EVALUATION OF SAFETY CULTURE MATURITY LEVELS OF THE UNIVERSITIES IN KENYA

P. M. Njeru1, J. T. Mailutha1, E. Gatebe1 and C. Mburu1

1
Jomo Kenyatta university of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract
Safety culture is shared and accepted attitudes, beliefs and practices supported by documented
policies and procedures in an organization which influences employees’ perceptions and behaviors
within a workplace. Consequently, analysis of safety culture is vital in institutions in order to identify
potential areas of improvement. The objective of this study was to evaluate safety culture maturity
levels in universities in Kenya. Data was collected from seven universities where descriptive research
design was utilized using simple and stratified random sampling methods. The tools used for data
collection included questionnaires, observations and interviews. Similarly, secondary data was
collected from universities strategic plans, policies and statutes. The data was subjected to statistical
analysis using SPSS 16.0 and excel statistical packages. The results showed that six universities were
in the emerging level (level 1) and one was in the managing level (level 2). The sampled universities
recorded low average satisfaction levels ranging from 17.2% to 34.8%. The employees’ perceptions
were varied. The means of the key dimensions ranged from 1.90 to 3.68 with the average mean
scores ranging from 2.42 to 3.49. Low safety perception on safety management in the universities
was established. This was found to be as a result of the identified gaps in safety management
systems which included invisible and weak top management commitment, unclear communication
procedures, lack of adequate safety training and non-existence of safety rewarding systems. Based
on these results, the study recommends an improvement on the identified weak safety management
by the universities’ management thus improving the employees’ safety perception and satisfaction
leading to an enhancement of safety culture maturity level. The role of universities top management
and leadership in safety culture development in the universities in Kenya should be researched on to
identify the weaknesses hampering their poor response.

Key words: Universities, safety culture, safety management systems, perception

349
1 Introduction
Universities are institutions of higher learning enacted by an Act of parliament and serve as centers
of education excellence (GOK, 1989). They handle a large population of employees, students and
customers on daily basis and occupational safety is of paramount importance in order to enhance
achievement of their objectives. Occupational safety must be a concern of every employee in the
workplace regardless of their job position (Pidgeon and O’Leary, 1994). In order to be able for the
universities to provide a safe working environment they have a responsibility for ensuring that the
work places are safe and risks are as low as reasonably possible (ALARP). Safety in a work place may
greatly be influenced by the employees’ perception and attitude towards safety management in the
work place (Gledon et al., 2006). Perceptions both personal and organizational as well as the
environment in which people work in influence the development of safety culture in the
organization [(Cox and Cox (1991), HSC (1993), Pidgeon (1991) and Schein (1992).

Safety culture encompasses a healthy and safe environment achieved through everyone
understanding of their related responsibilities and compliance with all regulatory requirements and
University safety policies. A safety and health program leads to an increase in morale, reductions in
workplace near miss incidents, injuries and insurance costs and a positive safety culture. Other
benefits of a safety culture include enhanced reputation with stakeholders such as students and
parents/guardians, partners, sponsors, industry and community recognition for safe practices and
improved business reputation to attract employees and students.

Safety culture commonly refers to values, perceptions, attitudes, norms, beliefs, practices, policies,
and behaviors of personnel (Flin et al., 1996). Employees in organizations with a positive safety
culture are guided by an organization’s wide commitment to safety in which each member upholds
their own safety norms and those of their co-workers. Safety culture is increasingly recognized as an
important strategy to improving the widespread deficits in safety in the work places (Mearns, et al.,
1998).

Previously several researches have been conducted on employees’ perceptions and attitudes in
various developed and developing countries in diversified fields such as construction industries,
manufacturing industries, petroleum industries, aviation industries among other industries. However
there are no researches conducted and documented for the Kenyan industries and especially in the
learning institutions. Previous studies have shown that differences in industrial settings and different
countries may influence the employees’ perceptions and attitudes differently, thus the need for this
study.

