A cosmopolitan approach to conceptualising …Conceptual Model Figure 1. Conceptual safety risk...

Kubicek – PACDEFF 2015 Faculty of Business

Cross culturally managing risk in ‘high’ risk industries:

A cosmopolitan approach to conceptualising

human factors in aviation environments

PACDEFF 2015 – Brisbane Novotel

Amadeus Kubicek B.Av, MBus(HRM), DBA (cand.)

Doctoral researcher

[email protected]


Outline

• Background

• Practice

• Research

• Conceptual framework

• Results

• Implications

• References


Background


Social & cultural theory of risk

Social theory of risk

• Based on the risk people take or accept (Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982)

• What is normal in societal culture should be, normal everywhere (Triandis,

1990)

Cultural theory

• Individual, and cultural differences exist in the perception of risk (Steg &

Seivers, 2000)

• Attitudes and perceptions towards risk are not the same universally(Slovic & Peters, 2006)


Risk & Human Factors relationship

Risk is about managing uncertainty - association to managing:

• Threat and error

• Human factors

• CRM

HF engages

• Physiological factors

• Social factors

• Organisational influences

• Cognitive factors - information processing, decision making, language, and

memory


Cosmopolitan approach

Cosmopolitan perspective

• Traditional views of risk are critically examined and risk taking may be the

norm (Earle & Cvetkovich, 1997)

• Cosmopolitans - belonging to a wider variety of groups with concern for

other group members (Earle & Cvetkovich, 1997)


Practice


Risk articulated in context

“Managing the effect of uncertainty on objectives” (ISO, 2009)

Figure 1. Risk Management Model. ISO 31000:2009 Standards


Cultural ambiguity in practice…

Abkowitz (2008)Reason (1996)ISO (2009)


Cross culture, risk & human factors

What is the connection of culture to external causes of an incident or

disaster?

• Culture is about values and belief systems

• Values – with differing ideas as to levels of acceptable risk

How might culture be a contributing factor?

• Different societal groups not aligned in their view of risk taking

Why might this be a contributing factor?

• The perception of risk and application to task performance


Cultural perspectives considered

• Dimensions of national cultures (Hofstede,1980, 1991, 2004, 2010)

• Model of National Culture Differences (Trompenaars, 1997)

• Globe - Cultural country clusters (Hayes, 2011)

• Country Clustering - Revised (Ronen & Shenker, 2013)


However, when acknowledging

cross-border & cultural differences…

How is the risk management & human

factors ‘cross-cultural foot print’

addressed?


Research


Research control variables – In brief

750 respondents filtered from high risk industries

• Aviation, Maritime, Construction, Manufacturing, Natural Resources

Country clusters (Ronen & Shenkar, 2013)

• USA, UK & Northern Ireland, Australia, & Singapore

Other considerations

• Age, Education level, Country of education, Country of sign on, Years of

experience, Position within organisation, Languages (native) spoken.


Statistics methodology

• Validated scales for all variables

• Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

• Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

• Descriptive statistics and correlations on all variables

• Goodness of fit measures and latent path coefficients

• Hierarchical Regression Analysis (HRA)

• Sobel Tests

• Testing effects between variables - Moderating and mediating

• Slope tests

• Bootstrapping (5000)


Interactive ‘culture’ constructs & variables -

Aviation settings

• Organisational behaviour and culture (OC)

• Emotional intelligence (EI)

• Cultural intelligence (CQ)

• Cross cultural role conflict, ambiguity, & overload (CCRCAO)

• Risk perception (RP)


Organisational behaviour & culture

• The culture of an organisation may be affected by influencing behaviour

and performance outcomes (George, Sleeth, & Siders, 1999)

• Organisational culture and cross culture impacts on the practices and

methodologies of task performance (Geller, 2005 Vecchi & Brennan, 2009)

Proposition:

• More emphasis on the degree of cultural risk perception that underlies

behaviour, system, or task


Emotional Intelligence (EI)

