Synchronicity Or Discordance – Revealing the Chasm Between Workplace Safety Measures and Safety Culture

The Harsh Reality

Once, I found myself amidst the bustling operations of a large construction company in the Middle East. Every so often, we would confront a lost time injury within one of our project sites, setting off a chain of actions – an in-depth investigation and a detailed presentation and report. Following one such incident, the CEO, during a meeting, presented a question that sparked deep thought. He queried, “Despite our considerable investments in training and toolbox talks, why do workers persist in making seemingly senseless errors that blemish our records? Where are our supervisors and site managers in preventing these situations?” In a wave of groupthink, all attendees echoed the CEO’s sentiments and astonishment. They reiterated the organization’s relentless efforts and the site individuals’ failure to translate training knowledge into practical application. At first, I regarded this inquiry as a mere outburst of frustration. However, upon deeper introspection, I discerned that the entire organization was harmonizing on an entirely different frequency.

What truly piqued my interest during that meeting was not the executive team’s affirmation of the considerable investment in training programs; that aspect was well-documented and undisputed. The element that truly stood out, however, was a deeply ingrained assumption that seemed to permeate the room: the belief that by simply conducting these training sessions, we were guaranteed to foster a culture rooted in safety. This belief, while common, revealed a significant misunderstanding about the nature of safety culture. It presupposed that imparting knowledge was equivalent to instilling values and that safety protocols and procedures, once taught, would be seamlessly integrated into daily operations. But safety culture goes beyond just knowledge; it encompasses leadership, commitment, consistency, attitudes, beliefs, and shared values about safety among all organizational tiers.

Furthermore, the framing of the question during the meeting suggested an apparent dichotomy: on one side, the organization was fulfilling its responsibilities, while on the other, the individuals – dismissively referred to as “bad apples” – were seen as failing in their roles. This perspective conveniently relieved the organization of further accountability, transferring the entirety of the burden onto the workers. This viewpoint neglected the potential reality that the problem could be systemic or that, paradoxically, the organization’s culture might be unintentionally nurturing the very behaviors it was striving to eradicate. Such a situation prompts a critical question: were we genuinely nurturing a safety culture, or were we merely conducting training exercises as a formality, checking off a box only to then attribute systemic failures to individual workers? It appears, upon reflection, that our actions align more closely with the latter scenario.

Implementing systematic and regular training sessions doesn’t automatically guarantee that the essential safety message seeps through all the layers of the organization. The reality that, despite dedicated training efforts, safe behaviors in particular tasks aren’t transitioning into practical application is likely more a sign of ineffective message conveyance than a shortfall in individual compliance. This situation signals potential weaknesses in leadership behavior, breakdowns in communication, lack of commitment and consistency cascading from the top, disordered priorities, frivolity, nonchalance, and discordance. The crux of the issue likely stems from flawed delivery or interpretation of the training content, rather than a deliberate disregard for safety protocols by the workers. In other words, it suggests a systemic flaw rather than an individual failure.

Striking a balance: Navigating the Divide Between Imparting Knowledge and Instilling Values

Indeed, infusing core values goes beyond merely transmitting information. It calls for a comprehensive strategy that engages people emotionally and personally, provides platforms for introspection and critical thought, and cultivates a supportive environment that upholds the intended values. This method recognizes the deep-rooted nature of values and understands that successful integration into one’s beliefs may require a mix of education, exposure to a range of experiences, deviation from the norm, regular recognition, and ongoing reinforcement through living what is preached. Nonetheless, critics might contend that such philosophy, though admirable, presents practical implementation challenges, particularly in diverse workplaces such as construction sites, teeming with different cultures, education levels, and knowledge bases. Thus, the question arises: how do we effectively convey and implement these principles in such intricate scenarios?

To transform knowledge from ink on paper into deeply ingrained core values, a holistic approach is needed that combines consistent delivery of information with real-world demonstrations. By doing so, learners are more likely to embody the knowledge, allowing it to inform their values and guide their actions. Maintaining rigorous consistency and exemplifying previously preached concepts are fundamental aspects of translating knowledge from written words into profoundly ingrained core values.

