Even Christopher Columbus plotted a course before he set out to sea.  Fortunately for us, he didn’t reach his intended destination because he was limited by the navigational knowledge available at that time.  Not unlike Chris, companies know where they want to be in terms of health and safety.  Too often they don’t reach their goal because they are hampered by the lack of knowledge of effective methods of measuring health and safety management system effectiveness.   Until now nobody has developed a single measuring stick that will provide an accurate system map on how to get there.  Alternatively, health and safety professionals grasp at a host of methods of measurement in the hopes of piecing the map together.  Such an approach can be dangerous however, without a clear understanding of the benefits and limitations of each method of measurement.  Recognition of this fact is the key to navigating these dangerous waters that can lead to a great deal of wasted effort, grief and possibly even unemployment. 

Accident statistics are a popular measure used by organizations to benchmark their company and departments against others in the industry.   Beware.  There are many pitfalls lying in wait for health and safety professionals who focus on these “after the fact” numbers as a measure of safety success.  Many a corporate CEO that has basked in the glory and celebration of low accident frequencies one year has been surprised by a high frequency the next year.  Fluctuations in accident statistics can be very difficult to explain from one year to the next.  As an internal measure, statistics can be misleading indicators of supervisory efforts, especially if the group being measured has had the misfortune of experiencing accidents that even are unexplainable.  Who knows why the moose decided to cross the road when employee Bill happened by?  Who knows why that moose selected Bill’s vehicle to complete its kamikaze mission?  Measuring a supervisor by accident statistics and not real supervisory effort is a mistake made by many health and safety professionals and companies.  While effective in identifying incident trends, statistics are not a good measure of the proactive efforts of supervisors and managers.  Accident statistics are “after the fact” measures that provide good insight into what has occurred in the past. 

Safety management system audits are another method of measurement that has limitations in terms of their effectiveness.  Generally, the audit represents only a small sampling of the corporate population over a very short period of time.  Their effectiveness is limited to the design of the audit instrument and the auditor’s knowledge.  Selecting a competent auditor is a key factor at a time when one can achieve an auditor certificate in as little as three days of training.  Frequently the benefit found in the audit report findings and recommendations is directly proportional to the auditor’s daily rate. 

Selection of the audit instruments is also critical, as some are distinctly better than others.  Many audit instruments focus only on the elements of a program; such as inspections, emergency procedures, etc.  Other instruments place emphasis on the health and safety management system in an attempt to determine whether the elements integrated with the corporate continuous improvement system. 

Audit scores can also be misleading.  Employers are often mislead when they obtain an 80% on one aspect of safety such as employee emergency preparedness.  Eighty percent while admirable at first glance, leaves 20% deficient.  Applied to an employee population of 500 of which 20% are unable to respond to a specific emergency, this leaves 100 employees at risk.  Or does it?  If the employee interview sample size is 10%, can we really say how effective the corporate program is where 90% of the employees have not been interviewed?  In the absence of an audit that has more of a system focus, there is very little certainty that the 80% achieved in one element today will be any better next time.  Few audit instruments have a system focus and therefore fail to answer the question “why” deficiencies exist. 

Safety Perception Surveys

Another method of measuring safety performance, which has been gaining increasing popularity, is the safety perception survey.  While it is a method that has been around for a while, it is one that has not seen widespread use in health and safety.  Progressive companies are turning to safety perception surveys as another method of measurement to complement and enhance those they are currently using.  Designed and administered properly, the perception survey can help provide insight into not only “what” but “why” there are deficiencies in the health and safety management system and thereby offer more opportunities for improvement. 

In contrast to other commonly used systems of measurement, safety perception surveys provide a measure of the “organizational health and safety culture”.   The culture of the organization plays a lead role in why employees behave the way they do.  For example, why do employees continue to lift heavy objects and sustain injury after the company has gone to great expense to provide training and/or purchase preventive mechanical aids?  Studies suggest that 90% of all disabling accidents are the result of employee behaviour.   The results of a perception survey can reveal those factors that influence employee behaviour such as peer pressure, production pressures, and lack of management trust and credibility. 

