Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Safety Culture Assessment: What are we Trying to Achieve?Joelle MitchellSafety Psychology ConferenceSydney, October 2012
Outline
• What is safety culture?– Theory and research
• Are perception surveys useful?– Assumptions– Evidence– Challenges
• Is safety culture a valuable concept?
Culture: Theory and Research
Culture Theory
• Safety culture is understood as a component of organisational culture
• Schein (1985) is commonly referenced
4A248801 29/10/2012
Schein’s Model
Artefacts
Espoused Values
Basic Assumptions
5A248801 29/10/2012
How is culture built?
6A248801 29/10/2012
How Is Culture Built?
• A definable group with a shared history • Experience and solve challenges• Solutions work well enough to be considered
valid• Taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to the problem
• Become basic assumptions• Informs future behaviour
7A248801 29/10/2012
Key Defining Features
• Abstract construct (not a concrete phenomenon)• Relatively stable and enduring• Multiple dimensionality• Shared group norms• Socially constructed• Provides meaning about observed things
8A248801 29/10/2012
Safety Culture: A Definition
• “The product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behaviour that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organisation’s health and safety management.”– International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (1991)
• The way we do things around here
• Why we do things the way we do them around here
9A248801 29/10/2012
Safety Culture Research
• Perception surveys • Normative sets of factors• Many, many questionnaires • Many, many factors• Factor structures difficult to replicate• A few factors are common to most studies
10A248801 29/10/2012
Criticisms
• “We have been too focused on a traditional research paradigm… that has produced very reliable results about very unimportant things.
• …we have lost touch with some of the important phenomena that occur in organizations… simply because they were too difficult to study by the traditional methods available.” – Schein (1993)
11A248801 29/10/2012
Criticisms
• “As applied by safety researchers, the culture concept is deprived of much of its depth and subtlety, and is morphed into a grab bag of behavioural and other visible characteristics, without reference to the meaning these characteristics might actually have, and often infused with normative overtones.” – Guldenmund, 2010
12A248801 29/10/2012
Perception Surveys
Why Perception Surveys?
• We want a leading indicator – To intervene before something goes wrong– To prevent major events
• We like to benchmark and measure change– Between-groups comparisons– Trends
• Easy to analyse• Lots of nice graphs• Relatively cheap• Relatively minimal time “off-tools”
14A248801 29/10/2012
Problems with Perceptions
• Perceptions are subjective– Difficult to interpret meaningfully
• Perceptions are volatile• Self-report issues– Honesty– Selective Memory
• Construct Validity– Mono-method bias– What are we actually measuring?
• Predictive Validity
15A248801 29/10/2012
Core Assumption
• Safety Culture has a causal impact on safety performance– Safety culture can be reliably measured with perception
surveys– Therefore, perception surveys provide a leading indicator
of safety performance
• Is this assumption accurate?
16A248801 29/10/2012
Core Assumption Part 1
• Can safety culture be reliably measured with perception surveys?
17A248801 29/10/2012
Is a Normative Approach Appropriate?
• How does a culture develop?
• Are all organisations likely to hold the same basic assumptions?
• Are basic assumptions likely to impact organisational outcomes in uniform ways?
18A248801 29/10/2012
Do perception surveys measure safety culture?
19A248801 29/10/2012
Artefacts
Espoused Values
Basic Assumptions
So What?
• What cultural issues are identified after major incidents?– High level decision-making– Top-level leadership practices– Initiatives, priorities and targets– Allocation of resources– Routine violations
• Unlikely to be detected by perception surveys
20A248801 29/10/2012
Core Assumption Part 2
• Safety culture is not reliably measured with perception surveys
• But…
• Do perception surveys provide a leading indicator of safety performance?
21A248801 29/10/2012
What has research found?
• Weak to moderate correlations betweenperception survey scores and injury frequency rates (e.g. TRIFR)
• Used to demonstrate tool validity
22A248801 29/10/2012
Common Interpretation
Safety Perceptions
Safety Behaviours
Injury Rate
23A248801 29/10/2012
Another possibility…
24A248801 29/10/2012
Safety Behaviours
Injury Rate
Safety Perceptions
…and another…
Injury Rate
Safety Behaviours
Safety Perceptions
25A248801 29/10/2012
…and another!
Variable ‘X’
Safety Perceptions
Injury Rate
26A248801 29/10/2012
Is it a Useful Correlation?
27A248801 29/10/2012
• Can we have poor safety outcomes and a low TRIFR?
• Longford Gas Plant 1998• Texas City Refinery 2005• Deepwater Horizon 2010
Predictive Value
• Perception survey scores correlate with occupational injury rates
• HOWEVER…• Low TRIFR ≠ Safe operations
• Do perception surveys predict major incidents?
28A248801 29/10/2012
Case Study
• Snorre Alpha, Norway– Antonsen, 2009
• Positive perception survey results• Gas blowout 12 months later• No lives lost – luck not design
• No significant changes to the organisation or facility over that 12 months
29A248801 29/10/2012
Contradictory Findings
30A248801 29/10/2012
Perception Survey results
Safety a priority
Rigorous risk assessments
High levels of compliance
Good safety communication
Incidents reported
Learning and change from incidents
Incident investigation findings
Production targets prioritised
Lack of risk assessments and poor understanding
Non-compliance was normal
Poor communication climate
Not all incidents reported
Limited use of own and others’ incident information
Key Question
• Are perception surveys the best way to spend limited safety resources?
• Perception surveys do not predict major events– some correlation with occupational injuries
• There are other lead indicators for occupational injury– accuracy– cost-effectiveness– time-efficiency
31A248801 29/10/2012
Safety Culture is a Valuable Concept
Qualifiers
• Don’t try to ‘measure’ culture
• OUTCOMES:– understand the meaning of observable things– uncover basic assumptions– develop effective improvement strategies– identify potential change barriers
• NOT:– as a benchmarking exercise– as a replacement for other technical and systems
processes33A248801 29/10/2012
How?
• Triangulate your methodology!• Use qualitative methods– Interviews– Observations– Focus Groups– Action Research
34A248801 29/10/2012
But we want to benchmark!
• Use existing measurable data– Reporting rates– Inspection findings– Workplace observations– Audit findings– Quality Assurance– Incidents– Near misses– Outcomes and lessons learnt
• Changing themes• Follow-up on previous findings
35A248801 29/10/2012
What about Perception Surveys?
• Are the questions the right ones?• How was the survey developed and validated? – Industry– Company– Links to safety outcomes
• Use data to drive qualitative inquiry– Open-ended questions– Interviews– Focus groups
• Remember the limitations of perception data
36A248801 29/10/2012
Final Thoughts
• The ultimate goal is to keep people safe
• Safety resources are not unlimited
• Target the tools and strategies that are most likely to lead to improved safety outcomes
• Take an evidence-based approach
37A248801 29/10/2012
Thank you!Questions?
References
• Antonsen, S. (2009). Safety Culture: Theory, Method and Improvement. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Group.
• Guldenmund, F. W. (2010). (Mis)understanding safety culture and its relationship to safety management. Risk Analysis, 30, 1466-1480.
• International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (1991). Safety Culture. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
• Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Schein, E H. (1993). Legitimating clinical research in the study of organizational culture. Journal of Counselingand Development, 71, 703-708.
29/10/2012A248801 39