Supervisor Accountability

Jim ArendasConstruction Advancement

Foundation

Levels of Responsibility

• Executive Management– High level commitment = lower accident rates

(Cheyne et al., 1998; Zohar, 1980)

• Supervision– Work group encouragement and support

(Donald, 1995).

• Worker– Participation/ownership– What motivates workers to take responsibility?

(Lee, 1995)

OSHA Elements of Management Duty

• Establish policies, procedures and rules

• Safety Training

• Providing the right tool and equipment

• Enforcing the rules

Supervisory Challenges

• Characteristics of the work (Physical Hazards)

• Psychological and behavioral characteristics of the individual

• Organizational environments (Culture)

(Cheyne, 2002)

Competing Organizational Influences

• Organizational values

• Short-term profits

• Customer needs

• Organizational Culture

Organizational Culture

Ela Oney-Yazici, Heyecan Giritli, Gulfer Topcu-Oraz, Emrah Acar, (2007) "Organizational culture: the case of Turkish construction industry", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 6, pp.519 - 531

Safety Culture?

Management Commitment • Management Resources

– Leadership from Executive Management

– Time

– Involvement

– Support

• Evaluation

– Leading Indicators

• Measure positive behaviors

• Measure coaching and correcting

• Close calls

• Root cause of negative behaviors

• Measure history not TRIR

• Employee surveys

– Lagging Indicators

• Enforcement

– Throughout all levels of management and supervision

– The food chain

• Recognition

Worker Duty• Not required by OSHA• Duty to employer

– Follow rules or get wacked• Duty to self is a personal choice

Relational Leadership Support

• Leader-member exchange

• Leaders have limited time

• Cross organizational support– Relational support from supervisor– Self-developed relational support– Culture supported relational support– No relational support

(Uhl-Bean, 2006)

Team Dysfunctions of Safety Leadership

• Absence of Trust

• Absence of Conflict

• Lack of Commitment

• Avoidance of Accountability

• Inattention to Results (Lencioni, 2002)

Evaluating Safety Culture Maturity (RSSB UK)

Level 1: Emerging

Level 2: Managing

Level 3: Involving

Level 4: Cooperating

Level 5: Continually Improving

Level 1: Emerging

• Safety is focused on– Technical – Procedural – Compliance

• Safety not a key business risk• Safety department responsibly for safety • Accidents seen as unavoidable • Most front line staff not interested in • Safety used as a lever on other issues

Level 2: Managing

• Safety recognized as a business risk • Management devoted to accident prevention• Safety focus is on rules, procedures and engineering controls • Accidents seen as preventable• Management believes most accidents are due to behaviors of front-

line staff • Measures performance with lagging indicators • Incentives based on reducing loss time incidents • Senior managers only become involved in health and safety if

accidents increase; punishment likely to be used • Accident rates are near the industry sector average – but tend to

have more serious accidents

Level 3: Involving• Accident rates are low, but have reached a plateau • Organization realizes employee involvement is essential

for improvement. • Management recognize that a range of factors lead to

accidents – such as management decisions. • Most front-line employees will work with management to

improve safety. • The majority of staff accept personal responsibility for

their own health and safety. • Safety performance is monitored and the data used

Level 4: Cooperating

• The majority of staff believe that health and safety is important – from both a moral & economic reasons

• Management recognizes that a range of factors lead to accidents – and the root causes stem from management decisions

• Front-line staff accept responsibility for their own and others’ health and safety

• Employees are valued and treated fairly • Organization proactive measures indicators to prevent

accidents • Organizations addresses healthy lifestyle and non-

workplace accidents

Level 5: Continually Improving• Injury prevention is a core company value • Organization has several years without a recordable accident or

high potential incident – but there is no feeling of complacency • Leading and lagging indicators used to monitor performance but it is

not performance driven – it has confidence in its safety processes• Organization strives to be better and finds improved hazard control

approaches• Employees believe safety is a critical aspect of their job and accept

that prevention of non-work injuries is important • Company invests considerable effort in promoting health and safety

at home

ReferencesCheyne, A., Cox, S., Oliver, A., & Tomas, J. M. (1998). Modelling safety climate in the prediction of levels of safety activity. Work and Stress, 12, 255-271.

http://ergonomie.com.au/our-services/safety-and-management-systems/safety-culture/

RSSB.UK.co

Construction Industry Institute

Donald, I. (1995). Safety attitudes as a basis for promoting safety culture: An example of an intervention. In Work and well-being: An agenda for Europe conference, Nottingham, 7-9 December.

Ela Oney-Yazici, Heyecan Giritli, Gulfer Topcu-Oraz, Emrah Acar, (2007) "Organizational culture: the case of Turkish construction industry", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 6, pp.519 - 531

Lee, T. R. (1995). The role of attitudes in the safety culture and how to change them. In Conference on `Understanding Risk Perception; Offshore Management Centre, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, 2 February.

Oliver, A., Cheyne, A., Jose, M. T., & Cox, S. (2002). The effects of organizational and individual factors on occupational accidents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 473-488.

Lencioni, P., (2002), The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, A leadership Fable, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Uhl-Bean, M., (2006). Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.