By Dr. Bill Pomfret, President, Safety Projects International Inc.

There is a distinct difference between changing behavior to attain safety goals and establishing a safety culture first, as I have had to explain to one of my clients, then using the behavior approach as one of the management tools to achieve the goal of safe operations.

The long-term plan should be to establish a safety culture to be proud of, one of which incorporates employee-driven safety expectations and meaningful programs. However, our efforts must be management-led and management-supported. If we concentrate only on the behavior-based equation (bottom-up safety), we sacrifice the ability to lead the efforts, as well as direct appropriate resources to the proper pressure points.

Nor can our approach be totally management-driven (top-down), at the exclusion of employee involvement or participation. We have tried it that way for years, and know the top-down approach only gets us so far in our safety efforts.

We have always stated (and rightly so) that:

• Safety is a management function;
• Safety must be an integral part of the way we manage and conduct our business;
• The accident record is a reflection of the management skill of an organization;
• Safety must be accomplished through improvement of the management system, and
• Management is responsible and must be held accountable for the safety of the workers.

This has not, and will not change.

Our challenge is to do it in ways that involve the employee, and motivate the employee to stay involved. Our challenge is also to train, motivate and hold accountable every level of management within the organization in ways that clearly demonstrate the company's core safety values.

Assessing the Culture

Each time we introduce the employee involvement concept, we must be fully aware of our responsibilities to establish the "culture" that fosters this kind of approach before we attempt to change longstanding behavior. Without the proper culture, our efforts will be in vain.

We must assess the current culture at each work location, and then determine what needs to be done to attain a culture that fosters trust, peer care and involvement. We must build that culture based on a true foundation of confidence that the right things are being done for the right reasons’ I am often asked which company has the best safety culture, and how do I measure it, well, from the hundreds of OH&S audits I have conducted over my 30 plus years as a consultant, in over 40 countries, It’s an interesting question, as I generally only audit those companies who strive to be the best, but certainly it is not a north American or even European company, but one from a young company in the middle east with several challenges that includes a 100% foreign workforce with some 20 different languages spoken.

Food Point & Linencraft.

The company Food Point, and its associate company Linencraft both subsidiary’s of Emirate Airlines and managed by the same executive management team, they have achieved in only three years what most companies will never achieve, how did they achieve this is the next question I am asked.

Nothing is more certain than “you will achieve the level of safety performance that the CEO demonstrates he wants, this CEO has surrounded himself with great leaders who each have a strong belief in safety, so the most important ingredient that this great company has is a great leader who personifies his commitment to making sure that his employees return home safely, year after year.

The leadership acknowledges loud and clear that safety is a core business value and integral to the very existence of the company, this demonstrated commitment has had a profound effect on all employees, each one of them sees that their own accountability has a direct effect on overall safety performance and their financial well being.

They have all become an active part of the safety culture, and are 100% pro-active in safety, quality and efficiency; they firmly believe that creating a great safety culture is an evolution and not a revolution; they acknowledge that all human beings make mistakes, but to allow them to make mistakes without risk to their health and safety.

Another company I saw a similar safety culture being developed some years ago was the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) they established a belief system where management and employees trust each other, and the trust was centered on a system of communication that allows both top-down delivery systems as well as bottom-up feedback mechanisms.

Positive safety cultures cannot be developed when there is  distrust between management and the work force; ADNOC has a history of top-down superior-subordinate relationships (i.e. classical management systems); adversarial employee-management relationships; the perception by employees that the company approach is a way to make the employee accountable; and management abdication, new executives came in and made the line managers accountable for safety performance.

There are many questions that must be honestly answered prior to achieving a positive safety culture, indeed even initiating the process.

Here are a few questions that need to be asked:

• Have we in management really demonstrated that safety is a core value?
• Have we implanted a system that ensures management/supervisory daily activities in safety?
• Have we built into our system a way to measure every level of management involvement / commitment in the safety process?
• Have we built the safety sub-systems that ensure everyone knows exactly what to do when things go wrong?
• Have we really been willing to share all safety information with the work force?
• Are we willing to share decision-making relative to safety with the work force?

If we can't answer each of these questions to our satisfaction, we must assess each level of management and begin changing the safety culture a level at a time. All management personnel, from the president to the senior vice presidents, vice presidents, general managers, and directors, managers, foremen and supervisors, need to share the same core values about where safety fits within the organization, and how they are expected to lead, manage and administer the culture change process at the employee level.

For workers to believe in either safety or quality, they must first believe that management shares and supports the process. Without that shared trust, safety becomes just another program, and the management team goes back to head scratching, finger pointing, and ultimately, the top-down approach to managing safety where it started from.

From Perception is Reality

Once management shares the same core safety values, attention can turn to changing the culture on the shop floor, the challenge is to train, motivate and hold accountable every level of the management team within the company for the safety performance of that level. The task before us is to instill a set of core values they act upon in their day-to-day decision-making relative to where safety fits within the organization and where it fits with them as individuals.