• Emotional Intelligence (EI) is the ability to recognise, interpret and

respond to feelings in others and within the individual (Bucher, 2008)

• Accordingly, EI correlates to the four-factor model of CQ i.e. meta-

cognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioural, in the context of culture

within diverse workforces (Moon, 2010)

Proposition:

• Developing EI defines actions and judgements when managing risk within

cross cultural environments


Cultural Intelligence (CQ)

• CQ looks to the level of adaptability from one cultural setting to another (Earley & Ang, 2003)

• CQ concepts within the constructs suggest risk perception may be

culturally based (Douglas & Wildavsky,1982; Steg & Sievers, 2000; Triandis 1990)

Proposition:

• Applying CQ may substantially develop the focus and remedy of

individual and team ‘error’ within organisational systems and culture


Cross cultural role conflict, ambiguity, &

overload (CCRCAO)

• The extent of role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload across countries

is significantly related to the cultural dimension (Peterson, Smith et al. 1995, Van

De Vliert and Van Yperen 1996)

Proposition:

• Within a cross cultural setting, conflict, ambiguity, and overload plays a

significant role in the way risk is perceived and the consequent actions

taken


Risk perception

• Risk perception has an association with culture with increasing research

aimed at articulating the extent it is embedded (Caulkins, 1999; Douglas & Wildavsky,

1982; Wilkinson, 2001)

• Risk perception influenced by geography, sociology, political science,

anthropology and psychology and culture when understanding human

behaviour in the face technological hazards (Slovic & Peters, 2010, 2006)

Proposition:

• The perception of risk in task performance varies across cultures but may be

aligned to the context of cultural settings by understanding the interacting

roles of OC, EI, CQ, & CCRCAO


Conceptual framework


Conceptual Research Framework

• Cognitive behaviour reliant upon organisational and individual values

and motivations (Earle & Cvetkovitch, 1997; Slovic & Peters, 2006)

• Cultural values engage emotional and psychological perspectives likely

to impact assessment and judgment of risk (Taylor-Goody & Zinn, 2006; Slovic &

Peters, 2006)

• Risk perspectives are not universally addressed in cross-cultural

settings organisations inherently engage a ‘one size fits all’ approach to

safety risk management (Kubicek, Ramudu, & Fish, 2013)

• Applying CQ and EI provides managerial self-awareness in the

effectiveness of teams that vary by culture (Shipper, Kincais, Rotondo & Hoffman,

2003)


Conceptual Model

Figure 1. Conceptual safety risk management and human factors model

Kubicek, A, Ramudu, B, & Fish, A. (2013). Perceiving safety and risk in culturally diverse organisations. International Journal of Risk

Management(15), 199-223


Results


Results – Interaction of variables

Positive relationships:

1. EI is positively related to CQ

2. CCRCAO is positively related to CQ

3. EI is positively related to RP

4. EI is positively related to OC

5. CQ is positively related to OC

6. OC is positively related to CCRCAO



Mediating relationship:

1. CQ mediates the relationship between EI and RP whereby CQ is

the key influencing variable between the two



Negative relationship:

1. CCRCAO is negatively related to OC whereby it has a negative

impact upon OC


Implications


Implications for practice

• Interactive variables (OC, CQ, EI, RP, CCRCAO) may be gauged and

developed from recruitment and selection processes to recurrent

training to positively impact risk management & human factors practice

• Provides clarity to the benchmark outlined in ISO 31000:2009 and the

tenets of HF in the application of ‘culture’

• Allows standardisation and alignment of risk management & human

factors behaviour


References

Abkowitz, M. (2008). Operational Risk Management: A Case Study Approach to Effective

Planning and Response. Hoboken - New Jersey, Wiley & Sons.

Cray, D. and G.R. Mallory (1998), Making Sense of Managing Culture, Thomson Business

Press, London.

Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). As essay on the selection of technological and

environmental dangers. Risk and culture. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Ltd.

Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1997). Culture, Cosmopolitanism, and Risk Management.

Risk Analysis, 17(1), 55-65.

Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: Individual interactions across

cultures. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.

Geller, E. S. (2005). Behavior-Based Safety and Occupational Risk Management.

Behavior Modification, 29(3), 539-561.

George, G., et al. (1999). "Organizing culture: Leader roles, behaviors, and reinforcement

mechanisms." Journal of Business & Psychology 13(4): 545–560.

Hayes, P. (2011). Global Leadership and Human Systems Integration Global Leadership.

Indiana Institute of Technology

Hofstede, G.,Hofstede J.,& Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of

the Mind, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill


References (cont.)

ISO. (2009). ISO 3100:2009 Risk management - Principles and guidelines. Geneva:

International Organization for Standardization

Janssens, M., & Brett, J. M. (2006). Cultural Intelligence in Global Teams. Group &

Organization Management, 31(1), 124-153.

Kubicek, A, Ramudu, B, & Fish, A. (2013). Perceiving safety and risk in culturally diverse

organisations. International Journal of Risk Management(15), 199-223

Low, D. and R. Chapman (2003). "Organisational and National Culture: A Study of

Overlap and Interaction in the Literature." International Journal of Employment Studies

11(1): 55-75

Moon, T. (2010). Emotional intelligence correlates of the four-factor model of cultural

intelligence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25(8), 876 – 898

Peterson, M F., Smith, P B.. . . Setiadi, Bernadette. (1995). Role Conflict, Ambiguity, and

Overload: A 21 nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 429-452. doi:

10.2307/256687

Purdy, G. (2010). ISO 31000:2009 Setting a New Standard for Risk Management. Risk

Analysis, 30(6), 881-886

Ronen, S. and O. Shenkar (2013). "Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources

and implications." Journal of International Business Studies.


References (cont.)

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence, imagination. Cognition and

Personality, 9(No.3), 89-92.

Steg, L., & Sievers, I. (2000). Cultural Theory and Individual Perceptions of Environmental

Risks. Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 250-269.

Stolzer, A. J., Halford, C. D., & Goglia, J. J. (2008). Safety Management Systems in

Aviation. Surrey: Ashgate.

Slattery, J. P., & Ganster, D. C. (2002). Determinants of Risk Taking in a Dynamic

Uncertain Context. Journal of Management, 28(1), 89-106.

Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk Perception and Affect. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 15(6), 322-325.

Stolzer, A. J., Halford, C. D., & Goglia, J. J. (2008). Safety Management Systems in

Aviation. Surrey: Ashgate.

Thomas, D. C. (2006). Domain and Development of Cultural Intelligence. Group &

Organization Management, 31(1), 78-99.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford.

Triandis, H. C. (1990). Theoretical concepts of use to practitioners. In R. Brislin (Ed.).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


References (cont.)

Trompenaars, F.C. (1997) Riding the Waves of Culture. Hampden-Turner

Van De Vliert, E. and N. W. Van Yperen (1996). "Why cross-national differences in role

overload? Don't overlook ambient temperature!" Academy of Management Journal 39(4):

986.

Vecchi, A., & Brennan, L. (2009). Quality management: A cross cultural perspective. Cross

Cultural Management: An International Journal, l6. 2, 149-164.

Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, Jossey-

Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk Perception and Affect. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 15(6), 322-325.

Steg, L., & Sievers, I. (2000). Cultural Theory and Individual Perceptions of Environmental

Risks. Environment and Behavior, 32(2), 250-269.


Thank you

Amadeus Kubicek

[email protected]

Acknowledgement to Dr Bhanugopan Ramudu

[email protected] for his assistance in supervising this research

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

A cosmopolitan approach to conceptualising …Conceptual Model Figure 1. Conceptual safety risk...

Documents

Transcript of A cosmopolitan approach to conceptualising …Conceptual Model Figure 1. Conceptual safety risk...