practice Composites Rank Order

(Predicting TRC Rate)
Note: Rankings based on squared correlation (R) from simple linear
regression models.

SAFETY
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT /
INFLUENCE
SAFETY TRAINING
PRE- AND POST-TASK
SAFETY REVIEWS
COMMUNICATION
AND INFORMATION
SHARING
COOPERATION
FACILITATION
SAFE WORK
PROCEDURES
DETECTION AND
MONITORING
TASK-EMPLOYEE

NONMANUFA
TOTAL
500
> 500
MANUFA
CTSAMPLE EMPLOY EMPLOY
CTURING
TRC
EES TRC EES TRC
URING
TRC
RATE
RATE
RATE
TRC
RATE
RATE
1

10

10

Safety Management Practice Composites Rank Order

(Predicting DART Rate)
Note: Rankings based on squared correlation (R) from simple linear
regression models.
SAFETY
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
PRE- AND POST-TASK
SAFETY REVIEWS
EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT /
INFLUENCE
SAFETY TRAINING
SAFE WORK
PROCEDURES
COOPERATION
FACILITATION
COMMUNICATION
AND INFORMATION
SHARING
ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATION
TASK-EMPLOYEE

NON 500
>500
MANUFA
TOTAL
MANUFA
EMPLOY EMPLOY
CTSAMPLE
CTEES
EES
URING
DART
URING
DART
DART
DART
RATE
DART
RATE
RATE
RATE
RATE
1

10

10

Safety Management Practice Composite Rankings across TRC

and DART Rates
Note: Rankings based on squared correlation (R) from simple linear
regression models.
SAFETY MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES

EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT /
INFLUENCE
PRE- AND POST-TASK
SAFETY REVIEWS
SAFETY TRAINING
COMMUNICATION AND
INFORMATION SHARING
SAFE WORK
PROCEDURES
COOPERATION
FACILITATION
TASK-EMPLOYEE
MATCHING
ACCIDENT
INVESTIGATION

TOTAL
SAMPLE
(ALL
GROUPS)
TRC RATE

TOTAL
SAMPLE
(ALL
GROUPS)
DART
RATE

AVERAGE
RANK
ACROSS
TRC AND
DART
RATES

GENERALI
ZED RANK
(ALL
GROUPS)
TRC AND
DART
RATES

1.5

2.0

2.5

4.5

5.5

8.0

8.0

Regression Results: Prediction of TRC and DART Rates by Safety

Management System and Engagement Constructs
(Safety Manager Survey)
Outcomes
Predictor

TRC
Rate

DART
Rate

Safety Management
System

-.11*

.09

-.06*

.07

-1.08*

.11

-.58*

.09

Emotional
Engagement

-.97*

.11

-.55*

.11

Cognitive
Engagement

-.87*

.07

-.41*

.05

Engagement Composite

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. * p < .01

MEDIATION

Safe Work
Procedures

Communication and
Information Sharing
Pre- Post-Task Safety
Reviews
Hiring Practices for
Safety

Cooperation
Facilitation
Safety Training
Accident
Investigation
Detection and
Monitoring

Safe Task
Assignment

TRC
Rate
Mediator

Systems of Safety
Management Practices

Employee Involvement /
Influence in Specific
Safety-Related
Processes

ENGAGEM
ENT

DART
Rate

Mediation Regression Results (Safety Manager Survey)

*p <.05, **p <.01.
Mediators

Outcomes

Engagement

TRC Rate

DART Rate

Predict
ors

Engagemen
t
Composite

Emotion
al

Cognitiv
e

Engagem
ent
Composit
e

Emotion
al

Cogniti
ve

Engageme
nt
Composite

Emotion
al

Cogniti
ve

Employee
Engagem
ent
Composit
e

NA

NA

NA

-.24**

NA

NA

-.21**

NA

NA

Emotional
Engagem
ent

NA

NA

NA

NA

-.73**

NA

NA

-.26**

NA

Cognitive
Engagem
ent

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-.15*

NA

NA

-.09

Safety
Managem
ent
System

.07**

.07**

.06**

-.16*

-.15*

-.21*
*

-.15*

-.13*

-.22*
*

Adjusted
R

.35

.29

.29

.12

.10

.10

.10

.12

.08

Correlations for Various Constructs

(Supervisor & Employee Surveys) (n = 60)

1. Recordable Accidents
2. Lost Time Accidents
3. Emotional Engagement
4. Cognitive Engagement
5. Composite Engagement
6. Safety Management System
7. Safe Work Procedures
8. Employee Involvement
9. Safe Task Assignment
10. Pre- & Post- Task Safety
Reviews
11. Detection & Monitoring
12. Accident Investigation
13. Communication & Info
Sharing
14. Safety Training
15. Cooperation Facilitation
16. Hiring for Safety

