1 Defining safety leadership
Making sure we are talking about the same thing
To help set the scene, the following chapter is broken down into specific sections aimed at answering the following questions:
ā¢ What is the empirical foundation of safety leadership?
ā¢ How does safety leadership differ from other leadership models?
ā¢ Does safety leadership change according to someoneās span of influence?
ā¢ How can one utilise the theory and science behind safety leadership and integrate this into their organisation?
Key objectives
The following objectives in this chapter are aimed at increasing individual safety leadership capability across an organisation. After reading this chapter an increased understanding and awareness will be made around the following areas:
1 Individuals will have the ability to define safety leadership and describe the key concepts that constitute safety leadership and the nuances across different levels of leadership.
2 Individuals will have the ability to apply some practical tools that allow the definition of safety leadership to be demonstrated by others and to establish the baselines of implementing safety leadership across an organisation.
Setting the scene
The lack of a clear definition of safety leadership was initially voiced by Zanko and Dawson (2012) who found in their research that safety leadership is often lumped under the human resources discipline. Such categorical labelling thwarts growth in the discipline and may lead to leadership myopia. This is when individuals are not given the blueprint to become robust safety leaders due to discipline blindness.
A plethora of companies provide services aimed at building safety leaders within oneās company. Few companies detail what safety leadership is and even fewer companies attempt to define it. For the select few organisations that detail a definition towards safety leadership, it is often detailed in obtuse ways or detailed well without any data or evidence to support where the definition comes from. In a globalised world where international borders no longer restrict work boundaries, the challenge lies where one personās approach to safety leadership can be vastly different from somebody elseās. When multiple variances exist, the achieving of team goals may become skewed and the proverbial wheel gets reinvented ā¦ over and over again.
Whilst working at an aluminium smelter in South Africa, I came across a very dedicated and diligent individual who was working on the siteās fatal risks. The documents and articles of research were expertly scattered across his desk as the beads of sweat were forming on his brow, as the enviable first draft of the fatal risks were due that afternoon. After just coming off a similar site in Australia for the same company, I knew that the same work was already completed on the other side of the world, for the same company in the same industry. This is a prime example of efficiencies being forsaken, as silo work structures become reinforced and embedded into a company. As a result, inconsistencies start to occur, coupled with a duplication of work. Without a clearly defined and well-communicated process, the evolution of any change or development initiative will slowly crash and burn.
Consistency and certainty is something that most humans crave from a neuropsychological perspective (Rock 2008). Without consistency, people become unsure of themselves and may become restless and fleeting which then limits their capability to focus. Having a clear universal definition towards safety leadership can be the benchmark of consistency across multiple industries. Similar to many workplaces I have been exposed to, if variances exist in internal processes, then variances will exist in the output and overall quality may be jeopardised. It will be challenging to build safety leadership capability, if one does not know what safety leadership means or how it differs from other forms of leadership.
Empirical definition of safety leadership
Through grounding research that was undertaken within a multifaceted business that spans multiple regions and countries, the core elements of safety leadership were explored. As part of this research, I conducted a multitude of in-depth interviews which were conducted with general managers and other senior leaders within the organisation. The common mantra of āwalking the walkā and āleading by exampleā were often spoken of as the staple definition of safety leadership. After many hours of further probing, questioning and clarification, the breadth and detail of the definition was eventually brought to fruition. Prior to describing this definition, it is worthwhile sharing some other musings and thoughts voiced by the research participants.
The articulation of an overall definition was proven to be challenging as many individuals spouted the common catch phrases or mantras of leadership. Examples of this included that safety leadership is about demonstrating your values or was defined by having an internal compass towards safety. When probed further, the common themes of values, honesty, vision and engagement started to emerge. These elements were shared via stories and direct experiences from many leaders. Through such experiences, the words spoken started to create added meaning and minimise the risk of clichƩs or buzz words being used to define safety leadership.
