Unveiling the Roots of Occupational Risk: A Grounded Theory Analysis of Individual Factors in Workplace Accidents

Introduction: Unsafe behaviors persist as a primary cause of workplace accidents in manufacturing, critically undermining occupational safety. While existing studies address fragmented aspects of human error, the interaction between individual traits (e.g., psychological factors, demographics) and organizational systems (e.g., leadership, safety protocols) remains underexplored. This study bridges this gap by applying Grounded Theory Method (GTM) to analyze multifactorial drivers of unsafe acts. Findings aim to inform targeted interventions, revealing how personal vulnerabilities and systemic pressures jointly shape risk-related decisions in high-risk industrial environments.

Methods: A qualitative approach was used, involving semi-structured interviews with 40 participants from steel industries, safety experts, and academics. Data analysis followed Strauss and Corbin's Grounded Theory Method framework, using open, axial, and selective coding to identify themes. This method ensured a systematic and rigorous exploration of the data.

Results: Demographic Characteristics: Five themes emerged, including age, experience level, and educational background. Older workers with extensive experience demonstrated lower risk-taking tendencies, aligning with findings on workforce composition and safety performance. General Health: Physical fitness and chronic health conditions (e.g., sleep disorders) directly influenced risk perception and decision-making accuracy. Poor sleep quality correlated with increased errors, corroborating studies on fatigue-related safety compromises. Individual Competencies: Safety knowledge, situational awareness, and procedural adherence were critical. Gaps in formal training exacerbated unsafe acts, emphasizing the need for high-quality competency development programs. Personality Traits: Five traits significantly impacted behavior: Risk tolerance, conscientiousness, stress resilience, attentional control and peer influence dynamics. Psychological Factors: Motivational deficits, cognitive overload, complacency, perceived time pressures, and emotional states (e.g., anxiety) emerged as key contributors. These align with organizational research on mental workload and safety culture. Organizational Interactions: The study revealed that organizational factors such as leadership quality, resource allocation for safety, and production-safety balance amplified or mitigated individual risks. For instance, time pressures from inefficient scheduling directly exacerbated estimation errors, while robust safety communication channels improved situational awareness.

Conclusion: This study presents an integrated framework connecting individual vulnerabilities (e.g., cognitive biases, health limitations) to organizational safety systems. Prioritized strategies include competency-based training targeting estimation errors; workflow redesign aligned with fatigue patterns; personality-tailored safety coaching; and leadership- driven safety culture enhancements via resource allocation. These measures address systemic roots of unsafe behaviors, bridging gaps between worker decision-making flaws and organizational pressures to foster proactive risk mitigation in high-hazard industries.

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
08. Oktober 2025