Most organizations that seek to achieve safety excellence realize that this performance level only can be attained with strong leadership.
When it comes to safety, there are two prevalent leadership philosophies, and there is a stark contrast between the resulting safety cultures. We better can understand the differences by realizing that each is grounded in very different motives. One approach emphasizes control, while the other starts with caring.
Control = Compliance
Some managers define “strong leadership” as carrying a big stick. They believe that any time there is an injury or near miss, their principal responsibility is to hold people accountable. In practice, this means that the primary reason they have any safety conversation is to exert more control.
These managers believe that if people would simply comply with the policies, rules, and procedures, then no one would get hurt. Armed with this reasoning, they strive for greater control by criticizing actions that are inconsistent with established policies. Safety conversations center on correcting errant behaviors through counseling or discipline.
This safety philosophy leads to a culture of compliance.
If the reason (why) you have any safety conversation is to exert control, the approach will be to criticize (how) and seek compliance through correction (what).
A culture of compliance results in a false sense of improved safety performance, because many incidents are driven underground. The official safety numbers may look good, however the number of unreported near misses and unrecorded minor injuries are indicative of an insidious safety culture. Because the causes are never acknowledged and addressed, they accumulate until a significant event occurs.
Caring = Commitment
In a safety context, progressive managers define “strong leadership” as providing clear expectations, encouraging constant improvement and enabling their employees to succeed. These leaders believe that their principal responsibility is to understand the influences and error traps that may contribute to an injury or near miss.
The primary reason these leaders have any safety conversation is because they genuinely care about their co-workers. They realize that process and organizational flaws only will surface and be eliminated if there is an environment of trust and mutual learning.
These leaders believe that if everyone works together to resolve these issues, tragic events can be avoided. Because they have a caring attitude, they coach when they observe at-risk behaviors. They seek to understand the influences on risk. Safety conversations are focused on collaborating to resolve issues that could lead to an injury. This safety philosophy leads to a culture of commitment.
If the reason (why) you have any safety conversation is because you care, the approach will be to coach (how) and seek commitment through collaboration (what).
A culture of commitment is the foundation for achieving world-class safety performance. Near misses and injuries, regardless of severity, are reported and thoroughly investigated. Importantly, daily pro-active safety conversations are integrated into every leader’s regimen. There is constant learning and improvement. By constantly taking care of the small things, the big events are a rare occurrence.
Safety Leadership Continuum
Very few safety cultures entirely are reliant on compliance or commitment. Most organizations lie somewhere on a continuum. Leadership is a powerful driver of any safety culture. An assessment of employee perceptions of leadership style can provide key indications of where the organization fits on this continuum.
A simple survey that measures perceptions on these eight dimensions of safety leadership can be useful in determining where your organization exists on the safety leadership continuum:
- Having personal conversations
- Being proactive versus reactive
- Criticizing versus coaching
- Removing obstacles
- Acting on solutions
- Caring versus controlling
- Speaking up
We’ve created a survey instrument which uses a 5-point Likert scale. By collecting and analyzing employee responses on each of these dimensions, the composite score can be used to place an organization on what we’ve named the Safety Leadership Continuum. This survey instrument also provides detailed insights on each of the leadership dimensions that determine a safety culture.
If the SLC score is less than 24, most of your supervisors and managers are using confrontation or control to achieve compliance. They are managing for safety.
If the SLC score is over 24, a majority of your supervisors and managers seek contributions from others and collaborate on solutions to seek commitment. They are leading for safety.
Everything Starts with Why?
To paraphrase Simon Sinek, everything starts with your “Why?” The path to zero events requires that leaders understand their crucial role in determining the safety culture. Leadership style sets the tone for the behaviors that follow.
If you want compliance, then manage through control, criticism and correction. If you seek commitment, then lead through caring, coaching and collaboration.
What is your “Why?”
About the author: David A. Galloway is founder and president of Continuous MILE Consulting LLC. After graduating from Penn State, Galloway started his career in the paper industry. Over the next 35 years, he gained experience and held leadership roles in process engineering, operations, research, product development, quality, logistics and strategy. As a certified master black belt, certified master facilitator and lean six sigma deployment director, Galloway provides expertise that enables businesses to achieve better processes, safer operations, and stronger innovation. He can be reached at dgalloway@ContinuousMile.com and he blogs at ContinuousMile.com.