It is interesting to note that many individuals were quick to share what safety leadership is not about, which links into the work of Sobh and Martin (2011) where humans are naturally predicated towards the negative in order to avoid a feared-self. Such a preference may have its roots within evolutionary theory as a mode of overall survival to avoid the negative. Individuals shared some raw concepts of safety leadership which included āitās not about smashing your guys when they make a mistakeā or ātrying not to focus on statistics to drive changeā. Quite a few individuals shared that when tasked with defining safety leadership, it was a hard concept to place into words, given that safety leadership is often demonstrated through the behaviours of the individual.
One dividing factor was whether safety leadership differed from other leadership models, and if so in what way did it differ. Results detailed that there are many synergies between safety leadership and general leadership, although differences do exist which will be explained a bit later on. After compiling and analysing a plethora of data, the following safety leadership definition was birthed:
The demonstration of safety values through the creation of a vision and the promotion of well-being through the art of engagement, honesty and discipline.
Through the above definition, the importance of safety leadership behaviours is amplified through the importance of demonstrating safety leadership as well as communicating and promoting well-being. The applicability of this definition can be shown through an experience I had with a site manager I was working with on a resources project.
Whilst working in northern Western Australia a number of years back, I was coaching the site manager in terms of safety leadership. In an environment dictated by dry heat and temperatures that consistently exceed 40 degrees Celsius, maintaining the focus on safety and keeping the workers motivated was of essence. Like many organisational traps, communication was lacking and there were no regular meetings detailing the schedule for the day. Upon talking with the site supervisors and superintendents, nobody was aware of what was happening on site in terms of progress, safety or what the other crews were doing. When approaching the site manager and exploring their values and thoughts, I received an insight into their safety leadership ethos. The markers of the safety leadership definition were void. The site manager stated that āthe guys know what is going onā despite a lack of formalised meetings. In addition, safety was promoted when an incident occurred, such as dust in the eye due to insufficient foam back safety glasses. In terms of a vision of safety on that site, it was often characterised by the guys knowing that everyone should ānot fuck upā which was often spoken by the site manager and therefore echoed by their subordinates. It was apparent that safety engagement and leadership were often dictated by individuals being dressed down when an incident occurred and safety being spoken as an aftermath in preference to production targets.
As mentioned by Carrillo and Samuels (2015) effective safety leadership may be dictated by leaders talking about safety prior to any work requests and ensuring the art of conversation is the key tool for influence. The detailed definition towards safety leadership can therefore act as a blueprint for behaviour and serve as an in-built accountability marker for leaders. Without accountability being present, the core leaders within a company may taint the perceptions and behaviours of others. In the site example above, it was further revealed that there were instances of physical assault between line managers and their team members, and other leaders jeopardised their own safety by being carried across trenches in a bulldozer in order to save time. This can be the corporate equivalent of fabricating tax receipts in order to balance the books or sacking someone instead of managing their performance.
Safety leadership is not a concept that belongs merely in the resources sector. With globalisation taking hold, work is now done quicker and across greater international borders than ever before. Virtual teams across multiple time zones can now be the norm as technology can allow individuals to meet deadlines across variant borders. With added pressures, free reign of information and competing demands, safety outside of the resources sector may be based upon burn-out, stress, anxiety or other work-related psychological illnesses. In a study by Leung, Chan and Yu (2012) it was shown that stress is the number one marker of psychological safety within the workplace, and measures need to be taken to create a resilient workforce in order to cope with variant work pressures.
These pressures can extend beyond the balanced scorecard measurements of finance, customers, people and internal capability and be homed in on the micro elements of managing workloads, interpersonal conflict or feeling valued. The importance of the psychological safety contract and personal inclusion at work was voiced by the work of Walker (2010). Honesty, well-being, discipline and engagement are the cornerstones of safety leadership which are applicable across all industries and disciplines. Well-being can be synonymous with both physical and psychological health whilst honesty is a sure way of enhancing engagement and drawing upon the benefits of authentic leadership (Kernis & Goldman 2006). Further relevance of the markers of safety leadership have been catalogued in Table 1.1 through the direct comments of the leaders who participated in the research such as construction managers, health and safety managers, project managers and general managers.
Table 1.1 Comments defining safety leadership
(Source: Developed for this research)
The comments in Table 1.1 represent a small sample of the core themes that have been used to help define safety leadership. It is from these comments and other similar comments that safety leadership has been defined. Each element has its roots based upon the phenomenological experiences of leaders who have had to influence others in terms of safety. The beacon of safety influence can therefore be prefaced on the specific nuances of the definition provided. By breaking down each element of the definition, further context and applicability can be galvanised into an overall account of safety leadership.
