Demystifying the current academic buzz words around the subject and using examples from politics and popular culture Tim Marsh explains why leadership style doesn’t just influence safety culture but largely determines it.
Recent research from around the world has suggested that an “empowerment leadership” style is vital to improving safety standards as, without it, you simply cannot expect widespread “discretionary” or “organisational citizenship behaviour” from your workforce. And without these behaviours it’s hugely difficult, if not impossible, to develop a strong safety culture.
That’s a lot of buzz words already so, rather than use any more jargon, I’ll seek to describe the truth of this further with reference to Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Eric Morecambe!
Safety involvement
In the US, they talk about “discretionary behaviour”, which, in the UK, we might refer to as “above the line” or “organisational citizenship behaviours”. Regardless, collectively we are talking about:
- volunteering to be part of a project or process team, or to be a safety rep;
- undertaking non-mandatory safety training, or attending non-mandatory meetings;
- paying any sort of genuine attention, or contributing to a discussion during mandatory training or meetings;
- saying something to a colleague who has put themselves at risk;
- making an effort to model safe behaviours and practices in front of new starters;
- taking the time to show new starters the ropes;
- stopping to clear a housekeeping issue;
- stopping to call a “time out” because you’re not comfortable;
- reporting a near miss;
- responding (totally!) honestly to questions during an incident investigation; and, to deliberately blur the edges between compliance and “discretionary behaviour” complying with a safety requirement when not supervised, or when working alone (because, let’s be honest, often what should be compliance is actually discretionary – especially if it’s late, or you’re working from a van a long way from base).
Compliance isn’t enough. Interestingly, the research suggests that there is a better correlation between workforce involvement in safety and incident rate, and basic compliance and incident rate. If that sounds intuitively unlikely, consider this question: would you prefer your 10-year-old to simply step into the road blindly at a level crossing because the green ‘walk’ sign has come on, or would you prefer them to cross 50 yards down the road but ‘dynamic risk-assessing’ properly as they go?
Regardless of blurred edges, I hope we’d all agree that the above list is simply the basic behaviours we’d all like to see our workforce undertaking. It’s what we want when we get inspirational speakers in, set up behavioural safety processes, or launch “hearts and minds” initiatives. Again, this is important, as the research suggests that these simply cannot succeed in any widespread or enduring way in the absence of what has been described as empowering, or “transformational” leadership.
Transformational leadership
An Australian paper1 describes three types of safety leader: the fireman, the policeman and the knight. The fireman is “reactive”, of course – invisible until something goes wrong. The policeman is primarily about actively seeking out transgressions and is analogous to ‘calculative’ (compliant) in the famous Parker and Hudson model.2 However, we need our supervisors and managers to be the third sort – pro-active “knights”, leading from the front with passion, honour and integrity!
Traditionally, transformational leadership is held to have four key elements:
- Listening;
- Rewarding;
- Leading by example; and
- Involving.
Note that there is no explicit reference to learning. This is because learning is treated as a subset of listening, but I would argue that it should be a category all on its own, and here’s why.
I have previously written in SHP3,4 about the vital importance of a ‘Just Culture’ based on objective analysis and learning as the basis of a strong safety culture. Briefly, the point made is that, following the likes of Reason’s ‘Cheese’ and ‘Just Culture’ models, objective analysis will reveal that many unsafe behaviours are out-and-out unintentional errors caused by design, task demands, ergonomics, or lack of training, i.e. “I don’t know what I’m doing” and/or “I’m physiologically incapable of doing it – especially if I’m tired”. Further, many conscious violations are often caused by the need to get finished before midnight and encouraged by the ‘blind-eye’ syndrome!
The core of a ‘Just Culture’, then, is to step back and apply some objective analysis before rushing to judgement. Just asking “why?” curiously will pretty much do it. If you do, you’ll find that in 80 to 90 per cent of cases you’ll learn something interesting – even if it’s just that there is systemic temptation to cut a corner.
This ‘Just Culture’ approach simply can’t be done well without talking and listening to the workforce. (Indeed, the evidence shows clearly that the more ‘just’ the culture is perceived to be, the more effective the basic incident-reporting and analysis system – let alone anything more pro-active.)
So, as I see it, talking about transformational safety leadership without explicit reference to ‘Just Culture’ and “Why?” analysis is a bit like the Peter Cook and Dudley Moore one-legged man sketch:“Well, I see you standing there OK – standing there you have covered…I’m very impressed with the standing up bit…but how exactly are you going to kick me?!”
In fairness, however, though analysis gives a human-factor process ‘kick’ it must be said that without the “transformational” behaviours discussed below, you could argue that a pro-active culture can’t stand up at all…
Learning and true leadership
In terms of inspirational leaders most agree that Richard Branson is one of the very best. The leadership writer Damien Hughes quotes a story about Sir Richard and learning,5 in which he relates how he challenged Branson’s claim that he’d “never failed”. Hughes said “but you must have – for example, what about when you lost out on the National Lottery?” Branson’s reply was as follows:
“Well yes, we made mistakes with that one and got complacent. We thought because we had the media on our side and were the only ones offering ‘not for profit’ that we’d walk it. We forgot some basics, like the details of the business plan and developing relationships with key players. But a month later, very mindful of these mistakes, I struck a deal that made me tens of millions that I probably wouldn’t have got if we’d got the Lottery. So it wasn’t a total failure, now, was it?”