Firstly, being painfully consistent means adhering to the same principles, methods, or plan without deviation. This consistency is essential because it allows for better comprehension and absorption of the knowledge being imparted. When there is a clear, consistent message or teaching, it becomes much easier to internalize that information and make it a part of one’s value system. Consistency can also breed trust, making the learner more receptive to the knowledge being shared. Secondly, demonstrating what is being preached beforehand is also crucial. This is akin to leading by example. By seeing the knowledge applied in a practical context, learners can better understand its utility and value. This can motivate them to not only understand the information but also to make it an integral part of their decision-making process. In essence, this turns knowledge from abstract concepts to tangible actions and values.

Indeed, fostering a culture of consistency and integrity necessitates robust leadership at every stage of an organization. This isn’t simply about hierarchical positions or titles but about demonstrating a commitment to these values through tangible actions and decisions, solidified by a foundation of honesty, transparency, and strong moral principles. Leadership presence should not be a passive or invisible entity, but rather, it must be actively visible, lending a sense of certainty and direction. This involves leaders being readily available and approachable, regularly interacting with their teams, and remaining actively involved in strategic planning and daily operations. It’s about more than just “talking the talk”; it’s about “walking the talk.” Moreover, leadership should embody a genuine caring mindset, illustrating concern not only for the organization’s objectives but also for the well-being of its members. When employees see that their leaders genuinely care for their welfare, it fosters a greater sense of trust, unity, and morale within the organization.

It’s critical for every individual within an organization to feel valued and appreciated. They need to perceive that they are more than just another number on a spreadsheet; they are unique contributors whose efforts are recognized and appreciated. The training sessions they attend, the toolbox talks they conduct, and the mottos they see inscribed on the walls shouldn’t be viewed merely as formalities or empty rhetoric. Instead, these elements should be seen as embodiments of the organization’s core values, geared towards preserving the lives of the team members and others, as well as promoting a safe and healthy work environment. It is not just about meeting safety standards or maintaining the organization’s reputation but prioritizing human life and safety above all else. This highlights the organization’s true essence, demonstrating that its values are more than just words but are meaningful and purpose-driven, influencing the way it conducts its business, treats its employees, and serves its community.

A genuine and fully developed safety culture in any establishment or organization materializes when safety protocols are not just mechanical actions performed for the sake of compliance or when being observed. Instead, they become an integral aspect of individuals’ conduct and daily routines. This concept is beautifully encapsulated by the saying, “Safety Culture is embodied in the actions of the organization when no one is keeping watch.”

A Real-Life Illustration

During my previous role as Vice President, my routine encompassed regular site visits, a practice I found essential to not only connect with on-ground teams but also to gauge the health and effectiveness of our operations. I fervently believed in the principle of ‘leading by example,’ an ethos I always tried to personify. On one particular visit, I found myself contemplating a unique, unorthodox experiment to evaluate and invigorate our team’s autonomy and sense of ownership at the site whilst concurrently assessing the robustness of our safety culture at the grassroots level. Besides, it was crucial to verify if the key performance indicators (both leading and lagging) presented by the site accurately mirrored the reality on the ground. So, equipped with a clear intent and accompanied by a handful of team members and photographers, I decided to orchestrate an unconventional spectacle. I deliberately removed all my Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and commenced a solitary journey across the expanse of the refinery construction site, keen to observe who among the workforce would muster the audacity to intercept me.

It’s worth noting that in some areas of the world, notably the Middle East, where I was operating, the supervisor-worker dynamic is often tainted with apprehension and fear. Thus, this was a genuine scenario, not a contrived event. With cameras surreptitiously documenting the episode from various angles, I began to traverse the site’s diverse areas. My identity was no secret to the workforce; they were well aware of my position and influence within the organization. Moreover, the nature of our worksite, given its extreme sensitivity towards health and safety protocols, meant that any violation of this kind would typically lead to immediate termination of employment.

