Motivation Attitude Perceptions and Skills Pathways to Safe Work

8/10/2019 Motivation Attitude Perceptions and Skills Pathways to Safe Work

1/69


2/69


3/69

Motivations, Attitudes, Perceptions, and Skills:Pathways to Safe Work

Valerie BraithwaiteRegulatory Institutions NetworkAustralian National University

Report prepared for Safe Work Australia.


4/69

Disclaimer

The inforation provided in this do!uent !an only assist you in the ost generalway. This do!uent does not repla!e any statutory re"uireents under any relevantState and Territory legislation. Safe Work Australia is not lia#le for any loss resultingfro any a!tion taken or relian!e ade #y you on the inforation or aterial!ontained on this do!uent. Before relying on the aterial$ users should !arefullyake their own assessent as to its a!!ura!y$ !urren!y$ !opleteness andrelevan!e for their purposes$ and should o#tain any appropriate professional advi!erelevant to their parti!ular !ir!ustan!es. The views in this report should not #etaken to represent the views of Safe Work Australia unless otherwise e%pressly

stated.&

Creative Commons

ISBN '()*+*,-*//0'-*, 1234 online5ISBN '()*+*,-*//0'6*/ 1RT4 online5

With the e%!eption of the Safe Work Australia logo$ this report is li!ensed #y Safe Work

Australia under a 7reative 7oons /.+ Australia 8i!en!e. To view a !opy of this li!en!e$

visit http9::!reative!oons.org:li!enses:#y:/.+:au:deed.en

In essen!e$ you are free to !opy$ !ouni!ate and adapt the work$ as long as you

attri#ute the work to Valerie Braithwaite and a#ide #y the other li!ensing ters. Thereport should #e attri#uted as the Motivation, Attitudes, Perceptions and Skills:

Pathways to Safe Work.

;n"uiries regarding the li!en!e and any use of the report are wel!oe at9

7opyright anageent

Safe Work Australia

?2< Bo% ,-0 7an#erra A7T ,+0

;ail9 !opyrightre"[email protected] v .au

i
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/


5/69

Contents

Executive Summaryiv

!ntroduction"

Public interest in safe workplaces through regulation..........................................0Why does cooperation falter: no benefit, injustice and loss of freedo................./When interventions fail: cople!ity, uncertainty and insufficient huan capital.....-"utline of report................................................................................................,#aveats in this study of regulating to change behaviour......................................(

" Approaches to explainin# safe and unsafe work $ehaviours%

Why it is not enough to ake law, educate, onitor and enforce........................0+$nderstanding workplace behaviour: educate and persuade for change.............00Managing onitoring and enforceent: rationalising and using pro!ies..............0/Strengths%based regulation.............................................................................0,Strategising on a regulatory approach: &ro sart to responsive regulation.......0(

& A composite model to frame analyses of safe work $ehaviours"'

( )he Motivations, Attitudes, Perceptions and Skills *MAPS+ Survey&(

Method of data collection................................................................................/'reakdown of respondents in ters of sapling frae......................................-Who participated(...........................................................................................,Survey )uestions............................................................................................,*ow did respondents score on the outcoes of a workplace operating with best

practice standards and individuals feeling capable and responsible for safety(...(Safe practice routines in the workplace............................................................(

Safety self%anageent.................................................................................)+oes leadership predict safe practice routines and safety self%anageent(...../+A non%causal test of *ypotheses and -........................................................../0+o opportunities to discuss and learn predict safe practice routines and safety self%

anageent(................................................................................................//A non%causal test of *ypotheses and /........................................................../6+o the actions of the regulatory authority predict safe practice routines and safety

self%anageent(........................................................................................../,+oes the individual0s priority on safety predict safe practice routines and safety

self%anageent(..........................................................................................-/A non%causal test of *ypothesis 1....................................................................--

Modellin# pathways to safe practice routines and safety self-mana#ement.

Approach and statistical procedure..................................................................-6Pathways to copliance through disissive defiance.......................................-)Pathways to copliance through disregard for safety........................................6+2ariations across social%deographic groups...................................................60

. !mplications for re#ulatory practice and policy.&

Suary of ain findings...............................................................................63plications of findings....................................................................................6/Ways forward(...............................................................................................66

/eferences .'

ii


6/69

iii


7/69

Executive Summary

The e%pe!tations that the pu#li! have of governent in relation to workpla!e safety

are of two kinds. The pu#li! e%pe!ts that governent will intervene when there is

eviden!e of har #eing done to workers and their !ounities. The pu#li! also

e%pe!ts governent to prevent har #y pre*epting and safeguarding against newly

eerging risk.

In order to eet pu#li! e%pe!tations to #oth fi% pro#les and pre*ept risks$ work

health and safety regulators ust rely on !ooperation fro those #eing regulated and

others in the regulatory !ounity.


8/69

ipossi#le to #e non*!opliant through !lever Co# design. All are needed to !reate

safe workpla!es.

These propositions$ derived fro the literature$ were e%ained using (, working

Australians who$ through a telephone survey$ shared their work e%perien!es their

attitudes to safety and to their #osses$ their per!eptions of their workpla!e$ their

views a#out regulatory authorities and their otivation to take safety issues seriously.

Broadly speaking$ the findings were !onsistent with these propositions. At the sae

tie$ the findings e%tended knowledge of the dynai!s that underlie !ooperation and

progress on work health and safety.

The data supported the iportan!e of the following in se!uring workpla!e safety9 DaE

leadership where anagers value safety for its own sakeF D#E responsive dialogue

where !ouni!ation a!ross levels of the organisation leads to identifying pro#les

and fi%ing theF D!E parti!ipatory stru!tures where foral avenues are in pla!e within

an organisation to ensure that safety issues are not overlooked and workers voi!es

are heardF DdE presen!e and fairness of work safety authorities to ensure that

governent is seen to #e doing its Co# and is respe!ted and trustedF and finally DeE an

appre!iation aong individuals of safety issues and adoption of a personal priority for

safety that is developed and nurtured within the work !onte%t.

These fa!tors are ipli!ated #oth in the DaE institutionalisation of safe work routines

and in D#E individuals developing the !apa!ity to self*anage their safety and that of

others. They do so to different degrees$ however. Gaving parti!ipatory stru!tures is

ost iportant for safe work routines. 2arti!ipatory stru!tures regulate workpla!es

through saying Hthese things ust #e done as a eans to ensuring safety. Gaving

parti!ipatory stru!tures and responsive dialogue akes safe pra!ti!e happen in a

!onsistent way. Responsive dialogue$ on the other hand$ is the ain driver of the

!apa!ity to self*anage safety issues. Talking over safety !on!erns$ telling stories

and Coint pro#le solving help individuals internalise and understand safety issues$develop !onfiden!e in anaging risks and ultiately e#ra!e a safety

!ons!iousness.

Both routines and self*anageent are iportant to developing safe workpla!e

!ulture. Institutionalised pro!edures allow workers to fun!tion safely under noral

!onditions when they !an operate on autoati! pilot. This does not help when

routines !hange or disruption of une%pe!ted kinds o!!urs$ su!h as a!hinery

#reaking down. 7apa!ity to self*anage is needed in su!h situations.

v


9/69


10/69

!ntroduction

?overnents use legislation to regulate workpla!es and pra!ti!es. 8egislation akes

deands on owners$ anagers$ supervisors$ workers$ !ontra!tors and suppliers to adopt

standards that ensure a healthy and safe workpla!e. It also akes deands on inspe!tors

and regulatory agen!ies to ake sure standards are et in a!!ordan!e with the law. The

standards ay #e spe!ifi! and pres!riptive or they ay #e #road and generalF they ay

#e pro!ess oriented or out!oe orientedF they ay set targets for a!!epta#le perforan!e

or they ay re"uire an organisational strategy for !ontinuous iproveent tailored to the

work !onte%t DBluff$ ?unningha and Lohnstone ++-E. The regulatory task is su#stantial$

ade ore !hallenging over the past two de!ades #y rapid e%pansion of sall and i!ro

#usinesses and hoe*#ased work that need regulatory assistan!e or attention DBluff++6E.

Public interest in safe workplaces through regulation

While the task ay #e !hallenging$ regulating for safe workpla!es is a responsi#ility that

the pu#li! pla!es s"uarely at the feet of governent$ as eviden!ed #y the pu#li! out!ry

that routinely a!!opanies workpla!e a!!idents and e%posures to haMards Dfor e%aple$

see response to as#estos e%posure0E. The e%pe!tations that the pu#li! have of

governent in relation to workpla!e safety are of two kinds. The pu#li! e%pe!ts that

governent will intervene when there is eviden!e of har #eing done to workers and their

!ounities. The pu#li! also e%pe!ts governent to prevent har #y pre*epting and

safeguarding against newly eerging risks.

The reasons why governent is e%pe!ted to fill these roles are worth e%ploring #riefly if

we are to understand fully the deands of the regulatory task. 4irst$ the safety and well*

#eing of workers$ their failies and !ounities !an #e Ceopardised in pursuit of

e!onoi! growth and developent. 2rofit$ produ!tion and perforan!e targets are known

to have overshadowed due diligen!e in taking !are of people in work settings DAustralian

e%aples in!lude the Westgate Bridge !ollapseand the 8ongford gas e%plosion/E.

