近年来，我国煤炭行业的安全形势虽有所改善，但整体情况仍然严峻。事故统计发

现煤矿人因事故比重偏高，在高风险与复杂性的煤炭开采过程及日益严厉的事故追责双

重压力下，煤矿管理者尤其是中层管理者存在着“照单履职”“事不关己高高挂起”现

象，规避因个人决策可能带来的安全责任，不利于管理者在事故防制过程中主动性的发

挥。目前，对煤矿管理者的研究多聚焦于领导风格和管理模式等方面，关于管理层避责

行为的研究尚显不足。因此，本文将重点探讨煤矿管理者的避责行为，以期提高煤矿管

理者的安全保障作用。

首先，通过对煤矿管理者领导风格、领导压力、避责行为相关文献的研究，对煤矿

管理者避责行为进行界定，发现煤矿管理者避责行为中存在着责任分散效应，并从社会

学习理论、社会比较理论、相互依赖理论与社会交换理论、公平理论和成本收益原则五

个角度分析煤矿管理者产生避责行为的理论依据。

其次，根据限定关键词分析避责行为、责任分散效应和不安全行为方面的文献，以

及半结构访谈两种途径收集原始资料，导入 NVivo 分析词云图得到原始资料的词频，利

用扎根理论经开放性编码、主轴性编码和选择性编逐步提取煤矿管理者避责行为的影响

因素。初步确定了 27 个煤矿管理者避责行为影响因素。为避免指标之间存在交叉，本文

编制调查问卷，收集专家意见进行验证和矫正，进一步优化影响因素并形成煤矿管理者

避责行为影响因素评价指标体系。

第三，基于煤矿管理者避责行为影响因素的指标体系，邀请专家对各因素进行打分，

运用 DEMATEL-ISM 方法构建影响因素递阶层次结构模型，判断关键影响因素、原因因

素、结果因素及各影响因素之间的层次关系。

第四，根据责任分散效应的三个干预阶段，将 12 个影响因素划分为情境因素、组织

因素、制度环境因素及个体因素四个维度，并结合递阶层次结构模型的分析结果设置中

介变量，构建煤矿管理者避责行为影响关系模型；设计问卷的各个题项，通过小样本预

调研优化题项，确定最终问卷，开展正式调研收集数据，建立结构方程模型对假设模型

进行实证检验。最终根据研究结论提出抑制煤矿管理者避责行为的干预措施。研究表明：①构建的煤矿管理者避责行为影响因素评价指标体系包含 4 个二级指标

以及12个三级指标；②DEMATEL方法识别出影响煤矿管理者避责行为的3个关键因素，

即管理者的工作态度、工作群体的行为表现以及企业的安全管理制度。同时，揭示了环

境风险、组织支持、安全管理制度等 8 个原因因素和工作态度、压力应对能力、专业能

力、工作群体表现 4 个结果因素。③情境因素与组织因素之间存在负相关关系；情境因

素与制度因素显著正相关；组织因素与个体因素显著正相关；制度因素与个体因素亦显

著正相关。且情境因素会导致煤矿管理者避责行为的产生。④环境风险通过不同路径影

响煤矿管理者避责行为的链式中介效果。即环境风险通过工作群体表现、工作态度路径

间接影响避责行为，其间接效应为 0.024，中介效应显著存在；环境风险通过“安全日常

一体化管理”（安全管理制度、日常管理制度）、工作态度路径间接影响避责行为，其

间接效应为-0.041，中介效应显著存在；环境风险通过“三项机制”（激励、问责及容

错纠错机制）、工作态度路径间接影响避责行为，其间接效应为-0.065，中介效应显著

存在。

本研究丰富了煤矿管理者避责行为的理论研究，为煤矿企业对管理者避责行为的干

预提供了思路参考和对策选择。

In recent years, the safety situation in China's coal industry has improved, but the overall

situation is still grim. Accident statistics show that the proportion of human-caused accidents in

coal mines is on the high side. Under the double pressure of the high-risk and complex coal

