When no one’s around…

Recently, I read a variation on a relatively well-known slogan. You have probably heard it before, it is around in various settings (e.g., applied to integrity, character, or quality – just google it) and perhaps you have even used it unthinkingly yourself in the past:

“Safety culture is how things are done when the boss is not around.”

I do not know where this one-liner originated. If you do the google search, you see it attributed to a wide variety of people. However, I have struggled with it for quite a while, and I think it is about time to address the issue. The statement contains several problematic assumptions. I wonder, are these really thought through? And what are these assumptions saying about the one who makes such a statement? Let us try to examine some of these assumptions.

Culture = behaviour?

First, the statement seems to reduce culture to behaviour: “culture is how things are done…”. Sure, this probably draws directly on Deal and Kennedy’s famous 1982 definition of (organisational) culture: “Culture is how things are done around here”. However, if you think about it, that definition is not great either. What I like about it, is that it suggests that culture is something active, instead of some static property. It suggests seeing culture as something that an organisation does instead of something that an organisation has.

The flaw in this ‘definition’, however, is that culture is not the same as behaviour. Culture is (in a somewhat simplified explanation) ‘something’ that emerges within a group of people when they interact over a period of time. It then influences the behaviour (in often unseen ways), but it is not the same as behaviour. Behaviour is what people do; culture is ‘something’ between them. When we put it like that, it may sound obvious, yet mixing up behaviour and culture is a common mistake.

We might also note that the statement does not make clear what kind of behaviour it exactly is. Because the statement is framed in terms of safety, it seems obvious that we are talking about safe or unsafe behaviour. Although this is not explicitly said, most likely, the statement is about following the (safety) rules.

Worldview

Second, the statement suggests that people are not inclined to show this kind of behaviour, i.e. working safely, by themselves. Is that not a rather negative view of humans? Is it reasonable to assume that humans come to work with the plan to work unsafely unless someone watches them?

I think not. Therefore, I choose to start with the assumption that people generally come to work to do a good – or at least satisfactory – job. They do things that make sense to them in the moment, given their knowledge, (conflicting) objectives, resources, and the physical and social environment. In cases where we observe them not following (safety) rules, we should not start by judging them, or (even worse) attribute the behaviour lazily to ‘safety culture’. Instead, we should ask ourselves why it makes sense to them to act in these ways. Most likely they are dealing with conflicting goals which they try to resolve in a way that makes sense in that moment, but which we do not appreciate or understand (yet).

Watching people

Third, the statement suggests that the presence of a boss is necessary for people behaving in a certain (safe) way. We might perhaps assume that people are inclined to take things easy unless someone watches them. There is research available to support the idea that watching people (or having them believe/imagine that someone watches them) influences behaviour. However, hardly anyone comes to work with a desire to get hurt. And many people even like their jobs or take pride in them. For them, being watched by their boss might rather be a distraction or disturbance than that it contributes in a positive way.

Also, even if we assume that people are more inclined to display certain behaviour when they are being watched, to be honest, working safely under the watching eye of their boss is not the first thing that springs to mind. Looking busy and productive is a more likely suggestion. Because do bosses really appreciate safe behaviour that much? Is not working safely mostly seen as costing time? So, wouldn’t bosses rather appreciate productive behaviour? Is this statement perhaps giving too much credit to bosses? Or is there an underlying idea that bosses appreciate following rules superficially so that there at least is the appearance of working safely?

Simplifying

Finally, the assumption that monitoring, control and enforcement are essential for safe behaviour oversimplifies highly complex situations. There seems to be a reductionist assumption that mere monitoring by the boss and following rules leads to ‘better’ and ‘safer’ behaviour through some linear causal mechanism. However, the world is not as simple as that. And it is even unfair to make these assumptions.

Typically, people do not break the rules because they are not being watched. In most cases where people do not follow the rules it will rather be them trying to meet multiple objectives or having to make difficult trade-offs between available time and thoroughness, between production and safety, or between following one rule and bending or breaking another. These are very complex and difficult dilemmas that cannot be reduced to more monitoring or better enforcement. In fact, these approaches will probably only contribute to enlarge the practical problems that people face.

Safety culture is how things are done when the boss is not around? Better think twice before offering that bunch of underlying assumptions!

---

In case you want to read more about problematic views of culture, or other myths within the realm of safety, check my books:

https://mindtherisk.com/publications/227-the-first-rule-of-safety-culture

https://mindtherisk.com/2-uncategorised/205-safety-myth-101