?overnent regulators are !onsidered ne!essary to prote!t work health and safety in

su!h !ir!ustan!es. Uns!rupulous eployers ay #e part of this story D=agan and

S!holM 0')-E. Argua#ly a ore !oon reason for negle!ting safety is that in any sphere

1As#estos is asso!iated with the illness and deaths of thousands of workers Dsee

http9::www.#enhills.!o:#ooks:#lue>urder:inde%.htl$ http9::www.aph.gov.au:li#rary:pu#s:rn:++-*+6:+6rn0.ht$ http9::www.history!ooperative.org:Cournals:la#:':!!ullo!h.htlhttp9::www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au:AB


11/69

of huan enterprise involving goal*dire!tedness and !opetitiveness$ it is possi#le to

overlook or sideline what see to #e peripheral issues Dfor e%aple$ see repetitive strain

inCury literatureE. ;ven when #est pra!ti!e is known in theory$ it ay not #e pra!ti!ed.

urphy and

Reinhart ++(E.

The se!ond #asis of support for governent regulatory !apa!ity is early identifi!ation of

new hars. The pu#li! e%pe!t governent to have the !apa!ity to provide an early

warning syste when dangers eerge in workpla!es. Through engaging in work$ #eing a

#readwinner$ and !ontri#uting to the e!onoy$ individuals and the enterprises to whi!h

they #elong !an unknowingly #e doing daage to theselves and those living in their

surrounds. 4or e%aple$ the use of as#estos or of lead in produ!ts illustrates how new

te!hnologies need to #e onitored for long*ter effe!ts on workers. Their daage is not

always o#vious nor is it ne!essarily iediate.

In su!h !ir!ustan!es$ governents are e%pe!ted to #e vigilant and diligent in assessing

risks and taking pre*eptive a!tion to liit har to individuals and !ounities. They are

e%pe!ted to #e a!tively s!anning work environents$ advising governent of their

findings$ and pushing for !hange to prote!t people e%posed to potential work*#ased

hars. ?overnent is !harged with seeing the #ig pi!ture that is #eyond the s!ope of

individuals and entities !arving out a ni!he to ake a living.

It is unreasona#le to e%pe!t a single regulatory agen!y to #e suffi!iently well e"uipped to

anti!ipate all workpla!e hars. The task re"uires #ringing together resour!es and various

nodes of e%pertise fro resear!h to pra!ti!e$ fro a physi!al$ #iologi!al and so!ial s!ien!e

2


12/69

knowledge #ase. 7ooperation #etween regulatory agen!ies$ other #ran!hes of

governent$ the private se!tor$ non*governent organisations and the !ounity are

ne!essary in order to realise the o#Ce!tive of pre*epting safety risks in the workpla!e.

Upon !onsidering pu#li! e%pe!tations that the regulatory agen!y will #oth fi% pro#les and

pre*ept risks$ it is apparent that work health and safety offi!ers !annot a!hieve their

o#Ce!tives through doing it alone. In the first pla!e$ the solutions are not !opletely under

the regulators !ontrol. Gow workpla!es fun!tion #est and what individuals should or will

do in those workpla!es are deterined not only #y legal re"uireents #ut also #y

!oer!ial$ e!onoi!$ so!ial$ and psy!hologi!al fa!tors outside the dire!t !ontrol of

governent. Se!ond$ work health and safety regulators ust rely on !ooperation fro

those #eing regulated and others in the regulatory !ounity to not only indire!tly shape

work #ehaviour$ #ut also to gain understanding of the working environent and the risks itposes. Where there is unwillingness to !ooperate or listen or heed advi!e$ the task of

effe!ting !hange in workpla!e pra!ti!es #e!oes tie !onsuing and !ostly.

Iproving the safety of workpla!es and early risk identifi!ation #e!oe even ore diffi!ult

if failure to !ooperate #e!oes endei!. 2ro#les that !ould have #een pre*epted sit in

the too hard #asket until a disaster o!!urs or adverse pu#li!ity for!es !olla#oration and a

response. When those #eing regulated refuse to !ooperate on a large s!ale$ another

pro#le eerges. Regulators fa!e enfor!eent swaping they do not have the

resour!es to regulate their non*!opliers. 7osts of enfor!eent outstrip availa#le

resour!es and again regulatory agen!ies !oe under atta!k for failure to eet pu#li!

e%pe!tations.

Why does cooperation falter: no benefit, injustice and loss of freedo

7ooperation in providing safety at work is in the interests of #oth governent regulators

and the pu#li!. Jet it is not un!oon for spe!ifi! a!tions$ purportedly taken in the interest

of work safety$ to push the relationship #etween regulator and the regulated into !onfli!t.

Risks of adversarialis in regulatory interventions in!rease as the #enefits and Custi!e of

the intervention are #rought into "uestion DBraithwaite ++'aE. Interventions are supposed

to ake things #etter on the key out!oes of safer workpla!es and pre*epting risk. If a

large enough segent of the population does not see #enefits not ne!essarily for

theselves #ut for their industry ore #roadly$ !riti!iss are likely over the regulator

la!king sound purpose. ;ven if the purpose is sound$ interventions ipleented without

due !onsideration of fairness risk a loss of reputation for the regulatory agen!y. The

!ontrol of the ar#itrary use of power is !entral to the idea of rule of law$ espe!ially a !ivi!

repu#li!an view of law DL Braithwaite and 2ettit 0''+F 8iston +0+F 2ettit 0''(E. When a

regulatory agen!y uses its power to target entities or individuals without a!!epta#le

Custifi!ation$ pu#li! !on!ern turns fro soundness of purpose to Custi!e and due pro!ess.

3


13/69

3ou#ts a#out #enefits and Custi!e underine !ooperation at a nu#er of levels. >ost

seriously$ su!h dou#ts raise !on!erns over the legitia!y of the authority DTyler 0''(E$ and

as a result$ freedo fro interferen!e is fier!ely prote!ted and disissive defian!e sets in

DBraithwaite ++'#E. 3isissive defian!e or disissiveness is a posture that is displayed

toward regulatory authorities that have lost the respe!t of the pu#li!. The re"uests of

authority for !oplian!e are likely to #e !opletely ignored #y those adopting a disissive

posture. Should the regulator #e !hallenged rather than ignored$ a gae playing ode

#e!oes the fa!e of disissiveness. The o#Ce!tive #e!oes one of finding pathways

around the law finding the weaknesses$ e%ploiting loopholes$ and reCe!ting the prin!iples

that underpin law and give it eaning. Regulatory interventions ay have little su!!ess in

reining in disissiveness DBraithwaite ++'#F Braithwaite$ Braithwaite$ ?i#son and >akkai

0''-E.

At a less serious level are dou#ts a#out #enefits and Custi!e that are fuelled #y

isunderstanding and different perspe!tives on how a parti!ular pro#le should #e

resolved. A !ople% pro#le$ a#iguous legal re"uireents$ or legal re"uireents that

do not fit a parti!ular !onte%t give rise to grievan!e. Those #eing regulated dont want to

disantle or !rush the authority$ they Cust want to !onvin!e the authority to !hange its

ways DBraithwaite ++'#E. As a result$ regulatory authorities are viewed as trou#le and

kept at ars length. And interventions$ no atter how well forulated$ are resisted #y

those they are designed to help.

When interventions fail: cople!ity, uncertainty and insufficient huan capital

Interventions will range fro those relating to the physi!al !hara!teristi!s of a work

environent$ through those relating to pro!edures for handling dangerous su#stan!es or

redu!ing the risk of error$ through to iparting a duty of !are and know*how into a

workgroup.


14/69

one of ensuring !ertain a!tions are routinised people dont need to de!ide what they do

ne%t$ they autoati!ally follow their s!ript or Hto*do list$ and !he!ks and #alan!es are

introdu!ed into the syste to dete!t failure to a#ide #y these proto!ols Dsee Geier and

Staffans D0'')E des!ription of hospital routineE. But then again$ routines are not always

the answer to a safety s!areF and to ipose #etter routines in a work setting !an s"uash

the refle!tion and insight that ay #e ne!essary to avert serious har. Soeties the

desired pro!esses involve a deeper understanding of the safety issues and the systei!

!auses of possi#le disasters. This is parti!ularly so when dealing with !ople% systes

and events that are out of the ordinary. Reess D0''-E study of safety in operating nu!lear

power plants highlighted the iportan!e of staff understanding the dangers of a nu!lear

rea!tor and #earing professional responsi#ility for onitoring and thinking a#out what

needs to #e done to anage ever*present risk.

3esign of physi!al spa!e and the introdu!tion of standard work pro!edures are not always

straightforward interventions that solve safety pro#les. Their effe!tiveness depends on

understanding the work !onte%t. And those who are ost a#le to provide inforation

a#out the !onte%t and are in the #est position to suggest adCustents to suit the !onte%t

are workers$ anagers and industry e%perts. When their input is not sought$ resistan!e to$

rather than !ooperation with regulatory intervention !an #e e%pe!ted.

The role of workers$ anagers and industry e%perts is not restri!ted to their o#servations

of what works and what does not. Their !apa#ilities and attitudes will vary fro one

!onte%t to another. Safety does not Cust depend on design and pro!edures$ #ut on how

those working in the industry !hoose to engage with design and pro!edures. Workers and

anagers alike are re"uired to #e knowledgea#le$ diligent and dutiful with regard to

!orre!t pro!edures and o#servant of safety risks$ with willingness and !apa!ity to a!t to

!orre!t potential or a!tual har. If they dont #ring su!h huan !apital with the to their

work situation$ design and pro!edure will invaria#ly fall short in ensuring work safety.