1. Recordable
Accidents

2. Lost Time
Accidents

.91
-.48
-.67
-.63
-.45
-.44
-.37
-.28

-.41
-.59
-.56
-.42
-.38
-.41
-.18

-.45

-.49

-.41
-.15

-.35
-.13

-.40

-.41

-.08
-.36
.08

-.07
-.37
.05

Note: All correlations greater than or equal to .27 or less than or equal to -.27 are
significant at the p <.05 level. All correlations greater than or equal to .35 or less than or

Regression Results: Prediction of Number of Recordable and Lost Time

Accidents by Safety Management Systems and Engagement Constructs
(Supervisor and Employee Surveys)
Outcomes
Predictor
Safety
Management
Systems
Engagement
Composite
Emotional
Engagement
Cognitive
Engagement

Recorda
ble
Incident
s

Lost
Time
Incident
s

-.03*

.20

-.02*

.18

-.59*

.40

-.41*

.31

-.41*

.23

-.28*

.17

-.59*

.45

-.41*

.35

Mediation Regression Results (Supervisor and Employee Surveys)

Mediators

Predictors

Outcomes

Engagem Emotiona
Cognitive
ent
l
Engagem
Composit Engagem
ent
e
ent

Recordable
Accidents

Lost Time
Accidents

Employee
Engagement
Composite

NA

NA

NA

-.54*
*

NA

NA

-.35*
*

NA

NA

Emotional
Engagement

NA

NA

NA

NA

-.29*

NA

NA

-.01

NA

Cognitive
Engagement

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-.56*
*

NA

NA

-.37*
*

Safety
Management
System

.04**

.03**

.04**

-.01

-.02

-.00

-.01

-.17

-.00

.38

.29

.38

.41

.29

.45

.32

.23

.36

Adjusted R

Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients reported. p <.07, *p

<.05, **p <.01.
Above results show strong mediation through engagement of
safety management systems effects on TRC and DART rates.

Results/Conclusions from
Study 1
Each of the safety management practices
identified in this study can be used to effectively
decrease TRC and DART rates at the
establishment level (safety manager survey).
Employee involvement; pre- and post-task safety reviews
There are some effects of organizational size and sector;
organizational size has more impact on the strength of
these correlations than sector

Increased levels of perceived worker

engagement can effectively decrease TRC and
DART rates at the establishment level.
These safety management practices may work by
engaging workers.

Additional Quirky Results

Accident investigations conducted using a team
approach especially teams including employees
were associated with lower TRC and DART rates;
manager-alone accident investigations actually
increased accident rates! Employee engagement
effects?
Training going beyond OSHA compliance (hazard
identification, evaluation and control) was
associated with lower accident rates; training
which was primarily OSHA-compliance related
actually increased accident rates! Employee
engagement effects?

Results/Conclusions from
Study 1
Question 1. Is there a significant
relationship between the safety
management system or its individual ten
safety management system practices with
TRC and DART rates? YES
Question 2. Is there a significant
relationship between the level of safety
worker engagement (emotional
engagement; cognitive engagement;
emotional and cognitive engagement
composite) with TRC and DART rates? YES

Results/Conclusions from
Study 1
Question 3. Can safety management systems and/or
worker engagement levels be used to individually
predict safety performance outcomes as measured by
TRC and DART rates? YES
Question 4. Can safety management systems be used
to predict worker engagement levels? YES
Question 5. Do worker engagement levels (emotional
engagement, cognitive engagement, and cognitive and
emotional engagement composite) act as mediators
between the safety management system and safety
performance outcomes as measured by TRC and DART
rates? YES, especially when using employee data

Research Study 2
Linked employee and supervisor
survey results for this research
study.
Whats the interaction of safety
management systems and
employee perception / behavioral
constructs with reducing
accidents?

Research Model for Study Number 2

Safe Work
Procedures

Safety Climate

Communication and
Information Sharing
Pre- Post-Task Safety
Reviews
Hiring Practices for
Safety

Cooperation
Facilitation
Safety Training
Accident
Investigation
Detection and
Monitoring

Safe Task
Assignment

Procedural Justice
Climate

Mediators

Systems of Safety
Management Practices

Employee Involvement /
Influence in Specific
Safety-Related
Processes

Interactional Justice
Climate

Recorda
ble
Injuries

Informational Justice
Climate
Individual Safety
Proficiency
Social Safety
Proficiency
Employee
Engagement

Lost Time
Injuries

Mediators
Safety climate priority placed on safety.
Engagement harnessing full selves in active,
complete work role performances by driving personal
energy into cognitive and emotional labors.
Individual safety proficiency captures the degree to
which an employee carries out his or her own work safely.
It reflects the consistent and proper execution of the safe
work behaviors required of the individual.
Social safety proficiency captures the
interdependent nature of employee safety performance
behaviors and is conceptualized to represent the
minimum cooperative behavioral elements needed to
ensure the safety of the collective.

