Facilities

Facilities maintenance employees’ priority of safety management practices: a research study in Malaysia
Saharani bin Jaafar Weng Wai Choong Abdul Hakim bin Mohamed
Article information:
To cite this document:
Saharani bin Jaafar Weng Wai Choong Abdul Hakim bin Mohamed , (2017)," Facilities maintenance employees’ priority of
safety management practices: a research study in Malaysia ", Facilities , Vol. 35 Iss 5/6 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/F-03-2015-0012
Downloaded on: 28 February 2017, At: 10:31 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10 times since 2017*
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Facilities maintenance employees’ priority of safety management practices:
a research study in Malaysia

1. Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
In Malaysia, since the introduction of Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) in 1994,
there have been appreciable reductions in industrial accidents in the earlier phases. However
the pace of improvement over the last fourteen years has been very modest. According to the
Annual Report by the Social Security Organisation of Malaysia (SOCSO), a total of 75,386
industrial cases of accidents reported in 2000, were reduced to 34,376 cases in 2009 and
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

increased to 35,294 cases in 2014, Figure 1. The fluctuation figures show that there is a much
lower level of awareness and practical implementation of procedures in compliance with
OSHA than expected despite relatively comprehensive legislation and enforcement. The
OSHA places the onus on the employers to ensure safety at the workplace; however statistics
thus far indicate there is a long way to go before the goals can be considered achieved, and
need to be monitored and managed closely by all related parties.

< insert [Figure 1] >

Many researchers have shown that a majority of accidents at the workplace are
caused by human or employees’ errors (Zohar, 1980;Vredenburgh, 2002; Fang et al., 2006;
Liu et al., 2009). Ismail and Omar (2003) conducted a survey on “the level of compliance to
OSH rules and regulations by employees in manufacturing and construction firms in
Malaysia” and found that there was low level of compliance to the safety procedures when
handling dangerous materials. The percentage of firms with low compliance ranged from
34.1% to 46.5% which showed that non-compliance to OSH regulations among the employees
of manufacturing and construction firms was the dominant behaviour.
Ali and Wan Mohamad (2009) conducted an assessment on facilities
maintenance management practices and processes by appointed facilities maintenance
management companies in a public hospital in Malaysia. The five key elements that were
assessed were leadership; training and orientation; plan and procedures; service performance
monitoring and supervision. Safety management which was a sub-section of service
performance element was audited on safety procedures, training, incident records and personal
protective equipment. The contractors were found to have poor safety management practices
 which lack of basic safety equipment, and systematic hazard prevention procedures were not
developed for maintenance personnel. With a low rate of 25% for the element of safety
management, it is clear that the contractors have put little effort to comply with contractual
and regulatory requirements in managing the hospital facilities.
Occurrences of accidents are essentially evidence that a business does not have
good control of their processes. Accidents are valuable sources of information about defects
in business processes. They may impact an organization’s reputation, assets, people,
competitiveness, product & service quality and environment to any degree of severity and any
combination over the short, medium or long terms. A majority of workplace accidents arise
from uncontrolled human actions, behaviour and errors which result from lack of knowledge
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

with respect to work procedures, commitment, ownership, experience and skill.

Human factors, deficient maintenance and environmental factors were classified
as main factors to the accidents occurrences (Adebiyi & Charles-Owaba, 2009). Jannadi and
Bu-Khamsin (2002) stated that the main factors that caused the accidents are related to human
behaviour, bad working area conditions and weaknesses in implementing safety management
practices. Therefore, the application and implementation of effective safety management is
important to create safe workplace and environment.

1.2 Research objective

This research sought to address questions pertaining to priorities on safety management
practices as well as means of measuring them objectively to increase safety performance.

2. Safety Management Practices

Safety management has been defined as controlling safety policies, procedures, and practices
(Wilson & Koehn, 2000); tangible practices, responsibility and performance related to safety
(Mearns et al., 2003); overall management function (Harms-Ringdahl, 2004); management
systems that were designed to control the hazards (Labodova, 2004); integrated mechanisms
to control risk (Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2009) and a series of activities to avoid unsafe
activities and hazards (Cheng et al., 2012). The elements of safety management practices may
vary depending on the complexity of the operations in the organisations and it should be
tailored to meet the organisation’s needs and objectives.
Vinodkumar & Bhasi (2010) in their recent studies demonstrated the validity and
reliability of the six safety management practices. Based on their findings, it clearly
demonstrates that safety performance is the results of safety management practices
 implementation. The six elements of safety management practices are management
commitment; workers’ involvement in safety; safety training; safety communication and
feedback; safety rules and procedures, and safety promotion policies.

