2.1. Crew resource management

CRM is an error prevention system developed in the field of aviation in the late 1970s to increase the managerial skills and efficiency of flight crews and to reduce human-induced errors. It is a tool that includes a variety of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviours such as situational awareness, communication, decision-making, and cooperation for the effective use of resources, enabling collective and critical thinking, collective decision-making, and joint action [Reference Gordon, Mendenhall, O’Connor and Bonnie14–Reference Reithmaier17]. CRM has been made mandatory in all airlines to increase flight safety with the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration [18] in the USA and the Joint Aviation Authorities [19] in Europe and is an operational management system that practices effective communication, problem solving, coordination, and cooperation skills for the management and utilisation of all available people, equipment, information, procedures, and human performance at maximum efficiency. With the use of CRM, the basic point of which is to create a learning culture which will prohibit the negative effects of personal mistakes, it is aimed to provide pilots with the cognitive, coordination, and cooperation skills required for safe flights and efficient management of resources [Reference Andrieş20–Reference Lauber25].

The main study on the evaluation of CRM is the Cockpit Management Attitude Questionnaire (CMAQ), which consists of three dimensions; command responsibility, recognition of stressor effects, and communication and coordination [Reference Gregorich, Helmreich and Wilhelm26–Reference Helmreich, Wilhelm and Gregorich28]. Subsequently, the Flight Management Attitude Questionnaire (FMAQ) was created by integrating the cultural dimensions of Hofstede [Reference Hofstede29] into the CMAQ questionnaire [Reference Kanki, Helmreich and Anca7]. The FMAQ survey assesses CRM in five dimensions; command responsibility, my stress, stress of others, rules and order, and communication [Reference Helmreich and Merritt30, Reference Merritt31]. In this study, these five dimensions of the FMAQ questionnaire were used as CRM dimensions.

Command responsibility relates to the attitudes and behaviours exhibited by the captain pilot towards the safe performance of a flight mission [Reference Stokes and Kite32]. This responsibility is given to the captain pilot within the framework of aviation laws and is a non-transferable responsibility [Reference Öztürk33]. The captain themself always bears full responsibility of the aircraft, whether they directly have the controls of the aircraft or give the controls to the first officer. The attitudes and behaviours shown while fulfilling this responsibility directly affect both flight performance and flight safety [Reference Aktaş34]. From the day of the first flight until the establishment of the CRM concept, there was a strict hierarchical structure in the cockpit of the aircraft, where captains declared their rule. With new assignments which have been created over time, such as pilot flying (PF), pilot not flying (PNF) or with its new definition, pilot monitoring (PM), the hierarchy in the cockpit has decreased and the captain pilot has begun to transfer the aircraft’s controls to the co-pilot when they deem appropriate. Although the responsibility cannot be delegated, within the scope of new regulations it has been underlined that the co-pilots are also responsible for the safety of the flight mission with an active participation with these new task shares, created to make the task more effective and safe [Reference Kanki, Helmreich and Anca7]. Command responsibility begins with the information and assignments required for the mission in pre-flight briefings and continues until the de-briefing at the end of the flight. In this process, the command style, leadership structure, and CRM attitudes and behaviours of the captain become an important determinant in the efficient and safe performance of the flight duty [Reference Ginnett35, Reference Prince, Salas, Salas, Wilson and Edens36].

Stress, which is one of the most important factors affecting pilots’ performance, is a factor that can create major problems when not recognised and not controlled. Psychological stress including elements such as emotional factors and mental workload; physical stress including elements such as fatigue and irregular diet, and physiological stress including elements such as temperature, noise, and humidity are all stress factors that negatively affect pilots’ ability to use their potential skills [Reference Henley37]. Unlike common sources of stress, in the pilot profession there are psychosocial stresses such as work stress, illness, family ties, flight duty times, rest periods, and environmental stresses such as altitude, speed, temperature, aircraft design, and weather conditions [Reference Gümüştekin and Öztemiz38]. This dimension, which is related to the perception, definition and management of these stressful factors using CRM skills, determines the level of awareness of pilots regarding stress and fatigue [Reference Aktaş34].