So, is this an inspirational example of a genuine learning focus, or just bull? Well, as discussed below, in a very important respect it really doesn’t matter because the myth can be more important than the person.
I mention this example to stress that a genuine learning focus doesn’t have to be a dry, academic thing. It can often be inspirational, too. Certainly, so much of what influences how we feel about something can be determined by a single event (or even just a mythical story) that resonates.
Technically, it’s called “critical incident” theory and, in safety terms, can be boiled down to something that resonates widely, like “and they actually stopped the job?!” or “and they still didn’t stop the job?!”
So I’d suggest a simple but vital amendment to the classic “four factors” by adding ‘learning’ explicitly.
Listening
Listening is key for two reasons: one, because you might learn something (as above) but two, because it also helps empower the person you’re listening to.
When locked up on Robben Island Nelson Mandela would make a point of spending as much time as possible talking to his guards. Not just because he was trying to convert South Africa one person at a time – though he was, of course – but because:
“In genuinely listening to them I learned so much about the Boer mindset. Their values, hopes and fears. It stood me in such good stead later when we opened formal negotiations. I had more understanding and more respect.”6
As for the second point – that you can influence the person you listen to by the very act of listening – we all know just how many of these guards were later in attendance at his presidential inauguration, shedding tears of joy.
Rewarding (praise)
Obviously, the use of praise is a key chapter in any text on good leadership, coaching, or empowerment. This short section looks not so much at getting your supervisors to do it well but at getting them to do it all.
Many people will have heard of the ‘one-minute manager’ whose golden rule was “catch someone doing something right”, and there is any number of classic texts that stress the importance of this in maximising an organisation’s potential.
Studies show that in order for criticism to resonate and not be seen as yet another nag it needs to have been preceded by five praises. An interesting spot-check is to ask a workforce how many instances of praise they get relative to criticism – it’s never 1 to 5, that’s for sure!
Some American “how to praise” videos are a deep joy to watch (and the more hard-bitten and world-weary the supervisors watching it, the more amusing!) “Hey Joe, I just wanna say how great it is to see you in all your PPE there … you won’t be the one going home missing an eye tonight … so, way to go Joe!”
And cue Eric Morecambe giving a half turn into his sleeve and muttering “Arsenal!!” – or something like that!
There are, however, more UK-friendly techniques out there, such as “one in ten”. This involves asking people to rate themselves from 1 to 10 on a task. Then, when they say 7, for example, rather than asking “why only a 7?” you ask “why aren’t you a 0?” And when they explain why they justify a 7 you listen, nod, smile, murmur, and maybe even say “sounds more like an 8 to me!”
With some rapport built and some praise naturally given for what they actually do well, you switch to coaching mode, asking: “You know I’m a safety coach and my job is to halve accidents around here, so if I can get you up from that 8 to a 9, that’s my job done – for now at least. How do you think we could do that?”
Both parties are now primed to have a productive and constructive chat, which should lead naturally to the magic “curious why?” questions and other vital objective analysis techniques. Indeed, as I have previously argued in these pages,3,4 the most sincere praise of all is: “I listened to you and did something with what you told me.”
One of the problems we face constantly is being asked to do something that is sensible and effective but, because it comes straight from a textbook (or a HQ in another country, like the US), it isn’t appropriate in Europe in its original format and so goes down like a lead balloon.
Take Dr Martin Luther King’s famous ‘I have a dream’ speech – an excellent example of flexibility. Did you know that the key words we all remember weren’t actually in the formal draft, and his speech was apparently a bit leaden until an aide tapped his arm and whispered “why not try that ‘dream’ stuff that went down so well in church the other day?” So, some listening to reports in there, too!
The point is that we mustn’t give up on a sound but rather tricky principle just because of early setbacks. We must be flexible and persistent and find a better, more appropriate way of applying it locally.
Modelling
All of the above obviously comes under ‘modelling’, too, but this case study should suffice to reinforce the point that ‘do as I say, not as I do’ never works.
Just before becoming prime minister, Gordon Brown visited a site to launch a ship but declined to wear his mandatory safety glasses, pointing out that he had severe vision problems (this was not common knowledge at the time). The senior management nevertheless decided to “go for it – the workforce will understand”. But they have paid for that decision every day since. To quote the MD: “Every toolbox talk, every weekly brief, and particularly every disciplinary, we get ‘what about Gordon Brown?’ Half blind or not, it went down like a lead balloon and if I could turn back the clock, I would. We should have realised the rod we were making that day.”