2.1 Management commitment

Management commitment and leadership are the most important elements in the success of a
safety program in any organisation. Without commitment, leadership and support from
leaders, none of the other elements of safety management can be implemented. Management’s
demonstration of commitment is the key factor of any safety management practices. The
attention given by management to safety programs should be translated through their speech,
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

attitude and action (Hofmann et al., 1995). The committed management will give priority to
safety issues and any corrective action, attend safety meeting, conduct an investigation if any
accident or near miss occurred and provide adequate safety protection equipment at
workplace. They will ensure their employees are working in a safe workplace environment
(Vredenburgh, 2002). Workers are willing to participate in safety performance activities if the
employers are concerned on their personal safety (Langford et al., 2000). The organisation
health and policy statement reflects the management expectation and priorities on safety
(Waring, 1996; Chan et al., 2004; Law et al., 2006). Establishing and communicating clear
safety objectives would lead towards achieving the desired results. It clearly shows that safety
program initiatives have to be driven from the top to bottom and employer’s active
participation will significantly contribute to the safety performance in the organisation
(Langford et al., 2000; Hon et al., 2014).

2.2 Workers’ involvement in safety

Employees’ involvement in the safety management activities is one of the most effective
approaches in preventing accidents at workplace. This will promote employees’ awareness,
instil understanding of the comprehensiveness of management practices and allow employees
to be part of the system. Employees have the rights to have sufficient information about safety
in the workplace and other related information to enable them to participate effectively in any
safety programs (Soehod, 2008). Workers’ involvement in safety is a behavioural-oriented
method where it involves the flow of communication and decision making from bottom to top.
The degree of participation in safety activities will depend on the employee contribution in the
decision making process (Vredenburgh, 2002). Injury rates are significantly related to
employee participation in the decision making process. Their active participation should help
 in reducing injury rates at workplace (Ali et al., 2009). Employee participation and conducive
working area were the main factors to safety activities in organisation (Cheyne et al., 2002).
Employee attitude and behaviour are the driven factors to ensure the desired results are
achieved in implementing safety practices at workplace (Agumba & Haupt, 2014). Employees
whose ideas were considered by their employer, tend to participate in any safety activities
conducted at their workplace. Thus, it will increase the safety performance in their working
organisation.

2.3 Safety training

Effective safety training is identified as the key element in successful accident prevention
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

programs. The common method responding to employee performance is training. Training

activities intend to enable employees to have appropriate attitudes and increase awareness and
will improve the employees’ behaviour toward safety, skills and knowledge (Sari, 2009). Law
et al., (2006) defined safety training as knowledge that needs to be given for employee to
work safely without danger to their wellbeing. Accidents can be predictable if the employees
are provided with systematic and comprehensive safety training. Employees with
understanding and knowledge on the safety requirement can identify the potential hazards and
preventive action at their workplace (Vredenburgh, 2002). A competent employee can identify
potential hazards, influencing personal safety action and improving company safety
performance (Langford et al, 2000). Employees who are not trained in safety normally fail to
identify the potential hazard while performing their work (Toole, 2002). Huang et al., (2006)
discovered the relation between safety training and safety performance. Therefore, clear
policy on safety training needs to be established as it plays an important role in reducing
accident rates and increasing safety performance.

2.4 Safety communication and feedback

Communication is important in keeping people and the organisation working together. The
management, supervisors and workers need to constantly communicate about safety issues in
the workplace so that effective safety management procedures can be practiced.
Vredenburgh, (2002); Cox & Cheyne, (2000) and Mearns et al., (2003) found in their studies
that safety performance is influenced by the level of communication within an organisation.
Communication on the issue of safety is a necessary element in developing safety culture in
the organisation (Thompson et al., 1998; Flin et al., 2000). Effective communication skill will
ensure the safety message is delivered as the management intentioned. It will nurture the
 safety culture among the employees through sharing information and active communication
(Dingsdag et al., 2008). Communication and feedback and also the employee participation
were discovered to have positive relation with rates of injury. Frequent discussion and
communication of the issue of safety does reduce the injury rates (Ali et al., 2009). Safety
committee plays a significant role in improving the safety communication and feedback
among the employees in the organisation, and are most likely improving the safety
performance (Langford et al., 2000). Safety communication and feedback is needed to
enhance the mutual understanding between employer and employees on the organisation
safety requirement and objective.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

2.5 Safety rules and procedures

Safety rules and procedures play an important part in identifying acceptable behaviours in the
organisation. Cox & Cheyne (2000) and Mearns et al. (2003) suggested that there is a positive
correlation between safety rules and procedures with accident rates. However the purpose of
regulations needs to be properly explained to employees to avoid negative perception towards
regulation (Hon et al., 2014). Safety management implementation is one of the approaches to
ensure the safety rules are complied by employees (Chileshe & Dzisi, 2012). Regular
inspection of workplace by management have a greater impact to employee safety behavior
(Dingsdag et al., 2008). Unsafe conditions can be identified and removed if safety procedures
are well developed and reinforced by management (Abdelhamid & Everett, 2000). Employees
with positive attitude towards safety will not break any safety rules and procedure and have
high priorities to safety of workplace (Fang et al., 2006).