The dimension of awareness of the stress of others is related to the ability of crew members to be aware of each other’s stress and fatigue and to compensate for their diminished capacity in case of an emergency. It is not possible for pilots to perform a flight mission alone. It is important to be aware of the stresses of all crew members affecting the task so that the task can be carried out safely. For this reason, the entire flight crew should be aware of the stress and fatigue levels of both themselves and other crew members [Reference Stokes and Kite32]. The effectiveness of a crew is related to the ability to combine the personal skills of its members and to achieve the assigned tasks with a crew understanding in line with the goals determined by the organisation. For this reason, each crew member should know the characteristics of the assigned task and the competencies and weaknesses of their crewmates, fulfil their responsibilities, monitor the activities of their crewmates, resolve conflicts, and share responsibilities [Reference Aubé and Rousseau39, Reference Çakmakçı and Akalın40]. Crew members need to be compatible with each other in order to adapt to changing situations and conditions. For this, each crew member must be aware of the roles and responsibilities of the others as well as their stress [Reference Lesage, Dyar and Evans41]. In order to increase stress awareness within the crew, it is necessary to create an environment that encourages crew members to act appropriately and responsibly; all crew members must respect and trust each other, be sensitive to each other and the needs of the crew, and crew members must be willing to cooperate with each other and work together in all activities [Reference Weiss42].

Hofstede [Reference Hofstede43] explained the dimension of avoiding uncertainty as how employees feel themselves to be when under threat in unfamiliar situations. This feeling, which creates tension in the individual, creates the need to know what will happen ahead of time or to have written and unwritten rules to deal with uncertainty [Reference Kartari44]. Defined by Hofstede [Reference Hofstede43] as “uncertainty avoidance”, this dimension was named by Helmreich [Reference Helmreich5] and Merritt [Reference Merritt31] as rules and order within the scope of CRM dimensions [Reference Ford45]. Studies show that more than 70% of aircraft accidents and incidents in the civil aviation sector are caused by errors made on the part of the flight crew. These errors mostly occur in the form of application errors such as not conducting briefings and checklists, and communication errors such as incorrect transmission of information and misinterpretation within the crew [Reference Cooper, White and Lauber46, Reference Flin47]. The rules set for the safe and effective execution of a flight mission are mostly developed as a result of the experiences gained from previous accidents and incidents. In this context, the responsibility of the captain is to ensure that flight activities are carried out safely by complying with the rules and instructions [Reference Helmreich48, Reference Helmreich, Foushee, Kanki, Helmreich and Anca49].

Communication is a form of action and interaction that ensures coordination and is also a production and exchange. It is the process of using words and other symbols to achieve various goals. Thanks to communication, information can flow from one place to another to create different behaviours and results. Thus, people have the opportunity to share common values through communication. Communication and coordination in aviation relates to how successful crew members are in working together, communicating, and coordinating work. It is an important responsibility of the captain to ensure that communication and coordination take place effectively so that the crew understands their roles and responsibilities and what is expected of them [Reference Stokes and Kite32, Reference Gökçe50–Reference Telman and Ünsal52]. The captain is the person who communicates with everyone about the flight mission and coordinates the crew members to make decisions about managing resources effectively and efficiently. While providing communication and coordination, the captain can switch between authoritarian and democratic leadership styles in the face of changing situations [Reference Elbaşı53, Reference Korten54].

2.2. Flight safety culture

Organisational culture, which is the reflection of the basic values, beliefs and assumptions shared by the employees, consists of sub-cultures such as safety culture, technical culture, business culture, work group culture, and shift culture [55, Reference Can, Büyükbalcı, Bal and Ertemsir56]. Turner [Reference Turner57] expresses safety culture norms, beliefs, roles, attitudes and practices related to reducing the possibility of encountering hazards [Reference Turner57–Reference Vredenburgh60]. According to another definition, safety culture is about the attitudes, behaviours, common values, ways of working, and willingness to learn from mistakes of an organisation’s management and its employees [Reference Wiegmann, Zhang, Thaden, Sharma and Mitchell61]. Safety culture, which is essentially expressed as the safety attitudes of the employees of the organisation, and more broadly described as a whole of commonly accepted attitudes, values, beliefs, and symbols [Reference Fleming62], is the behavioural style acknowledged as the common value of learning, information, reporting, being flexible, adaptable, and fair to ensure and improve operational safety [Reference Reason63, 64]. It is the collection of beliefs, norms, attitudes, roles, and social and technical practices within the organisation that reduce the possibility of individuals being exposed to situations that are considered hazardous [65, Reference McDonald, Corrigan, Daly and Cromie66]. Safety culture is not limited to managers and control systems, it is the expression of the values shared by all employees of the organisation and the visible side of the employees’ behaviour at work. It requires the participation of everyone in an organisation, taking lessons from mistakes, incidents, and accidents, and being open to development [Reference Wiegmann, Zhang, von Thaden, Sharma and Mitchell67].