mining process and the increasingly stringent pursuit of responsibility for accidents, there

exists the phenomenon that coal mine managers, especially middle managers, "perform their

duties according to the list" and "hang on to their own responsibilities", avoiding the safety

responsibility that may be brought by personal decisions, which is not conducive to managers'

initiative in the process of accident prevention. This is not conducive to the development of

managers' initiative in the process of accident prevention and control, as it avoids the safety

responsibility that may be brought about by personal decision-making. Currently, the research

on coal mine managers focuses on leadership style and management mode, but the research on

management's responsibility avoidance behavior is still insufficient. Therefore, this paper will

focus on the blame avoidance behavior of coal mine managers, with a view to improving the

safety assurance role of coal mine managers.

First, through the study of the literature related to leadership style, leadership pressure,

and blame avoidance behavior of coal mine managers, we define the blame avoidance behavior

of coal mine managers, find that there exists a responsibility dispersion effect in the blame

avoidance behavior of coal mine managers, and analyze the five perspectives of the social

learning theory, the social comparison theory, the theory of interdependence and the theory of

social exchange, the theory of fairness, and the principle of cost-benefit to produce the blame

avoidance behavior of coal mine managers.

Secondly, based on the restricted keywords to analyze the literature on blame avoidance

behavior, responsibility dispersion effect and unsafe behavior, as well as the two ways ofsemi-structured interviews to collect the original data, import NVivo to analyze the word cloud

map to get the word frequency of the original data, and use the rooting theory to step by step

extract the influencing factors of the blame avoidance behaviors of the coal mine managers

through the open coding, the spindle coding, and the selective coding. Preliminarily, 27 factors

influencing the responsibility avoidance behavior of coal mine managers were identified. In

order to avoid the intersection between the indicators, this paper compiles a questionnaire,

collects experts' opinions for validation and correction, further optimizes the influencing

factors and forms the evaluation index system of influencing factors of responsibility-avoiding

behavior of coal mine managers.

Third, based on the index system of the factors influencing the responsibility avoidance

behavior of coal mine managers, experts were invited to score each factor, and the

DEMATEL-ISM method was used to construct a progressive hierarchical model of the

influencing factors, and to judge the hierarchical relationship between the key influencing

factors, the cause factors, the result factors, and each of the influencing factors.

Fourth, according to the three intervention stages of responsibility dispersion effect, the

12 influencing factors are divided into four dimensions: situational factors, organizational

factors, institutional environment factors and individual factors, and mediating variables are set

up in combination with the analysis results of the recursive hierarchical model to construct a

relational model of the influence of responsibility avoidance behaviors of coal mine managers;

the individual questions of the questionnaire are designed, and the questions are optimized

through a small-sample pre-survey to determine the final questionnaire, and the formal

research is conducted to collect data and set up a structural equation model to test the

hypothesized model. Formal research was conducted to collect data, and structural equation

modeling was established to empirically test the hypothesized model. Based on the conclusions

of the study, intervention measures are proposed to curb the responsibility-avoidance behavior

of coal mine managers.

The study shows that: ① the constructed evaluation index system of factors influencing

the responsibility avoidance behavior of coal mine managers contains 4 secondary indicators

as well as 12 tertiary indicators; ② the DEMATEL method identifies 3 key factors influencing

the responsibility avoidance behavior of coal mine managers, i.e., the manager's work attitudes,

the work group's behavioral performance, and the enterprise's safety management system.Meanwhile, 8 causal factors such as environmental risk, organizational support, and safety

management system and 4 consequential factors such as work attitude, stress coping ability,

professional ability, and work group performance were revealed. ③ There is a negative

correlation between situational factors and organizational factors; situational factors are

significantly positively correlated with institutional factors; organizational factors are

significantly positively correlated with individual factors; and institutional factors are also

significantly positively correlated with individual factors. And situational factors can lead to

the generation of responsibility avoidance behavior of coal mine managers. ④ The

environmental risk affects the chain mediation effect of coal mine managers' responsibility

