The Psychology of Safety at Work

Andrew MartyManaging DirectorSACS Consulting

Objectives

• To identify team and organisational characteristics which create safer behaviours

• To review research into personality as a predictor of workplace safety behaviours

• To consider how to create a climate with better safety outcomes

• To consider how we can cause employees and other stakeholders to change their behaviour in respect to safety.

What is Safety Climate?

• The degree to which employees perceive that management and leadership are committed to safety. Research demonstrates that this is a driver for real world safety outcomes.

Key determinants of safety behaviour

Research has shown that the key determinants of safety behaviour at work are:

• Environmental factors• Workplace policies/procedures/practices• Human relationships• Personality.

De Joy, Schaffer and Wilson et al, 2004; Brown,Willis, and Prussia 2000; Cheyne et al. 1998; Shannon, Robson, and Sale (2001)

Mirror neurons, yawning, and emotional contagion

Icare4autism (2008) ‘Broken Mirror Neurons Linked to Autism?’ Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from http://icare4autism.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/broken-mirror-neurons-linked-to-autism/

Leadership matters• The most persuasive people are those we consider to

be part of our own group and with whom we closely interact.

• Local leaders – managers, coordinators, union officials – will be crucial to the success of our attempts to optimise safety behaviours in organisations.

• If the objective is to maximise behaviour change, each team within an organisation will need its own local, and largely self-developed, plan for safety optimisation.

The influence of culture on safety outcomes

• A key driver of safety climate is the general climate of interactions within teams and the organisation.

• The quality of the overall climate in an organisation or team causes safety climate. A happier and more positive work environment is a safer work environment.

• Policy and process is crucial, but without cultural vitality you will not optimise safety outcomes.

Employees live in three “worlds”

My job

My team

My organisation

Above the line is between 70 and 85% of employee engagement

and wellbeing

This is why corporate initiatives such as mission, vision, values sometimes

have little impact

• Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). ‘A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behaviour in Uncertain and Independent Contexts’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 327-347.• Cotton, P. & Hart, P. (2011). ‘Positive Psychology in the Workplace’, Australian Psychological Society, 33(2).• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). ‘Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279.

Drivers of safety climate

• A key driver of safety climate is the general climate of interactions within teams and the organisation (e.g. Bjerkan, 2010)

• The quality of the general climate in an organisation is a cause of safety climate

• A happier and more positive work environment will mean a safer work environment

• A positive work environment causes higher levels of discretionary effort – people do things above and beyond what is necessary for them to retain their jobs.

Bjerkan 2010

• Anne Mette Bjerkan conducted a large cross-sectional survey amongst employees in the Norwegian offshore oil and gas industry, published in Journal of Risk Research

• The study concluded that the work group (team level) is crucial for understanding work safety climate, the perception of the work environment on subjective health status, as well as accident frequency

• The results also suggest that OHS interventions should be targeted towards the work group level, in addition to the organisation as a whole.

How the brain responds to events

• It is helpful to identify two main subsystems in the brain:

Old Brain- approximates the “old” part of the brain

The New Brain• Affiliation, generosity, goodwill• Reflective• Options considered• Imaginative/creative• Higher order learning• Slow/resource intensive• Manages impulsive desires• Labels emotional states• Not ‘fully functional’ until

adulthood• Seat of optimism

The Old Brain• Focused on self• Sensitive to threat• Comfortable, auto pilot, or• Fight or Flight• Resistant to change• Low order learning only• Fast/efficient/instinctive• Engages impulsive desires• Anger/fear/depression• Highly developed at birth• Seat of pessimism

Energy use is more or less fixed – plus or minus 1 %. If you are in one Zone you are not in the other

Foundations of Cultural Vitality

Esteem – valuing, recognising, supporting

Alignment – outcomes focus, cascading of strategic intent, clarity about acceptable behaviours, performance development

Belonging – team inclusion and cohesion, collaborative decision making, justice

Growth – job satisfaction, learning by doing

“New Brain” emotional toneOptimism, positivity, future focus

What are we aiming for?