Just like organisational culture, safety culture includes different subcultures according to the environment and the activities of the organisation. FSC, which is a subculture of safety culture, consists of shared feelings, norms, interactions, expectations, assumptions, beliefs, attitudes, and values for safe flight activities. FSC is a way of recognising hazards and effectively managing acceptable risks and resources so that flight missions can be carried out safely by creating an environment free of errors [Reference Reason63, Reference Cooper68].

FSC refers to the measure of how well each individual and group in an aviation company is prepared for hazards and risks, especially in the activities of pilots. This state of preparedness can be summarised as a set of permanent values and attitudes that consist of maintaining and developing safety attitudes and behaviours, the ability to adapt to the situation, the willingness to communicate when a situation related to safety is encountered, and the constant evaluation of safety-related behaviour. Beliefs about the importance of safety form the core of FSC. These beliefs are related to what people in all positions think about the priority of safety, including those working together, managers, and leaders, and are indicated by accepted norms and behaviours [65].

Airline companies with a positive FSC have a communication built on mutual trust, common perceptions on the importance of safety, and beliefs in the effectiveness of preventive measures. The established standards, rules and practices are seen as part of achieving the safety target by all employees who affect flight activity. At the same time, there is a commitment and leadership approach to safety culture at all levels, from the most junior employees to top level management [Reference Demirbilek59, Reference Reason63, Reference Harvey, Erdos, Bolam, Cox, Kennedy and Gregory69, Reference Nævestad, Hesjevoll and Phillips70].

Wiegmann et al. [Reference Wiegmann, Zhang, von Thaden, Sharma and Gibbons71] established the following five dimensions related to safety culture by examining studies conducted on safety culture and safety climate between 1974-2001: organisational commitment, management involvement, reward systems, employee empowerment, and reporting systems. Later, using these dimensions, the Commercial Aviation Safety Survey (CASS) was developed to evaluate safety culture in the commercial civil aviation industry [Reference Wiegmann, Zhang, von Thaden, Sharma and Mitchell67, Reference Wiegmann, Zhang, von Thaden, Sharma and Gibbons71]. Subsequently, the CASS questionnaire was rearranged by the University of Illinois researchers, and the Safety Culture Indicator Scale Measurement System (SCISMS) questionnaire was developed consisting of the dimensions of organisational commitment, operational interactions, formal safety indicators, and informal safety indicators [Reference Gibbons, von Thaden and Wiegmann72–Reference von Thaden and Gibbons74]. The present study uses the safety culture dimensions demonstrated in the CASS questionnaire, as determined by Wiegmann et al. [Reference Wiegmann, Zhang, von Thaden, Sharma and Mitchell67, Reference Wiegmann, Zhang, von Thaden, Sharma and Gibbons71].

Organisational commitment is the commitment of top management to adopt the concept of safety as a fundamental value, the determination they demonstrate in implementing safety policies, and their commitment to fulfilling the necessary responsibilities in safety application. Commitment is an expression of the engagement of top management in safety rules and practices [Reference Önen73, Reference Lingard, Pirzadeh, Harley, Blismas and Wakefield75, Reference Piers, Montijn and Balk76]. In organisations that are committed to safety values, even in times of economic strain, safety is not compromised by senior management and safety practices are encouraged. Similarly, the regular evaluation of the organisation’s business processes and making the necessary safety-related corrections also reflect the organisation’s commitment and determination towards safety [Reference Dursun77]. Creating a positive safety culture in an organisation is possible with the will, guidance, and organisational determination of senior management. The prevalent understanding of safety in an organisation is indicative of the effective safety approach and enforcement ability of top management [Reference Gül78].

Management involvement is about how personally top and middle management are involved in safety-related processes within the organisation. Managers’ encouragement of and active participation in training and their active follow-up of operations are seen as an indicator of the effort required to create effective communication both from the bottom up, and from the top down [Reference Dursun77]. In order to establish a positive safety culture in an organisation, the top management’s stance on safety must be strong and determined, open to opposing views, willing to accept criticism, and create an environment that encourages feedback. In return, employees are responsible for having an understanding of safety, to know the consequences of unsafe actions, and to be aware of the importance of effective communication and reporting safety data [79].