Safety culture was introduced by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in their report on the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in 1986. The errors and violations of operating procedures
which contributed to the Chernobyl disaster were seen by some as being evidence of a poor safety
culture at the plant (Lee, 1998). The identification of a poor safety culture as a factor contributing to
the accident led to a large number of studies investigating and attempting to measure safety culture
in a variety of different high-risk, high-hazard industries for example in steel industries, air traffic
industries, offshore industries among others.

Culture of an organization is believed to impact on the organizations safety either positively or

negatively (Hopkins, 2006).Over the years several models have been developed to assess safety
culture in organizations. The models include IAEA safety culture model, total safety culture model,
reciprocal model of safety culture, system model of safety culture, business excellence model of
safety culture, safety culture maturity model, and the safety culture ladder models (Fleming, 2001)
along with their key dimensions that define safety culture. This study adopted the safety culture
maturity model (SCMM) since it’s the most appropriate to measure the maturity levels in the
universities. The key dimensions in SCMM can easily be compared with the universities activities and

350
have widely been used previously [(Kao, 2007), (Cox, et al, 1997), (Havold, 2007)] to study safety
culture maturity in institutions and organizations elsewhere in the world. The SCMM has five
interactive stages starting from emerging level (level 1) to continually improving level (level 5)
(Figure 1). As an organization progresses from one level to the next, consistency on safety
management is also enhanced. If the organization doesn’t work on the weaknesses identified in the
previous level, it is likely to slide backwards to the lower levels. This therefore calls for consistency in
safety management systems being implemented in each level.

The maturity level can be determined from the satisfaction levels of the employees in each key
dimension. The key dimensions adopted were management commitment and involvement, safety
perception and attitude, safety communication and involvement, safety training and competence,
safety supervision and audit, accident/incidence reporting and analysis, safety reward and benefits
program (HSE 2001).

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Research Design
A descriptive research design was employed for this study.

2.2 Sampling Procedure

The current research employed a two level sampling procedure with each level representing
institutional category and respondent level respectively.

2.2.1 Institution’s Level

The sample was drawn from employees working in seven (7) public and nineteen (19) private
universities accredited by Kenya’s Commission for Higher Education (CHE) by March 2010. The
universities sampled were Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT), Kabarak
University, Egerton University, Daystar University, Maseno University, Mount Kenya University
(MKU) and Great Lakes University of Kisumu (GLUK).

As highlighted by Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) when determining a sample size in the descriptive
studies a 10% of the accessible population was found to be adequate. In this study, a sample size of
40% for the public universities and 20% for private universities of the target population as shown in
Table 1 to get a representative sample. The public universities employ more employees than their
private counterparts, thus the discrepancies in the sampling proportions.

2.2.2 Respondents’ Level

Using the Bartlett, et al., (2001) method of sample size determination of disproportionate nature,
total population of the institutions was established to be approximately 5793 employees where a
sample size of 598 respondents at 95% confidence level was determined. The sample was
distributed proportionately across the universities as shown in Table 2. For confidentiality purposes
the sampled universities were coded as PPU001 to PPU007.

The identified sample was further divided proportionately into three strata; senior managers, middle
level management and general workers. The senior management was represented by the vice
chancellor, deputy vice chancellors and principals in campuses while the middle level management
was represented by the Registrars, directors, deputy directors, Deans and heads of departments.
The general workers covered all other employees both teaching and technical staff working either
permanently, temporary and on contractual basis.

2.3 Research Instruments

Structured questionnaire, observations and interviews were used to obtain data from various
respondents. The questionnaires developed were on a five point Likert scale (0-strongly disagree to

351
5=strongly agree). They were designed to capture the employees’ perceptions and attitudes on the
current safety culture in the institutions at the time of the study. Secondary data was obtained from
safety operation procedures, statues, strategic plans, general registers and institutions’ safety and
health policies where available.