Discipline
Behavioural psychologists are well known for detailing that all explanations can be accounted for by different triggers and the consequences that follow those triggers (Weiten 2004). The adage that consequences can control behaviour may have its proverbial tentacles wrapped around the element of discipline and its application towards safety leadership. As leaders of an organisation, your actions will speak volumes to the people who casually or intently observe you. Integrity and trust can take a long time to build and can be jettisoned at a drop of a hat if your actions contrast what you say. I have seen leaders walk out of a project office without wearing the correct eye protection and when quizzed about their lack of eye protection, they have flippantly responded by saying āIām the boss and that shit doesnāt apply to meā. Or perhaps the leader who champions vocational training but then openly moans and begrudgingly attends a training course and lets his frustrations be known to all. These frustrations are further amplified by the lack of punctuality or the sly checking of text messages whilst the presenter does their spiel. Through all of the above behaviours, the lack of personal discipline impacts upon their relationship with colleagues and subordinates.
A leader who shows up to a live gas plant in running shoes as opposed to steel cap boots shows their intention of staying within the office and not talking to the craft workers by the mere fact that they are not kitted up to talk to the employees who are the lifeline of the organisation. Discipline in terms of safety leadership is sometimes doing what is needed, even though it may be uncomfortable or there is an internal nagging dialogue that may disagree with an established site/office-based rule. As soon as a leader compromises a lifesaving rule or has a breach in safety, the word will get out quicker than wildfire and the reputation of that leader starts to crumble. Alternatively, the expectation is inadvertently set and others start to follow suit with a disregard to safety. When approached about their unsafe behaviour, an individual may respond that their boss does the same behaviour, so why would it be wrong if they do it the same way. Ways to strengthen personal discipline in terms of safety can include the following:
ā¢ familiarisation of site rules and demonstration of compliance
ā¢ active support and interest in safety efforts
ā¢ wearing required personal protective equipment (PPE), even when sometimes it may not be needed in certain areas
ā¢ awareness of any hindering self-talk which may contrast site safety regulations, and reframing as necessary
ā¢ matching safe work behaviours with out-of-work behaviours
ā¢ voicing to team members that you want to be approached if you are not doing something safely. In turn, if you are approached about your safety, responding with a thank you.
ā¢ creating benign habits, where what you do automatically becomes part of your ethos.
All of the above points are common staples to personal discipline. You may start to understand why some larger blue chip companies require the wearing of hard hats in all areas, despite the presence of risk being void. This is to ensure a habit of safe behaviours where it becomes part of your genetic make-up. Many years ago, I was walking around a coal mine where it was company policy to place your hard hat on, as soon as you leave your car in the car park. Objections and protests to this rule were often simmering away and only made public through backhanded comments ā¦ the true staple of passive aggressiveness was present. Protests included, āwhat is going to kill me walking 100 metres from the carpark to the office ā¦ space junk, a meteorite, a bird shitting on me?ā Of course the mechanics behind such a rule was to generate a habit of behaviour and to enhance self-discipline. If one cannot be disciplined with the mundane tasks, then they may have trouble with the bigger ticket items.
Discipline can also be demonstrated by following through with planned safety meetings or toolbox talks. As soon as the meetings get pushed out, postponed or cancelled it starts to send an unwritten message that safety may not be that important. A prime example of this was with an organisation I was consulting to where employees informed me that the monthly office toolbox talk occurred biannually. Reasons behind such irregular meetings were based around the notion that there are more important things to focus on, or other competing work demands take over. If discipline cannot be applied with staple safety meetings, then the bastion of safety may be demoted to an unwanted add-on and may not be seen as an integral part of the business.
The activities that a person does outside of work can vary greatly to what they do at work. A well-measured and well-spoken leader in a work environment may unravel to be a loose cannon and egotistical maniac outside of work. The matching of safe behaviours at work and at home is key to eliciting a consistency of disci...
-plgo-compressed.webp)