The reward system is an evaluation system that rewards safe behaviour and punishes unsafe behaviour. Reward methods such as appreciation, praise, paid leave, and monetary incentives are practices that encourage and support safe behaviours of the organisation. Likewise, deterrence and punishment practices aimed at prevention of taking unnecessary risks and unsafe behaviour are also part of the rewarding system. In establishing a positive safety culture, the organisation should have a fair reward and evaluation system that encourages correct behaviour and discourages unsafe behaviour [Reference Wiegmann, Zhang, von Thaden, Sharma and Gibbons71, Reference Gül78]. The values that make up the organisational culture are created by the attitudes and behaviours of upper management, the guidance of middle management, and evaluation systems such as the reward system [Reference Çetin80]. It is not enough that the reward system merely exists in the organisation. All these criteria need to be fully explained to the employees and the practices documented formally in a clear and understandable manner, and these must be understood by the employees [Reference Dursun77].

Employee empowerment is related to employees taking responsibility in the face of safety problems and their willingness to provide input in decisions regarding safety with their expert knowledge as the actual undertaker of a job [Reference Dursun77, Reference Gül78, Reference Mucuk81]. Employee empowerment is a motivational process that sees the employee as a specialist in their job, gives the employee authority and the power to use it, and strengthens the belief of the individual about their own effectiveness [Reference Conger82–Reference Yüksel and Erkutlu84]. The level of employee involvement is related to how much the employees are empowered by management, and how much they are made aware of and empowered against safety problems. As employee involvement increases, the decision-making process in the organisation becomes decentralised, thus managers give employees more autonomy and discretion [Reference Brymer85, Reference Çavuş and Akgemci86].

The reporting system allows the weak and ineffective parts of the system to be seen earlier on so measures can be taken to prevent the occurrence of accidents. To learn from the mistakes and errors made and to take measures to avoid such events again, there is a need for events and occurrences to be reported by the employees, and for the organisation to analyse these reports and turn them into practice. In this context, reporting is not only the responsibility of the employees, but the organisation should also be willing to receive information and create the environment and technical infrastructure for the reporting system [Reference Lingard, Pirzadeh, Harley, Blismas and Wakefield75, Reference Jeffcott, Pidgeon, Weyman and Walls87]. A good reporting system allows employees to report safety-related problems and encourages reporting. At the same time, it provides feedback to all employees to increase their awareness [Reference Dursun77].

Studies revealed that culture has important effects on CRM, and that CRM trainings should be focused on culture [Reference Helmreich and Merritt30, Reference Şekerli and Gerede88–Reference Engle92]. Moreover, CRM is an important tool and an ongoing process in establishing a flight safety culture in an aviation-related organisation. With CRM, pilots’ attitudes and behaviours towards safety becoming a common value, have helped organisations gain a new perspective in understanding that CRM may be essential in the creation of safety culture. Research shows that the new awareness, attitudes, behaviours, and values created by CRM have positive effects on the formation of the safety culture of the organisation [Reference Helmreich, Klinect and Wilhelm93–Reference Sørensen95]. Based on our research, a study has not yet been performed on CRM affecting FSC, thus, the possible effects of CRM on culture presents itself as a new research topic. Therefore, the current study is aimed at addressing this issue.

3.1. The purpose and importance of the research

Many studies have been conducted on CRM and the importance of the concept in reducing errors caused by the human factor has been emphasised. However, it has been observed that the studies on the importance of CRM in establishing a FSC, which is an important element in preventing aircraft accidents, are insufficient. This study is expected to contribute to the importance of CRM in determining the effect of FSC and in reducing organisational errors, for which there is not yet sufficient research available in the literature.

3.2. Research model and hypothesis

The model of the research is as seen in Fig. 1. According to the model, the main hypothesis of the study is that CRM has a positive effect on FSC. The sub-hypotheses are based on the notion that each of the sub-dimensions of CRM has a positive effect on each of the sub-dimensions of FSC. The hypotheses created within the framework of the research model are as follows;

3.3. Procedures, sampling and limitations

The population of the current study consisted of pilots who are members of the Foundation of Turkey Airline Pilots. The Foundation of Turkey Airline Pilots, which has 3,880 members, is a social assistance and solidarity institution established by pilots holding an Air Transport Pilot license (ATPL) or Commercial Pilot license (CPL). The current study, which has an empirical research design, a field survey model and a survey technique, a data collection method in which the opinions of the subjects are taken in written form, were used to obtain the data. Four hundren and fifty-one pilots participated in the survey, which was sent to the Foundation of Turkey Airline Pilots members with an informative email.