Work health and safety regulators therefore have an unenvia#le task. They are re"uired toipleent the law$ #ut what is #est within the law is highly dependent on !onte%tual

fa!tors. Regulators need to understand and #e responsive to these fa!tors$ #e they

e!onoi!$ industry*related$ !oer!ial$ so!ial or psy!hologi!al.-In order to do so

regulators ust seek !ooperation and insight fro those they are regulating. >oreover$

they ust do so in !ir!ustan!es where those #eing regulated know that the regulator is

trying to !hange their #ehaviour to iprove !oplian!e standards and !an use authority to

threaten their freedo. It is not surprising that it is soeties a !hallenge for regulatory

agen!ies to regulate. Ultiately$ to #e effe!tive$ they have to trans!end the so!ial tensions

4See the BIS;2 odel used #y the Australian Ta%ation


15/69

and power struggles Cust des!ri#ed to #e leaders who are a#le to eli!it !oitent to an

intervention fro those in the workpla!e.

At this point the reader ight say that when !ertain #ehaviour is re"uired #y law people

have to o#ey9 if not$ !oer!ion will #e used to for!e !oplian!e it is a siple dynai!$

that is how the legal syste works. This ay #e so$ #ut o#eying law is unlikely to #e

enough to ensure workpla!e safety and !ertainly does not ne!essarily give rise to

!oitent.


16/69

Se!tion - then turns to e%plaining work safety using two indi!es of safe work pra!ti!es.


17/69

indire!t role or a!t as a !atalyst for other sour!es of influen!e. In other words$ a

governent inspe!tor ay visit a workpla!e and iprove its safety #y o#serving a#sen!e

of guardrails on a!hinery or failure to use safety e"uipent. The inspe!tors greatest

ipa!t on safety$ however$ ay #e "uite different. It ay o!!ur$ not through issuing a

noti!e for non*!oplian!e as iportant as this ay #e$ #ut rather through #eing a#le to

!hange the views of a anager who has #een disissive of work health and safety issues

in the past. The anager ay !hange$ not #e!ause of anything the inspe!tor said or did$

#ut #e!ause the inspe!tor used his:her !apa!ity to !onne!t the anager with siilar #ut

ore su!!essful #usinesses that had su!!essfully redu!ed a!!ident rates. Regulatory

agen!ies often a!hieve their o#Ce!tives through nodes of influen!e that are independent of

governent #ut whi!h are willing to work in partnership with the.

The regulatory spa!e$ therefore$ is not the sole provin!e of the regulator and theregulated. Also in!luded in the spa!e are shareholders$ #oards of anageent$ unions$

failies$ training #odies$ !onsultants$ industry asso!iations$ edia$ lawyers$ insuran!e

!opanies$ s!ientists$ edi!s and therapists of various kinds. Who is ost influential in

any one !ase will depend again on !onte%t. Su!h agents ay a!!elerate !hange in the

interests of safety or #lo!k !hange through ignoran!e or negle!t of safety !on!erns. The

potential influen!e of soe of these sour!es is a!knowledged through the data analysed

in this report. That said the fo!us of this parti!ular study is priarily on workers and

anagers #e!ause they are the survey respondents. The voi!es of other sour!es of

influen!e are therefore pla!ed unavoida#ly in the #a!kground.

8


18/69

" Approaches to explainin# safe and unsafe work $ehaviours

Theoreti!al paradigs for analysing workpla!e #ehaviours are of four aCor kinds. The

first is the foralisti! legal paradig #ased on the assuption that law provides guidan!e

for workers and anagers as to how workpla!es should operate to avoid inCury and har

and that people will o#ey the law if they know what they ust do and are negatively

san!tioned for not !oplying. The foralisti! legal paradig and the enfor!eent odel

that has evolved out of this paradig has #een and reains !riti!ally iportant in

prote!ting populations fro e%ploitation. 8aws and regulations around as#estos use are

designed to ensure safe handling and prote!t the health of the populationF laws and

regulations around gas !on!entration levels in underground ines are designed to avoid

e%plosions$ prote!ting lives and propertyF laws and regulations around the installation of

insulation aterials in roofs are designed to prote!t workers fro ele!tro!ution and

houses fro ele!tri!al fires. 8aws and regulations are iportant for identifying potential

hars and flagging the o#ligation that others in the !ounity have to take a!tion to

prevent su!h hars fro o!!urring. The o#ligation is underlined #y the states !oer!ive

powers to san!tion non*!oplian!e.

In the !oplian!e pro!ess$ the state a!!epts two further responsi#ilities. The first is to

edu!ate the pu#li! as to what the regulation eansF people !ant #e e%pe!ted to !oply if

they dont know or dont understand what they should #e doing. The se!ond is to onitor

the pu#li! to ensure laws are followed. These three steps to ake law$ to edu!ate on the

eaning of the law$ and to onitor and enfor!e !oplian!e with the law give rise to a

rudientary regulatory syste. The pro#le is that in and of theselves these eleents

are unlikely to #e suffi!ient to generate !oplian!e at a level that is a!!epta#le to

!ounities and governents.

What is issing fro the traditional legal paradig is that soeties people dont want to

or are una#le to do what authority wants. And soeties they resist authority siply

#e!ause they dont like authority intruding on their freedo. This is why other paradigs

for developing safe and healthy work pra!ti!es have !oe into #eing the rational !ost*

#enefit paradig that stresses that the #enefits of safe work #ehaviours should outweigh

!osts$ so!ial group paradigs that !ultivate safety !liates and !ultures so that what

authority is asking is in line with e%isting group nors and pra!ti!es$ and psy!hologi!al

paradigs that !on!entrate on individuals internalising safe work #ehaviours through

an!horing the in their #elief*attitude*value systes or identifying with authority figures

who engage in safe work pra!ti!es. These paradigs have #rought a#out shifts in how weight think a#out safer work pra!ti!es. Before fo!using on these developents$ the

9


19/69

reasons why aking law$ edu!ating$ onitoring and enfor!ing !oplian!e are insuffi!ient

regulatory interventions will #e #riefly dis!ussed.

Why it is not enough to ake law, educate, onitor and enforce

8aw does not !over all the !ontingen!ies that are relevant to the !ounitys

understanding of how to ake a workpla!e safe. ;ven with soething as #road as Hduty

of !are in legislation$ there is no guarantee that regulators and the regulated !ounity

will share the sae understanding$ even less so in workpla!es with rapidly !hanging

environents. There will #e aspe!ts of work that are dangerous #ut not re!ognised as

su!h #y authorities. It is not unheard of in areas where pu#li! !on!ern for an issue is

alost universal Dfor e%aple$ that workers are entitled to feel safeE for #est pra!ti!e to #e

ahead of legislation and the priorities of authorities. In these situations$ the gap #etween

leaders and laggards D?unningha and Sin!lair ++E !an #e great. 8earning

organisations DReason 0''(E are doing their own risk resear!h$ onitoring !auses of risk

and introdu!ing solutions to the pro#les they identify regardless of what the regulatory

agen!y will #e deanding. Innovation shows what works. 8aw ay then #e introdu!ed to

#ring all workpla!es up to the new safety standards. In su!h situations$ law ay serve as

affiration for the organisations that have led the way. Sart regulation will ensure that

the legal fraing and ipleentation ii!s the #est pra!ti!es of leaders in order to

!apitalise on progress already underway. Spe!ial provision ay need to #e ade$ of

!ourse$ to raise the standards of laggards.

8aw fa!es further diffi!ulties as a e!hanis for aking workpla!es safer when easures

to dete!t and lift the perforan!e of laggards inadvertently interfere with the a!tivities of

leaders. 8aw !an !ause offen!e to leaders$ iposing additional !osts on the through

disissing their progressive easures and destroying their otivation to pursue the

desira#le !hanges that have already #een ade. 8aw ay #e resisted #y laggards who

are siply unwilling and:or una#le to iprove their safety perforan!e. In other words$ law

ay fail with #oth groups for entirely different reasons. 8aw ay ro# leaders of their senseof responsi#ility to go #eyond what is legally re"uired in the interests of safety. It ay also

fail to transfer responsi#ility to laggards who instead adopt a inialist posture with the

regulator.

Lust as law does not always have the desired effe!t of lifting safety standards$ it is not

always a siple atter for a regulatory agen!y to edu!ate the pu#li! to se!ure

!oplian!e. Agen!ies with this o#Ce!tive !onfront the age*old "uandary that what we are

told is not ne!essarily what we hear$ and ore iportantly$ what we ree#er$

understand and a!t upon. 4or an edu!ational o#Ce!tive to #e a!!oplished$ the essage

ust #e presented in a way that is a!!essi#le and !learly a!tiona#le. >oreover$ those

e%pe!ted to listen to the essage ust #e in a state of responsiveness that is$ they

10


20/69

ust #e ready to a!tively interpret the essage in the way intended$ ree#er it and

pra!ti!e it. 4undaentally$ they ust #elieve the essage is relevant to the. Be!ause it

!oes fro an authority does not ean ne!essarily that the essage is !redi#le or that

people #elieve the essage is #eing delivered with their #est interests in ind. >istrust of

authorities$ suspi!ion of #ig #usiness and !orporate #osses$ and general alienation fro

those who Krun things ay lead soe to spurn essages of safety #efore giving the any

serious analysis.

4inally$ while law invaria#ly has an enfor!eent ar to it$ it is not always so easy to !he!k

on whether laws and regulations are #eing followed or not. There is not always

transparen!y around what is #eing done to ensure safety$ and #uilding systes that

provide a window into a!tivities for ensuring a safe workpla!e !an #e !ostly$ unwieldy and

ay provide a narrow line of sight. Siilarly$ e!haniss for holding people a!!ounta#lefor what they do are not ne!essarily present or availa#le in workpla!es. 7ople%

organisations have any a!tors who !an influen!e how events unfold #y a!tion or ina!tion

without having to own responsi#ility for out!oes DL Braithwaite 0')-F Benson and

Sipson ++'E.