2.6 Safety promotion policies

The implementation of incentive rewards and recognition to motivate employees involved in
safety promotions and complying with regulations have been accepted by most organisations.
It will enhance the safety program and system at workplace. Safety promotions program will
foster the company commitment on the safety and employee perception to work-related injury
(Mearns et al., 2003). A well-designed recognition incentive for employees will improve their
behaviour towards safety and become increasingly apparent on safety (Vredenburgh, 2002).
Introducing incentive schemes to promote a safe workplace can be used as encouragement to
the employees (Langford et al, 2000). There are a few factors to promote safety at workplace.
First, the employees should have adequate knowledge about safety. Second, the workplace is
conducive for working safely (Lind & Nenonen, 2008).
 3. Research methodology
This study was designed based on the findings of Vinodkumar & Bhasi (2010) that safety
performance is the results of safety management practices. The theoretical framework was
developed to identify the facilities maintenance employees’ priority on safety management
practices and relationship to safety performance, Figure 2.

< insert [Figure 2] >

The population of this study is the employees of the facilities maintenance

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

contractors doing electrical, mechanical, plumbing, civil and structure, housekeeping and
landscaping maintenance works within the Klang Valley, Malaysia. The appropriate sample
size for this study was 285. The sample size (n=285) was determined using Yamanne’s (1967)
formula. Five percent margin of error was specified to indicate a representation of the given
population.
The questionnaire was adapted from research by Vinodkumar & Bhasi (2010) on
safety management practices and safety behaviour. This tool groups the elements into the
following sections: management commitment (nine items), safety training (six items),
workers’ involvement in safety (five items), safety communication and feedback (five items),
safety rules and procedures (five items), safety promotions policies (five items) and safety
performance (12 items). Generally the questionnaire survey seeks information on the
following sections: 1) demographic of the contractor’s employees, 2) survey regarding the
dimensions listed above. Each item was measured on a Likert scale ranging from “strongly
disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (4).
The sample was chosen using stratified proportional random sampling according
to job position: general workers, technician/supervisor, executive and management. The
questionnaire was manually distributed to the contractor’s employees. Data were analysed
using statistical analysis from the SPSS. Descriptive method was used to measure the level of
importance of each safety management practices. Further analysis includes t-test, one-way
ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD test, correlation and multiple regression testing was conducted to
achieve the research objective by identifying the employees’ priority on safety management
practices, assessing the technical and non-technical group priority on safety management
practices elements, testing the differences between working experience and job position on
evaluating the safety management practices elements, measuring the relationship between
 safety management practices elements, and lastly evaluating the effects of independent
variables on dependent variable. Significance was set at a two-tail an alpha of 0.05.

4. Results
4.1 Demographic information
The respondents in this study were divided into two groups with the aim to assess the priority
level towards safety management practices. The two groups are: [technical] and [non-
technical] group. The technical group consists of electrical, mechanical, plumbing, civil and
structure maintenance contractors, meanwhile the non-technical group consists of
housekeeping and landscaping maintenance contractors. Approximately, about 46.90 per cent
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

of the respondents are working with [technical] group and 53.10 per cent with [non- technical]
group. The size of respondents is 56 per cent compared to the target respondents. Although
this response rate is lower, it is consistent with previous safety research studies that were
conducted in Malaysia (Ali, H. et al.; 2009).

4.2 Working experience

In this research, respondents working experience and position in the company were classified
into four groups. Approximately about 72.90 percent of the respondents have less than five
years working experience, 17.90 percent has six to 10 years working experience, eight per
cent has 11 to 15 years working experience and 1.90 percent has more than 20 years working
experience. The analysis of the respondents’ years of working experience with facility
maintenance contractors showed that they are adequately experienced to provide the reliable
answers to the research investigations. About 46.90 percent of respondents are working in
general worker positions, 40.70 per cent are working as technician or supervisor, less than 15
per cent of the respondents are working as executive and in management level positions.
Based on the responses from the respondents, they are regarded as reliable and credible
representation to the research being studied.

4.3 Reliability analysis

The statistical reliability analysis was conducted using Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient
method. Cronbach's alpha (α) reliability coefficient normally ranges between 0 and 1, closer
to 1.0 is greater the internal consistency of the items in the scale (Tavakol & Dennick,
2011).The reliability coefficient for this study is between 0.822 to 0.882 [Table I]. Table I
 shows that safety management practices element and safety performance have good reliability
and suggests the survey items were appropriate indicators.

4.4 Priority between safety management practices

This section presents analyses of the respondents’ level of priorities to the safety management
practices. Descriptive statistics is used to measure the level of important of each safety
management practices. Facilities maintenance employees’ priority on safety management
practices was evaluated by means of the six elements [Table I]. Among the six elements,
management commitment had the highest mean, 3.04 and standard deviation of 0.403.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Meanwhile, the safety promotions policies obtained the lowest mean, 1.91 and standard
deviation of 0.324. As indicated by survey results, the average value of priority is between
1.91 to 3.04 [Table I] shows the agreement between "disagree" to "agree". These results
indicate that respondents generally prioritise all the elements of safety management practices
to be received relatively “scant’ attention.