2.4 Data Analysis

The data collected was presented in suitable and appropriate analytical methods. Graphs, pie charts
and frequency tables were used in the presentation of the bio data of the respondents. The standard
deviations and mean scores of responses were used to determine the employees’ perceptions
towards safety in the universities while the chi squares were used to test the significance of the key
elements under this study. The percentages of the satisfaction levels were used in determining the
safety culture level of the institutions.

3 Results and Discussion

The study dealt with seven key dimension namely ‘Top Management Commitment to Safety’ (KD 1),
‘Safety Perception and Attitude’ (KD 2), ‘Incidence/Accident Analysis and Reporting’ (KD 3), ‘Safety
Communication and Involvement’ (KD 4), ‘Safety Training and Competence’ (KD 5), ‘Safety
Supervision and Audit’ (KD 6) and ‘Rewards and Benefits programs’ (KD 7). The mean scores and
standard deviations of the key dimensions were analyzed to determine the employees’ perception
towards safety in the universities. The percentages scores of the key dimensions were used to
measure respondents’ satisfaction on safety management which was used to determine safety
culture maturity level. The mean is the sum of scores of all the Likert items in question divided by
the total number of items. The standard deviation is a standard measure of spread of the responses
from the average mean within a variable. A low standard deviation indicates low variation of the
data points to the mean while large standard deviation indicates large variation among the
responses.

3.1 Employee Perception towards Safety

The means, standard deviations and variances of the key dimensions were analyzed and used to
evaluate the employees’ perceptions and attitudes towards safety. The mean scores equivalent to
0.1 to 2.50 represented perceptions that were regarded as least acceptable (LA), an implication of
non existence of management systems on continuous Likert Scale (0.1≤LA≤2.50). The mean scores
equivalent to 2.51 to 3.50 represented perceptions that were regarded as moderately acceptable
(MA) implying presence of weak safety management systems on a Likert scale (2.51≤MA≤3.50) while
those scores equivalent to 3.51 to 5.0 were regarded as highly acceptable (HA) and represented
perceptions that were highly applicable or presence of visible management systems on a Likert Scale
(3.51≤HA≤5.0).
The mean scores from the seven institutions were varied across the key dimensions as indicated in
Table 3. Key dimension 2 (KD 2), had the highest score of 3.43 in the moderately acceptable
(2.51≤MA≤3.50) category on likert scale. The other key dimensions in this category were KD1, KD 3,
KD 4, KD 5 and KD 6. This implies presence of weak safety management systems in the universities.
The lowest scoring key dimension was KD 7 (2.31) in the least acceptable category (0.1≤LA≤2.50).
This was an indication of non-existence of the safety reward and benefit program/scheme in the
universities. Of importance to note is that most of the universities had the mean scores in this
category except two universities (PPU005 and PPU006).

PPU006 had the best average mean scores of 3.17 which was in the moderately acceptable category
implying that the employees perceive presence of weak safety management systems in the
university. PPU001 (3.05), PPU002 (2.65) and PPU005 (2.95) were also in this category while the
others were in the least acceptable category. In these universities, the employees perceived that
there were no safety management systems in place which include safety training, safety supervision,
accidents and incidents reporting and analysis procedures among others. Close monitoring of the

352
implementation of safety management systems in these universities and adherence to set standards
would lead to an enhancement of employees’ perception towards safety management and would
ultimately lead to higher safety perceptions. Similarly, these perceptions and attitudes towards
safety management in the institution can be represented in a radar plot as indicated in Figure 2.