avoidance behavior through different paths. That is, environmental risk indirectly affects the

avoidance behavior through the path of work group performance and work attitude, with an

indirect effect of 0.024 and a significant mediating effect; environmental risk indirectly affects

the avoidance behavior through the path of safety management system, daily management

system, and work attitude, with an indirect effect of -0.041 and a significant mediating effect;

environmental risk indirectly affects the avoidance behavior through the path of the "three

mechanisms" (incentives, accountability, and responsibility), and the mediating effect is

significant. "(incentive, accountability and fault tolerance and correction mechanism), work

attitude path indirectly affects the avoidance of responsibility behavior, its indirect effect is

-0.065, the mediating effect is significant.

This study enriches the theoretical research on managerial avoidance behavior in coal

mines, and provides an idea reference and countermeasure choice for the intervention of

managerial avoidance behavior in coal mining enterprises.

[1]国家统计局. 中华人民共和国 2023 年国民经济和社会发展统计公报[EB/OL]. 国家统

计局, 2024-02-29. [2]田水承, 赵钊颖, 范彬彬, 等. 矿工疲劳与不安全行为的 SEM 研究[J]. 煤矿安全, 202

2, 53(6): 247-251. [3]张孟浩, 刘旺. 2021 年我国煤矿事故统计与规律分析[J]. 山西煤炭, 2023, 43(2): 30-3

5. [4]卜素, 李青. 论安全生产责任制监管模式的困境与重塑[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(11): 18-25. [5]许章华, 贺安琪, 李彬, 等. 应对责任分散效应的高校实验室安全管理研究[J]. 实验技

术与管理, 2022, 39(9): 235-240. [6]WEAVER R K. The Politics of blame avoidance[J]. Journal of Public Policy, 1986, 6(4):

371−398. [7]STEN HANSSON. The discursive micro‑politics of blame avoidance: unpacking the

language of government blame games[J]. Policy Sciences, 2018(51): 545-564

[8]CHARBONEAU E, BELLAVANCE F. Blame avoidance in public reporting evidence from

a provincially mandated municipal performance measurement regime[J]. Public

Performance & Management Review, 2012, 35(3): 399-421．

[9]DEWAN T, DOWDING K. The corrective effect of ministerial resignations on government

popularity[J]. American Journal of Political Science, 2005, 49(1): 46-56．

[10]DIXON R, ARNDT C, MULLERS Metal. A lever for improvement or a magnet for blame?

Press and political responses to international educational rankings in four EU countries[J]. Public Administration, 2013, 91(2): 484-505. [11]HOOD C, DIXON R. The political payoff from performance target systems: no-brainer or

no-gainer?[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research &Theory, 2010, 20(2): i281-i298．

[12]SANDRA L R, BRENDAN J. CARROLL, et al. Why traditional responses to blame

games fail: The importance of context, rituals, and sub-blame games in the face of raves

gone wrong [J]. Public Administration, 2016, 94(2): 350−363. [13]倪星, 王锐. 权责分立与基层避责: 一种理论解释[J]. 中国社会科学, 2018(05): 116- 135+206-207. [14]王英, 魏姝, 吴少微, 等. 场域理论下公务员避责行为生成机制的实证研究[J]. 中南

大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 28(5): 167-181.[15]刘全龙, 法子薇, 李新春, 等. 数据为证: 各类煤矿事故致因差异化分析与危险源管

控研究[J/OL]. 管理工程学报: 1-15[2024-04-07]. [16]张民波, 闫瑾, 黄强勇, 等. 基于 24Model 与 csQCA 的煤矿安全事故组态构型[J]. 安

全与环境工程, 2024, 31(1): 1-8+24. [17]彭宗超, 祝哲. 危机决策者避责策略的四种模式及关键影响因素分析[J]. 上海行政学

院学报, 2018, 19(4): 93-101. [18]HOOD C, JENNINGS W, DIXON R, et al. Testing times: Exploring staged responses and

the impact of blame management strategies in two examination fiasco cases[J]. European