< insert [Table I] >

4.5 Differences between variable by [technical] and [non-technical] group

T-test analysis was performed to determine the differences between the technical and non-
technical groups priority on safety management practices. Levene’s test was used to assess
the variance homogeneity, which is a precondition for parametric test such as the t-test
analysis. The results revealed the “significant differences” between the technical and non-
technical maintenance groups on management commitment [t=4.237, p<0.05], safety training
[t=5.677, p<0.05], workers involvement in safety [t=7.904, p<0.05], safety communication
and feedback [t=7.116, p<0.05], safety rules and procedures [t=4.325, p<0.05] and safety
promotion policies [t=2,238, p<0.05], [Table II]. The values indicated that the two groups
interpreted all the six safety management practices in a different way. The differences were
identified for all mean scores between technical and non-technical groups [Table II]. These
findings revealed that technical group priorities on the safety management practices are
significantly important compared to the non-technical group.

< insert [Table II] >

 4.6 The differences between employee working experience and job position in company

A one-way analysis [ANOVA] was conducted to evaluate if there are significant differences
between employee working experience and job position on evaluating the priority of safety
management practices. The analysis identified employee working experience and job position
as the independent variable and safety performance as the dependent variable. The assumption
of homogeneity of variances was tested and found tenable using Levene’s test,
F[3,158]=0.251; p=0.861 for working experience variable and F[3,158]=0.291; p=0.832 for
job position variable [Table III].
The ANOVA results was significant for both variables, F[3,158]=4.351, p<0.05;
F[3,158]=12.548, p<0.05 [Table III]. Thus, there are significant evidence to conclude that
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

there are differences in working experience and job position among the employees on
evaluating the priority of safety management practices. Since there are significant differences
among the factor list, the multiple comparison procedure and statistical test was conducted to
identify which pair of the factors is different.

< insert [Table III] >

Tukey’s HSD test was conducted to determine which groups in the sample have
significance differences. The analysis revealed that the means rating for all scales of working
experience were not significantly different for any pair of means, p>0.05 [Table IV]. The
means ratings of working experience were found not significantly different from one another
or the pair wise comparison was at borderline.
Tukey’s HSD test tested significant pairwise differences between the mean scores
of job position, p<0.05. Four pairs showed significant variances i.e.: General Workers -
Technician [0.400]; General workers - Executive [0.879]; General workers - Management
[0.692] and Technician - Executive [0.479] [Table IV]. It can be observed that the priority
level of safety management element practices tended to increase as a function of job position
expectation.

< insert [Table IV] >

4.7 Correlation between safety management practices

Correlation analysis was conducted to test the association between all elements in the safety
management practices. Table V shows that there is a significant positive correlation between
 safety performance and the six elements [p<0.05, where p was in the range of 0.03 and 0.00]
with a correlation coefficient(r) range from 0.236 to 0.730. The results of analysis have shown
low to moderate correlation between each element of the safety management practices and are
mutually dependable. Analysis results also show the six elements are positively correlated
between each other. Thus, the analysis clearly shows the safety performance [dependent
variable] is positively influenced by all the six elements [independent variables].

< insert [Table V] >

4.8 Relationship between safety management practices and safety performance.

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

For this study, multiple regression analysis was carried out between the safety performance
[dependent variable] and the six elements of safety management practices [independent
variables] to determine the effect of independent variables on depended variables. R2 in the
table is the multiple correlation coefficient that represents the amount of variance of
[dependent variable] explained by the combination of [independent variables]. The analysis
result revealed that 27.9% variance of safety performance is explained by six elements of
safety management practices [Table VI]. The significant F value, F[6,155]=9.994, p<0,05,
indicates that there is a significant relationship between safety performance and six elements
of safety management practices. Three of the safety management practices [management
commitment, safety training, and safety communication and feedback] identified have
significantly [P<0.05] contributed to the prediction of safety performance.

< insert [Table VI] >

5. Discussion
The objective of this study is to identify the facilities maintenance employees’ priority on
safety management practices and relationship to safety performance. The study aims to
increase the safety performance among the facilities maintenance contractor by implementing
safety management practices. From the analysis, the mean of employee priority on the safety
management practices is a mixture of “disagree” to “agree” which indicates the employees of
facilities maintenance priorities towards safety management practices implementation were
“low” [Table I]. It seems to be a general conclusion that employees who have low priority to
safety are the most likely to have accidents. Research found that behaviour and perception
 towards safety are among the significant factors that lead to accidents; injuries, health
disorders and also compensation claims. Brown et al. (2000) suggested that safety has a
perceptual component and it became one of the important factors in predicting unsafe
behaviors and accident. Employees’ perception towards safety is their actual feedback to the
current organization commitment in creating safe workplace, and low perception shows
deceasing in safety, work performance and quality (Das et al., 2008). This study has shown
that the elements of safety management practices such as management commitment, safety
training, workers' involvement in safety, safety communication and feedback, safety rules and
procedures, and safety promotion policies have demonstrated a positive impact on safety
behaviour. The employees’ priority of these elements influences their employers to promote
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

and implement safety management practices in their organisations.

