1.0 Introduction:
You may find many organizations proudly proclaim that they believe in the ‘Zero Harm philosophy’, which means they do not harm the people & planet. Through their persuasive argument, they want to mean that they strongly believe that they follow world-class standards and showcase the highest level of safety & environmental performances. These proclaim cannot be considered at face value unless we come across robust evidence. Often safety performances in the form of accident reports are produced as evidence in support of these proclaims. However, most of this evidence may not exhibit the true picture. This is because, ‘Safety Culture’ could predict the incident rate, but the injury data cannot forecast ‘Safety Culture’. Let us discuss why it is so with a little elaboration.
2.0 Understanding Safety Culture:
According to Lee (1966) – the safety culture of an organization is the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behaviour that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organization's health and safety management. We have to keep in mind that safety systems can give a favourable safety climate but not a safety culture.
It is often said that developing an organizational ‘Safety Culture’ is the strongest suit for the ‘Zero Harm’ philosophy. Organizations, which have a ‘Zero Accident’ vision, shall believe that all accidents are preventable and this can be achieved through the development of a ‘Safety Culture’. Research & personal experiences also indicate that when the ‘Safety Culture’ is robust, incidents are rare and less expensive. Hence, if you believe in the Zero Harm philosophy, you and your organization need to develop the highest level of ‘Safety Culture’.
3.0 Developing Safety Culture:
Employers' and employees’ proactive contributions play a very important role here. Our workplaces cannot become safe unless each of its members is proactively active in correcting their unsafe behaviours. In this process, the safety professionals, top management, the supervisors need to be caring, supportive and guidance-providing.
‘Safety Culture’ development starts with serious commitment & communication and is followed by training. Here by the word commitment, we not only mean the commitment of the leadership team but also the commitment of the employees.
We can easily verify the Management’s commitment through Policy declaration, fixing of Roles & Responsibilities, Development of Objectives & SMART goals, MRM, Emphasis towards organizational learning etc. What about the commitment of the employees? It begins with the personal responsibility of the employees towards safety. This will call for mutual trust between the employees and the employer. It sounds too theoretical, isn’t it? Do we have any measurable indicators? Generally, we can do it by reviewing the KRA of the employees, Involvement in Safety committees, Safety Talks etc. However the better parameter to understand the employees’ commitment would be to observe their unsafe behaviours.
Communication shall be mainly ‘Top to Bottom’ as well as ‘Bottom to Top’; even horizontal communication is also necessary. Safety communication by managers and supervisors is one of the leading predictors of safety culture.
Behavior is the reflection of a culture and competencies are observable behavioral criteria. So, the emphasis shall be on training & development. Training shall cover the aspects of knowledge, skill & attitude. Behavior-based safety training helps the employees to understand their role, risk identification and mitigation. It also motivates them to act towards proactive approaches to identify their unsafe acts and the prevailing unsafe working conditions.
4.0 Types of Safety Culture:
The employees get their safety habits from work. A safety culture can be described as a direct reflection of the individual and group values, attitudes, competencies and patterns of behaviour that determine the effectiveness of an organization's health and safety programs. Generally, four types of safety cultures can prevail in an organization. They are –
Forced culture
Protective culture
Involved culture and
Integral culture
4.1 Forced Culture:
Forced culture is considered the lowest level of Safety Culture. In the beginning, the organization needs to enforce safety through stringent policies, rules, and procedures. It is a "carrot and stick culture" where safety representatives are enforcers who catch employees doing something wrong and write them up. In such an environment, employees often feel overwhelmed by fear of punishment and they are forced to follow the rules rather than understanding the importance of workplace safety.
4.2 Protective Culture:
An organization with a protective safety culture will always have an endless list of policies, procedures and regulations. Whenever there is a safety incident or violation, the management's immediate response will be to implement another set of procedures or regulations. This often creates unwanted confusion and a lack of surety among employees.
4.3 Involved Culture
The involved culture is characterized by high levels of safety training sessions held for employees but not attended by top management. Here employees will be more relaxed and morale will be higher as the management prefers to "monitor by performance" instead of "monitoring by behaviour".
4.4 Integrated Culture
This is considered as the highest level of Safety culture. In an organization with an integrated safety culture, sufficient orientation and training sessions will be conducted in which all employees and top management will be participating. Safety professionals will have a sustainable relationship with top management and employees. Budget constraints will not affect the implementation of safety initiatives or improvement action plans. Moreover, safety representatives will have the authority to enforce rules when appropriate.
5.0 Measurement of Safety Culture:
Is it possible to measure the Safety Culture of an organization accurately? The answer is yes, it is possible. However, some stringent measures are required. Ten measurable criterions are mentioned below:
All employees are trained in caring behaviours as safety culture observers – 100% of employees are covered
Active involvement as safety observers for spot-correcting at-risk behaviours – Number of occasions where they were involved
Continuous safety culture retaining for observations – Number of observations and their retention as documented information
Accounting of at-risk behaviour – Number of such incidents per employee per year
Number of spot correction per day took place in the organization/unit
How many times was zero at-risk behaviour achieved – Number of occasions when no at-risk behaviour was found
How often the at-risk behaviours are out–of–view of the observers/supervisors? – Number of near misses and at-risk behaviours that took place which was not spotted by the observers/supervisors
Is there any area which is out–of–view of the observers/supervisors? If yes, how they can be included in the scope or the view of the observers/supervisors
Does the HSE Index include the activities of the ‘Safety Culture’? – Monitoring & measurement of the HSE Index
Organizational Knowledge – How are the lessons learned shared? Their accessibility and utilization. There have been several occasions where information has been shared and the other persons/departments/divisions have utilised this knowledge.
All these criteria shall be SMART and part of the organizational safety objectives.
6.0 Way Forward:
Every organization has a base level of safety culture. One of the primary objectives of a committed health and safety professional is to upgrade the lower-level safety cultures to higher levels. It will need some coordinated efforts and effective planning though. In any given company, a combination of several types of safety culture can usually be found, rather than just one.
The way forward for the organization should be to streamline the gradual shift from forced safety culture to an integrated safety culture. SMART goals based on the measurable criterions, as mentioned above, can be the guiding force for this shift.
An integrated safety culture implies that both management and workforce feel responsible for keeping the system safe through their activities. It requires strong leadership from management, increased involvement on the part of employees and their safety representatives, and fluid interfaces between departments, and with interested parties.
Comments