Safety Culture - A Tale of Two Builders

By Alan Bessell, BSc (Hons), DipSH, CFIOSH,CH&S Practitioner

The accepted definition of the term ‘safety culture’ talks of shared values and beliefs; alternatively the phrase often provokes a simple reference to ‘the way we do things around here’. I’m happy with these definitions but I don’t think either clearly expresses the absolutely vital role played by management, or perhaps more importantly, by the most senior person(s) in the organisation. This influence can best be understood by looking at groups and group behaviour.

I’ve always been greatly impressed by the work of Maslow as set out in his hierarchy of needs. As I’m sure you will recall (with the addition of “your Honour” this is often the curtain-raiser for a Barrister who is about to cite an obscure piece of case law - and I’m playing the same game!) Maslow considered physiological needs first. These have nothing to do with groups but nevertheless it is very clear that welfare conditions are of basic importance in a workplace. After all, being cold or denied access to a loo can easily become all-consuming discomforts under the influence of which any thoughts or concerns for health and safety shrink to vanishing point. The three levels of the hierarchy which follow are all to do with groups and the position which we perceive ourselves to occupy within that group.

Group Behaviour

The safety level is related to physiological needs but also involves the first appearance of group influence as we express a desire to feel safe and secure within our environment. Consider the anxious mix of feelings one may feel on the first day of a new job or at a new school. What time do I start/finish, where do I take my breaks, where are the loos, what will the others be like, will they like me, will I survive the day unharmed physically and mentally? Once this initial period passes we develop a comfort in our surroundings and then start to look around us even more and the “will they like me?” question becomes more important as we move into Maslow’s next level, social needs.

The plain truth is that most of us have a deep need to belong. To fit in is extremely important and we will rapidly tune in to the behaviours of our new companions in an effort to satisfy these social needs. More, we will start to copy these behaviours be they good or bad; being the odd one out is mentally a very uncomfortable place to be. Of course we don’t necessarily approve of our companions’ behaviour; we might not find their language and choice of newspapers to our taste. But will we object? Probably not. In fact we are even likely to find ourselves adopting some of the language and leaving our own newspaper at home.

Some readers will be objecting at this point but that is the beauty of human factors. At best the theories only express tendencies, generalisations (which is where I, as a Physicist by education, have doubts about Psychology’s claim to be a science at all - but this is another story). However I do assert with some strength my view that most of you will have identified to some extent with my scenario.

Maslow’s next level is esteem and again groups are at the heart of this level. As time passes in this new job and we find our feet in our new environment we want to establish our place in the pecking order. (My apologies for the use of these metaphors which students for whom English is a second language may find difficult, but the deep deliberations of the experts in this field are often neatly summarised by these simpler phrases.)

Back to groups. A few of us will aspire to lead; most of us will want some recognition of our worth within the group. None of us wants to be at the bottom of the pecking order and we are likely to be unhappy if that happens. We will contribute to the group as best we can and establish our position in that group. Unless you are the “leader” this may well involve modification of your behaviour at times e.g. a macho approach to H&S.

This article could go on at length now about the mental conflict which takes place when we behave in a manner which is at odds with our true feelings. It could then extend into a discussion about attitude change. However my primary interest is to establish a case for the profound influence groups of all kinds can have on us as individuals, whether they are formal groups such as a management structure, groups of employees doing similar jobs or all working in the same location, or social/informal groupings woven into these formal groups.

For me, the slightly uncomfortable conclusion is that we have our own preferred behaviours which are in tune with our personality and attitudes but we routinely abandon these behaviours in group situations where the group norm seems to require something different. A simple example might be the leaving collection for a colleague who we dislike. Very few of us would refuse to provide a contribution if the collection is made in an open environment with others watching. Neither would we refuse to join in the applause when a presentation is made. However since this behaviour is in conflict with our true attitude we might try to appease our conscience by giving only a paltry donation and pretending to clap while not actually making any sound.

So to my two builders...

These were both clients of mine and one still is, the other having retired. Of course I can’t use real names so they will be Alias Smith and Jones (those of a certain age will get this, youngsters will need to use Google). Outwardly there were many similarities: geographically they were close together, both had ramshackle premises, both were small with about 12 employees and did repairs/extensions with some speculative development of new build or barn conversions. Furthermore, both were family-run concerns with little employee turnover. One had an impressive set of health and safety ring binders gathering dust on a shelf, the other had nothing in writing. Both had little or no time for ‘paperwork’; the mention of RIDDOR or risk assessment, for example, produced disinterested yawns. My offers to produce a safety policy etc. were grudgingly accepted as necessities but neither man truly bought in to the living, organic nature of these documents. Beyond these similarities, my regular visits to both were like chalk and cheese.

A visit to Smith consisted of a tour of the premises and yard followed by a conducted tour of the live sites and sometimes of jobs yet to be started with one of the partners. Employees at sites had welfare facilities already provided; equipment on-site was often old but in good condition. One employee in the yard booked items in/out and on each return the mixer/ladder/drill/extension-cable/light etc. was cleaned, inspected and maintained as necessary and tagged before reuse. My guide wore protective footwear and a helmet as a matter of course. Consequently employees on site did the same or if not the employee concerned was spoken to and his conduct remedied. In addition, other PPE was always available and in good condition and any (usually minor) defects were dealt with on-the-spot or remedied before my next visit.

I remember one prospective job where scaffold was clearly going to be required. Not only were overhead cables close by but the scaffold would obstruct the roadway. At last thought I – a real issue on which to give advice and therefore justify my fee. My polite enquires were answered with a full explanation of the contacts already made with the supply authority and local authority and the plans that had already been made. Not all was perfect; the partners resolutely refused advice on operative and plant operator training and the premises remained functional but not pretty. But they did demonstrate the textbook qualities of a positive safety culture; commitment from the top, resources, leadership, active interventions etc. As the leaders of this group the partners reflected their values onto their employees and as a result they got the required behaviours from the group members/employees.

On the other hand there is Jones. A visit here had a similar format except neither Director were involved in my site visits. On occasions our paths would cross on-site and their PPE was almost always absent - so of course this was also true about their employees. Welfare for employees was often not to a good standard and what was there was often down to the efforts of site employees themselves. Equipment maintenance standards were variable and often reactive rather than preventative. Action on my advice was sporadic and progress for me in terms of raising standards was slow and arduous. The group influence was seen very clearly on a new recruit from a large national contractor whose second day coincided with one of my visits. He arrived for work suited, booted and with a hard- hat. By my next monthly visit he had conformed to the lower standards of Jones.

Interestingly one of their regular clients was a public school which had reasonably strict conditions for on-site contractors and the financial motivation of such work did seem to transform Jones’ behaviour. The client group standard caused a significant, if reluctant, behaviour change. Similarly the welfare issue became, for a while, less difficult after one of Jones’ sites was visited by the HSE. I have no doubt that the underlying attitudes of the Directors were not changed by the school client or HSE, but their behaviour was changed nevertheless. In the debate about which is more important, attitude or behaviour, I am in no doubt that in the short term it is results that count and I’d take behaviour any time.

What does all this mean for those of you in or about to embark upon a career in health and safety?

I’d say look very, very closely at the group leaders of your prospective employer. Believe little of what they say; look instead at what they do. If you cannot see the signs of a positive culture here, then you will need plenty of persistence and patience to bring about change for the better. A big stick or two will help as will a loud voice. Even so you might be better advised working elsewhere.

Back to top