Involving
It is now widely accepted that the more the workforce is involved in things like job design, risk assessments and the writing and delivery of toolbox talks, the better. (That said, just because we know its true doesn’t mean we always do it anywhere near as often as we should when time constraints and logistics get in the way.)
There is a distinction between ‘required to be involved’ and ‘choosing to get involved’ and, if we get all of the above right, then the discretionary involvement requirement will pretty much take care of itself. For example, we’d certainly have more enthusiastic volunteers for safety committees and behavioural safety teams. Again, there’s a huge learning element here, as in “prove to me you’ll listen and at least sometimes do something with my knowledge and experience, and I’m all yours”.
A subset of “involving” is to use coaching techniques, where workers are asked questions rather than told the answers, so that they take an active part in the discussion. This links in with the technique that research shows to be the single most effective in achieving behaviour change – the use of “rational argument”.
For example, rather than shouting “oi you – hold the bloody handrail!” try: “I’ve just been on a course and did you know that 50 per cent of all lost-time accidents in this company last year were caused by failing to hold the handrail? Apparently, the cost to our industry sector overall was about £5 million. I wonder how many jobs that is in this day and age?!” Pause. “Only I noticed back there that you weren’t…”
Conclusion
The vast majority of unsafe acts are errors caused by task demands, poor training, or violations caused by the perception that it’s what the company wants. It’s easy to see that the safety leadership described above would help greatly with all of these, and research shows clearly that transformational safety leadership techniques do indeed inspire the behaviours desired.
On the other hand, it’s also true that in the medium-to-long term the effectiveness of training is determined not by the training itself but by the way it is followed up and embedded into the organisation.
This is important, as research shows that, in many organisations, supervisors and managers are apt to act in a transformational way about productivity but not about safety because they “try harder for the most important priorities”.
Therefore, to conclude, here’s a worrying thought: is training in the above techniques – even under the safety banner – sometimes counter-productive because it actually gives front-line management another set of powerful tools for demonstrating what it is they “really, really want”?
References
1 Broadbent, D (2007): ‘What kind of Safety Leader Are You?’ National Health and Safety Conference, New Zealand
2 Parker, D, Lawrie, M and Hudson, P (2005): ‘A framework for understanding the development of organisational safety culture’, in Safety Science, 44, pp551-562
3 Marsh, T (2010): ‘Stretch to the limit’, in SHP Vol.28, No.2, pp39-42
4 Marsh, T (2010): ‘It’s a kind of magic’, in SHP Vol.28, No.9, pp40-42
5 Hughes, D (2009): Liquid thinking, Capstone
6 Mandela, N (1994): Long walk to freedom, Little, Brown
Continuing professional development is the process by which OSH practitioners maintain, develop and improve their skills and knowledge. IOSH CPD is very flexible in its approach to the ways in which CPD can be accrued, and one way is by reflecting on what you have learnt from the information you receive in your professional magazine. By answering the questions below, practitioners can award themselves credits. One, two or three credits can be awarded, depending on what has been learnt – exactly how many you award yourself is up to you, once you have reflected and taken part in the quiz.
QUESTIONS:
1 The US term ‘discretionary behaviour’ is often known in the UK as?
a Above-the-line behaviours
b Below-the-line behaviours
c Flying-in-the-wind behaviour
d On-the-line behaviour
2 Some of the components of this type of behaviour are (tick all that apply):
a Undertaking non-mandatory safety training
b Modelling safe behaviour for new starters
c Complying with safety requirements when unsupervised
d Demonstrating unsafe behaviour to others
3 Various techniques can be used to influence safety behaviour – which of these cannot?
a Invite inspirational speakers in
b Launch a hearts-and-minds campaign
c Leave the workforce to use its own common sense
d Set up behavioural safety processes
4 Transformational leadership is NOT about which one of these?
a Listening
b Leading by example
c Policing transgressions
d Involving
5 Reason’s model for safety culture is called?
a Cheese model
b Butter model
c Milk model
d Yoghurt model
6 Unintentional errors are caused by? Indicate the odd one out:
a Design
b Task demands
c Training
d Ergonomics
7 The ‘Just Culture’ approach needs to include (tick all that apply):
a Listening to the workforce
b Talking to the workforce
c Insisting on basic incident reporting, with penalties for not doing so
d Asking the question “Why?”
8 A genuine learning focus is:
a Dry
b Academic
c Inspirational
d Quite boring
9 What is the ratio of praise to criticism that makes a criticism have some value?
a 1 to 8
b 1 to 2
c 1 to 20
d 1 to 5
10 A workforce will respond better if it is involved in (tick all that apply):
a Job design
b Disciplining others who break the rules
c Risk assessment
d Delivering toolbox talks
Answers:
1 a
2 a, b and c
3 c
4 c
5 a
6 c
7 a, b and d
8 c
9 d
10 a, c and d
To learn more about CPD and the IOSH approach, visit www.iosh.co.uk/membership/about_membership/about_cpd.aspx
Tim Marsh is managing director of Ryder-Marsh Safety (Ltd).