Employees from the technical group were found to have a more favourable
opinion of safety management practices compared to non-technical group [Table II]. The
majority of the technical group employees have had experiences working in construction
projects where safety management practices are employed and enforced. This finding is in line
with studies discovered by Chen & Jin (2015) that construction workers had high priority of
safety and it is due to the systematic safety education i.e. training provided by management.
Langford et al. (2000) identified that organisational policy, supervision and equipment
management, industry norms, risk taking, and management behaviour had influenced the
attitude of construction workers to safety. Added to their experience working in construction
sectors, the Government requirements for competent person to handle the high risk works i.e.
electrical installation, working at height influenced their priority towards safety management
practices. In general, the level of employees’ safety knowledge and working experience in
construction projects significantly influenced the workers’ behaviour to perform their job
safely.
The significance of working experience and job position as factors affecting safety
management practices is determined by using one-way ANOVA analysis [Table III]. Results
show that there are significant evidence in employee working experience and job position on
their priority towards safety management practices. Further to the significant evidence,
Tukey’s HSD test was conducted to determine which groups in the sample have significance
differences [Table IV]. Based on the analysis results, working experience factor was found not
to significantly differ from one another on the priority towards safety management practices
or the pair wise comparison was at borderline. The respondents almost have the same priority
on the safety management practices elements with a mixture of “disagree” to “agree”. These
 findings contradicted with other research findings discovered that more experienced workers
had more positive priority towards the importance of safety in workplace compared to less
experienced workers (Siu et al., 2003; Fang et al, 2006; Chen & Jin, 2015). Experienced
workers generally understand their working environment better and enable them to identify
accident and prevention in the workplace (Chi et al.; 2005). However, the Tukey’s HSD test
results shows that there are significant pairwise differences between the mean scores of job
position [Table IV]. It can be observed that the priority level of safety management practices
tended to increase as a function of job position expectation. Hon et al. (2014) discovered that
safety compliance at workplace is significantly improved when supervisors insists in
implementing safety procedure.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

The elements of safety management practices were identified to have influence on

the safety performance. There is a positive correlation between the six safety management
practices and safety performance. Pearson correlation analysis indicated that there was
significant correlation [p<0.05] with correlation coefficients(r) ranging from 0.236 to 0.730
[Table V]. Approximately about 27.9 percent [Table VI] of safety performance variance are
influenced by safety management practices. Three elements were found to significantly
contribute towards predicting safety performance: management commitment, safety training
and safety communication & feedback. The findings are in line with research by Mearns et al.
(2003); Robson et al. (2007); Vinodkumar & Bhasi (2010) that the elements of safety
management practices are strongly correlated with safety performance. These findings show
empirical evidence that by focusing in practicing the safety management in the daily
maintenance activities will increase organisation safety performance.

6.0 Conclusion
The results of this study provide strong empirical support on the importance of safety
management practices on the safety performance among the facilities maintenance contractors
in Malaysia. The integration of safety and maintenance activities are very important for
facilities maintenance contractors in achieving the overall performance of the organization.
The study demonstrated that the employees of facilities maintenance companies have low
priorities towards safety management practices. The low priorities will significantly affect the
overall company safety performance. Numerous researchers found that the implementation of
safety management practices has significant results to the safety performance of the
organisations, improved level of operational performance, decrease injury rates, lower worker
 compensation, higher firm’s products quality; increased productivity, improved customer
satisfaction and company reputation, and increase degree of innovation.
The levels of safety management practices were analysed and three elements were
found to significantly contribute towards predicting safety performance: management
commitment, safety training and safety communication & feedback. The management’s
concern on the workers safety and welfare at workplace plays important roles in developing
safe behaviour and performance in the workplace. Management direction on the
implementation of safety management practices can be translated in the development of safety
policy and safety organization chart. Meanwhile, safety training was discovered to reduce
accident rates and increase safety performance. The systematic training program should be
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

designed for all level of employee in the organisation. To support the safe working practices
during the maintenance activities, it is crucial to promote safety awareness and culture among
the maintenance workers. Communication and feedback on the safety issue is important
between management and employees to improve safety performance. These research findings
provide valuable guidance to the researcher and facilities maintenance contractors as the
practitioner for identifying the mechanism to improve the safety performance in organizations.
The findings being meaningful to introduce and implement safety management practices
among the facilities maintenance contractors. It is hoped to improve the priority level towards
the safety management practices among the facilities maintenance employees and
organization safety performance in Malaysia.