Figure 1.

Research model.

An apriori power analysis was conducted to determine the ability of the pilots who agreed to participate in the survey to produce robust results. In studies by Cohen [Reference Cohen96], it was stated that the statistical power of 1-β=0.80 is sufficient [Reference Cohen96]. In this study, as a result of the power analysis performed by taking the effect level of 1-β = 0.90 and statistical significance α=0.05, it was determined that the study would be valid if at least 191 samples were used for both relationship analysis and testing group differences. Therefore, in this study, it was revealed that the analyses to be made for the 451 pilots who participated in the survey would be reliable.

Ninety-seven percent (435) of the participants are male, 85% (382) are married, 77% (349) have children, 72% (325) have a bachelor’s degree, and 69% (309) are between the ages of 35 and 49. Fifity-four percent (244) of the sample have twenty years or more aviation experience, 36% (163) have more than 10,000 hours of flight experience, 78% (353) have less than ten years seniority in the company they work for. Forty-six percent (208) of the sample group fly Airbus-type aircraft, and 46% (208) Boeing type aircraft, 61% (275) of them work as captain pilots, 81% (366) as line pilots, and 16% (71) of them have managerial experience. Sixty-three percent (282) of the participants started flying in the military, 37% (169) in civilian institutions, 91% (414) of them work in passenger transport companies, and 64% (291) have flown the same aircraft type for less than five years.

It is assumed that the pilots who answered the survey questions reflected their true feelings and thoughts, answered the survey willingly, answered the survey correctly and completely, and understood what was being asked in a real sense. Due to the collection of the data discussed in the study from a single source, common method bias and misconceptions that may occur were ignored. In addition, since the survey was conducted between certain dates, the information of those who responded in that period is included here.

3.4. Statistical analysis

The questionnaire used in the study was prepared by making use of the scales whose validity and reliability were approved in previous studies as a result of a wide literature review. CRM was measured with a total of 34 statements: nine for command responsibility, 6 for my stress, 5 for stress of others, 5 for rules and order, and 9 for communication and coordination. While creating the scale, the FMAQ questionnaire (Cronbach’s α= .79) which had positive results in terms of reliability and validity was used [Reference Gregorich, Helmreich and Wilhelm26, Reference Helmreich, Wilhelm and Gregorich28, Reference Helmreich and Merritt30, Reference Wilhelm, Helmreich and Merritt97]. FSC was measured with a total of 46 statements: 10 for organizational commitment, 10 for management involvement, 6 for reward system, 10 for employee empowerment, and 10 for reporting system. While creating the scale, the CASS questionnaire (Subscales’ Cronbach’s α= .94, .90, .71, .81, .86), which had positive results in terms of reliability and validity was used [Reference Wiegmann, Zhang, von Thaden, Sharma and Gibbons71]. In the evaluation of the statements related to the questionnaire, a 5-point Likert-type scale was used with 1 = “Strongly Disagree”, 2 = “Disagree Slightly”, 3 = “Neutral”, 4 = “Agree Slightly”, 5 = “Agree Strongly”.

4.1. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

In order to reveal the factor structure, the varimax rotation method and principal component analysis method was applied as the factor retention method. Then, all the factors of the proposed model were subjected to factor analysis with their eigenvalues higher than 1, and five factors were obtained for the sub-dimensions of crew resource management, as seen in Table 1, and five factors for the sub-dimensions of FSC, as seen in Table 2.

The sample adequacy of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) CRM scale was obtained as 0.928, above the significant level value of 0.70. The result of the Bartlett test of sphericity, which was conducted to measure the consistency of the variables to be analysed, was statistically significant (χ2= 7428.55 and p= 0.000) for the scale of perceived organisational support. According to the results of the anti-image correlation matrix, the cross-correlation coefficients of the statements were between 0.59-0.89 for the perceived organisational support scale, above the critical level of 0.5. There are no questions below 0.20 in the extraction column for the scale, therefore the question was not removed.

The sample adequacy of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) FSC scale was obtained as 0.931, above the significant level value of 0.70. The result of the Bartlett test of sphericity, which was conducted to measure the consistency of the variables under analysis, was statistically significant (χ2= 6812.48 and p= 0.000) for the scale of perceived organisational support. According to the results of the anti-image correlation matrix, the cross-correlation coefficients of the statements were between 0.61-0.90 for the perceived organisational support scale, above the critical level of 0.5. There are no questions below 0.20 in the extraction column for the scale, therefore the question was not removed.

