One of my favorite and newest safety authors is Dr. Clive Lloyd. His new book, Next Generation Safety Leadership: From Compliance to Care
Dr. Lloyd explains the progression of safety cultures from Stage 1 – Apathetic through Stage 5 – Integrated and to be frank, it is the best explanation of cultural progression I have seen in 30 years.
Stage 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 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).
Stage 2 – Reactive
At the reactive stage, safety is a priority… after an incident! Senior managers may apply elements of behavior-based safety approaches (e.g., punishment) when incident rates increase and may operate under the errant assumption that most incidents are solely caused by the unsafe behavior of workers. 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).
Stage 3 – Involving
Companies operating at the involving stage 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 identification and management; however, the systems are often rigidly applied (Hudson, 2001).
Stage 4 – Proactive
At the proactive stage, 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 safety management system failures (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 stages 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 management systems are designed to support staff, not the other way around.
Stage 5 – Integrated
At the integrated stage, 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)
