↓ Skip to main content

Ending on a positive: Examining the role of safety leadership decisions, behaviours and actions in a safety critical situation

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Ergonomics, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Ending on a positive: Examining the role of safety leadership decisions, behaviours and actions in a safety critical situation
Published in
Applied Ergonomics, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.apergo.2017.08.006
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Safety leadership is an important factor in supporting safe performance in the workplace. The present case study examined the role of safety leadership during the Bingham Canyon Mine high-wall failure, a significant mining incident in which no fatalities or injuries were incurred. The Critical Decision Method (CDM) was used in conjunction with a self-reporting approach to examine safety leadership in terms of decisions, behaviours and actions that contributed to the incidents' safe outcome. Mapping the analysis onto Rasmussen's Risk Management Framework (Rasmussen, 1997), the findings demonstrate clear links between safety leadership decisions, and emergent behaviours and actions across the work system. Communication and engagement based decisions featured most prominently, and were linked to different leadership practices across the work system. Further, a core sub-set of CDM decision elements were linked to the open flow and exchange of information across the work system, which was critical to supporting the safe outcome. The findings provide practical implications for the development of safety leadership capability to support safety within the mining industry.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 160 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 13%
Lecturer 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 64 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 22 14%
Engineering 16 10%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 71 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Applied Ergonomics
#1,246
of 1,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,472
of 323,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Ergonomics
#14
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.