The plots of the radar provide a visual representation of employees’ perception and attitudes
towards safety in the institutions. Each of the dimensions represented on the radar plot was scored
on a standardized mean scale of 0 (centre) to 5 (outermost point of the spike). The seven spokes on
the radar represent the seven key dimensions of the study. The connecting lines represent the
standardized mean scores. A low standardized mean score represents low perception and safety
satisfaction while high standardized mean score represents high perception and safety satisfaction.
The study revealed the institutions strengths and weaknesses in the seven key dimensions of safety
culture. The scores were moderately low giving an indication of low perception of the overall safety
management systems in the universities. The highest scored key dimension was key dimension 2
(safety perception and attitude) in all the institutions but with varied mean scores. Similarly there
was no statistical difference between university category and employee safety perception and
attitudes towards the universities safety management systems (x2=5.366, df=4, p<0.05).This could
have been high because it depicted the willingness of the employees to observe safety in their work
stations and willingness to enforce safety operation procedures in an effort to make the work place
safer. Key dimension 5 (safety training and competency) and key dimension 7 (rewards and benefits)
were the lowest scored in almost all the institutions. The low scores in these key dimensions were
due to low levels of employees’ safety training and awareness and lack of a rewarding and/or
punishment system for safe and/or unsafe behaviors. There was a statistical difference between the
university categories and safety training and competency (x2=48.010, df=4, p<0.05) giving an
indication of the existing gap in safety training between private and public universities. Similarly
there was no statistical difference between the university category and rewards and benefits
programs in the universities (x2=11.315, df=3, p<0.05), an implication of non-existence of rewards
and benefits for unsafe and safe acts within the universities. Lack of such programs leads to lack of
motivation and incentives for the employees safety performance which in turn leads to low safety
perception thus low safety culture maturity levels.

3.2 Safety Culture Maturity

The universities safety culture maturity level was measured using the percentages of the employees’
level of satisfaction in the seven key dimensions. Based on previous studies by Kao (2007), the level
of satisfaction of the respondents was used to compute the level of the institutions safety maturity.
The emerging level ranges from 0-28.5 scores on satisfaction levels, managing from 28.6 – 45.5 %
scores on satisfaction levels, involving from 45.6-55.5% scores on satisfaction levels, cooperating
from 55.6- 65.5% satisfaction levels scores and continually improving from 65.6 – 100% scores on
satisfaction levels. Low satisfaction score depicts low safety culture maturity level while high
satisfaction score depicts high level of safety culture maturity.

The satisfaction levels were computed from the Likert scale scores in each of the key dimensions
where strongly agree (SA) and Agree (A) were summed up and percentages calculated for each key
dimension for all the universities as indicated in Table 4.

From the analysis, key dimension 2 (safety perception and attitude) had the highest satisfaction level
in all the universities and was the only key element which was above maturity level 3 (Involving).
This depicts the desire of the employees to be involved and consulted in development of safety
management systems in the universities. However, the best scoring university was PPU006, which
had at least four key elements above level 1. This was also evidenced by the fact that this is the only
university which has safety drills and safety briefings and also conducts self safety risk assessments.

353
Key dimension 1 (top management commitment), was in the emerging level, all scores in the
universities below 28.5%. This was an implication of poor top management commitment towards
safety management. It was coupled with lack of budget allocation towards safety issues in almost all
universities. This creates the need for budget allocation and visible top management commitment in
the universities.

Key dimension 3 (Incidence/accident analysis and reporting) had all its scores in the emerging level.
This is characterized by non existence and or unclear accidents/incidences analysis and reporting
systems and lack of documentation. The study also revealed that none of the universities had a
general register where accidents and incidents are recorded. A general register can be obtained
from DOSHS after the universities are registered as workplaces. For effective reporting of the
accidents and incidences, a shift to workforce involvement in accidents/incidences investigation is
encouraged and ensuring timely feedback to the employees. Peer safety tours across departments
and maintaining good practice data base can play a great role in encouraging timely
accidents/incidents reporting.

Key dimension 4 (Safety communication and involvement) had its scores in the emerging level (level
1) except in PPU006. This was the only university which had safety marshal (representatives) who
conducts safety briefings once every week and when there are safety issues. In this university, safety
communication is through memos and departmental/section briefings by safety marshals. The other
universities didn’t have safety communication methods or techniques and if they are there, the
respondents were not aware of them. However, PPU002 and PPU001, some of the respondents
indicated that safety was communicated through memos. Safety communication and employee
involvement in safety management can be improved by improving employee participation in safety
management in order to reveal the barriers (deficiencies in SMS) that inhibit or frustrates safe
behavior and then address them. Increment in employee participation will improve on management-
employee relationship which will lead to mutual trust development which of course translates to
improved communication.