Companies are turning to perception surveys to uncover their OH&S Program weaknesses because they recognize that corporate commitment to health and safety is not measured by the mere existence of well-crafted policies posted conspicuously throughout the worksites.  All employees must demonstrate commitment, and most important, all employees must perceive management’s commitment to be genuine.  Perception is reality.  Employee behaviour is influenced by what they perceive to be true.  If they truly believe management places production ahead of safety, their day-to-day decisions on how they work, will be primarily based on achieving high production perhaps at the expense of safety.  Leading companies strive to achieve alignment between management and employees in terms of shared beliefs, values, norms, attitudes, trust, credibility, commitment, leadership, rewards, etc.  All of these shape employee attitudes toward the company, management, supervisors and peers and have a significant influence on how they will behave on the job not only with respect to safety, but also with respect to productivity and quality.  It is the culture that dictates how employees will conduct their work when the boss is not around. 

Culture

Picture the health and safety management system as a wagon wheel.  The spokes of the wheel represent the safety program elements, such as accident investigation, emergency preparedness and hazard management.  The rim of the wheel helps to hold all the spokes in place but its primary purpose is to provide the round shape so that the wheel can move smoothly.  The rim represents the factors that help incorporate the program elements into a system, such as measurement, accountability, planning, organizing, etc.  The hub of the wheel is the focal point of the wheel structure and without it the wheel would simply not hold together.  The hub represents the corporate safety culture.  It is the focal point that determines the success of the above health and safety efforts.  A positive culture is vital if a company is striving to attain leadership status in health and safety.  Remarkably, it is rarely measured. 

The Process

Like auditing, assessing a culture is not a one-time event; it is a process.   The first survey/assessment yields data for tailoring the design of the change process.  Subsequent assessments help to confirm change has occurred and sets the stage for continuous improvement.  Like any other process, implementing only part of it can be disastrous.  If only part of the process is carried out, the outcome will be no different than those corporate feel good surveys that have failed in the past.  Here is an overview of the perception survey process: 
 

1. Form a perception survey work group consisting of management and employee representation. 

2. Agree on the survey design, content and method of delivery.   (Outside expertise may be required). 

3. Announce and promote the survey. 

4. Administer the survey.  Employee participation must be anonymous. 

5. Analyze the results (a database is cost effective).  Determine what aspects of the program employees perceive are, or are not working   Identify the difference in perception between workers and management.  The goal is alignment. 

6. Publicize the results.

7. Assemble work groups for problem solving. 

8. Develop an action plan. 

9. Monitor action on the plan and not the cultural changes. 

How does one know when the culture has changed? 

Change has occurred when individual values, attitudes and behaviours are more aligned or consistent with those of the organization.  Changes to watch for are:

•  increased participation at safety meetings
•  employees demonstrating more caring for themselves and others through the use of personal protective equipment both on and off the job
•  an increase in receptivity and acceptance of feedback regarding safety procedures and behaviours
•  an increase in willingness by employees to provide feedback to co-workers and to initiate ideas regarding improving safety performance
•  an increase in reporting of observed hazards and incidents. 

Summary

Increasingly, more companies are using the safety perception survey as a means of measuring their safety culture.  They are finding the missing pieces that have prevented their health and safety programs from moving forward   While other systems of measurement do a very good job of identifying trends and strengths and weakness associated with specific program elements, the perception survey can be used to help identify why the system is or is not working.  Designed and administered correctly, the perception survey can be a valuable diagnostic tool.  It is a tool that can help identify management opinions, actions, and behaviour such as what management does, pays attention to, ignores, and how they respond to organizational crisis and why employees behave the way that they do.  We need to understand the reasons why people work safely or take risks at work and we need to create a work environment that supports people working safely.  A safety perception survey can be an important step taken to navigate more effectively the uncharted waters of health and safety management system measurement.