How Mature is your Safety Climate?

The following article aims to provide the reader with a clear picture of the key characteristics associated with various levels of safety climate maturity. It is an edited excerpt from Chapter 1 of my new book, "Next Generation Safety Leadership: From Compliance to Care" which can be purchased as a hardback or (Kindle) e-book here.

My experience, as well as the research, tells me that where fear among team members is high, trust and psychological safety will be low (often indicated by an employee’s reluctance to speak up). Conversely, in a high trust culture, such fears are no longer present and people feel free to share their concerns and ideas. As Edmondson (2019) warns, “no twenty-first century organization can afford to have a culture of fear” (p. xix).

Similar observations were shared by Professor Patrick Hudson, who identified increasing levels of trust as an indicator of maturity in his Five Levels of Safety Culture Model (Hudson, 1999, 2001). The original model is now almost 20 years old, and while there have been a number of variations to this framework over the years (including by the Keil Centre which used slightly different terminology to describe its Safety Culture Maturity Model), I found it useful to propose a revised version of Hudson’s original model that draws upon more current research, and with a particular focus on the social–psychological aspects of safety culture development.

The revised model is presented below.

In Hudson’s original model, the levels were drawn as separate, discrete entities, suggesting that a company is at one level or it’s not. The revised model shows level progression more as a journey, including the inevitable ups and downs encountered along the way.

Hudson’s model also listed an increasingly informed workforce as an indication of progress; however, that still infers top-down, one-way communication. I have revised that to an increasing flow of authentic information, which points to the fact that leaders of more mature cultures don’t merely keep their employees well informed – rather they are also well informed by their employees – indicating genuine two-way communication. In order for a team to feel comfortable speaking up, psychological safety must be present; hence it has also been added to the model.

Finally, the essence of the revised model depicts a journey from compliance to care, and illustrating what that means is the central theme of my recent book.

Brief descriptions of each level’s basic attributes are presented below:

Level 1 – Apathetic

In apathetic cultures, management adopts a ‘blame the worker’ approach in that incidents are generally seen as a result of a worker’s stupidity, inattention or willful violation. ‘Being safe’ is primarily viewed as mechanically following procedures and adhering to regulations, with the safety department deemed responsible for ‘policing’ such compliance. This creates a perception that safety is somehow distinct from day-to-day operations, which conveniently negates any need for visible, felt safety leadership from outside the safety team. In apathetic cultures, many incidents are seen as unavoidable and just part of the job (“sh#t happens!”).

Communication between management and the workforce largely consists of top-down parent-to-child interactions, and 'us versus them' language is highly prevalent. As a result, management is often perceived to be uncaring, and trust levels are low (incidentally, much of the above is experienced by contractors when working with client organizations that operate within apathetic and reactive cultures, partly explaining why incident rates among contractors are so high).

Level 2 – Reactive

At the reactive level, safety is a priority ... after an incident! Senior managers may apply elements of behavior-based approaches (e.g., punishment) when incident rates increase and may operate under the errant assumption that the majority of incidents are solely caused by the unsafe behavior of frontline staff. Hence, among the workforce there is still a degree of fear around reporting incidents, and secrets are often kept from management, impeding the authentic flow of potentially vital information. Unsurprisingly then, reactive organizations tend to have more than their share of serious incidents (Hudson, 2001).

Level 3 – Involving

Companies operating at the involving level recognize that the active participation of the workforce in safety discussions is important; hence teams are invited in to contribute. Consequently, as trust and psychological safety increase, employees become more willing to work with management to improve health and safety. Moreover, leaders are now prepared to concede that a wide range of factors cause incidents including management decisions. Safety performance is actively monitored, and the data is used purposefully. The organization has developed systems to assist with hazard management; however, the systems are often rigidly applied (Hudson, 2001).

Level 4 – Proactive

At the proactive level, the majority of employees in the organization believe that health and safety is important from both an ethical and economic point of view. Leaders and staff recognize that a wide range of factors cause incidents and the root causes are likely to come back to management decisions (Hudson, 2001). There is a growing recognition around the importance of all employees feeling valued and being treated respectfully, which helps build trust and psychological safety. The 'us versus them' language associated with less mature levels is replaced by we, and communication between management and the workforce increasingly consists of two-way adult-to-adult interactions. The organization puts significant effort into proactive measures to prevent incidents through visible, felt safety leadership and by demonstrating genuine care for its people. Safety systems are designed to support staff, not the other way around.

Level 5 – Integrated

At the integrated level, leaders have fully invited their teams in, as they are seen as the subject matter experts. Leaders have created the climate necessary (high trust and psychological safety) for the workforce to accept responsibility for managing their own risks.

Safety is not viewed as ‘separate’ from the work done – safety is just how the organization does business, and the focus is on reliability, learning and doing work well. While such organizations may have had a sustained period (often years) without a recordable or high potential incident, there is no feeling of complacency. They live with the knowledge that their next incident is just around the corner, yet they are highly resilient when dealing with challenges (Hudson, 2001). The organization uses a range of indicators to monitor performance, but it is not performance driven, as it has trust in its people and processes. As a learning organization, it is constantly striving to improve and find better ways to design and implement hazard control mechanisms with the full involvement of the workforce (Hudson, 2001).

Reflection Questions

1. At which level(s) do you believe your team is currently operating?
2. Do you believe your leaders and team members would agree on the current level of maturity? If not, why?
3. What are three things that need to change in order to progress to the next level of maturity?

References

Edmondson, A. (2019). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Hudson, P. (1999). Safety Culture – Theory and Practice. The Netherlands: Centre for Safety Science, Universiteit Leiden.

Hudson, P. (2001). Safety management and safety culture: The long, hard and winding road. In: Pearse, W., Gallagher, C., & Bluff, L. (eds.), Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems. Melbourne, VIC: Crown Content, 3–32.

Read more about proactive ways to improve safety climate maturity in my new book, "Next Generation Safety Leadership: From Compliance to Care" which can be purchased as a hardback or (Kindle) e-book here.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Clive Lloyd is an Australian psychologist who assists high-hazard organisations to improve their safety performance through the development of trust and psychological safety and by doing Safety Differently. He is the co-director and principal consultant of GYST Consulting Pty Ltd, and developer of the acclaimed Care Factor Program.

Clive was recently named among the top 5 Global thought leaders and influencers on Health & Safety by Thinkers360, and is the author of the Amazon best-selling book "Next Generation Safety Leadership: From Compliance to Care".

For further information about the Care Factor approach please contact us at:

• Email: [email protected]
• Office:  +61 7 5533 2103 
• After Hours:  +61 447 114 040
• Snail Mail: PO Box 1229 Nerang Qld 4211

Website: www.gystconsulting.com.au