7. Limitation
This study is limited to employees working with facilities maintenance contractors in the
Klang Valley area. Although it could be generalized to other areas of Malaysia, more
comprehensive study should be carried out in other areas to generate a comprehensive
database for reference by future researchers.

Reference

Abdelhamid, T.S. and Everett, J.G. (2000), “Identifying root causes of construction
accidents”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126 No. 1, pp.
52-60.
 Adebiyi, K.A. and Charles-Owaba, O.E. (2009), “Towards setting a sustainable
manufacturing safety programme in Nigeria”, Disaster Prevention and Management,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 388-396.

Agumba, J.N. and Haupt, T.C. (2014), “The implementation of health and safety practices: Do
demographic attributes mater?”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol.
12 No. 4, pp. 530 – 549.

Ali, H., Abdullah, N.A.C. and Subramaniam, C. (2009), “Management practices in safety
culture and its influence on workplace injury: An industrial study in Malaysia”,
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 18 No.5, pp. 470-477.

Ali, M. and Wan Mohamad, W.M.N. (2009), “Audit assessment of the facilities maintenance
management in a public hospital in Malaysia”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol.
7 No. 2, pp. 142-158.

Brown, K.A., Willis, P.G. and Prussia, G.E. (2000), “Predicting safe employee behavior in
the steel industry: Development and test of a sociotechnical model”, Journal of
Operations Management , Vol. 18, pp. 445–465.

Chan, A.H.S., Kwok, W.Y. and Duffy, V.G. (2004), "Using AHP for determining priority in
a safety management system", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 104, Iss 5
pp. 430–445.

Chen, Q. and Jin, R. (2015), “A comparison of subgroup construction workers’ perceptions of

a safety program”, Safety Science, Vol. 74, pp. 15–26.

Cheng, E.W.L., Ryan, N. and Kelly, S. (2012), “Exploring the perceived influence of safety
management practices on project performance in the construction industry”, Safety
Science, Vol, 50, pp. 363–369.

Chi, CF., Chang, TC. and Ting, HI. (2005), “Accident Patterns and Prevention Measures for
Fatal Occupational Falls in the Construction Industry”, Journal of Applied
Ergonomics, Vol. 36, pp.391-400.
 Chileshe, N. and Dzisi,E. (2012), “Benefits and barriers of construction health and safety
management (HSM): Perceptions of practitioners within design organisations”,
Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 10 No.2, pp. 276-298.

Choudhry, M.R., Fang D.P. and Ahmed, S.M. (2008), “Safety management in construction
best practices in Hong Kong”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, Vol.134 No.1, pp. 20-32.

Cheyne, A., Oliver, A., Tomás, J.M. and Cox, S. (2002),"The architecture of employee
attitudes to safety in the manufacturing sector", Personnel Review, Vol. 31 Iss 6, pp.
649– 670.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Cooper, M.D. and Phillips, R.A. (2004), “Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and
safety behavior relationship”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 35, pp. 497–512.

Cox, S.J. and Cheyne, A.J.T. (2000), “Assessing safety culture in offshore environments”,
Safety Science, Vol. 34, pp. 111-129.

Das, A., Pagell. M., Behm, M. and Veltri, A. (2008), “Toward a theory of the linkages
between safety and quality”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp. 521–
535.

Dingsdag, D.P., Biggs, H.C. and Sheahan, V.L. (2008), “Understanding and defining
OH&S competency for construction site positions: Worker perception”, Safety
Science, Vol. 46, pp. 619–633.

Fang, D., Chen, Y. and Wong, L. (2006), “Safety climate in construction industry: A case
study in Hong Kong”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.
132 No.6, pp. 573-584.

Fernandez-Muniz. B, Montes-Peon, J.M. and Vazquenz-Ordas, C.J. (2009),”Relation

between occupational safety management and firm performance”, Safety Science, Vol,
47, pp. 980-991.

Flin, R., Mearns, K., O’Connor, P. and Bryden, R. (2000), “Measuring safety climate:
Identifying the common features”, Safety Science, Vol, 34, pp. 177–192.
 Gyekye, S.A. (2005), “Workers’ perceptions of workplace safety and job satisfaction”,
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE), Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 291–302.

Harms-Ringdahl, L. (2004), “Relationships between accident investigations, risk analysis,

and safety Management”, Journal of Hazardous Material, Vol. 111, pp. 13-19.

Hofmann, D.A., Jacobs, R. and Landy, F. (1995), “High reliability process industries:
Individual, micro, and macro-organisational influences on safety performances”,
Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 26, pp. 131-149.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Hon, C.K.H., Hinze, J. and Chan, A.P.C. (2014), “Safety climate and injury occurrence of
repair, maintenance, minor alteration and addition works: A comparison of workers,
supervisors and managers”, Facilities, Vol. 32 Iss 5/6, pp. 188-207.

Huang, YH., Ho, M., Smith, G.S. and Chen, P.Y. (2006), “Safety climate and self reported
injury: Assessing the mediating role of employee safety control”, Accident Analysis
and Prevention, Vol. 38, pp. 425–433.