Table 1.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of crew resource management

CR: command responsibility; MS: my stress; SO: stress of others; RO: rules and order; CC: communication and coordination.

Table 2.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of flight safety culture

*Item indicates a negative safety culture and is reverse coded for all analyses.

OC: organisational commitment; MI: management involvement; RW: reward system; EE: employee empowerment; RS: reporting system.

Table 3.

Confirmatory factor analysis goodness-of-fit indices

Table 4.

Correlation analysis results

**p<0.05 **p<0.01.

4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

With the exploratory factor analysis, the factors that make up the CRM and FSC – the latent variables – were revealed. However, as a result of the compatibility of these factors and their relations with each other, EFA is insufficient in determining the general explanation levels. For this reason, CFA was applied to analyse the validity of the factor structure obtained and the validity and reliability of the dimensions in the structure, as seen in Table 3. Within the scope of CFA, first of all 10 factors obtained as a result of EFA were defined as latent variables, the expressions forming the factors were defined as indicator variables, and a measurement model was created with the AMOS 19.0 program in order to define the model. This measurement model in which the observed variables are gathered under 10 independent factors is the first level CFA model for the proposed model.

The modification index was examined to see if the model needed any improvement, and it was seen that there was no need for any adjustments.

4.3. Correlation analysis

In the correlation analysis applied at this stage of the current study, the relationship between CRM and FSC, and the relationships between CRM and FSC dimensions were discussed.

As seen in Table 4, according to the data obtained from the correlation analysis it has been determined that there was a significant (p<0.05) and positive correlation (0.75) between CRM and FSC. Likewise, it is seen that there was a significant and positive relationship between the dimensions of CRM and the dimensions of FSC. When the relationship between the command responsibility dimension of CRM and the FSC dimensions is examined, it is seen that the strongest positive correlation (0.72) was with the reward system and the weakest positive correlation (0.40) was seen in the reporting system dimension. While the my stress dimension had the highest positive correlation (0.65) with management involvement, it had the weakest positive correlation (0.41) with the employee empowerment dimension. Likewise, the stress of others dimension had a weak positive correlation (0.38) with the employee empowerment dimension, but had the strongest positive correlation (0.89) with the organisational commitment dimension. In the dimension of rules and order, the highest positive correlation (0.82) was with the management involvement dimension and the weakest positive correlation (0.50) was with the employee empowerment dimension. It is seen that the communication and coordination dimension had the highest positive correlation (0.71) with employee empowerment, and the weakest positive correlation (0.47) with management involvement.

4.4. Structural equation modelling

Before testing the main hypothesis of the research, the fit indices of the model were examined in order to reveal the compatibility of the research model with the data set at hand. When the results of the structural equation modelling (SEM) estimations fit index presented in Table 5 are examined, it is seen that the values generally have good fit and are at an acceptable level.

Table 5.

Structural equation modelling goodness-of-fit indices

It is seen that there is a significant relationship between CRM and FSC, and CRM has a positive effect on FSC. For every one unit change in the score of CRM, on average, FSC score increases by 0.739 units. There are significant, positive effects of the dimensions on FSC. For every unit change in the CR score, the FSC score increases by 0.637 units. For every unit change in the MS score, the FSC score increases by 0.591 units. For every unit change in the SO score, the FSC score increases by 0.708 units. For every unit change in the RO score, the FSC score increases by 0.662 units. For every unit change in the CC score, the FSC score increases by 0.659 units. It has been determined that the SO dimension has the highest effect among CRM dimensions, while the MS dimension has the lowest effect.

It has been determined that all the sub-dimensions of CRM have a significant and positive effect on the sub-dimensions of FSC. It is seen that among the CRM dimensions; every one unit change in the CR score increases the RW score the most, by 0.692 units and RS the least, by 0.379 units. Every one unit change in the MS factor’s score increases the MI score the most, by 0.626 units, while it increases the EE score the least, by 0.357 units. Every unit change in the SO factor’s score increases the OC factor’s score the most, by 0.819 units and the RS factor’s score the least, by 0.425 units. Every one unit change in the RO factor’s score increases the RS factor’s score the most, by 0.863 units and the EE factor’s score the least, by 0.481 units. Every one unit change in the CC factor’s score increases the EE factor’s score the most, by 0.702 units and the MI factor’s score the least, by 0.458 units.