All the universities had key dimension 5 (safety training and competency) in safety culture maturity
level 1 (emerging). Though some responses indicated that they had received training in safety issues,
the training received was not sufficient. From the analysis where only 36.2% of the respondents had
received some form of safety with majority of them (23.1%), trained on fire safety. General safety
training which gives the trainees an overview of occupational safety and its management had 5.3%
of the respondents trained on it.

Safety training is one of the key pillars in effective safety management systems. Training and
competency of can be strengthened by simply focusing on risk taking behaviors and behavioral
safety with a strong emphasis on safety education, setting safety standards and procedures and
reinforcing them. Safety induction and safety open days can go a long way in the training aspects.
Key dimension 6(Safety supervision and audits), only PPU006 had the element above the emerging
level while all the other universities were in the emerging levels. This was an implication of lack of
safety supervision and audits in the Universities.

Key dimension 7(safety rewards and benefits), all universities were below the emerging levels with
PPU007 having the highest satisfaction score of 28%.This indicates lack of safety reward and benefit
program in the institutions. This is a very important aspect in safety culture and safety management
because it acts as a motivation to the employees to observe safety in their workplaces. The averages
of the satisfaction levels were used to get the universities safety culture maturity level represented
by the colored horizontal lines in Figure 3.

354
As indicated in Figure 3, the institutions safety culture maturity levels were in the L1(Emerging level)
except PPU006 placed in L2 (Managing) and had average satisfaction scores of 34.8%. All the
universities in this level were characterized by weak and invisible management commitment in
safety, poor communication/unclear communication procedures, lack of adequate training of
employees, poor accidents and incidences reporting, analysis and documentation, inexistence of
safety rewarding system.

PPU006 was the only university in the managing level though its scores were relatively low and
almost at the lower border. The strengths of PPU006 would be accounted for by the presence of
safety marshals who are tasked with safety management in the institution. The marshals conducts
safety surveillance, conducts risk assessment which is task based thus reduction of accident
occurrences. The institution also has a safety committee with a safety representative in the
management who is the head of the safety marshals group.

The weaknesses noted in PPU006 were poor accidents and incidences reporting system, weak
management commitment, low safety training levels, poor safety supervision and inexistence of
safety reward/benefit schemes and programs. For improvement to the next maturity level, the
universities must work on the weaknesses identified by the study.

4 Conclusions
The findings in this study have shown that the univesrities employee safety perception and safety
satisfaction towards safety management was poor. This has been identified as the main causes to
low safety culture maturity levels of the universities in Kenya. The levels was foound to be level 1
and 2(the emerging and managing) characterized by poor safety management systems. The
weaknesses noted include poor management commitment in safety, unclear
communication/distorted communication procedures, lack of adequate training of employees, poor
accidents and incidences reporting, analysis and documentation and non-existence of safety
rewarding system. This study recommends close monitoring of the performance and
implementation of safety management systems in the universities in Kenya by the Directorate of
Occupational Safety and Health Services as well as the adherence to the set standards by the
employees. All these will work towards provision of a safe working and learning environment.

Acknowledgments
I am extremely indebted to Prof. J. T. Mailutha (Kisii University College), Dr. Erastus Gatebe (JKUAT)
and Mr. Charles Mburu (JKUAT) for the support and guidance they gave me through this research.

355
References
Alexander, M., Cox, S. and Cheyne, A., (1995). The concept of safety culture within a UK based
organization engaged in offshore hydrocarbon processing. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
Conference on Safety and Well-being at Work, Loughborough University of Technology, UK.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com 30/05/2010.

Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W. and Higgins, C. C. (2001). Determining appropriate sample size in
survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19: PP 43-50.

Cox, S., Cheyne, A., (1999). Assessing Safety Culture in Offshore Environments. HSE Offshore
Research Report, Loughborough University, UK.