Ismail, Z. and Omar, A. (2003), “Employees’ compliance with OSH rules and regulations:
An exploratory study in manufacturing and construction firms”, Proceedings, National
Occupational Safety and Health Conference. Promoting Excellence OSH Culture: A
Source for Competitive Advantage, 21-22 April, 2003, Penang, pp. 1-15.

Jannadi, O.A. and Bu-Khamsin, M.S. (2002), “Safety factors considered by industrial
contractors in Saudi Arabia”, Building and Environment, Vol. 37, pp. 539-547.

Jannadi, O.M. (1995), “Impact of human relations on the safety of construction workers”,
International Journal of Project Management”, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 383–386.

Labodova, A. (2004), “Implementing integrated management systems using a risk analysis

based approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol 12, pp. 571–580

Langford, D., Rowlinson, S., and Sawacha, E. (2000), “Safety behavior and safety
management: Its influence on the attitudes of workers in the UK construction
 industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 7 Iss 2, pp.
133–140.

Law, W.K., Chan, A.H.S. and Pun, K.F. (2006), “Prioritising the safety elements: A
hierarchical analysis for manufacturing enterprises”, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Vol. 106 Iss. 6, pp. 778–792.

Lin, J. and Mills, A. (2001), “Measuring the occupational health and safety performance of
construction companies in Australia”, Facilities, Vol. 19 Iss 3 / 4, pp. 131–139.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Lind, S. and Nenonen, S. (2008), “Occupational risks in industrial maintenance”, Journal of

Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 194-204.

Liu, H., Hwang, SL. and Liu TH. (2009), “Economic assessment of human errors in
manufacturing environment”, Safety Science, Vol. 47, pp. 170-182.

Mearns, K., Whitaker, S.M. and Flin, R. (2003), "Safety climate, safety management
practice and safety performance in offshore environments”, Safety Science, Vol 4, pp.
641-680.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), available at: http://www.dosh.gov.my.

Oliver, A., Cheyne, A., Tomas, J.M. and Cox, S. (2002), “The effects of organizational and
individual factors on occupational accidents”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 473–488.

Robson, L.S., Clarke, J.A. and Cullen, K. (2007), “The effectiveness of occupational health
and safety management system interventions: A systematic review”, Safety Science,
Vol. 45, pp. 329-53.

Sari, F.O. (2009), “Effects of employee trainings on the occupational safety and health in
accommodation sector”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1, pp. 1865-
1870.
 Siu, OL., Phillips, D.R. and Leung, TW. (2003), “Age differences in safety attitudes and
safety performance in Hong Kong construction workers”, Journal of Safety Research,
Vol. 34, pp. 199–205.

Soehod, K. (2008), “Workers’ participation in safety and health at work”, Jurnal

Kemanusiaan, Bil.11, pp. 15-23.

Social Security Organisation of Malaysia (SOCSO), available at

http://www.perkeso.gov.my/en/report/annual-reports.html.

Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011), “Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha”, International

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Journal of Medical Education, Vol. 2, pp. 53-55.

Thompson, R.C., Hilton, T.F. and Witt, L.A. (1998), “Where the safety rubber meets the
shop floor: A confirmatory model of management influence on workplace safety”,
Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 29 No 1, pp. 15–24.

Toole, T. M. (2002), “Construction site safety roles”, Journal of Construction Engineering

and Management”, Vol. 128 No. 3, pp. 203-210.

Vredenburgh, A.G. (2002), “Organisational Safety: Which Management Practices are Most
Effective in Reducing Injury Rates?”, Journal of Safety Research, 33: 259-276.

Vinodkumar, M.N. and Bhasi, M. (2010), “Safety management practices and safety
behaviour: Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation”,
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 42, pp. 2082-2093.

Waring, A. (1996), “Corporate health and safety strategy”, Facilities, Vol. 14 No 3/ 4, pp.
52-55.

Wilson Jr, Joe M. and Koehn, E. (2000), “Safety management: Problems encountered and
recommended solutions”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.
126 No 1, pp. 77-79.

Yamane, Taro. (1967), Statistics, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed., New York: Harper and
Row.
 Zohar, D. (1980), “Safety climate in industrial organisations: Theoretical and applied
implications”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No 1, pp. 96-102.