The first thing to do is change the perception that safety is a priority. As long as safety is viewed as a priority, guess what gets shifted when work gets in the way, or there is a budget crunch, or a shortage of properly trained personnel, or a new boss shows up with a different view of safety?

Training must start with the highest level of management within the company. It must convince, through real-world, real-time examples, why the shift from priority to safety as a core value has value to the entire organization. It is usually not difficult to show examples of accidents costing the company money, or credibility within the community or with government agencies.

 By using a root cause methodology when investigating the incidents that occur, you are certain to find flaws within the management system and areas for improving its administration. With enough of these kinds of examples, it doesn't take long for senior executives to start asking why. Once this occurs, the executives begin to reflect back on their value system. Once that begins, the paradigm begins to shift from safety as a priority to safety as a value.

As the facilitator of the training, the safety manager's responsibility is to determine when the shift has occurred and start motivating top management to want to change the paradigm within the other levels of the management team. One way to do this is to begin bench-marking against other companies that have had outstanding safety records for long periods of time.

The 5 Star Health & Safety Management System™ annual audits bench-mark how the company is performing against similar companies in terms of size, product, market, safety record and hours worked per year internationally. Once these companies have been identified, specific, targeted information about how they operate will identify at least one common thread. That common thread is employee-driven and management-led organizations where employee involvement is the cornerstone of their management style and systems.

Now you've got your senior people excited, on board, and not only wanting, but expecting changes in how safety as a function is integrated into the organization. "What gets measured gets done." However, in safety unfortunately, measurement in many companies is still measuring by a failure rate. A total case incident rate (TCIR), or a lost workday case incident rate (LWCIR) are ways to measure failure.

For example, a failure to prevent an injury or illness, or a failure to protect the assets of the company, or maybe a failure to be perceived as a good corporate citizen. The only thing we have measured is how many times we have failed; this is not what we want, to be measured on aspects that we don’t desire, the 5 Star health & safety management system is 100% pro-active, measuring against best practice on a wide selection of activities, that we do desire.

We need instead to measure successes in safety. Companies will still have to measure their LTIR and LTSRs, and communicate them to the government, but we all know you cannot effectively manage safety based on the number of injuries reported. It can lead to under-reporting, hiding of hazards, and a general disregard for what caused the incidents. The more appropriate measurement consists of upstream management processes such as a comprehensive, written, safety program where all objectives, supporting activities and accountabilities are detailed, administered and measured.

Failure in any form is not something any manager wants to be associated with for very long. Clearly, if he/she is held accountable for that failure, he/she won't be around very long, because as he/she now knows, failure is a reflection of the management system, and consequently, a reflection on those managing the system.

So now the senior people have realized that accidents are really not accidents, but rather flaws in the management system, and they are responsible and held accountability for installing and operating the system.

The fundamental truth that begins to come through is safety can, and should, be managed like any other discipline. Accidents just don't happen. In fact, neither accident nor incident is the word that should be used. A failure in safety is an "error" because we didn't plan it, expect it or prepare for it, so it had to be an error.

We have now moved away from safety as a priority, which can shift depending on other priorities such as production, cost or quality, to a value, which has no equal and is not subjected to priorities. We moved away from using the word accident to describe an unplanned event, or release of energy, to error, which once investigated leads us to an error in the management system (hiring practices, proper training, supervision and inconsistent enforcement of rules, inconsistent administrative practices, etc.).

Positive Safety Culture

Once all levels of the management team begin thinking in those terms, it is not hard to begin the transition from "fix the blame fast" to "how can we strengthen the management system?"

The thought process, the new paradigm, is now shifted downward into each level of management. As this is taking place, we also realize another fundamental truth: safety only goes so far when managed from the top, down.

Now that every level of the management team shares the same core values in safety; understands that the operative word in safety is not accident, but error; and the error is in the management system, not the employee, employees perceive the culture of the management team as one of support and encouragement. The employees' perception now becomes one of "they are doing the right things for the right reasons."

Accountability is not fully understood, and comes when an incentive program is developed that encourages active participation in safety activities that have been designed and agreed to by the majority of the employees. If an employee participates 100 percent, he receives his incentive. If not, he receives nothing. This kind of accountability system treats people as adults and expects an adult response. We are not talking about the kind of accountability that addresses violations of safety rules, etc.

This moves us away from the negative type of incentive programs where employees are rewarded for good safety records and punished for bad ones. The management team, including the safety staff, should be held accountable for the safety record, not the employee. It is the management team's responsibility to administer the management system, and it is the safety department's responsibility to recommend and administer the safety programs that are part of the management system. If errors occur, and people get hurt, assets are destroyed or the corporate image is compromised.

Should any reader have any concerns, questions or comments, kindly contact the writer directly at the following co-ordinates

.

Dr. Bill Pomfret; MSc; FIOSH; RSP.

President & CEO

Safety Projects International Inc.
PO Box 13161, Kanata, Ontario, K2K 3L3.
www.spi5star.com
pomfretb@spi5star.com
Tel: 613-254-9233. Fax: 613-254-7147.