Cox, S. and Flin, R., (1998). Safety culture: philosopher’s stone or man of straw? Work and Stress.
Research Report, Loughborough University, UK.

Cox, S. and Lacey, K., (1997). Measuring Safety Culture in Offshore Environments: Developing the
Safety Climate Assessment Toolkit. Paper presented at Changing Health and Safety Offshore, The
Agenda for the next 10 years, Aberdeen.

Dedobbeleer, N. and Beland, F. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction sites. Journal of
Safety Research, 22: pp 97-103.

Flin, R. and O’Dea, A. (2003). The role of managerial leadership in determining workplace safety
outcomes. (Research Report 044). United Kingdom: University of Aberdeen, Department of
Psychology. http://www.hse.gov.uk. 28/07/2010.

Flin, R., Mearns, K., Fleming, M. and Gordon, R., (1996). Risk Perception and Safety in the Offshore
Oil and Gas Industry, HSE Books, Sudbury. http//www.safetyscience.com 30/07/2010

Fuller, C. and Vassie, L. (2001). Benchmarking the safety climates of employees and contractors
working within a partnership arrangement: A case study in the offshore oil industry. Benchmarking
an international journal. http//www.safetyscience.com 28/07/2010.

GOK, (1989). The Universities (Establishment of Universities Standardization, Accreditation and

Supervision) Rules, 1989.

GOK, (2006). The Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2007, Government Printer, Kenya Gazette
Supplement No. 111.

Gyekye, A. (2006). Workers’ perception of safety: An African perspective. International Journal of

Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. Vol. 12(1): pp 431-43. www.researchgate.net. 12/06/2012.

Havold, J. I. (2007). From safety culture to safety orientation developing a tool to measure safety in
shipping. Ph.D thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
http//www.safetyperfomance.com 12/05/2012.

Health and Safety Executive, (1999). Development of a Business Excellence Model of Safety Culture.
HSE, Entec UK Ltd., London.

Health and Safety Executive, (2005). A Review of Safety Culture and Safety Climate Literature for
the Development of the Safety Culture Inspection Toolkit. HSE, Research Report 367, HSE Books,
UK.

356
Health and Safety Executive, Safety culture maturity model. HSE, Offshore Technology Report,
2000/049, HSE Books, UK, 2000.

Hopkins, A. (2006). Studying organizational cultures and their effect on safety. Safety Science.

ILO-OSH, (2001). Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Managemnet Systems, International
Labour Office, Geneva.

Kao, C.S. (2007). Analysis of safety culture and safety performance relationship of a major
petrochemical corporation in Taiwan. International Symposium.

Kao, C. S., et al., (2008). Safety culture factors, group differences, and risk perception in five
petrochemical plants, Process Safety Progress, American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE),
Taiwan, Republic of China.

Lee, T.R., (1998). The role of attitudes in the safety culture and how to change them. Conference on
‘Understanding Risk Perception’, Offshore Management Centre, Robert Gordon University,
Aberdeen.

Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R. and Flemming, M., (1998). Measuring safety climate on offshore
installations. Work and Stress.

Mugenda, O. M. and Mugenda, A.G., (1999). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches, Acts Press, Nairobi.

Pidgeon, N. and Oleary, M. (1994). Organizational safety culture: Implications for aviation practice.
In N. Johnson, N. McDonald, and R. Fuller (Eds.), Aviation psychology in practice (pp. 21-43).
Brookfield, VT: Ashgate

Pidgeon, N. (1998). Safety culture: Key theoretical issues. Work & Stress, 12: pp 202-216.

Glendon, I. et al (2006) Human Safety and Risk Management (2nd ed.) Sydney: CRC Press.

Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Reason, J. (1997, April). Corporate culture and safety. Paper presented at the Symposium on
Corporate Culture and Transportation Safety. Washington, DC: U.S. National Transportation Safety
Board.

Sexton, J. B., Helmreich, R. L., Neilands, T. B., Rowan, K., Vella, K., Boyden, J., et al, (2006). The
safety attitudes questionnaire: psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging
research. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006; 6:44.