In spite of the diffi!ulties with the foralisti!$ legal paradig$ it reains the doinant way

of thinking for regulatory agen!ies and their staff. >ost effort has #een dire!ted to

re!ognising the weaknesses outlined a#ove and introdu!ing !hanges that ake the

syste work #etter. The !hanges !oales!e around three iportant thees9 DaE

understanding #ehaviour so that the edu!ation phase !an #e e%e!uted ore effe!tivelyF

D#E using onitoring and enfor!eent ore strategi!ally aided #y in!reased transparen!y$

the use of arket e!haniss to !reate in!entives around safety !oplian!e$ and

relian!e on ar!hite!tural regulation to reove possi#ilities for non*!oplian!eF and D!E

inspe!ting work sites with an eye to identifying and re!ognising strengths as well as

weaknesses.

$nderstanding workplace behaviour: educate and persuade for change

In order to #etter understand opportunities for edu!ation and persuasion$ a nu#er of

psy!hologi!al paradigs have earned a pla!e in the regulatory literature. Aong the ost

popular are theories that advan!e the ideal of self*regulation as illustrated #y the theory of

planned #ehaviour DACMen 0')6E and self*regulatory theory D7arver and S!heier 0'')E.

The theory of planned #ehaviour draws attention to the iportan!e of having a positive

attitude to safe workpla!e #ehaviour$ to have !lear intentions to a!t in a parti!ular way that

ensures safety$ to feel !apa#le of doing so Dself*effi!a!yE and !onfident that others are also

#ehaving in that way Dadheren!e to so!ial norsE. Self*regulatory theory !o#ines these

fa!tors with #elief that engaging in !ertain #ehaviour will lead to !ertain out!oes that are

11


21/69

#enefi!ial and that the pathways to a!hieving these out!oes are safe$ supported$ valued

and easily followed.

These odels offer to regulators insight into how to set the psy!hologi!al levers so people

will want to do what the regulator e%pe!ts of the. The regulator anipulates the

psy!hologi!al field of the individual soeties #y aking !hanges to the o#Ce!tive

!onditions$ as when a regulator akes !oplian!e easier$ and soeties through

edu!ating and persuading people to look at things differently. The goal is to eli!it

!oplian!e through !reating !onfiden!e that !ertain #ehaviours !an #e done and

portraying these #ehaviours in a positive light. A !oon thee in adCusting psy!hologi!al

levers is to redu!e transa!tion !osts and generate self*satisfying$ if not rewarding$

e%perien!es. The entality that regulators seek to engender through using this #ody of

resear!h is one that says HI !an$ I will$ I want to do P.

While these odels fo!us on engaging people in !onversations a#out aking it easier and

if possi#le$ ore satisfying to !oply$ so!ial odelling DBandura 0'),E and so!ial identity

approa!hes DTaCfel 0'(); Turner$ Gogg$


22/69


23/69

>onitoring !an take a variety of fors in a regulatory !onte%t. Inspe!tions that !he!k the

safety features of workpla!es are !oonly used #y regulatory agen!ies. Su!h

inspe!tions ay follow a roster of s!heduled visits$ ay #e #ased on risk profiles$ #e

triggered #y in!idents$ or #y !oplaints a#out the safety standards of a workpla!e.

Whatever the #asis$ inspe!tions #y governent agen!ies are resour!e intensive and

agen!ies have looked to devote s!ar!e inspe!tion resour!es to high risk !ases with ore

!ost*effe!tive ways of onitoring #eing used for low risk !ases.

>onitoring #y third parties and in*house onitoring #y spe!ialists is in!reasingly !oon

in any fields of regulation D2arker ++E. Third parties in!lude !onsultants !ontra!ted to

devise a safe workpla!e plan or !ondu!t an audit. Industry asso!iations or trade unions

ay take on a regulatory role in soe instan!es. In*house onitoring is also popular9

Workpla!es deonstrate to regulators that they have put in pla!e easures to identifyrisks and ensure safety. This ay in!lude appointing work safety offi!ers with spe!ial

responsi#ility for ensuring !oplian!e with regulatory standards$ or safety !onsultative

!oittees with union$ eployee and !ounity representation. >onitoring !an also #e

!ondu!ted through !opletion of written reports and do!uentation for regulatory

agen!ies. In soe instan!es$ e%!hanges of paper #etween the regulator and the regulatee

have virtually repla!ed fa!e*to*fa!e intera!tion.

Strategies to ease the onitoring and enfor!eent #urden on regulatory agen!ies have

grown in popularity. In!reased transparen!y regarding the safety perforan!e of

workpla!es ay lead to iproveents through prospe!ts of unleashing fear of

reputational daage$ or shareholder pressure$ or risking higher eployee insuran!e

preius D?unningha 0')-E. >arket e!haniss !an #e introdu!ed to send a signal to

#usiness that !opetitive advantage lies in having a strong safety !ulture D?unningha

0')-E. Insuran!e s!hees to !over work inCury !an provide in!entives for prioritising

health and safety in workpla!es through lowering preius for enterprises with a proven

tra!k re!ord in safety D?unningha 0')-E. ?overnent !ontra!ts !an #e awarded only to

#usinesses that have work and safety a!!reditation. A!!reditation !an lead to redu!ed

reporting re"uireents and allow a #usiness to #e prioritised in the pla!eent of the #est

apprenti!es and the ost talented graduates fro te!hni!al !olleges$ or #e sites for

generously funded training s!hees. 7reating #enefits or #etter still a arket around good

work health and safety pra!ti!e !an steer enterprises that are seeking a !opetitive

advantage toward ainstreaing safety rather than sidelining it.

Te!hnologi!al developents$ spe!ifi!ally new fors of surveillan!e$ have opened

possi#ilities for redu!ing the need for inspe!tors onitoring sites in person$ although thisin itself !an lead to su#terfuge and gae playing DSee L Braithwaite ++' on !auses of the

?lo#al 4inan!ial 7risisE. In potentially dangerous work !onte%ts$ 7TV !aeras re!ord

14


24/69

#ehaviours that !an #e later !he!ked #y staff and regulators alike to systeati!ally review

pro!edures and ensure aintenan!e of #est pra!ti!e. akkai and Braithwaite ++(F Shearing and Stenning 0')-E. By re*designing work tasks$

risk of har is eliinated and onitoring:enfor!ing #e!oes superfluous.

The appeal of transparen!y$ !oplian!e #enefits$ arket regulation and ar!hite!tural

regulation in an era when the !osts of onitoring and enfor!eent are spiralling is

understanda#le. But su!h regulatory hopes depend on those #eing regulated a!!epting

regulatory intent. There is$ for e%aple$ often an assuption that the te!hnologi!al fi% will

reain un!hallenged #y those #eing regulated. 3esign and ar!hite!ture ay prote!t$ #ut

people !an disar su!h safety easures to ake their Co# easier$ effi!ient or perhaps

ore e%!iting and enCoya#le if not "uite so safe. Siilarly$ arket signals !an #e

distorted and gae playing !an strip authenti!ity fro Hreport !ards that are supposed to

refle!t presen!e of a genuine safety !ulture in a workpla!e DBraithwaite$ >akkai and

Braithwaite ++(E. 7ooperation fro the pu#li! in the for of !oitent to fostering safe

workpla!es is ne!essary for the long ter su!!ess of these alternatives to surveillan!e

and enfor!eent involving dire!t !onta!t of regulator with regulatee.

When all else fails$ non*!oplian!e is et with punishent or deterren!e. Regulators hold

responsi#ility for enfor!ing the law through !oer!ive easures if ne!essary. ?enerally$ this

is e"uated with applying fines and penalties to send a essage that a serious offen!e has

#een !oitted and that the !osts of non*!oplian!e are high$ that is$ suffi!iently high

that they outweigh #enefits DBe!ker 0',)E. The assuption is that ne%t tie$ the personwill see that it is in their #est interest to do the right thing.

The e%tent to whi!h deterren!e dissuades future non*!oplian!e is highly !ontested DL

Braithwaite ++E. In soe !ir!ustan!es it does$ in other !ir!ustan!es it does not.

3eterren!e is generally !onsidered as having three !oponents the per!eived likelihood

of #eing !aught$ the per!eived likelihood of san!tioning$ and the per!eived severity of the

san!tion.


25/69

of having a !redi#le deterren!e syste. >onitoring and identifying non*!oplian!e is

fundaental to ensuring that the pu#li! are aware of what is perissi#le and what is notF

and for ensuring that non*!oplian!e does not fall into the !ategory of illegal a!tivity to

whi!h a #lind eye is turned DBraithwaite$ >akkai and Braithwaite ++(F Thornton$

?unningha and =agan ++6E. When a regulatory agen!y has an aura of invin!i#ility

a#out it$ those #eing regulated see it in their #est interest to !oply DAyres and Braithwaite

0''F Gawkins 0')-E. >oreover$ where regulatory agen!ies appear to #e invin!i#le$

regulators have the advantage of #eing a#le to Hwalk softly #e!ause they are known to

H!arry a #ig sti!k DAyres and Braithwaite 0''E.

Strengths%based regulation

The reasons for the failure of deterren!e to dissuade soe individual non*!opliers are

!ople%. While punishent ay eli!it su#servien!e in soe$ in others it will eli!it

defian!e. ;ven in a state of su#servien!e$ there is no guarantee that individuals will learn

fro their isfortune. They ay #e over!oe #y feelings of vi!tiisation or huiliation$

and these eotions ay #e what are !arried forward not thoughtfulness a#out what

went wrong and how trou#le ight #e avoided in the future DSheran ++/E. This is one

reason why soe advo!ate a responsive regulatory approa!h where#y the regulators

apply only as u!h for!e or intervention as is re"uired to turn non*!oplian!e into

!oplian!e DAyres and Braithwaite 0''E.