• Many safety efforts focus on avoidance – of risk, of injury, of lost time – old brain message

• Is avoidance of something as motivational as pursuit of a positive goal? – perhaps not

• This is why we see in some organisations a pursuit of wellbeing as a stated objective

• Do we want to get from minus 30 to zero, or from minus 30 to plus 30? A positive psychology perspective.

Relationship between positive emotions and stress

prod

uctiv

ity

prod

uctiv

ity

Positive emotions Stress

Outcomes – research suggests that better wellbeing delivers:

• Internal: – Lower staff turnover and higher retention.– Better OH&S outcomes.– Lower absenteeism.– Higher levels of discretionary effort – staff willingly

doing more than is necessary for them to retain their jobs.

– Therefore higher rates of productivity.– Higher levels of evidence of harmony and absence of

negative behaviours – bullying, harassment, etc.

Manion, Jo. (2005) ‘The Business Case for Happiness’. Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4102/is_200511/ai_n15744775

Lucas, R.E. & Diener, E. (2004). ‘Well-Being’, Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, 3, 669-676

Outcomes – research suggests that better wellbeing delivers:

• External: – Higher levels of independent measures of

stakeholder, customer, or client satisfaction.– Higher levels of effective advocacy on behalf

of the organisation.– Higher levels of growth, profit, budget

achievement and other financial outcomes in relevant entities.

Manion, Jo. (2005) ‘The Business Case for Happiness’. Retrieved May, 16, 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4102/is_200511/ai_n15744775

Wellbeing at work has two key causes

• The environment in which the person lives and works.

• The psychological makeup of the individual.

Can personality predict safety behaviours in

the workplace?

Australian study:

• N = 2049 – big enough to form a normative sample

• 1120 male participants• 929 female participants• Average age of participants = 43 years• Average time to complete = 50 minutes• Candidates on our employee database• Questions relating to the 10 areas of CWB and

the personality dimensions as assessed by HEXACO personality inventory.

Lee and Ashton’s HEXACO

3: Extraversion

• Social Self-Esteem

• Social Boldness

• Sociability

• Liveliness

4: Agreeableness

• Forgiveness

• Gentleness

• Flexibility

• Patience

1: Honesty-Humility

• Sincerity

• Fairness

• Greed Avoidance

• Modesty

2: Emotionality

• Fearfulness

• Anxiety

• Dependence

• Sentimentality

5: Conscientiousness

• Organization

• Diligence

• Perfectionism

• Prudence

7: (Interstitial scale)

• Altruism

Recent research into CWBs – employees or employer………

• 10 areas of CWBs turn out to be very common:1. Lateness – unpunctuality

2. Not attending work when not too sick to do so

3. Inability to get on with others

4. Being distracted from core work tasks

5. Incivility – intentional impoliteness or disrespect to others

6. Theft of organisation property

7. Ignoring OHS policies and practices

8. Being openly critical of the employer

9. Ignoring broader work policies or practices

10. Incivility - ignoring or snubbing other employees

Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 11(1), 0-42

I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and Safety rules at work

Extremely frequently Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.4%1.7

19.2

46.3

32.3

Percentage

N= 2049

Percentage 0.4% 1.7% 19.2% 46.3% 32.3%

Cumulative percentage 0.4% 2.1% 21.4% 67.7% 100%

Personality predicting OHS-related CWBs

(HH) Sincerity(HH) Fairness(HH) Greed-Avoidance (HH) Modesty(EMO) Fearfulness(EMO) Anxiety(EMO) Dependence(EMO) Sentimentality(EX) Social Self-Esteem(EX) Social Boldness(EX) Sociability(EX) Liveliness(A) Forgiveness(A) Gentleness(A) Flexibility (A) Patience(C) Organisation(C) Diligence(C) Perfectionism(C) Prudence(O) Aesthetic Appreciation(O) Inquisitiveness(O) Creativity(O) UnconventionalityAltruism