V. J. Sutherland, P. J. Makin, C. Cox., (2000). The management of safety: the behavioral approach to
changing organizations. Sage Publications Ltd

Weigmann, D. A., Thaden, T. L.V. & Gibbons, A. M. (2007). A review of Safety culture theory and its
potential application to traffic safety.
Weigmann, D. A., Zhang, H., Thaden, T. L.V., Sharma, G. and Gibbons, A. M. (2004). Safety culture:
An integrative review. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14: pp 2.

357
Weigmann, D.A., Thaden T.L.V., Mitchel, A.A., Sharma, G. & Zhang, H. (2002). A synthesis of safety
culture and safety climate research. Technical report. University of Illinois.

Winter, R., Jackson, B. (2006). "State of the psychological contract: manager and employee
perspectives within an Australian credit union", Employee Relations, Vol. 28.

Zohar, D., (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications.
Journal of Applied Psychology.

358
 CONTINUALLY
IMPROVING
Level 5
Improving safety
Develop
COOPERATING management
Level 4 commitment

Engage employees to
INVOLVING
Level 3 develop commitment
and improving safety

MANAGING Realize the importance of

Level 2 managers and employees and
develop personal responsibility
EMERGING
Level 1 Develop
management
commitment Increasing consistency

Figure 1: The safety culture maturity model (Fleming et al., 2001)

Table 1: University Category and the number being sampled

S/NO University category No. of No. of universities being
Universities sampled
1 Public Universities 7 3

2 Private Universities 19 4

Total 27 7

Table 2: Sample distribution per University

S/NO University Total % of the Total Sample size
Population Pop.
1 PPU001 180 3.1 19

2 PPU002 1854 32.0 191

3 PPU003 1195 20.6 123

4 PPU004 150 2.6 16

5 PPU005 250 4.3 26

6 PPU006 300 5.2 31

7 PPU007 1864 32.2 192

5793 100.0 598

359
Table 3: Mean scores key elements in Universities (n=542)

Description PPU001 PPU002 PPU003 PPU004 PPU005 PPU006 PPU007 Average

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean mean
scores
KD 1 3.19 2.61 2.27 2.08 2.94 3.26 2.11 2.64
KD 2 3.68 3.21 3.34 3.24 3.32 3.64 3.61 3.43
KD 3 3.29 2.88 2.31 2.56 2.82 3.08 2.45 2.77
KD 4 2.98 2.8 2.25 2.45 2.9 3.11 2.44 2.7
KD 5 2.52 2.27 2.15 2.24 3.06 3.1 2.2 2.51
KD 6 3.18 2.64 2.28 2.1 2.7 3.08 2.43 2.63
KD 7 2.48 2.24 1.9 1.6 2.89 2.9 2.16 2.31
Average 3.05 2.66 2.36 2.32 2.95 3.17 2.49
mean scores

Figure 2: Radar plot for employees’ perception and attitudes

360
Table 4: Respondents Satisfaction Levels of the Key Dimensions

Key
Percentage Satisfaction Levels (%)
Dimensions

PPU001 PPU002 PPU003 PPU004 PPU005 PPU006 PPU007

KD 1 22.4 18.9 13.9 6.4 9.6 32.4 22
KD 2 68.5 51.3 68.4 73.8 63.7 65.7 56.8
KD 3 32.7 21.5 12.4 16.8 14.4 22.5 25.7
KD 4 20.5 24.4 12.2 9.3 9.9 40.2 25.8
KD 5 12.9 6.6 2.9 1.8 8.1 27.8 3
KD 6 25.9 10.5 9.2 8.9 9 31.7 13.3
KD 7 15.5 2.7 7.5 3.5 7.5 23.4 28
Total 198.4 135.9 126.5 120.5 122.2 243.7 174.6
Average 28.3 19.4 18.1 17.2 17.5 34.8 24.9

Figure 4: Universities safety culture maturity levels

361