Be!ause deterren!e threatens individuals$ soeties with adverse !onse"uen!es for their

future !oplian!e$ interest has turned to the value of strengths*#ased regulation.

Strengths*#ased regulation involves praising$ a!knowledging and rewarding initiatives that

regulated entities or individuals undertake that advan!e the !oplian!e pro!ess and help

a!hieve regulatory o#Ce!tives DBraithwaite$ >akkai and Braithwaite ++(F 4eld and 4rey

++(E. The idea of strengths*#ased regulation is to #uild !oitent that will spread$

!reating a new set of so!ial nors$ pra!ti!es and !ulture that progresses regulatory ideals.

Strengths*#ased regulation is !opati#le with the ideas e#edded in the safety !liate

and safety !ulture literature DBraithwaite$ >akkai and Braithwaite ++(E. 2roponents of

safety !liate and !ulture advo!ate a whole of workpla!e approa!h to #est safety

pra!ti!es. The ephasis is less on pros!riptive and pres!riptive rules that !an #e

interpreted in soe "uarters as iniu standards to satisfy regulators$ and ore on

trans!ending regulatory e%pe!tations and #ringing the rest of the regulated !ounity

along in the wake of leaders of #est pra!ti!e.

Strengths*#ased regulation$ like safety !liate and !ulture training$ a!tively en!ourages

!ontinuous iproveent. Regulatory agen!ies adopting this approa!h #e!oe !onduits of

innovative ideas and #est pra!ti!e for the regulated !ounity. Strengths*#ased

16


26/69

regulation offers a powerful approa!h to !hanging #ehaviour$ although its usefulness

depends on also having an effe!tive enfor!eent !apa!ity so that Hlaggards are not given

the essage that their non*!oplian!e is tolera#le.

Strategising on a regulatory approach: &ro sart to responsive regulationThe any options for regulating for safe work pra!ti!es provide the tools for sart

regulation D?unningha and ?ra#osky 0'')E. Using the tools strategi!ally$ however$

#e!oes !riti!ally iportant if resour!es are to #e preserved and if ost attention is to #e

redire!ted to !ases where workers safety is ost seriously at risk.

Responsive regulation provides a fraework for how a regulator should go a#out

regulating a person or entity to a!hieve the #est out!oes. The seeds for its developent

were sown in the 0')+s while o#serving and interviewing !oal ine inspe!tors DL

Braithwaite 0')6E in a study whi!h$ like others of its tie$ drew attention to the

e%traordinary skills and dis!retion that regulators used to eli!it !oplian!e and

!ooperation fro the pu#li! DGawkins 0')-F =agan 0'()E. ;ffe!tive regulators were

!opetent and astute in dete!ting and pointing to eviden!e of #rea!hes$ #ut how they

used these data to further the pursuit of !oplian!e proved even ore interesting. They

a!ted in ways that !onfired any of the s!ientifi! prin!iples outlined a#ove. They

respe!ted the person$ they offered help in e%!hange for !oplian!e$ and they did not

routinely go #y the #ook and adinister penalties. Rather$ they fo!used on understanding

the !onte%t in whi!h the non*!opliant individual or !opany was operating how was

their #usiness running$ were there reasons for non*!oplian!e that !ould #e addressed$

were there strategies and tips of advi!e that !ould #e passed on to avoid future pro#les

;ffe!tive regulators knew the #usiness of those they were regulating and !ould epathise

where appropriate with the diffi!ulties they were having. Their fo!us was future oriented

aking things right through understanding pro#les and sharing solutions. They were not

satisfied to ti!k #o%es and adinister fines.

The tension #etween esta#lishing a supportive relationship with non*!opliers and using

san!tions to indi!ate disapproval and redu!e reoffending provided the otivation for

developing the theory of responsive regulation DL Braithwaite 0')6F Ayres and Braithwaite

0''E. The "uestion was how to #alan!e persuasion and punishent. Gow !ould the right

#alan!e #e found$ given that individuals and groups will differ in their tipping point for$ on

the one hand$ !utting theselves off fro influen!e #y the regulator #e!ause of heavy

handed treatent$ or on the other hand$ not taking seriously advi!e and suggestions for

!hange #e!ause the regulator did not think the pro#le was #ig enough to warrant a fine

Responsive regulation answers this "uestion through first setting in pla!e a #asi! #uilding

#lo!k of !oplian!e. 4or ost people in a deo!rati! so!iety$ self*regulation is respe!tful

17


27/69

and is #oth pra!ti!a#le and desira#le. 4urtherore$ in a deo!ra!y$ Hfollowing the rules

!an #e and should #e orally grounded in the regulatory !ounity and in the general

population. As a result$ ost people re!ognise within theselves soe interest in doing

the right thing and are responsive to a regulatory authority that oves the in this

dire!tion. This norative #ase represents shared so!ial standards as well as the desire to

#e law a#iding and to a!t in the spirit of the law.

?ood intentions aside$ none are #eyond teptation. A regulatory pyraid of san!tions

therefore !oes to the regulators aid$ gradually in!reasing the level of intrusiveness of

san!tions until !oplian!e is o#tained. 4or e%aple$ in a !onte%t where regulators are

!on!erned a#out a sall #usiness !utting !orners on safety$ a responsive regulatory

strategy ight #e organised as follows. The first steps ight #e gentle largely edu!ative

and persuasive$ suggesting systeati! ways of keeping tra!k of worker !on!erns and nearisses as well as having proper workpla!e eetings a#out a!!idents$ why they o!!ur and

what !an #e done to iprove things. If edu!ation and persuasion is not a!hieving the

!oplian!e re"uired$ pressure ay es!alate through interediate levels Dperhaps !loser

auditing$ in!reased surveillan!e$ iposing penaltiesE. If these strategies dont work$ highly

intrusive interventions will #e !alled into play Dfor e%aple$ !losing a worksite$

in!apa!itation through iprisonent$ reoving a li!enseE.

The ordering of easures fro the least to ost intrusive represents steps up a regulatory

pyraid. The shape of the pyraid refle!ts the fa!t that ost re"uire very little intervention

to eli!it !oplian!e. >ost of the regulatory a!tion is !ondu!ted at the #road #ase of the

pyraid. When it is !lear to those #eing regulated that there is a peak to the pyraid and

that deterren!e in!reases as one goes up the pyraid$ ost opt to stay as !lose to the

#ase as possi#le.

The pyraids des!ri#ed a#ove are enfor!eent*#ased$ rat!heting up intrusiveness and

!oer!ion as individuals or entities fail to show a willingness to !ooperate with the

!oplian!e o#Ce!tive. 2yraids !an also #e !onstru!ted that are strengths*#ased$providing in!entives for individuals or entities to take opportunities to pra!ti!e !oplian!e

at higher levels$ going #eyond the #asi! re"uireents and !ontri#uting positively to

regulatory o#Ce!tives.

& A composite model to frame analyses of safe work $ehaviours

The a#ove literature suggests that while regulatory agen!ies have responsi#ility to

ipleent$ e%plain$ and onitor and enfor!e law$ positive results fro these a!tivities are

ost likely to #e a!hieved if agen!ies #e!oe indful of how they ight !ultivate #asi!

respe!t for safety !ons!iousness in workpla!es. This !ons!iousness would go #eyond

spe!ifi! laws and rules. It would pereate the organisational !ulture as well as the psy!he

18


28/69

of the individual. It would #e evident in the way in whi!h the !olle!tive attended to safety

and !ons!ientiously ipleented safety easures. It would also #e evident in the way in

whi!h individuals !onfidently a!!epted personal responsi#ility for their own safety and that

of others. In this kind of work environent$ o#servan!e of laws and rules should either #e

su#sued in noral work routines or !onstitute an easy e%tension of what is already

#eing done.

If safe pra!ti!es are the noral way of doing #usiness and if individuals are !onfident that

they !an anage risk for theselves and others$ the workpla!e has a strong #asis for

eeting work health and safety re"uireents for !oplian!e. ;ven if an inspe!tor

happened to identify a parti!ular pro#le in su!h a workpla!e$ the inspe!tor should feel

!onfident in su!h !ir!ustan!es that the pro#le !ould #e resolved with iniu fuss.

>oreover$ there is a good !han!e that the workpla!e will identify a safety risk without needfor intervention #y the inspe!tor. This eans that resour!es !an #e targeted to those

workpla!es where a safety !ulture is less well developed and where individual !apa!ity is

low.

So what are the fa!tors that are likely to !ontri#ute to #oth !olle!tive and individual safety

!ons!iousness


29/69

Gypothesis is that leaders who !oproise safety$ failing to put it a#ove all other

priorities$ underine !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and risk anageent at the !olle!tive

level and to self*anageent at the individual level.

>odelling signifi!ant others or people we find attra!tive is part of the huan !ondition.

This is not to say that leaders are always right. The #est leadership invites different

perspe!tives and relies on su#ordinates to "uestion$ !hallenge and suggest new ways of

doing things DSutton +0+E. If workers are to provide this servi!e to their #osses in the

area of work safety$ they need to have the skills and knowledge to !ontri#ute

!onstru!tively to solving work safety issues.

7onstru!tively and !onfidently engaging in safe pra!ti!es and anaging safety !on!erns

depends on e%posure to relevant dis!ussions and #eing given opportunity to learn a#out

#est pra!ti!e.