Mediator: Justice
Procedural justice captures an employees
perception that practices are developed from
accurate information, are unbiased and impartial,
conform to an ethical standard, and the opportunity
has been extended to employees to influence them.
Interactional justice captures an employees
perception that they are treated with dignity and
respect.
Informational justice captures an employees
perception that information regarding practices is
communicated by the organization in a timely,
candid, and honest way.

Study Number 2 Descriptive Statistics and

Correlation Table
Note: All correlations above or below .25 / -.25 are significant at
the p = .05 level. All correlations above or below .33 / -.33 are
significant at the p = .01 level. SMPs are safety management
practices.
1) System of SMPs
2) Individual Safety
Proficiency
3) Social Safety
Proficiency
4) Safety Climate
5) Engagement
6) Procedural Justice
Climate
7) Interactional Justice
Climate
8) Informational Justice
Climate
9) Recordable
Accidents
10) Lost Time
Accidents

Mea
n
46.46

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

8)

9)

-.3
-.4
-.3 -.1
-.3
-.40
-.47
-.48
5
5
9
5
9
-.3
-.4
-.3 -.1
-.2
-.39
-.41
-.42
1
7
3
0
9

.
83

4.02

.42

3.97

.44

.70

4.01

.66

.63

.56

4.10

.65

.51

.49

.75

3.54

.60

.49

.30

.65

.65

4.00

.61

.56

.52

.74

.74 .70

3.84

.59

.48

.37

.81

.81 .73

1.13
1.07

7)

.74

MEDIATION ANALYSES
The summed measure of the system
of safety management practices
significantly predicted both the
number of recordable injuries
( = -.411, p <.001) and injuries
which resulted in days away from
work ( = -.392, p <.001)

Safety Climate as Mediator

Note: Standardized regression coefficients reported. p
<.07,*p<.05, **p<.01

PREDICTOR
S
SAFETY
MANAGEME
NT
PRACTICES
SAFETY
CLIMATE
ADJUSTED
R

MEDIATO
R

OUTCOMES

SAFETY
CLIMATE

RECORD
LOST
ABLE
TIME
INJURIES INJURIES

.555**

-.154

-.175

NA

-.357*

-.316*

.308

.212

.192

Employee Engagement as Mediator

Note: Standardized regression coefficients reported. p
<.07,*p<.05, **p<.01

MEDIATOR
PREDICTOR
S
SAFETY
MANAGEME
NT
PRACTICES
EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEME
NT
ADJUSTED
R

EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEM
ENT

OUTCOMES
RECORD
LOST
ABLE
TIME
INJURIE INJURIE
S
S

.391**

-.197

-.164

NA

-.326*

-.328*

.153

.197

.126

Interactional Justice Climate as

Mediator
Note: Standardized regression coefficients reported. p <.07,
*p<.05, **p<.01

PREDICTORS

SAFETY
MANAGEMEN
T PRACTICES
INTERACTIO
NAL JUSTICE
CLIMATE
ADJUSTED R

MEDIATOR

OUTCOMES

INTERACTI
ONAL
JUSTICE
CLIMATE

RECORDA
LOST
BLE
TIME
INJURIES INJURIES

.581**

-.094

-.180

NA

-.445**

-.294

.337

.255

.180

Social Safety Proficiency as Mediator

Note: Standardized regression coefficients reported. p
<.07,*p<.05, **p<.01

PREDICTOR
S

SAFETY
MANAGEME
NT
PRACTICES
SOCIAL
SAFETY
PROFICIEN
CY
ADJUSTED
R

MEDIAT
OR

OUTCOMES

SOCIAL
SAFETY
PROFICIE
NCY

RECORD
LOST
ABLE
TIME
INJURIES INJURIES

.477**

-.114

-.190

NA

-.396*

-.325*

.227

.141

.131

Conclusion
Many of the employee perception / behavioral constructs
investigated act as mediators through which a safety
management system works.
The personal effects of a safety management system
(and its practices) on workers are important in reducing
accidents.
A safety management system may be a necessary preexisting condition in order to have a chance to be safe,
but it cannot guarantee it. You also need to have positive
employee perceptions and engagement related to safety.
Thus, you need to have a combination of safety
management systems and behavior-nurturing
systems in the workplace to better ensure a higher
probability of working safely.

Models
Various structural models (e.g.,
putting the pieces together) can be
theorized based on the correlations
previously determined.

Safety
Program
Focused
Justice
Perception
s

+
-

Safety
Specific
Job
Engagem
ent

Near
Misses

Job
Distracti
ons

A Hypothesized Structural Model

Proced
ural
Justice
Safety
Program
Focused
Justice
Perceptio
ns

Interaction
al Justice
.
8
1

.
77

.
9
1

Informati
onal
Justice

Behavior
al

.
75

.95

.61
-.4
7
-.1
2

Cognitive

Emotional

Engagem
ent in
the
Safety
R =.
Program
59

.
91
-.1
7

Near
Misses
R =.
17

.
1
6

Job
Distracti
ons

Expanded Structural
Model