Journal of Political Research, 2009, 48(6): 695-722. [19]MEGRAW K M. Avoiding blame: An experimental investigation of political excuses and

justifications[J]. British journal of Political Science, 1990, 20(1): 119-131. [20]石东伟. 基层干部避责行为及其治理研究[D]. 北京: 中共中央党校, 2023. [21]王凌晖. 基于旁观者效应的信息压力与压强现象研究[J]. 湘南学院学报, 2022, 43(0

2): 35-41. [22]巴伦, 伯恩. 社会心理学(第十版)[M]. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2004. [23]梁岑. 网络暴力信息的旁观者效应研究[D].长春: 东北师范大学, 2019. [24]贾学雁. 旁观者现象之我见[J]. 社科纵横, 2007(6). [25]凌瑶. 基于双方演化博弈模型的相关研究结论在建筑施工安全管理的应用[J]. 四川

建筑, 2024, 44(01): 229-230+233. [26]宋淑娟. 财务人员也是管理者—读《管理学》有感[J]. 现代经济信息, 2015, (19): 89. [27]PAOLILLOO. Role profiles for Managers at Different Hierarchical Levels[J]. Academy of

Management Proceedings. 1981: 72-76. [28]Q N Huy. In praise of middle managers.[J]. Harvard Business Review, 2001: 72-80. [29]江历明, 王操红. 企业中层管理者绩效维度的探析[J]. 中国市场, 2006(10): 24-25. [30]王爱华. 优秀中层管理者的自我修炼[J]. 中国安防, 2010(5): 82-84. [31]Ann Stueve, Kimberly Dash, Lydia O’Donnell, et al. Rethinking the Bystander Ro

le in School Violence Prevention[J]. Health Promotion Practice, 2006, Vol.7: 117-12

4. [32]黄勖喆, 褚晓伟, 刘庆奇, 等. 网络欺负中的旁观者行为[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27

(07): 1248-1257. [33]吴刚, 黄健. 社会性学习理论渊源及发展的研究综述[J]. 远程教育杂志, 2018, 36(5):

69-80. [34]Kruis N E, Seo C, Kim B. Revisiting the Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory on

Substance Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis[J]. Substance Use＆Misuse, 2020,55(4): 666－683．

[35]康健. “羊群行为”的理性视角—社会学习理论综述[J]. 生产力研究, 2009(23): 254-2

56. [36]邢淑芬, 俞国良. 社会比较研究的现状与发展趋势[J]. 心理科学进展, 2005(1): 78-8

4. [37]Peter M. Blau. Justice in Social Exchange[J]. Sociological Inquiry, 1964, 34(2): 193-206. [38]Cropanzano Russell, Anthony Erica, Daniels Shanna R and Hall Alison V. Social

Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies[J]. Academy of

Management Annals, 2017, 11(1): 479-516. [39]Adams J S. Advances in experimental social psychology: Inequity in social exchange in

Berkovitz[J]. Academic Press, 1965(4): 25-27. [40]Thibaut J W, Walker L. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis[J]. Duke Law

Journal, 1975, 1977(6). [41]Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Proc

edures for Developing Grounded Theory[M]. SAGE Publications. Inc.2012. [42]黄丽, 丁世青, 谢立新, 等. 组织支持对职业使命感影响的实证研究[J]. 管理科学, 2

019, 32(5): 48-59. [43]吴涵. 基于 DEMATEL 法的“互联网+”政务服务能力评估指标体系研究[D]. 武汉: 华

中科技大学, 2020. [44]陈杰, 赵平伟, 张名凯, 等. 基于 ISM 模型的高校基建项目进度影响因素研究[J]. 建

筑经济, 2022, 43(S1): 337-341. [45]蔡唱. 论旁观者的不作为侵权行为: 以民事救助义务的确立为视角[J]. 湖南师范大学

社会科学学报, 2007(2): 73-76. [46]黄岩. 旁观者道德研究[M]. 北京: 人民出版社, 2010: 25. [47]卢静, 孙宁, 夏建新, 等. 中国环境风险现状及发展趋势分析[J]. 环境科学与管理, 2