30/69

dialogue#e!oes an iportant adCun!t to the foral participatory structuresthat are

!oonly put in pla!e as spe!ial purpose easures to strengthen safe work pra!ti!es

and #uild individual effi!a!y.

Therefore$

Gypothesis / is that foral parti!ipatory stru!tures #uild !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and

risk anageent at the !olle!tive level and to self*anageent at the individual level.

Gypothesis - is that responsive dialogue #uilds !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and risk

anageent at the !olle!tive level and to self*anageent at the individual level.

The adoption of safe work pra!ti!es is unlikely to unfold without the organisation #eing

sensitive to the a!tions of the regulatory authority. Regulatory authorities have legal

powers. 4or any$ #eing aware of the presen!e of the authority is enough to eli!it!oplian!e with the law. The effe!tiveness or otherwise of legal powers to onitor and

enfor!e is not within the s!ope of this study$ #ut the presen!e and knowledge of su!h

power is likely to #e part of peoples attitudes to and otivations around work safety. The

presence of a work safety authorityis likely to iprove safety !ons!iousness at the

!olle!tive and individual level.

Therefore$

Gypothesis 6 is that where workpla!es are !ons!ious that they have ready a!!ess to a

work safety authority and its offi!ers and they to the$ !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and

risk anageent at the !olle!tive level and to self*anageent at the individual level will

#e strengthened.

4or others$ the powerfulness of the authority ay #e less of an issue than the fairness and

integrity it shows in !arrying out its duties DSelMni!k 0''E. Where that authority is seen to

#e !redi#le and fair$ trust is likely to #e high and the authority will #e well positioned to

edu!ate$ persuade and en!ourage workpla!es to ove toward #est pra!ti!e in workpla!e

safety. So!ial distan!e fro the authority is another indi!ator of willingness to take noti!e

of the authority$ not only in ters of !ooperating #ut also showing deferen!e. Signals that

those #eing regulated send to a regulatory authority to !ouni!ate !ooperation and

deferen!e are !alled otivational postures. All of these e!pressions of respect for the

regulatory authoritynot only provide an avenue for raising safety standards$ #ut also

reinfor!e individual !oitent to safety.

Therefore$

Gypothesis , is that where workpla!es regard the authority as trustworthy$ pro!edurallyCust and deserving of !ooperation and deferen!e$ !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and risk

21


31/69

anageent at the !olle!tive level and to self*anageent at the individual level will #e

strengthened.

8ast #ut not least is the individuals !on!ern and !oitent to avoiding unne!essary risk

in the workpla!e. Individuals ay #e e%posed to all kinds of inforation and fors of

san!tions and in!entives$ #ut still they ay !hoose to ignore the essage. Su!h

individuals ay #e re#els or risk takers$ they ay feel they are not in !ontrol and defend

through fatalis or not !aring$ or they ay take pride in #eing different and standing apart

fro the group. 2sy!hologi!al theories like the theory of planned #ehaviour DACMen 0')6E

seek to soften resistan!e #y presenting arguent and eviden!e that a persons #est

interest lies in a !hange of attitude.

Individuals who disiss safety warnings are not only a danger to theselves in !olle!tive

settings. Su!h individuals !an have a surprisingly negative effe!t on the !ulture of a

workpla!e$ either in the role of worker or anager DSutton +0+E. Their influen!e ay #e

#ased on !harisa. >ore often it !oes a#out ore insidiously through negativity that

leads to the spread of !yni!is and anoie.

Therefore$

Gypothesis ( is that individuals who e%press low !on!ern for work health and safety issues

and are disissive of work health and safety standards underine !oitent to safe

pra!ti!e and risk anageent at the !olle!tive level and fail to develop self*anageentat the individual level.

The odel guiding this resear!h is presented s!heati!ally in 4igure 0. The two

#ehavioural out!oes #est pra!ti!e standards and individual !apa!ity and responsi#ility

for safety$ appear on the right hand side.


32/69

0i#ure " )he theoretical model #uidin# the research

( )he Motivations, Attitudes, Perceptions and Skills *MAPS+ Survey

Method of data collection

A national telephone survey was !ondu!ted in ++'*0+ #y Sweeney Resear!h. Those

eligi#le to !oplete the survey were over 0) years$ were in paid work or had #een at soe

tie in the past si% onths$ and worked in the following industries 7onstru!tion$

>anufa!turing$ Agri!ulture$ forestry and fishing$ Transport and storage$ and Gealth and

!ounity servi!es. Workers in these industries fa!e relatively higher risk of o!!upational

inCury.

Respondents were !onta!ted #y telephone using a !o#ination of 3esk Top >arketing

Systes Da !oputerised dialling syste #ased on ;le!troni! White 2agesE and rando

digit dialling.


33/69

the saple of respondents is representative of those who were eligi#le for sele!tion.

Those who were not hoe or did not answer the phone ay #e Cust like those who

parti!ipated or ay #e not. Those who refused or were una#le to finish the interview

ay #e Cust like those who parti!ipated or ay #e not. The only !lai that !an #e ade

is that the (, respondents represent a #road !ross*se!tion of the population in ters of

their so!ial deographi! !hara!teristi!s.

'reakdown of respondents in ters of sapling frae

State:territory$ industry and age "uotas produ!ed reasona#le representation a!ross

groups although the young age group D0)*- yearsE were diffi!ult to re!ruit to the survey.

Joung people are traditionally under*represented in surveys$ #oth telephone and ail

surveys. There were suffi!ient nu#ers$ however$ to allow eaningful analyses to #e

!ondu!ted for younger respondents.

The per!entage #reakdown of the (, respondents in ters of the state and territory

where ain workpla!e is #ased and their age group and industry is provided #elow in

Ta#les 0 and . Also provided in these ta#les in #ra!kets are the per!entages reporting to

the interviewer a work*related inCury or illness in their !urrent Co#. These data are not

!opara#le to the ABS Work*Related InCury Survey$ #ut rather are in!luded to show that

the saple has a spread of people with first hand e%perien!e of work health and safety.

This ta#le is in!luded to deonstrate this spread within the saple and should not #e

interpreted to represent inCury rates.


34/69

)a$le " Percent of total sample in each industry-a#e cate#ory *1 2 34&+ and percentof total sample reportin# a work-related in5ury or illness in that cate#ory *in$rackets+

Industry Age group in years Total

0)*- 6*-- -6 and over

7onstru!tion .-' D.'E 00.- D/.-0E '.0' D./,E /.0+ D,.,'E>anufa!turing +.() D.0/E 00.'- D.(,E '.0' D./E 0.' D6.0EAgri!ulture 0.-- D.6E ,.-/ D0.(0E '.(0 D0.6(E 0(.6) D/.)0ETransport 0.(0 D./'E ,.-/ D0.6(E (.+' D.0+E 06. D-.+(EGealth ., D.++E '.(0 D.,E '.)- D.(,E .0) D6./)E

Total '.+, D0.'(E -6.'/ D0.+(E -6.+0 D00.+E 0++ D6.+(E

)a$le & Percent of total sample from each state6territory *1 2 34&+ and percent of

total sample reportin# a work-related in5ury or illness

State:territory 2er!ent

Respondents Respondents

inCured

Vi!toria /., -.'New South Wales 0).) -.6Western Australia 0/., .6South Australia 0.0 /.'Queensland 00./ /.-Tasania 0+. /.-

Northern Territory 6., 0./Australian 7apital Territory -.( 0.

Total 0++.+ 6.0


35/69

Who participated(

Those who took part in the survey !oprised9

,- ales$ /, feales

66 had a anagerial or supervisory role$ -6 did not

() worked for an eployer$ - a la#our hire fir$ 0) were self*eployed D( working

alone 00 eployed othersE

, worked in !opanies with ore than + #ut less than ++ eployees$ /' in

!opanies with fewer than + eployees$ and /0 in !opanies with ore than ++

eployees

(0 had #een working in their industry for ore than 6 years$ 0( for #etween and 6years$ and 0/ for less than years

6' were working -+ hours a week or less$ -0 were working ore than -+ hours a

week$ and

(0 worked full*tie and ,/ were peranent.

Survey )uestions

Respondents were asked to e%press their views on work health and safety issues in

general$ on work health and safety regulatory authorities$ on the safety pra!ti!es of their

!urrent workpla!e$ and their personal e%perien!es of workpla!e safety.

Where attitudes or otives or per!eptions were #eing easured$ the views of workers

were not represented #y their answers to single ites. Instead several "uestions

representing different ways of approa!hing the su#Ce!t of interest were asked of

respondents. Responses to these individual "uestions were !o#ined into !oposite

s!ores. The reason for easuring attitudes and the like through ulti*ite s!ales is to

iprove relia#ility and validity. Rarely is it possi#le to a!!urately assess how a person

feels or positions hi:herself in an attitudinal sense through their responses to a single

"uestion. It is ore realisti! to use a set of different ites$ ea!h with its own strengths and

weaknesses$ to o#tain an appre!iation of how a person is thinking and feeling and then to

average a!ross these less than perfe!t individual easures to o#tain a superior overall

easure.

All s!ales are s!ored su!h that a higher nu#er refle!ts ore of the !hara!teristi! #eing

easured.

26


36/69

*ow did respondents score on the outcoes of a workplace operating with bestpractice standards and individuals feeling capable and responsible forsafety(

Two kinds of #ehaviour are investigated9 what the workpla!e is doing in ters of #est

pra!ti!e and the degree to whi!h individuals are willing to a!!ept responsi#ility for theirsafety and the safety of others. These varia#les will #e referred to as DaE per!eived safe

practice routines in the workpla!eF and an individuals self*effi!a!y in dealing with safety

issues will #e referred to as D#E safety self%anageent.