As I moved forward, the reactions were as expected initially; workers were visibly taken aback, but none dared to confront me directly. There was an apparent acceptance of the status quo, an attitude of “If I don’t step up, someone else will.” Finally, though, a brave worker broke the pattern. He approached me and timidly gestured towards my bare head, indicating my missing safety helmet. He was so daunted by the situation that he didn’t dare to utter a word.

In response, I played the authority card, implying that being the boss, the rules applicable to others might not apply to me. Yet, he bravely persisted and blocked my path. What ensued next was indeed dramatic. An impromptu standdown took place throughout the site, and a grand celebration was organized, uniting hundreds of employees to recognize this individual’s bravery. The worker received extensive praise and was generously compensated with a bonus equal to a quarter of his annual salary.

This unconventional event had a ripple effect across the organization. There was a discernible change in the air post the incident. Empowered and inspired, the workers seemed to experience an epiphany, a shift in perspective. They began to step up, eager to be active contributors to the change movement. This simple yet powerful act brought about a tangible transformation, underlining the potency of an experience that resonated with the workers at a fundamental level.

Unpacking the Risky Behavior

Unsafe behavior, which encompasses actions that have the potential to cause harm or injury, can generally be categorized into two main groups (as explained in Figure 1). The classification of these behaviors primarily hinges on the individual’s knowledge and intent toward the potential hazards associated with their actions.

1- Risk-Prone Behavior: This category encapsulates situations where the individual acknowledges the risk inherent in their actions yet chooses to proceed regardless. There are three significant motivations that could potentially drive this deliberate decision to partake in risky behavior:

1. Impulsivity, Willful Negligence, or Act of Sabotage (Reckless / Morally Questionable Behavior): In this context, the individual consciously and willingly indulges in unsafe actions. On the one hand, these actions may be driven by the allure of thrill or an adrenaline rush, such as participating in extreme sports or driving recklessly, despite being aware of the potential risks. On the other hand, these actions may demonstrate a complete disregard for established protocols and policies. This disregard may stem from a deliberate choice to remain ignorant or unaware of important information, typically to evade responsibility or accountability for the potential consequences. It can also result from a lack of discipline, a defiant attitude, or even a calculated act of sabotage.
2. Psychological or Physical influences (Misguided Behavior): Both psychological and physical factors can considerably sway decision-making processes. For instance, individuals may consciously accept risks if they perceive the associated benefits to outweigh the potential harm. Alternatively, they might consider such perilous behaviors as manageable and surmountable, even when cognizant of operating under stress or distraction-prone conditions. Furthermore, individuals overestimating their physical prowess may be more inclined towards accepting risks, erroneously considering themselves impervious or resilient to possible hazards. This misguided sense of invincibility can prove hazardous as it could lead to a state of unpreparedness, negligence, or neglect of essential safety measures.
3. System-Encouraged Behavior (Influenced Behavior): In this situation, the system or environment where the individual operates could subtly endorse or normalize risky behavior, inducing individuals to bypass established procedures, accept deviations from standard protocols, or believe that they’ve shifted responsibility despite understanding the potential consequences. A typical example could be a work culture prioritizing productivity over safety, pressuring employees to ignore safety norms to meet tight deadlines or performance objectives. Importantly, this situation does not merely exist in isolation but also serves as a significant catalyst for amplifying and promoting the other causes of risky behavior.

2- Human Error: This category encompasses situations where individuals are genuinely unaware or utterly oblivious to the riskiness of their actions. They may perceive their actions as safe and appropriate, failing to realize the potentially hazardous consequences. There are three primary sources of this kind of behavior:

• 1. Lack of Awareness, Knowledge Deficit, and Developmental Aspects: Some individuals, due to lack of education, misinformation, or developmental immaturity, may not comprehend the risks linked with specific behaviors. For instance, an individual might lack the necessary skills or training or misunderstand a task due to a knowledge gap. Such individuals might engage in risky actions simply due to a lack of experience or an immature capacity to discern risks, specifically in areas related to impulse control and long-term consequence comprehension.
  2. Intra-personal Variations and Internal Influences: Differences in human personality traits, skills, knowledge, and psychological and physical factors can cause unrecognized risky behavior. There may be situations where people underestimate their actions’ risks due to cognitive biases such as optimism bias or illusion of control. They may mistakenly believe that they are less likely to face adverse outcomes than others, or they may commit errors due to a state of mental or physical fatigue. This is akin to 1-b above, but the distinguishing factor is that while in 1-b, these elements intensify risky behaviors with a degree of risk awareness, in this case, these elements completely mask the understanding of risk.
  3. System-Induced Human Error: Often, the system, environment, or even the existing social context can inadvertently steer an individual towards errors. This can result from a poorly designed system, ambiguously defined processes, a detrimental culture, insufficient training, or an absence of adequate feedback mechanisms within the system. Such systemic challenges can inadvertently cause individuals to make mistakes, even when they are trying to fulfill their tasks correctly.

The insights mentioned above highlight that systemic influences often shape individuals’ unsafe behaviors despite thorough training and induction. This doesn’t downplay the role of psychological factors or individual differences; these elements invariably exist and can be magnified by prevailing systems or social environments. While unsafe behaviors demonstrated by individuals may commonly be chalked up to human error and linked with personal traits, it doesn’t automatically brand those individuals as “bad apples.” Rather, these behaviors are often the result of “bad systems” that, in one way or another, help mold their behavior. Fundamentally, it’s essential to recognize that personal actions, particularly regarding safety, are frequently the byproduct of broader systemic forces and not merely the consequence of individual attributes.

Preaching Versus Engaging

Undeniably, the routine process of informing and refreshing employees about safety procedures is critical to preserving workplace safety. However, this may not entirely suffice in the creation of a sustainable and genuinely secure environment. Actions such as employee training sessions and the display of safety slogans on walls and boards have their place as preventive measures. These methods certainly aid in maintaining a conscious reminder of potential hazards and promote safety awareness to a certain degree. Concurrently, they also serve to steer the organization’s evolution towards a modus operandi firmly centered around safety. However, despite the essential nature of these measures, they alone may not suffice in fostering a comprehensive, evolved safety culture. In fact, if misapplied or excessively relied upon, they can even have a negative impact on individual behavior in most unfortunate instances. They are just one piece of the puzzle, and the cultivation of a mature safety culture necessitates a more holistic approach. Thus, it becomes paramount to incorporate innovative strategies for the realization of this objective, as they complement traditional methods and enrich the overall safety milieu.

As highlighted earlier, the creation of a resilient safety culture extends beyond mere information dissemination and instruction. It calls for a vibrant and, most importantly, an interactive approach. Managers preaching the same safety message by rote without making a concerted effort to engage employees often breeds a counterproductive environment. Over time, employees may feel overwhelmed and may even interpret the recurring messages as tedious, eventually leading to indifference or resentment. Therefore, cultivating and promoting a safety culture requires an approach that’s not just instructive (Preaching) but also immersive (Engaging), one that actively incorporates employees in the process. Inviting the workforce to participate in meaningful discussions about safety enhances their understanding and encourages their involvement and sense of ownership of safety practices. By actively engaging employees, we can harness their distinct insights, experiences, and viewpoints, culminating in a holistic and long-lasting safety culture.

Like many of you, I have observed scenarios where employees participate in safety toolbox talks or seminars out of obligation rather than necessity or genuine interest. In the present times, safety slogans are often overused, misapplied, and even manipulated, leading to their intended message being diluted or lost entirely. There’s growing frustration among employees towards the high-handed methods organizations employ to instill what they perceive to be a safety culture. This forced approach not only diminishes the importance of safety but can also create a sense of disillusionment among the employees.

The Art and Science of Developing a Safety Culture

Creating a safety culture within an organization is a nuanced process that necessitates a harmonious integration of art and science, with a greater emphasis on the artistic aspect. Despite its apparent complexity, this concept signifies the need to strike a harmony between human elements (art) and strategic planning and implementation (science), as both are indispensable for fostering a robust safety culture.