012, 37(1): 10-16. [48]朱飞龙, 刘祎, 田田. 浅谈企业环境风险防控与管理[J]. 商业观察, 2021(19): 94-96. [49]田思溶. 某市化工企业环境风险识别与防控对策研究[J]. 当代化工研究, 2022(15): 5

9-61. [50]席乐. 外部环境对企业经营的影响[J]. 现代营销(学苑版), 2013(7): 9-10. [51]陶鹏. 迟滞、分化及泛化: 避责政治与风险规制体制形塑[J]. 云南社会科学, 2016(6):

89-94. [52]刘渊, 孙娇艳. 企业外部环境影响企业公民行为的理论探析[J]. 科技资讯, 2016, 14

(9): 142-143.[53]徐翔. 国有企业内部控制机制及运行研究[D]. 成都: 西南财经大学, 2014. [54]茅玉峰. 制度环境对我国企业制度变迁的影响[D]. 广州: 暨南大学,2007. [55]赵敏. 煤炭企业绿色责任行为模式与驱动策略研究[D]. 太原: 山西财经大学, 2022. [56]陈新寰. 国有煤炭企业创新经济本安体系的探索与实践—以神华准能集团有限责任

公司为例[J]. 煤炭经济研究, 2016, 36(07): 58-63. [57]苏醒. 基于权变理论的秦皇岛港股份有限公司组织结构优化研究[D]. 秦皇岛: 燕山

大学, 2019. [58]余耀东, 冉光圭. 企业外部环境对内部治理机制的影响效应研究[J]. 经济与管理研究, 2010(11): 30-38. [59]陈李宏. 种子企业营销渠道风险管理[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2007(34): 11217-11219+112

72. [60]范恒, 周祖城. 伦理型领导与员工自主行为: 基于社会学习理论的视角[J]. 管理评论, 2018, 30(09): 164-173. [61]汪承龙. 企业员工建设性越轨和破坏性越轨行为控制研究—基于社会学习理论的演

化博弈模型[J]. 企业改革与管理, 2023(22):37-39. [62]王灿发, 王哲. 论我国危险化学品环境安全管理制度的健全与完善[J]. 北京化工大学

学报(社会科学版), 2023(4): 9-22. [63]刘奇. 基于社会交换理论的应急管理中公众参与动力和困境分析[J]. 经济研究导刊, 2023(20): 149-151. [64]叶迎春, 夏厚勋. 企业中层管理者的人才价值及其实现机制[J]. 中国人才, 2008(09):

27-28. [65]余敏江, 李子为. 碳治理中的政治动员: 必要、可能与限度[J]. 公共治理研究, 2023, 35(04): 5-12. [66]曹郑. 容错纠错机制对公务员创新行为的影响研究[D]. 杭州市: 浙江大学, 2023. [67]张嘉韶. 容错氛围对基层公务员变革担当行为的影响研究[D]. 成都: 电子科技大学, 2024. [68]贺建芹. 行动者的能动性观念及其适当性反思[D]. 济南: 山东大学, 2011. [69]贾若男, 王晰巍, 王楠阿雪. 突发事件网络舆情群体极化风险评估研究[J]. 图书情报

工作, 2024, 68(6): 83-92. [70]冯志达, 韩豫, 张泾杰, 等. 建筑业从业人员的危险认知差异特性及成因—基于管理

人员与作业人员的比较[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2017, 13(7): 186-192. [71]付景涛, 贺琦. 上“行”能否带来下“效”? —领导言行一致对员工敬业度的影响机制研