Safe practice routines in the workplace

2arti!ipants in the survey were asked how !onsistently the following si% a!tions were

taken in their workpla!e when ne!essary and appropriate9 DaE using personal prote!tive

e"uipent providedF D#E reporting a!!idents and near issesF D!E identifying work health

and safety risksF DdE dis!ussing work health and safety !on!erns with anagers$

supervisors and !o*workersF DeE reoving haMards as u!h as possi#leF and DfE aking

work pra!ti!es safe. Respondents !hose one of five response !ategories in relation to

ea!h ite9 always$ ost of the tie$ a#out half the tie$ soeties$ never.

Ta#le / lists these ites and the per!ent responding Kalways and Kost of the tie. In all

!ases e%!ept one$ )+ or ore of respondents were o#served to #e engaging in these

pra!ti!es at least ost of the tie.


37/69

)a$le ( !tems in the safe practices routine scale with percent of compliance at leastmost of the time, and descriptive statistics *scale mean, standard deviation andrelia$ility+

Safe pra!ti!e routine always ost ties Total

Using personal prote!tive

e"uipent provided

(+ 0( )(

Reporting a!!idents and near

isses

,/ 0) )0

Identifying health and safety

risks

,+ - )-

3is!uss with anagers$

supervisors$ !o*workers

66 ((

Reove haMards ,6 / ))

>ake work pra!ti!es safe ,0 ( ))

S!ale ean O -./0$ standard deviation O .)+$ alpha relia#ility !oeffi!ient O .)

Safety self%anageent

The se!ond out!oe easure taps into a workers !onfiden!e or #elief that he:she is

!apa#le of handling safety issues and has internalised a sense of responsi#ility for the

safety of self and others. Respondents indi!ated the strength of their agreeent or

disagreeent on a five point s!ale to the following si% ites9 DaE Jou have thought a#out

and taken on #oard the safety issues in your workpla!eF D#E Jou feel !onfident a!ting ina!!ordan!e with safety prin!iples in your workpla!eF D!E Jou are !onfident that you have

the knowledge and skills to prote!t yourself and others at workF DdE Jou !an solve ost

health and safety pro#les if you try hard enoughF DeE Jou have diffi!ulty handling health

and safety issues that !oe your way Dreverse s!oreEF and DfE When other people ignore

unsafe situations or unsafe pra!ti!es in your workpla!e$ you feel it is none of your

#usiness Dreverse s!oreE.

Ta#le - lists these ites and the per!ent responding Kagree or Kstrongly agree.


38/69

)a$le !tems in the safety self-mana#ement scale with percent acknowled#in#capa$ility and responsi$ility for handlin# risk, and descriptive statistics *scalemean, standard deviation and relia$ility+

Safety self*anageent s!ale agree or strongly agree

Jou have thought a#out and taken on #oard the safety

issues in your workpla!e

'6

Jou feel !onfident a!ting in a!!ordan!e with safety

prin!iples in your workpla!e

'6

Jou are !onfident that you have the knowledge and

skills to prote!t yourself and others at work

'-

Jou !an solve ost health and safety pro#les if you

try hard enough

'

Jou have diffi!ulty handling health and safety issues

that !oe your way Dreverse s!oreE

(.

When other people ignore unsafe situations or unsafe

pra!ti!es in your workpla!e$ you feel it is none of your

#usiness Dreverse s!oreE

,.(

S!ale ean O -.00$ standard deviation O .-6$ alpha relia#ility !oeffi!ient O .(6

To provide a validity !he!k on these s!ales$ responses to another "uestion were

!orrelated with s!ale s!ores fro safe pra!ti!e routines and safety self*anageent.

Respondents were asked9 3o you think your workpla!e is safe 0/ said no$ the aCority$

)($ said yes. When #elief in the safety of ones workpla!e was !orrelated with safe

pra!ti!e routines and safety self*anageent$ the !orrelations were .-) and .0)

respe!tively Dp .++0 in #oth !asesE. Those who reported that ost ties safe pra!ti!es

were followed in their workpla!e were also ore likely to #e those who reported !apa!ity

and responsi#ility to look after self and others on safety issues DrO ./6$p .++0E. These

easures refle!t peoples per!eptions of a safe !liate in their workpla!e.

Were reports of safe pra!ti!e routines in the workpla!e and individual !apa!ity for safetyself*anageent related to so!ial deographi! !hara!teristi!s

4or the ost part so!ial deographi! differen!es were not arked on either the safe

pra!ti!e routine s!ale or the safety self*anageent s!ale. The ore nota#le

relationships are suarised in Ta#le 6.

29


39/69

)a$le . Correlations of selected social demo#raphic indicators with the safepractice routines scale and the safety self-mana#ement scale

So!ial deographi!s Safe pra!ti!e routines Safety self*anageent

Supervisory role .+, .+'Age in grouped years .+' .06SiMe of !opany .0+ .+)Tie in industry .0 .+'

p .+6$ p .+0$ p.++0

States and different industry groups were not signifi!antly different on safe pra!ti!e

routines and safety self*anageent. There were no gender differen!es.

+oes leadership predict safe practice routines and safety self%anageent(

Two s!ales were !onstru!ted to easure the e%tent to whi!h anagers and supervisors

were per!eived #y respondents to pla!e priority on the health and safety of workers. The

individual ites that were used to represent the !on!epts of K#osses !are and K#osses

dont !are are listed in Ta#le ,. The "uestions were not spe!ifi! to !urrent workpla!es9

Respondents were asked to !onsider ea!h stateent and indi!ate strength of agreeent

on a five*point s!ale Dstrongly disagree to strongly agreeE.

The vast aCority of respondents endorsed the ites stating that #osses !are a#out work

safety over the (+ ark. The lowest endorseent on (+ was for the ite$ H#osses

!are at all ties.


40/69

in a non*dire!tional sense. 7orrelations provide the answer to this "uestion$ the first

ne!essary step$ though not a suffi!ient step to esta#lishing !ausality.

)a$le 4 !tems in the 7$osses care8 and 7$osses don8t care8 scales with percentendorsin# each item, and descriptive statistics *scale means, standarddeviations and relia$ilities+

8eadership s!ales agree or strongly agree

'osses care about safety of workersBosses are really !on!erned a#out safe !onditions for

their workers

((

Bosses work in partnership with their workers to ensure

safety

)+

Bosses !onsider worker safety at all ties (+

S!ale ean O /.()$ standard deviation O .)6$ alpha relia#ility !oeffi!ient O .)-'osses don0t care about safety for its own sakeBosses are not interested in safety for its own sakeF

they are only interested in profits

-

Bosses are not interested in safety for its own sakeF

they are only interested in their ne%t prootion

)


they are only interested in their !areer

/(


they are only interested in aking their Co# easier

-'


they are only interested in keeping their head down

//


they are only interested in getting the Co# done

/)

S!ale ean O .)-$ standard deviation O .'+$ alpha relia#ility !oeffi!ient O .)(

A non%causal test of *ypotheses and -

Gypothesis 0 is that leaders who openly !are a#out safety and prioritise safety issues #uild

!oitent to safe pra!ti!e and risk anageent at the !olle!tive level and to self*

anageent at the individual level.

Gypothesis is that leaders who !oproise safety$ failing to put it a#ove all other

priorities$ underine !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and risk anageent at the !olle!tive

level and to self*anageent at the individual level.

An assuption was ade that parti!ipants were thinking of their !urrent workpla!e at least

in part when des!ri#ing #osses as !aring or not !aring. ?iven that ost had worked in

their industry for ore than five years D(0E and '- for ore than a year$ the

assuption of a reasona#ly sta#le eployent history for this saple seeed

reasona#le. Responses to the K#osses !are and K#osses dont !are s!ales were

!orrelated with s!ores on per!eived safe pra!ti!e routines in the workpla!e and individual31


41/69

reports of !apa!ity for safety self*anageent. Respondents who e%pressed the view that

#osses !ared were ore likely to report !onsistent adheren!e to safe pra!ti!es in their

work pla!e and a sense of personal effi!a!y in anaging and solving safety risks and

!on!erns. Gypothesis 0 was supported at a relational level.

Gypothesis was also supported #y the data at a relational level. Respondents who

reported that #osses didnt !are a#out safety for safetys sake were less likely to report

safe pra!ti!e routines in their workpla!e and were less likely to e%press !onfiden!e in their

!apa!ity for self*anageent of safety risks and !on!erns.

)a$le 3 Correlations of leadership scales with safe practice routines and safety self-mana#ement

8eadership s!ales Safe pra!ti!e routines Safety self*anageent

Bosses !are a#out safety .-' .'Bosses dont !are a#out

safety for its own sake

*.-+ *.-

p.++0

In this situation$ it is parti!ularly diffi!ult to tease out whether the per!eived attitude of

#osses deterines the safety !liate of the workpla!e or whether the safety !liate of the

workpla!e deterines how #osses are per!eived. There is no resolution at hand with

!ross*se!tional data$ #ut the plausi#ility of #osses influen!ing the work !liate is

in!reased #y respondents own a!!ounts of what akes the try harder to iprove health

and safety at work.