On the one hand, the ‘art’ aspect of safety culture relates to the softer skills such as communication, understanding, empathy, and emotional intelligence. It involves creating an environment where safety is valued and respected, not simply as a protocol but as an inherent part of the organizational identity. This includes fostering open lines of communication, promoting an environment of trust where employees feel comfortable reporting safety issues and demonstrating empathetic leadership that validates employees’ concerns and motivates them to adhere to safety practices.

On the other hand, the ‘science‘ aspect encompasses the strategic, procedural, and systematic elements of building a safety culture. This includes the development and implementation of robust safety protocols, continuous training, and regular updates to safety guidelines in response to new research or changes in the work environment. It also requires data-driven decision-making to identify trends in safety incidents, measure the effectiveness of current safety initiatives, and predict potential areas of concern.

Conclusion

The successful cultivation of a safety culture requires a harmonious integration of the art and science aspects. The ‘art’ aspect involves leveraging emotional intelligence to ensure that employees feel valued, engaged, and actively involved in the safety initiatives. It emphasizes the importance of creating a work environment where individuals are motivated to prioritize safety and feel a genuine sense of commitment to it. This artistry involves effective communication, fostering trust, encouraging open dialogue, and recognizing and rewarding safety-conscious behaviors.

On the other hand, the ‘science’ aspect involves employing data-driven insights and procedural discipline to ensure that safety practices are effective, up-to-date, and continuously improving. It focuses on implementing evidence-based strategies, conducting regular safety assessments, analyzing incident data, and staying updated with industry best practices. By embracing the scientific approach, organizations can establish a solid foundation for safety, systematically identify and address risks, and proactively enhance their safety performance.

It is crucial for organizations to embrace both the art and science elements of developing a safety culture. Neglecting either aspect can hinder the overall effectiveness of safety initiatives. The art aspect helps create a positive safety culture by fostering employee engagement and commitment, while the science aspect ensures the practicality, efficiency, and continuous improvement of safety practices.

Leadership plays a pivotal role in driving the development of a safety culture. Influential leaders are attentive to the outcomes of safety initiatives and are quick to recognize when specific approaches are not yielding the desired results, despite vigorous implementation. They are adaptable and willing to reassess and modify strategies as needed. Additionally, leaders at all levels should provide clear direction, communicate expectations, and actively participate in safety initiatives to set a strong example for others.

Building a safety culture is not a one-size-fits-all process, as different organizations may face unique challenges and require tailored approaches. It requires a long-term commitment, continuous evaluation, and adjustments based on feedback and lessons learned. By combining the art and science aspects, organizations can establish a resilient and enduring safety culture that prioritizes the well-being of employees and promotes a safe work environment.

Finally, it’s noteworthy to highlight two relevant references to the subject matter discussed in this article. The first reference pertains to the 10th point of W. Edward Deming’s 14 points of effective management, which is particularly applicable to our topic. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to delve into all 14 points, it is worth revisiting and establishing a connection to the topic at hand. Deming’s 10th point emphasizes the need to “Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the workforce asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the workforce.”

The second reference relates to the Hawthorne effect, which emerged from the renowned Hawthorne electric experiments conducted during the 1920s and 1930s and first described by researcher Henry A. Landsberger in the 1950s. These experiments aimed to explore the relationship between productivity and various workplace conditions. While the specific details and findings of the Hawthorne studies may not directly correlate with the present article, the concept of the Hawthorne effect holds substantial relevance within the context of safety culture. It sheds light on the influence of observation and attention on individual and group behavior, suggesting that individuals may adjust their actions or performance when they feel noticed and acknowledged. This phenomenon underscores the significance of active engagement between employees and their leaders in safety initiatives. By being attentive, caring, and supportive, leaders can foster an environment where employees are aware of being valued and appreciated, thereby positively influencing their safety-related behaviors and attitudes.