Diagnosis of safety culture: A replication and extension towards assessing "safe" organizational change processes

Gudela GroteProfessor of Work and Organizational PsychologyOrganization, Work and Technology GroupETH Zürich

Collaborators: Ernst Zirngast from Swiss Re Risk Engineering Servies; Cuno Künzler and Anette Wittekind from ETH Zürich

Gudela Grote

Page 2Expansion of safety culture framework: Two approaches to managing uncertainties* (Grote, 2004)

Minimizing uncertainties • complex, central planning systems

• reducing operative degrees of freedom through procedures and automation

• disturbances as to be avoided symptoms of inefficient system design

Co ping w ith un cer taintie s • plann ing as re sourc e for s ituated act ion

• maximizing operat ive degree s of freed om throu gh complete tasks and la tera l coope rat ion

• distu rbances a s opp ortun ity for us e and deve lopment of compe tenc ies and for syste m ch ange

Dependence /

feedforward control

Autonomy /

feedback control

Balance through loose coupling Motivation through task orientation

Higher order autonomy Flexible changes between organizational modes

Culture as basis for coordination/integration * Uncertainties may stem from the system environment and/or from the transformation processes within the system.

Gudela Grote

Page 3

Sociotechnical model of safety culture (Grote & Künzler, 2000)

}

}

Proactiveness

Sociotechnical

integration

Value-

consciousness

Joint optimization of technology and work

organization aiming at the control of

disturbances at their source

Integration of safety in organizational

structures and processes

Values and beliefs that further integration

of safety in all work processes

Norms related to socio-technical design

principles like automation philosophy

and beliefs concerning trust/control

visible, but difficult to

decipher

Material characteristics

of the organization

hidden, taken for

granted

Immaterial characteristics

of the organization

Aim: Linking safety culture to overall organizational culture as well as to characteristics of the material organization beyond directly safety-related activities

Gudela Grote

Page 4Assessing safety culture by comparing judgements of employees in different departments/hierarchical positions(as complement to observations and interviews) - Assessing safety measures (=Proactiveness re: safety)

Formal Safety: e.g. There are sufficient written procedures, checklists etc. to ensure process safety.Enacted Safety: e.g. Proposals developed during safety meetings are swiftly implemented.

- Assessing system design strategies (=Socio-technical integration)Example:Plant personnel can intervene in automated processes to ensure quality and safety of production.vs.Plant personnel may not intervene in automated processes in order not to jeopardize safety.

Gudela Grote

Page 5How to include organizational change in safety management?

- Organizations may need evolutionary, but also radical change in order to respond to internal and external demands Limitations of organizational development.

- Radical organizational change can harm process and work safety.- structural level: Reduced resources for safety; unsafe work processes etc. - individual level: "objective" indicators like absenteeism; "subjective"

indicators like anxiety

- Which effects are caused by organizational change depends also on the way the change process is carried out.

- In risk audits, safety management as well as change management need to be assessed.

Gudela Grote

Page 6Objectives of the study

- To replicate findings on the validity of an already existing instrument for assessing safety culture (Grote & Künzler, 2000);

- To extend this instrument by developing and testing indicators for effective change management during radical organization restructuring;

- To study the assumed link between change management and system safety.

Gudela Grote

Page 7Parameters for good management of radical changeContent area Possible indicators

Reflected radicality of change Unquestionable need for changeProactivenessIntegral success criteriaValue consciousnessPersonal commitmentAppropriate speed

Support for constructive redevelopment

Closing gapsMeasures for growing togetherBalance of change and stability

Esteem for employees Investing in employeesCare for survivors/victimsAcceptance of emotions

Employee involvement Process transparencePredictability of change measuresParticipation in decision making

Gudela Grote

Page 8Change management survey - Sample items

- The scope and speed of changes is not higher than the employees can cope with. (Reflected radicality)

- During change processes, crucial decisions are made as fast as possible to minimize uncertainties for all involved. (Constructive redevelopment)

- Individual support is offered to employees to cope with the effect of organizational changes on their personal situation. (Esteem)

- Organizational units and individual employees affected by changes are adequately involved in the decision process. (Employee involvement)

Gudela Grote

Page 9Sample: Safety management audits in seven petrochemical companies

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Plant size 500 450 700 500 550 350 450 Operations 131 (44) 116 (16) 192 (26) 120 (21) 153 (7) 59 (20) 103 (12) Maintenance 76 (37) 53 (14) 122 (21) 91 (21) 108 (24) 82 (25) 78(13) Engineering 26 (7) 44 (16) 31 (4) 30 (7) 41 (3) 29 (5) 17 (4) Inspection 9 (3) 14 (4) 9 (1) 10 (2) 4 (1) 5 (1) 8 (2) Safety 5 (5) 7 (1) 8 (2) 17 (6) – 10 (8) 12 (7) Other/not specified 3 – – 8 – 5 5 Total sample 250 234 362 276 306 190 223 a Numbers in parantheses indicate the numbers of employees with management functions of the total number of employees included in the respective group.

Gudela Grote

Page 10Results

- Replication of the structure (AMOS confirmatory multiple group analysis) and validity of the questionnaire by Grote & Künzler (2000)

- Additional evidence for the relevance of the uncertainty management framework used in the questionnaire

- Four factors for change management:- Esteem (6 items, Cronbach = .86)- Procedures for organizational change (5 items, Cronbach = .82)- Transparence (3 items, Cronbach = .76)- Vision (2 items, Cronbach = .64)

- Validity of change management scales demonstrated through meaningful correlations with audit results and employee overall assessment

Gudela Grote

Page 11

Test site Formal

assessmenta

Mean Enacted Safety

Mean Formal Safety

Mean Technical

Safety

Mean Esteem

Mean Procedures

Organizational Change

Mean Transparence

Mean Vision

1 74 (0) 3.95 4.22 3.76 4.06 4.60 3.94 4.17

2 68 (1) 3.34 3.62 3.20 2.74 3.32 2.76 3.57

3 36 (1) 3.29 3.59 3.25 3.26 3.58 3.27 3.67

4 67 (3) 3.25 3.75 3.20 3.18 3.52 3.40 3.59

5 53 (0) 3.81 4.15 3.61 3.66 3.96 3.65 4.11

6 92 (0) 3.19 3.63 3.31 3.32 3.85 3.50 3.83

7 71 (0) 3.65 3.93 3.26 3.64 4.05 3.81 4.00 a The numbers in parathenses indicate the number of weak points identified related to management of organizational change.

Formal safety management assessment and survey responses

Gudela Grote

Page 12Conclusion

- Change management can and should be assessed as part of safety management audits.

- Good change management should include esteem for employees as most crucial element as well as appropriate procedures for organizational change, transparence and vision.

- Understanding safety culture and organizational change in terms of managing uncertainties helps to unravel implicit assumptions and norms promoting/impeding safe operation.

- The survey instrument developed can support this assessment.