Respondents were given a list of 0+ possi#le otivators and were asked how u!h ea!h

would en!ourage the to take a!tion to iprove health and safety at work. The top

otivator endorsed #y )( of respondents was Hwanting to do the Co# ore easily or

effi!iently. HRe!eiving positive feed#a!k$ re!ognition or reward fro

anageent:supervisor for taking a!tion was endorsed as a otivator #y (- of

respondents. H>anageent or supervisors re"uiring the a!tion to #e taken was endorsed

as a otivator #y (). Respondents #elieved that the standards set #y anageent

attered in #uilding a safer workpla!e. 4urtherore$ when asked what the three ost

iportant !auses of work*related inCuries and illnesses were in their workpla!e$

respondents noinated pressure or stress as se!ond only to workers #eing !areless. It is

reasona#le to infer that the pressure and stress of a workpla!e eanates fro the

#ehaviour of anageent.

+o opportunities to discuss and learn predict safe practice routines and safety self%

anageent(Two s!ales were !onstru!ted to easure opportunities to dis!uss and learn9 the first$

parti!ipatory stru!tures$ the se!ond$ responsive dialogue. The individual ites that were

32


42/69

used to represent the !on!epts of Kparti!ipatory stru!tures and Kresponsive dialogue are

listed in Ta#le ). The "uestions related to pra!ti!es in respondents !urrent workpla!es.

In the parti!ipatory stru!tures s!ale$ respondents were asked how often they had a!!ess

to work health and safety representation and inforation through unions$ !oun!ils$


43/69

)a$le ' !tems in the opportunity to discuss and learn scales with percent endorsin#each item, and descriptive statistics *scale means, standard deviations andrelia$ilities+

S!ales of opportunities to dis!uss and learn

ost of the tie$always

Participatory structures

Attending health and safety training !ourses ,+

Gaving union offi!ials representing you on anageent !orre!ts unsafe situations or unsafe pra!ti!eswhen they #e!oe aware of the

),

There is good !ouni!ation in your workpla!e a#out healthand safety issues

)-

;ployees are en!ouraged to raise health and safety!on!erns in your workpla!e

)'

Jou are !onfident that other people you work with know whatto do to prote!t health and safety at work

((

Gealth and safety issues are not assigned a high priority inyour workpla!e Dreverse s!oreE

0-

S!ale ean O /.',$ standard deviation O .,,$ alpha relia#ility !oeffi!ient O .)(

A non%causal test of *ypotheses and /

Gypothesis / is that foral parti!ipatory stru!tures #uild !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and

risk anageent at the !olle!tive level and to self*anageent at the individual level.

Gypothesis - is that responsive dialogue #uilds !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and risk

anageent at the !olle!tive level and to self*anageent at the individual level.

34


44/69

When foral parti!ipatory stru!tures and responsive dialogue were !orrelated with the

s!ales easuring safe pra!ti!e routines and safety self*anageent$ the !oeffi!ients

were signifi!ant and supported Gypotheses / and -. Both avenues for learning and

dis!ussing safety issues were asso!iated with ore positive out!oes. 4oral stru!tures

and in!lusive "uality dialogue were asso!iated with workpla!es that were seen to #e ore

safety !ons!ious and in whi!h individuals felt a greater sense of !oitent and effi!a!y

to !ontri#ute to iproving safety.

)a$le % Correlations of participatory structures and responsive dialo#ue scales withsafe practice routines and safety self-mana#ement

S!ales of opportunities to

dis!uss and learn

Safe pra!ti!e routines Safety self*anageent

2arti!ipatory stru!tures ., ./+

Responsive dialogue ., .6+

p.++0

The "uestion of !ausality again liits interpretation of these data9 3o opportunities to

dis!uss and learn a#out safety issues #uild safe pra!ti!es and self*anageent or is it

the other way around 3o individuals who regard their workpla!es as having safe pra!ti!e

routines and have !onfiden!e to anage safety issues noti!e and engage with

parti!ipative stru!tures and with ore inforal workpla!e dis!ussions a#out safety.

The "uestion !annot #e satisfa!torily answered with these data #ut the plausi#ility of the

proposed dire!tion of !ausality was supported #y respondents top three reasons for why

inCuries happened and how they learnt a#out work health and safety. 8a!k of training and

edu!ation ranked highly as a reason for work*related inCuries and illnesses D)E. Aong

the ost iportant ways of learning useful things a#out work health and safety were

training !ourses D/-E$ workpla!e eetings D6E and the edia D)E. The relative

iportan!e of these stru!tures in the open ended responses to the "uestion Hwhat were

the three ain sour!es of inforation fro whi!h you have learnt soething useful a#out

workpla!e health and safety in the last year or so lend support to the proposal that

institutionalised stru!tures help iprove safety pra!ti!es and individual effi!a!y in

anaging risk.

+o the actions of the regulatory authority predict safe practice routines and safetyself%anageent(

The "uestion of how the a!tions of the regulatory authority relate to work health and safety

pra!ti!e and self*anageent was addressed through eight different easures. All #ut

the first of these easures have #een used in other regulatory !onte%ts and are well*

esta#lished s!ales for easuring trust$ pro!edural Custi!e and !onsultation and

otivational postures.

35


45/69

Regulatory presen!e hypothesis9 The first hypothesis in this se!tion !on!erns the

presen!e of the regulatory authority in the workpla!e9

Gypothesis 6 is that where workpla!es are !ons!ious that they have ready a!!ess to a

work safety authority and its offi!ers and they to the$ !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and

risk anageent at the !olle!tive level and to self*anageent at the individual level will

#e strengthened.

The purpose of Gypothesis 6 is not so u!h to assess the ipa!t of what the regulator

says and does and how he:she relates to the workpla!e$ #ut siply to test the iportan!e

of presen!e. The #est easure of presen!e that was availa#le in the survey was a single

ite that was in!luded in the parti!ipative stru!ture s!ale a#ove. The ite was9 Gow often

would you say in the workpla!e that you had Ha!!ess to the oreover$ the hypothesis that the presen!e of the regulator iproves safe work

#ehaviours is strengthened #y respondents analysis of what otivates the to iprove.

4or ,( of respondents$ enfor!eent a!tion #y an inspe!tor is a otivator.

Trust and pro!edural Custi!e and !onsultation hypothesis9 While regulatory authorities are

e%pe!ted to influen!e through presen!e$ how they ake their presen!e felt is also of

iportan!e. Those #eing regulated resist authority when it fails to !ouni!ate fairness

and reasona#leness and respe!t for those #eing regulated. In !ontrast$ where that

authority is seen to #e !redi#le and fair$ trust is likely to #e high and the authority will #e

well positioned to edu!ate$ persuade and en!ourage workpla!es to ove toward #est

pra!ti!e in workpla!e safety.

Gypothesis , is that where workpla!es regard the authority as trustworthy$ pro!edurally

Cust and deserving of !ooperation and deferen!e$ !oitent to safe pra!ti!e and risk

36


46/69

anageent at the !olle!tive level and to self*anageent at the individual level will #e

strengthened.

This se!tion e%aines the iportan!e of various anifestations of respe!t for authority

through fo!using firstly on the s!ales easuring trust and pro!edural fairness and

!onsultation. In Ta#le 0+$ the ites !oprising these s!ales are listed$ along with the

per!ent of respondents who agreed that the work safety authority Dthe spe!ifi! nae of the

relevant authority was used in the telephone interviewE #ehaved in this way in its

intera!tion with those in the workpla!e. A aCority D(E agreed that the authority

respe!ted their rights as a worker and , agreed that the authority treated people and

#usinesses as if they !ould #e trusted to do the right thing. Barely a aCority D60E$

however$ thought that the authority gave e"ual !onsideration to the views of all

#usinesses$ and less than half #elieved that the authority was !onsiderate of average#usinesses D-'E and !onsulted with the a#out !hanges to ake !oplian!e easier

D-(E. A low /- !onsidered that the authority !onsulted with the !ounity a#out

!hanges to the syste.


47/69

)a$le "9 !tems in the expression of respect for authority scales with percentendorsin# each item, and descriptive statistics *scale means, standarddeviations and relia$ilities+

;%pressions of respe!t for authority agree or strongly agree

Procedural justice and consultationTreats people:#usinesses as if they !an #e trusted to do

the right thing

,

Respe!ts the individuals rights as a worker (?ives e"ual !onsideration to the views of all #usinesses 607onsults widely a#out how they ight !hange things to

ake it easier for #usinesses to eet their otivational postures are easured through five

s!ales. The ites !oprising these s!ales appear in Bo% 0. >otivational postures are

signals that are sent to authority to !ouni!ate the degree to whi!h those #eing

regulated view the authority and its a!tions favoura#ly and the degree to whi!h those

#eing regulated are prepared to defer to authority. Two postures signalling that the

authority is #eing viewed favoura#ly are !oitent and !apitulation. 7oitent

eans that those #eing regulated support the ission of the authority they #elieve the

authority serves an iportant role and that everyone should take their o#ligation to

!ontri#ute to work safety seriously. 7apitulation is a posture that refle!ts less !oitent

to the !ause and ore of a desire to stay on the right side of the authority. 7apitulationinvolves trying hard to please the regulator$ regardless of what is #eing asked.

38


48/69


49/69

;< ": !tems comprisin# the motivational postures scales

#oitent 6Mean 7 /.-8, Standard +eviation 7 ./, Alpha 4eliability 7 .9Jou feel a oral o#ligation to ensure workpla!e safety

aking the workpla!e safe is the right thing to do>aking the workpla!e safe ultiately advantages everyone>aking the workpla!e safe is a responsi#ility that should #e willingly a!!epted #y alleployers and eployees;nsuring you follow the governents health and safety re"uireents is the right thing to do

#apitulation 6Mean 7 .9/, Standard +eviation 7 ./;, Alpha 4eliability 7 .;/1The state inspe!torate5 en!ourages those who have diffi!ulty eeting their The strengths of the five otivational postures to

Documents

Motivation Attitude Perceptions and Skills Pathways to Safe Work