Flying an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: Key Factors for Risk Management

Only theoretical training of drone operators is not sufficient for safe integration and use of drone aircraft both in controlled and uncontrolled air space.Based on research and analysis of incidents caused by the use of drone aircraft during 2018. The global level can conclude that most of the incidents have been performed because of unskilled handling of drones, even though the persons who managed them were theoretically trained and possessed of drone management licenses.Purpose – for the purpose of mitigation of the risk of adverse effects of human and material resources in the work, the analysis of the Drone management.Design/methodology/approach – decision on which of the following key factors for risk assessment achieves the greatest impact on the safe handling of drone aircraft has been carried out by using the methods of analytical hierarchical processes, i.e. “fuzzy”Expanded AHP method based on”fuzzy”triangular numbers.Findings – Based on the results of the research, it concludes that the alternative – “a terrorist and practical training for the safe handling of drone aircraft” is essential for the safe handling of drone aircraft in the second place The ranked alternative “the need for knowledge and skills of sports pilots” in third place is the ranked alternative “only practical training is needed,” in the fourth place the alternative is “only theoretical training is needed” and the fifth match is a ranked alternative “is not Theoretical or practical training. “Practical Implications – established frames to increase the security of flying drones through an obligatory theoretical and practical training of drone operators.Social Implications – reduced risks of occurrence of adverse effects on human and material resources

International differences in employee silence motives: Scale validation, prevalence, and relationships with culture characteristics across 33 countries

Employee silence, the withholding of work‐related ideas, questions, or concerns from someone who could effect change, has been proposed to hamper individual and collective learning as well as the detection of errors and unethical behaviors in many areas of the world. To facilitate cross‐cultural research, we validated an instrument measuring four employee silence motives (i.e., silence based on fear, resignation, prosocial, and selfish motives) in 21 languages. Across 33 countries (N = 8,222) representing diverse cultural clusters, the instrument shows good psychometric properties (i.e., internal reliabilities, factor structure, and measurement invariance). Results further revealed similarities and differences in the prevalence of silence motives between countries, but did not necessarily support cultural stereotypes. To explore the role of culture for silence, we examined relationships of silence motives with the societal practices cultural dimensions from the GLOBE Program. We found relationships between silence motives and power distance, institutional collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance. Overall, the findings suggest that relationships between silence and cultural dimensions are more complex than commonly assumed. We discuss the explanatory power of nations as (cultural) units of analysis, our social scientific approach, the predictive value of cultural dimensions, and opportunities to extend silence research geographically, methodologically, and conceptually