Best predictors of OHS CWB Beta weights

(HH) Fairness -0.201

(C) Prudence -0.197

(EMO) Fearfulness -0.128

(C) Organisation -0.107

I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and

Safety rules at work

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .491a .241 .232 .688

Ability of CWBs to predict OHS-related CWBs

Best predictors of OHS CWB Beta weights

Respect for Work Policies CWB 0.276

Have taken Company Property CWB 0.230

I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and

Safety rules at work

Model Summary(CWB1) I am late for appointments

(CWB2) When I have been ill but not so ill I could attend work I have taken a sick day

(CWB3) I have left jobs in the past because I could not get on with someone I worked with

(CWB4) When I am at work I have found myself distracted by activities such as conversations

(CWB5) I have found it necessary to be impolite to others at work

(CWB6) I have taken the property of organisations I have worked for

(CWB8) I have been critical of organisations I worked for to others

(CWB9) I have ignored or got around policies at work which I did not respect

(CWB10) If I don’t like someone at work I ignored or snubbed them

OHS compliance - differences between males and females

* Statistically significant difference p<.05

Male = 1120

Female = 929

CWB I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and Safety1.84

1.86

1.88

1.9

1.92

1.94

1.96

MaleFemale

Counterproductive Workplace BehavioursI have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and Safety – Gender Differences

Male Female

R2 .225 R2 .285

Adjusted R2 .207 Adjusted R2 .265

Facet Beta Weights: Facet Beta Weights:

• (HH) Fairness -.224 • (C) Prudence -.231

• (C) Prudence -.171 • (HH) Fairness -.188

• (C) Organisation -.113 • (EMO) Fearfulness -.149

• (A) Flexibility -.117

• (A) Patience .120

• (EX) Social Self Esteem .106

• (C) Organisation -.102

Counterproductive Workplace Behaviours I have ignored or not followed safety or Occupational Health and Safety – Age and Gender Differences

30 years or younger 31 -40 years 41 -50 years 51 years or older1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

1.9

1.95

2

2.05

2.1

Male

Female

Male = 1120

Female = 929

Optimising safety at work

Change champions – preferably elected by colleagues

Exec

Middle Management

Staff

A destination-based approach

• This is a “destination based change” approach to safety, requiring preconditions such as a belief in the value of empowerment and engagement, a belief that safety is not a specialist function to be left to specialist organisation officers and finally, commitment of time and resources to what is a highly decentralised and empowered approach.

SACS Model of Destination Based Change

NB: default state is flatline, in absence of confident forecasts

The Environment The Environment

Time Horizon – eg 2 years

ENABLERS – Process and Culture (including Leadership)

CurrentState

FutureStatePeople

Plan 1PeoplePlan 2

An action learning approach to safety….

• Goal – let’s identify what it would be like for this work group to be optimum in terms of wellbeing

• Reality – where are we now, where 10 is perfect and zero means we are nowhere near this ideal

• Options – what options do we have in order to optimise our wellbeing in this work group?

• What next – Let’s make a plan to get from where we are now to where we want to be.

Preconditions for destination based approach to safety

• A belief in the value of empowerment and engagement. This is the opposite of a top down approach. It is really a top down, bottom up and inside out approach with each work group required and empowered to develop its own safety optimisation plan and enact it. The acceptability of such an approach will be determined by the leadership beliefs of each organisation.

• A belief that safety is not a specialist function. Safety is sometimes seen as a separate function – perhaps like audit. For any organisational function to be optimum the commitment and action of each leader and each staff member must be both empowered and required. In this context safety officers take a facilitation role – providing resources and support for each work group to ensure that they have and achieve their plan.

• Commitment. Such an approach takes time and therefore money. This will be determined by a cost benefit analysis of the benefit of optimum safety.

Key points for optimising safety at

work

1. Higher wellbeing = safer organisation

Safety climate is strongly caused by general organisation climate. An engaged, committed organisation is a safer organisation.