究[J]. 财经论丛, 2018(07): 97-105. [72]来延肖, 张梦鸽, 徐晟. 施工人员安全态度及其组分对行为的影响[J]. 土木工程与管理学报, 2019, 36(2): 74-80. [73]张世君. 论我国破产重整公司治理结构之优化[J]. 政法论丛, 2021(6): 86-98. [74]张永刚. 资本市场开放与企业风险水平[J]. 财会通讯, 2024(4): 82-86. [75]邢洁. 太重煤机有限公司技术人才的流失问题研究[D]. 太原: 太原理工大学, 2018. [76]赵松林. BD 食品企业员工满意度提升研究[D]. 西安: 西北大学, 2019. [77]于晓彤, 陈晓, 王赫. 工作卑微感为何会导致工作退缩行为? 消极情绪与工作疏离感

的中介作用[J]. 中国人力资源开发, 2019, 36(06): 33-47+78. [78]周双艳. 工作态度中介下国有企业政策激励与知识员工创新绩效[J]. 吉林工商学院

学报, 2024, 40(1): 68-75. [79]刘佳洁. 建筑施工企业合规管理建设及探讨[J]. 中国市场, 2024(12): 99-102. [80]胡建丽. 小微企业成长性影响因素研究[D]. 武汉: 华中农业大学, 2023. [81]单凯. 建筑工人对安全示范者的模仿行为研究[D]. 重庆: 重庆大学, 2022. [82]罗云, 许铭. 现代安全管理（第三版）[M]. 北京工业出版社. 2016. [83]袁超超. 智慧工地在建筑工程安全管理中的应用[J]. 智慧中国, 2023(06): 94-95. [84]张晓薇. ZL 建设有限公司员工激励策略优化研究[D]. 青岛: 青岛科技大学, 2023. [85]高恩新. 特大生产安全事故的归因与行政问责—基于 65 份调查报告的分析[J]. 公共

管理学报, 2015, 12(4): 58-70+155-156. [86]高恩新. 特大生产安全事故行政问责“分水岭”效应: 基于问责立方的分析[J]. 南京社

会科学, 2016(3): 84-92. [87]李华君. 重特大矿难事故下的选择性问责: 基于 2002—2015 年的数据[J]. 中共南京

市委党校学报, 2019(4): 75-81. [88]Shrestha A K, Mishra A K. Interactive effects of public service motivation and

organizational politics on Nepali civil service employees' organizational commitment[J]. Business Perspectives and Research, 2015, 3(1): 21-35. [89]Becker T E, Billings R S. Profiles of commitment: An empirical test[J]. Journal of

organizational behavior, 1993, 14(2): 177-190. [90]Buchanan A E, Brock D W. Deciding for others: the ethics of surrogate decision making[J]. 1989. [91]张晓宁, 顾颖. 知识型员工的工作满意度与组织承诺关系研究—以西安高新区科技

型企业为例[J]. 经济管理, 2010, 32(1): 77-85. [92]姚唐, 黄文波, 范秀成. 基于组织承诺机制的服务业员工忠诚度研究[J]. 管理世界, 2

008(5): 102-114+123. [93]朱丛丛. 问责压力、制度信任与基层干部避责行为意向[D]. 杭州: 浙江财经大学, 20

24.[94]宝贡敏, 汪洁. 团队任务冲突与团队领导行为及团队学习的关系研究[J]. 心理科学, 2008, 31(06): 1417-1420. [95]付永刚, 戴大双, 王珏. 复杂产品系统中研发团队任务特征对团队绩效的影响[J]. 大

连理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2013, 34(01): 8-13. [96]Hair J F, Black W C, Babin B J, et al. Multivariate Data Analysis [J]. Techno metrics, 1998, 30(1): 130-131. [97]吴明隆. 结构方程模型: AMOS 的操作与应用[M]. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010. [98]Bentler P M, Chou C. Practical Issues in Structural Modeling [J]. Sociological Methods

Research, 1987, 16(1): 78-117. [99]Kline R B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling[J]. Journal of the

American Statistical Association, 2011, 101(12):11-34. [100]Bagozzi R P, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models [J]. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 1988, 16(1): 74-94. [101]田水承, 刘乔, 陈洋, 等. 矿工个体特征因素对煤矿险兆事件影响的 SEM 研究[J]. 煤炭工程, 2020,52(03): 168-171.