Figure 1. Industrial Accidents Reported by SOSCO, 2000 - 2014

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

80,000
Numbers of Industrial Accidents Reported

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

Year
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Figure 2. Theoretical Framework

 Table I . Priority between safety management practices
Safety management practices Standard Cronbach’s
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Mean Ranking
Deviation Alpha

Management commitment 3.04 1 0.403 0.847

Safety training 2.37 5 0.548 0.828

Workers’ involvement in safety 2.50 4 0.490 0.822

Safety communication and feedback 2.58 3 0.445 0.831

Safety rules and procedures 2.60 2 0.504 0.837

Safety promotion policies 1.91 6 0.324 0.860

Safety performance 2.00 0.640 0.882

*Dependent variable : Safety performance

 Table II. T-test analysis between [technical] and [non-technical] group
Levene test for
Mean
equality of variance
Safety management Sig. Mean
[non- t
practices [technical] technical] (2-tailed) Difference
F Sig.
group
group

Management 3.18 2.92 0.787 0.376 4.237 0.000 0.256

commitment

Safety training 2,60 2.16 1.981 0.161 5.677 0.000 0.448

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Workers’ 2.78 2.26 2.681 0.103 7.904 0.000 0.518

involvement in
safety

Safety 2,81 2.37 1.681 0.205 7.116 0.000 0.436

communication and
feedback

Safety rules and 2.83 2.57 1.079 0.300 4.325 0.000 0.257
procedures

Safety promotion 1.96 1,85 12.062 0.001 2.238 0.027 0.110

policies

Safety performance 2.26 1.77 7.121 0.008 5.255 0.000 0.496

*Dependent variable : Safety performance

 Table III. One way ANOVA analysis
Levene test for
Mean equality of
Variable df F Sig. variance
square
F Sig.

Working 0.251 0.861

experience

Between Groups 3 1.679 4.351 0.006

(Combined)

Within Groups 158 0.386

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Total 161

Job positions 0.291 0.832

Between Groups 3 4.233 12.548 0.000

(Combined)

Within Groups 158 0.337

Total 161

*Dependent variable : Safety performance

 Table IV. Tukey HSD test
Mean
Variable Scale Mean Sig.
difference

Working experience

<5 years 1.90 5-10 years -0.309 0.081

11-15 years -0.410 0.112

>15 years -0.769 0.152

5-10 years 2.21 <5 years 0.309 0.081

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

11-15 years -0.101 0.962

>15 years -0.460 0.615

11-15 years 2.31 <5 years 0.410 0.112

5-10 years 0.101 0.962

>15 years -0.359 0.804

>15 years 2.67 <5 years 0.769 0.152

5-10 years 0.460 0.615

11-15 years 0.359 0.804

Position in company General 1.74 Technician/ -0.400* 0.000

Workers Supervisor

Executive -0.879* 0.000

Management -0.692* 0.016

Technician / 2.14 General 0.400* 0.000

Workers
Supervisor

Executive -0.479* 0.036

Management -0.292* 0.586

 Executive 2.62 General 0.879* 0.000
Workers

Technician/ 0.479* 0.036

Supervisor

Management 0.187 0.902

Management 2.43 General 0.692* 0.016

Workers

Technician/ 0.292 0.586

Supervisor
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Executive -0.187 0.902

[*] The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

 Table V. Correlation analysis
Safety management practices [MC] [ST] [WI] [SC] [SR] [SPP] [SP]

Management commitment [MC] 1

Safety training [ST] .663** 1

Workers’ involvement in .589** .714** 1

safety [WI]

Safety communication and .507** .565** .705** 1

feedback [SC]

Safety rules and procedures [SR] .493** .525** .638** .730** 1

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Safety promotion policies [SPP] .407** .474** .507** .352** .460** 1

**
Safety performance [SP] .236** .431** .404** .458** .406** .284 1

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).

Dependent variable: Safety performance

 Table VI. Multiple Regression analysis
Safety management Correlati
R R2 df F Sig. Beta t Sig.
practices ons

Summary .528 .279 9.994 .000

Regression 6
Residual 155

Management -.305 -2.026 .044 -.161

commitment

Safety training .374 2.931 .004 .229

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)

Workers’ involvement -.015 -.094 .925 -.008

in safety

Safety communication .411 2.511 .013 .198

and feedback

Safety rules and .160 .928 .355 .074

procedures

Safety promotion .139 .846 .399 .068

policies

Dependent variable: Safety performance

About the authors

Saharani bin Jaafar is a PhD candidate in Faculty of Geoinformation and Real Estate,
University of Technology Malaysia. He has a Master’s Degree in Asset and Facilities
Management and currently working with a well-known property management company in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He is actively involved in facilities management (FM) research
activities especially in FM knowledge and competencies studies.

Dr. Weng Wai Choong is well known as a facilities management professional in Malaysia. He
is a Senior Lecturer at Faculty of Geoinformation and Real Estate in University of
Technology Malaysia. His professional expertise covers facilities management, energy
management and environmental studies. He is a professional member of the Environmental
 Management and Research Association of Malaysia (ENSEARCH) and Malaysian Energy
Professionals Association (MEPA).

Professor Sr. Dr. Abdul Hakim bin Mohamed is the Dean for Faculty of Geoinformation and
Real Estate in University of Technology Malaysia. He is the Vice President of Malaysian
Association of Facilities Management and the key note speaker for NAFAM conference
(National Asset and Facility Management) in Malaysia. His professional area covers facilities
management and project management.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 10:31 28 February 2017 (PT)