1a – Hire good people

• Intelligent• Trustworthy – less CWBs and higher integrity• Stable, positive personality – fair minded,

organised and prudent.

1b – Effective leadership

Esteem – valuing, recognising, supporting

Alignment – outcomes focus, cascading of strategic intent, clarity about acceptable behaviours, performance development

Belonging – team inclusion and cohesion, collaborative decision making, justice

Growth – job satisfaction, learning by doing

“New Brain” emotional toneOptimism, positivity, future focus

2. Close is better

Close is better, which is why high level messages from senior people or OH&S specialists can be less successful.

Ensure that key messages are delivered by people who are close to the recipients.

E.g., If you seek to influence policy makers, find message sources who are close to them.

For groups of workers, facilitate a self managed workplace improvement process which will occur in each team.

Employees live in three “worlds”

My job

My team

My organisation

Above the line is between 70 and 85% of employee engagement

and wellbeing

This is why corporate initiatives such as mission, vision, values sometimes

have little impact

• Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). ‘A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behaviour in Uncertain and Independent Contexts’, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 327-347.• Cotton, P. & Hart, P. (2011). ‘Positive Psychology in the Workplace’, Australian Psychological Society, 33(2).• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). ‘Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279.

3. “Doing” causes change • The more active and involving we can make

change efforts the more likely people will change.

• At the work group level this is why self generated action learning programmes are most effective.

• The role of the organisation is to facilitate and support these programmes and to hold work groups accountable to participate in them for the sake of safety.

4. New brain messages versus old brain messages

• Old brain, fear based messages can work, but tend to lose their effectiveness quickly

• Differential impact for different groups – eg gender

• The most enduring messages are “let’s define where we want to be in respect of wellbeing, and let’s get there.

5. Influence decision makers

• Seek to influence decision makers – business leaders, policy professionals – with evidence which demonstrates benefits in terms of human wellbeing and commercial return.

References

• Bjerkan, A. M. (2010). Health, Environment, Safety Culture and Climate – Analysing the Relationships to Occupational Accidents, Journal of Risk Research, 13(4): 445-477.

• Brown, K.A., Willis, P.G., & Prussia, G.E. (2000). Predicting Safe Employee Behavior in the Steel Industry: Development and Test of a Sociotechnical Model, Journal of Operations Management, 18: 445-465.

• Cheyne, 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.

• DeJoy, D. M., Schaffer, B. S., Wilson, M. G., Vandenberg, R. J., & Butts, M. M. (2004). Creating Safer Workplaces: Assessing the Determinants and Role of Safety Climate, Journal of Safety Research, 35: 81-90.

• Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A New Model of Work Role Performance: Positive Behaviour in Uncertain and Independent Contexts, Academy of Management Journal, 50(2): 327-347.

• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationship Between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2): 268-279.

• MacLean, P.D. (2002) The Brain’s Generation Gap, The Social Contract, 12(3) http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1203/article_1072.shtml (retrieved 24.04.11)

• National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA). (2009). National Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities Agenda for Occupational Safety and Health Research and Practice in the U.S. Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities (TWU) sector. Author: Washington, DC, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nora/comment/agendas/transwareutil/pdfs/TransWareUtilAug2009.pdf (retrieved 09.01.09).

• Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., Hart, P. M. (2000). The Impact of Organizational Climate on Safety Climate and Individual Behaviour, Safety Science, 34: 99-109.

• Rock, D. & Schwartz, J. (2006). The Neuroscience of Leadership. Author: Strategy + Business Issue http://www.strategy-business.com/press/freearticle/06207 , (retrieved 19.08.09).

• Shannon, H.S., Robson, L. S., & Sale, J. E. (2001). Creating Safer and Healthier Workplaces: Role of Organizational Factors and Job Characteristics. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 40: 319–34.

• Wood, W. (2000). Attitude Change: Persuasion and Social Influence, Annual Review Psychology, 51: 539-570.

For further information please contact Andrew Marty, Managing Director of SACS Consulting on +613 8622 8508 or andrewm@sacsconsult.com.au